Düwel offprint from Futhark, Vol. 4 (2013): what counts as a runic monument — terminology of the memorial

Summary

The volume Futhark 4 (2013) — Part 1: the plenary lectures of the 7th International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions (Oslo, 9–14 August 2010). The main editors are James E. Knirk and Henrik Williams, with Marco Bianchi as assistant editor. The journal is open-access, CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, with all articles free at http://www.futhark-journal.com. The advisory board: Michael P. Barnes, Klaus Düwel, Lena Peterson, Marie Stoklund. historical-fact (loc: front matter, pp. i–iv)

The processed file contains only the article by Klaus Düwel (pp. 31–60). Its subject: what is to be counted as a “runic monument” (Runendenkmal), and how the inscriptions/texts themselves designate the monument on which they stand. Düwel analyzes the connection between German Denkmal and Latin monumentum; he collects the terms for the monument in Elder and Younger Futhark inscriptions; and he categorizes the aesthetic characteristics of Viking-Age runic memorials (beauty and grandeur, monumentality, publicness and fame, uniqueness, color/polychromy, poetic quality and alliteration). The closing image is Horace's monumentum aere perennius “a monument more lasting than bronze.” historical-fact (loc: abstract, p. 31)

Key lectures and facts

Note: the file contains only the Düwel article. The volume's other plenary lectures are absent from this PDF.

Klaus Düwel — “Was ist ein Runendenkmal?” (Futhark 4, pp. 31–60)

What is valuable for us here (the terminology of inscriptions, corpus data, specific monuments):

• Terminology of the monument (Elder Futhark, inscriptions from the 4th c.): in the early inscriptions the monument is designated by words reflecting its form or its connection with other stone objects: stainaʀ (KJ 72 Tune — a stone for Wōdurīdaʀ), pl. stAinAR (KJ 80 Rävsal), halaʀ “a (flat/rounded) stone” (KJ 81 Stenstad), aʀina “a stone slab” (KJ 71 By), waruʀ “a stone enclosure” (KJ 79 Tomstad). historical-fact (loc: p. 33)
• The Old English tradition (later, only bekun “a (highly visible) sign, monument”, cf. beacon): Thornhill III; on crosses — licbæcun “corpse-monument” (literally a “body-monument/gravestone”, Crowl), sigb[e]c[n] (Bewcastle). Citing Page 1999. historical-fact (loc: p. 33, n. 6)
• The corpus of runestones (per Palm 2004): Sweden 2681, Denmark 237, Norway 89. historical-fact (loc: p. 33, n. 7)
• Runic-Scandinavian terminology (10th–12th c.): the markers of the monument — stæinn (Sweden alone — 1424), kum(b)l (127 in total), mærki (92), minni (3), hæll (14), hvalf (5), viti (1), vitring (5), stafʀ… historical-fact (loc: p. 34)
• Visibility and placement as a feature of the monument: stones are set “by the road” (Tjuvstigen Sö 34–35; U 838 Ryda), on a height/hill (ā biargi — Hällestad 1–2, DR 295–296), “at a crossroads” (ā vegamōti — Sm 45 Bräkentorp, Sm 60 Skaftarp). A parallel with Hávamál (st. 72) on memorial stones by the road. historical-fact (loc: pp. 42–44)
• Monuments with no self-description, yet self-evidently “runic monuments” (by their outward appearance): KJ 97/DR 360 Björketorp, DR 42 Jelling 2, DR 282–286 Hunnestad, DR 335 Västra Strö, Ög 136 Rök, Sö 101 Ramsund, N 84 Vang, N 68 Dynna. A mixing of different writing systems (long-branch/short-twig runes, one-stave, cipher runes) is likewise a mark of a special memorial. historical-fact (loc: conclusion, pp. ~59–60)
• At the end — a concordance of metrical inscriptions (linked to Naumann, in preparation): DR 40 Randbøl, Öl 1 Karlevi, Sö 154 Skarpåker, U 729 Ågersta, and others. historical-fact (loc: p. 60)

Relevance for the project: useful for the practical section on inscriptions and for understanding how the Germani conceptualized the runic monument (memory, visibility, fame). It gives nothing on the origin of the runes or on early datings.

Links

• The origin of the futhark — the target note on origin/datings. This source does NOT supplement it (see the verdicts above: everything “not found”).
• Major inscriptions — Rök, Gallehus, Jelling / Magical inscriptions — a dossier — the Düwel article is relevant as material on the terminology and appearance of runic monuments (Rök, Karlevi, Hällestad, Jelling 2, etc.), if that aspect is needed.
• Spurkland — Norwegian Runes (2005) — Düwel cites Spurkland 2005 (loc: p. 52, n. — mynda-steinn).