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

[Tore Gannholm]

>--- 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

Hi Dirk,
I only quoted from the above link Anders provided. It looks to be a serious
thing but I can't find the author.
Perhaps  Anders can fill me in.
How should I read this " Epigraphical runic writing on the Continent is
recorded from circa
200-700 although its runic character is disputed"
Tore

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Win a Capcom Console Game.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/smpz8B/fxbDAA/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/