The following post was submitted by Patrick Shekleton and in the interest of full disclosure I had no input into the content of this paper. I simply reviewed it for appropriateness to be submitted on my blog. Pat has obviously put in a lot of work into this infinitely complicated subject matter. Reading it brought back many memories of my days working with Richard Nielsen and Henrik Williams on the language, runes, dialect and grammar of the North American runes stones that contain the Hooked X®. Take your time and try to absorb the information that while dense, is very good and important research.
Enjoy...
THE NORTH AMERICAN HOOKED X®
If one has an interest in the North American rune stones, then the
Hooked X® character found on the Kensington Rune Stone (1898), Spirit Pond Rune
Stones (1971), and the Narragansett Rune Stone (1984) represents an element of
the broader discussion.
The Hooked X® form, along with its dotted (umlauted), macron (bar
above), and double vowel (bar below) variant forms, have been identified as performing
the basic linguistic function associated with the vowel, or vowel combinations,
of -a, -æ, and -aa.
Table 1. A synopsis of transliterated words from the KRS and SPR
inscriptions which contain the vowel form -a,
-æ, and -aa. This sample is illustrative of the variance one will find in
the larger body of inscription transliterations with respect to the Hooked X®
form (or variant).
Fig. 1 George T.
Flom’s inventory of KRS rune forms as presented on page 26 in his 1910 address.
Fig. 2 Richard
Nielsen and Scott Wolter’s inventory of KRS rune forms presented on page 64 of
their 2006 published work.
Fig. 3 Barry J.
Hanson’s inventory of KRS rune forms as presented on page B-3 in his 2002
published work.
UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM, THE OPPONENTS
POINT OF VIEW
Long before the present-day conversation on symbolic meanings of the
Hooked X® commenced, the conversation revolved around the unique runic form of
the a-rune and whether there were
valid historical antecedents that might explain the lineage of the character
form.
George Flom, a non-supporter of authenticity, remarked in his 1910 published work
that the X with a hook form for -a
and -æ were “from a different runic
alphabet, and some suggest modern compromises with corresponding Latin
letters.” Further on, he postulated that the X with a hook form on the KRS was
analogous to the simple X form representing the vowel -a found on inscriptions in Dalarne region of Sweden around c. 1600.
[5]
In 2006, Nielsen and Wolter’s published work presented a case against the
Darlecarlian Rune forms being the basis for the KRS inscription, despite the
close parallel of its simple X form representing the -a vowel. [6]
Danish runologist Erik Moltke, a non-supporter of authenticity, wrote
in 1949 (as cited by Swedish runologist Sven B. F. Jansson’s re-printed 1949 article
contained within Barry J. Hanson’s 2002 book):
Around 1100 under
influence from the Latin alphabet there came about a change in the runic
alphabet, which from having had a content of 16 or 19 characters now acquired
just as many as the Latin alphabet. Simultaneously a number of the runes were
simplified. A ᛅ
[Younger Futhark], which in the alphabet of Viking times was
crossed, i.e. consisted of a vertical primary stroke and a skew secondary
stroke crossing the primary stroke, now became one-sided, i.e. the secondary
stroke no longer crossed the primary stroke; the old Viking time form was
retained but took the value æ ᛅ…Look
at the drawing of the Kensington Stone and see what an abortion it uses as an a-rune [Hooked X® symbol shown]. [7]
Moltke’s descriptive term of the a-rune
form notwithstanding, he submits a fair treatment of how the Latin alphabet,
and by implicit understanding, its characters and vowel combinations, were
re-shaping the runic language in Scandinavia.
UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM, THE PROPONENTS
POINT OF VIEW
The Swedish lexicographer, Professor Hjalmar Lindroth, created some
consternation in 1938 when his letter to Professor Richard Hennig was
published. Again, we turn to Sven B. F. Jansson’s re-printed 1949 article
contained within Barry J. Hanson’s 2002 book, this time citing Jansson
directly:
Hjalmar Lindroth has
of course in a frequently cited statement from 1938 asserted that the
runologist “should not categorically insist on falsification, until he has been
able to demonstrate the origin of the runic alphabet of the stones”. The
statement shows that Lindroth in fact believed that the Kensington Stone’s
“rune row” was a rune row in the true sense; that these symbols have been used
in other inscriptions than the Kensington Stone and that they therefore in principle
have the same character as e.g. that of the 16-character rune row. [author’s
emphasis] [8]
Jansson continued, creating the impression with this author that
Lindroth espoused authenticity for the KRS:
This makes things
worse. As regards his demand on the runologist that he is obliged to show where
the mystical symbols have come from [which includes the a-rune form, one has the right to reply that any person with a
normal imagination can make up an impressive number of symbols which
runologists and others will in vain seek prototypes for - within existing rune
rows. [9]
Jansson was replying to a dead man, a fellow native of Sweden - for
Professor Hjalmar Lindroth had passed away two years prior. [10]
Ironically, this author’s initial impression from Jansson’s article
that Lindroth espoused authenticity was mistaken – Lindroth, according to
Hjalmar R. Holand, had a position of “strict neutrality” [11] regarding the authenticity
of the KRS.
Professor William
Thalbitzer, a Danish philologist whose educational background included Danish,
English, and Latin studies at the University of Copenhagen prior to focusing on
the Greenlandic language post-graduation [12], originally considered
the KRS to be a fraud. Then Thalbitzer’s viewpoint shifted:
For a long
time I, too, had considered the Kensington stone a fraud, and the late Prof.
Finnur Jonsson and other Scandinavian runologists confirmed my view. However,
from time to time certain fresh facts bearing on the matter have come to light,
in archeology, runology, and philology, especially Prof. Axel Kock's later
studies on medieval Swedish dialects. As new light is gradually being thrown on
this amazing find from the West, I cannot but waver in my doubt and am forced
to see the question from a new viewpoint. Not only Holand's books but my own
investigations as well have set me thinking along new lines.2 I now
maintain that this matter in its entirety is worthy of restudy ; it seems to me
that, after all, the inscription may be authentic. [13]
One aspect of Thalbitzer’s investigation involved a paleographic
comparison of the carved runic forms of the KRS (dated 1362) characters against
the corresponding written character forms found in manuscripts in Sweden
encompassing the 1164 to 1513 time-frame.
Fig. 6. Rune form table found in William Thalbitzer’s
1951 published work. The right-hand column inventory of majuscules and
minuscules stemming from the 1164 to 1513 time period were collated and
published in 1838. This 1838 work, Historie
och Antikvitets-Akademien Handlingar, is not accessible online.
Fig. 7 Character specimens for the a-rune
form.
Thalbitzer recognized that potential authenticity of inscribed
character rune forms was not to be
judged on the singular basis of the form having to be inscribed upon a medium such as
stone, lead, or wood, but that a parallel form found within scribal manuscripts
would suffice as being authentic proof for a unique rune form character. In
simple terms, the absence of an inscribed runic character form in the Scandinavian
runic inscription corpus did not disqualify a North American runic inscription
with unique character forms from being authentic.
Nor did Thalbitzer state, or even suggest, that scribal character forms
could only be considered valid if they were singularly found within the
Scandinavian manuscript corpus [this author acknowledges that discovery of the
scribal character forms within the aforementioned corpus eliminates questions
revolving around cultural transmission].
Thalbitzer – and others - explicitly understood that the runic language
was in flux by the 1300s, primarily due to the transmission of the more
versatile Latin language via the introduction of Christianity. Other historical
transmission paths include Viking/Norse travel to the Latin-speaking areas
outside the Baltic and North Sea geographic area, the involvement of
Scandinavian parties in the Crusades, and the increasing trade networks which
involved, again, Latin-speaking agencies.
PRESENT-DAY INVESTIGATIVE
RESEARCH ON THE UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM
Thalbitzer, and other researchers, were limited in their day to what
historical material they could access. In today’s Internet-era, access – in
terms of volume, speed, and ease - has expanded the corpus of archival
materials that may be screened by researchers for a-rune character forms, or an analogous Latin character form. It
has also placed an increased premium for researchers, especially those who find
themselves outside the realm of their typical everyday existence, to be
discriminating.
Simply finding an X with a hook is not sufficiently discriminating to
assert that the symbol is comparable to the a-rune
character form found on the North American rune stones. The character form must
be used in the context of an -a, -ae, or -aa vowel, or suitably shown as a possible orthographic predecessor,
and its form must be sufficiently unambiguous.
Distinction must be made between hooks and tails on Xs predicated by
the paleographic script-style. By design, Xs in Gothic script have tail hooks,
so these Xs are not valid hits. Scribal flourishing sometimes places tail hooks
on Xs, but this presentation is easy to distinguish because the word will fail
the vowel test. Lastly, character forms must be screened to ensure that the
dreaded “ink splotch” hooks do not gain admission.
At this point, it’s now a race between mind-numbing brain fatigue and
your eyeballs bleeding – but Xs with hooks do “pop” on occasion. A
previous
blog post in December 2015 encapsulating Steve DiMarzo’s manuscript
screening laid out some examples which satisfied the then-nascent entry
criteria.
I am not trying to be “crafty” by stating “suitably shown as a possible
orthographic predecessor.” We are simply using Thalbitzer’s investigative
thread, his hunch, that perhaps the unique a-rune
character had a Latin lineage concurrent or prior to surviving Scandinavian
scribal records.
Fig. 8. A pseudo-X with a hook form on a c. 1122 English manuscript map.
The map’s descriptive labels are written in Latin. The hook is offset from the
leg end. No other Xs on the map follow this form. The contemporaneous Latin
spelling of this symbol represents an -
æ.
As the language matured and became more simplified the -
æ abbreviated to the singular sound represented by -
e. The pseudo-X with a hook form is a
breviograph – a symbol
that represents a scribal abbreviation for the Latin -
æ spelling and sound. The -
æ
Latin dipthong originally was the Greek -
ai
dipthong. [Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts; British Library;
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=16645]
Fig. 9. A distinct X with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian
cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook).
The character form is, again, a breviograph. Cross-typing against a 1515
manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used either for the vowel -i, or the vowel combination -æ. No other Xs on this particular map folio
follow this form.
Fig. 10. Two Xs with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian
cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook).
The character form is, again, a breviograph. Cross-typing against a 1515
manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used for the vowel/vowel
combination -ia, -æ, or an -a. In medieval manuscripts dating back to 9th century,
the Lunæ word had spelling derivatives of Luna and Lune.
Fig. 11. Two Xs with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian
cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook).
The character form is, again, a breviograph. A cross-typing against a 1515
manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used for the vowel/vowel
combination -ia, -æ, or an -a. Sina is CHINA.
Fig. 12 Collated notes.
To more fully understand the significance of the X-like character forms
on the c. 1122 and 1508 maps, I emailed a paleography expert. He graciously
replied:
“I have had a look at the images you
sent me. In my humble opinion, as you suggested, the X shape is simply the
Latin ligature for the diphthong "ae" (fusion of bindings), in which
the hook you mentioned is the medial "tongue" of the letter
"e" which extends up to the top. And yes, the "ai" Greek
ligature transitioned to the "ae" digraph in Latin.”
FINAL THOUGHTS
Was William Thalbitzer on the right
path in suggesting that a possible source, or influence, for the unique a-rune character form might have migrated
into the main of Scandinavia, rather than originating there?
Consider this:
-The written breviograph symbols on the
c. 1122 English and 1508 Italian maps involve the vowel, or vowel combinations,
of -a, -æ, -ea, -i, and -ia;
-The breviograph symbol form on the
maps resemble the -a and -æ character forms found in Swedish
manuscripts for more than four centuries (1164 to 1513); and
-The Hooked X® character
forms of the KRS (1362) and SPR (1401/02) have been phonetically connected to
the -a, -æ, and -aa vowel, or vowel combinations.
T
hat the Hooked X®, or its alternate, the X with a hook, is a unique
character form is an understatement. I don’t specifically look for that
character form, but if I am in an old manuscript – primarily researching
geodesy and astronomy related topics – I keep an eye peeled for Arced-X (Spirit
Pond Rune Stone) and Hooked X® symbols (KRS/SPR/NRS).
The initial find on the 1508 World Atlas was fortuitous, the additional
four discoveries are attributed to the detailed screening done by Steve DiMarzo
and David Ulrich.
Given the incredible paucity of the Hooked X® character form existent
within surviving historical records, it begs the question as to how such a
truly obscure symbol even found its way onto ANY of the North American rune
stones?
Somehow it did, and considering that the only definitive Hooked X®
character forms from the Medieval and early Middle Age eras have all been found
beyond the borders of Sweden/Norway/Denmark, albeit the few that have been
found to this point, it seems that some place other than Sweden was its point
of origination. But where?
REFERENCES
Flom, George
T. The Kensington rune-stone: an address by George T. Flom, delivered before
the Illinois State Historical Society at its annual meeting, May 5-6, 1910 at
Springfield, Illinois. Springfield: Phillips Bros., 1910. Retrieved
February 2016 https://archive.org/details/kensingtonrunest00flom.
Hanson,
Barry J. Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olof Ohman, the Accused Forger.
Maple, WI: Available from Archaeology ITM, 2002.
Holand,
Hjalmar Rued. Norse Discoveries and Explorations in America, 982-1362; Leif
Erikson to the Kensington Stone. New York: Dover Publications, 1969.
Nielsen,
Richard. “The Spirit Pond Runestones of Maine: A Proposed Dating and Tentative
Translation.” The Epigraphic Society of
Occasional Papers, 21 (1992): 92-113.
Nielsen,
Richard, and Scott F. Wolter. The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New
Evidence. Place of Publication Not Identified: Lake Superior Agate Pub.,
2006.
Schöner,
Johann. Luculentissima quaedā terrae totius descriptio: cū multis
vtilissimis cosmographiæ iniciis. Nouaq, & q̄ ante fuit verior Europæ
nostræ formatio. Præterea, fluuiorū ... & gentium q̄plurimorū
vetustissima nomina recentioribus admixta vocabulis .. Noribergæ: Impressum
ī excusoria officina Ioannis Stuchssen, 1515. Retrieved December 2016 https://archive.org/details/luculentissimaqu00schn.
Stevenson,
Edward Luther. Atlas of Portolan Charts. Facsimile of manuscript in British
Museum. (Egerton Manuscript no. 2803.) Edited by Edward Luther Stevenson.
New York, 1911. Retrieved December 2016 https://archive.org/details/atlasofportolanc00magg
ENDNOTES
1. Flom, page
28, 1910.
2. Nielsen
& Wolter, page 64, 2006.
3. Hanson,
pages C1-C5, 2002.
4.
Nielsen, pages 105-110, 1992.
5.
Flom, page 21, 1910.
6.
Nielsen and Wolter, page 91, 2006.
7.
Hanson, page F-27, 2002.
8. Hanson,
page F-26, 2002.
9.
Ibid.
11.
Holand, page 327, 1969 (original printing 1940).
13.
Thalbitzer, page 4, 1951.
