355

Chronology and Typology of the Danish RunicInscriptions

Marie Stoklund

Since c. 1980 a number of important new archaeological runic finds from the oldDanish area have been made. Together with revised datings, based for instanceon dendrochronology or 14c-analysis, recent historical as well as archaeologicalresearch, these have lead to new results, which have made it evident that thechronology and typology of the Danish rune material needed adjustment. It hasbeen my aim here to sketch the most important changes and consequences ofthis new chronology compared with the earlier absolute and relative ones.

It might look like hubris to try to outline the chronology of the Danish runicinscriptions for a period of nearly 1,500 years, especially since in recent yearsthe lack of a cogent distinction between absolute and relative chronology inrunological datings has been criticized so severely that one might ask if it ispossible within a sufficiently wide framework to establish a trustworthy chro-nology of runic inscriptions at all. However, in my opinion it is possible tooutline a chronology on an interdisciplinary basis, founded on valid non-runo-logical, external datings, combined with reliable linguistic and typological cri-teria deduced from the inscriptions, even though there will always be a risk ofarguing in a circle.

Danmarks runeindskrifter

A natural point of departure for such a project consists in the important attemptmade in Danmarks runeindskrifter (DR) to set up an outline of an overall chro-nology of the Danish runic inscriptions. The article by Lis Jacobsen, Tidsfæst-else og typologi (DR:1013–1042 cf. Introduction. The Runes in Denmark in theEnglish Summary 1947:7–30), gives a clear account of the basis and method

356 Marie Stoklund

used. A sharp distinction was drawn between absolute and relative dating aftera radical adjustment had been made of the “historical inscriptions” which con-stituted the framework of the rather narrow datings in the earlier Danish corpus-edition by Ludvig F.A.Wimmer (DRM). On the basis of the radical principlesof historical source criticism, Lis Jacobsen in the 1930s had criticized Wimmer’schronology severely. In DR only three “historical” inscriptions were acceptedfrom the Viking Age and three from the Middle Ages, apart from Sven Estrid-son’s runic coins. With regard to the earliest inscriptions, with reference to Jo-hannes Brøndsted – the leading Danish archeologist at that time – the archae-ological datings of the bog finds and the bracteates were seen as reliable factors.The datings of Medieval inscriptions from churches and on church equipmentwere based on the relative datings of Poul Nørlund and Mouritz Mackeprang.

Thus, according to DR “On the basis of all the datable inscriptions, the runicinscriptions of Denmark may be distributed over 4 periods: the Migration Period(and the time subsequent to the Migrations), The Viking Age, the Pre-MedievalPeriod, and the Middle Ages.” (Summary:11f.). This system – with further sub-divisions – was used for a relative classification and combined with a descrip-tion of the significant features of the individual periods of archaeological, orna-mental and linguistic character. Runographical and linguistic peculiarities aswell as spirit and contents, and the general appearance of runic stones were inDR used to distinguish between the many sub-divisions of the Viking Age in thechronological system, i. e. Period 2.1 Helnæs-Gørlev type (“ascribed to the agefrom about 800 (or 750) to about 900.”) (Summary 1947:16); 2.2a. The pre-Jelling type (9th century); 2.2b. The Jelling type (10th century); 2.2c. The Post-Jelling type (c. 1000–c. 1050). Subsequently, based on the various diagnosticfeatures and the detailed description of the characteristic features of each period(DR:1018-1034), it was possible when considering the individual inscriptionsto place the inscription in question in the proper context simply with a referencesuch as Per. 2.1, Per. 2.2a.

This relative and absolute chronology of DR was much admired and, inci-dentally, considered to be rather cautious. It has had a strong interdisciplinaryimpact and the datings are still used by many scholars, although it at least sincethe 1970s has been evident that important adjustments of the absolute datings(and the time limits of the periods) were necessary (for instance Christensen &

357Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

Moltke 1971; Nielsen 1970; cf. Stoklund 1991:289–294 with references). Thisimproved chronology we find for instance in the works of Erik Moltke (Moltke1976 and 1985 with references). Moltke also rejected the DR-system with fourperiods and chose a three-period-system: Primitive Norse – Viking-Age – Medi-eval inscriptions (operating with a rather strong overlapping between the peri-ods), while for instance Niels Åge Nielsen stuck to the old system (Nielsen1983). Moltke’s absolute datings in 1976 were, however, in fairly good accor-dance with the DR-chronology, apart from the bracteates, the Jelling-stones (DR41–42), Haddeby 1 and 3 (DR 1 and 3) (and Bække-Læborg, DR 29 and 26). Ingeneral, the fundamental principles behind the DR-system were upheld byMoltke.

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 becontemporary with another, which belonged to an earlier or later period(DR:1035). There has, however, been a problematic tendency to use the temp-ting possibilities which her chronology offered to take the dated, “annotated” listof inscriptions as absolute datings. It is, however, problematic, on the basis ofthe DR-chronology, to draw far-reaching conclusions involving a time per-spective as has been done (cf. Stoklund 1991:295f.). Nevertheless, the diag-nostic features, runographically, linguistically etc. on which the DR-chronologywas established, could in practice within wider frames be useful tools for adetermination of the approximate age and context of an individual inscription.

In order to make the material easily available in this survey of the Danishrunic chronology, I have chosen to present selected examples of important newfinds and crucial altered datings in tables 1–3, listing the inscriptions chrono-logically. During my work with the material I have primarily distinguished be-tween only three groups of inscriptions: Proto-Scandinavian (24-characterinscriptions), Viking-Age (16 characters), Medieval (extended runic alphabet).Although only a few inscriptions cannot be classified within one of the threemain 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 ofthe beginning of the Viking and Medieval Ages, regardless of the question when

358 Marie Stoklund

the transitions exactly happened and how they should be defined, though I havetried to note the inscriptions with significant changes and innovations, especiallyin the periods of transition.

The general reservations and precautions concerning relative versus absolutechronology, archaeological datings (cf. for instance Steuer 1998) as well asrunological ones, which have been the subject of much discussion (for instanceHagland 1998) are presupposed as natural and generally known preconditionswhich 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 theinscription, significant features – no matter whether typological, grapho-phonological or linguistic. In the following columns earlier (runological) datingsand in the last column the present (non-runological) datings can be found. Asregards the inscriptions with the older runes the dating is mainly based onarchaeological considerations.

Table 1, AD 1–c. AD 800Archaeologically dated inscriptions from Denmark. Changed datings, new finds1) Earlier datings DR=Danmarks runeindskrifter. KJ=Krause & Jankuhn 1966. 2) Laterdatings, A=Antonsen, G=Grønvik, M=Moltke. 3) Latest (Danish) datings, 2000 [2005]

1) 2) 3)

Inscription (Found or firstmentioned)

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;sheathplate200–300, aw0ings

C1b;210/20–250/60sheathplate:runelike inscription

Vimose woodplane (1865) DR c. 100–300, KJ250–300

A 100–300 c. 160–375, mostlikely C1b;210/20–250/60

359Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

Illerup (1982–92), ™,mirror-runes òÃ versusW, ìí wagnijo, niþijotawide, laguþewa,swarta, gauþR

c. 200 [2005: C1b;210/20–250/60]

Thorsberg (1858, 1860)owlþuþewaR, mariR

DR chape 200–250;shield boss 2.–5. C. KJ c. 200

A 200 C1b;210/20–250/60

Næsbjerg clasp (1949)-ara!fn!is-

A 200 warawnis C1b;210/20–250/60

Nøvling (Lundegårde)clasp (1963) bidawarijaRtalgidai

A 200 C1b;210/20–250/60

Gårdlösa clasp (1949) ekunwod"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

c. 200 [2005: C1b;210/20–250/60]

Himlingøje clasp 2 (1949)ºwiduhudaR

KJ c. 200 A 200 C1b;210/20–250/60

Møllegårdsmarken knife(1992) hth sh"ko

C1b–C2;210/20–310/20

Himlingøje clasp 1 (1835)hariso

DR start of 4th C.;KJ c. 350

300–400 C1b-C2;210/30-250/60[2005: C1b/C2;c. 250]

Nydam arrow-shafts(1863, 1993, 1994), lua,la, lua

DR 250–500. KJ c. 400 (3th–5th C.)

c. 300–350[2005: C1b–C3;210/20–375]

Nydam axe-shaft (1993)wagagastiR | alu :-"-hg"usikijaR : aiþalataR

c. 300–350[2005: C1b–C3;210/20–375]

360 Marie Stoklund

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 linguisticsense

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.c. 500–550

A 300–550; 525 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]

Bracteatesš j, bind-rune variants

DR 400–650 G 450–550;M c. 500

c. 500; D2a;460/70–530/40

Kalmargården fibula frag-ment (1995), ...uAlis hs

Migration Period; (630)650–700

Lousgård bead (1955)sHilta

7th C. Migration Period,7th C.

Ålborg buckle (Scheelsminde) (1964) s s

c. 700–750

Skabersjö buckle (1855)a, n, s

DR buckle c. 700,Inscription: JellingPeriod?

c. 700, 725–800.M: Inscriptionc. 1025.

c. 720 (Birkmann1995:90f. withreferences)

Ribe cranium fragment(1973) H, M, h, k, s

c. 800, rune 59G or U

c. 725, rune 59 n n

361Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

The older runes

The increase of inscriptions with the older runes from archaeological exca-vations is most significant. In the survey of 1942 (DR:1042) apart from brac-teates only 19 inscriptions were known from the period 1.1 (the so-calledMigration Period in DR from AD c. 200 to c. 650). In accordance with the chro-nology of Johannes Brøndsted, the runic bracteates were dated comparativelylate within a rather long supposed bracteate-period from 400–650 (DR:791).

Now 37–38 objects are known with runes or rune-like inscriptions, whicharchaeologically have been dated to the period from AD c. 160 to 500 (exclu-ding bracteates and the problematic inscription on the Meldorf fibula from thefirst century AD from Ditmarschen south of the river Eider).

The majority of the new inscriptions belong to the Roman Iron Age, butsome of the Nydam finds are later, and from a chronological-typological pointof view they are of special interest. The notable finds from Nydam belong to dif-ferent deposits in the former lake and could thus offer some relevant informationconcerning typological development but it should not be forgotten that they (likethe other bog-sacrificial finds) probably originated somewhere outside the laterDanish area. The oldest group of inscriptions all have ™ as e-rune and s-runeswith several angles. An astonishing tendency towards cutting rounded formseven 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 vari-ants of j, o already in the early Illerup inscriptions, while the assumption thatthe 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 in-scriptions of the Skovgårde (Udby) fibula, the Nydam axeshaft and strap suspen-sion (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 beltend fitting c. 400). It is noteworthy that according to Nydam parallels (and den-drodating of Nydam wood) the Kragehul (KJ 27) inscription with importantdiagnostic runes is now (2005) dated by the archaeologists to the 5th century,differing from the wider margin earlier given. In the course of time somewhatchanging opinions have caused notable confusion, the Kragehul inscription for

362 Marie Stoklund

instance according to Antonsen dates from c. 300 (Antonsen 1975:35); and toOdenstedt c. 500–550 (Odenstedt 1990:71; cf. Krause 1971:152).

The considerable graphic variation through the years which becomes evidentfrom a study of the new inscriptions is, no doubt, an important feature with re-gard to the possibilities for establishing a relative chronology on a typologicalbasis, even though, according to for instance Elmer Antonsen, “for the oldest pe-riod of runic inscriptions we have no guideposts whatever for arranging the vari-ous inscriptions in any kind of fixed chronological progression based on runo-logical or linguistic features” (Antonsen 1998:159). One of the traditional typo-logically 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 Odenstedt1990:67–74).

It should be noted that no new mirror-runes have appeared since Illerup, ex-cept perhaps among the pseudo-runes of the second of the three – in my opinionnon-semantic lance- or spear-shaft inscriptions from Nydam, which on the otherhand are also related to the Kragehul and Lindholmen runes, which – partly atleast – make linguistic sense. These new Nydam lance-shafts, however, alsoseem to be related to such problematic inscriptions as Ødemotland, Britsum.Perhaps a tendency around 500 towards a growing use of pseudo-runes andrune-like decorations should be noted, cf. also some inscriptions on bracteateswhich are not readable in our literate sense, although attempts at interpretationof such inscriptions as Ågedal and Ødemotland have recently appeared (Grønvik1987:61–91; Stoklund 1994:165f.; Grønvik 1996:255–267).

The linguistic position and possible development of the Older Runic lan-guage have been a matter for much discussion. The new inscriptions mean animportant increase of relevant linguistic material (see Appendix: Proto-Norseindex) concerning inter alia the question of the relations between spoken lan-guage and orthography and the determination of the oldest runic language as be-longing to the North-Germanic or Proto-Scandinavian, “urnordiske” group be-cause 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 theupper hand in nom.sg.masc., while -o was restricted to denoting only the

363Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

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 nodoubt a man’s name, but this fitting belonged to the besieged enemy – maybefrom the south –, whose gear was sacrificed in the former inland lake of Nydam(Stoklund 1998b:259f., 266f.). A clear case where provenance, regionality ver-sus 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 theexamples of -e : -a : -ai that have turned up. Problematic, however, is a 3pt.sg.ind. ahti in the inscription: }harkilaR * ahti and anul"a on a bronze strapsuspension from a beautiful scabbard of leather and wood (c. 300, Stoklund2003:176). An interpretation as “H. owned” is doubtful for various reasons(Stoklund 1998a:62f.).

Already in the 1950s diverging bracteate datings gave rise to importantdiscussions of the runic chronology (cf. Moltke 1956:6–8; Nielsen 1970:28f.)and led to differing datings among the various runologists and linguists. Thereare important differences between the chronological systems of for instanceKrause, Elmer Antonsen, Ottar Grønvik and Seebold. According to the latestresearch (computer seriation and correspondence analysis of the large humanheads of the A–C bracteates) by Morten Axboe (Axboe 1999), the bracteatesdate from the period between 450/475–525/560 and no simple typologicalA–B–C-development can be assumed. The former dating of the late bracteatesto 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 stillrepresented the “classical” urnordisk, even though the runic bracteates weredated rather late: c. 400–650 (DR:791, 1018) and “Ende des 5. bis zum Ende des6. Jh.s” (Krause 1971:17). Also Einar Haugen included bracteates in the oldestRunic language before 550–600 (Haugen 1976:123–130). In DR the period oflate 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

364 Marie Stoklund

century onwards (Krause 1971:16; cf. the discussion, Nielsen 1970:26–36).Otherwise, Elmer Antonsen will “posit the period of the bracteates (archae-ologically 400–550) as the approximate time of the inception of the first phono-logical changes. Whether these changes occurred already around 400 or not untillater in the 5th cent. cannot be determined.” (Antonsen 1975:11f.). Accordingto recent opinions the younger language stage is taken to begin c. 500 (for in-stance Nielsen 1989:9), though the bracteate inscriptions “represent 24-letter ru-nic language material which immediately precedes the inception of the tran-sitional period” (Nielsen 2000:284). Ottar Grønvik assigns the big changes inthe language in Scandinavia to a very short period from shortly before 500 to atemporary termination c. 575–600. He thereafter supposes a more gradual coursefor the linguistic development during the next period (III) lasting until themiddle of the 9th century (Grønvik 1998:25f.). It is remarkable that Grønvik isoperating only with the possible variations in the spoken language of the diffe-rent generations – with reference to the development in present Danish – notwith 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 muchinterest and many investigations – more or less speculative. Lately a purelygraphic definition of transitional inscriptions has been suggested, which entailsthat a system of more than 16 characters could be used for inscriptions in theyounger futhark (Barnes 1998). In my opinion, evidently the transition to theyounger runes took place in the period between the bracteate inscriptions, whichyield examples of the 24-character futhark, and the 16-character-futharks on theGørlev and Malt stones and the Hedeby stick. Unfortunately we have no safedatings for these inscriptions but I have concentrated on the now existing datablematerial before c. 800, i.e. the traditional historical starting point of the VikingAge (cf. for instance Roesdahl 1994:111–113).

The Stentoften-Björketorp inscriptions could only be dated relatively al-though there has been an attempt at archaeological dating by Birger Nerman(Birkmann 1995:115f. with references). Around the middle of the 20th century

365Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

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 – thathardly any inscriptions were existing in central Denmark from 600 to 800. Afterthat period, around 800 “a revival of runic writing burst forth in Denmark, per-haps inspired by the Blekinge stones” but now using “the new alphabet, the‘younger’ futhark.” (Haugen 1976:140). However, the existence of Danish in-scriptions from that period has now been documented. Without determiningwhere and how it happened that the old 24-character system was replaced by the16-sign-futhark, I have tried to bridge the chronological gap between c. 600 andthe inscriptions in the younger fuþark only with established dates and stressedthe notable graphic variations and changes in the relationship between soundand written character in these inscriptions. The survey of the then known in-scriptions “From c. AD 650 to the ninth century” which Erik Moltke in 1976(and 1985) offered was partly typologically based. A recent attempt to elucidatethe development by combining runology with archaeological datings, styles andlanguage history has been made by Thomas Birkmann in his survey of the Scan-dinavian inscriptions from Ågedal to Malt (Birkmann 1995), which has beenuseful in this connection, though the archaeological datings are not always up-to-date and Birkmann’s own assignations on different premises not unproblem-atic.

In these inscriptions new combinations of sound and shape are found in thefragmented 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 makessense (Stoklund 1998a:59f.). From the 7th century, too, is the inscription on theLousgård bead with s, probably for s or j, the only known valid example of sfor /a/ seems to occur on the Istaby stone. Lousgård has H, but the reading M isnot safe. Probably a should be read as n, not as a, considering for instanceEggja and Setre (Stoklund 2001b:570f.).

Significant is especially the dendrodating to c. 725 of the layers from theRibe excavations with the skull-fragment – an inscription which representsmany of the linguistic features of the Viking-Age inscriptions and a rune-systemlike that on the Helnæs-Høje Taastrup-stones (DR 190, DR 250, Helnæs has hand a as <a>). On the Ribe skull we find in use only 15 of the 16 runes, whichwere to make up a complete Viking-Age system, obviously there was no need

366 Marie Stoklund

for È, h denotes /a/, and the shapes of the M- and H-runes are those of the olderfuthark (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 signi-ficant features in the first column, followed by the datings in DR and in the thirdcolumn the datings which were generally accepted around 1975. In the fourthcolumn the present external datings, established on a different basis, dendro-chronology, reconsiderations of the historical sources, or art-historical chrono-logical studies. In order to avoid the danger of circularity of argument thesepresent datings are never based on relative runological-linguistic criteria.

Table 2Viking Age c. 800–1050. Selected inscriptions.

Inscription DR c. 1975 Present datings

Lindholm knife-haft (1953)È, k, a, s sikasuaiâþurufiriþili"kaþi

c. 800 c. 800

Hedeby loose objects(1962–69) 3 with short-twigrunes

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) the10th 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 and950

First half of10th C.

367Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

DR1 and 3 Haddeby 1(1798) and 3 (1857) g, e

c. 1000; 982–1014or 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. thebattle of Svold

c. 1000, battle ofSvold?

DR345 Simris 2 (1716) Hist. uncertain Hist. uncertain Connection withking Canute(1016–35).

Lund Viking-Ageinscriptions on loose objects(1881–, mainly after 1975).Bone 19 (1980) knif*melti:

Mainly Medieval Lund walking stick,c.1025

c. 990–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 11thC. (preliminary)

Roskilde stick with stone(1997) risti runar, þis"arinstead of þasi, þisi

Connection withwreck 6, after c.1025 (dendrodat.)

Schleswig inscriptions on 19loose objects(1972–1976/2001). Stick:runaR iag risti, mogR, o o,g, e; walking stick: krist(nom.) s, c; amber ring:...fgÍTar

12th C. Thewalking stick c.1050–1100 (?)

11th. C.

In DR the inscriptions on runestones of the so-called Helnæs-Gørlev-group aretreated as Viking-Age, but in this survey new finds from before 800 with verysimilar features have been treated in connection with table 1. No doubt thedefinition 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.

368 Marie Stoklund

650–c. 750/800 (for instance Stoklund 1997: 27f.). However, during the archae-ological natural gas pipeline investigations a cemetery with inter alia a rich wo-man’s grave from the early 9th century was uncovered in the area in which theSnoldelev stone was found in the 1770s (Høgsbro 1987:160–163).

An important feature, with respect to Viking-Age chronology, is that moreinscriptions on objects which could be dated archaeologically have appeared inexcavations, such as the Lindholm knife-haft c. 800 and early finds from Hede-by (and Elisenhof), Århus, later from Schleswig and Lund. Of special interestconcerning the (time-)relations between the various younger futharks are therune sticks from Hedeby with short-twig inscriptions but the dating of themseems to be rather loose (9th–10th century), though one could get the generalimpression 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 DRand so it still does. Based on the historical written sources, Jelling 1 in DR (asin 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’sdefeat by the German emperor Heinrich the First). It should especially be no-ticed that the Haddeby stones 1 and 3 were dated rather late: c. 1000 or the firsthalf of the 11th century (DR:8f., 1024) because suin kunukR (on the Skarde-stone) was considered to be either Sven Forkbeard or – according to Lis Jacob-sen – Sven Estridson (1047–1076) i. e. as late as c. 1050. However, soon the latedatings in DR of Harald’s Jelling stone and Haddeby 1 and 3 (DR 1, 3) werequestioned, and the king Sven from Haddeby 3 identified as Sven Forkbeard (forinstance Christensen & Moltke 1949 published 1971). Though it is now gene-rally accepted that all the inscriptions associated with the Jelling-kings belongto the 10th century, there are still discussions with regard to the more detailedchronology. Interdisciplinarily, the Jelling-Hedeby datings from DR have beenused quite generally – and they are still rather common (for instance Haugen1976:140) – 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 thewhole 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

369Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

been rejected (Moltke 1985:207 with references), this epithet cannot – asproposed in DR – refer to Gorm’s supposed victory over Gnupa and be used forthe dating of the little Jelling stone to c. 935 (DR: 77).

On the basis of excavations 1976–1979 in the present church in Jelling (fromno later than c. 1100) Knud Krogh was able to demonstrate the traces of threewooden churches and a large chamber grave under the floor of the first andbiggest of the wooden churches. In it were the mortal remains of a man, at least35–50 years old, probably translated from the emptied chamber in the Northmound and perhaps identical with King Gorm. The dendrochronological datingto 958/59 of timber from the grave chamber in the mound (Christensen & Krogh1987:225f.) was of decisive importance for the chronology of the complex,though there is still some uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the histo-rical sources as well as the results of the archaeological investigations (cf. AnnePedersen in this volume). According to the predominant opinion, it seems likelythat it was Gorm’s death in the winter of 958/59 (not c. 935–940 as earlier as-sumed) 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 thesouth mound, cannot be dated, but might have had a connection with Jelling 1and Thyra’s original kumbl (Krogh 1993: 251–256). The southern mound wasstarted c. 970, according to dendrodatings of wood from the oldest part of themound (Krogh 1993: 258f.). The stones from the ship-setting under it seem tohave 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 mustbe dated to the period after his conversion c. 965, and probably before his defeatin Hedeby (and Norway) c. 974, contemporaneous with the first church, the ope-ning of the northern mound and the start of the southern mound c. 970. It wasbuilt in three phases and after a longer standstill not finished till in the late 970sor 980s (Krogh 1993:257f.) It might be interpreted as a memorial barrow forThyra, 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 memo-ry of Thyra, his trutnik, ‘lady’, ‘queen’ (for instance Krogh 1993:266; Stoklund2000:58 with references). However, according to the very problematic inter-

370 Marie Stoklund

pretation of the Bække-Læborg stones, presented by Birgit Sawyer during theconference, Ravnunga-Tovi was commemorating his own wife. Gorm’s Thyrahad also been married to Ravnunga-Tovi and was buried by him elsewhere. Thisshould have made it necessary for Harald to sponsor Jelling 1 in his father’sname in order to substantiate his claim to Denmark by a forgery (cf. nowSawyer 2000:159–166). An important argument used by Birgit Sawyer to sup-port her fallacious theory that Jelling 1 should be later than Jelling 2 and raisedby King Harald is the fact that the little Jelling stone because of its monographicspellings represents a relatively younger linguistic stage than Harald’s stone,although any possibility of relative dating based on monographic versus digra-phic spelling after the “Helnæs-Gørlev period” is explicitly rejected in DR(DR:853f.).

Although too much weight should not be attached to the differences, therelatively younger linguistic stage of the smaller Jelling stone together with thediscovery that the ornamental frame on the B-side of Jelling 1 ends up not in aspiral but in a snake’s head, seem to be well in agreement with the possiblyshorter time interval between the two stones. The theories of a formation of theinscription on the great Jelling stone in two phases, which have played a certainrole in the earlier Jelling debate, could now be considered as rejected (for in-stance Krogh 1993:266). However, the opinion that the stone was erected as thefinal mid-point of the whole Jelling monument and only after the reconquest ofHedeby 983, before Harald’s death 987 at the latest, is still a matter of discus-sion (for example Krogh 1993:265f.).

This late dating seems problematic in relation to the general chronology ofthe art styles of the period. Problematic too, is the coincidence that King Ha-rald’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 Hadde-by 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 Hällestad-stones (DR 279 and 295–297). These stones should probably be accepted ashistorical, too, referring to the battle of Fyrisvall at Uppsala in the 980s – thoughthis was earlier rejected, for instance in DR (cf. Stoklund with references1991:292).

371Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

It is remarkable that both Karl Martin Nielsen and Erik Moltke inde-pendently advanced an earlier dating of the Post-Jelling-group to c. 970–1025instead of c. 1000–1050, no doubt rightly. This also meant an earlier stop to thegeneral rune-stone-tradition in Denmark (except Bornholm), quite well in accor-dance with the lack of inscriptions referring to King Canute (except the probablySwedish Simris stone 2 (DR 345)) (Nielsen 1970:41–44; Christensen & Moltke1971:319; 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 11thcentury or c. 1050, but it is noteworthy that the Swedish Viking Age lasts longeraccording to traditional chronology. Lis Jacobsen in DR operated with a Pre-Medieval Period 3 c. 1050–1150 between the Viking Age and Per. 4 TheMiddle Ages c. 1100–1350. In that way the Danish Middle Ages in DR wouldstart at the same time as in Sweden.

Table 3Medieval inscriptions c. 1050–. Selected.

Inscription DR c. 1975 Present datings

Svend Estridson runic coins oÉ

o, Œ‘ d, p p, y y/(w), q ðc. 1065–1075 c. 1065–75 c. 1065–76

Lund, different loose Medievalobjects (1881 onwards, mainlyafter 1975).

MainlyMedieval

c.11th–14th C.

Lund wooden bowl (1979).Latin (ol9auus:mæ:pos!iƒ a, a æ, Í o, p p

14th C.

DR Add. 6 Lund Cathedraldouble capital (1938) iƒk͇

i)ak)ob

End of 12th C. c. 1080 12th C.

372 Marie Stoklund

Schleswig knife-haft (1980)Í o N n, ƒ a, a æ, ’“ d, Òp p, cs

11th, 12th C.

Schleswig wooden bowls(1971–74) m9aria, ƒ

c. 1250–1300

Graffiti and plaster inscriptionsin churches

c. 1200–,Romanesque

c.1100–1250and 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

Carpenter’s runes; Hvidding(1953, 1991) fuìÊ

Brøns (1953) fuìÍ×khN andìi’×Ik þidrik

c. 1200

c. 1250–

Dendrodating: after1254/55Dendrodating:c. 1200–

The runestones from Bornholm and the runic coins made up the main materialof this Period 3 in DR and the language of this period was defined as OldDanish, but as “Older Middle Danish” in Per. 4.

The rune stones of Bornholm belong to a Viking-Age tradition but themajority have been dated to the epoch from c. 1050 to 1100 or to the period afterthe conversion of Bornholm by bishop Egino. These limits might be too narrow;there could have been Christians on Bornholm earlier, and some of the stonesmight 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 runeo” oÉÊ could be noted.

The coins belong in a Medieval context. According to the generallyaccepted, absolute dating, the runic coins form a fixed point in the chronology.

373Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

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 anddifferent variants of a dotted long-branch t, Œ‘. In the coin-inscriptions untilnow only one example of the traditional R-rune: ö, had been found in the Danishname alfkeR AlfgæiRR (Lerche Nielsen 1997:73f.). Now another coin with thesame name, spelled alfgeiR, has turned up in Daugmale in Letland (Berga2001:8). Otherwise in these inscriptions generally r is used also instead ofearlier ö.

Since 1940 other inscriptions have appeared which contain possibilities ofarchaeological dating. Owing to urban excavations, especially in Lund andSchleswig, the number of inscriptions on objects from the late Viking- and earlyMedieval Ages have increased, but many of these finds do not offer relevantlinguistic texts. In DR such features “as the use of the rune o and a newdiphthong ei” are – “together with sporadic occurrence of the one-sided runesa and n” – considered to be results of a special Swedish impact (especially onBornholm) (Summary:24, 25; DR:1028, 1029), although o and ei are also foundon 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 puta 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 chro-nology decidedly, some adjustments to take account of new dated material anda few chronological changes should be registered. The important inscription onthe Ribe healing stick, however, has been dated on linguistic premises and aconsiderable increase of lead-amulets with Latin inscriptions could only in a fewcases 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 re-vealed a dotted d, “ instead of t in gunºhild (Langberg 1982:40,73; Moltke

374 Marie Stoklund

1985:454). The dating of three of the other historical inscriptions in DR muststill be considered safe, they are retained in table 3 as fix-points.

According to Lis Jacobsen’s survey, the ecclesiastical inscriptions archae-ologically “may safely be assigned to the 12th and 13th centuries, the greaterpart belonging to the century between 1150 and 1250” (Summary:28) and,linguistically, the medieval written forms and flexional cases chiefly agree withthose of the most ancient Danish codices, and the ornamentation must be datedto the Romanesque epoch (Summary:26).

The expansion of the younger futharkin the 11th century and later

No doubt the development of runic writing systems from the Late Viking Ageand 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 oforiginally allographic variations to denote linguistic implications. The surveyof Norwegian rune writing by Magnus Olsen (NIyR 5:238–245) not only coversthe West-Nordic cases but also holds good for the East-Scandinavian or Danishdevelopment, perhaps with certain reservations concerning the datings. It isdifficult to get a similar survey of the Danish development, however, becausethe information in DR mainly has to be gathered from the articles on the “indi-vidual runes and their sound-value” in Runerne combined with Tidsfæstelse ogtypologi. It is also important to stress that DR was written before the structurallinguistic principles for description had had their breakthrough. Thus of coursethere is no clear distinction between phonemic and phonetic or graphemic (allo-graphic) aspects.

Evidently in the period late Viking Age/early Medieval time, changes inrunic writing began to manifest themselves more frequently: increasing use ofstung runes, not only the dotted e, g, and u, which we have already seen, but adotted t and b (on the coins), too, supplemented also by grapheme-variants, de-rived from various futhark types to designate (new) phonemes (and allophones).The short-twig-futhark, obviously, seems to play an important part for instancein the distinction made possible by employing a and ƒ respectively to designate

375Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

/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-runeas an o-rune, according to the sound-change in its name. Moltke has suggestedthat 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. 6Lund Cathedral double capital (Moltke 1985:426). His proposed dating of thecapital to around 1080 (against DR: the end of the 12th century) could be ques-tioned and the use of bindrunes in the inscription might rather indicate a laterdate.

The use of a for /æ/ has been defined as diagnostic for Medieval inscriptionsbut it can be problematic to distinguish between the inscriptions with or withoutæ, in the cases where the text for instance is too short for a safe distinction to bedrawn. This is the case for instance in the Lund-inscriptions, which seem to havebeen rooted in a traditional use with preference for long-branch runes. It is inte-resting that the secondary value as /æ/ was designated by the old long-branch a-rune, while the short-twig a-rune, which is rather unusual in the Danish Viking-Age inscriptions, was used for /a/.

Further extension of the inventory of signs

According to Lis Jacobsen, all true medieval inscriptions were characterizedrunographically by a futhark that was adapted to the Latin alphabet, though non-dotted runes instead of expected dotted ones could appear occasionally.

In my opinion, the results now attained show a two-level increase in the useof the new graphemic (and/or allographic) variations. Parallel to the Norse (andSwedish) development, the number of dotted runes rose from around 1200, cf.the Norra Åsum stone (DR 347), the Kalundborg antler, the runic manuscriptsand the Schleswig-inscriptions for instance. The rather early archaeological da-ting of the Schleswig knife-haft, however, is problematic compared with theinventory of signs (Stoklund & Düwel 2001:229). It is obvious moreover thatin the Danish Medieval material, too, it was a common feature that the dottedvariants were not used obligatorily. The conventions of the Viking-Age runicscript survived – even in Latin inscriptions. The strong position which the fu-

376 Marie Stoklund

thark with only sixteen runes kept is clearly demonstrated by several medievalfuthark-inscriptions from Old Danish territory, found after 1940. Especially im-portant are the cases where an archaeological dating might be possible as forinstance in Lund and Schleswig or based on dendrochronology, as in the caseof 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 regardto linguistic development, the inscriptions from the 11th–12th centuries obvi-ously reveal some important language changes, for instance changes in theinflectional system: the lack of the nominative marker -R/-r, examples of wrongvowels or a swarabhakti vowel in the unstressed syllables, as shown in mysurvey. These features are probably not without connection with the so-calledvowel weakening of the unstressed vowels, which could be traced in variousways in the law-manuscripts from the different Danish regions. The three vowel-system a–i–u of the Viking-Age futhark reflected the basic phonemic distinc-tions in unstressed syllables and allowed adequate and necessary distinctionswithin the inflectional system between the three commutable vowels. However,changes within this system seem to have started in the period between the Vi-king Age proper and the manuscript period. Anders Bjerrum has made an inte-resting 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 thenew graphemes, e, æ and o (Bjerrum 1952, revised in English 1973). Eventhough this is an example of a rather problematic use of the relative DR-datingsin order to establish an absolute chronology of the dialectal split and regionalmerging of the three vowels in unstressed syllables, a new investigation alongthese lines ought to be done in consideration of the increase of material andbetter datings of part of the new inscriptions recovered since 1952.

377Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

Closing remarks

The many new finds in Denmark since c. 1940 form an important supplementto the stock of inscriptions which were the basis for the chronology and typo-logy of DR. Though nearly all of these inscriptions have been published – butnot easily comprehensible and not always satisfactorily – it is evident that theknowledge of this new material ought to be made more easily accessible than itis now. It is rather shocking to read a brand new contribution concerning thedevelopment of the Scandinavian language c. 200–900 based on runic evidencebut obviously with an outdated, very sporadic knowledge of Danish inscriptionsand relevant literature on this topic (Isakson 2000).

Especially the increase of inscriptions with the older runes makes it evidentthat a new corpus-edition is badly needed. Now Wolfgang Krause’s as well asElmer Antonsen’s works (Krause & Jankuhn 1966, 1971; Antonsen 1975) canno longer be accepted as a sound basis for interdisciplinary work because of theincrease in the number of finds and since neither their detailed chronology northeir interpretations are reliable. They have, however, often been used for largerinvestigations i. e. of historical linguistic development, magic or “an investi-gation of the chronological and geographical distribution of the differentallographs” (Odenstedt 1990). In some ways Makaev’s survey would be a betterchoice but the Russian original from 1965 has only been translated, not up-dated1996 (Makaev 1996).

In general the basis for datings of runic material used interdisciplinarilyought to be checked. In a linguistic context for example, it is worth noting thatthe chronology in the three first volumes of Gammeldansk Grammatik is basedon Ludvig Wimmer’s work, but that in the later volumes DR is the basis. OttarGrønvik’s important and ambitious attempt to create a new historical linguisticchronology is mainly based on Norwegian inscriptions from Tune to Ødemot-land and Eggja and combined with archaeological datings by Egil Bakka (latestsurvey: Grønvik 1998:25f.). During the last decades of the 20th century newattempts have been made to outline especially the relative and absolute chrono-logy of the inscriptions in older runes. It is, however, remarkable that whenrunology is used in connection with, and as a basis for, language history the au-thors often create their own chronology, frequently based on presupposed lin-

378 Marie Stoklund

guistic premises. Another problem is the general tendency to use a problematicfoundation of questionable interpretations as basis for a chronology. When itcomes to further interdisciplinary utilization a certain runological tradition ofspeculative imagination without restraint becomes a problem.

Acknowledgments

The Danish Humanities Research Council from 1 August 1999 to 31 January2000 supported my project: Chronology and Typology of the Danish RunicInscriptions by paying half my salary. This project was based on my preliminarywork at The National Museum on a planned new corpus edition of the DanishRunic inscriptions for the Society of Danish Language and Literature (DSL),which during 1998 was also supported by The Danish Humanities ResearchCouncil. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Research Council aswell 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 slightupdating. New finds have been included and minor changes concerning theoriginal (preliminary) datings.

379Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

Appendix: Proto-Norse index. Increase after 1941/1942–2004

ahti Nydam strap suspensionanulºa Nydam strap suspensionaiþalataR Nydam axe-shaftalu Nydam axe-shaft (la, lua Nydam arrow-shafts)alugod Værløse broochbalika Sorte Muld antler fragmentbidawarijaR Nøvling broochek Gårdlösa broochfulaR Sorte Muld antler fragmentgauþR Illerup fire-steel handlehagiradaR Stenmagle box}harkilaR Nydam strap suspensionlaguþewa Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 1lamo Skovgårde/Udby broochniþijo Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 2rawsijo Nydam belt end fittingswarta Illerup shield handle mount (bronze)sikijaR Nydam axe-shafttalgida Skovgårde/Udby broochtalgidai Nøvling broochtawide Stenmagle/Garbølle box, Illerup shield handle mount (silver) 2þewaR Sorte Muld antler fragmentunwodºR Gårdlösa broochwagagastiR Nydam axe-shaftwagnijo Illerup lance heads 1, 2, Vimose lance head$widuhudaR Himlingøje brooch 2witrÄ Slemminge/Fælleseje antler tool

380 Marie Stoklund

Bibliography

Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Sprachstruk-turen. Reihe A. Historische Sprachstrukturen 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

— 1998. “On Runological and Linguistic Evidence for Dating Runic Inscriptions.” In: Runen-

inschriften 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 andFrank Sigmund. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 126–147.

Barnes, Michael P.1998. “The Transitional Inscriptions”. In: Runeninschriften als Quellen inter-disziplinärer Forschung, 448–461.

Berga, Tatjana 2001. “Danske mønter fra fund i Letland i 1000- og 1100-tallet.” In: NordiskNumismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 2001:1, 3–8.

Birkmann, Thomas 1995. Von Ågedal bis Malt. Die skandinavischen Runeninschriften vom Endedes 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 70thbirthday, 12th March 1973 by Selskab for Nordisk Filologi. Copenhagen: AkademiskForlag, 116–129.

Christensen, Kjeld & Krogh, Knud J. 1987. “Jelling-højene dateret.” In: Nationalmuseets Ar-bejdsmark 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: Munksgaard1941–1942.

DRM = Wimmer, Ludvig F.A.: De danske runemindesmærker 1–4, København: GyldendalskeBoghandel 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. OsloBergen Stavanger Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.

— 1996. Fra Vimose til Ødemotland. Nye studier over runeinnskrifter fra førkristen tid iNorden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

— 1998. Untersuchungen zur älteren nordischen und germanischen Sprachgeschichte. OsloerBeiträge 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.

381Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

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 ud-gravning, Arkæologi på naturgassens vej 1979–86. Ed. Rigsantikvarens arkæologiske Sekre-tariat, Nationalmuseet og de danske naturgasselskaber, Herning: Poul Kristensen: 160–163.

Isakson, Bo 2000. “The Emergence of a Scandinavian Language: Development until around900.” 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. Vikinge-

kongernes 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 runeind-skrifter 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 Sønderjyl-land”. 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 His-torical-Philological Analysis. Translated from Russian by J. Meredig in consultation withE.H. Antonsen. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. [Russianedition 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 NielsÅge Nielsen, Erik Moltke, Else Roesdahl, Harald Andersen, Olaf Olsen. In: MediaevalScandinavia 7, 1974, 156–234.

Nielsen, Niels Åge 1983. Danske Runeindskrifter. København: Hernov.

382 Marie Stoklund

NIyR 5. 1960. Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer 5. By Magnus Olsen et al. Oslo: Kjelde-skriftfondet.

Odenstedt, Bengt 1990. Odenstedt: On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script. Ty-pology 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 theBeginning of the Viking Age.” In: Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in theViking Age. Ed. Björn Ambrosiani and Helen Clarke. Stockholm: Birka Studies [3],106–116.

Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung. 1998. Abhandlungen des ViertenInternationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9.August 1995. Hrsg. Klaus Düwel in Zusammenarbeit mit Sean Nowak, RGA–E 15. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter

Sawyer, Birgit 2000. The Viking-Age Rune-Stones. Custom and Commemoration in Early Medi-eval Scandinavia. Oxford: University Press.

Steuer, Heiko 1998. “Datierungsprobleme in der Archäologie.” In: Runeninschriften als Quelleninterdisziplinärer 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 skrifter28. 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. UllaLund Hansen et al. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. København, 317–346.

— 1996a. “The Ribe Cranium Inscription and the Scandinavian Transition to the Younger Re-duced 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 danskerunetradition før Jelling. Eller myten om svenskevældet.” I: Beretning fra sekstendetværfaglige vikingesymposium. Højbjerg: Hikuin, 25–36.

— 1998a. Stoklund Marie: “Neue Runenfunde aus Skandinavien. Bemerkungen zur metho-dologischen Praxis, Deutung und Einordnung.” In: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdiszi-plinärer Forschung, 55–65.

— 1998b. Stoklund, Marie: “Runer 1997.” In: Arkæologiske udgravninger i Danmark 1997.Ed. Rigsantikvarens Arkæologiske Sekretariat, Det arkæologiske Nævn. København, 259-265, (266–269).

— 2000. Stoklund, Marie: Jelling. §2. Runologisches. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Alter-

tumskunde. Begründet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage 16, 56–58.

383Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions

— 2001a. Stoklund, Marie: “Die Inschriften von Ribe, Hedeby und Schleswig und die Bedeu-tung der Schwedenherrschaft.” In: Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig, 201–208.

— 2001b. Loftsgård. Runologisches. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Be-gründet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage 18, 570f.

— 2003. “The first runes – the literary language of the Germani”. In: Lars Jørgensen, BirgerStorgaard & Lone Gebauer Thomsen (eds.): The Spoils of Victory. The North in the shadowof the Roman Empire [English edition]. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, 172–179.

— 2004. “The Runic Inscription on the Ribe Skull Fragment”. In: Mogens Bencard, Aino KannRasmussen & 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 archäo-logischen 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. Sum-mary, 1947. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig 2001. Sprache und Schriftlichkeit eines Grenzgebietes im Wandeleines 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.