Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 76:2 (2023) ► pp.233–303

Runic fragments from the Svingerud grave field in Norway

Earliest datable evidence of runic writing on stone

| University of Oslo
| Sagnlandet Lejre
In 2021–2023, several rune-inscribed sandstone fragments were discovered by archaeologists of the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, at a Roman Iron Age grave field by the Svingerud road at Hole in eastern Norway. Several of these fragments fit together as parts of one larger sandstone slab. The main fragment with multiple inscriptions was unearthed in a flat grave (cremation) in November 2021. Radiocarbon dating of the organic material dated the burial to before 300 CE (Solheim et al., forthcoming). This article provides a detailed runological and linguistic account of the inscribed fragments, as of July 2023. The focus is on the main finds, while the work on numerous small fragments is ongoing. This find may shed new light on the features and functions of early runic writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Timeline of runic finds
  • 3.Theoretical and methodological considerations
  • 4.Runological and linguistic analysis
    • 4.1Runic fragment Hole 2
      • 4.1.1Side A, sequence 1
        • Comments
        • Discussion, with interpretations
      • 4.1.2Side A, sequence 2
        • Comments
        • Discussion
      • 4.1.3Side A, sequences 3–4
        • Comments
        • Discussion, with interpretations
      • 4.1.4Side A, sequence 5 and other motifs
        • Comments
        • Discussion
        • Other motifs
      • 4.1.5Side B
        • Comments
        • Discussion
      • 4.1.6Sides C and D of Hole 2
    • 4.2Runic fragments of Hole 3
      • Comments
      • Discussion, with interpretations
    • 4.3Other inscribed fragments
  • 5.Discussion
  • Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00080.zil
References (107)
References
Antonsen, E. H. 1980. On the typology of the older runic inscriptions. Scandinavian Studies 52(1). 1–15. [URL] (Accessed 27 August 2023)
1998. On runological and linguistic evidence for dating runic inscriptions. In K. Düwel (ed.), Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.-9. August 1995 (ERGA 15), 150–159. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 140). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axboe, M., U. Clavadetscher, K. Düwel, K. Hauck & L. von Padberg. 1985–89. Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit 1–3. Ikonographischer Katalog (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 24.1.1–24.3.2). München: Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Bandle, O., L. Elmevik & G. Widmark (eds.). 2002. The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages 11 (HSK 22). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. P. 2012. Runes: A handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
2013. What is runology, and where does it stand today? Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 41. 7–30. [URL] (Accessed 1 September 2023)
Bianchi, M. 2012. Att vara eller att icke vara text: runtextens gränser. Språk och stil 22(1). 31–52.Google Scholar
Bjorvand, H. & F. O. Lindeman. 2019. Våre arveord: Etymologisk ordbok. 3rd edn. Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
Bugge, Sophus. 1892. Runestenen fra Opedal i Hardanger. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 81. 1–36.Google Scholar
DK = Danske Runeindskrifter. National Museum of Denmark and University of Copenhagen. [URL] (Accessed 27 August 2023)
DR = Jacobsen, L. & E. Moltke. 1941–42.Google Scholar
Düwel, K. 1989. Runenritzende Frauen. In L. Peterson & S. Strandberg et al. (eds.), Studia onomastica. Festskrift till Thorsten Andersson den 23. februari 1989, 43–50. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
1994. Runische und lateinische Epigraphik im süddeutschen Raum zur Merowingerzeit. In K. Düwel (ed.), Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung. Internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.–27. Juni 1992 in Bad Homburg (ERGA 10), 229–308. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Runenkundige Frauen im Frühmittelalter. In I. Bennewitz (ed.), Lektüren der Differenz. Studien zur Mediävistik und Geschlechtergeschichte gewidmet Ingvild Birkhan, 23–35. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007. Die Fibel von Meldorf. 25 Jahre Diskussion und kein Ende – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Interpretationsproblematik und Forschungsgeschichte. In S. Burmeister (ed.), Zweiundvierzig. Festschrift für Michael Gebühr zum 65. Geburtstag, 167–174. Rahden: Leidorf.Google Scholar
2008. Runenkunde. 4th edn. (Sammlung Metzler 72). Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Düwel, K. & W. Heizmann. 2006. Das ältere Fuþark – Überlieferung und Wirkungsmöglichkeiten der Runenreihe. In A. Bammesberger & G. Waxenberger (eds.), Das Fuþark und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen. Akten der Tagung in Eichstätt vom 20.–24. Juli 2003. (ERGA 51), 3–60. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Düwel, K., R. Nedoma & S. Oehrl. 2020. Die südgermanischen Runeninschriften (ERGA 119). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebel, Else. 1963. Die Terminologie der Runentechnik. Phil. Dissertation. Universität Göttingen.
Eythórsson, T. 2011 (publ. 2012). Variation in the syntax of the older runic inscriptions. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 21. 27–49. [URL] (Accessed 23 August 2023)
Faarlund, J. 2008. Ancient Nordic. In R. Woodard (ed.), The ancient languages of Europe, 215–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faulkes, A. (ed.). 1998. Snorri Sturluson: Edda. Skáldskaparmál 1. Introduction, text and notes. London: Viking Society for Northern Research.Google Scholar
G = Jansson et al. 1962–78 & Gustavson et al. (unpublished).Google Scholar
Graf, M. H. 2010. Paraschriftliche Zeichen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften. Studien zur Schriftkultur des kontinentalgermanischen Runenhorizonts (Medienwandel – Medienwechsel – Medienwissen, Historische Perspektiven 12). Zürich: Chronos Verlag.Google Scholar
2011. Schrift, Sprache und was dazwischen liegt. Zur Materialität epigraphischer Schriftlichkeit der ältesten Runeninschriften. In M. Schulte & R. Nedoma (eds.), Language and literacy in early Scandinavia and beyond ( NOWELE 62–63), 213–247. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
2011 (publ. 2012). Schrifttheoretische Überlegungen zu nicht-lexikalischen Inschriften aus dem südgermanischen Runenkorpus. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies, 103–122. [URL] (Accessed 22 August 2023)
Grønvik, O. 1987. Fra Ågedal til Setre. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
1996. Fra Vimose til Ødemotland. Nye studier over runeinnskrifter fra førkristen tid i Norden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gustafson, Lil. 2016. Møter på Veien – kultplass gjennom 1500 år. Et maktsenter på Ringerike i eldre jernalder. Oslo: University of Oslo, Museum of Cultural History. [URL] (Accessed 22 August 2023) DOI logo
Gustavson, H. 1997 (publ. 1998). Verksamheten vid Runverket i Stockholm. Nyfynd och nyregistreringar 1996. Nytt om runer 121. 24–31.Google Scholar
2002 (publ. 2004). Verksamheten vid Runverket i Stockholm. Nyfynd och nyregistreringar 2001. Nytt om runer 121. 24–39.Google Scholar
Gustavson, H., J. Hamilton & L. Kitzler Åhfeldt. 2006. Fragmenten från Tomteboda. Runstenar med bildframställning eller bildstenar med runinskrift. Fornvännen 1011. 254–67.Google Scholar
Gustavson, H. & J. O. H. Swantesson. 2011. Strängnäs, Skramle och Tomteboda: tre urnordiska runinskrifter. Fornvännen 1061. 306–321.Google Scholar
Gustavson, H., T. Snædal & M. Källström. Gotlands runinskrifter 31. Manuscript available at: [URL] (Accessed 1 September 2023)
Harris, J. 2012. Older Germanic poetry, with a note on the Icelandic sagas. In K. Reichl (ed.), Medieval oral literature, 253–78. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heide, E. 2019. Er det så sikkert at alle er namn? Ein merknad om metode og personnamn i urnordiske runeinnskrifter. Namn og Nemne 351. 41–54.Google Scholar
Høst, G. 1976. Runer. Våre eldste norske runeinnskrifter. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
IK = Ikonographischer Katalog. Axboe et al. 1985–89.Google Scholar
Imer, L. M. 2010. Runes and Romans in the North. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 11. 41–64. [URL] (Accessed 23 August 2023)
2011a. Maturus fecit – Unwod made: runic inscriptions on fibulae in the late Roman Iron Age. Lund Archaeological Review 2011. 11–27.Google Scholar
2011b. The oldest runic monuments in the North: dating and distribution. NOWELE 62–631. 169–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a. Jernalderens runeindskrifter i Norden. 1: Kronologi og kontekst. (Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2013–14). Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.Google Scholar
2015b. Jernalderens runeindskrifter i Norden. 2: Katalog (Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2013–14). Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.Google Scholar
Imer, L. M. & S. Sindbæk. 2021. Nye funn av runer i Ribe. Danske Studier 2021. 5–20.Google Scholar
Imer, L. M. & K. S. K. Vasshus. 2023. Lost in transition. The runic bracteates from the Vindelev hoard. NOWELE 76(1). 60–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iversen, F., K. Kjesrud, H. Bjorvand, J. Kimball & S. Mannsåker Gundersen. 2019. Irilen på Øverby i Vingulmark. Viking 821. 63–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, L. & E. Moltke. 1941–42. Danmarks Runeindskrifter 1–3: Text. Atlas. Registre. Copenhagen: Munkgaard.Google Scholar
Jansson, S. B. F., E. Wessén & E. Svärdström. 1962–78. Gotlands runinskrifter 1–2 ( Sveriges Runinskrifter 11–12). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kaiser, L. 2021. Runes across the North Sea from the Migration period and beyond (ERGA 126). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. 2020. Provenancing rune carvers on Bornholm through 3D-scanning and multivariate statistics of the carving technique. European Journal of Archaeology 23/11. 82–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
KJ = Krause, W. & H. Jankuhn. 1966.Google Scholar
Knirk, J. E. 2000. Kårstad. §3. Runologisches. In H. Beck, D. Geuenich & H. Steuer (eds.), Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 161, 324. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002. Myklebostad. §2. Runologisches. In H. Beck, D. Geuenich & H. Steuer (eds.), Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 201, 453–54. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011. Hogganvik-innskriften: en hard runologisk nøtt. Viking 741. 25–39.Google Scholar
Krause, W. & H. Jankuhn. 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark 1–2. (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philol.-Hist. Klasse, 3/65). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Kroonen, G. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kruken, K. & O. Stemshaug. 2013. Norsk personnamnleksikon. 3rd edn. Oslo: Det norske samlaget.Google Scholar
Krusch, B. (ed.) 1888. Virtutum sanctae Geretrudis continuatio (MGH SS rer. Merov. 2). 471–74. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1902. Vita virtutesque Fursei abbatis Latiniacensis et de Fuilano additamentum Nivialense, in Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi merovingici (MGH SS rer. Merov. 4), 423–440. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
Looijenga, T. 2003. Texts and contexts of the oldest runic inscriptions (The Northern World Series 4). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LP = The Lexicon Poeticum Project, [URL]
MacLeod, M. & B. Mees. 2006. Runic amulets and magic objects. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
Mandt, G. 2005. Kårstad i Stryn – møteplass for ulike kulttradisjoner i eldre jernalder? In: K. A. Bergsvik & A. Engevik (eds.), Fra funn til samfunn. Jernalderstudier tilegnet Bergljot Solberg på 70-årsdagen (UBAS Nordisk 1), 51–67. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Mees, B. 2006. Runes in the first century. In M. Stoklund, M. Lerche Nielsen, B. Holmberg & G. Fellows-Jensen (eds.), Runes and their secrets: studies in runology, 201–231. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
2008. Style, manner and formula in early Germanic epigraphy. NOWELE 54–551. 63–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. ‘Giving’ and ‘making’ in early runic epigraphy. Transactions of the Philological Society 1111. 326–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 (publ. 2017). The Hogganvik inscription and early Nordic memorialisation. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 71. 7–28. [URL] (Accessed 23 August 2023)
N = Olsen, M. et al. 1941–90.Google Scholar
Nedoma, R. 2004. Personennamen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften (Studien zur altgermanischen Namenkunde 1). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
2010. Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Runeninschriften. NOWELE 58–591. 1–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The documentation of Germanic. In J. Klein, B. Joseph & M. Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics: an international handbook 21 (HSK 41/2), 875–88. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. Zur Runeninschrift auf dem Goldhorn B von Gallehus. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 144 (2). 188–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odenstedt, B. 1990. On the origin and early history of the runic script (Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi 59). Uppsala: Gustav Adolfs Akademien.Google Scholar
Oehrl, S. 2006/2007 (publ. 2011). Runen, runenähnliche Zeichen und Tierdarstellungen auf Waffen. Offa 63–641. 63–78.Google Scholar
2020. Paraschriftliche Zeichen(komplexe) im Kontext südgermanischer Runenüberlieferung. In K. Düwel, R. Nedoma & S. Oehrl (eds.), Die südgermanischen Runeninschriften (ERGA 119), cxlvii–clxxvii. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olsen, M., A. Liestøl, I. Sanness Johnsen & J. E. Knirk. 1941–90. Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer 1–6. Oslo: Norsk historisk Kjeldeskriftinstitutt.Google Scholar
ONP = Dictionary of Old Norse Prose. Available at: [URL] (Accessed 6 August 2023)
Pereswetoff-Morath, Sofia. 2019. Viking-Age runic plates: readings and interpretations. (Runrön 21/1; Acta academiae regiae Gustavi Adolphi 155). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Peterson, L. 1994. On the relationship between Proto-Scandinavian and continental Germanic personal names. In K. Düwel (ed.), Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung. Internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.–27. Juni 1992 in Bad Homburg (ERGA 10), 128–175. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The development of Proto-Nordic personal names. In O. Bandle, L. Elmevik & G. Widmark (eds.), The Nordic languages: an international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages 11 (HSK 22), 664–671. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004. Lexikon över urnordiska personnamn. Uppsala: Uppsala University. [URL] (Accessed 6 August 2023)
RuneS = Database based at the Academy of Sciences, Göttingen. [URL] (Accessed 31 August 2023)
Runor = Database based at the Swedish National Heritage Board. [URL] (Accessed 31 August 2023)
Schulte, M. 2001. Methodische Überlegungen zur lexikalischen Semantik des Urnordischen. In H. Vater & O. Letnes (eds.), Modalität und mehr. Modality and more (Fokus 23), 166–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
2002. The development of Proto-Nordic lexicon. In O. Bandle, L. Elmevik & G. Widmark (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages 11 (HSK 22), 657–664. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009. Early runic ‘metrical’ inscriptions – how metrical are they? In T. K. Dewey & Frog (eds.), Versatility in versification: multidisciplinary approaches to metrics (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 74), 3–22. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013. The Norwegian Hogganvik stone as an emblem of social status and identity. In Journal of the North Atlantic 4 ( Across the Sólundarhaf: connections between Scotland and the Nordic World. Selected papers from the inaugural St. Magnus conference 2011). 120–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a. Den eldste tiden (–700). In A. Nesse (ed.), Norsk språkhistorie 4. Tidslinjer, 51–117. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
2018b. Urnordisch. Eine Einführung (Wiener Studien zur Skandinavistik 26). Wien: Praesens Verlag.Google Scholar
SG = Düwel, K., R. Nedoma & S. Oehrl. 2020.Google Scholar
Simson, B. (ed.) 1905. Annales Mettenses Priores (Monumentis Germaniae Historicis. Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum 10). Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
Sm NOR1997;24 = Gustavson, H. 1997 (publ. 1998)Google Scholar
Snædal, T. 1993. Runfynd 1991 och 1992. Fornvännen 881. 223–237.Google Scholar
Solheim, S. et al. (forthcoming). The oldest rune-stone in the world? Newly discovered rune-stone from Svingerud, Norway gives novel insight into early runic writing. [publication in preparation]
Stoklund, M. 1995. Die Runen der römischen Kaiserzeit. In U. Lund Hansen & V. Alexandersen (eds.), Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie 131, 317–46. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. J. A. 2017. Sundials and their place in the Roman Empire. In Roman portable sundials: The empire in your hand. New York: Oxford Academic, online edition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
U Fv1993;234 = Snædal, T. 1993.Google Scholar
U NOR2002;32 = Gustavson, H. 2002 (publ. 2004).Google Scholar
Waldispühl, M. 2013. Schreibpraktiken und Schriftwissen in den südgermanischen Runeninschriften: zur Funktionalität epigraphischer Schriftverwendung. (Medienwandel–Medienwechsel–Medienwissen 26). Zürich: Chronos Verlag.Google Scholar
Williams, H. 1992. Which came first, e or E? Arkiv för nordisk filologi 1071. 192–205.Google Scholar
1998. Runic inscriptions as sources for personal names. In K. Düwel (ed.), Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9. August 1995 (ERGA 15), 601–10. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, E. 2013. Zeitzeichen: Zur Entwicklung und Verwendung antiker Zeitmesser 1–2. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zilmer, Kristel. 2020. Runic sticks and other inscribed objects from medieval Bergen: challenges and possibilities. Maal og Minne 112/11. 65–101. [URL] (Accessed 6 August 2023)
Zimmermann, C. 2010. ‘How to do things with runes’: illocutionary forces and communicative purposes behind the runic inscriptions in the older fuþark . Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 11. 85–107. [URL] (Accessed 31 August 2023)
Zimmermann, C. & U. Zimmermann. 2022. Graphtypologische Beschreibung und Analyse runischer Graphe: fuþark – fuþorc – fuþąrk/fuþork . In E. Marold & C. Zimmermann (eds.). Studien zur runischen Graphematik: Methodische Ansätze und digitale Umsetzung (Runrön 25), 13–91. Uppsala: Uppsala University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Schulte, Michael
2024. Stationen der frühen nordgermanischen Sprachgeschichte. NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 77:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.