The runic futark

From: Tore Gannholm
Message: 13790
Date: 2002-06-07

The runic futark
The following popped up on the Germanic list.
Is there anybody who has an opinion about these theories?

"An interesting new idea is by T A Markey "A Tale of Two Helmets: The Negau A and B Inscriptions" in Journal of Indo-European Studies 29/1 Spring 2001. Markey argues the case for a range of alphabetic scripts having been developed in the Alpine regions, and the Camunic as the most likely original of the runic. Few scholars these days argue for a North Italic origin for the futhark, so this is an interesting read."

"The article is quite long (about 100 pages) and detailed, so I can do no more then sketch for you what he covers in great depth.
Starting with the Negau helmets, Markey discusses the circumstances of their discovery - a hoard of 26 5th c. BC Etruscoid bronze helms unearthed in a Slovenian orchard in 1881. Nos. 1 and 22 have intelligible inscriptions ('A' and 'B' respectively), 9 others have unidentified graffitti. Only 23 are still known to exist (1 destroyed in discovery, 2 probably stolen). All are Vetulonian format helmets with a central ridge and projecting rim. 3 of 4 inscriptions on Helmet A are recognisably Celtic.
Markey gives a handy tabulation of an array of Alpine alphabets in use prior to being swept away in the process of Romanisation: Camunic (Val Camonica), Golaseccan, Lugano, Bolzano, Magre, Venetic, Marsilian, etc. The Negau B characters are then set out beside these.
One factor of all northern Etruscan writing systems (whether recording Etruscan or not) is that they suppress homorganic nasals e.g. Lepontic seTuPoKios (= setubogios) = Sentubogios (pers.name) or Rheto-Celtic vixamulaxe = vitamulate = Windamolatos 'having splendid warriors'.  He then goes onto discuss 6 stages in adoption of alphabetc writing
1 both form and values are borrowed
2 forms are borrowed but values are partly invented
3 forms and values are partly borrowed, partly invented
4 forms are borrowed but values are freely invented
5 signs are partly borrowed, partly invented and values are freely invented (e.g. Cherokee)
6 both form and value are invented (e.g. Ogam)
All but (6) are a form of derivation. He urges caution in distinguishing between piecemeal congruity and systemic identity. He then gives repros of the 4 Negau A inscriptions and analyses them in terms of Etruscan and Celtic. As an aside he suggests Runic 'alu' < Rhetic 'alu' < Etruscan 'ala' (dedicate) noting that early 'alu' always stands outside the grammar of the texts where it occurs and may have been borrowed as a talismanic cipher. Turning to Negau B - the famous hargasti teiwa text - Markey narrows down the possible source scripts by exclusion e.g. initial h- in Venetic was lost before c.300 BC so that cannot have been the writer's source. The best fit between character forms, systemic features and sound values is Camunic, he feels, although only one other inscription in that script is a very close match.
25 pages of notes 21 pages of bibliography conclude the article.
 
I would recommend tracking the article down because Markey is a very well-respected authority in the field of Germanic linguistics, and his reading of the origin of the futhark is different from the usual suspects today.
 
I would add as a personal footnote that I still think that for Etruscan/Alpine alphabets to be the model for the runes this must have happened before c.100 BC as c.50 BC Roman script swept away all the local traditions of the southern and western Alps. This pushes runic origins back maybe 150 years beyond the earliest inscriptions unless the Meldorf fibula is indeed runic."


Tore



Tir
--