Runen und Schriftlichkeit

Beck, Heinrich

doi:10.1515/9783110822823.1

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous discussions of this material have particularly focused on aspects like metre and diction, especially in order to identify and classify what is verse and what is not, and to pin down the metrical details. Definitions are particularly difficult as Scandinavian runic verse is very varied (in contrast to the more limited Old English corpus), and as both Heinrich Beck (2001) and Edith Marold (2010) have noted, the corpus stretches from single lines of simple alliterative verse to complex stanzas in dróttkvaett. Here, no attempt is made to define what constitutes verse in a runic context, a complex task that is well beyond the scope of this paper.…”

Section: Oral Into Writtenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Runes and Verse: The Medialities of Early Scandinavian Poetry

Jesch

2017

European Journal of Scandinavian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses a number of versified runic inscriptions, mainly from Scandinavia, and from ca. 400 to 1400 AD, to explore what they reveal about the forms and functions of early Scandinavian poetry outside the manuscript tradition. With a particular focus on ‘authors’ and ‘audiences’, as defined by Bredehoft in his work on Anglo-Saxon inscriptions, the paper elucidates the potential oral contexts of Scandinavian runic verse and concludes that, although runic writing is a form of literacy, the examples show that for most of its history it is associated with various kinds of oral context. Runic verse shows that inscriptions provide one of the best ways into understanding the Scandinavian oral tradition, not only before the arrival of manuscript literacy, but also during its infancy.

show abstract

Section: Oral Into Writtenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Runes and Verse: The Medialities of Early Scandinavian Poetry

Jesch

2017

European Journal of Scandinavian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dies soll anhand zweier Runensteinpaare, deren Inschriften sich auf je eine Personenkonstellation beziehen, deren Gestaltung und Text aber zumindest leicht variieren, also keine genauen 1 Dies wird etwa aus der Zunahme von Beiträgen deutlich, die versuchten, die spezifischen eigenheiten der runischen Schriftkultur herauszuarbeiten. neben den etwas isolierten aufsatz von liestøl 1971 sind dies in chronologischer reihenfolge (und ohne anspruch auf Vollständigkeit): Meijer 1997, Jesch 1998, Andrén 2000, Beck 2001, Palm 2001, Spurkland 2004und 2005, Brink 2005, Palm 2006, Staecker 2008, Föller 2009, Zilmer 2009, Bianchi 2010, Stern 2013; nedkvitne 2004 behandelt die runenschriftlichkeit nur am rande. 2 Bianchi (2010: 45-51) bediente sich des sprachwissenschaftlichen Begriffs der Multimodalität, um die wikingerzeitliche runenschriftlichkeit zu beschreiben.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Reading Runes: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Nyköping, Sweden, 2–6 September 2014

Macleod¹,

Bianchi²,

Williams³

2021

Runrön: Runologiska Bidrag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Documentation and examination are the essence of runological fieldwork. As discussed here, the recording aspect concerns the inscriptions, particularly the runes, themselves. The documentation of runic carvings is a multifaceted activity. It ranges from the production of reading protocols during the examination of inscriptions to the utilization of various techniques for registering what is found on the runic object: (a) visually, i.e. with drawings or photographs, (b) physically, e.g. with squeezes or casts, and (c) scientifically, such as by employment of microscopes, 3D scanning, or most recently Reflectance Transformation Imaging. The main requirement for all such documentation is objectivity.

show abstract

“…Dies soll anhand zweier Runensteinpaare, deren Inschriften sich auf je eine Personenkonstellation beziehen, deren Gestaltung und Text aber zumindest leicht variieren, also keine genauen 1 Dies wird etwa aus der Zunahme von Beiträgen deutlich, die versuchten, die spezifischen eigenheiten der runischen Schriftkultur herauszuarbeiten. neben den etwas isolierten aufsatz von liestøl 1971 sind dies in chronologischer reihenfolge (und ohne anspruch auf Vollständigkeit): Meijer 1997, Jesch 1998, Andrén 2000, Sawyer 2000, Beck 2001, Palm 2001, Spurkland 2004und 2005, Brink 2005, Palm 2006, Staecker 2008, Föller 2009, Zilmer 2009, Bianchi 2010, Stern 2013; nedkvitne 2004 behandelt die runenschriftlichkeit nur am rande. 2 Bianchi (2010: 45-51) bediente sich des sprachwissenschaftlichen Begriffs der Multimodalität, um die wikingerzeitliche runenschriftlichkeit zu beschreiben.…”

unclassified

Gestaltung oder Zufall?: Zur relationalen Platzierung von Worten auf Runensteinen der Wikingerzeit

Föller¹

2021

Reading Runes: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Nyköping, Sweden, 2–6 Septemb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last years, our understanding of runic inscriptions has changed thoroughly when runology processed recent developments in the Humanities. One of the more radical proposals, as postulated in two papers by Judith Jesch and anders andrén respectively, was the idea that meaning in runic inscriptions of the Viking age could be created by relating words visually which were not connected grammatically. as this would gravely affect runological methodology as well as our idea of Viking age runic literacy, these assumptions were scrutinizingly checked. The critique focused on two points: on the one hand, both studies were based on the analysis of a few exemplary sources and not of a representative corpus; on the other hand, it seems impossible to distinguish whether the proximity of words was intentionally arranged by the carver or occurred by chance. in this paper, the second argument is addressed. Two pairs of rune-stones (Dr 2 + 4 from 10th-century Jutland, U 644 + 654 from 11th-century Uppland) are analyzed, each couple bearing near-identical inscriptions and being erected by the same sponsor(s) to commemorate the same person. Despite differences in wording and layout, identical visual patterns of related words can be found on both monuments of each pair. Obviously, they were intentionally placed. an interpretation reveals that these patterns of proximity emphasized or even augmented the content of the inscriptions. The placing of words in close proximity to each other appears as a stylistic device to create meaning, employed at least by the rune-carvers of these four inscriptions, but probably known to other rune-wise persons in Viking age Scandinavia.

show abstract

Runen und Schriftlichkeit

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Runes and Verse: The Medialities of Early Scandinavian Poetry

Runes and Verse: The Medialities of Early Scandinavian Poetry

Reading Runes: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Nyköping, Sweden, 2–6 September 2014

Gestaltung oder Zufall?: Zur relationalen Platzierung von Worten auf Runensteinen der Wikingerzeit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About