STUDIA HISTORYCZNE

R. LVI, 2013, Z. 3 (223)

PL ISSN 0025-1429

Klaus Düwel, Yuriy Kuzmenko

RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS IN EASTERN EUROPE

– AN OVERVIEW

The authors dedicate this article to Elena Melʻnikova.

Abstract

Runic inscriptions in the older futhark on various objects, found in the western part of Eastern
Europe, ranging from the third to the sixth century C.E. Forty Scandinavian runic inscriptions in
younger futhark from Eastern Europe (Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Ukraine), from
the area of the former Byzantium and from the former West Slavic area (Oldenburg/Starigard)
dating from the 8th–12th c., have been discussed and some new interpretations suggested (cf. the
inscription on the spindle from Staraya Ladoga II and runic graffiti on oriental coins).

Key words: runology, runes, epigraphy, archaeology (Germanic), history of Germanic languages.
Słowa kluczowe: nauka o runach, runy, archeologia (niemiecka), historia języków germańskich.

Older runic inscriptions in Eastern Europe (K. Düwel)

The runic script came into being in the first or the early second century A.D. It
spread from a central place in the region of the Danish isles and surrounding
areas. The model was a Mediterranean alphabet (probably the Latin one) that
was transformed into the runes of the new futhark order.1 The first attested runic
row (fig. 1a) that was found is on a stone from 1 Kylver2 (Gotland) and is dated


We would like to thank Kerstin Kazzazi, Eichstätt, for correcting the English text and Elisa-
beth Maria Magin, Göttingen, for the preparation of the manuscript, including the editing of the
pictures.
1
K. Düwel, Altes und Neues zur Entstehung der Runenschrift, [in:] Die Kunde. Zeitschrift
für niedersächsische Archäologie, Neue Folge 61, 2010 [2012], pp. 229–258.
2
The number before a find place refers to the still valid edition of the older runic inscriptions
by Krause/Jankuhn 1966.
328

to the early fifth century. The row of older runes is called futhark after the first
six runes. Each rune represents a phonem and also has a name and can be used
as ideographs (Begriffsrunen). The 24 runes are arranged in three groups (ON
ættir), containing eight runes each. To produce the secret runes, you can take one
of the groups and mark the position of the intended rune therein: e.g. 1:2 which
means first group second position = u, visualised in this way – which is docu-
mented in the inscription of the now lost finger-ring from 46 Körlin (550–600,
fig. 2, BRF II, 48–50). On the ring, the secret rune u has to be combined with
the bind-rune a͡ l to the sequence alu, an apotropaic formula with the meaning
‘defence, protection’.3

Fig. 1: Rune rows (all taken from Düwel 2008, 2, 89, 91)
a – the older futhark and the epigraphical presentation (Kylver/Gotland)
b – Younger futhark (long-branch runes), Gørlev rune stone
c – Younger futhark (short-twig runes), Rök rune stone

3
Another potential alu-inscription on a bronze weight from Odžaci (Hodschag), Vojvodina/
Serbia was introduced by Oehrl 2011, p. 63ff, fig. 2.
 329

Fig. 2: Körlin, finger-ring (Henning 1889, pl. 4, fig. 10)

Fig. 3: Kovel’, lancehead (Grünzweig 2004, 28)

The oldest inscription is found on a bone comb from 26 Vimose on the Dan-
ish island of Fyn and dates to ca. 150/160 C.E. (Düwel 2008, 24). The inscrip-
tion harja, a masculine personal name, probably denotes the owner of the comb.
Already less than one hundred years later the first runic inscription in Eastern
Europe is recorded: The lance head found near 33 Kovel’ (also spelled Kowel)
while ploughing in the fields of Suszyczno (Volhynia, Ukraine) and is dated to
the beginning of the third century. The symbols and runes are incrusted in silver
wire on the iron blade. The runes run from right to left to the point of the blade
and read tilarids (fig. 3). Due to the ending -s, this word linguistically belongs to
the East Germanic dialects, probably Gothic. The Goths were at that time mov-
ing from the region round the mouth of the Vistula to areas north of the Black
Sea. The incrusted symbols are typical of East Germanic lance heads and prob-
ably they originate in the Pontus region (Black Sea). The inscription on Kovel’
represents a compound comprising tila ‘target’ and rīds ‘rider’. It denotes the
lancehead as a ‘rider to (the) target’, i.e., the defending weapons of the enemy
330

or the enemy himself (BRF II, 50–53; Melʻnikova 1977, 134–139; 2001, 88–95
[the following spearheads are mentioned there].; Nedoma 2010, 14 sq.).
A similar lancehead came from a cremation grave in 32 Dahmsdorf (Münche-
berg, Brandenburg), further west. There are symbols and runes on it, incrusted
in the same way as on Kovel’. The five runes (right to left) form the word
ranja (fig. 4), East Germanic ran(n)ja4 and mean ‘runner (against), charger’,
something which runs – i.e., the lancehead – against the defensive arms of the
enemy or against the enemy himself (BRF II, 27–30; Nedoma 2010, 20sq.). It
is the same meaning of the weapon’s name and the same function as we noted
on Kovel’. The rich inlay of silver wire in the shape of different symbols (RGA
28, 2005, 467–469), ornaments and runic characters is most remarkable. Krause
(1937, 19) called this type of inscription “magic-poetic spear-name”. The lance-
names given to the weapons indicating their function could have had a magical
significance (RGA 33, 2006, 18–20). The spear head from a cremation grave
in (Stalowa Wola-) 35 Rozwadów (Poland) shows the same type of decoration.
Unfortunately the inscription – from approximately the same time – is fragmen-
tary, the beginning is missing: ---ḳrlus (fig. 5).5 The ending -s points to an East
Germanic dialect, but any attempts to reconstruct the inscription seem to be in
vain. Therefore a connection with the ethnonym (H)Eruli is not convincing (BRF
II, 74; Nedoma 2010, 21 sq.).

Fig. 4: Dahmsdorf, lancehead (Grünzweig 2004, 34)

4
Double sounds are written only with one rune.
5
A dot under a letter in the transliteration of an inscription marks an uncertain reading.
 331

Fig. 5: Rozwadów spearhead (Grünzweig 2004, 32)

Other runic inscriptions from the eastern part of Europe are found on some
bracteates. These are small round golden plates that are stamped and show pic-
tures on one side. They consist of a man’s head (type A), a human full-length
portrait (type B) and very often a man’s head over or beside a horse (type C),
partly together with other animals (birds) and various symbols. The pictures
of a fourth type (D) depict dismembered animals. There are more than 1000
golden pendants of this kind. On about 200 of them you can find inscriptions
of Roman capital letters, partly mixed with runes, and later on only inscriptions
written in runes, some of them degenerated by processes of copying other bracte-
ates. In spite of this, the inscriptions are in most cases readable, but very often
they cannot be understood from a linguistic point of view. Probably they were
intended to communicate with gods and demons in their own language – so to
speak – which was not understandable for humans (Düwel 2011). The Roman
capital letters found on some of the bracteates confirm the theory that their mod-
els were Roman gold medallions and solidi of the fourth century. As amulets
with an apotropaic function, they were looped and worn as pendants. The gold
bracteates are typical of the Migration Period and circulated from ca. 450–550
mainly in the northern regions of Europe, but some were scattered in the middle
and (south) Eastern parts of Europe, too (Axboe 2007).
Two bracteates are from Poland: a) one was found in 137 Körlin – already
mentioned – (IK 367 unknown find place-C) and shows the 5 runes (left to right)
waiga (fig. 6). This may be the name of the rune- and bracteate master who desi-
gned the model for this copy. But looking at the meaning of ON veig f. ‘power’
and ‘beverage for drunkenness’, it may also be the case that the male name was
a byname for a god, and that god should be Odin, who can be characterised by
power and might and ritual drinking (BRF II, 47 sq. missing since 1945).
332

Fig. 6: Körlin, bracteates (IK 367)

b) 138 Wapno, Woj. Wiekopolskie (IK 386 Wapno-C) is the find place of
the second Polish bracteate. There are two copies with five runes (right to left)
each, reading sabar (fig. 7). The meaning is not clear. It might be an abbrevia-
ted writing of a dithematic name (cf. saba-ricus) (BRF II, 81 sq.; one copy is
in the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin, the other has been missing
since 1945).
Three bracteates are said to have been found in Hungary. They are stamped
from the same model and are named: IK 181, 1 and 2 Szatmár-C (Komitat Sza-
bolcs-Szatmár) and IK 182, 3 Debrecen-C (Komitat Hajdú-Bihar). They com-
prise two sequences of runes (left to right), both near the rim I (in front of the
face of the human head) tualewtl, and (behind the tail of the horse) II lnl/u (fig.
8, the reading in IK 1, Text, p. 313 is corrected in IK 3, Text, p. 293 sq.). The
runes have no meaning; maybe they are intended to communicate with gods or
demons. Methodologically, it is not possible to take ual out of the sequence and
interpret this as an anagram of the formula alu ‘defence, protection’.
Two East Germanic runic inscriptions come from Romania. There is the
famous golden neck-ring from 41 Pietroassa (Pietroasele, District of Buzău,Wa-
lachia; 400-500), part of an enormous gold treasure hoard, which is ascribed to
an Ostro-Gothic leader. It was stolen and broken into pieces. Two of the pieces
are preserved and contain the runes (left to right) gutanio6wihailag (fig. 9), in

6
Only this rune was damaged when the ring was pinched off.
 333

the Gothic language Gutanī ō[þal]7 wī(h) hailag ‘the Goths property [which is]
consecrated and invulnerable’. The purpose of the ring has been debated; pro-
bably it was a symbol of power of a king or leader of a retinue. The inscription
was possibly intended to protect the gold treasure (BRF II, 66–71; RGA 23,
2003, 147–158; Nedoma 2010, 29–31).

Fig. 7: Wapno, bracteate (IK 386)

The second inscription from Romania was found in a woman’s grave (4th c.)
at Leţcani (District of Iasi̧ ): a spindle whorl with a disputed runic sequence
raŋgo adonsuf ××ẹ, which may contain personal names, but in an unclear con-
text (BRF II, 54; Nedoma 2010, 24–29).
Last, four runic inscriptions found in Hungary are connected with the Lan-
gobards before they came to Italy in 568. They are also part of the corpus of
South Germanic runic inscriptions beside the oldest one, namely the belt buckle
from 167 Szabadbattyán (Komitat Fejér; 450–475). The inscription (left to right)
reads marŋsḍ8 (fig. 10) which is either South Germanic Māring s(egun) d(eda)
‘Maring d(id) [the] b(enediction)’ or only Mārings, a Gothic name accompanied
by an unknown symbol (BRF II, 79 sq.; Nedoma 2004, LNr. 63).

7
o is taken to be a ‘Begriffsrune’ (RGA 2, 1976, pp. 150–153).
8
ŋ designates a consonant cluster (i)ng.
334

Fig. 8: Szatmár, bracteate (IK 182, 1.2)

Fig. 9: Pietroassa, neck-ring (Krause/Jankuhn 1966, 93)

 335

Fig. 10: Szabadbattyán, beltbuckle (Kiss/Düwel 1980, pl. 9,2)

The other three objects are fibulae.

a) A pair of fibulae found in a woman’s grave in 166 Bezenye (Komitat Kyör-
Moson-Sopron; 550–570). The runes (left to right) are scratched on the reverse
of each of the fibulae (fig. 11):

Fig. 11: Bezenye, bow fibulae (von Friesen 1933, 72)

336

A unja[?] godahid; Langobardic: [w]un(n)ja Godahi[l]d ‘joy [wishes] Goda-

hi[l]d’ and
B ?arsiboda segun, ̣ Arsiboda segun, ‘the sign of Arsibod’, namely the runes
of the inscription (BRF II, 18–20; Nedoma 2004, LNr. 16 and 42).
b) The fibula from 7 Aquincum (near Budapest; ca. 530) bears two lines of
runes: A fuþarkgẉ, the first group (ætt) of runes in the older futhark and B
klain : kŋia, Langobardic klain kingia, giving the denomination of the object:
‘beautiful fibula’ (fig. 12, BRF II, 11, Nedoma 2011, 34 sq.).
c) Szentendre (Komitat Pest): the runic character of some signs is uncertain
(Nedoma 2011, 42).

Fig. 12: Aquincum, bow fibula (Grønvik 1985, 178)

The last runic inscription in this overview is a rune row on a stone column
(limestone), which was found in 5 Breza (near Sarajevo, Bosnia) in the ruins of
a Byzantine church. The runes run from left to right and cover the rune row from
f to ḷ, the following runes are not preserved because of damage to the column.
The purpose of this inscription is not clear, alphabet magic might play a role.
These are the 17 runic inscriptions in the older futhark which are known to
have been found in Eastern Europe, taking this geographic term in a broad sense,
ranging from the Eastern part of Germany, via Poland and Ukraine to Hungary,
Romania and Bosnia. The time span stretches from the early third to the second
half of the sixth century. On the whole, there are no runic inscriptions written
with older runes dating later than the seventh century.
In the 7th and 8th centuries, the transition from the older to the younger futhark
took place. The characteristic feature is that the number of runes was reduced
from 24 to 16 signs, albeit the number of phonemes increased, so that a single
rune represented two or even more sound values. The younger futhark was used
in two variants, the long-branch runes (fig. 1b) and the short-twig runes (fig. 1c).
 337

During the Viking Age and the Middle Ages, these rune rows were partly mixed,
although their usage differs depending on time and geographical region (Düwel
2008, 88–94).

Younger runic inscriptions in Eastern Europe (Y. Kuzmenko)

Contact of Scandinavians with Eastern Europe in the Viking Age was very inten-
sive. The traces of this contact can be seen both in the contacting languages, cf.
Scandinavian borrowings in Russian (eg. the name of Rus’, the proper names
Igor’, Oleg, Olga and many appellatives) and Slavic loan words in the Scandina-
vian languages (eg. Sw., Norw., Icel. torg, Dan. torv < Old Russian търгъ “mar-
ket, square”, Sw., Nor. Dan. tolk, Icel. tulkr < Old Russian тълкъ “interpreter”);
and in the material culture (cf. Scandinavian objects from the excavations in
Staraya Ladoga, Novgorod, Gnezdovo, Daugmale, Wolin etc.). Moreover, there
are runic inscriptions in Scandinavia that refer to places where the Scandinavians
died or got killed on the Eastern Way (austrvegr), eg. Semgallen (in Lettland),
Eystland, Virland (in Estland), Garðar (Ancient Rus‘), Holmgarðr (Novgorod)
etc. (see below). It comes as no surprise that Scandinavian runic inscriptions
have also been found in Eastern Europe. But in contrast to the runic inscriptions
on the British Isles on the Western Way (vestrvegr), where we can find Scan-
dinavian runic inscriptions in the younger futhark9 on memorial stones, there is
only one runic inscription on a memorial stone in Eastern Europe. This is a little
stone (47  48  12 cm, literature in Mel‘nikova 2001, 200), excavated in 1905
on the island of Berezan‘ in the mouth of Dnieper on what was known as the
Varangian Way “from the Varangians to the Greeks”. The runes, which are bor-
dered with a frame, reading: krani : kerþi : half : þisi : iftir : kal : fi: laka :
sin OI Grani gerði hválf þessi eftir Karl félaga sín “Grani made this monument
after his partner (companion) Karl”. The inscription (fig. 13) is written in short-
-twig runes (the rune a has a short-twig variant). The dotted i, which designates
/e/, testifies that the inscription cannot have been written earlier than in the late
10th – early 11th centuries. The inscription is traditionally dated to the end of the
11th c. (about 1070). The word half (hválf) is often interpreted as burial mound
or grave vault, but Mel‘nikova proposed that Grani had not only erected the
stone with the runic inscription, but even had made the mound, too (Mel‘nikova
2001, 201). This assumption is, however, not necessary because the word hválf
could simply mean stone grave or sometimes also rune stone (cf. stainhualf in

9
The so-called younger futhark, the alphabet of sixteen runes, which emerged in Scandinavia
in the Viking Age as a further development of the older futhark, has two closely related variants,
called Danish or normal futhark (long-branch runes) and Swedish-Norwegian or short-twig runes.
However as far as the names “Danish” or “normal” and “Swedish-Norwegian” can be misleading,
I will use the terms “long-branch runes” and “short-twig runes”.
338

G 119). Among 14 inscriptions with hualf (12), hual (1) and half (1) only one
makes a differentiation between a rune stone and a mound or a grave (U170).

Fig. 13: Berezanʻ, rune stone (RGA 5, 1984, 539)

Traditionally, the Scandinavian memorial rune stones were raised at the home
estate of the deceased by his relatives. They were not only memorial in cha-
racter, but they also could serve as a kind of a juridical document testifying
the right of the relatives to inherit the estate. Only four of approximately 2800
memorial stones in Scandinavia were raised for partners (companions), all of
them in Sweden (Vg 112, 122, 182; U 391). The rune stone of Berezan’ was not
erected at the home estate and it was not raised by a relative, but by a fé-lagi
(partner), with whom he shared a movable property (fé) on his travel to or from
Byzantium. The absence of Scandinavian memorial rune stones in Balticum and
Ancient Rus’ and their presence on the British Isles indicate the difference in
the history of Scandinavians in these regions and probably a faster assimilation
of the Scandinavians remaining on the “Eastern Way”.10
The second runic inscription on stone in Eastern Europe was found in 1939
at the excavation in Daugmale (Lettland) (Literature in BRF II, 8; Mel‘nikova
2001, 249). This is a fragment of a stone object (4,6 cm  8cm) with uncertain
origin (upper part of a mace or a cudgel or a stone ring). The runic inscription

10
Only the first four princes ruling Ancient Rus’ had Scandinavian names: Riurik †879
(Hrørikr), Oleg †912 (Helgi), Igor´ †945 (Ingvarr), Olga †969 (Helga). From the second part of
the tenth century (from the son of Igor‘ and Olga Svyatoslav) the Russian princes had either Slavic
or later Christian names.
 339

reads : runar : þisar : o (rúnar þessar o) “these runes o…” (fig. 14). The stone
is broken off and the inscription is not complete. The traditional assumption is
that the lacking runes should indicate the name of the rune master and the verb
with the meaning “to inscribe”, a formula typical of inscriptions in the younger
futhark (“N. wrote these runes”). The form of the runes n, a and s indicates that
the inscription is written in long-branch runes. If the last rune follows this tra-
dition it can be interpreted as /o/ as e.g. in the futhark on a bone from Schleswig
(12th c.) (Moltke 1985, 399).

Fig. 14: Daugmale, stone ring (Schnall 1987, 248 sq.)

The stone ring was found among other objects of Scandinavian origin, which
indicate the presence of the Scandinavian population in this region during a long
period (9th–11th centuries). The layer where the object was found was dated to
the 9th c. However, the usage of the rune r instead of etymologically correct R
in runar may testify to a later date. The later date is also indicated by the form
of the last rune corresponding to the form of the rune o. Thus, the runologi-
cal dating of the Daugmale inscription contradicts the assumed archaeological
dating.
340

Inscriptions on amulets

The number of the Scandinavian runic inscriptions from the Viking Age (8th-
12th centuries) on memorial stones (more than 2500 only in Sweden) cannot be
compared with the number of inscriptions on amulets, even if we treat coins with
runic graffiti as amulets (see below). In Scandinavia (exclusively in Sweden),
only a dozen runic amulets from the Viking Age have been found. The earliest
runic amulets from the Viking Age date from the 9th c. (Ulvsunda, Birka), the
latest to the 12th c. (Högstena). Three pendant amulets found on the territory of
Ancient Rus’ (in Novgorod and Staraya Ladoga) testify that Scandinavian pres-
ence in the Staraya Ladoga (Aldeigjuborg) and Novgorod (Hólmgarðr) in the
Viking Age was very strong. But whereas the runic inscription on the Berezan’
stone was carved on the Eastern Way, we do not know where the inscriptions
on the amulets were inscribed. It is possible that the amulets came to Staraya
Ladoga or Novgorod together with the Scandinavians. The same applies to the
coins with runic graffiti. However, the archaeological data, which show us the
presence of Scandinavians in these regions during at least two centuries, can
testify that runic amulets could have been fabricated in Ancient Rus’.

Ladoga I, The runic amulet from Staraya Ladoga (Museum Staraya Ladoga
N CAЭ-75, ЛП-I/1303). (Literature in Kusmenko 1997, 199-201; Mel‘nikova
2001, 189; RGA 29, 2005, 521sq.)

A copper pendant with a runic inscription (fig. 15) was found in 1975 during the
excavations in Staraya Ladoga in the ruins of a “big building” that had existed
between the middle of the 9th and the end of the 10th c. in the street that, even
now, is called “Variazhskaya ulitsa” (Varangian street). The archaeological layer
has been dated to the late 10th c. This dating is confirmed by two Samanid silver
dirhams minted in 944–945 and 950–951 which were found in the ruins of the
same building and in the same layer as the pendant (Petrenko, Kuzmenko 1979,
79). The pendant has the form of a trapezium and is 48 mm high, 1 mm thick
and 14,2 mm, respectively 18 mm, bright. The original loop of the pendant had
been broken off and a new one was soldered to the pendant. On each side of
the pendant two rows of runes separated by a line are inscribed. The height of
the runes is 10 mm (except for a special form of R, which is much shorter). The
exact number of the runes is not clear in so far as the new loop may conceal the
last runes in the row. The number of visible runes in the inscription is 46 or 47
(side 12:11 (or 12), side B 11:12), but in so far as the new loop may conceal one
or two runes it is possible that the original number of the runes was 48 (12:12
on each side).
 341

Fig. 15: Staraya Ladoga I, amulet (Petrenko/Kuzʻmenko 1979, 78)

Most of the runes have a peculiar form and can be interpreted as mirror runes.11
These are: four runes u, four runes þ, one rune r, one younger rune m; one
older m and probably three older w, which, however, can also be interpreted
as mirror þ. The mirror rune principle can also be used when interpreting signs
that look like usual runes or runic ligatures (bind-runes). Two runes which look
like a long-branch h may be interpreted either as a long-branch mirror rune a or
a long-branch mirror rune n. Respectively, we can find three mirror variants
of the short-twig n and six short-twig mirror runes a. There are some other
peculiarities in this inscription, namely a form of the rune R which has the size
of a short-twig R, but the form of the lower part of a long-branch R, runes with
the double number of strokes, older runes not only as mirror runes w and m,
but also as a normal older rune d (which may also be interpreted as an older
mirror h). The older runes were not forgotten even on the territory of Ancient
Rus’. Older g was found in the inscription on the amulet from Novgorod I and
in the inscription on a whorl from the early 12th c. (see below). Older g and d
are found in the runic graffiti gud “god(s)” on coins from the 8th–10th c., which
served as charms (see below).

11
The term has been introduced by the German runologist Peter Pieper (1987), who showed
that the tradition of mirror runes goes back to the time of the older futhark.
342

Though the inscription was published in 1977 (cf. Petrenko / Kuzmenko

1977, 1979), the first interpretation of the inscription was offered in 1995 (Kuz-
menko 1995, see also Kusmenko 1997). The usage of the principle of the mirror
runes allows us to read and interpret some parts of the text, but the greater part of
the text remains obscure. The preliminary reading of the text suggested in Kus-
menko 1997: }þuRamuþrunaRa? / (ą,t or n)muwaþwaMkfa / unþRuþinþat
/ DaþaRnakifak12, that is Þórr á móðrúnar (áss?) / má váðva mik(ki) fá / unnr
Óðin þat / dáð er Nakki (or Naggi) fékk “Thor has the runes of wrath (or of
courage), áss / do not let me to be captured by the great woe / Oden will do
the deed that Nagge has got”. However, the weak points of this reading and
interpretation were clear (cf. Kusmenko 1997, 197). We can only be sure of the
interpretation of the first line Þórr ámóðrúnar (áss?), but even here the reading
of the last two runes is not clear.
A new interpretation was suggested by Mel’nikova in 2001 (Mel’nikova
2001, 190-195), who accepted the mirror rune principle and the reading of some
other runes (a muþrunaRMkfaunþRuþiþat aþarnakifak) and even some inter-
pretations (móþrúnaR “the runes of wrath”). She assumed a partly new reading
and almost completely new (though sometimes very obscure) interpretation:
þamuþrunaRis / omuw(þ)alw(þ)mkfa / unþRuþiow(þ)at / HaþaRnaMkifak
þá móðrúnaR es / á móðöld m(aðr) kfa / unþr úþióð at haðar nakifak “I (or
he) obtained the runes of wrath which / in the wrath time (man) … Unn (Oden
or sword) … after battles …”. Mel’nikova left some places without interpre-
tation. A partly new reading and a new interpretation was suggested by S.I.
Steblin-Kamenskaya in 2009 in her paper presented at Kollokviet för historisk
språkforskning held in May 2009 in Stockholm. She accepts in part the reading
of Kuzmenko and in part the reading of Mel’nikova and proposes some new
readings: (þramuþrunaRs / omuþataþ(D?)kfa / unþRuþioþal / HaþaRna ???
þrá móþrúnaR sem (m)óð at dáð (at?)g(e)fa /unn þ(é)r óð í óðal haðar ???
“strive after the runes of courage, which give courage in heroic deed, wish
to yourself reason in the estate…”. She leaves the last runes in the last line
without interpretation. Though her interpretation seems semantically better than
the former ones, her reading of some runes and some grammatical problems (cf.
accusative after þrá, which usually has prepositional government (efter)), do not
allow us to accept her interpretation without reserve.
Though only the interpretation of the sequence muþrunaR móðrúnaR “the
runes of wrath or of courage”, written in mirror runes (muþruna) with a peculiar
form of R, can be accepted without reserve. It cannot be doubted that the rune
master of the inscription on the pendant from Staraya Ladoga used all possible
means to strengthen the spell on the charm: mirror runes, runes with the doubling

12
Majuscules, except R, indicate older runes used in the inscriptions in younger futhark, if
they have different forms in the older and the younger futhark.
 343

of strokes, older runes as well as numeric magic. Other runic inscriptions adhere
to this tradition as well, cf. two other pendant amulets found in Ancient Rus’
(Novgorod I and Novgorod II).

Novgorod amulet I (Historical museum of Novgorod, N 1650/8) (Literature

Mel’nikova 1987, 1998, 2001, 180).

A bronze pendant with a hole in the form of a trapezium with a runic inscription
(fig. 16) was found in 1983 at the archaeological excavation in Ryurikovo Goro-
dishche in Novgorod. Its width is 1. 6 cm – 2.15 cm, length 5.8 cm. The find is
archaeologically dated to the late 10th–early 11th c. Both sides of the pendant are
covered with runes of peculiar forms (mirror runes, older runes, unusual forms
of younger runes). Side A shows 12 runes. Only three of them have regular
forms (older g, older w, older m, and the rune i). Two runes can be interpreted
as mirror runes (mirror R or m and mirror older m (or d), the younger rune
a has a peculiar form which is found only in the inscription on the Rök stone.
The last sign, which also has a peculiar form, is interpreted by Mel’nikova as
the cryptographic sign 1:3, which she reads as t (Mel’nikova 2001, 183); howe-
ver, she mentions that the other interpretations are also possible (m or f). The
form of this rune corresponds completely to the form of a rune on the Hovgård
amulet (Rundatabas UNOR1994:26AM)13. However, the vertical strokes of this
rune on the Hovgård amulet are repeated only two times and not three times as
on the amulet from Novgorod I. Some runes on the pendant are partly damaged.
Mel’nikova assumes the following reading: gwarifarladt, with the two older
runes g and w. She interprets the inscription as g varr í fárland t “protected
(on the way) to the dangerous land” or g varr í farland t “protected on a sea
voyage”. The accusative of the word farla(n)d in combination with the prepo-
sition í indicates direction. The runes g and t are interpreted by Mel’nikova as
runes which are used in the meaning of their names, g “gift” and t “god Týr”
(the rune of victory, cf. Sigrdrífumál 6).
On the other side of the pendant, the same number of runes are carved (12).
Most of them have peculiar forms (mirror runes r, long-branch h, short-twig a),
mirror runes with the doubling of strokes tþ or taþ, is, ik or þiu, mirror bind-ru-
nes )aR, (fa, bind-runes with doubling of strokes (ta, common bind-runes (þą,
(tn, }tan. The last rune looks like a cryptographic sign 2:3 (u or i). If we read all
strokes of the runic ligatures and mirror runes as belonging to the inscription, we
obtain a runic sequence that for the present cannot be interpreted. Mel’nikova,
however, assumes that most of the strokes do not have any linguistic meaning
and suggests the reading: þarn{isk(þąRakiu þarnisk þær eigi ú, “you must
13
The inscription on the amulet from Hovgård has much in common with the inscription on
the Ladoga and Novgorod amulets, in particular in the usage of mirror runes. To our knowledge,
the inscription on the amulet from Hovgård has not yet been interpreted.
344

not be deprived of virility!”. The last rune u is interpreted as a symbol meaning

virility, according to the name of this rune in the older futhark *uruz “aurochs”
(Melʼnikova 2001, 188)14. Although Mel’nikova’s interpretation is very clever,
it requires too many assumptions and leaves too many questions to be accepted
without reserve.

Fig. 16: Novgorod I, amulet (Melʻnikova 2001, 181, 184)

Novgorod amulet II (Historical museum of Novgorod N 1643/3) (Literature

Mel’nikova 1987, 1998, 2001, 188)

The second runic amulet was found at the same time (in 1983) and in the same
place (Ryurikovo Gorodishche) as Novgorod I. It is a bronze pendant (breadth
1.2-1.3 cm, length 4.8 cm) with a hole. The archaeological layer where the
pendant was found is dated to the late 10th - early 11th centuries. The inscription
repeats the inscription on the B side of Novgorod I with some insignificant
changes (an additional semicircle on the left side of the mirrored þ in the first
rune and a more careless carving of the runes).

14
In the Scandinavian runic poems u is never called “aurochs”. In the Norwegian runic
acrostic it is called “cinders”, in the Icelandic “drizzle”.
 345

Runic graffiti on Oriental coins (Literature Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991; Mel’ni-

kova 2001, 115–174)
Coins with graffiti could also be treated as talismans. Some of them have one
or two holes. But though some coins with graffiti have no holes, they could
also be amulets. The Scandinavian amulets in the Viking Age could be carried
in a kind of a purse, which was attached to the belt (Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991,
109–110, with literature)15. In the hoards from the Viking Age found in Eastern
Europe, we can find many coins with graffiti, with pictures of various kinds of
arms, ships, banners that correspond to the real objects found in the excavations
in Eastern Europe, as well as pictures of thorshammers, swastikas and symbols
of Riurikovichi (Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991). Some coins have graffiti in different
languages (Arabic, Greek and even Georgian). In many cases, when only one or
two signs are carved on the coin, it is not possible to determine the origin of the
signs. But some inscriptions have clear features of a runic inscription.

“God” - inscriptions

The most common runic inscription both in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia
is the inscription “god”, inscribed either in older runes gud or in younger runes
kuþ, sometimes as a mixture of the older and the younger runes guþ, kud etc.

Fig. 17: Temerevo, half of a coin (D 24) (Dobrovolʻskiy et al. 1991, 39)

The inscription gud in older runes16 on one half of an Abbasid dirhem

(late 8th, early 9th c.) (D 2417, fig. 17) was found in a hoard in Temerevo (near

15
On one Oriental coin from a Swedish hoard we can read runic graffiti lutir (cf. OI hlutir
pl. of hlutr), which may mean “talismans” (Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991, 109–110).
16
The formula gud in graffiti on Oriental coins may contribute to a better understanding of
the older runic inscription on the fibula from 11 Værløse (alugod), which is usually interpreted
as the vocative of a proper name. This inscription can, however, be interpreted as two formulaic
words alu and god (Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991, 41).
17
The figure after D indicates the number of the coin in the catalogue of the coins with graffiti
in Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991, 134–184, where detailed information about the coins is given.
346

Yaroslavl’, Russia). There is no evidence which could prove which god is meant.
The original form of the word for “god” (West Scandinavian goð/ East Scan-
dinavian guð) was neuter and plurale tantum (“gods”). In the late pagan time
we find graffiti with the name Thor (þur) side by side with the word “god” in
older runes (gud), cf. graffiti on a coin from a Swedish hoard minted in 911 in
Samarqand (Hammarberg / Rispling 1985, 72–73, D 239), which may indicate
that the word gud can refer to Thor.
The runic inscription guþ with the older rune g can be read in the graffiti
inscription on the other coin (late 9th c.) from Timerevo (D 41). On the reverse
side of the same coin a small cross is carved. The runic inscription guþ on
each side of the coin (849/850) found in a hoard near Vinnitsa (Ukraine) is also
combined with a small cross. Mel’nikova supposes that the crosses indicate the
Christian attribution of the word “god” (Mel’nikova 2001, 151). However, cross
as well as swastika in pagan times may be a symbolic picture of a thorshammer
(Dobrovol’skiy et al. 1991, 44). On the coin (910–930; D 422) from the museum
of the University of Lund the inscription kuþ is followed by a thorshammer and
a cross.
The graffito kuþ is carved on the coin (751–752) from Kiev Historical
museum (AR-5246 N 6522-29). Above the inscription kuþ a small cross and
a rune s are carved. Melʼnikova interprets the cross as a long-branch a, and tre-
ats the inscription as as “god”. However, the use of a instead of ą in the word,
designating “the god áss” (the name of the rune ą) was hardly possible in the
8th c. A cross side by side with the inscription kuþ may be a symbolic picture
of a thorshammer. A combination of the rune s, a thorshammer and a runic
inscription is characteristic of the inscription on the knife hilt from Ladoga (see
below).
It is probable that graffiti on the Oriental coin (912/913, D 50) from the
hoard in Kozyanki (Belorussia) and on two Oriental coins (895/896 and 897/898,
D 164, 165) from the hoard in Klukowiczi (Poland) can be treated as a runic
ligature }kuþ.
The graffito “god(s)” was a very popular formula on the Oriental coins found
in Scandinavia. Hammarberg and Rispling have found runic graffiti gud in older
runes on 147 and kuþ in younger runes on 408 Oriental coins from the Swedish
hoards from the Viking Age. On 6 coins, the older runes are combined with the
younger ones (Hammarberg, Rispling 1985, 66, 72–73).

Other runic graffiti on Oriental coins

Two runic graffiti on the coins (D 94, 786/787 and D 109, 701/702) are inter-
preted by Melʼnikova as kiltR and kiltr. On the coin D 109, two separate runes,
þ and t, are carved under the inscription. Melʼnikova compares the inscriptions
kiltR and kiltr with Icelandic gildr “of full worth”, a word which may designate
 347

that a coin is not false (Mel’nikova 2001, 116). However, both the reading and
the interpretation of the graffiti on D 109 may evoke objections. The reading of
the last rune as a staveless r is not probable so far as the coincidence of R and
r was not possible in the early 8th c. The possible reading of the second sign as
u and the last rune as a long-branch s in D 109 can lead to the reading kuts,
which is interpretable as guts (genitive of guþ with the regular east Scandinavian
dissimilation þs > ts)18. In this case the inscription can be compared with the
other inscriptions with “god(s)”.
The runic graffito ubi on the coin (D 86) can be interpreted as a male proper
name Ubbi (Melʼnikova 2001, 116–117). A very interesting runic graffito þmkr
with a short-twig m can be read on the coin from Klukowiczi (Poland, D 163,
895/896), which may be interpreted as the first runes of the runic invocation
known from some runic inscriptions with the words þ(istil), m(istil), k(istil),
r(istil))19, cf. the inscriptions on Gørlev stone (Denmark, 8th-9th c., DR 239), on
the stone from Ledberg (Ög 181) and in one manuscript of the Bósa saga, where
this formula is written in runes.
The palindrome isi (D 77) with the archaic form of s on a coin from the early
11th c. found in a hoard in Eesmäe (Estonia) may be compared with the runic
inscriptions with the formulaic word is (íss) which was the name of the rune i,
cf. the runic graffiti is on a coin minted in 764 in Al Kufa found in a hoard in
Sweden (Hammarberg, Rispling 1985, 70–71) and with the palindrome sis in the
inscription on the Gørlev stone, if we accept the assumption that runic palin-
dromes can be read from the middle (that is sis = is+is).20 The runic inscription
is is also carved on a knife hilt from Staraya Ladoga (Ladoga III), see below.
Individual signs on many coins from the hoards in Eastern Europe look like
runes, cf. k (D 16, 84, 93), long-branch s (D 6, 95, 96, 97, 100, 129, 130,
142), s and k together (D 21, 136), k iii (D 44), long-branch m or R (D 80), u
(D 146, 148, 150), long-branch t (D 99, 160), b (D 159). However, most of these
signs cannot be treated as runes without reserve. They may also be interpreted
as Arabic figures, Latin, Greek or Cyrillic letters or as various marks (RGA 12,
1998, 568), the meaning of which remains unknown to us.
A particular group of runic inscriptions on coins, which are not graffiti but
belong to the coin’s legend, is formed by the names of kings and moneyers on
the coins minted in Scandinavia (first of all in Denmark). Two of these coins
from the 11th c. with runic inscriptions were found in Latvia near Daugmale (not
far from the place where the inscription on a stone ring was found, see above).

18
Other possibilities of the reading of the graffito see in Dobrovo‘skiy et al. 1991, 41–43.
19
þistil (OI þistill) “thistle”, mistil “(mistill) mistletoe”, kistil (kistill) “little box”, ristil
(rístill?) “an instrument to carve (rísta) runes?”. The exact meaning of this invocation is, however,
not clear (cf. Düwel 2008, 89sq.).
20
Marstrander interpreted the palindrome sueus in the inscription on the 1 Kylver stone
(G 88) as eus+eus (Marstrander 1952, 163–164).
348

M. Stoklund reads the two names of the moneyers as Asgeir and Ailmer (Berga
2001, 8; Jensen 2006, 168). The many Danish coins found in Pomerania are
mentioned by Eggers (1968, 10sq.), cf. BRF II, 73.

The runic inscription on a wooden stick from Staraya Ladoga (Staraya

Ladoga II) (Hermitage, St.-Petersburg, Russia, Literature Kuz’menko 2012a;
Düwel 2008, 125f,).

A wooden stick with a runic inscription was found in Staraya Ladoga during
the excavations in 1950. The layer is dated to the early 9th c. It has the form of
a fork with four bright teeth on the one end and a flat cut on the other. It is 42
cm long and round in section (1.5–2.6 cm in diameter). The runic inscription,
which takes up only 12 cm of the whole length of the stick, has been carved in
the middle of the stick on its brightest facet. The runes are 0.8–1 cm high, except
for the first one, which is much shorter. On the reverse side of the stick, three
signs in the form of hooks are carved. The runes are common short-twig runes
(fig. 18). The number of runes is considered to be 52, or 48 if the stem of the
rune r is formed by the stem of the preceding rune. Though the forms of most
of the runes are common short-twig runes, runologists were not able to reach
a commonly accepted interpretation. Admoni and Sil’man in the first publication
of the inscription (1957) have proposed a reading of the whole inscription and
the interpretation of its second part: they read the first part of the inscription as
u(k)ufis(r)ufuaRiþRialtualiRs(r)iis, but do not interpret it. In the second part
fr(s)ąnmąnafr(s)ątfibulsinibluka21 they read a spell written in fornyrðislag with
alliteration frąn mąnafr (fr)ąt fibul si nibluka (ON fránn mánaálfr, fránt fífl, sé
niflunga) “Shining moon demon (OI álfr) / shining monster / be of Niflungs (in
the realm of Niflungs, under the earth).” They postulated that the magic character
of the inscription was confirmed by the magic number of runes (48). Following
the preliminary definition of the archaeologists, Admoni and Sil’man considered
the stick to be a fragment of a bow, and treated the inscription on the bow as
a spell against evil. However, the form of the stick as well as the material of
which the stick was made (fir) contradicts this definition.
The first interpretation of the whole inscription was proposed by G. Høst
initially in a short article in Aftenposten (13.12.1957) and then in the article in
Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap (NTS) in 1960. In NTS Høst treats the stick
as a rúnakefli and the inscription as a fragment of an Old Swedish shield-poem
describing three figures of the Scandinavian mythology pictured on a shield. The
reading and interpretation of Høst (1960):

21
Alternative readings proposed by Admoni and Sil’man are given in brackets.
 349

?ufir(u)ufuaRiþRhat(l,m)iualt(i)Rrii(m)sfrąnmąnakrątfibulsinibluka =
ufir uf uaRiþR hati ualtR rims frąnmąna krąt fibulsini bluka
ON ? yfir of variðr hati / valdr (h)ríms / fránmána grand/ fimbulsinni plóga.
“Above, clad in his cowl the Master of the Hoar-frost, the Damage of the shining moon, the mighty
journey of the plough-oxen.” She proposed that here three personages are mentioned:
the master of the hoar-frost (the giant Thiazi), the damager of the shining moon (the giant Skati)
and the goddess Gefjon, who turned her sons into oxen and ploughed Seeland from Sweden.

Fig. 18: Staraya Ladoga, stick (Kuzʻmenko 2012a, 254)

In the same volume of NTS, the interpretation of the inscription by the renowned
German runologist Wolfgang Krause (1960) was published. He changed the read-
ings of some of the runes and the word division proposed by Høst and assumed
that the inscription is a song of praise in honour of a dead warrior:

(t)ufirufuaRiþRhaliualtRriasfrąnmąnakrątfibulsinibluka =
(t)u (u)fir uf uaRiþR hali ualtR rias frąn mąna krąt fibul sin i bluka
ON (d)ó yfir of variðr halli valdr (h)ræs / fránn, manna grand, fimbul sinn i plóga.
“Died high clad in the stone owner of the corpse (= warrior), shining, ruiner of men (warrior), in
the enormous way of the plough (the earth).”

Kiil (1964) proposed a partly new reading and a totally new interpretation of the
inscription, suggesting it to be a spell on the staff of an arrow:
350

(s)ufi(u)fuaRiþRhaliualiRrimsfrąnmąnakrątfibulsinibluka =
s ufi uf uaRiþR hali ualiR rims frąn mąnakrąt fibulsini bluka
ON (e)s úfi of variðr hali / vélir rims frán(n) mannagrant fimbulsinni plóga.
“The tail is dressed in plumage, the sharp tip (or the serpent of the wooden stick) is attracting booty
in great number for all.”

Over the following 40 years there were no new interpretations of the inscription,
but in 2004 Grønvik proposed a fresh one. The key word in his interpretation is
bluka (ON plóga gen. pl. of plógr “plough”). Grønvik considers the inscription
to be a heroization of a peasant chieftain who is praising the fruitful earth:

(t)ufirufuaRiþRhaliuali(t,a)R(i)rii(m,f)sfrąnmąnak(f)rątfibulsinibluka =
(hel)t ufir of uaRiþR hali ualaR riifs frąn mąna krąt fibul sini bluka
ON (helt) yfir of vaRiþR / halle vallaR rífs / frąn manna grænd / fimbulþsinni plóga.
“(and) steered – surrounded by hills / down into the fertile meadow – / to the brave men’s farms
/ many ploughs.”

Most interpreters either have not paid much attention to the function of the stick,
considering it to be only a material for writing on, or treated it as an arrow or
a bow. The form and the material of the stick (fir) contradicts this interpretation,
however. But it does not look like a rúnakefli either. The stick has a peculiar
form, it is cleft into four parts at the upper end and has a flat cut on the other
end. The form of the Ladoga stick is very similar to the form of a distaff, which
was widely used in Europe in the Viking Age and in the Middle Ages. Finds of
objects connected with spinning in Staraya Ladoga are not rare. Here, two other
distaffs, some spindles and more than 400 whorls have been excavated. The new
interpretation suggested in Kuz’menko 2012a takes into account this function of
the stick. Reading:

(t/þ?)uf(i)rufuaRiþRhaliualtRrils / frąnmąnakrątfibulsinibluka
Þófi (or tó) er of variðr, hali veltr, hræls fránman á grannt fimbulsin(ni), (N)eflaug (or Iflaug) á
“The tow is dressed above, the spindle is rotating. The flashing girl of the ‘reel’ will have a fine
long thread. Neflaug (or Iflaug) possesses (this distaff)”. Three hooks on the other side of the distaff
are marks of an owner.
In the inscription we see a wish or a spell for a spinner to spin so that the weaver may get a fine
long thread. This spell may have been considered to have a stronger effect when carved in runes. In
the Scandinavian tradition, spinning was the most ritual occupation. The distaff possessed magical
powers (the norns twinned the threads of fate) and could serve as gandpinnar or seiðstafar.

It seems that the number of runes on the amulets and on the spindle from Staraya
Ladoga and Novgorod was important (see below the inscriptions on both sides
of the Novgorod amulet A with twelve runes on each side of the pendant, twelve
runes on the Novgorod amulet B, and 48 (4 × 12 or 2 × 24) runes on the wooden
 351

stick (probably spindle) and probably 48 runes on the pendant from Staraya
Ladoga I. In all these inscriptions, are we dealing with numerical magic (24 is
the number of runes in the older futhark)?

Staraya Ladoga III (Literature in Petrenko, Kuzmenko 1979, Mel’nikova 2001).

A bone hilt (length 139 mm) of a knife, archaeologically dated to the 9th c., with
some runes on it was found in Staraya Ladoga in 1975. The hilt is covered with
carvings of Scandinavian type, two horns, a triskele, a meander loop, a swastika,
two ladders with 6 and 9 steps, respectively, and two thorshammers. On the same
side as swastika and thorshammers a short runic inscription in long-branch runes
is (height of the runes 0.8 cm) and a long-branch s are carved. The inscription is
íss can be interpreted as “ice” (cf. is and isi inscriptions on oriental coins above),
the name of the rune i, which is traditionally considered to be a rune which may
bring harm (cf. Nordén 1937, 181). The inscription is with this meaning is quite
appropriate on a knife hilt.

Novgorod III (Historical museum of Novgorod, N КП 39560-1 А 6-30, litera-

ture in Mel’nikova 2001, 251).

A bone fragment with a runic inscription was found in 1958 in the archaeological
layer dated to the early 11th c. The inscription in long-branch runes is the second
part of the younger futhark (long-branch runes) k h n i a s t b l R. The bone is
broken off and the first runes of the younger futhark are missing.

Uglich (Russia), Mel’nikova 2001, 256.

During the excavation in Uglich Kremlin, a fragment of a bone (4 cm × 2,8 cm,

early 11th c.) with five signs (height 1,4–1,7 cm), four of which can be interpreted
as true runes, was found. The fifth sign has two horizontal strokes crossing the
stem, which theoretically can be interpreted as a short-twig mirror m. According
to the drawing in Melʼnikova 2001, 256, only the signs 1 and 3 have traditional
runic forms (short-twig t and þ). Rune 2 can be read as mirror ą or doubled
long-branch t, rune 4 as a mirror k, long-branch a or bind-rune k͡ u.

Suzdal (Russia), Mel’nikova 2001, 253–256.

A fragment of a stone casting mould from the 11th c. (7,7 × 9,8 × 3,6 cm) for the
fabrication of round pendants was found during the excavations in Suzdal (Rus-
sia) in 1976. The form has various ornamental pictures. Some of these pictures
are interpreted as the runic inscription saulofs by Melʼnikova (2001, 253–255).
But, judging from the photo given in Melʼnikova 2001, the identification of the
signs as runes is highly problematic.
352

Later runic inscriptions: Smolensk (Russia, State Historical Museum Mos-

cow, N 108840-2648, literature in Melʼnikova 2001, 207); Polotsk (literature in
Melʼnikova 2001, 252) (12th–13th centuries)

The inscription on a fragment of a birch bark scroll was found in 1964–1976

at the excavations in Smolensk (Russia, fig. 19. Stratigraphically the layer is
dated to the 12th c. Melʼnikova reads the inscription uiskaRtokrimiþein and
interprets it as Vískarr (Vísgeirr) tók rima þann... “Visgeirr took (or bought)
this strip of land (plot).”22 The scroll may be part of a juridical document which
confirmed the purchase of a plot of land in Smolensk. The Smolensk inscription
is the only runic inscription on birch bark among more than a thousand Russian
Cyrillic inscriptions on birch bark from the Old Russian towns (mostly from
Novgorod).23 The Scandinavian presence in Smolensk in the 12th c. is also testi-
fied by other archaeological finds.

Fig. 19: Smolensk, birch bark scroll (Melʻnikova 2001, 207)

During the excavations in Polotsk, a dice (astragalos) with a runic inscription

kaþi was found in the layer dated to the early 13th c., which was interpreted
by Melʼnikova at first as a word corresponding to OI gæði “luck” (Melʼnikova
1977, 252). But later, she rejected her own interpretation on the grounds that
in the Scandinavian medieval runic inscriptions the phonemes /a/ and /æ/ were
designated by two different runes (Melʼnikova 2001, 252–253). However, this
differentiation was not regular and the former interpretation of the runic inscrip-
tion is quite possible. It is also possible to treat the inscription kaþi as a male
nickname Kaði (or Káði), cf. accusative form kaþu of the male nickname Kaða
in DR 83, meaning “hen”.

22
On the confusion of the accusative and nominative forms in the 12th c. (cf. rimi instead of
rima in our inscription) see below the inscription on the whorl from Zvenigorod.
23
A Karelian text in Cyrillic letters and a text in Latin letters have also been found on a birch
bark scroll in Novgorod.
 353

Runic inscription on a whorl from Zvenigorod (Ukraina, Lvov oblast’, Lvov

Historical Museum, literature in Melʼnikova 2001, 209–211)

A whorl (height – 0.9 cm, diameter 2.3–1.9 cm, diameter of the hole 0.8 cm)
with a runic inscription (fig. 20) was found at the excavation in Zvenigorod
(Ukraina) in 1990. The archaeological dating of the layer is 12th c. (1110–1137).
The inscription reads sigriþ and can be interpreted as a female proper name
Sigríðr. The inscription has two peculiarities, the usage of the older rune g,
and the lack of inflexional r. The second peculiarity corresponds to the early
loss of inflections in the other regions of contact in the Viking Age, that is, in
the runic inscriptions from the British Isles and in the names of the moneyers
(both in runes and in Latin alphabet) on the Danish coins – (cf. Kuz’menko
2012b). The Danish monetary tradition developed under a strong Anglo-Saxon
influence.

Fig. 20: Zvenigorod I, whorl (Melʻnikova 2001, 210)

The runic inscription sigriþ on the whorl described above as well as a runic
graffito on the other whorl found in Zvenigorod (diameter 2.6 cm, height 1.1
cv.), which is interpreted by Mel’nikova as gud24 carved in the older runes
(Mel’nikova 2001, 212–213), can testify that the older runes could be used in
Zvenigorod in the 12th c. It is hardly possible to imagine that the whorls were
brought from Scandinavia.

Runic inscriptions (?) in Maskovichi (Vitebsk obl., Belarus). (Literature in

Mel’nikova 2001).

About 120 objects with inscriptions and pictures (mostly on bones and ribs)
where found by the archaeologist L. Duchits during excavations in Maskovichi,
near Vitebsk (Belarus). The archaeological dating is 12th–13th centuries. Many
signs look like Latin or Cyrillic letters and even like Scandinavian runes (k, i, u,
f, long-branch m, R, t, o, older g etc.) or like Scandinavian bind-runes (fig. 21).

24
About the gud / kuþ inscriptions see above.
354

The signs, which look like Scandinavian runes, have been interpreted as such
by Mel’nikova (Mel’nikova 2001, 151–250). However, since many signs have
horizontal strokes and none of the inscriptions could be interpreted as a reliable
Scandinavian word and since no other objects of Scandinavian origin have been
found during the excavations in Maskovichi, the identification of the signs as

Fig. 21: Maskovichi, different objects (Melʻnikova 2001, 245–247)

a – fragment of a rib (8,6 × 0,9 cm)
b – fragment of a bone (4,8 × 1,3 cm)
c – fragment of a stone sinker (diameter 4,6 cm)
 355

Scandinavian runes seems very problematic. It is possible that the signs are
a kind of script, where some runic forms were used, but until present the Masko-
vichi inscriptions remain undeciphered.

Scandinavian runic inscriptions in Byzantium (Literature in Mel’nikova 2001)

A Scandinavian runic inscription which dates to the late 11th c. was discovered
on the shoulders and flanks of a marble lion, which is now in front of the Arse-
nal in Venice, but originally was located in Pireus, the harbour of Athens. The
runes are carved in a scroll shaped like a dragon or a snake, which completely
corresponds to the Scandinavian runic tradition. Most of the runes are not legible
anymore. However, some runes (long-branch and short-twig variants as well as
some bind-runes) are clear. It is also clear that crosses served as a punctuation
mark between the words. The most well-known reconstruction of the text was
suggested by Brate (1914), who proposed that the runes were carved in the
memory of a certain Horsi, “who won his gold in his travels” and that some
men from Roslagen hewed the runes on the lion. The reading and some of the
interpretations by Brate are quite plausible, but since a large number of runes
is not legible, his interpretation remains problematic. Here is an example of
Brate’s analysis (runes in brackets indicate the runes reconstructed by Brate) (þ)
air x isk…rlif(r) li(tu a)uka ui(l)…(r)o(þ)r(s) x l(an)tix þeirr Askell (ok N
ok N-leifr.) létu hugga vel (þeirr eru frá) Róðslandi... “They Askell and N, and
N-leif let hew well (these runes), (they are) from Roslagen…”
Two runic graffiti were discovered on the marble parapets in the Hagia
Sophia (Istanbul). In the first one, carved in short-twig runes, only the first
word is distinguishable. The runic sequence alftan may be interpreted as the
male proper name Halfdan (Svärdström 1970). The lack of h in this name can
either reflect the loss of /h/ in onsets in central Sweden, characteristic of many
runic inscriptions from Uppland in the Viking Age, or by the disappearance of
h in the inscription due to later damage. The second graffito in Hagia Sophia is
also inscribed in short-twig runes. It has two interpretations: ari:k, a male proper
name Ári and k in the beginning of the next word, which could be a verb with
the meaning “made” k(arþi) gerði (Larsson 1989) or arni (a male proper name
Árni) (Knirk 1999).
The Scandinavian runic inscriptions in Byzantium may have been engraved
either by the Scandinavians who were members of the well-known Varangian
Gard of the Byzantine emperors or by the Scandinavian druzhinniks of Russian
princes (almost all druzhinniks who undersigned the treaties of Oleg and Igor’
with Byzantium had Scandinavian names) or by Scandinavian merchants visiting
Byzantium.
356

The Scandinavian runic inscriptions in the West-Slavic area (Literature in

M.L. Nielsen et al. 2001) 25

There are 15 runic inscriptions from the West Slavic area, eight of them from
Starigard/Oldenburg (Schleswig-Holstein), mostly on bones, dating to the second
half of the 11th/first half of the 12th c. No. 8 bears a complete futhork (RGA
29, 2005, 535–538). Four runic inscriptions from Oldenburg/Starigard on ribs
consist of longer sentences (cf. Starigard/Oldenburg 6 bermin : erinde : þat
ik : ei : hafa : skyrte which is interpreted by M. L. Nielsen et al. as bær mín
ærindæ þat ek æi hafa skyrtæ “convey my messages so that I do not suffer any
loss”. Starigard/Oldenburg 4 has an inscription on the both sides of a rib. The
first one makes no linguistic sense: abi:bataba:iestaba. On the other side of
the rib an obscene inscription is carved: kukr : kus kutu kys, “penis kiss the
vulva, kiss”. This inscription has parallels in the Norwegian runic inscriptions
from Bryggen (Bergen). Starigard/Oldenburg 7 is an inscription which can be
interpreted as a proverb: ...ak:eigi:ha:a:hafi:uti:heltr:tak:hu... [T]ak eigi há á
hafi uti. Heldr tak hú[nn] “Don’t find the oarlock out at sea, better use the top
of the mast (for hoisting the sail).”
Three inscriptions come from Alt-Lübeck (BRF II, 54 sq.), two of them are
of the same date, one – a recent find – is inscribed with a complete futhark
(Grabowski 2002, 53; Tank 2004). The bone inscription from Ralswiek (Pom-
merania), date and find place unknown, only reads fu… which remains unin-
terpreted. In addition there is a wooden stick from Wol(l)in (mostly rune-like
characters), moreover a bone piece from Kamień Pomorski, the runes of which
are fuþ, either the beginning of the younger rune row or the obscene word fuð
‘vulva’ on one side, a personal name (?) kur on the other (BRF II, 46), and
finally a gaming piece from Kaldus with the inscription [i]on a taf[l] Ión á tafl
‘Jon owns the game, game piece’ (the last four items are mentioned in RGA 29,
357 with references).
Scandinavian Runic inscriptions found on the territory mostly occupied by the
West Slavs in the 11th-12th centuries indicate close contact between the Western
Slavs and Southern Scandinavians during that time. However, the language of
the Scandinavian runic inscriptions in the West Slavic area shows no signs of
Scandinavian-Slavic contact that corresponds to the features of the language of
the Scandinavian runic inscriptions of the 8th–11th centuries in the Baltic and
East Slavic area.
Besides the runic inscriptions found in Eastern Europe, there are some others
in Scandinavia referring to events taking place in Eastern Europe and to persons

25
We wish to thank Michael for his kind help in giving us his manuscript and handout. All
these inscriptions will be examined by Michael Lerche Nielsen in a forthcoming article, “Runic
inscriptions reflecting linguistic contacts between West-Slavonia and Southern Scandinavia. Cata-
logue: Viking Age runic inscriptions found along the south-west coast of the Baltic Sea (Uppsala)”.
 357

who were involved. We only give some examples to illustrate this category. On
the Alstad stone in Norway (Ringerike, N 62, 11th c.) the younger inscription
says that a certain Torald died in Vitaholm (= Viticev, 40km south of Kiev)
between Ustaholm and Garðar.
Spjallbuði was killed in St Olaf’s church in Novgorod (Hólmgarðr). A stone
(U 687) was erected in his memory in Susta, Skokloster parish, Uppland.
A rather small stone from Pilgårds (Gotland, G 280) commemorates, by an
inscription, a very dangerous Viking expedition passing the rapids of the Dnie-
per. Hrafn, one of the crew, whom Vifill commanded, lost his life in this adven-
ture: “Hegbjôrn raised this stone glaring (and his) brothers […], who have had
stones raised in memory of Hrafn south of Rofstein. They came far and wide
in Eifor [name of a rapid]. Vífill bid.” The stone and its inscription was painted
and originally erected on a hill so that the monument could be seen from far
away.
Finally, a famous Swedish stone should be mentioned because of a Viking
expedition far east to the River Volga and beyond. The chief of the Group was
Ingvar. Most of his men lost their lives abroad. More than 20 memorial stones
commemorate these men. The Gripsholm stone (Sö 179) was erected in memory
of Harald, Ingvar’s brother. Their mother commended this monument and in
a verse, their expedition is described: “Tóla had this stone raised in memory of
her son Haraldr, Ingvarr’s brother. They travelled valiantly far for gold, and in
the east gave (food) to the eagle. (They) died in the south in Serkland.“

Conclusion

The Scandinavian runic inscriptions from the Viking Age found in Eastern
Europe confirm the historical and archaeological data testifying to the presence
of Scandinavians in this area. However, they may provide indications regarding
their ethnicity to a far higher degree than the objects of Scandinavian origin or
Scandinavian proper names. The objects with Scandinavian runic inscriptions
were owned by people who spoke а Scandinavian language and belonged to the
Scandinavian cultural tradition.
According to the type of the object and the inscription, we may distinguish
two kinds of Scandinavian presence in Eastern Europe: a temporary stay either
on the Way to the South or a sojourn as a mercenary or a merchant in Ancient
Rus’ or in Byzantium (cf. the inscriptions from Berezan’, Pireus and Istanbul), or
a permanent settlement first of all in the Ancient Rus’. The runic inscriptions on
the spindle from Staraya Ladoga or on the two whorls from Zvenigorod testify
the existence of permanent Scandinavian settlements. The same applies for the
bone with an incomplete futhark in Novgorod. The runic inscription on a birch
bark scroll from Smolensk shows that Scandinavians preserved their language in
the Ancient Rus’ even in the 12th c. The types and the texts in the Scandinavian
358

runic inscriptions in the West Slavic area in central Europe also indicate that
they were carved where they were found.
As for the runic amulets (Staraya Ladoga I, Novgorod I, II) and the coins
with runic graffiti, which may have served as amulets, found in hoards in Eastern
Europe (D 24, 41, 77, 50, 164, 165, 239), these may also come from the Scan-
dinavian settlements in the Ancient Rus’, however, it is impossible to say where
these inscriptions were made. They could have been carved in Scandinavia as
well. The same concerns the runic inscriptions on the objects from Polotsk,
Uglich and Staraya Ladoga III.
The Scandinavian settlements and quarters in Russia and in the Baltic region
as a rule lay on the routes of the Varangians to the Greeks or to the Arabs
(cf. Daugmale, Staraya Ladoga, Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk, Vinnitsa, Teme-
revo etc.). It is also no coincidence that the majority of the objects with runic
inscriptions, and the most interesting ones at that, come from Staraya Ladoga
(3) and Novgorod (3), places where the Scandinavian presence during the Viking
Age was most obvious. However, we can see that the runic tradition was pre-
served in Ancient Rus’ until the 12th c. (Smolensk, Polotsk, Zvenigorod (2)).
Even the enigmatic script on the objects from Maskovichi from the 13th c. bears
clear evidence of knowledge of the Scandinavian runic tradition.
The language of most Scandinavian runic inscriptions in Eastern Europe
shows almost no traces of language contact with Baltic, Slavic or Greek. It
preserves the features of Common Scandinavian used widely in Scandinavia in
the Viking Age, with some local East Scandinavian features (cf. the possible
assimilation þs > ts in the inscription on D 109 or the loss of /h/ in the runic
graffito in the Hagia Sophia is characteristic of the Uppland dialects even now).
But in two runic inscriptions from the 12th c. (the inscription on the birch-bark
scroll from Smolensk and the inscription on the whorl from Zvenigorod), we
can observe the confusion of accusative with nominative, which was possible
neither in the runic inscriptions from the 12th and 13th centuries in the conti-
nental Scandinavian languages nor in the first Old Norwegian, Old Danish and
Old Swedish texts in the Latin alphabet. The only parallel to this phenomenon
can be found in the Scandinavian runic inscriptions on the British Isles (in
particular on the Isle of Man) and in the names of Danish kings and moneyers
stamped on the Danish coins in runes or (and) in Latin letters. We know that
the Danish monetary tradition was strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon one.
This parallel proves that the simplification of the Old Scandinavian case system
started first in the areas of language contact both on the “Western Way” and
on the “Eastern Way”.
 359

Axboe 2007 = M. Axboe, Brakteatstudier (Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serie B 25), Kopenhagen 2007.
Berga 2001 = T. Berga, Danske mønter fra fund i Letland i 1000–1100-tallet, [in:] Nordisk Numismatisk
Union, Medlemsblad 1, 2001, pp. 3–8.
Brate 1914 = E. Brate, Pireuslejonets runinskrift, [in:] Antikvarisk tidsskrift för Sverige 20, Nr. 3, 1914
(48p.).
BRF II = Schnall 1973 = U. Schnall, Die Runeninschriften des europäischen Kontinents. Bibliographie
der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten. II. Teil. Ed. W. Krause. (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenscha-
ften in Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse. 3. Folge, Nr. 80), Göttingen 1973.
Dobrovol’skiy / Dubov / Kuz’menko 1991 = I.G. D o b r o v o l ’s k i y, I.V. D u b o v, Yu.K. K u z ’ m e n k o,
Graffiti na vostochnyh monetah. Drevniaya Rus’ I sopredel’nye strany, Leningrad 1991 (vgl. I.G. D o b r o -
volsky et al., Klassifizierung und Interpretation von Graffiti auf orientalischen Münzen, [in:] Zeitschrift für
Archäologie 15, 1981, pp. 217–242.)
Düwel 2008 = K. Düwel, Runenkunde 4. Auflage (Sammlung Metzler. Band 72), Stuttgart/Weimar 2008.
Düwel 2010 = K. Düwel, Altes und Neues zur Entstehung der Runenschrift, [in:] Die Kunde. Zeitschrift
für niedersächsische Archäologie, Neue Folge 61, 2010 [2012], pp. 229–258.
Düwel 2011 = K. Düwel, Buchstabenmagie und Alphabetzauber. Zu den Inschriften der Goldbrakteaten
und über ihrer Funktion als Amulette, [in:] Ed. W. Heizmann, M. Axboe, Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwan-
derungszeit – Auswertung und Neufunde (RGA-Ergänzungsband 40), Berlin/New York 2011, pp. 375–473.
Eggers 1968 = H.J. E g g e r s, Wikinger-Runen aus Pommern, [in:] Baltische Studien, Neue Folge 54,
1968, pp. 7–13.
v. Friesen 1933 = O. von Friesen (ed.), Runorna (Nordisk Kultur 6), Stockholm u.a. 1933.
Grabowski 2002 = M. G r a b o w s k i, 150 Jahre Ausgrabung in Alt Lübeck, [in:] Heiden und Christen.
Slawenmission im Mittelalter. Ausstellungen zur Archäologie in Lübeck 5, Lübeck 2002, pp. 43–54.
Grünzweig 2004 = F.E. Grünzweig, Runeninschriften auf Waffen. Inschriften vom 2. Jahrhundert bis
ins Hochmittelalter (Wiener Studien zur Skandinavistik 11), Wien 2004.
Grønvik 1985 = O. G r ø n v i k, Über den Lautwert der Ing-Rune und die Auslassung von Vokal in den
älteren Runeninschriften, Indogermanische Forschungen 90, 1985, pp. 168– 195.
Grønvik 2004 = O. Grønvik, Runeinnskriften fra Gamle Ladoga, [in:] Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 22,
2004, pp. 3–23.
Hammarberg/Rispling 1985 = I. Hammarberg, G. Rispling, Graffiter på vikingatida mynt, [in:] Hikuin
11, 1985, pp. 63–78.
Henning 1889 = R. Henning, Die deutschen Runendenkmäler, Strassburg 1889.
Høst 1960 = G. Høst, To runestudier. I. Innskriften fra Gamlde Ladoga. II. Eggja-innskriften i ny tolkning,
[in:] Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 19, 1960, pp. 418–554. (German translation: Die Inschrift von Alt-
-Ladoga, [in:] Gerd Høst Heyerdahl, Vom Altgermanischen Kulturerbe. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Runologie
und Altgermanistik. Ed. J.O. Askedal et al. = Osloer Beiträge zur Germanistik 37, Frankfurt am Main 2006,
pp. 33–78.)
IK = Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Ikonographischer Katalog (IK Einleitung sowie Bd.
1–3: Text- und Tafelbände, Bd. 4: Auswertung und Neufunde), Ed. M. Axboe, U. Clavadetscher, K. Düwel,
K. Hauck, L. von Padberg (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 24,1,1 – 24,3,2.) München 1985–1989.
Jensen 2006 = J.S. Jensen, The introduction and use of runic letters on Danish coins around the year
1065, [in:] Runes and their secrets. Studies in runology, Copenhagen 2006, pp. 159–168.
Kiil 1964 = V. Kiil, Runepinnen fra Gamle Ladoga, [in:] Arkiv för nordisk filologi 79, 1964, pp. 31–42.
Kiss/Düwel 1980 = A. Kiss(/K. Düwel), Germanische Funde aus den 5. Jahrhundert, [in:] Alba Regia.
Annales Musei Stephani Regis 18, 1980, pp. 105–132.
Knirk 1999 = J. Knirk, Runer i Hagia Sofia i Istanbul, [in:] Nytt om runer 14, 1999, pp. 26-27.
Krause 1937 = W. Krause, Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten
Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse. 13. Jahr, Heft 4), Halle (Saale) 1937.
Krause 1960 = W. Krause, Die Runeninschrift von Alt-Ladoga, [in:] NTS, 1960, pp. 555–563.
Krause/Jankuhn = W. K r a u s e, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark, mit Beiträgen v. H. Jankuhn,
I. Text; II. Tafeln (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Phil.-hist. Klasse. 3. Folge,
Nr. 65), Göttingen 1966.
Kusmenko 1997 = Ju.K. Kusmenko, Zur Interpretation der Runeninschrift auf dem Anhänger von Alt-
-Ladoga, [in:] NOWELE 31/32, 1997, pp. 181–201. (= Festschrift Anatoly Liberman)
360

Kuzmenko 1995 = Ju. Kuzmenko, Vikingatidens runinskrifter i Östeuropa, [in:] Colloquia Scandinavi-
stika Vilnensia (red. E.Sausverde, P. Arbo), Vilnius 1995, pp. 25–39.
Kuz’menko 2012a = Yu.K. Kuz’menko, Nadpis’ na dereviannom sterzhne iz Staroy Ladogi, [in:] Ed.
F.B. Uspenskiy, Imenoslov. Istoriya iazyka. Istoriya kul’tury (Trudy centra slaviano-germanskih issledovaniy)
Moskva 2012, pp. 242–274.
Kuz’menko 2012b = Yu.K. Kuz’menko, O pričinah i putyah redukcii padezhnoi sistemy v skandinavskih
yazykah, [in:] Festschrift Sukhachev, Sankt-Petersburg (forthcoming).
Larsson 1989 = M.G. Larsson, Nyfunna runor i Hagia Sofia, [in:] Fornvännen 84, 1989, pp. 12–14.
Marstrander 1952 = C.J.S. Marstrander, De nordiske runeinnskrifter i eldre alfabet. Danske og svenske
innskrifter, Oslo 1952.
Mel‘nikova 1977 = E.A. Mel‘nikova, Skandinavskije runicheskije nadpisi, Drevnejskije istochniki po
istorii narodov SSSR, Moscow 1977.
Mel‘nikova 1987 = E.A. Mel‘nikova, New Finds of Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions from the USSR,
[in:] Runor och runinskrifter. Föredrag vid Riksantivarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11
september 1985, Stockholm 1987, pp. 163–173.
Mel‘nikova 1998 = E.A. M e l ‘ n i k o v a, Runic Inscriptions as a Source for the Relation of Northern
and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, [in:] Ed. K. Düwel, Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer
Forschung. Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göt-
tingen. 4.–9. August 1995 (RGA-Ergänzungsband 15), Berlin/New York 1998, pp. 647–659.
Mel‘nikova 2001 = E.A. Mel‘nikova, Skandinavskie runiceskie nadpisi. Novye nahodki i interpretacii,
Drevneišie istocniki po istorii Drevnei Rusi, Moskva 2001. (The second edition of Mel‘nikova 1977, expanded
by the description of the new finds and by new interpretations).
Moltke 1985 = E. Moltke, Runes and their origin. Denmark and elsewhere, Copenhagen 1985.
Nedoma 2004 = R. Nedoma, Personennamen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften, Studien zur altger-
manischen Namenkunde I,1,1 (Germanische Bibliothek. Dritte Reihe), Heidelberg 2004.
Nedoma 2010 = R. N e d o m a, Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Runeninschriften, [in:]
NOWELE 58/59 (The Gothic Language), 2010, pp. 1–70.
Nedoma 2011 = R. N e d o m a, Personennamen in älteren Runeninschriften auf Fibeln, [in:] NOWELE
62/63 (Language and Literacy in Early Scandinavia and beyond), 2011, pp. 31–89.
Nielsen 2001 = M.L. Nielsen, M. Stoklund, K. Düwel, Neue Runenfunde aus Schleswig und Starigard/
Oldenburg, [in:] Ed. K. Düwel, E. Marold, Chr. Zimmermann, Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig. Sprache und
Schriftlichkeit eines Grenzgebietes im Wandel eines Jahrtausends (RGA-Ergänzungsband 25), Berlin/New
York 2001, pp. 201–280.
Nordén 1937 = A. Nordén, Magiska runinskrifter, [in:] ANF 53, 1937, pp. 147–189.
Oehrl 2011 = S. Oehrl, Runen, runenähnliche Zeichen und Tierdarstellungen auf Waffen, [in:] Offa 63/64,
2006/7 (2011), pp. 63–78.
Pieper 1987 = P. Pieper, Spiegelrunen, [in:] Runor och runinskrifter. Föredrag vid Riksantivarieämbetets
och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11 september 1985, Stockholm 1987, pp. 67–72.
Petrenko / Kuz’menko 1977 = V.P. P e t r e n k o, Yu.K. K u z ’ m e n k o, N 144. (Staraya Ladoga 2), [in:]
Mel‘nikova 1977, pp. 162–169.
Petrenko / Kuz’menko 1979 = V.P. P e t r e n k o, Yu.K. K u z ’ m e n k o, Nya fynd med runor från Gamla
Ladoga, [in:] Viking 42, Oslo 1979, pp. 78–84.
RGA = Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Begründet von Johannes Hoops. 2., völlig neu
bearbeitete u. stark erweiterte Auflage. Ed. Heinrich Beck u.a., Bd. 1–35, Berlin/New York 1973–2007.
Schnall 1987 = U. Schnall, Die Runeninschrift von Daugmale bei Riga, [in:] Runor och runinskrifter.
Föredrag vid Riksantivarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11 september 1985, Stockholm
1987, pp. 245–254.
Svärdström 1970 = E. Svärdström, Runorna i Hagia Sofi a, [in:] Fornvännen 65, 1970, pp. 247–249.
Tank 2004 = M. Tank, Dyreknogle med runer/Tierknochen mit Runen, [in:] Venner og Fjender – dagli-
gliv ved Østersøen 700-1200/Freunde und Feinde – Alltagsleben an der Ostsee 700-1200. Ausstellungen zur
Archäologie in Lübeck 6, Lübeck 2004 (123 p.).
 361

National Editions
DR = L. Jacobsen, E. Moltke, Danmarks Runeindskrifter. (1.) Text; (2.) Atlas;
(3.) Register; (4.) dt. Zusammenfassung, Kopenhagen 1941/1942.
G = S.B.F. Jansson, E, Wessén, Gotlands Runinskrifter, Tl. 1 (Nr. 1–137), Stockholm
1962 (SR XI).
G = E. Svärdström, Gotlands Runinskrifter, Tl. 2 (Nr. 138–222), Stockholm 1978
(SR XII).
G = http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/kulturarv/arkeologi_och_fornlamningar/runstenar/
gotlands_runinskrifter.html (Nr. 223–393)
Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer. Bd. VII ist vorläufig nur im Internet
zugänglich (http://www.hf.nt.nu.no/nor/Publik/RUNER/runer-N774-N894.htm).
Sö = E. Brate, E. Wessén, Södermanlands Runinskrifter, Stockholm 1924–1936
(SR III).
Vg = H. Jungner, E. Svärdström, Västergötlands Runinskrifter, Stockholm 1940–
1970 (SR V).
U = E. Wessén, J. Elias, B. F. Sven, Upplands Runinskrifter, Teil 1–4, Stockholm
1940–1958 (SR VI–IX).
Rundatabas: http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm

Klaus Duwel, Yurij Kuzmenko

Streszczenie

PRZEGLĄD INSKRYPCJI RUNICZNYCH W EUROPIE ZACHODNIEJ

Artykuł stanowi swoisty katalog napisów runicznych odnalezionych w Europie Wschodniej.

Pierwsze inskrypcje runiczne, które odnajdujemy na włóczniach, oznaczały funkcje danej
broni. Niektóre brakteaty używane jako amulety miały komunikować poprzez runy swoje wła-
ściwości ponadnaturalne. Złoty pierścień z Pietroassy był zapewne własnością Gotów. Niektóre
znaki odnalezione na kamiennych kolumnach to napisy: fibule lub piękne fibule. Znaki runiczne
skandynawskiej proweniencji z czasów Wikingów potwierdzają ich obecność na tych terenach.
Można wyróżnić dwa typy obecności Skandynawów na tych terenach: związane z tymczasową
obecnością (inskrypcje z Berezania, Pireusu i Stambułu) oraz osadnictwem. Na przykład inskryp-
cje ze Starej Russy oraz Zwinogrodu są potwierdzeniem stałych skandynawskich osad. Podobnie
wygląda kwestia obecności inskrypcji w Nowogrodzie. Inskrypcje na korze ze Smoleńska świad-
czą, że Skandynawowie używali swojego języka na Rusi nawet w XII wieku. Znaleziska z Europy
Środkowej, z obszarów zamieszkanych przez Słowian Zachodnich potwierdzają, że znaleziono je
tam, gdzie zostały wykonane. W przypadku runicznych amuletów (Stara Ładoga I, Nowogród I, II)
oraz monet z runicznymi inskrypcjami, które mogły służyć jako amulety, trudno jest powiedzieć
coś o ich pochodzeniu. Podobnie wygląda kwestia pochodzenia inskrypcji z Połocka, Uglicza
oraz Starej Ładogi III. Napisy na kościach z XII–XIII wieku z Białorusi nie mogą jednak być
interpretowane jako skandynawskie napisy runiczne.