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
--