Ideographic rune

Östergötland Runic Inscription 43 with an elder ideographic rune: ᛞ (*dagʀ, 'day') for the writers name: "Solse made the sun
[Day] hew this into the cliff".

Ideographic runes (German : Begriffsrunen, Swedish : begreppsrunor, 'term/notion runes') ^[a] are runes used as ideographs instead of regular letters, that is, instead of representing their phoneme or syllable, they represent their name as a word or term. Such instances are sometimes referred to by way of the modern German loanword Begriffsrunen (singular Begriffsrune), but the descriptive term "ideographic runes" is also used. ^{[1] [2]}

Ideographic runes appears to have mainly been used for saving space, but they were also mainly used without inflection. Some potential inscriptions might have used such cryptically. The criteria for the use of ideographic runes and the frequency of their use by ancient rune-writers remains controversial. ^[3] The topic of has produced much discussion among runologists. Runologist Klaus Düwel has proposed two criteria for the identification of ideographic runes: A graphic argument and a semantic argument. ^[3]

Roman Iron Age (c. 1–350 AD)

The Lindholm amulet as drawn by Stephens in 1884.

One of the earliest potential ideographic rune finds stem from the Roman Iron Age in Nordic archeology. On the Elder Futhark inscription on the Lindholm amulet, dated to between the 2nd to 4th centuries, several runes repeat in a sentence to form an unknown meaning. Various scholars have proposed that these runes represent repeated ideographic runes.^{[ citation needed ]}

Migration Period (c. 300–550)

Inscription on the Ring of Pietroassa. Seventh glyph reconstructed.

The Ring of Pietroassa, part of the Pietroasele Treasure found in southern Romania, dated to between 250 and 400, features an Elder Futhark inscription in the Gothic language (an East Germanic language). This object was cut by thieves, damaging one of the runes. The identity of this rune was debated by scholars until a photograph of it was republished that, according to runologist Bernard Mees, clearly indicates it to have been the rune ᛟ (Othala). ^[4] Using it as an ideographic rune gives something akin to the following:

ᚷᚢᛏᚨᚾᛁ ᛟ ᚹᛁ ᚺᚨᛁᛚᚨᚷ

gutanī ō[þal] wī[h] hailag (Gothic)

The translation, however, is still up for debate.

Vendel Period (c. 550–800)

Part of the Elder Futhark inscription on the Stentoften Runestone in Blekinge, Sweden, assumed to feature an Elder j-rune ᛃ (Proto Norse: jāra, 'yearly harvest') as an ideographic rune.

From the Vendel Period, the Stentoften Runestone in Blekinge, Sweden, is known to feature an ideographic rune. It has a segment which reads ᚺᚼᚦᚢᚹᛟᛚᚼᚠᛦᚷᚼᚠᛃ (haþuwolafʀgafj), which is thought to be divided as Haþuwolafʀ gaf j ("Heathwolf gave j"). The j-rune was named something akin to jāra in Proto Norse (Haþuwolafʀ gaf j[āra]), which is the same root word as 'year', but at the time rather used in the sense of 'yearly harvest' (compare the Swedish descendants: år = 'year', äring = "yearly growth/harvest"). The preceding text, not covered here, is assumed to mention working animals, thus, the text says something akin to "(with working animals) Heathwolf brought [yearly harvest]". ^{[5] [6]}

ᚺᚼᚦᚢᚹᛟᛚᚼᚠᛦ ᚷᚼᚠ ᛃ

Haþuwolafʀ gaf j[āra] (Proto Norse)

Hådulf gav [äring] (Modern Swedish)

"Heathwolf brought [yearly harvest]".

Viking Age (c. 800–1100)

The Younger Futhark inscription Ög43 with the Elder Futhark rune ᛞ (early Old Norse : *dagʀ, 'day') used as an ideographic rune for the writers name.

From the early Viking Age, the Younger Futhark inscription Ög43, from Östergötland, Sweden, features a unique case of an ideographic rune, namely an Elder Futhark d-rune ᛞ (early Old Norse : *dagʀ), used to represent the carvers name. The inscription is thought to have been made around the 9th century, and therefore shows that the elder runes survived in folk memory, despite such being out of use since the late 8th century. ^[7]

⋮ ᛌᛅᛚᛌᛁ ᚴᛅᚱᚦᛁ ᛌᚢᛚ → ⋮ ᛞ ⋮ ᛌᚴᚢᛐᛧ ᛁ ᚦ¦¦ᛅᚼᛁᚢ

Salsi karþi sul → [Dagʀ] skutʀ i þ--a hiu

Solse gjorde sol → [Dager] bergsknallen i d[ett]a högg (Modern Swedish)

"Solse made the sun (decoration on the stone) → Dager hew this into the cliff

During the later Viking Age and Early Nordic Medieval Period, ideographic runes also appear in texts written using Latin script. Such examples include: the Icelandic poem Hávamál in Codex Regius, ^[8] and the Swedish: Okvädingamål (Old Swedish: Heþnalagh, "heathen law"), written around the 11th century, which feature the Younger Futhark rune ᛘ (Old Norse : maþr, 'man') to save space. ^[9] The heathen law, for example, begins with:

Givr ᛘ oquæþins orð manni · þu ær æi mans maki oc eig ᛘ i brysti · Ek ær ᛘ sum þv (Old Swedish)

Giver [man] okvädningsord till annan: Du är ej mans make och ej [man] i bröstet. → Jag är [man] som du. (Modern Swedish)

"Gives [man] insult to another: You are not man's equal nor [man] in the chest. → I am [man] like you."

The rune is avoided where the word 'man' is used in the inflected form.

Ideographic runes also appear in Anglo-Saxon texts, then as Anglo-Saxon runes. Runologist Thomas Birkett summarized the following about Viking Age ideographic instances as follows:

The maðr rune is found regularly in Icelandic manuscripts, the fé rune somewhat less frequently, whilst in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts the runes mon, dæg, wynn and eþel are all used on occasion. These are some of the most functional of the rune names, occurring relatively often in written language, unlike the elusive peorð, for example, which would be of little or no use as an abbreviation because of its rarity. The practicality of using an abbreviation for a familiar noun such as 'man' is demonstrated clearly in the Old Norse poem Hávamál, where the maðr rune is used a total of forty-five times, saving a significant amount of space and effort (Codex Regius: 5–14) ^[8]

Medieval period (c. 1100–1500)

Extracted segment from Fragmentum Runico-Papisticum were the g-rune ᚵ is used as an ideograph for 'God'.

In Fragmentum Runico-Papisticum (Latin for 'runic-papist fragment', Swedish: Mariaklagan, 'Mary-lament'), one of the longest, only second to the Codex Runicus, pre-modern runic texts to survive, written in the 15th century, a unique ideographic rune is used: a medieval g-rune ᚵ, otherwise known as "stung kaun" (Old Swedish: stungen kaguen/kaghn, or geir/gir, of many variants), ^{[10] [11] [12]} as an ideograph for 'God'. If this represents some conventional period use is unknown. In Medieval Sweden, runes carried many regional names and variations, thus a name like 'God' for the g-rune is not unrealistic.

ᚵ ᛬ ᛁ ᛬ ᚼᛁᛘᛁᚱᛁᚴᛁ ᛬ ᚵᚽᛋᚢᛋ ᛬ ᚴᚱᚢᛎᛁᚠᛁᛎᛋᚢᛋ ᛬ ᛘᛁᛁᛚᛑ ᛬ ᛘᚮᚦᛅᚱ᛬ᛐᚽ ᛬ ᛘᛁᚴ ᛬ ᚦᛅᛐ ᛬ ᛁᛆᚴ ᛬ ᛅᚠᛐᛅᚱ ᛬ ᚵᛁᚱᚿᛅᛋ ᛬

[Guþ] i himiriki Gesus krucificsus miild moþär te mig þät iak äftär girnäs. (Medieval Swedish)

[Gud] i himmelriket Jesus krucifixus mild moder te mig det jag efter girnas. (Modern Swedish)

"[God] in heaven, Jesus Crucifixus, mild mother, give me that I long for."

Footnotes

1. The German/Swedish prefix Begriff/begrepp, in this sense, can be summorized as: a word, phrase or name for a concept (an understanding, an idea), especially a word carrying a concept; as in: runes carrying a concept rather than a sound, i.e., ideographic runes.

References

Notes

1. "Runrön Runologiska bidrag utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 24" (PDF). uu.diva-portal.org (in Swedish, German, and English). nstitutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet. 221. p. 225. Retrieved 2025-03-29. Runes were used as ideographic runes (Begriffsrunen).
2. Looijenga, Tineke. "RUNES, RUNOLOGY AND RUNOLOGISTS" (PDF). arild-hauge.com. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
3. See discussion in for example Düwel 2004: 123–124 and Looijenga 2003: 17.
4. MacLeod, Mindy; Mees, Bernard (2006). Runic Amulets and Magic Objects. Woodbridge, UK; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press. p. 173. ISBN   978-1-84383-205-8. Archived from the original on 2020-09-19. Retrieved 2020-09-12.
5. Henrik Williams, §2 in Eva Nyman Henrik Williams, the headword ”Lister” in Rosemarie Müller, Heinrich Beck och Dieter Geuenich (redaktörer) Duisburg Heiko Steuer,Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 2nd ed., band 18. Berllin och New York 2001. Pages: 508–512.
6. "Stein von Stentoften". RuneS – „Runische Schriftlichkeit in den germanischen Sprachen“ (in German). Niedersächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
7. "Ög 43 Ingelstad Runristningens historia och betydelse" (PDF). raa.se. Swedish National Heritage Board . Retrieved 2025-03-29.
8. Birkett, Thomas. 2010. "The alysendlecan rune: Runic abbreviations in their immediate literary context Archived 2021-08-29 at the Wayback Machine ". Preprints to The 7th International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Oslo 2010 Archived 2021-08-29 at the Wayback Machine . Last accessed 29 August 2021. University of Oslo.
9. s:sv:Olavus Petris egenhändiga afskrift af den s. k. Hednalagen i Ängsöcodex af Upplandslagen
10. Petri, Olaus. "Samlade skrifter av Olavus Petri / Om runskrift". runeberg.org. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
11. Runakenslanes läraspån
12. Karlsson, Thomas (2009). Götisk kabbala och runisk alkemi: Johannes Bureus och den götiska esoterismen (PDF). Stockholm: Stockholms universitet: Religionshistoriska avdelningen. pp. 233–234. ISBN   978-91-628-8030-9 . Retrieved 2025-03-29.

Sources

• Düwel, Klaus (2004). "Runic". In Read, Malcolm; Murdoch, Brian (eds.). Early Germanic Literature and Culture. Boydell & Brewer. pp. 121–147. ISBN   9781571131997.
• Looijenga, Tineke (2003), Texts & Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions (PDF), Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, ISBN   90-04-12396-2, archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-05-08, retrieved 2019-09-23