Re: The runic futark

From: mothorno
Message: 13791
Date: 2002-06-07

--- In cybalist@..., Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm@...> wrote:
> 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:
> Negau A and B Inscriptions" in Journal of Indo-European Studies
> Spring 2001. Markey argues the case for a range of alphabetic
> having been developed in the Alpine regions, and the Camunic as the
> most likely original of the runic. Few scholars these days argue
> 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
> 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:
> (Val Camonica), Golaseccan, Lugano, Bolzano, Magre, Venetic,
> Marsilian, etc. The Negau B characters are then set out beside
> 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 (
> Rheto-Celtic vixamulaxe = vitamulate = Windamolatos 'having
> 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.
> then gives repros of the 4 Negau A inscriptions and analyses them
> 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
> 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
> well-respected authority in the field of Germanic linguistics, and
> his reading of the origin of the futhark is different from the
> 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
> 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
> --

Hvor ble det av vedlegget, tore?