[gothic-l] Re: Ingemar- compare this to Your Ring-name map

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm at s...> wrote:
> >> Anders,
> >> What is the age of these runes?
> >> According to my information the Westgermanic runes are from after
> >500.
> >> There are very few from 3-5th centuries.
> >> Has anybody got some dates?
> >> Tore
> >According to this chapter:
> >http://www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/arts/j.h.looijenga/c7.pdf
> >they are from 200-700, but as You say most are from between 500 and
> >700 also according to her.
> >Anders
> >
> >
>
> Anders,
> Thanks for this information.
>
> I quote:
> "The Continental inscriptions are also known as the South-Germanic
Runic
> Corpus. Epigraphical runic writing on the Continent is recorded
from circa
> 200-700 although its runic character is disputed, the oldest item
might be
> the Meldorf fibula (first half first century, found in Schleswig-
Hostein).
> This brooch shows an inscription that can be interpreted as Roman:
IDIN
> .........
> The host of inscriptions date from circa 500-700, well within the
> Merovingian period.
>
> 6. Summary and Conclusions
> The Continental Corpus consists of 65 runic objects."
>
>
> What is the problem? It clearly states that these runes are from ca
500-700

Hi Tore,

there is no problem as far as I can see. Most runic inscriptions in
Germany date from 500AD onwards and are found in south Germany. A
second much smaller group of runes in West and North Germany date to
180 to 200AD, plus the Meldorf runes from about 25AD. The runic
objects from the Weser have only been included in the corpus
recently, after new scientific methods could verify their
authenticity. Since they are dated to the last quarter of the 2nd
century they are the oldest runic objects in existence as far as I
know.




> as i.e. Fritz Askeberg has stated in his book. Unfortunately that
gifted
> scholar died prematurely.
>
> It is also correct that in this paper is included objects which
runic
> character which is disputed. They are probably Roman artefacts.


That is not entirely correct. The Meldorf runes are usually included
in any corpus of runic inscriptions. But they only consist of one
column of four letters, which have defied interpretation. They are
not a Roman artefact, as you say, but the inscription was read by
some as Roman IDIN. Note that the Saxon/Chaukian 'throne' that was
found in Lower Saxony bears the runic inscription of the latin word
for chair.




>
> These runic similar artefacts were earlier on this list presented
as proof
> that the runic alfabet originated from West Germanic area.


I think a linguistic distinction in West or North Germanic is not
valid for the period when the runes were created (1. cent. BC or so).
What is important is that they were not created by Goths or any other
East Germanic group, but most likely originated somewhere in the
broadest area of modern Denmark and North Germany. Arguments have
recently been made for the Rhineland as well.

cheers,
Dirk




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/