|
|
Nytt om runer 19 (2004, publ. 2006), 31–33
The Fuþark and its Further Developments in Individual
Linguistic Traditions, Eichstätt, 20–24 July 2003
One year before the conference "The Fuþark and its
Further Developments in Individual Linguistic Traditions", Prof. Dr. Klaus
Düwel, Prof. Dr. Edith Marold and her team from Kiel met with the
organizers in Eichstätt, Prof. Dr. Alfred Bammesberger and Dr. Gaby
Waxenberger. Topics were worked out, as well as a list of ten questions to
serve as guidelines for papers and the subsequent discussions. The meeting in
July 2003 was to represent the sixteenth annual meeting of field runologists.
The Eichstätt conference served various purposes: (1) presentation
of papers on the wide field of the fuþark, its development in the
individual languages and last but not least the fuþark row itself
as a text type; (2) autopsies of numerous objects from Württembergisches
Landesmuseum Stuttgart and Archäologische Staatssammlung, Museum für
Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Munich, as well as the famous belt buckle from
Pforzen (whereby participants collectively investigated the objects by means of
a monitor microscope, courtesy of Zeiss, and a beamer); (3) excursion to and
autopsy of Germany's only rock-wall inscription (das Kleine Schulerloch near
Kelheim), followed by a candle-light conference dinner in the larger of the two
caves (Großes Schulerloch).
The papers presented at the conference encompassed four major themes:
(1) the older fuþark, (2) the development of the
fuþark in the individual languages, (3) the dubious inscription on
the rock wall of das Kleine Schulerloch, and (4) varia. In the first complex,
Klaus Düwel and Wilhelm Heizmann dealt with the fuþark as a
text category and shed new light on transmission and functional possibilities.
Heinrich Beck discussed the problems of scripting and textualization. Dealing
with the rune-names, Helmut Birkhan arrived, amongst other things, at the
conclusion that there is no evidence that the rune-name for p had been
borrowed from Celtic. Heiner Eichner discussed the origin and modification of
the fuþark also in the context of the new finds from Val Camonica.
In his contribution, Robert Nedoma focused on various aspects of
"südgermanisch" such as the term itself, the analysis of the inventory
(graphemes and phonemes) of the fuþark of these inscriptions, the
personal names in the corpus, a detailed phonological study of that period and
finally the significance of new finds. By comparing, analyzing and categorizing
the runes, their shapes, sound values and positions on some bracteates, Elmar
Seebold reconstructed a model fuþark; according to him, the
retention of some archaic forms as well as the application of some new forms
suggest that there had been independent traditions rather than one unified
tradition.
Concerning the development of the fuþark in the individual
languages, Alfred Bammesberger concentrated on the phonological developments in
pre-Old English and provided new insights into sound changes and their
chronology, modifying some of the readings of the very early inscriptions in
England and analyzing the emergence of the new runes as an adaptation to the
new situation. The small corpus of "The Early Runic Inscriptions from Kent and
the Problem of Legibility" was presented by John Hines. Amongst other things,
he demonstrated the "experimental restoration" of the very uncertain reading of
the Ash-Gilton Pommel, looking at inscriptions from Kent from an archaeological
point of view. The problematic vowels on the Undley bracteate "viewed from a
North-Sea Germanic perspective" led Hans Frede Nielsen to the statement that
the transliteration of
 as æ
in both accented and unaccented position in the word mg would be fully in line
with the scenario for the development of the North-Sea Germanic vowel systems
posited in his The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia (2000). Ray
Page's paper, "Rune Rows: Epigraphical and Manuscript" revealed that "there is
less unity in the Anglo-Saxon rune rows and inscriptions than some would claim
to see". Therefore the "'perfect fit' of sound and graph" seems imperfect to
him. My own paper dealt with the representation of vowels in unstressed
syllables in the Old English inscriptions and it is obvious that the inherited
system æ, i and e was still fairly undisturbed.
Although Ute Schwab was not able to attend the conference, she handed in a
paper on two runic names, fa hild and feha, for the conference
proceedings.
Coming from different disciplines and emphasizing different aspects of
the controversial inscription from das Kleine Schulerloch, five papers
investigated the question of its authenticity. After giving an overview of the
long and problematic discovery of the inscription, Klaus Düwel argued in
favour of its authenticity from the runological point of view. Analyzing the
name elements Robert Nedoma considered it to be a recent carving. Looking at
the history and circumstances of its discovery Heiner Eichner, as well, found
arguments to doubt its authenticity, whereas the prehistorian Christian
Züchner regarded the inscription as genuine because of the properties of
the sinter it was carved into. We, unfortunately, still do not have the results
of drillings into the rock carried out by Peter Pieper and Prof. Mangini
(Heidelberg).
The following were varia papers: Alessia Bauer's contribution "Is the
fuþark reflected in the rune poems?" revealed that, in contrast to
the runica manuscripta, the rune poems show exact rune forms and
therefore bear witness to a fairly profound knowledge of the runic script.
Elmar Seebold listed and discussed five manuscripts in which he had found
alphabets in runes. Those finds were made after Rene Derolez' Runica
Manuscripta had been published and encompass the period between the 9th and
the 16th centuries. Michael Schulte dealt with the reduction of the number of
characters in the younger fuþark and apart from sound changes, he
found more reasons for the elimination of the runes. After contrasting the
changes in the Old English fuþorc and the younger
fuþark, he was able to shed more light on both runic traditions.
Christiane Zimmermann discussed the applicability of Austin's (1962) and
Searle's (1969) "speech act" theories to runic inscriptions in the older
fuþark, providing a preliminary theoretical basis for the
interpretation of these texts. Per Stille shed more light on the life and works
of the famous Swedish scholar Johannes Bureus, who had a deep knowledge of
runes but "dedicated himself to mystic and esoteric speculation" after he had
finished his Runaräfst.
Some 50 participants from Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the
Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Switzerland and Germany attended the conference.
The proceedings are in print and will appear in 2006.
Gaby Waxenberger
Catholic University of Eichstätt
Ostenstr. 26–28, D-85071 Eichstätt, Germany
Go or return to the main page for Nytt om
runer.
|
