Runes Across the North Sea from the Migration Period and Beyond

An Annotated Edition of the Old Frisian Runic Corpus

Livia Kaiser

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9783110728323
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia antigua

The scattered research history of the Old Frisian runic inscriptions dating to the early Medieval period (ca. AD 400–1000) calls for a comprehensive and systematic reprocessing of these objects within their socio-cultural context and against the backdrop of the Old English Runic tradition. This book presents an annotated edition of 24 inscriptions found in the modern-day Netherlands, England and Germany. It provides the reader with an introduction to runological methodology, a linguistic commentary on the features attested in the inscriptions, and a detailed catalogue which outlines the find history of each object and summarizes previous and new interpretations supplemented by pictures and drawings. This book additionally explores the question of Frisian identity and an independent Frisian runic writing tradition and its relation to the contemporary Anglo-Saxon runic culture. In its entirety, this work provides a rich basis for future research in the field of runic writing around the North Sea and may therefore be of interest to scholars of historical linguistics and early Medieval history and archaeology.

Part 1: Preliminaries

I The Old Frisian Runic Corpus Edition

I.1 Runology and Runological Practice: From Autopsy to Interpretation

For every inscription there shall be as many interpretations as there are runologists studying it.

A ‘witty Viking archaeologist’, Page (1999, p. 10)

Little has been said about methodology in Anglo-Saxon and Frisian runological studies yet. ³ Even the academic field of ‘Runology’ and the related researcher, the ‘runologists’, as such have not received a proper and generally valid definition, which results in a challenge for the discipline to establish itself academically in English diachronic studies. After perusing through the main introductory books on Old English runology (i.e. Elliot 1959, Page 1999), this lack in methodological groundwork becomes increasingly obvious, as most of these only include a general introduction to runes and possibly a historical research overview but do not offer theoretical or practical advice on methods whatsoever. An exception to this is Düwel’s Runenkunde (2008, 4^th edition), which includes a chapter on the history of runic research as well as on methodology (Geschichte der Runologie, Vom Fund zur Deutung), but still misses out on a precise definition of the discipline. Also, Page’s An Introduction to English Runes (1973, 1^st ed.) lacks a clear definition. However, after presenting an outline of the history of runic research, Page (1999, p. 14) addresses methodological problems in (Old English) runic studies to which he refers as a “subject of controversy”. The main problem according to Page seems to arise from two contrasting qualities in runologists, some being too “imaginative” in their interpretations whilst others remain “sceptical” and hold their “erudition in the bonds of common sense” (cp. Page 1999, p. 12). This difference in personal predisposition results in disparate approaches to, and widely varying and seemingly arbitrary interpretations of inscriptions (irrespective of the reading). This seems to have spurred a debate on methodology in the past and is one of the most cited points of criticism in runic research. Where does fact end and where does fiction begin in an interpretation? In order to establish rules and regulations for a transparent research practice, a definition of the field itself, its researcher, as well as an explanation of precise terminology stands at the beginning of every academic runic endeavour.

I.1.1 What is Runology?

Generally, two views on what runology entails have been postulated: runology in the broad sense is understood as an interdisciplinary field of research (Braunmüller 1991, 1998), whereas runology in the narrow sense focuses on philology at the centre of the discipline (Barnes 1994, 2013).

Braunmüller (1998, p. 3) formulates a broad descriptive definition, which also encompasses and stresses the complexity of the field:

Die Runologie stellt ein sehr komplexes Gebiet innerhalb der Fächer ‘Germanische/Nordgermanische/Englische Philologie’ dar. Sie ist von vorne herein auf interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit angelegt. Als wichtige einschlägige Disziplinen seien hier nur die Vor- und Frühgeschichte, die Kunst-, Kultur- und Religionsgeschichte, die Epigraphik, die Numismatik und die Rechtsgeschichte sowie die Germanische Altertumskunde als fächerübergreifende Spezialdisziplin genannt. ⁴

He defines runology as embedded within Germanic philology as part of an overarching discipline of Germanic Antiquity (Germanische Altertumskunde). Runology inherently requires an interdisciplinary approach and relies on the collaboration of specialists from various cultural and socio-historical disciplines, ideally complemented with advice based on practical experience from craftsmen (smiths, stone masons, carpenters etc.). Depending on the specific Germanic philology, the object of investigation is runic writing in Old Norse (Braunmüller’s original definition), but equally encompasses Old English, Old Saxon, Old High German, or Old Frisian and their respective predecessor languages, and the interpretation of the inscription. A runologist is therefore a philologist with a specialization in one or more of the Germanic languages with (at least) a basic command of a related discipline and the respective methodology.

Exactly this multidisciplinary character of runology makes it in Barnes’ (2013) view “very difficult” to concretely define this discipline, if not impossible. He argues that if no clear-cut definition can be formulated, this might present a justification problem for runology as a discipline in its own right. Barnes therefore reduces runology to an essentially philological discipline, thereby formulating a narrow definition (cp. Barnes 2013, p. 9–10):

An independent runological discipline, if it is to be established, must therefore deal with the runic symbols themselves, individually and as a system, with their developments and their use to record language. Runic inscriptions are sequences of runes placed on an object, and these the runologist will attempt first to read and then to interpret. Reading will involve examination of the inscription itself, since photographs are subject to tricks of the light and drawings will always contain an element of subjectivity. Interpretation will often require help from and some knowledge of other disciplines, notably archaeology. But archaeology is not runology, any more than are art history, mythology, or occultism.

Core aspects of runology are therefore in Barnes’ (2013, p. 10) view:

[…] the origin of the runic alphabet, the change from the Older fuþark to the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc and the Younger Scandinavian fuþark, the development of the additional runic characters of the Scandinavian Middle Ages and their status, runes as graphemic systems, the distinction between graphs, graph types, graphemes and units of the fuþark, and the principles and practice of transliteration.

The focus, in his opinion, should lie on the reading of runic inscriptions; related disciplines, such as archaeology, have an auxiliary, supportive character, but should be consulted at least for the interpretation.

A compromise solution is proposed by Düwel (2004a). He points out that runology is currently not taught as an independent discipline at (German) universities (cp. the opposite case of epigraphy as a Hilfswissenschaft embedded in Medieval Studies), but is subordinated to the interdisciplinary field of Germanic Antiquity (Germanische Altertumswissenschaften) which has been partly incorporated into early Medieval Archaeology (Vor- und Frühgeschichte). Within this broad context, runology is defined as:

[…] a difficult but rewarding activity in which precision and experience on a solid philological and linguistic basis works in cooperation with the relevant related sciences requiring imagination and deductive powers but also rational, critical control, in order to offer a plausible explanation for the meaning, role, and importance of an inscription and the object that bears the runes.

Düwel (2004a, p. 140)

Düwel opts for a linguistic training as a prerequisite in runology which is then complemented with results from relevant fields and also integrates Page’s (1999, p. 13) two formerly contrasting now equally relevant qualities of runologists as essential features. The defined aim is to grasp the complexity of runic inscriptions in their immediate context of the inscription bearing object, i.e. Inschriftenträger. Düwel further differentiates between ‘field’ and ‘desk runologists’: field runologists work closely on the actual object, if necessary, outdoors (e.g. rune stones in Scandinavia), whereas the desk runologists study from prints and copies. The examination of the original object, however, has come to be regarded as indispensable for runologists, which is why the boundary between these two types of runologists becomes less definite in scientific runological practice.

Judging from the current research environment, it appears researchers have their individual training background from the afore mentioned disciplines and necessarily differ in their approaches, aims and interests in the inscriptions. ⁵ On this account, each researcher has to formulate their aims singularly and openly to ensure transparency of work method as well as comparability of results. In agreement with Braunmüller and Düwel, runology may be viewed in the contex...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1: Preliminaries
• Part 2: Linguistic Analyses
• Part 3: The OFRC Edition
• Appendix I: North-Sea Germanic Phonological and Morphological Feature Catalogue
• A Basic Keywords: Objects, People and Linguistic and Runological Terms
• B OFRC Sources: Inscriptions Listed and Discussed in this Edition
• C.1 Old English and Pre-Old English Runic fuþorc Inscriptions [OERC] (cp. Waxenberger 2010)
• C.2 Southern Germanic fuþark Inscriptions (cp. Krause/Jankuhn [KJ] 1966, Opitz [O] 1981, OBJECT s. v. KIEL Database.
• C.3 Older Germanic fuþark Inscriptions (cp. Arntz/Zeiss [AZ] 1939, Krause/Jankuhn [KJ] 1966, Danmarks Runeindskrifter [DR] (1941–1942), OBJECT s. v. KIEL database).
• C.4 Younger fuþąrk Inscriptions (cp. Arntz/Zeiss [AZ] 1939, Krause/Jankuhn [KJ] 1966, Danmarks Runeindskrifter [DR] (1941–1942), OBJECT s. v. KIEL database).
• C.5 Unascribed Runic Inscriptions (cp. Arntz/Zeiss [AZ] 1939, Krause/Jankuhn [KJ] 1966, Danmarks Runeindskrifter [DR] (1941–1942), OBJECT s. v. KIEL database).