The purpose of this contribution is to offer a critical appraisal of runology as currently practised. The article begins by asking what runology is, and possible ways of defining the subject are discussed. Theory and methodology are then considered. While there is much to be learnt from analysis of the methods runologists employ, the search for runological theories turns out to be an unrewarding exercise. Theories from other disciplines have on occasion informed and guided runological procedures, however, and this is exemplified through an examination of the role graphemics has played in recent discussion of rune forms and how they may best be transliterated into the roman alphabet. The article concludes with brief consideration of problems that have arisen in the reading and interpretation of runic inscriptions, and a plea is entered for a critical and dispassionate approach to runological endeavour.
‘What is a runic monument?’ is the main question discussed in this contribution. Reflections are offered on the relationship between the German word Denkmal and Latin monumentum. An overview is then provided of the terms used in the inscriptions themselves to denote a runic monument, be it inscribed with the older or younger futhark. References in the runic texts to the aesthetic appearance of Viking Age memorials are examined, and the various characteristics mentioned are categorized under the following headings: beauty and stateliness, magnitude and monumentality, publicity and renown, insurpassability and uniqueness, colour and multicolouredness, poeticism and alliteration (verse design). Additional features are identified as characterizing such memorials, in particular impressive outer or physical appearance including artistic decoration. Runic monuments are comparable to Horace’s monumentum aere perennius ‘a monument more lasting than bronze’.
A case is made for defining runology as runic philology, the ultimate goal of which is to arrive at a “basic” interpretation of rune-texts. Scandinavian runestones from the Viking Age are not, however, only sources for old languages and writing practices. They may tell us much about contemporary cultures and the social role played therein by runic monuments, information which may in turn be used to understand better the texts themselves. A discussion is offered of the different angles from which the social aspects might be studied: stone types, monument location, carving technique and ornamentation, monument status levels, runic usage, phonology, morphology, as well as lexemes, including names.
The paper begins by noting the lack of a comprehensive dictionary of Scandinavian runic inscriptions, as well as the absence of the runic evidence from most dictionaries of the early Scandinavian languages, and considers possible reasons for this. Runic inscriptions may need a different kind of dictionary, because they require a different kind of reading that takes extra-linguistic as well as linguistic contexts into account (a process that has been called “interdisciplinary semantics”). Using the examples of the words bóndi and þegn in Viking Age inscriptions, the paper shows how the variety of available contexts enables a richer definition of these and other words, which might facilitate a different type of dictionary, based on discursive definitions.
The aim of this paper is not to give a full description of how the runic alphabet was used and developed in different parts of Scandinavia in the two periods in question, but rather to present a few selected cases that can shed light on one or two important issues relevant to the long history of runic script. Most of the examples are taken from Sweden. They comprise inscriptions which are either unpublished or have been ignored in the discussion of the development of runic script. The topics touched upon include the relationship between the long-branch and short-twig runes, the adoption of h as a way of denoting fricative g, the origin of some of the characters used in the medieval writing system and differences of runic tradition in various parts of Sweden.
Previous studies of Christian runic inscriptions have tended to deal with particular types of inscription from defined periods of time. This article analyses all the relevant Scandinavian runic material from the Viking Age and the Middle Ages, focusing on textual features and material contexts of inscriptions that use prayers and invocations. Its main aim is to explore the dynamics of what may be termed “the runic prayer tradition” with a view to identifying potentially stable elements of this tradition as well as those that alter over time. Two main categories of prayer and invocation explored are formulations in the vernacular and in Church Latin. The results of the study reveal various possibilities of variation in the runic prayer tradition, but also suggest links and overlaps between the earlier and later vernacular prayers. The evidence further suggests some sort of a division between a monumental (or public) form of discourse in connection with rune-stones, grave monuments and church buildings — which are dominated by vernacular prayers — and that of various loose objects, where Latin prayer formulas seem to be favoured.
One of the most famous finds from the earliest historical period of the city of Ribe (southern Jutland, Denmark) is the fragment of a human skull, with a drilled hole, that has a relatively long runic inscription incised on one surface. Scholars have discussed the reading, interpretation and dating of the runes ever since the piece was excavated in 1973. In the present article, the find circumstances and other archaeological background information is presented; they permit the time of loss or deposition of the runic object to be narrowed down with great probability to the years A.D. 725–50.