Cover not available
Part of
Germanic Interrelations: Studies in memory of Hans Frede Nielsen
Edited by Stephen Laker, Carla Falluomini, Steffen Krogh, Robert Nedoma and Michael Schulte
[NOWELE Supplement Series 34] 2025
► pp. 364–384

The Loveden Hill Urn

Its second runic sequence and an afterthought

 | Niedersächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
The Loveden Hill Urn (ca. AD 450–550) carries an inscription in Pre-Old English that continues to challenge interpretation. Several scholars view it as three short sequences separated by word dividers. A reliable reading of the whole inscription is problematic because some of the runes in the third sequence cannot securely be identified. The first sequence may be a personal name, but the second sequence offers more than one possibility of interpretation. After discussing these possibilities, the most probable interpretation of the first two sequences is suggested. In an ‘Afterthought’ (Section 6) a new interpretation of the inscription as a whole is proposed. Contrary to previous interpretations, this reading suggests that the text is a funeral formula.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 1.The object: Urn A.11/251
  • 2.The datings
  • 3.The ornaments and the inscription
    • 3.1The ornaments
    • 3.2The inscription
      • 3.2.1Datings and the sound values of runes ᚨ (nos. 4, 6) and ᛇ (no. 2)
    • 3.3Transliteration
    • 3.4The second sequence (rune nos. 8–11)
  • 4.Sequence One (runes nos. 1–7) in the inscription
    • 4.1Rune ᚨ (no. 6 and no. 4) rendering “/ǣ̆/” in Nedoma’s phase “Pre-OE II” (Nedoma 2016: 14)
      • 4.1.1This would result in an interpretation Sīþbd; a female anthroponym
      • 4.1.2Gmc *-badu- (u-stem) in second constituents of anthroponyms is “almost entirely restricted to male names” (for exceptions, see Nedoma 2016: 15)
    • 4.2Rune ᚨ (no. 6 and no. 4) denoting “/ā̆/” in Nedoma’s earlier period “Pre-OE I” (Nedoma 2016: 17)
    • 4.3Lastly, rune no. 6 is considered to be the rune l ᛚ and not the rune ᚨ
    • 4.4Another possibility
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • 6.Afterthought
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (35)
References
3D Model of the Loveden Hill Cremation Urn. Created by D. Powlesland. [URL]
Bammesberger, A. 1990. Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1991. Three Old English runic inscriptions. In A. Bammesberger (ed.), Old English Runes and their Continental Background, 125–136. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1994. The development of the runic script and its relationship to Germanic phonological history. In T. Swan, E. Mørck, O. J. Westvik (eds.), Language change and language structure, older Germanic languages in a comparative perspective, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, J. & T. N. Toller. 1882–1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Edited and enlarged by T. N. Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breay, C. & J. Story. (eds.). 2018. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: Art, word, war. London: The British Library.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik: Nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3. Aufl. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chadwick Hawkes, S. & R. I. Page. 1967. Swords and Runes in South-East England. The Antiquaries Journal 47. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eichner, H. 1990. Die Ausprägung der linguistischen Physiognomie des Englischen anno 400 bis anno 600 n. Chr. In A. Bammesberger, A. Wollmann. (eds.). Britain 400–600: Language and History, 307–333. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. W. V. 1989. Runes, An introduction. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fennell, K. R. 1964. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Loveden Hill (Hough-on-the-Hill) Lincolnshire and its significance in relation to the Dark Age settlement of the East Midlands. Ph.D dissertation, University of Nottingham, England.Google Scholar
Findell, M. & L. Kopár. 2017. Runes and commemoration in Anglo-Saxon England. Fragments 6. 110–137.Google Scholar
Förstemann, E. W. 1900. Altdeutsches Namenbuch, 1: Personennamen. 2. völlig umgearbeitete Aufl. Bonn: Hanstein; Nachdr. 1966: Fink Verlag München; Georg Olms Verlag Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Hills, C. 1991. The archaeological context of runic finds. In A. Bammesberger (ed.). Old English runes and their Continental background, 41–59. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hills, C. & S. Lucy. 2013. Spong Hill part IX: Chronology and synthesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Hines, J. 2019. Practical runic literacy in the late Anglo-Saxon period: Inscriptions on lead sheet. In U. Lenker, L. Kornexl. (eds.), Anglo-Saxon micro-texts, 29–59. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Looijenga, T. 2003. Texts & contexts of the oldest runic inscriptions. Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luick, K. 1921. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache: Band I, 1. Abteilung. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Müller, R. 1901. Untersuchungen über die Namen des nordhumbrischen Liber Vitae. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Nedoma, R. 1991–1993. Zur Runeninschrift auf der Urne A.11/251 von Loveden Hill. Die Sprache 35. 115–124.Google Scholar
2004. Personennamen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 1998. The Continental backgrounds of English and its Insular development until 1154. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odenstedt, B. 1980. The Loveden Hill runic inscription. Ortnamnssällskapet i Uppsala Årskrift. 24–37.Google Scholar
Page, R. I. 1973. An introduction to English runes. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
1987. New runic finds in England. In Runor och runinskrifter. Föredrag vid Riksantikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11 september 1985, 185–197. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
1999. An introduction to English runes, 2nd edn. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, D. 1999. Recasting the runes, the reform of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
RuneS Database [URL]
SB = see Brunner, K. 1965.Google Scholar
Waxenberger, G. 2010. A phonology and edition of Old English runic inscriptions with an analysis of the graphemes, unpublished habilitation thesis, University of Munich.Google Scholar
2016. Graphemes: (Re)construction and interpretation. In P. Cotticelli & A. Rizza. (eds.), Variation within and among writing systems, concepts and methods in the analysis of ancient written documents, 353–370. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
2023. The date and provenance of the Auzon/Franks Casket revisited: a linguistic and runological perspective. In G. Waxenberger, K. Kazzazi & J. Hines. (eds.), Old English runes: Interdisciplinary perspectives on approaches and methodologies, 267–296. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. The edition of the Pre-Old English inscriptions: ca. AD 425–650.