Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic
Inscriptions
Marie Stoklund
Since c. 1980 a number of important new archaeological runic finds from the old
Danish area have been made. Together with revised datings, based for instance
on dendrochronology or 14c-analysis, recent historical as well as archaeological
research, these have lead to new results, which have made it evident that the
chronology and typology of the Danish rune material needed adjustment. It has
been my aim here to sketch the most important changes and consequences of
this new chronology compared with the earlier absolute and relative ones.
It might look like hubris to try to outline the chronology of the Danish runic
inscriptions for a period of nearly 1,500 years, especially since in recent years
the lack of a cogent distinction between absolute and relative chronology in
runological datings has been criticized so severely that one might ask if it is
possible within a sufficiently wide framework to establish a trustworthy chronology of runic inscriptions at all. However, in my opinion it is possible to
outline a chronology on an interdisciplinary basis, founded on valid non-runological, external datings, combined with reliable linguistic and typological criteria deduced from the inscriptions, even though there will always be a risk of
arguing in a circle.
Danmarks runeindskrifter
A natural point of departure for such a project consists in the important attempt
made in Danmarks runeindskrifter (DR) to set up an outline of an overall chronology of the Danish runic inscriptions. The article by Lis Jacobsen, Tidsfæstelse og typologi (DR:1013–1042 cf. Introduction. The Runes in Denmark in the
English Summary 1947:7–30), gives a clear account of the basis and method
355
used. A sharp distinction was drawn between absolute and relative dating after
a radical adjustment had been made of the “historical inscriptions” which constituted the framework of the rather narrow datings in the earlier Danish corpusedition by Ludvig F.A.Wimmer (DRM). On the basis of the radical principles
of historical source criticism, Lis Jacobsen in the 1930s had criticized Wimmer’s
chronology severely. In DR only three “historical” inscriptions were accepted
from the Viking Age and three from the Middle Ages, apart from Sven Estridson’s runic coins. With regard to the earliest inscriptions, with reference to Johannes Brøndsted – the leading Danish archeologist at that time – the archaeological datings of the bog finds and the bracteates were seen as reliable factors.
The datings of Medieval inscriptions from churches and on church equipment
were based on the relative datings of Poul Nørlund and Mouritz Mackeprang.
Thus, according to DR “On the basis of all the datable inscriptions, the runic
inscriptions of Denmark may be distributed over 4 periods: the Migration Period
(and the time subsequent to the Migrations), The Viking Age, the Pre-Medieval
Period, and the Middle Ages.” (Summary:11f.). This system – with further subdivisions – was used for a relative classification and combined with a description of the significant features of the individual periods of archaeological, ornamental and linguistic character. Runographical and linguistic peculiarities as
well as spirit and contents, and the general appearance of runic stones were in
DR used to distinguish between the many sub-divisions of the Viking Age in the
chronological system, i. e. Period 2.1 Helnæs-Gørlev type (“ascribed to the age
from about 800 (or 750) to about 900.”) (Summary 1947:16); 2.2a. The preJelling type (9th century); 2.2b. The Jelling type (10th century); 2.2c. The PostJelling type (c. 1000–c. 1050). Subsequently, based on the various diagnostic
features and the detailed description of the characteristic features of each period
(DR:1018-1034), it was possible when considering the individual inscriptions
to place the inscription in question in the proper context simply with a reference
such as Per. 2.1, Per. 2.2a.
This relative and absolute chronology of DR was much admired and, incidentally, considered to be rather cautious. It has had a strong interdisciplinary
impact and the datings are still used by many scholars, although it at least since
the 1970s has been evident that important adjustments of the absolute datings
(and the time limits of the periods) were necessary (for instance Christensen &
356
Marie Stoklund
Moltke 1971; Nielsen 1970; cf. Stoklund 1991:289–294 with references). This
improved chronology we find for instance in the works of Erik Moltke (Moltke
1976 and 1985 with references). Moltke also rejected the DR-system with four
periods and chose a three-period-system: Primitive Norse – Viking-Age – Medieval inscriptions (operating with a rather strong overlapping between the periods), while for instance Niels Åge Nielsen stuck to the old system (Nielsen
1983). Moltke’s absolute datings in 1976 were, however, in fairly good accordance with the DR-chronology, apart from the bracteates, the Jelling-stones (DR
41–42), Haddeby 1 and 3 (DR 1 and 3) (and Bække-Læborg, DR 29 and 26). In
general, the fundamental principles behind the DR-system were upheld by
Moltke.
Lis Jacobsen stressed that the indskrift-fortegnelse (list of inscriptions)
(DR:1035–1042) gave no grounds for a safe dating of the individual inscription.
An inscription which typologically belonged to one period might very well be
contemporary with another, which belonged to an earlier or later period
(DR:1035). There has, however, been a problematic tendency to use the tempting possibilities which her chronology offered to take the dated, “annotated” list
of inscriptions as absolute datings. It is, however, problematic, on the basis of
the DR-chronology, to draw far-reaching conclusions involving a time perspective as has been done (cf. Stoklund 1991:295f.). Nevertheless, the diagnostic features, runographically, linguistically etc. on which the DR-chronology
was established, could in practice within wider frames be useful tools for a
determination of the approximate age and context of an individual inscription.
In order to make the material easily available in this survey of the Danish
runic chronology, I have chosen to present selected examples of important new
finds and crucial altered datings in tables 1–3, listing the inscriptions chronologically. During my work with the material I have primarily distinguished between only three groups of inscriptions: Proto-Scandinavian (24-character
inscriptions), Viking-Age (16 characters), Medieval (extended runic alphabet).
Although only a few inscriptions cannot be classified within one of the three
main groups, the transitions between the periods cause problems. I have,
however, chosen a delimitation of the material in three sections: before 800,
800–1050, after 1050–, according to the traditional historical Danish datings of
the beginning of the Viking and Medieval Ages, regardless of the question when
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
357
the transitions exactly happened and how they should be defined, though I have
tried to note the inscriptions with significant changes and innovations, especially
in the periods of transition.
The general reservations and precautions concerning relative versus absolute
chronology, archaeological datings (cf. for instance Steuer 1998) as well as
runological ones, which have been the subject of much discussion (for instance
Hagland 1998) are presupposed as natural and generally known preconditions
which do not need to be repeated in a discussion of the individual cases.
In all the tables the first columns give, in addition to the name of the
inscription, significant features – no matter whether typological, graphophonological or linguistic. In the following columns earlier (runological) datings
and in the last column the present (non-runological) datings can be found. As
regards the inscriptions with the older runes the dating is mainly based on
archaeological considerations.
Table 1, AD 1–c. AD 800
Archaeologically dated inscriptions from Denmark. Changed datings, new finds
1) Earlier datings DR=Danmarks runeindskrifter. KJ=Krause & Jankuhn 1966. 2) Later
datings, A=Antonsen, G=Grønvik, M=Moltke. 3) Latest (Danish) datings, 2000 [2005]
1)
2)
3)
Inscription (Found or first
mentioned)
DR; KJ
Later datings
Datings 2000
[2005]
Vimose comb (1865)
harja
DR 3rd–4th C.;
KJ c. 250
A 250
B2/C1a; c. 160
Vimose chape (1901),
buckle (1851),
sheathplate (1853)
runelike inscription,
lancehead (1984) wagnijo
DR chape 250–300
buckle 200–400,
sheathplate 200–
300; = KJ c. 250, c.
200 and c. 400?
A chape 250–300;
buckle 200;
sheathplate
200–300, aw0ings
C1b;
210/20–250/60
sheathplate:
runelike inscription
Vimose woodplane (1865)
DR c. 100–300, KJ A 100–300
250–300
358
c. 160–375, most
likely C1b;
210/20–250/60
Marie Stoklund
Illerup (1982–92), ™,
mirror-runes òÃ versus
W, ìí wagnijo, niþijo
tawide, laguþewa,
swarta, gauþR
Thorsberg (1858, 1860)
owlþuþewaR, mariR
c. 200 [2005: C1b;
210/20–250/60]
DR chape 200–250; A 200
shield boss 2.–5. C.
KJ c. 200
C1b;
210/20–250/60
Næsbjerg clasp (1949)
-ara!fn!is-
A 200 warawnis
C1b;
210/20–250/60
Nøvling (Lundegårde)
clasp (1963) bidawarijaR
talgidai
A 200
C1b;
210/20–250/60
Gårdlösa clasp (1949) ek
unwod"R
A 200
C1b;
210/20–250/60
Værløse clasp (1944)
alugod
A 200
C1b;
210/20–250/60
Skovgårde/Udby clasp
(1988) lamo : talgida
Himlingøje clasp 2 (1949)
ºwiduhudaR
c. 200 [2005: C1b;
210/20–250/60]
KJ c. 200
A 200
Møllegårdsmarken knife
(1992) hth sh"ko
C1b;
210/20–250/60
C1b–C2;
210/20–310/20
Himlingøje clasp 1 (1835)
hariso
DR start of 4th C.;
KJ c. 350
Nydam arrow-shafts
(1863, 1993, 1994), lua,
la, lua
DR 250–500.
KJ c. 400
(3th–5th C.)
300–400
Nydam axe-shaft (1993)
wagagastiR | alu :
-"-hg"usikijaR : aiþalataR
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
C1b-C2;
210/30-250/60
[2005: C1b/C2;
c. 250]
c. 300–350
[2005: C1b–C3;
210/20–375]
c. 300–350
[2005: C1b–C3;
210/20–375]
359
Nydam strap suspension
(bronze) (1995, 2002)
}harkilaR * ahti | anul"a
c. 300 [2005: C3;
c. 310/20]
Nydam sword bead (jet)
(1997) "--ala
c. 400 [2005: D1,
early, c. 380–420]
Nydam belt end fitting
(silver) (1997) ¬ rawsijo
c. 400 [2005: D1,
early, c. 380–420]
Nydam lance shaft 1
(1996) hardly linguistic
sense
c. 400–
[2005: D1, late;
c. 450–475]
Nydam lance shafts 2, 3
(1999) runelike decoration
c. 425–475 [2005:
D1, late; 450–475]
Kragehul spear shaft
(1877), E, S, ©, s, ö;
bind-rune variants
DR c. 350–550, KJ. A 300–550; 525
c. 500–550
c. 425–475
[2005: D1 early;
400–450]
Kragehul knife haft (1865) DR 500–550
A 300
c. 425–475 [2005:
D1 early; 400–450]
Bracteates
š j, bind-rune variants
G 450–550;
M c. 500
c. 500; D2a;
460/70–530/40
DR 400–650
Kalmargården fibula fragment (1995), ...uAlis hs
Migration Period;
(630)650–700
Lousgård bead (1955)
sHilta
7th C.
Ålborg buckle
(Scheelsminde) (1964) s s
c. 700–750
Skabersjö buckle (1855)
a, n, s
Ribe cranium fragment
(1973) H, M, h, k, s
360
DR buckle c. 700,
Inscription: Jelling
Period?
Migration Period,
7th C.
c. 700, 725–800.
M: Inscription
c. 1025.
c. 720 (Birkmann
1995:90f. with
references)
c. 800, rune 59
G or U
c. 725, rune 59 n n
Marie Stoklund
The older runes
The increase of inscriptions with the older runes from archaeological excavations is most significant. In the survey of 1942 (DR:1042) apart from bracteates only 19 inscriptions were known from the period 1.1 (the so-called
Migration Period in DR from AD c. 200 to c. 650). In accordance with the chronology of Johannes Brøndsted, the runic bracteates were dated comparatively
late within a rather long supposed bracteate-period from 400–650 (DR:791).
Now 37–38 objects are known with runes or rune-like inscriptions, which
archaeologically have been dated to the period from AD c. 160 to 500 (excluding bracteates and the problematic inscription on the Meldorf fibula from the
first century AD from Ditmarschen south of the river Eider).
The majority of the new inscriptions belong to the Roman Iron Age, but
some of the Nydam finds are later, and from a chronological-typological point
of view they are of special interest. The notable finds from Nydam belong to different deposits in the former lake and could thus offer some relevant information
concerning typological development but it should not be forgotten that they (like
the other bog-sacrificial finds) probably originated somewhere outside the later
Danish area. The oldest group of inscriptions all have ™ as e-rune and s-runes
with several angles. An astonishing tendency towards cutting rounded forms
even on wood puts a question mark to the general assumption that runes were
“born” with straight lines. The new finds confirm the existence of full-size variants of j, o already in the early Illerup inscriptions, while the assumption that
the inscriptions before c. 400 never have word division (for instance Krause &
Jankuhn 1966:3) does not seem to be valid. There are division marks in the inscriptions of the Skovgårde (Udby) fibula, the Nydam axeshaft and strap suspension (Stoklund 1995:322, 342; 1996b:275f., 287f.).
When focusing on the Danish evidence from the late “Germanic Iron Age”
c. 400 and onwards, significant rune forms could be found on the Nydam belt
end fitting c. 400). It is noteworthy that according to Nydam parallels (and dendrodating of Nydam wood) the Kragehul (KJ 27) inscription with important
diagnostic runes is now (2005) dated by the archaeologists to the 5th century,
differing from the wider margin earlier given. In the course of time somewhat
changing opinions have caused notable confusion, the Kragehul inscription for
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
361
instance according to Antonsen dates from c. 300 (Antonsen 1975:35); and to
Odenstedt c. 500–550 (Odenstedt 1990:71; cf. Krause 1971:152).
The considerable graphic variation through the years which becomes evident
from a study of the new inscriptions is, no doubt, an important feature with regard to the possibilities for establishing a relative chronology on a typological
basis, even though, according to for instance Elmer Antonsen, “for the oldest period of runic inscriptions we have no guideposts whatever for arranging the various inscriptions in any kind of fixed chronological progression based on runological or linguistic features” (Antonsen 1998:159). One of the traditional typologically founded dating-criteria is the supposed development of the j-rune,
which is beautifully confirmed by the Nydam finds (cf. for instance Krause &
Jankuhn 1966:2; as opposed to Antonsen 1998:151f.; compare Odenstedt
1990:67–74).
It should be noted that no new mirror-runes have appeared since Illerup, except perhaps among the pseudo-runes of the second of the three – in my opinion
non-semantic lance- or spear-shaft inscriptions from Nydam, which on the other
hand are also related to the Kragehul and Lindholmen runes, which – partly at
least – make linguistic sense. These new Nydam lance-shafts, however, also
seem to be related to such problematic inscriptions as Ødemotland, Britsum.
Perhaps a tendency around 500 towards a growing use of pseudo-runes and
rune-like decorations should be noted, cf. also some inscriptions on bracteates
which are not readable in our literate sense, although attempts at interpretation
of such inscriptions as Ågedal and Ødemotland have recently appeared (Grønvik
1987:61–91; Stoklund 1994:165f.; Grønvik 1996:255–267).
The linguistic position and possible development of the Older Runic language have been a matter for much discussion. The new inscriptions mean an
important increase of relevant linguistic material (see Appendix: Proto-Norse
index) concerning inter alia the question of the relations between spoken language and orthography and the determination of the oldest runic language as belonging to the North-Germanic or Proto-Scandinavian, “urnordiske” group because of the early examples of men’s names in -o as well as -a. The assumption
(for instance Nielsen 1998:545) that the old n-stem ending -o as a nom.sg.masc.
marker was ousted some time after 200 AD as the new -a marker gained the
upper hand in nom.sg.masc., while -o was restricted to denoting only the
362
Marie Stoklund
nom.sg.fem., is contradicted by the – according to the late archaeological date
(c. 400) – remarkable rawsijo on the Nydam belt fitting found 1997. It is no
doubt a man’s name, but this fitting belonged to the besieged enemy – maybe
from the south –, whose gear was sacrificed in the former inland lake of Nydam
(Stoklund 1998b:259f., 266f.). A clear case where provenance, regionality versus chronology must be taken into consideration.
A remarkable variation in the endings of the weak verbs in the 3 pt.sg.ind.
according to the general opinion ought also to be accepted because of the
examples of -e : -a : -ai that have turned up. Problematic, however, is a 3
pt.sg.ind. ahti in the inscription: }harkilaR * ahti and anul"a on a bronze strap
suspension from a beautiful scabbard of leather and wood (c. 300, Stoklund
2003:176). An interpretation as “H. owned” is doubtful for various reasons
(Stoklund 1998a:62f.).
Already in the 1950s diverging bracteate datings gave rise to important
discussions of the runic chronology (cf. Moltke 1956:6–8; Nielsen 1970:28f.)
and led to differing datings among the various runologists and linguists. There
are important differences between the chronological systems of for instance
Krause, Elmer Antonsen, Ottar Grønvik and Seebold. According to the latest
research (computer seriation and correspondence analysis of the large human
heads of the A–C bracteates) by Morten Axboe (Axboe 1999), the bracteates
date from the period between 450/475–525/560 and no simple typological
A–B–C-development can be assumed. The former dating of the late bracteates
to the first half of the 7th century is impossible (Axboe 1998:231f., 236).
The language. Late urnordisk
According to DR and Wolfgang Krause the language of the bracteates still
represented the “classical” urnordisk, even though the runic bracteates were
dated rather late: c. 400–650 (DR:791, 1018) and “Ende des 5. bis zum Ende des
6. Jh.s” (Krause 1971:17). Also Einar Haugen included bracteates in the oldest
Runic language before 550–600 (Haugen 1976:123–130). In DR the period of
late urnordisk was assumed to begin c. 650 and last until c. 750 (or 800)
(DR:1020) and Krause assumed a gradual change from the end of the 6th
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
363
century onwards (Krause 1971:16; cf. the discussion, Nielsen 1970:26–36).
Otherwise, Elmer Antonsen will “posit the period of the bracteates (archaeologically 400–550) as the approximate time of the inception of the first phonological changes. Whether these changes occurred already around 400 or not until
later in the 5th cent. cannot be determined.” (Antonsen 1975:11f.). According
to recent opinions the younger language stage is taken to begin c. 500 (for instance Nielsen 1989:9), though the bracteate inscriptions “represent 24-letter runic language material which immediately precedes the inception of the transitional period” (Nielsen 2000:284). Ottar Grønvik assigns the big changes in
the language in Scandinavia to a very short period from shortly before 500 to a
temporary termination c. 575–600. He thereafter supposes a more gradual course
for the linguistic development during the next period (III) lasting until the
middle of the 9th century (Grønvik 1998:25f.). It is remarkable that Grønvik is
operating only with the possible variations in the spoken language of the different generations – with reference to the development in present Danish – not
with any dialectal/regional differences or possibly another provenance.
The transition to the 16-character futhark
The development from the older to the younger runes has been a matter of much
interest and many investigations – more or less speculative. Lately a purely
graphic definition of transitional inscriptions has been suggested, which entails
that a system of more than 16 characters could be used for inscriptions in the
younger futhark (Barnes 1998). In my opinion, evidently the transition to the
younger runes took place in the period between the bracteate inscriptions, which
yield examples of the 24-character futhark, and the 16-character-futharks on the
Gørlev and Malt stones and the Hedeby stick. Unfortunately we have no safe
datings for these inscriptions but I have concentrated on the now existing datable
material before c. 800, i.e. the traditional historical starting point of the Viking
Age (cf. for instance Roesdahl 1994:111–113).
The Stentoften-Björketorp inscriptions could only be dated relatively although there has been an attempt at archaeological dating by Birger Nerman
(Birkmann 1995:115f. with references). Around the middle of the 20th century
364
Marie Stoklund
it was a rather common view – which one could still meet with in later decades,
for instance in Einar Haugen’s history of the Scandinavian languages – that
hardly any inscriptions were existing in central Denmark from 600 to 800. After
that period, around 800 “a revival of runic writing burst forth in Denmark, perhaps inspired by the Blekinge stones” but now using “the new alphabet, the
‘younger’ futhark.” (Haugen 1976:140). However, the existence of Danish inscriptions from that period has now been documented. Without determining
where and how it happened that the old 24-character system was replaced by the
16-sign-futhark, I have tried to bridge the chronological gap between c. 600 and
the inscriptions in the younger fuþark only with established dates and stressed
the notable graphic variations and changes in the relationship between sound
and written character in these inscriptions. The survey of the then known inscriptions “From c. AD 650 to the ninth century” which Erik Moltke in 1976
(and 1985) offered was partly typologically based. A recent attempt to elucidate
the development by combining runology with archaeological datings, styles and
language history has been made by Thomas Birkmann in his survey of the Scandinavian inscriptions from Ågedal to Malt (Birkmann 1995), which has been
useful in this connection, though the archaeological datings are not always upto-date and Birkmann’s own assignations on different premises not unproblematic.
In these inscriptions new combinations of sound and shape are found in the
fragmented clasp from Kalmargården, archaeologically dated to (630) 650–700:
...uAlis, now with h A, s s, and perhaps u instead of W, if the inscription makes
sense (Stoklund 1998a:59f.). From the 7th century, too, is the inscription on the
Lousgård bead with s, probably for s or j, the only known valid example of s
for /a/ seems to occur on the Istaby stone. Lousgård has H, but the reading M is
not safe. Probably a should be read as n, not as a, considering for instance
Eggja and Setre (Stoklund 2001b:570f.).
Significant is especially the dendrodating to c. 725 of the layers from the
Ribe excavations with the skull-fragment – an inscription which represents
many of the linguistic features of the Viking-Age inscriptions and a rune-system
like that on the Helnæs-Høje Taastrup-stones (DR 190, DR 250, Helnæs has h
and a as <a>). On the Ribe skull we find in use only 15 of the 16 runes, which
were to make up a complete Viking-Age system, obviously there was no need
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
365
for È, h denotes /a/, and the shapes of the M- and H-runes are those of the older
futhark (there is no g-rune G as supposed by Moltke) (cf. Stoklund 1996:202f.;
Stoklund 2004:31).
Viking Age
In Table 2 and 3 again selected datable inscriptions are found with the significant features in the first column, followed by the datings in DR and in the third
column the datings which were generally accepted around 1975. In the fourth
column the present external datings, established on a different basis, dendrochronology, reconsiderations of the historical sources, or art-historical chronological studies. In order to avoid the danger of circularity of argument these
present datings are never based on relative runological-linguistic criteria.
Table 2
Viking Age c. 800–1050. Selected inscriptions.
Inscription
DR
c. 1975
Present datings
Lindholm knife-haft (1953)
È, k, a, s sikasuaiâ
þurufiriþili"kaþi
c. 800
c. 800
Hedeby loose objects
(1962–69) 3 with short-twig
runes
c. 800 (9th C.)
9th–10th C.
Elisenhof comb (1965),
short-twig kÊÍR, kambr
c. 800–850
End of 9th C.
c. 850–900
Aarhus comb (1964)
hik'uin
(Beginning of) the
10th C.
10th C.
DR41 Jelling 1 (1586)
c. 935 hist.
c. 935
Before 958/9(?)
DR42 Jelling 2 (1586)
c. 985 hist.
c. 965 hist.
c. 965–74
(or c. 985)
DR2 and 4 Haddeby 2
(1797) and 4 (1887)
After 934–
Between 934 and
950
First half of
10th C.
366
Marie Stoklund
DR1 and 3 Haddeby 1
(1798) and 3 (1857) g, e
c. 1000; 982–1014
or c. 1051
982–1014
980s–
DR295 Hällestad 1 g (1668) Hist. uncertain
c. 1000?
980s–
DR279 Sjörup g (c. 1627)
Hist. uncertain
c. 1000?
980s–
DR66 Århus 3 (DR 4)
(1850)
Hist. uncertain
c. 1000? hist. the
battle of Svold
c. 1000, battle of
Svold?
DR345 Simris 2 (1716)
Hist. uncertain
Hist. uncertain
Connection with
king Canute
(1016–35).
Lund Viking-Age
Mainly Medieval
inscriptions on loose objects
(1881–, mainly after 1975).
Bone 19 (1980) knif*melti:
Lund walking stick, c. 990–
c.1025
before c. 1050
Lund comb 5, Maria Minor
(1954/1996)
reist:runar:þesar; ƒNcT
c. 1000
(preliminary)
Lund leather scabbard 5, St.
Clemens 9 (1983/1996)
Ía, n, cT iar, lifar:kati
Beginning of 11th
C. (preliminary)
Roskilde stick with stone
(1997) risti runar, þis"ar
instead of þasi, þisi
Connection with
wreck 6, after c.
1025 (dendrodat.)
Schleswig inscriptions on 19
loose objects
(1972–1976/2001). Stick:
runaR iag risti, mogR, o o,
g, e; walking stick: krist
(nom.) s, c; amber ring:
...fgÍTar
12th C. The
walking stick c.
1050–1100 (?)
11th. C.
In DR the inscriptions on runestones of the so-called Helnæs-Gørlev-group are
treated as Viking-Age, but in this survey new finds from before 800 with very
similar features have been treated in connection with table 1. No doubt the
definition and (absolute) dating of this group of stones ought to be reconsidered.
It seems more likely that the Helnæs-Snoldelev inscriptions should be dated c.
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
367
650–c. 750/800 (for instance Stoklund 1997: 27f.). However, during the archaeological natural gas pipeline investigations a cemetery with inter alia a rich woman’s grave from the early 9th century was uncovered in the area in which the
Snoldelev stone was found in the 1770s (Høgsbro 1987:160–163).
An important feature, with respect to Viking-Age chronology, is that more
inscriptions on objects which could be dated archaeologically have appeared in
excavations, such as the Lindholm knife-haft c. 800 and early finds from Hedeby (and Elisenhof), Århus, later from Schleswig and Lund. Of special interest
concerning the (time-)relations between the various younger futharks are the
rune sticks from Hedeby with short-twig inscriptions but the dating of them
seems to be rather loose (9th–10th century), though one could get the general
impression that they are earlier: c. 800 (9th C.) (Moltke 1985:29, 371), c. 850
(Birkmann 1995:265; cf. Stoklund 2001a:116).
The Jelling monument played a very important role in the chronology of DR
and so it still does. Based on the historical written sources, Jelling 1 in DR (as
in DRM) was dated to c. 935 and Jelling 2 to c. 985. The “Gnupa-stones”
Haddeby 2 and 4 (Asfrid’s stones) were dated some time after 934 (Gnupa’s
defeat by the German emperor Heinrich the First). It should especially be noticed that the Haddeby stones 1 and 3 were dated rather late: c. 1000 or the first
half of the 11th century (DR:8f., 1024) because suin kunukR (on the Skardestone) was considered to be either Sven Forkbeard or – according to Lis Jacobsen – Sven Estridson (1047–1076) i. e. as late as c. 1050. However, soon the late
datings in DR of Harald’s Jelling stone and Haddeby 1 and 3 (DR 1, 3) were
questioned, and the king Sven from Haddeby 3 identified as Sven Forkbeard (for
instance Christensen & Moltke 1949 published 1971). Though it is now generally accepted that all the inscriptions associated with the Jelling-kings belong
to the 10th century, there are still discussions with regard to the more detailed
chronology. Interdisciplinarily, the Jelling-Hedeby datings from DR have been
used quite generally – and they are still rather common (for instance Haugen
1976:140) – though the “1975–status” (cf. table 2) ought to be acknowledged
(cf. Nielsen 1970:37–39; Nielsen 1974 with contributions by different authors)
and Moltke’s view in his “cautious” sketching of the historical events of the
whole period 900–985 (Moltke 1985:199–201). Since the supposed ‘framing’,
according to which tanmarkaR but should refer not to Thyra but to Gorm, has
368
Marie Stoklund
been rejected (Moltke 1985:207 with references), this epithet cannot – as
proposed in DR – refer to Gorm’s supposed victory over Gnupa and be used for
the dating of the little Jelling stone to c. 935 (DR: 77).
On the basis of excavations 1976–1979 in the present church in Jelling (from
no later than c. 1100) Knud Krogh was able to demonstrate the traces of three
wooden churches and a large chamber grave under the floor of the first and
biggest of the wooden churches. In it were the mortal remains of a man, at least
35–50 years old, probably translated from the emptied chamber in the North
mound and perhaps identical with King Gorm. The dendrochronological dating
to 958/59 of timber from the grave chamber in the mound (Christensen & Krogh
1987:225f.) was of decisive importance for the chronology of the complex,
though there is still some uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the historical sources as well as the results of the archaeological investigations (cf. Anne
Pedersen in this volume). According to the predominant opinion, it seems likely
that it was Gorm’s death in the winter of 958/59 (not c. 935–940 as earlier assumed) which started the building of the grave chamber of the northern mound.
If so, the little Jelling stone must have been erected before 958.
The great ship-setting, demonstrated 1992 under the north as well as the
south mound, cannot be dated, but might have had a connection with Jelling 1
and Thyra’s original kumbl (Krogh 1993: 251–256). The southern mound was
started c. 970, according to dendrodatings of wood from the oldest part of the
mound (Krogh 1993: 258f.). The stones from the ship-setting under it seem to
have been standing in the open air for a rather long period (perhaps 20–30 years)
to judge from the lichen found on them (Krogh 1993:259f.). Harald’s stone must
be dated to the period after his conversion c. 965, and probably before his defeat
in Hedeby (and Norway) c. 974, contemporaneous with the first church, the opening of the northern mound and the start of the southern mound c. 970. It was
built in three phases and after a longer standstill not finished till in the late 970s
or 980s (Krogh 1993:257f.) It might be interpreted as a memorial barrow for
Thyra, perhaps made by Ravnunga-Tovi and his fellows. The Bække stone 1
(DR 29) tells that Ravnunga-Tovi and Fundin and Gnypli made Thyra’s mound,
and the Læborg stone (DR 26) that Ravnunga-Tovi hewed these runes in memory of Thyra, his trutnik, ‘lady’, ‘queen’ (for instance Krogh 1993:266; Stoklund
2000:58 with references). However, according to the very problematic interChronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
369
pretation of the Bække-Læborg stones, presented by Birgit Sawyer during the
conference, Ravnunga-Tovi was commemorating his own wife. Gorm’s Thyra
had also been married to Ravnunga-Tovi and was buried by him elsewhere. This
should have made it necessary for Harald to sponsor Jelling 1 in his father’s
name in order to substantiate his claim to Denmark by a forgery (cf. now
Sawyer 2000:159–166). An important argument used by Birgit Sawyer to support her fallacious theory that Jelling 1 should be later than Jelling 2 and raised
by King Harald is the fact that the little Jelling stone because of its monographic
spellings represents a relatively younger linguistic stage than Harald’s stone,
although any possibility of relative dating based on monographic versus digraphic spelling after the “Helnæs-Gørlev period” is explicitly rejected in DR
(DR:853f.).
Although too much weight should not be attached to the differences, the
relatively younger linguistic stage of the smaller Jelling stone together with the
discovery that the ornamental frame on the B-side of Jelling 1 ends up not in a
spiral but in a snake’s head, seem to be well in agreement with the possibly
shorter time interval between the two stones. The theories of a formation of the
inscription on the great Jelling stone in two phases, which have played a certain
role in the earlier Jelling debate, could now be considered as rejected (for instance Krogh 1993:266). However, the opinion that the stone was erected as the
final mid-point of the whole Jelling monument and only after the reconquest of
Hedeby 983, before Harald’s death 987 at the latest, is still a matter of discussion (for example Krogh 1993:265f.).
This late dating seems problematic in relation to the general chronology of
the art styles of the period. Problematic too, is the coincidence that King Harald’s stone should probably refer to the same event as Haddeby 3 (and 1), i. e.
the reconquest of Hedeby, a dating which is now generally accepted. On Haddeby 1 and 3 significant innovations such as the dotted runes e, g should be noted,
well in accordance with their appearance on the Scanian Sjörup and Hällestadstones (DR 279 and 295–297). These stones should probably be accepted as
historical, too, referring to the battle of Fyrisvall at Uppsala in the 980s – though
this was earlier rejected, for instance in DR (cf. Stoklund with references
1991:292).
370
Marie Stoklund
It is remarkable that both Karl Martin Nielsen and Erik Moltke independently advanced an earlier dating of the Post-Jelling-group to c. 970–1025
instead of c. 1000–1050, no doubt rightly. This also meant an earlier stop to the
general rune-stone-tradition in Denmark (except Bornholm), quite well in accordance with the lack of inscriptions referring to King Canute (except the probably
Swedish Simris stone 2 (DR 345)) (Nielsen 1970:41–44; Christensen & Moltke
1971:319; Stoklund 1991:291–294).
The transition from Viking-Age to Medieval runes
The Danish “middelalder” is generally said to start in the first half of the 11th
century or c. 1050, but it is noteworthy that the Swedish Viking Age lasts longer
according to traditional chronology. Lis Jacobsen in DR operated with a PreMedieval Period 3 c. 1050–1150 between the Viking Age and Per. 4 The
Middle Ages c. 1100–1350. In that way the Danish Middle Ages in DR would
start at the same time as in Sweden.
Table 3
Medieval inscriptions c. 1050–. Selected.
Inscription
DR
c. 1975
Present datings
Svend Estridson runic coins oÉ
o, Œ‘ d, p p, y y/(w), q ð
c. 1065–1075
c. 1065–75
c. 1065–76
Lund, different loose Medieval
objects (1881 onwards, mainly
after 1975).
Mainly
Medieval
c.11th–14th C.
Lund wooden bowl (1979).
Latin (ol9auus:mæ:pos!i
ƒ a, a æ, Í o, p p
DR Add. 6 Lund Cathedral
double capital (1938) iƒk͇
i)ak)ob
14th C.
End of 12th C.
c. 1080
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
12th C.
371
Schleswig knife-haft (1980)
Í o N n, ƒ a, a æ, ’“ d, Òp p, c
s
11th, 12th C.
Schleswig wooden bowls
(1971–74) m9aria, ƒ
c. 1250–1300
Graffiti and plaster inscriptions
in churches
c. 1200–,
Romanesque
c.1100–1250
and later
DR413 Gunhild’s cross (1650)
gun"hild, g“
c. 1100
c. 1100 or later
c. 1150
DR347 Norra Åsum stone
(1598)
c. 1200
c. 1200
c. 1200
Kalundborg antler (1984) Latin.
ƒ a, a æ, g g, – d, p p, w v
c.1250–1350
DR215 Stokkemarke reliquary
(1835) æpisk9opus'gisiko
1286–1300
1286–1300
1286–1300
DR366 (†)Lösen tombstone
(1746)
1310 or 1311
1310 or 1311
1310 or 1311
c. 1200
Dendrodating: after
1254/55
Dendrodating:
c. 1200–
Carpenter’s runes; Hvidding
(1953, 1991) fuìÊ
Brøns (1953) fuìÍ×khN and
ìi’×Ik þidrik
c. 1250–
The runestones from Bornholm and the runic coins made up the main material
of this Period 3 in DR and the language of this period was defined as Old
Danish, but as “Older Middle Danish” in Per. 4.
The rune stones of Bornholm belong to a Viking-Age tradition but the
majority have been dated to the epoch from c. 1050 to 1100 or to the period after
the conversion of Bornholm by bishop Egino. These limits might be too narrow;
there could have been Christians on Bornholm earlier, and some of the stones
might have been erected before 1050, some after 1100. In these inscriptions,
according to DR, the first examples of the use of the old ansuR-rune “as a rune
o” oÉÊ could be noted.
The coins belong in a Medieval context. According to the generally
accepted, absolute dating, the runic coins form a fixed point in the chronology.
372
Marie Stoklund
They were struck in the last decade of Sven Estridson’s reign c. 1065–1076,
mainly in Lund, probably with close connections to England. Graphematically,
they form a very special group with oÉ for o, more dotted runes: p p and
different variants of a dotted long-branch t, Œ‘. In the coin-inscriptions until
now only one example of the traditional R-rune: ö, had been found in the Danish
name alfkeR AlfgæiRR (Lerche Nielsen 1997:73f.). Now another coin with the
same name, spelled alfgeiR, has turned up in Daugmale in Letland (Berga
2001:8). Otherwise in these inscriptions generally r is used also instead of
earlier ö.
Since 1940 other inscriptions have appeared which contain possibilities of
archaeological dating. Owing to urban excavations, especially in Lund and
Schleswig, the number of inscriptions on objects from the late Viking- and early
Medieval Ages have increased, but many of these finds do not offer relevant
linguistic texts. In DR such features “as the use of the rune o and a new
diphthong ei” are – “together with sporadic occurrence of the one-sided runes
a and n” – considered to be results of a special Swedish impact (especially on
Bornholm) (Summary:24, 25; DR:1028, 1029), although o and ei are also found
on the runic coins and in that case might be explained as a Danelaw feature.
Other recent finds with similar examples of ei from Schleswig and Lund also put
a question mark to this assumption of foreign, especially Swedish, influence (cf.
Lerche Nielsen 1997:69).
Datable Medieval inscriptions c. 1100–1500
Though the accession of Medieval inscriptions does not affect the overall chronology decidedly, some adjustments to take account of new dated material and
a few chronological changes should be registered. The important inscription on
the Ribe healing stick, however, has been dated on linguistic premises and a
considerable increase of lead-amulets with Latin inscriptions could only in a few
cases be dated closely. They might in some cases be late-Medieval.
It could be noted that the dating of the ‘historical’ Gunhild’s cross (DR 413)
probably should be changed from c. 1100 to c. 1150, and a new investigation revealed a dotted d, “ instead of t in gunºhild (Langberg 1982:40,73; Moltke
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
373
1985:454). The dating of three of the other historical inscriptions in DR must
still be considered safe, they are retained in table 3 as fix-points.
According to Lis Jacobsen’s survey, the ecclesiastical inscriptions archaeologically “may safely be assigned to the 12th and 13th centuries, the greater
part belonging to the century between 1150 and 1250” (Summary:28) and,
linguistically, the medieval written forms and flexional cases chiefly agree with
those of the most ancient Danish codices, and the ornamentation must be dated
to the Romanesque epoch (Summary:26).
The expansion of the younger futhark
in the 11th century and later
No doubt the development of runic writing systems from the Late Viking Age
and in the Medieval period ought to be seen in a Common-Scandinavian light.
A sort of interaction between different futhark types took effect in the use of
originally allographic variations to denote linguistic implications. The survey
of Norwegian rune writing by Magnus Olsen (NIyR 5:238–245) not only covers
the West-Nordic cases but also holds good for the East-Scandinavian or Danish
development, perhaps with certain reservations concerning the datings. It is
difficult to get a similar survey of the Danish development, however, because
the information in DR mainly has to be gathered from the articles on the “individual runes and their sound-value” in Runerne combined with Tidsfæstelse og
typologi. It is also important to stress that DR was written before the structural
linguistic principles for description had had their breakthrough. Thus of course
there is no clear distinction between phonemic and phonetic or graphemic (allographic) aspects.
Evidently in the period late Viking Age/early Medieval time, changes in
runic writing began to manifest themselves more frequently: increasing use of
stung runes, not only the dotted e, g, and u, which we have already seen, but a
dotted t and b (on the coins), too, supplemented also by grapheme-variants, derived from various futhark types to designate (new) phonemes (and allophones).
The short-twig-futhark, obviously, seems to play an important part for instance
in the distinction made possible by employing a and ƒ respectively to designate
374
Marie Stoklund
/æ/ and /a/. In Medieval inscriptions proper we could find ö, ýr, used as <y>,
since <R> had been ousted. A significant feature is the use of the old ansuR-rune
as an o-rune, according to the sound-change in its name. Moltke has suggested
that the oldest dated Danish example of the left-sided Í (the most common <o>
in Medieval inscriptions) might be found in the Jakob-inscription DR Add. 6
Lund Cathedral double capital (Moltke 1985:426). His proposed dating of the
capital to around 1080 (against DR: the end of the 12th century) could be questioned and the use of bindrunes in the inscription might rather indicate a later
date.
The use of a for /æ/ has been defined as diagnostic for Medieval inscriptions
but it can be problematic to distinguish between the inscriptions with or without
æ, in the cases where the text for instance is too short for a safe distinction to be
drawn. This is the case for instance in the Lund-inscriptions, which seem to have
been rooted in a traditional use with preference for long-branch runes. It is interesting that the secondary value as /æ/ was designated by the old long-branch arune, while the short-twig a-rune, which is rather unusual in the Danish VikingAge inscriptions, was used for /a/.
Further extension of the inventory of signs
According to Lis Jacobsen, all true medieval inscriptions were characterized
runographically by a futhark that was adapted to the Latin alphabet, though nondotted runes instead of expected dotted ones could appear occasionally.
In my opinion, the results now attained show a two-level increase in the use
of the new graphemic (and/or allographic) variations. Parallel to the Norse (and
Swedish) development, the number of dotted runes rose from around 1200, cf.
the Norra Åsum stone (DR 347), the Kalundborg antler, the runic manuscripts
and the Schleswig-inscriptions for instance. The rather early archaeological dating of the Schleswig knife-haft, however, is problematic compared with the
inventory of signs (Stoklund & Düwel 2001:229). It is obvious moreover that
in the Danish Medieval material, too, it was a common feature that the dotted
variants were not used obligatorily. The conventions of the Viking-Age runic
script survived – even in Latin inscriptions. The strong position which the fuChronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
375
thark with only sixteen runes kept is clearly demonstrated by several medieval
futhark-inscriptions from Old Danish territory, found after 1940. Especially important are the cases where an archaeological dating might be possible as for
instance in Lund and Schleswig or based on dendrochronology, as in the case
of the dating of roof-timber from Hvidding Church (Madsen 1994:42–65, 67f.;
Madsen forthcoming).
Linguistic development 1050 onwards
After a probably rather stable period during the 9th and 10th centuries in regard
to linguistic development, the inscriptions from the 11th–12th centuries obviously reveal some important language changes, for instance changes in the
inflectional system: the lack of the nominative marker -R/-r, examples of wrong
vowels or a swarabhakti vowel in the unstressed syllables, as shown in my
survey. These features are probably not without connection with the so-called
vowel weakening of the unstressed vowels, which could be traced in various
ways in the law-manuscripts from the different Danish regions. The three vowelsystem a–i–u of the Viking-Age futhark reflected the basic phonemic distinctions in unstressed syllables and allowed adequate and necessary distinctions
within the inflectional system between the three commutable vowels. However,
changes within this system seem to have started in the period between the Viking Age proper and the manuscript period. Anders Bjerrum has made an interesting attempt to analyse the Danish runic inscriptions from the period c.
1000–c. 1250 based on DR with regard to the distinctions made possible by the
new graphemes, e, æ and o (Bjerrum 1952, revised in English 1973). Even
though this is an example of a rather problematic use of the relative DR-datings
in order to establish an absolute chronology of the dialectal split and regional
merging of the three vowels in unstressed syllables, a new investigation along
these lines ought to be done in consideration of the increase of material and
better datings of part of the new inscriptions recovered since 1952.
376
Marie Stoklund
Closing remarks
The many new finds in Denmark since c. 1940 form an important supplement
to the stock of inscriptions which were the basis for the chronology and typology of DR. Though nearly all of these inscriptions have been published – but
not easily comprehensible and not always satisfactorily – it is evident that the
knowledge of this new material ought to be made more easily accessible than it
is now. It is rather shocking to read a brand new contribution concerning the
development of the Scandinavian language c. 200–900 based on runic evidence
but obviously with an outdated, very sporadic knowledge of Danish inscriptions
and relevant literature on this topic (Isakson 2000).
Especially the increase of inscriptions with the older runes makes it evident
that a new corpus-edition is badly needed. Now Wolfgang Krause’s as well as
Elmer Antonsen’s works (Krause & Jankuhn 1966, 1971; Antonsen 1975) can
no longer be accepted as a sound basis for interdisciplinary work because of the
increase in the number of finds and since neither their detailed chronology nor
their interpretations are reliable. They have, however, often been used for larger
investigations i. e. of historical linguistic development, magic or “an investigation of the chronological and geographical distribution of the different
allographs” (Odenstedt 1990). In some ways Makaev’s survey would be a better
choice but the Russian original from 1965 has only been translated, not up-dated
1996 (Makaev 1996).
In general the basis for datings of runic material used interdisciplinarily
ought to be checked. In a linguistic context for example, it is worth noting that
the chronology in the three first volumes of Gammeldansk Grammatik is based
on Ludvig Wimmer’s work, but that in the later volumes DR is the basis. Ottar
Grønvik’s important and ambitious attempt to create a new historical linguistic
chronology is mainly based on Norwegian inscriptions from Tune to Ødemotland and Eggja and combined with archaeological datings by Egil Bakka (latest
survey: Grønvik 1998:25f.). During the last decades of the 20th century new
attempts have been made to outline especially the relative and absolute chronology of the inscriptions in older runes. It is, however, remarkable that when
runology is used in connection with, and as a basis for, language history the authors often create their own chronology, frequently based on presupposed linChronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
377
guistic premises. Another problem is the general tendency to use a problematic
foundation of questionable interpretations as basis for a chronology. When it
comes to further interdisciplinary utilization a certain runological tradition of
speculative imagination without restraint becomes a problem.
Acknowledgments
The Danish Humanities Research Council from 1 August 1999 to 31 January
2000 supported my project: Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic
Inscriptions by paying half my salary. This project was based on my preliminary
work at The National Museum on a planned new corpus edition of the Danish
Runic inscriptions for the Society of Danish Language and Literature (DSL),
which during 1998 was also supported by The Danish Humanities Research
Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Research Council as
well as DSL and the National Museum for support to pay student assistants.
Postscript 2005
In the main I have kept my old presentation from 2000 with only a slight
updating. New finds have been included and minor changes concerning the
original (preliminary) datings.
378
Marie Stoklund
Appendix: Proto-Norse index. Increase after 1941/1942–2004
ahti
anulºa
aiþalataR
alu
alugod
balika
bidawarijaR
ek
fulaR
gauþR
hagiradaR
}harkilaR
laguþewa
lamo
niþijo
rawsijo
swarta
sikijaR
talgida
talgidai
tawide
þewaR
unwodºR
wagagastiR
wagnijo
$widuhudaR
witrÄ
Nydam strap suspension
Nydam strap suspension
Nydam axe-shaft
Nydam axe-shaft (la, lua Nydam arrow-shafts)
Værløse brooch
Sorte Muld antler fragment
Nøvling brooch
Gårdlösa brooch
Sorte Muld antler fragment
Illerup fire-steel handle
Stenmagle box
Nydam strap suspension
Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 1
Skovgårde/Udby brooch
Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 2
Nydam belt end fitting
Illerup shield handle mount (bronze)
Nydam axe-shaft
Skovgårde/Udby brooch
Nøvling brooch
Stenmagle/Garbølle box, Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 2
Sorte Muld antler fragment
Gårdlösa brooch
Nydam axe-shaft
Illerup lance heads 1, 2, Vimose lance head
Himlingøje brooch 2
Slemminge/Fælleseje antler tool
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
379
Bibliography
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Sprachstrukturen. Reihe A. Historische Sprachstrukturen 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
— 1998. “On Runological and Linguistic Evidence for Dating Runic Inscriptions.” In: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 150–196.
Axboe, Morten 1998. “Die innere Chronologie der A-C-Brakteaten und ihrer Inschriften.” In:
Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 231–252.
— 1999. “The chronology of the Scandinavian gold bracteates.” In: The Pace of Change.
Studies in Early-Medieval Chronology. Ed. by John Hines, Karen Højlund Nielsen and
Frank Sigmund. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 126–147.
Barnes, Michael P.1998. “The Transitional Inscriptions”. In: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 448–461.
Berga, Tatjana 2001. “Danske mønter fra fund i Letland i 1000- og 1100-tallet.” In: Nordisk
Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 2001:1, 3–8.
Birkmann, Thomas 1995. Von Ågedal bis Malt. Die skandinavischen Runeninschriften vom Ende
des 5. bis Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts, RGA–E 12. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter.
Bjerrum, Anders 1973. “The unstressed vowels in Danish runic inscriptions from the period c.
1000–c. 1250.” In: Linguistic Papers. Published on the occasion of Anders Bjerrum’s 70th
birthday, 12th March 1973 by Selskab for Nordisk Filologi. Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag, 116–129.
Christensen, Kjeld & Krogh, Knud J. 1987. “Jelling-højene dateret.” In: Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1987, 223–231.
Christensen, Aksel E. & Moltke, Erik 1971. “Hvilken (kong) Svend belejrede Hedeby?” In:
Historisk Tidsskrift (København) 12. række, 10, 297–326.
DR = Jacobsen, Lis & Moltke, Erik et al.: Danmarks runeindskrifter, København: Munksgaard
1941–1942.
DRM = Wimmer, Ludvig F.A.: De danske runemindesmærker 1–4, København: Gyldendalske
Boghandel 1893–1908.
GG = Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes: Gammeldansk Grammatik i sproghistorisk Fremstilling 1–8,
København: Schultz. 1928–1973.
Grønvik, Ottar 1987. Fra Ågedal til Setre. Sentrale runeinnskrifter fra det 6. århundre. Oslo
Bergen Stavanger Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.
— 1996. Fra Vimose til Ødemotland. Nye studier over runeinnskrifter fra førkristen tid i
Norden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
— 1998. Untersuchungen zur älteren nordischen und germanischen Sprachgeschichte. Osloer
Beiträge zur Germanistik 18. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hagland, Jan Ragnar 1998. “Innleiing. Litt om datering på runologisk og språkleg grunnlag.” In:
Innskrifter og datering. Dating Inscriptions. Ed. Audun Dybdahl, Jan Ragnar Hagland.
Senter for middelalderstudier. Skrifter nr. 8. Trondheim: Tapir, 9–15.
380
Marie Stoklund
Haugen, Einar 1976. The Scandinavian Languages. An Introduction to their History. London:
Faber and Faber.
Høgsbro, Kirsten-Elizabeth 1987. “Gravpladsen ved Gunvalds sten.” In: Danmarks længste udgravning, Arkæologi på naturgassens vej 1979–86. Ed. Rigsantikvarens arkæologiske Sekretariat, Nationalmuseet og de danske naturgasselskaber, Herning: Poul Kristensen: 160–163.
Isakson, Bo 2000. “The Emergence of a Scandinavian Language: Development until around
900.” NOWELE 36, 3–43.
KJ = Krause, Wolfgang & Jankuhn, Herbert 1966.
Krause, Wolfgang 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universitätsverlag.
Krause, Wolfgang & Jankuhn, Herbert 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. 1–2.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Krogh, Knud J. 1993. Gåden om Kong Gorms Grav. Historien om Nordhøjen i Jelling. Vikingekongernes Monumenter i Jelling 1. Udgivet af Carlsbergfondet og Nationalmuseet. Herning:
Poul Kristensen.
Langberg, Harald 1982. Gunhildkorset. Gunhild’s Cross and Medieval Court Art in Denmark.
København: Selskabet til udgivelse af danske Mindesmærker.
Lerche Nielsen, Michael 1997. Vikingetidens personnavne i Danmark belyst gennem runeindskrifter og stednavne på -torp sammensat med personnavneforled. Unpublished Ph.d.-thesis.
Institute of Name Research, University of Copenhagen.
Madsen, Per Kristian 1994: “Dendrokronologiske undersøgelser af Hvidding kirkes tagværk.”
I : By, marsk og geest 6. Årsberetning 1993. Den antikvariske Samling i Ribe. 1994, 42–65,
67f.
Madsen, Per Kristian forthcoming: “Middelalderlige kirketagværker i Sydvest- og Sønderjylland”. To be published in Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie.
Makaev, È.A 1996 [1965]. The Language of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. A Linguistic and Historical-Philological Analysis. Translated from Russian by J. Meredig in consultation with
E.H. Antonsen. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. [Russian
edition originally published in Moscow, 1965].
Moltke, Erik 1976. Runerne i Danmark og deres oprindelse. København: Forum.
— 1985. Runes and Their Origin. Denmark and Elsewhere. Copenhagen: The National
Museum of Denmark.
Nielsen, Hans Frede 1998. “The Linguistic Status of the Early Runic Language of Scandinavia.”
In: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 540–555.
Nielsen, Karl Martin 1970. Om dateringen af de senurnordiske runeindskrifter. Synkopen og 16
tegns futharken. København Akademisk Forlag, Institut for nordisk Filologi, Studier nr. 2.
[Also publ. in: Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1969].
— 1974. “Jelling problems: A discussion.” By Karl Martin Nielsen, with contributions by Niels
Åge Nielsen, Erik Moltke, Else Roesdahl, Harald Andersen, Olaf Olsen. In: Mediaeval
Scandinavia 7, 1974, 156–234.
Nielsen, Niels Åge 1983. Danske Runeindskrifter. København: Hernov.
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
381
NIyR 5. 1960. Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer 5. By Magnus Olsen et al. Oslo: Kjeldeskriftfondet.
Odenstedt, Bengt 1990. Odenstedt: On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script. Typology and Graphic Varition in the Older Futhark. Acta Academiae Gustavi Adolphi 59.
Uppsala.
Roesdahl, Else 1994. “Dendrochronology and Viking Studies in Denmark, with a Note on the
Beginning of the Viking Age.” In: Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in the
Viking Age. Ed. Björn Ambrosiani and Helen Clarke. Stockholm: Birka Studies [3],
106–116.
Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung. 1998. Abhandlungen des Vierten
Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9.
August 1995. Hrsg. Klaus Düwel in Zusammenarbeit mit Sean Nowak, RGA–E 15. BerlinNew York: de Gruyter
Sawyer, Birgit 2000. The Viking-Age Rune-Stones. Custom and Commemoration in Early Medieval Scandinavia. Oxford: University Press.
Steuer, Heiko 1998. “Datierungsprobleme in der Archäologie.” In: Runeninschriften als Quellen
interdisziplinärer Forschung, 129–149.
Stoklund, Marie 1991. “Runesten, kronologi og samfundsrekonstruktion.” In: Mammen. Grav,
kunst og samfund i vikingetid. Ed. Mette Iversen et alii. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs skrifter
28. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 285–297.
— 1994. “Myter, runer og tolkning.” In: Myte og Ritual i det førkristne Norden. Et Symposium.
Ed. Jens Peter Schjødt et alii. Odense Universitetsforlag , 159–174.
— 1995. “Die Runen der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In: Himlingøje - Seeland - Europa. Ed. Ulla
Lund Hansen et al. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. København, 317–346.
— 1996a. “The Ribe Cranium Inscription and the Scandinavian Transition to the Younger Reduced Futhark.” In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 45, 199–209.
— 1996b. Stoklund, Marie: “Runer 1995.” In: Arkæologiske udgravninger i Danmark 1995.
Ed. Rigsantikvarens Arkæologiske Sekretariat, Det arkæologiske Nævn. København,
275–286, (287–294).
— 1997. Stoklund, Marie: “Runefundene fra yngre jernalder — tidlig vikingetid og den danske
runetradition før Jelling. Eller myten om svenskevældet.” I: Beretning fra sekstende
tværfaglige vikingesymposium. Højbjerg: Hikuin, 25–36.
— 1998a. Stoklund Marie: “Neue Runenfunde aus Skandinavien. Bemerkungen zur methodologischen Praxis, Deutung und Einordnung.” In: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, 55–65.
— 1998b. Stoklund, Marie: “Runer 1997.” In: Arkæologiske udgravninger i Danmark 1997.
Ed. Rigsantikvarens Arkæologiske Sekretariat, Det arkæologiske Nævn. København, 259265, (266–269).
— 2000. Stoklund, Marie: Jelling. §2. Runologisches. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Begründet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage 16, 56–58.
382
Marie Stoklund
— 2001a. Stoklund, Marie: “Die Inschriften von Ribe, Hedeby und Schleswig und die Bedeutung der Schwedenherrschaft.” In: Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig, 201–208.
— 2001b. Loftsgård. Runologisches. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Begründet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage 18, 570f.
— 2003. “The first runes – the literary language of the Germani”. In: Lars Jørgensen, Birger
Storgaard & Lone Gebauer Thomsen (eds.): The Spoils of Victory. The North in the shadow
of the Roman Empire [English edition]. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, 172–179.
— 2004. “The Runic Inscription on the Ribe Skull Fragment”. In: Mogens Bencard, Aino Kann
Rasmussen & Helge Brinch Madsen (eds): Ribe Excavations 1970–76 vol. 5, Højbjerg:
Jutland Archaeological Society, 27–42.
Stoklund, Marie & Düwel, Klaus 2001. Die Runeninschriften aus Schleswig. In: Lerche Nielsen,
Stoklund & Düwel: Neue Runenfunde aus Schleswig und Starigard/Oldenburg. Mit archäologischen Beiträgen von Ingo Gabriel und Volker Vogel. In: Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig,
201–237.
Summary = The Runic Inscriptions of Denmark. By Jacobsen, Lis & Moltke, Erik et al. Summary, 1947. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig 2001. Sprache und Schriftlichkeit eines Grenzgebietes im Wandel
eines Jahrtausends. Internationales Kolloqium im Wikinger-Museum Haithabu vom 29.
September–3. Oktober 1994, unter Mitarb. von Lars E. Worgull hrsg. von Klaus Düwel,
Edith Marold, Christiane Zimmermann. RGA–E 25.
Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
383