Runes, runology. by Jasmin Higgs
The research aim of this thesis is to attempt to answer several interlinking research questions c... more The research aim of this thesis is to attempt to answer several interlinking research questions concerning function of runic inscriptions pre-600AD.
The primary questions are: what are the functions of the early Anglo-Saxon runic script before c.600AD? What specifically is the communicative function of the inscriptions: what are the inscriptions communicating about, and how? The secondary questions, dealt with in less detail in this thesis, are: What is the communicative environment pre-c.600AD and can we reconstruct it with our data? Is there a relationship between textuality and materiality?
The findings of this thesis challenge our notion of what the act of ‘reading’ is, and by challenging our ideas of function and communication, we can hypothesise a concept of a communicative act suitable for pre-c.600AD culture, taking away our twenty-first century preconceptions of function and how much they rely on our ideas of ‘reading’. Through examining the runic text and the rune-bearing object, it appears that the act of communication was often composite, ‘made up of several things’- multimodal and multi-sensory, hugely varied in communicative domains, styles, and functions. The rune-bearing object appears to be considered when choosing a material to carry the message, as well as be an integral part of the message in some instances. The functions of runic inscriptions, both socio-culturally and communicatively, before c.600AD are primarily to denote ownership and personalisation, with alternate functions such as commemoration and private communication also present.
Likely designed to be handled in the process of being read, by taking away our ideas of reading left to right in a straight line with text viewable 100% of the time, we can hypothesise a wider range of functions of the inscriptions. This corpus gives us just a glimpse of the communicative variety of the ‘Dark Ages’ and further research will illuminate, in time, much more about the functions of writing pre-c.600AD.
Conferences and talks. by Jasmin Higgs
The PowerPoint (no paper) from my talk given at the 2022 Nottingham Postgraduate Medieval Seminars.
The PowerPoint and accompanying script of my paper presented at IMC Leeds 2023.
My poster presents my PhD research for ISRRI9. The poster details my methodology and provides an ... more My poster presents my PhD research for ISRRI9. The poster details my methodology and provides an example of the application of my methodology to the Dover brooch.
My talk, 'Adapting pragmaphilology for runic data', was given at the Medieval Postgraduate Semina... more My talk, 'Adapting pragmaphilology for runic data', was given at the Medieval Postgraduate Seminars, University of Nottingham on the 25th Novemeber 2021. The talk was a casual talk explaining my methodology to the department of History postgraduates. In the questions after the talk, I went into detail about the two interpretations of the inscription by Hines (1991) and Bammesberger (2003).
Research seminar given virtually at the University of Leicester's Medieval Research Group seminar... more Research seminar given virtually at the University of Leicester's Medieval Research Group seminars, 16th February 2021.
Place-names, onomastics. by Jasmin Higgs
Innervate, 2017
Winner of the Alfred Oscroft Essay Prize 2018 (awarded via the EPNS), this short BA paper surveys... more Winner of the Alfred Oscroft Essay Prize 2018 (awarded via the EPNS), this short BA paper surveys north Essex place-names.
Uploads
Runes, runology. by Jasmin Higgs
The primary questions are: what are the functions of the early Anglo-Saxon runic script before c.600AD? What specifically is the communicative function of the inscriptions: what are the inscriptions communicating about, and how? The secondary questions, dealt with in less detail in this thesis, are: What is the communicative environment pre-c.600AD and can we reconstruct it with our data? Is there a relationship between textuality and materiality?
The findings of this thesis challenge our notion of what the act of ‘reading’ is, and by challenging our ideas of function and communication, we can hypothesise a concept of a communicative act suitable for pre-c.600AD culture, taking away our twenty-first century preconceptions of function and how much they rely on our ideas of ‘reading’. Through examining the runic text and the rune-bearing object, it appears that the act of communication was often composite, ‘made up of several things’- multimodal and multi-sensory, hugely varied in communicative domains, styles, and functions. The rune-bearing object appears to be considered when choosing a material to carry the message, as well as be an integral part of the message in some instances. The functions of runic inscriptions, both socio-culturally and communicatively, before c.600AD are primarily to denote ownership and personalisation, with alternate functions such as commemoration and private communication also present.
Likely designed to be handled in the process of being read, by taking away our ideas of reading left to right in a straight line with text viewable 100% of the time, we can hypothesise a wider range of functions of the inscriptions. This corpus gives us just a glimpse of the communicative variety of the ‘Dark Ages’ and further research will illuminate, in time, much more about the functions of writing pre-c.600AD.
Conferences and talks. by Jasmin Higgs
Place-names, onomastics. by Jasmin Higgs
The primary questions are: what are the functions of the early Anglo-Saxon runic script before c.600AD? What specifically is the communicative function of the inscriptions: what are the inscriptions communicating about, and how? The secondary questions, dealt with in less detail in this thesis, are: What is the communicative environment pre-c.600AD and can we reconstruct it with our data? Is there a relationship between textuality and materiality?
The findings of this thesis challenge our notion of what the act of ‘reading’ is, and by challenging our ideas of function and communication, we can hypothesise a concept of a communicative act suitable for pre-c.600AD culture, taking away our twenty-first century preconceptions of function and how much they rely on our ideas of ‘reading’. Through examining the runic text and the rune-bearing object, it appears that the act of communication was often composite, ‘made up of several things’- multimodal and multi-sensory, hugely varied in communicative domains, styles, and functions. The rune-bearing object appears to be considered when choosing a material to carry the message, as well as be an integral part of the message in some instances. The functions of runic inscriptions, both socio-culturally and communicatively, before c.600AD are primarily to denote ownership and personalisation, with alternate functions such as commemoration and private communication also present.
Likely designed to be handled in the process of being read, by taking away our ideas of reading left to right in a straight line with text viewable 100% of the time, we can hypothesise a wider range of functions of the inscriptions. This corpus gives us just a glimpse of the communicative variety of the ‘Dark Ages’ and further research will illuminate, in time, much more about the functions of writing pre-c.600AD.