Runology

This unfunded translation of the 1903 treatise by Ólafur Davíðsson, written and published in the German annual journal: Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde under the title “Isländische Zauberzeichen und Zauberbücher”. 

This important work follows on from Jón Árnason’s Íslenzkar þjóðsögur og æfintýri, discussing this significant aspect of Icelandic culture most prominent in the 17th century.

Many months in the making, mostly checking through original source material in antiquarian Icelandic manuscripts and publications, it is provided free here. However financial contributions towards this and future research can be made on my website http://users.on.net/~starbase/galdrastafir/galdrastafir.htm

The Icelandic manuscript called “Huld”, meaning secrecy, was made by Geir Vigfússon in 1860.  It features a collection of runic alphabets in the first half and a small set of 30 "galdrastafir", magic symbols and sigils, in the second.

This presentation focuses only on the second and aims to provide a more complete and accurate English translation of the Icelandic text and secret codes, and which hopefully will be a platform from which further exploration can be embarked.

This is the original version. I have since added a few notes and a couple of corrections. That can be purchased for a very modest price on my website http://users.on.net/~starbase/galdrastafir/galdrastafir.htm

On the basis of an analysis of early spellings of the Old Norse men’s names Erlingr and Erlendr, this article rejects the widespread etymology that relates these names to the common noun jarl m. ‘earl’. An alternative etymology of Erlendr as an original byname *ørlendr ‘out-landish’, ‘foreign’ is reassessed and further substantiated, while a new etymology for Erlingr is proposed, deriving it from Old Norse ǫrn/ari m. ‘eagle’, with the diminutive suffix -linga-. According to this hypothesis, the name is an original byname with the literal meaning ‘little eagle’, but most likely an honorific title denoting ‘the one who acts like an eagle’.

This article deals with the inscription on a rune-stone fragment discovered in 1985 at Igelsta in Östertälje parish in Södermanland, which according to the author commemorates a man named Øygrīmʀ. This name is very rare and is previously unrecorded in East Scandinavian
sources.

In this article it is argued that Odin's discovery of the runes when hanging on the tree, as related in the Icelandic Hávamál, is not an indigenous attribute of that god. Nor should the attribution of the invention of letters to Mercury in the Old English  Prose Solomon and Saturn be linked to the Hávamál, as is generally done. Instead I demonstrate that Odin's invention is an adaptation of Roman Classical mythology in which the invention of letters is ascribed to Mercury. The Romans in their turn borrowed this myth from the Greeks, with Hermes Trismagistos playing that role, while the Greeks and borrowed it from the Egyptians, equating their god Thoth with Hermes.

Birka, Sigtuna and Medelpad—Glimpses of Three
Writing Environments in the Viking Age.

The author discusses some aspects of vernacular literacy in the Viking Age by analysing the runic material from three different places in Sweden: the towns of Birka and Sigtuna in Uppland and the province of Medelpad in Northern Sweden.

Runic inscriptions are of interest not only as evidence of language and literacy in early medieval England, but also of the cultural functions of the objects on which they appear. In this paper, we present three case studies to examine the ways in which runic writing was used to commemorate the dead in Anglo-Saxon England: a cremation urn from Loveden Hill, Lincolnshire; the wooden coffin of Saint Cuthbert; and a carved memorial stone from Great Urswick, Cumbria. Our study highlights the diversity of rune-inscribed objects in their material and function, from containers for human remains to monuments on public display. In each case we discuss the linguistic problems of the text and the relationship of the inscription to the object and its find context, before turning to a broader examination of the role of inscribed objects in the act of commemoration and the question of the choice of runic over the Roman script.

This article explores runic literacy in medieval Norway by focusing on the medieval use of runes in churches. The church as an arena of communication generates interaction and overlap between the public and the private, the authorized and unauthorized, the ceremonial and the casual. Runic inscriptions and other forms of graffiti occur both inside and outside Norwegian stave and stone churches. In this article they are examined with regard to their production, presence, and potential reception in the church setting. The functions and meanings of the runic inscriptions within the religious and social space of the church are brought to the fore. The corpus of church inscriptions contributes towards an enhanced understanding of runic textual practices in the Middle Ages.

Comprehensive editions of the oldest runic inscriptions are few and largely outdated; even the more recent ones do not meet modern critical standards. Other runic publications that treat this material tend to concentrate on selected data only. An up-to-date scholarly edition of the oldest runic inscriptions is thus currently lacking. The question is: what criteria must a new edition fulfil?
Of course, information has to be provided concerning the rune-bearing object, such as (1) a description of the artifact, including the present place of keeping, (2) the find circumstances and (3) an archaeological dating. The description of the inscription itself has to be thorough, and must include (1) a plausible reading of the runes with remarks on runic forms and the textual composition,
and (2) a transliteration, which constitutes the basis for a transcription. The transcription is the starting point for the internal, viz. linguistic interpretation that has to contain etymological as well as syntactic information (where necessary). In the etymological component, all important proposals have to be reconsidered. The linguistic interpretation must be the starting point for any broader analyses, which of necessity will require an interdisciplinary approach. The paper shows how such an edition can be laid out by means of one selected example.

The rune carver Asmund Karasun was a very productive carver in late 11th-century Uppland, active in the vicinity of Sigtuna but never within the town. In this study, Asmund’s carving technique has been analysed by 3D-scanning and statistical methods. Results show that he can be distinguished from his co-carvers Sveinn, Herjarr and Vígmarr. This might be useful for future analyses of rune stones of doubtful attribution, such as U 824 or U 940, or when small fragments are found. Asmund’s carving technique and style is more expert in his southern stones, which supports the theory proposed by Magnus Källström (2007) that Asmund started his rune-carving career in northern Uppland and travelled south; he evidently gained experience on the way.

Il XVII secolo incorpora forse il nucleo più significativo nel processo di sfruttamento in senso patriottico delle Antichità germaniche e nella conseguente riscoperta del mito del “Nord” scandinavo a opera dell’Uma-nesimo protestante. Inaugurata dalla fioritura del Goticismo – fenomeno eterogeneo talora equivocato con la rivolu¬zione estetica che fa capo a Th. Warton e H. Walpole –, quella riscoperta concorreva in realtà alla costru-zione di immagini identitarie, messe in moto, oltre un secolo prima, dalle riflessioni di Biondo Flavio. Ciò fu possibile grazie alla presenza di un movimento europeo di eruditi-antiquari e alla fusione di due discipline (la filologia e l’archeologia) fondate su dati concreti – il documento scritto (o inciso) e il reperto –, attraverso i quali le diverse spinte “nazionalistiche” alimentarono l’equivoco di una translatio studiorum a Nord delle Alpi e di un anacronistico “restauro” del passato di natura eminentemente ideologica.

Yngvars saga víðförla is a fantastic story of adventure in exotic, faraway lands. The saga recounts the exploits of an eleventh-century Swedish Viking, Ingvar, who led a voyage east that ended in disaster, somewhere southeast of Russia, around 1041. Despite the saga’s improbable storyline, it may have a basis in historical fact. In Sweden, a number of runestones bear the name Ingvar and reference a journey to the east. Many scholars believe the runestones provide corroborative evidence of the journey immortalised in the saga and treat them as a factual given. However, this is problematic as there are many more runestones bearing the name Ingvar than those designated as Ingvar stones, which raises questions about the comprehensiveness of previous analyses of the runestones. Although the saga may be rooted in a real historical event, fact and fiction are so tightly intertwined that it is difficult at times to separate one from the other. One upshot is that the sparse data on the runestones, e.g. reference to Serkland, have been used to flesh out lacunae in the saga, and it is not uncommon to see Ingvar’s journey recast as an expedition to Serkland or Persia, neither of which is mentioned in the saga. To what extent do the runestones bear witness to Ingvar’s expedition and is the Ingvar named on the runestones the same person as his namesake in the saga? This paper seeks to answer these questions by critically re-examining the runestones alongside evidence from both historical and geographical sources.

2012 a hoard of four gold bracteates were found at the Stavnsager settlement in East Jutland. Two C-bracteates both carried runic inscriptions. The larger (IK 647) has a garbled futhark in a band ending in birds’ heads, closely related to other bracteates from the area, while the smaller (IK 650) only carries the runes ïz under the chin of the quadruped. The other two bracteates are of type D, one (IK 648) featuring a bird, while the other (IK 649) is exceptional in having the runic inscription aalul, perhaps a garbled alula (alu forwards and backwards). This is the first example of an indisputable D-bracteate with runes. The bracteates and their inscriptions will be discussed by Axboe & Imer in the forthcoming publication of the Sachsensymposion at Durham 2012.

The old English runic corpus contains at least thirty-seven inscriptions carved in stone, which are concentrated geographically in the north of England and dated mainly from the seventh to the ninth centuries. The quality and content of the inscriptions vary from simple names (or fragments thereof) to poetic vernacular memorial formulae. Nearly all of the inscriptions appear on monumental sculpture in an ecclesiastical context and are considered to have served commemorative purposes. rune-inscribed stones show great variety in terms of monument type, from name-stones, cross-shafts and slabs to elaborate monumental crosses that served different functions and audiences. Their inscriptions have often been analyzed by runologists and epigraphers from a linguistic or epigraphic point of view, but the relationship of these inscribed monuments to other sculptured stones has received less attention in runological circles. Thus the present article explores the place and development of rune-inscribed monuments in the context of sculptural production in pre-Conquest England, and identifies periods of innovation and change in the creation and function of runic monuments. it points to changes in commemorative practices, monument types, and patronage that had an impact on the use of runes on sculpture, from their growing popularity on monastic commemorative sculpture in the late seventh century to their ultimate abandonment in a sculptural context in the early eleventh century.

The following is an essay paper with the intention to respond to a statement by Henry Glassie on the topic of research methodologies within the field of material culture. By the nature of Glassie's statement in 'The Stolen House', it appears that he places material culture above textual study in terms of research value in the field of cultural studies. By studying the significance of both textual and material elements of primary archaeological sources I have provided an argument to suggest that both elements can, and do, work in conjunction with one another. Using both runic inscriptions on stones found in Scandinavia and the 'Ulfberht' swords as case studies, I have provided evidence as to how both textual and material sources are equally important and do not necessarily have to compete with one another when used in historical and cultural research. Rather, they can both be used to validate each other to a certain extent.

Waxenberger, G. (2017c), "The Development of the Old English Rune Row", From Hieroglyphs to Netspeak: on the Relation of Script and Sound, LautSchriftSprache / ScriptandSound 2, eds. G. Waxenberger & H. Sauer & K. Kazzazi, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 209–247.

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.

The aims of this study are to provide a comprehensive analysis on Anglo-Saxon runic inscribed rings, studying their materials, purposes and inscriptions.  This is a small group made up of nine confirmed rings, all of which are from the later period. Literature concerning the runic rings is fragmentary and often sparse. Whilst many reputable sources are available, much previous literature comes from dated knowledge and assumptions of runology, some veering into the fantastical where more mundane rings are concerned. This study will attempt to strike a balance between imagination and skepticism, avoiding the pit falls of some runologists who perhaps are a little too imaginative. Therefore, the aims of this study are to gather these sources into a corpus and provide a unified and detailed study of Anglo-Saxon runic rings, and provide new opinion and insight into the runic rings.

The study will open with an analysis of the role of finger-rings in Anglo-Saxon society in general. Following this, a large bulk of this study will focus on what will be referred to as the ‘amulet rings’; a trio of rings with similar runic inscriptions of a presumed magical quality. The mysterious nature of these rings has caused them to be the most widely studied, and they have been connected to a number of manuscript charms. This study aims to examine these rings on a number of levels. Firstly, the materials of these rings will be discussed. Next, the inscription and form of the runes will be studied, along with possible dates for the rings. Lastly, the intended purposes of the rings will be discussed, linking the rings to similar objects and manuscript charms. This study argues that the writers of these related charms attributed power to the runic characters themselves, above their simple literary value.

The other rings this study will cover are of a more mundane quality. Their inscriptions are comparable with non-runic inscribed AS rings, consisting mainly of personal names and records of ownership. For each ring, the materials and dating evidence will be examined, the history of their study, their inscriptions, their purposes and their significance in the context of other runic rings.

Frisians and their North Sea Neighbours; from the Fifth Century to the Viking Age. Eds. John Hines and Nelleke IJssennagger

An investigation into the mysterious Frisians, drawing together evidence from linguistic, textual and archaeological sources.
From as early as the first century AD, learned Romans knew of more than one group of people living in north-western Europe beyond their Empire's Gallic provinces whose names contained the element that gives us modern "Frisian". These were apparently Celtic-speaking peoples, but that population was probably completely replaced in the course of the convulsions that Europe underwent during the fourth and fifth centuries. While the importance of linguistically Germanic Frisians as neighbours of the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Saxons and Danes in the centuries immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West is widely recognized, these folk themselves remain enigmatic, the details of their culture and organization unfamiliar to many.
The Frisian population and their lands, including all the coastal communities of the North sea region and their connections with the Baltic shores, form the focal point of this volume, though viewed often through comparison with, or even through the eyes of, their neighbours. The essays present the most up-to-date discoveries, research and interpretation, combining and integrating linguistic, textual and archaeological evidence; they follow the story of the various Frisians through from the Roman Period to the next great period of disruption and change introduced by the Viking Scandinavians.

John Hines is Professor of Archaeology at Cardiff University; Nelleke IJssennagger is Curator of Archaeological and Medieval Collections at the Museum of Friesland.

Contributors: Elzbieta Adamczyk, Iris Aufderhaar, Pieterjan Deckers, Menno Dijkstra, John Hines, Nelleke Ijssennagger, Hauke Jöns, Egge Knol, Jan de Koning, Johan Nicolay, Han Nijdam, Tim Pestell, Peter Schrijver, Arjen Versloot, Gaby Waxenberger, Christiane Zimmermann.

Abstract:
A number of purported rune stones exist in Oklahoma. In this paper each stone is physically examined, linguistically
analyzed, and compared with Norse predecessors to determine if there is any evidence of them being of Viking origin.

First documented in 1923, the Heavener Rune Stone is the earliest known inscription. The veracity of the Heavener stone as a Viking artifact is problematic. The linguistic evidence is ambiguous. However, historical evidence from the 19th  century covering both the Viking Revival, Scandinavian immigration, and the lack of archaeological evidence of Norse excursions to the Western US, strongly suggests the stone is a 19th creation of a Scandinavian immigrant (likely a Swedish immigrant working at the local train depot). The Shawnee and Pawnee stones can be shown via linguistic and physical evidence to be modern creations. Heavener Rune Stones Two and Three are much earlier and are most likely of non-runic Native American creation.

Zakazana wiedza o słowiańskich pamiątkach z Retry znalezionych w Prilwitz (Przylwicach). Idole prilwickie uznawane są za fałszywki, podobnie jak kamienie Hagenowa, kamienie mikorzyńskie i wiele innych artefaktów ze słowiańskimi runami. Czy aby napewno to prawda czy może manipulacja lub propaganda? Warto zapoznać się z dotychczasową wiedzą na ten temat i odświeżyć temat do dalszych badań.

This article is a review of Kristel Zilmer’s thesis «‘He drowned in Holmr’s sea – his cargo ship drifted to the sea-bottom, only three came out alive’: Records and representations of Baltic traffic in the Viking Age and the Early Middle Ages in early Nordic sources» presented for defense for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Scandinavian Studies) at the University of Tartu.  The thesis had been written under the supervision of prof. Terje Spurkland and prof. Stig Örjan Ohlsson. The thesis was sucessfully defended at the University of Tartu on June 27, 2005. The author of this article was one o f the reviewers of this work. The text appeared in 2005 in the series Nordistica Tartuensia 12.

This dissertation addresses the issue of magical communication found in the Elder Futhark runic inscriptions. The study examines the Kragehul Spear Shaft (DR 196), Björketorp runestone (DR 360), the Horn(s) of Gallehus (DR 12), Gummarp runestone (DR 358), Lindholm amulet (DR 261), Straum whetstone (KJ 50), Ribe skull fragment (DR EM85; 151B), the Noleby runestone (KJ 67), and the Eggja runestone (N KJ 101). It seeks magical communication which may putatively be encompassed by my proposed law of magical semiosis, which reads:

<<While operating within an Umwelt where we assume magic is a phaneron in the Weltanschauung of the Runemaster, he or she intentionally manipulates signs and sign-relations within a sign-network by the use of icons (like produces like), indices (contagious properties) and/or symbols (learned conceptual properties). While there will be more than one sign within the sign-network, it is the magical sign which is the most salient when working with such an object. This includes—but is not limited to—phonetic iconicity, semantic iconicity, indexical curses, iconic theophany formulas whereby the Runemaster becomes a god (degrees of iconicity), mythic reenactments, Begriffsrunen (symbolic indexical icons), and certain word-formulae especially alu ‘ecstatic state’ (disputed).>>

I argue that, by setting objective parameters for measuring this law of magical communication, we can then determine whether or not a particular inscription should be understood as magical or non-magical specific to the Umwelt and Weltanschauung of the Runemaster. Essentially, this dissertation is meant to challenge runologists in postulating falsifiable criteria so we may, in an academic setting, discuss magical communication in the world of the Runemaster.

This study begins by discussing how Charles Sanders Peirce can help provide us with a basic framework regarding the sign. His phenomenological framework is applied to the world of the Runemaster. The next section then addresses the problem with the word “magic,” which goes far beyond the concept of “if it does not make sense, it must be magical.” It then leads to a discussion of runes and numinous qualities and finally to a corpus chapter which applies the theories and methods I have adopted.