1

A:

B:
 2

Rūnō fahi raginakundō:1 Two Futhark Inscriptions from Scandinavia

Inscriptions A and B above are both futhark inscriptions, albeit different in age and origin.
Inscription A is an example of the older futhark, the runic writing system developed for the Proto-
Scandinavian language somewhere in the first half of the first millennium.2 Inscription B, on the
other hand, is written with the younger futhark, the result of the alphabet following the various
linguistic changes during the shift from Proto-Scandinavian to Old Norse.3 I must note here that
while neither the older nor the younger futhark can be referred to as ‘alphabets’ in the strictest
sense, as their initial graphemes do not signify the sounds /a/ and /b/, for the sake of simplicity I
occasionally use the term ‘alphabet’ throughout this paper in the wider sense of a standard set of
letters (graphemes) that represent sounds (phonemes) of a language and serve for the purpose of
setting said language in written form. Both the older and the younger futhark fill this criterion,
although their orders differ from the ones appearing in writing systems derived from the
Phoenician alphabets.4

That being said, the two futhark inscriptions mentioned are not labelled so merely because
they were written using a runic alphabet, i.e. futhark, but because they both lay out all the letters
of their respective alphabets in the composition and sequence coeval with their creation. The
exact function of carving the runic equivalent of ‘abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz’ onto various
objects is unclear. In the instances where such inscriptions appear on grave goods or objects with
memorial function, a religious connection may be supposed,5 but that does not explain other
occurrences, especially from later periods, where seemingly everyday objects carry full rune-rows.
The two inscriptions investigated here can be placed in the first category: one was part of a burial,

1
‘[S]uitable, divinely-derived “rune”’; Elmer H. Antonsen, Runes and Germanic Linguistics (Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2002), pp. 180–83.
2
Terje Spurkland, Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions, trans. by Betsy van der Hoek (Woodbridge: Boydell
Press, 2005), pp. 7, 20.
3
Spurkland, pp. 72, 75.s
4
Erik Moltke, Runes and Their Origin: Denmark and Elsewhere, trans. by Peter G. Foote (Copenhagen: The
National Museum of Denmark, 1985).
5
Spurkland, p. 2.
 3

while the other appears on a commemorating rune-stone. Nevertheless, the matter is far from
decided.

Inscription A is part of the inscription found on the Kylver stone, which was discovered
in 1903 in a cemetery near the Kylver farm, on the island of Gotland.6 It is a limestone slab of
105 x 75 cm in size, and used to cover a grave that is generally dated to around 400 CE, the side
with the inscription facing down.7

The Kylver stone.8

The Kylver stone holds one of the oldest extant futhark inscriptions, although there are
earlier examples of runic writing, dated as far back as 150-200 CE.9 There are fringe cases of rune-
like engravings that are dated even earlier, such as the Meldorf fibula, but their runic nature is
debated, at best. Michael Barnes notes that the question of whether the inscription on the

6
Spurkland, p. 1.
7
Spurkland; Moltke.
8
‘File:Kylverstenen 2.jpg’, Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kylverstenen_2.jpg>
[accessed 24 October 2016].
9
Michael P. Barnes, Runes: A Handbook (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), p. 9.
 4

Meldorf fibula is runic needs stronger arguments in its favour than the casual remark of Moltke
(‘of course it is’).10

A detailed view of the Kylver stone

The following is a semi-accurate runic representation of the full Kylver inscription:

iüQ Rkgihni p4á t eml=do ØüeUø

The transliteration of the inscription is challenging on several points. Due in part to
erosion and damage, and in part to scribal idiosyncrasies, the inscription shows numerous
deviations from the standard rune-row of the older futhark. According to Michael Barnes, the
‘most commonly attested order’11 of the older futhark is as follows:

F u Q a R k g W h n i j $ p y s t B e m l 5 o d
f u þ a r k g w h n i j æ p z s t b e m l ŋ o d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Fig. 1 The older futhark12

It should be noted here that various transliteration conventions exist, the most notable
variations being around the transliteration of the runes $ and y. The phonetic value of the first
is ‘quite unclear,’13 and therefore various characters of the Latin alphabet have been assigned to it
over the years. Barnes in the table above uses æ, noting that it ‘should not be taken to imply value
[æ]’; Moltke renders it ï,14 while Spurkland transliterates it as ë.15 Interestingly, Barnes displays

10
Michael P. Barnes, ‘On Types of Argumentation in Runic Studies’, in Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Grindaheim, Norway, 8-12 August 1990, ed. by James E. Knirk (Uppsala:
Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet, 1994), pp. 11–29; Moltke.
11
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 4.
12
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 4.
13
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 5.
14
Moltke.
15
Spurkland, pp. 5, 7.
 5

$ as the standard form, as it appears e.g. on the Vadstena bracteate,16 while Moltke uses the
opposite form 4, visible on the Kylver stone.17 The rune y originally signified a sound related to
/z/, but over time the phoneme blended with /r/;18 also, the more common form of the rune is
y, but the inverted form Y also often appears, and it finally became standard in the younger
futhark.19 This led to discrepancies in transliteration, where some scholars use z for transliterating
y and R for Y, while others transliterate both runes to R.20 The peculiarity of this rune is that
the sound it represents occurs almost only as a final consonant in Proto-Scandinavian.21

That being said, the Kylver inscription present irregularities beyond the scope of different
transliterative traditions. By today, both rune 1 and rune 8 lost their distinctive branches or twigs,
and we can only use other complete futhark inscriptions to suppose that in the place of the two
bare staves originally stood F and W, f and w.22 Runes 4 , 16 , and 18 are reverse runes, being
horizontally mirrored to their standard form; as I have mentioned before, this might also be the
case with rune 14 4 which appears elsewhere as $. Runes 2 ü, 12 , 15 á, and 22 = show
considerable deviation from their standard forms u, j, Y, and 5. Indeed, rune 12 is hardly
recognisable unless one knows what to look for; and rune 15, besides appearing in its inverted
form, misses one of its branches. The orders of runes p 4 and d o also differ from the
standardised $ p and o d, although Moltke points out that there is no certain fixed order to
be recognised.23 Taking all the above into account, the standardised representation of the Kylver
futhark inscription should look like this:

FUQaRkgWhnijp47stBeml5do

16
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook; Moltke.
17
Moltke.
18
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 6.
19
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 19.
20
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook; Spurkland; Moltke.
21
Spurkland, p. 7.
22
It is worth mentioning that Moltke produces a picture of the inscription with the W rune full and intact, and

mentions that when the stone was found, “[o]nly the first rune F was damaged.’ Moltke.
23
Moltke.
 6

Of which the following transliteration can be produced:

fuþarkgwhnijpæzstbemlŋdo

For the sake of consistency, I continue to use here the transliteration given by Barnes.
Now we have the rune-row of the older futhark, complete with its 24 grapheme that each signified
one sound of the Proto-Scandinavian language – and each sound or phoneme was signified by
only one grapheme. Thus, we can call the older futhark a phonemic writing system.24 However,
two possible exceptions can be found. The first is the rune 4 , which only appears in rune-row
inscriptions, and originally standing for ‘a vowel sound somewhere between /i/ and /e/,’25 it has
lost its function by the time runic writing became common. The second is rune 5 , which either
represented /ŋ/, a velar nasal, as it appears at the end of the English word sing,26 or the consonant
sequence /n/+/g/, as it appears to have been used interchangeably with ng .27

The futhark inscription is immediately followed by an unknown sign which nevertheless

bears runic characteristics. Antonsen proposed it to be ‘a terminal sign or decoration,’28
noting at the same time that ‘we have no idea what it could otherwise mean.’29 The
alternative explanation of it being a multiple bind-rune ‘with many t-runes and a-runes
on the same stave’30 has been put forth since. While there are almost certainly six t-runes, the
exact number of a-runes is hard to determine; it can be anywhere between two and four, as it is
unclear which twigs on the right side of the stave were intended to belong together to form the
double branches of the a-rune a , and which are there merely as the right-side branch of a t-rune
t . The final element of the Kylver inscription stands separately from the futhark inscription.
While it is both recognisable and transliterable, its meaning is absolutely unclear. Its first rune
being reversed, it can be standardised as øUeUø, and transliterated as sueus. While tentative

24
Spurkland, p. 7.
25
Spurkland, p. 7.
26
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 5.
27
Spurkland, p. 7.
28
Antonsen, p. 176.
29
Antonsen, pp. 176–77.
30
Spurkland, p. 16.
 7

explanations have been offered, such as one deriving its base word eus from Proto-Germanic
*/ehwaz/, so far they have been refuted as inadequate. 31

Inscription B is from the Gørlev stone, or more accurately, from Gørlev 1 (DR 239), which
has been found in 1921 in the church of Gørlev, Zealand, Denmark.32 (A second stone, Gørlev 2,
was discovered in 1964 under the tower of the same church.)33 Gørlev 1 is a granite gneiss
runestone with the dimensions of 315 x 88 x 35 cm, and is dated between 800 and 850 CE.34 The
inscription in question is part of the inscription on its side A:35

Gørlev 1, side A.36

This inscription differs greatly from the one found on the Kylver stone, and not just in its
obvious use of a different alphabet. Here the futhark inscription does not stand alone, but
comprises the start of the second line of a larger inscription. The full runic text is as follows:

31
Antonsen, p. 177.
32
Nationalmuseet and Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, ‘Gørlev-Sten 1’, Danske Runeindskrifter
<http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Gørlev-sten_1> [accessed 27 October 2016].
33
Nationalmuseet and Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, ‘Gørlev-Sten 2’, Danske Runeindskrifter
<http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Gørlev-sten_2> [accessed 27 October 2016].
34
Nationalmuseet and Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, ‘Gørlev-Sten 1’.
35
The length of this paper unfortunately does not allow to discuss side B of the stone.
36
Arild Hauge, ‘Danish Runic Inscriptions’, Arild Hauges Runes (Aarhus, 2006) <http://www.arild-
hauge.com/denmark.htm> [accessed 24 October 2016]; Arild Hauge, ‘The Gørlev Rune Stone. Side A’, Arild
Hauges Runes (Aarhus, 2006) <http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-hauge/de-rune-goerlev.jpg> [accessed 24 October
2016].
 8

qiæuquiRicqicTiNqanciæfTuqiNkæuR
fuqaRkhNiæCTbªlYNiuTuælkuªC
It is written with the younger futhark, and its language is not Proto-Scandinavian any
more, but Old Norse. The first sixteen runes of the second line represent the standard younger
futhark rune-row almost completely accurately:

f u q » R k h N i æ c T b m l y
f u þ ã r k h n i a s t b m l R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fig. 3 A less simplified younger futhark37

The only noticeable differences are rune 11 c, which is reversed on the inscription, but
which appears in the first line three times in its standard form, and rune 14 ª, which is displayed
in a form that is common in earlier inscriptions of younger futhark.38 The difference between this
rune-row and the older futhark is striking. The most notable, of course, is the reduced number
of letters, which also diminished the almost perfect one-to-one grapho-phonological correlation
of the older futhark: at this point, certain graphemes must be used to signify multiple phonemes,
especially so since the Old Norse language has acquired new vowels by this time.39 The change,
however, was not restricted to vowels, as the runes for /g/, /w/, /j/, /p/, and /ŋ/ have also
disappeared. A new rune » has been added to place 4, to signify /ã/, a nasal vowel, and y has been
moved to the end of the rune-row. The shapes of the individual runes have also undergone severe
changes: now each rune has only one stave, while with the older futhark many had two. Many

37
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 6.
38
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 61.
39
Spurkland, p. 78.
 9

acquired curved forms, especially in their twigs or branches, where earlier almost only straight
lines were used. A different variant of the younger futhark, identical in rune number but
comprised of ‘short-twig’ runes, also emerged about the same time as the alphabet above (the
‘long-branch’ or ‘normal’ runes).40

Side A of the Gørlev 1 stone can be transliterated as follows:

þiauþuirisþistinþąnsiaftuþinkaur
fuþąrkhniastbmlRniutualkums

Of which the following reading can be reached:

Þjóðvé reisti stein þenna ept Óðinkár

fuþorkhniastbmlR njót vel kumls41

This translates as: ‘Þjóđvé raised this stone after (in memory of) Óðinkár.
FuþorkhniastbmlR. Use the monument well!’42 The first line is one of the ‘obligatory’ formulae
often used on commemorating rune-stones, identifying the commemorated and the
commissioner (but, in this case, not the actual rune-carver).43 This is followed in a nonsequitous
manner by the sixteen letters of the younger futhark, concluded by a remark that invites the reader
to make good use of the monument.44 Although the commemorating rune-stones were not
necessarily erected at the same place where the commemorated was buried,45 they fulfilled various
social functions related to death, remembrance, inheritance, religion, and politics.46 Both the
Kylver and the Gørlev 1 stones feature their coeval futhark, and they are both related to individuals

40
Spurkland, p. 76.
41
‘Scandinavian Runic-Text Database’ (Uppsala Universitet, 2014)
<http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm>.
42
Translation by me.
43
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 71.
44
‘Njót’ is the imperative form of the irregular Old Norse verb ‘njóta’ (Norwegian ‘nyte’): ‘to derive benefit or
enjoyment from’, ‘to profit by’. The English translation is unable to reflect the nuances of the structure ‘njót vel’.
45
Spurkland, p. 86.
46
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 71.
 10

recently deceased. This might strengthen the argument in favour of such inscriptions having
religious or magical connotations (see page 1-2), but a complete explanation is not yet offered.

The two runic objects discussed here have special importance in the history of the runic
alphabet. The Kylver stone shows that by the year 400 CE, the futhark was a complete and
established writing system, which also had deep cultural embeddedness; the other inscriptions
with the older futhark show that it served the society that created it in more than one area of life.
The Gørlev 1 stone stands at the end of a gradual transition process that saw this writing system
shifting and changing in accordance with the needs of society. The reasons behind what may seem
an excessive simplification in the face of an expanding phonemic system is widely debated,47 but
we know that the futhark in its younger form has been used at least until the end of the tenth
century.48 Both the Kylver and the Gørlev 1 stones bear pinnacles of the evolution of the
Scandinavian runic writing system.

47
Spurkland, p. 80.
48
Barnes, Runes: A Handbook, p. 92.
 11

Bibliography

Antonsen, Elmer H., Runes and Germanic Linguistics (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002)

Barnes, Michael P., ‘On Types of Argumentation in Runic Studies’, in Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Grindaheim, Norway, 8-12 August
1990, ed. by James E. Knirk (Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala
universitet, 1994), pp. 11–29

———, Runes: A Handbook (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012)

‘File:Kylverstenen 2.jpg’, Wikimedia Commons

<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kylverstenen_2.jpg> [accessed 24 October
2016]

Hauge, Arild, ‘Danish Runic Inscriptions’, Arild Hauges Runes (Aarhus, 2006)
<http://www.arild-hauge.com/denmark.htm> [accessed 24 October 2016]

———, ‘The Gørlev Rune Stone. Side A’, Arild Hauges Runes (Aarhus, 2006)
<http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-hauge/de-rune-goerlev.jpg> [accessed 24 October
2016]

Moltke, Erik, Runes and Their Origin: Denmark and Elsewhere, trans. by Peter G. Foote
(Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark, 1985)

Nationalmuseet, and Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, ‘Gørlev-Sten 1’, Danske Runeindskrifter

<http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Gørlev-sten_1> [accessed 27 October 2016]

———, ‘Gørlev-Sten 2’, Danske Runeindskrifter

<http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Gørlev-sten_2> [accessed 27 October 2016]

‘Scandinavian Runic-Text Database’ (Uppsala Universitet, 2014)

<http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm>

Spurkland, Terje, Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions, trans. by Betsy van der Hoek
(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005)