Woo Hoo! I’ve received the following reading of the runes from DrGaby Waxenberger who is based at the Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany:
The inscription is on two sides of the object and has three runes on each side.
I consider the inscription as Old English because of the diagnostic rune æ
READING
I read (from left to right):
Side A:gdeGDE
The last rune e E could also be double ll ll, that is l (from left to right) and one l (from right to left) although I consider it less likely.
Side B: tæa tAA
The last rune (rune 3) is not quite certain because of the end but from what I can see I would say a, which is also a diagnostic rune for Old English.
Judging from the pictures, I personally consider the inscription fragmentary.
Side A: gde GDE
1. g+de : de = past tense ending of a weak verb whose stem ends in g
and
Side B: tæa tAA
2. tæ: tæ = past tense ending of a weak verb. The following a would be the beginning of a new word.
Normally, the endings in the past tense should be either –æ or –e (-e developed from –æ) but we do find –æ ([.]geredæ: ondgeredæ (ondgyrwan ‘to disrobe’ weak verb class 1) and –e (1x: 3rd person pret. sg. walde (willan ‘to wish’ anomalous verb) on the Ruthwell Cross, although not of the same type of verb (= weak).
As a second possibility, I would like to suggest that the inscription was originally intended as a part of the fuþorc (see below 1-4) although side one would be unusual: gde instead of the normal order ged (see below London Thames Scramasax)
London Thames Scramasax (see below no 3).
In combination with Side A, side B reminds me of the second part of the Malton Pin glaæe (see below no. 2)
glaæe = Malton Pin
gdetæa = New Find
In the Old English Runes Corpus (epigraphical material) we have four fuþorc inscriptions (3x parts of the fuþorc and 1x a complete fuþorc row: see below). There has been a tradition of inscribing the fuþorc/fuþark row, either fully or partially (see Düwel – Heizmann (2006), Bammesberger A.; Waxenberger. G. (eds.), Das fuþark und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen/The fuþark and its further developments in separate linguistic traditions.)
The four fuþorc inscriptions of the Old English Corpus read as follows:
1. BRANDON PIN [Brandon Remembrance Playing Field Committee, inv. no. SAU BRD 018 8679 [Webster 1991:82].
Date: late 8th or early 9th century [Backhouse - Webster 1991:82; Mitchell 1994:BrPi1; Flowers 1999:8]
Runes according to Backhouse - Webster’s (1991:83) picture and Parsons’ (1991:8) drawing
fuþorñhwhniçpx¯[…]
Line 1: fuþorcjwhnij [Page 1999:81]
Line 2: ïpxs [Page 1999:81]
2. MALTON PIN [British Museum, London: M & LA: Reg. No. 56217-T.261 (2000 5,-8)]
Date: Page (1999a:12) thinks that Malton “may share” a mid-Saxon date range with the Brandon Pin-Head (= late 8th or early 9th century).
fuþorcglaæe [Page (1999a:12; Waxenberger autopsy: April 2001]
Page considers l (R8) as an error for w because of its place in the fuþorc.
3. LONDON THAMES RING [London: Museum of London; London Wall; London EC2Y 5HN; Acc. No: TEX 88 [+] <1330>]
Date: According to Gosling (1991:191) it is “impossible to date this ring closely” because “the spoil being machined out at the time was very mixed and included deposits from much earlier foreshores.” Page (1999:36) comments: “It has yet to be dated.”
[tt]fuþniine […] [Gosling 1991:192] or possibly [ææ]fuþniine […] [Gosling 1991:192; Flowers 1999:28].
paper slip with the object
Beginning, quite arbitrarily, to the right of a break in the ring, the inscription reads as follows:
[..]fuþniine
Following one of those mysterious doubled æ-runes, or t-runes, comes an abbreviated futhorc, of which ni is possibly an elliptical continuation. The sequence in ine could be interpreted as the Old English male name Ine.
R1 is considered an “[ideogram]” by Flowers (1999:28).
The sequence R2-6 is taken as an abbreviated fuþorc formula by Flowers (1999:28). For R5-6 Gosling (1991:192) considers the possibility that the “sequence ni could represent the continuation of an extremely abbreviated fuþork.”
The sequence R7-9 is regarded as a personal name by Gosling (1991:192) and Flowers (1999:28), although Gosling points out that “the layout of the inscription gives no hint that these three runes form a discrete sequence.”
4. LONDON THAMES SCRAMASAX [London: The British Museum, Department for Medieval and Later Antiquities: M & LA 1857,6-23,1]
Date: In earlier approaches to date the London Thames scramasax suggestions varied from as early as 400-500A.D. [Stephens 1884a:111] and ca. 550 ca. 600 [Nerman 1959:289] to around 700 [Harder 1938:146; Krause Jankuhn 1966:11] until the 9th century [Elliott 1959:79]. More recent approaches agree on a later date ranging from the (end of the) 9th century [Wilson 1964:38;146; Page 1973:115; Elliott 1989:43] to the 9th-10th century [Haith 1984:101; Mitchell 1994:ThS1] until as late as the 10th century [Page 1999:29]. For the runes themselves, Seebold (1991:511) considers “eine Zeit nicht allzulang nach 700 am wahrscheinlichsten” but this period seems too early according to the rune forms [see Waxenberger 2000; Waxenberger forthcoming].
II. DATING from a runological point of view
Rune Š might gives us a possible hint regarding the date the object.
The earlier variant D was used from ca. the 5th cent. to the 9th cent. [In the case of Monkwearmouth Stone I (early 10th - 11th century) it was also used].
From the 7th until the 11th cent. the later variant Š was used.
For the object this could mean that it was probably carved after the 7th cent.
III. ABOUT OUR OWN PROJECT
Who we are: Professor Dr. Alfred Bammesberger and Dr. Gaby Waxenberger
Where we are: Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany.
Contact us: gabriele.waxenberger@ku-eichstaett.de
Our objectives: We wish to edit all authentic Old English runic inscriptions of more than one rune carved in the Old English fuþorc (= 97 inscriptions). We have been working on a paper edition and it is our aim to publish it in one or two years. We have also been working on the Old Frisian runes which will be published either as a data-base together with the Old English runes and/or as a separate paper edition.
OpenCalais helped to tag this with: Alfred Bammesberger • BRANDON PIN • Brandon Remembrance Playing Field • Brandon Remembrance Playing Field Committee • British Museum • Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt • Department for Medieval and Later Antiquities • Gaby Waxenberger Where • Germany • London • Museum of London • Stephens • Woo Hoo
Possibly related posts: 2005 T298, Medieval Runic Gold Fragment from Essex • An experience not to be missed 23rd September • Kate Sutton in the Times •
