You are currently viewing abstracts tagged with the keyword "Elder futhark"

When dealing with documenting runic inscriptions, there are two ways in which the inscription is presented: individually, dealing with its transliteration, interpretation, background, etc. and/or as part of a larger corpus with which the inscription may share some commonalities. These commonalities may be graphic, phonetic, archaeological, etc., but in this paper I will talk about […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

The Skåäng stone (KJ 85) is one of Sweden’s most remarkable rune stones with its brief inscription in the older futhark and its considerably longer Viking-Age inscription from the 11th century. The inscription with the Viking runes is known since 1830 while the older one was discovered during a visit by Hans Hildebrand in 1866. […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

Kennzeichnend für den Übergang vom Älteren Futhark zum Jüngeren Futhark im 7. und 8. Jh. ist in Skandinavien eine Reduzierung des Zeichenbestands von 24 auf 16 Zeichen, obwohl zu dieser Zeit durch sprachhistorische Lautwandelprozesse (z.B. Umlaut) eine erhebliche Erweiterung des Phonembestands zu verzeichnen ist. Es kam also dazu, dass die Runenreihe der Wikingerzeit (ca. 800-1100) […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

While the oldest runic inscription in Thorsbjerg has been found on a dendrodated object from AD 164, nothing prevents the barbaric script imitations from representing a continuous tradition that existed alongside Latin, Greek and runes well into the 4th century AD. The find of a 4th century barbaric gold coin imitation with a partially legible […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

One of the most important contributors to our understanding of older runic epigraphy, Elmer Antonsen was a controversial scholar. Best remembered for bringing an overtly structural and neo-Bloomfieldian approach to the study of the earliest inscriptions, he was also something of a contrarian, promoting readings and interpretations of older runic texts which did not find […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

Am 26.11.2010 wurden im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln zusammen mit Klaus Düwel das Bügelfibelfragment von Bad Ems (KJ 142) und die Bügelfibel von Beuchte (KJ 8) untersucht. Die Unterschiede in den Gravurmerkmalen der beiden Inschriftenteile sowie die Charakteristika der Absetzungsweise der Fußplatte lassen neue Ansätze zur Interpretation des Runenfundes von Bad Ems zu, die im Vortrag näher […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

In the past there seemed to be quite an amount of consensus of how the older Runic inscriptions were to be read (cf. W. Krause, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. I. Text. II. Tafeln. Mit Beiträgen von Herbert Jankuhn. Göttingen, 1966). This consensus was also codified in a nearly coherent grammar of the early Runic […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

It is well known that the predecessor of Old Norse (ON) must have gone through a process of final devoicing at some point in time. As pointed out by O. Grønvik and H. Bjorvand, among other scholars, this follows quite clearly from internal reconstruction of Old Norse. Forms like 3. sg. pret. ON batt ‘bound’ […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

In this paper, I address two important issues regarding the description and decipherment of runes on metal objects. The first point concerns a comprehensive epigraphic analysis of runic writing prior to identifying runic graphs. Exemplified with autopsy-based results from the Continental runic corpus, I will present a systematic way of analysing and documenting epigraphic features, […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

The inscription alu, found on bracteates as well as other objects including the Elgesem stone (KJ 57), has been examined repeatedly, with interpretations as diverse as “magic,” “ale,” “hale,” and “protection.” Nearly all of the analyses of alu have begun from the assumption that the use of bracteates was sacral and thus the meaning of […]

[ Continue reading ... ]

Die Inschriften der Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit stellen insofern eine Besonderheit dar, als die auf ihnen vorkommenden Zeichen verschiedenen Kategorien (Runenschrift, Lateinschrift, Beizeichen, Ornamente, Bildelemente) zugeordnet werden können. Während die Identifikation bei vielen Zeichen keine Schwierigkeiten bereitet, ist die Zuordnung bei einigen unklar.  Dabei stellen sich verschiedene Fragen: Handelt es sich um ein  Schriftzeichen oder liegt […]

[ Continue reading ... ]