The yew rune in the Pforzen inscription

IPJhivissriIIIiJ1LPJ Neue 11I uIîJUhu! In redaktioneller Zusammenarbeit mit Gaby Waxenberger herausgegeben von Alfred Bammesberger VAN DENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN Historische Sprachforschung (Historical Linguistics) (vormals: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung) Herausgegeben von Alfred Bammesberger und Günter Neumann Volker Babucke: Die der Deutung: 1. Z Befund . ........... Erganzungsheft 41 Peter Pieper: Die Run Deutung: 2. Techn Uberlegungen. Klaus Düwel: Die R der Deutung: 3. L Die Veröffentlichung dieses Buches wurde dutch Beihilfen der Katholischen Universitgt Eichstatt, der Maximilian Bickhoff-Universitatsstiftung (EichstStt), der Universitatsgesellschaft Eichstgtt e.V., der Sparkasse Eichstatt, der Volksbank Eichstatt und der Sparda-Bank München gefördert. Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Ute Schwab: Die Run Deutung: 4. Disk Tineke Looijenga: T Elmar Seebold: Bern CIP-Einheitsaufnahme [Historische Sprachforschung / ErganzungsheJi] Historische Sprachforschung: (vormais: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung) = Historical linguistics. Erganzungsheft. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Früher Schriftenreihe; Reihe Erganzungshefr Zn: Historische Sprachforschung ISSN 0939-5598 Norbert Wagner: Zur - 41. Pforzen und Bergakker. - Robert Nedoma: Di Pforzen - ein Zen 1999 Pforzen und Bergakker: neue Untersuchungen Zn Runeninschriften / in red. Zusammenarbeit mit Gaby Waxenberger hrsg. von Alfred Bammesberger. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999 (Historische Sprachforschung : Erganzungsheft ; 41) ISBN 3-525-26231-0 Heiner Eichner: Add - © 1999 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. Printed in Germany. Das Werk einschheIllich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung aullerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulassig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfaltigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Emspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Norbert Wagner: Ah Alfred Bammesbege PtI1D[U! Volker Babucke: Die zen (Allgau). Klaus Düwel: Die R (Allgau) . ....... Inhalt )rschung Abkürzungen ................................................ Istics) de Sprachforschung) Vorwort ...................................................... ater Neumann I. Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen 11 Aspekte der Deutung: 1. Zur Herkunft und Datierung: Archäologischer Befund. ...................................................... 15 Aspekte der Deutung: 2. Technologische Beobachtungen und runographische Uberlegungen. ................................................ 25 Aspekte der Deutung: 3. Lesung und Deutung . ........................ 36 Aspekte der Deutung: 4. Diskussion. ...................... ................ 55 Looijenga: The Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription . ..... Ti Tineke 80 Elmar Seebold: Bemerkungen zur Runeninschrift von Pforzen. ... 88 Norbert Wagner: Zur Runeninschrift von Pforzen . ................ 91 Robert Nedoma: Die Runeninschrift auf der Gurtelschnalle von Pforzen ein Zeugnis der germanischen Heldensage . .......... 98 Runeninschrifren / in red. on Alfred Bammesberger. Heiner Eichner: Addendum zu Nedoma . .......................... 110 3recht, 1999 Norbert Wagner: Ahd. Eigil(—). .................................. 114 Alfred Bammesbeger: Pforzen: Eine Anmerkung zu gciso7ctin. ..... 118 Volker Babucke: Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) Peter Pieper: Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgau) - Klaus Düwel: Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgäu) h Beihilfen der Katholjschen niversitatsstiftung (Eichsritt), kasse Eichstatt, der Volksbank ichen gefördert. heitsaufnahme rische Sprachforschung: (vorHistorical linguistics. oeck und Ruprecht Historische Sprachforschun g ing) = Ute Schwab: Die Runenschnalle von Pforzen (Allgau) - - - .. - 1999 - zungsheft ; 41) Göttingen. inerTeilejsturheberrechtli ch Grenzen des Urheberrechtsund strafbar. Das gilt insbeoverfilmungen und die Emischen Systemen. ngen H. Der Elfenbeinring von Pforzen Volk-er Babucke: Die Runeninschrift auf dem Elfenbeinring von Pforzen (AllgRu). ................................................. 121 Klaus Düwel: Die Runeninschrift auf dem Elfenbeinring von Pforzen (Allgau). ..................................................... 127 ha It 6 Abkü IlL Das Scheidenbiech von Bergakker Tineke Looijenga: The Bergakker Find and its Context . .......... 141 In folgenden sind häufig Theo Vennemann: Note on the Runic Inscription of the Bergakker Scabbard Mount . ............................................. 152 Elmar Seebold: Die Runeninschrift von Bergakker . ............... 157 Bengt Odenstedt: The Bergakker Inscription. Transliteration, Interpretation, Message: Some Suggestions. ........................ Arend Quak: Zu den Runenformen der Inschrift von Bergakker. .. 163 174 Alfred Bammesberger: Die Runeninschrift von Bergakker: Versuch einer Deutung . ............................................... 180 IV. Varia - 189 ............................................. 203 Alfred Bammesberger: Zu arjostez auf dem Stein von Tune . ...... 205 - Alfred Bammesberger: Zum Namen swabaharjaz ................. Regine Marth: Das Runenkästchen im Herzog Anton UlrichMuseum Braunschweig em angelsachsisches Werk des 8. Jahrhunderts in Niedersachsen . .................................... 208 ECL EN fern. Flb. 209 frank. Gall. gall. Gen. 216 gen. - Gaby Waxenberger: The Problematic Inscription on the Brunswick Casket: Research Summary . .................................. cap. Dan. Dat. Alfred Bammesberger: Lauchheirn: Eine linguistische Anmerkung zu P H a. acc. ae. afr(ie)s. and. ai. air. Akk. alb. anfränk. anorw. as. C. - Thorhallur Eythorsson: The Runic Inscription on the Reistad Stone: The Earliest Laridndmabók. ................................... a Bibliographie ....................................................231 Tafein 1-9 .......................................................281 Gk. Gmc. got. Goth. griech. heth. Hi. i idg. IE Germ. a-De ante accusative altenglisch altfriesisch althochdeul altindisch altirisch Akkusativ albanisch altniederfri altr1orwegi altsachsisd circa Kapitel Danish Dativ Evangetior disfarrzeris ECL. East Nordi feminin Flatey3aro Fib. frankisch Gallic gallisch Gerntiv genitive Greek Germanic gotisch Gothic griechisc hethitisch Heilig Germ. i-E indogermi Indo-Eurc The Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription0 Tineke Looijenga I. In this paper, I propose to investigate the occurrence of the so-called yew rune in runic texts of the oldest period, and its significance in the Pforzen inscription. Whereas I initially took the presence of the yew rune in the Pforzen inscription as a deliberate graph, I now assume that it might have been the product of a scribal error. Below I shall explain how I was lead to this assumption. II. The question of the original sound value of the yew rune SI is most interesting. The problem has been treated by many scholars without reaching a consensus. According to Odenstedt (1990:75), there are no examples of SI in the oldest Scandinavian and Gothic inscriptions (175-400 AD). After 400 AD, instances are found in several fu]ark inscriptions, such as those are carved on the Kylver stone and the Breza column. But neither object can be dated accurately. Breza is in all probability early 6th century (Looijenga: forthcoming). There are instances of SI in complete fukark-inscriptions on three bracteates (Grumpan, Motala, Vadstena). Bracteates with runic legends generally are dated to the late fifth and the early sixth centuries, Fuork-inscriptions do not indicate the pronunciation or sound-value of the letters; hence we will have to look elsewhere for legible and interpretable texts. The rune SI is commonly taken to represent a vowel although Moitke (1985:64) postulates that it originally stood for the unvoiced fricative [ç]. To mention just a few explanations, Antonsen (1975) prefers the transliteration , representing Ce < Gmc. 0, Krause (1966:5) transliterates 1, Arntz Zeiss (1939) è, Page (1968) transliterates it as Below I give seven occurrences from the period between circa 400 and circa 700 AD. In these texts I transliterate SI as Y. It appears that, in at least six cases, the yew rune indicates a vowel or perhaps a semi-vowel; in the seventh case, the value is not clear, - In at least two instances, the yew rune occurs in an inscription that exhibits the sequence N al. One inscription is on an object found in England, although it probably originates from Scandinavia; the other inscription is from southern Bavaria. Both inscriptions are dated rather early, to the fifth and sixth centuries. (1) The first inscription is on an astragalus from Caistor-by-Norwich, East Anglia, dated circa 425-475 [Hines (1990a:442)]; the runes read raïhan 'roedeer', 0E râha (0E a < Gmc. *ai). The astragalus was a roedeer's bone. This inscription may well be our oldest instance of the yew rune in an inter0. The present article was written before Peter Pieper presented his work, 1. Profound studies of the yew rune and its relation to the Germanic vowel system have already been published by Leo A. Connolly (1979:3-32), and, as a "Controversial rune in the older Futhark" by Harry Anderson (1984:103-110 and 1985:15f.). Herewith I refer to their analyses and I shall not pursue this part of the subject here. pretable text. Th perhaps for the s the two runes ï an (2) The second in near Pforzen in B ry. The inscriptio Clearly two peopi 'sought') somethin of the two persons, in the ON VQlwid and Qlrûn2 is one partner. Egill is kn (3) Another Anglo found in the inscri dated fifth or sixt scription, the yew the sound i. (4) Another attest third of the sixth c riant for rendering (5) Uncertain, but rivets, dated last th Württemberg, Ger but I conjecture twigs can be seen. I SI (6) A sixth instanc Saône-et-Loire, Fra brooch is inscribed and furthermore the been explained. Curi Württemberg) has t clear what ja means 2. Q1rin was the daug Vries (1962:312). Vallar name of a famous smit relation between a dau weaponsmith. She cart although the motif of story [see -Nedoma (19 or of Celtic origin [Sc] remarkable that the na of any of the early run 3. The datings of the c Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription 81 pretable text. The yew rune appears to be used here instead of the i-rune; perhaps for the sake of variety. According to Sanness Johnson (1974:40), the two runes ï and i were used as graphic variants (in "historisk runetid"). (2) The second instance of the sequence al is on a buckle, found in 1991 near Pforzen in Bavaria, and dated to the second half of the sixth century. The inscription is transliterated aigil andi alirun 1 tahu gasokun. Clearly two people, Aigil and Aïlrun, quarrelled about (or 'condemned', or 'sought') something, which might be hiding behind the single 1. The names of the two persons, a man and a woman, are well-known because they appear in the ON VQlurzdr saga as Egill and Qlrfln. Egill is the brother of Vqlundr, and Qlruin2 is one of the swanmaidens. She is the one who becomes Egill's partner. Egill is known as an exceptionally skilled archer (Marold 1996). (3) Another Anglo-Saxon instance of the yew rune, transliterated ï, can be found in the inscription sïbbd on the Loveden Hill urn (Lincolnshire), dated fifth or sixth century [Hines (1990a:443)]. Note that also in this inscription, the yew rune probably has been used as a variety for rendering the sound i. (4) Another attestation from Germany (Freilaubersheim, Rheinhessen, last third of the sixth century)3 shows the yew rune presumably again as a variant for rendering the sound i in da?lna. (5) Uncertain, but possible, is an instance of J' on a square fitting with rivets, dated last third of sixth century, from Heilbronn-Böckingen (BadenWürttemberg, Germany). The initial rune has been perforated by the rivets, but I conjecture J' may have been carved, since some remains of the sidetwigs can be seen. I read Ik arwi 'I, Arwi'. (6) A sixth instance of the yew rune is found on the Charnay fibula (dép. Saône-et-Loire, France), dated to the second third of the sixth century. The brooch is inscribed with a nearly complete fukark containing a yew rune, and furthermore the legend: ufnkai iddan liano ha. The part ha has not been explained. Curiously enough, an inscription from Weingarten (BadenWürttemberg) has the legend aergu: feha:writ ja, and here too it is not clear what ja means [Looijenga (1997:152)]. 2. Qlrûn was the daughter of King Kiár of Valland. Kjárr = Caesar, according to De Vries (1962:312). Valland is the land of the Romans or the Merovingians. Vqlundr is the name of a famous smith, a hero's name, according to De Vries. So the story is about a relation between a daughter of a Roman emperor and the brother of a famous Germanic weaponsmith. She came disguised as a swanmaiden, e.g. a Valkyrie, from the South, although the motif of the swanmaidens may have been a later addition to the original Story [see -Nedoma (1995:196)]. The second part, -run may be either of Celto-Germanic or of Celtic origin [Schönfeld (1965:196)]. The name element may mean 'secret'. It is remarkable that the name-element -nin is otherwise not attested in the surviving names of any of the early runic traditions (see Peterson (1994a) for instance). 3. The datings of the objects from the Continental corpus are based on Roth (1981). 82 Tineke Looijenga (7) The legend of bracteate Nebenstedt (1)-B (Niedersachsen, dated to the end of the fifth, beginnning of the sixth century) is well-known; it reads: glïaugiz ulu rnz 1. It contains two instances of the yew rune, both times transliterated I. The reading glïaugiz wî(h)ju riirthz 1 is interpreted a.s: 'Glïaugiz. I consecrate (the) runes l[aukaz]'. The sound value represented by ï is uncertain. In Glïaugiz it may represent something like -ij-. ulu may reflect wi(h)ju, 3 singular present indicative of the Gmc. infinitive * wz7j which may or may not have been pronounced with a velar fricative in the middle. I presume the pronunciation of I in ulu may have been -ij-. lions Freilaubershei Bockingen (Ik arwi) The value [ç] may r late date and in an e In Old English, the may conclude that J' consonant: [e] or Ei] the name was jr.< acrophonic principle followed by the voice could and did interc 1 11. Occurrences of the yew rune in later inscriptions Apart from denoting a vowel, the yew rune could also denote a consonant and as far as it is known, it was used as such exclusively by Anglo-Saxon runewriters. (8) The oldest inscription that shows the yew rune denoting a consonant, (transliterated as 3 to avoid confusion with ï and h) is alme3ttig 'almighty ' (Ruthwell Cross). The inscription is dated to 700-750 AD. (9) Other instances are toro3treda in Great Urswick, North Lancashire, dated 750-850, and (10) eate3nne 'Eategn' in Thornhill (II). It is curious that the yew runes in alme3ttig and eate3nue should be rendered by 3, since the pronunciation probably was that of the semi-vowel j, corresponding to a palatalised g (Page (1968/1995:137); he states that the yew rune in alme3ttig and toro3treda represents a spirant). (11) The Dover (Kent) rune stone (ninth/tenth century) bears a name jïslheard, +TLirMTK N, in which the yew rune clearly denotes a vowel. (12) The Brandon (East Anglia) pin from the ninth century exhibits g, h, j, and 1 () in a fuJorc- quotation: fuorcgwhnijïpxs. The g is rendered by the Sternrune +, the j has its so-called 'epigraphical form' (known from ma4 nuscripts only) and the s has the so-called 'bookhand' form. This would point to ecclesiastical influences [see Parsons (1994)]. The J' is in its usual place in the fuborc. Its sound value cannot be deduced from this inscription. r IV. In three of the earliest inscriptions, Caistor-by-Norwich raïhan, Nebenstedt glïaugiz uïu, and Pforzen aïlrun, ..I' was probably used to render a sound such as long palatal jj: ij or ji(i), perhaps caused by the fact that it denotes the transitional stage between two syllables. In the other three inscrip- In my opinion the p the graphic represen t runic texts containi have been developed J' 6 The pronun the yew rune may b in the initial runic al It may be that the a vowel, i, and a se ii runic evidence, e.g. may have wanted at sounded more like a graphers wrote accoi ij, or ji. Both graph the sounds j and i() to denote just [i] an 4. Page (1968/1995:137 rune-name, but from a primary function had value, ( ... )". 5. But if the yew-rune represented by the rune it might have been [], I of e and f (*ehwaz and 6. Bindrunes consisting excluded, since in that in this case, and in the of these runes is based the graphical and the p 7. See Lagman (1989:2 det lâter" \' Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription 83 tions Freilaubersheim (da?ïna), Loveden Hill (sïbbd), and HeilbronnBöckingen (Ik arwi) the yew rune denotes an i sound. The value [ç] may reflect a secondary development, used only at a rather late date and in an ecclesiastical context in Anglo-Saxon England. In Old English, the name of the rune is variously given as eoh and th; one may conclude that J represented two sounds, one of a vowel and one of a consonant: [e] or [i] and [ç].4 On the other hand, in the Norse rune-poems the name was lr < Gmc. *thwaz, *eihwaz; the initial sound (confirms the acrophonic principle of the rune names) is that of a front vowel which is followed by the voiceless fricative [ç]. On the whole, it appears that e and i could and did interchange.5 In my opinion the problem is connected with both the linguistic value and the graphic representation of the yew rune. Analysing the sparsely recorded runic texts containing the yew rune, I am inclined to assume that it may have been devel9ped graphically as a bindrune, consisting of i and j: I and <> J' 6 The pronunciation might have been something like -ij- or -ji-. If so, the yew rune may be a later graphic development that was not yet present in the initial runic alphabet (note that .J' occurs not before the fifth century). It may be that the yew rune was designed to represent a combination of a vowel, i, and a semi-vowel j. The sequence -ii- is known from the oldest runic evidence, e.g. Vimose talijo and Illerup wagnijo (circa 200 AD). One may have wanted at a later stage to merge i and j into one rune, because it sounded more like a monophthong than a diphthong, assuming that runographers wrote according to their pronunciation.' Thus, J' rendered a glide, ij, or j1 Both graphically and phonologically, it appears that J' combined the sounds j and i(i). A little later perhaps, J' could have been and was used to denote just [i] and [i:]. 4. Page (1968/1995:137) suggests that the names eoh, Th do "not derive from the primary rune-name, but from a renaming brought about by the fact that [either] the letter's primary function had been superseded so that its form could be re-used with a new value, ( ... ). 5. But if the yew-rune rendered a sound in between [e] and [i:], which could not be represented by the runes e 0E e(o)h, Gmc. 5 ehwaz: or I i, 0E Is, ON Is, Gmc. *Isa., it might have been [] like Antonsen argumented. The similarity between the rune names of e and ï (5 ehwaz and 5Thwaz, 5 e1hwaz) is remarkable! 6. Bindrunes consisting of the i-rune and some other rune, commonly are per definitionern excluded, since in that case all runes with one staff might be considered bindrunes. Only in this case, and in the case of the Sternrune + one must assume that the development of these runes is based on a combination of I and <> and I and X. This fits in with both the graphical and the phonological sides of the matter. 7. See Lagman (1989:28): "Men den naturligaste stavningsregeln var förstâs: Skriv som dot l4ter" 84 Tineke Looijenga V. The yew rune in the Pforzen inscription, The Pforzen legend alirun presents a baffling situation. There are potential etymological problems in connecting Alirun to the later OHG name Alrtin, or to ModHG Airaun 'mandrake', although Airaun is likely to be the (linguistic) counterpart of the ON Qlrtmn, the partner of Egill (aigil in the Pforzen inscription). Her name literally means 'alerune'.8 One should expect *Alurtjn(a) as the forerunner of both Alraun and Qlrtmn, but this is simply not what was carved in the Pforzen inscription. I suppose we are confronted here with either a scribal error, or that al represents a development that cannot yet be reconstructed. In both aigil and alirun the first part is written with a diphthong. In OHG, ai> ei, and in OS ai> in ON ai> in 0E ai> ã> (through fronting), see Jgili on Franks Casket. The historical Egill's forerunner may therefore have been spelled as *Aigil whereas the spelling in aïlrun is confusing. I assume that, on the analogy of aigil, the carver wanted to carve ailrun, probably instead of *alrun. Remarkably, both spellings, ai and al, occur in the first syllables of the names, and both syllables are stressed, according to alliterative verse. The other a's in the text are in andi and gasokun, and these a's occur in an unstressed position. The runographer may have wanted to express this controversy graphically. But why is there a difference in orthography: ai versus al with a yew rune? I wondered whether this may have resulted from a scribal error. By looking at how the runes are carved, we realize that the a in alirun has very long sidetwigs and the lower twig even crosses the bottom line. It looks as if this twig has been lengthened, i.e. carved in two strokes. I considered the possibility that this may have been the result of a graphical mistake. Instead of carving an i, the carver made an 1 too many or too soon and therefore changed it into a yew rune. The mistake may have occurred because an 1 was to follow in ailrun. Since a yew rune could be used instead of an i-rune, as we have seen in the ralhan inscription, the carver tried to repair his mistake by changing r into .1, by carving an extra sidetwig. This sidetwig coincides with the end of the lower twig of the preceding a-rune (giving the impression as if the lower twig was lengthened). Therefore, I think the sequence al is a scribal error. The question arises whether scribal errors occur more often in rune-inscriptions, 8. As far as 'ale-runes' are concerned, we find information in the Eddaic verse Sigrdrifumal 7: Qirtmnar scaltu kunna, ef JnI viii, annars qvcrn vélit Pic I tryg, ef bu trtir: 4 horni scai jcer rIsta oc 4 handar baki oc rnerkia 4 nagli Nan6 "Learn ale runes eke, lest other mans's wife betray thee who trusted in her: on thy beer horn scratch it, and on the back of thy hand, and the Nauth rune on thy nails." [translation Hollander (1964:235)]. VI. Some inst (1) Freilaubershein row of the inscripti which is quite abra Vaguely another p bably by mistake, caused by b of bos (2) A well-known i is Krogsta, with t naz, which general (3) A third exampi should be read fr o writu 'r[unes] I wri (4) The inscription s?u?d?? midu ki another. The top r vanished, because corrosion. One ma last rune is uncert pressi on that the c the word in the sec As far as the early carver made a mis (5) Chessel Down r cannot be k sin since the rune has t later English and F might be to translit legends. But again, a scribal error,10 all (6) The West Hesler reading from right t OS meni, pointing is correct, the rune letters (metathesis) Lagman (1989:33) metathesis (omkast 9. Meijer (1995a:79) Ii remedied by starting mentions is "The mist instances, for example ritu was wrong, the r* 10. Eichner (1990:329; levelled w-rune. Thus Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription _isjUI I fli1II-KO II [s) 85 fl• (1) Freilaubersheim reads boso:wraetruna kda?ina:go1ida. The second row of the inscription starts with '< 'lj[i]k'. At a close look, the initial rune, which is quite abraded, has its pocket nearly at the bottom of its headstaif. Vaguely another pocket can be perceived higher up on the headstaif. Probably by mistake, a b-rune was at first intended, perhaps due to confusion, caused by b of boso right above it. (2) A well-known instance of a mistake that evidently could not be repaired is Krogsta, with the inscription 114 I1R, reading from right to left sïai naz, which generally is considered to be a mistake for stainaz. (3) A third example is the Sievern bracteate with the legend All 5j1, which should be read from right to left as rwrilu. It was probably meant to be writu 'r[unes] I write'. (4) The inscription on the brooch Neudingen-Baar (Baden-Württemberg) s?u?d?? midu klefiija is executed in three rows of runes beneath one another. The top row is very difficult to read since the runes have nearly vanished, because the tinned surface of the back has suffered badly from corrosion. One may read udim [with Düwel (1997a:492)], but especially the last rune is uncertain. The second row has clearly midu. One gets the impression that the carver was not satisfied with his first row and repeated the word in the second row, now from left to right.' oking long if this posstead refore 1 was rune, ir his etwig g the r arises fumal hornz other back As far as the early English corpus is concerned, one wonders whether the carver made a mistake in the inscription on the scabbard mouthpiece of (5) Chessel Down (Wight), AF :K I, transliterated ko:?ori. The rune r cannot be k since that would disagree with A in aeko. It might be s, since the rune has the form of the so-called bookhand-s, such as the ones in later English and Frisian inscriptions. But what is son? A third possibility might be to transliterate it as 1, analogous to similar runeforms in bracteate legends. But again, what is ion? A solution may be to regard the rune as a scribal error,10 although it is unclear what was meant. (6) The West Heslerton (North Yorkshire) brooch bears an inscription M I reading from right to left mien. The meaning might be 'jewellery', 0E mene, OS merii, pointing to the object, a piece of jewellery. If this interpretation is correct, the runecarver made an orthographical error in misplacing the letters (metathesis), perhaps as the result of some degree of illiteracy. Both Lagman (1989:33) and Meijer (1995:30ff.) have given several instances of metathesis (omkastning) in Viking Age inscriptions (see below). 9. Meijer (1995a:79) lists in his article the category: "Omission discovered: the mistake remedied by starting anew". He finds three occurrences. Another category that Meijer mentions is "The mistakes 'corrected' by adding the correct form". Here he finds five instances, for example Svista, U 193: litu ritu rita. Meijer: "On finding that the spelling ritu was wrong, the runographer added the correct form: rita". io. Eichner (1990:329; note 45) assumes that the rune might be taken for a somewhat levelled w-rune. Thus one may read wor[hta]/ 'made'. 86 Tineke looijenga In two cases a b may have been carved incompletely with only one pocket instead of two. translite(7) The Watchfield fittings bear an inscription HK I AI. PH rated as hriboki wusre. If the rune F> actually should be R, one would get busa, bu(r)sx 'purse'. This interpretation, 'H's purse', would refer to the object, a leather purse" (decayed, only the copper-alloy fittings were left). (8) A second instance of an incomplete b is on the Bezenye brooch (Komitat Mosony, Hungary) arsiboda segun, of which Krause (1966:309) writes: "... nur den unteren Buckel, scheint einen oberen auch niemals gehabt zu haben". Finally, the Grdlösa inscription has an incomplete z-rune in M<FN r, transliterated ek unwodz. (9) Svante Lagman (1989) investigated cases of misspellings (feiristnirigar) in Viking Age inscriptions in Sweden. He found all sorts of deviating spellings, often due to the writer's orthographic uncertainties, differences in pronunciation, or a slow pronunciation, which leads to the writing of svarabhaktivowels (extra runor). Other categories he listed are uncertainties about the two r-sounds (R and r), and the difficulty in distinguishing between t, b and in certain positions. Besides, he has counted left-out runes (uteldmnad eiier utegiömd runor), metathesis and grafisk förväxiing, which occurs when runes are much alike, such as is the case with the younger futhark runes a and n-1 and. regards cases of graphic although with a wrong + a/n corrected into mentioned that there is did not result in a nottaken at its face value, I refer to t futhark: harijaz leugaz [Looije g occurs also in the ins (1966:302)] a u/r zdnl As a conclusion I sugge tains a scribal mistake i was not intended but t that the runographer w vered that he had omit many, he made up for h side-twig, thus creating Rijksuniversiteit NL-Groningen Jan Meijer (1995) collected a number of scribal mistakes of a certain kind in Viking Age inscriptions. These mistakes are cases of (pseudo-)metathesis, i.e. "the inversion of the order of two generally neighbouring phonemes". He distinguishes various categories: "due to mistakes"; "sound-analysts"; "genuine metathesis" and "metathesis?". - - In a second investigation, Corrections in Viking Age rune-stone inscriptions (1995a), Meijer discusses instances of corrections. He describes different types: "the correction was made across the original character" (56 times); "the correction results in a genuine bind-rune" (2 times); "the mistake discovered when a shallow 'sketch' had been made" (13 times); "the mistake 'wiped out"' (0 times); "omitted rune inserted" (54 times); "insertion of the omitted rune results in a bind-rune" (14 times); "omitted rune(s) added outside the text-band" (31 instances in 27 inscriptions); "omission discovered: the mistake remedied by starting anew" (3 times). Neither Lagman nor Meijer mentioned a 'repair' or correction such as might have been made in the Pforzen inscription. However, they did not focus their research on this category of mistakes (i.e. a correction that results in a rune that was not intended, but which does render an acceptable text). As 11. Odenstedt (1991:62) suggests that the word should be read as pusa 'bag'. The whole inscription would be taken to mean 'the army's book's bag'. k\ , 110 Wj - 87 Yew-Rune in the Pforzen Inscription regards cases of graphic change (grafisk förvarling) repairs indeed occurred, although with a wrong, i.e. not wished-for result, e.g. h * resulting from + + a/n corrected into n/a by adding an extra side-stroke. It should be mentioned that there is one case in which the supposed repair of the rune did not result in a not-intended h +. On the contrary, this rune should be taken at its face value, which is z in a form that resembles z in the Charnay futhark: X . I refer to the Skâäng inscription, which in my opinion reads harijaz leugaz [Looijenga (1997:52f.)]. The peculiar 'mirrored' variety of z occurs also in the inscription on the Balingen brooch [Krause Jankuhn (1966:302)] a n/r zdnloamiluk. - As a conclusion I suggest the possibility that the Pforzen inscription contains a scribal mistake in the sequence aïlrun. In this respect, the yew rune was not intended but the result of an attempt to repair an error. I suspect that the runographer wanted to write ailrun, but when the carver discovered that he had omitted the i-rune and wrote one 1 too soon or one too many, he made up for his mistake and emended this 1 rune with one extra side-twig, thus creating a yew rune. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen NL-Groningen k', l\,