10 ms·
Runestone discovered in Norway may be the world’s oldest
- sillyquiet 4y agoAnybody looking for information not filtered through science journalism wouldn't go wrong checking out the Twitter threads of two of the researchers: https://twitter.com/KristerVasshus/status/1615236531689607169 https://twitter.com/KristerVasshus/status/161523653168960716... https://twitter.com/Kristel_Zilmer/status/1615462182606540800 https://twitter.com/Kristel_Zilmer/status/161546218260654080... I also recommend Jackson Crawford's video on the subject as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_m2xcoU9Q0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_m2xcoU9Q0 He also had an in-depth interview with Krister Vasshus on his Patreon which will probably be on his You-Tube channel eventually.
- JasonFruit 4y agoThis statement[0] from the University of Oslo, linked from the article, explains how the stone was dated, and is in general more explanatory. [0]: https://www.khm.uio.no/english/news/found-the-world-s-oldest-rune-stone.html https://www.khm.uio.no/english/news/found-the-world-s-oldest...
- moloch-hai 4y agoIt would be interesting to explore whether this has any effect on the hypothesis, based purely on letterform comparisons, that runes may be traced to semitic symbols, presumably introduced by Carthaginian refugees or, anyway, travellers. (This idea has been dismissed as impossible based on the timeline, as the oldest runes postdate Carthage's demolition by centuries, but that argument depends on assuming we have a complete archaeological record, which we of course do not.) If the older letterforms more closely resemble a semitic form, it would be powerful evidence in favor. If not, things get more complicated.
- sillyquiet 4y ago> but that argument depends on assuming we have a complete archaeological record, which we of course do not. In other words that argument depends on the available evidence rather than speculation, like, you know, how science should be done.
- moloch-hai 4y agoAssuming you already have all the possible evidence already leads to falsehoods. Science is about not embracing falsehoods, if it is anything. What you promote is what cemented "Clovis first" for decades beyond its sell-by date, and opposition to the K-T bolide model and plate tectonics. Pretending to know interferes with coming to know. For a more recent example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825221001781?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00128... Opposition was sloppy to the point of dishonesty.
- kgeist 4y agoDo you have links to the arguments in favor of the semitic hypothesis?
- moloch-hai 4y agohttps://theconversation.com/shillings-gods-and-runes-clues-in-language-suggest-a-semitic-superpower-in-ancient-northern-europe-139381 https://theconversation.com/shillings-gods-and-runes-clues-i... might be a good place to start.
- msrenee 4y agoSo that's a guy claiming he and another person figured out that the derivation of some Proto-Germanic words came from a semitic language. No published paper, just conjecture. He claims that there are a number of loanwords in Proto-Germanic that came from semitic. The word "loanword" is a link to what you would expect to lead to some evidence for it. Instead, it leads to a website listing a number of different loanwords from various languages. The closest thing on that list is Yiddish and it clearly states they mostly entered the language in the 20th century.
- peterfirefly 4y agoPlenty of publications by Venneman (mentioned on the linked site). The man was a linguistics professor for 30 years. Was he right? Probably not, but definitely not just "a guy" and "another person".
- msrenee 4y agoAll I'm seeing on this subject by him is the book mentioned elsewhere in this thread where the summary claims close and sustained contact with the Carthaginians. The only supporting evidence I'm finding for that assertion is that he's devised new etymologies that connect Proto-Germanic to semitic roots. All he does is mention that they've made these connections linguistically. He doesn't cite any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Just the book. If you click the linked text throughout that article, you'll get a few Wikipedia pages, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, and a few other web pages that don't back up his claims. I'm having trouble taking the theory seriously when he can't seem to pull up any real evidence besides wishful thinking.
- Bayart 4y agoNordic runes have a blatant filiatiation to Italic scripts, especially the Etruscan alphabet. It's rather natural that it would spread from the Alps to the North Sea through the Rhine River. In that sense it's just as much descended from the Phoenician alphabet as the Latin alphabet is. But a direct descent from a Semitic script makes less sense. This being said there are cases of scripts being adopted from afar rather than from a neighbour. For example Transalpine Gaul used a Greek script before the Roman invasion, rather than an Italic one.
- moloch-hai 4y agoYet, we know it is more complicated than simple derivation from Etruscan. So the real question is what else happened.
- wolverine876 4y agoFrom TFA: > Scholars agree that runes were influenced by an older writing system, but just which one, and when, remain the subject of academic debate. One theory posits that the runic alphabet—also known as “futhark,” after its first six sounds—was derived from the alphabet of the Etruscans in northern Italy. Another is that runes were born from the Latin alphabet, following commercial and cultural exchange between Germanic peoples and the Romans.
- moloch-hai 4y agoApparently, assuming it was "influenced by" only one "older writing system". But there is no basis for any such assumption. It appears to be purely a matter of their own convenience, wholly disconnected from anything in the script.
- wolverine876 4y agoWhat is your statement based on? Your analysis of runic scripts?
- moloch-hai 4y ago
- jvickers 4y ago1) Why Carthaginian rather than Phoenician? 2) Given that runes are a form that's optimised for writing on trees, it should not be expected that the oldest runes will be found.
- moloch-hai 4y agoCarthaginians were Phoenicians.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jvickers 4y agoI know that. When talking about language and script transmission it makes more sense in my view to talk about Phoenicians rather than Carthaginians, unless there is any specific linguistic difference such as dialect that needs to be taken into account (and in this case I don't think there is any such detail). It seems like an assumption not based on fact to assume transmission via Carthage rather than other routes.
- moloch-hai 4y agoCarthage is much, much closer to Denmark, by sea, than Tyre. That matters because theirs was a maritime empire. If there are any differences between letterforms used in Tyre and later in Carthage, the ones from Carthage are the natural choice to check. You could check the others, too, if you liked.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoYou have a preferred theory already, and you're trying to fit the facts to it. Unwise.
- moloch-hai 4y agoNo, I just want to know about what the evidence says about it.
- BirAdam 4y agoThere is no evidence to support the idea that Phoenician travelers had sustained contact with early Germanic peoples, and especially not enough to significantly influence German language and writing. There is evidence to show Etruscan, Latin, and Greek influence on Germanic language and writing. In human language there are often similarities between unrelated languages and these have myriad possible origins. As such, within the realm of linguistics one needs substantial proof to successfully claim a relationship exists between two otherwise unrelated languages.
- moloch-hai 4y agoEither the physical evidence suggests a connection or it doesn't. It is obviously fallacious to insist there could be no contact between Carthaginian and Germanic populations: boats sail between the Baltic and Mediterranean seas all the damn time. It was only a little time ago that many historians insisted bronze-age tin could not possibly have come from England. ("There's no solid evidence for it!") Then isotope analysis showed that it definitely did. The only correct statement at the time would be that we didn't know whether the tin was coming from England. Accepting the isotopic evidence does not absolve anybody from insisting they knew what they were fully aware they did not know.
- moloch-hai 4y agoAny discussion that doesn't even mention the possibility of origin in semitic forms (which, of course, Greek and ultimately Roman also trace to) seems unlikely to enlighten. Carthaginians certainly got around. You would seem to need a plausible reason for them to have been unable or unwilling to visit Denmark.
- sillyquiet 4y agoJust because they don't mention this not-widely-accepted hypothesis you're going to dismiss it? Ok.
- moloch-hai 4y agoIt doesn't offer anything else. So, yes. "Not widely accepted" means, exactly, "usefully checked against new evidence". If you can point to anything beyond "woohoo, new older runes" and "maybe this helps distinguish between Greek and italic origin", do.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoIf you have any info on this, post it.
- eesmith 4y agoI was also curious about the topic. I think this book review by Nelson Goering of Robert Mailhammer & Theo Vennemann's book "The Carthaginian North: Semitic Influence on Early Germanic: A Linguistic and Cultural Study" at https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goering-2021-review-of-mailhammer-and-vennemann.pdf/ https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:40752/CONTENT/goer... and https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.20028.goe does a good job of summarizing the argument and the review author's issues with it. > The thesis presented in this book – that there was a substantial linguistic impact on what would become Proto-Germanic from the Punic spoken by Carthaginians who allegedly established outposts in northern Europe – has been argued by one of the authors in various articles for many years (see the collected articles in Vennemann 2003, 2013), and is already known as ‘controversial’. ... This book can be taken as arguing the best possible case for Punic influence on Germanic ... > This, then, is the sum of the strictly linguistic evidence marshalled by MV for the alleged Punic contact and linguistic influence on Germanic. They supplement it with an appeal to writing systems, arguing that runes are best derived directly from the Punic alphabet. They make a number of points, but a large core of their argument turns on the supposed derivation of the first four runes (for f, u, þ, and a), in order, shape, and sound, from the Punic alphabet. . > The result of this, it should by now be clear, is that I must conclude that the central thesis of the book – that there was linguistic influence from Punic on pre-Germanic – is not supported by the evidence marshalled here. More than that, I would say that this Punic hypothesis may now be confidently rejected as very probably untrue. If such influence were real, then the combined labours of two talented linguists, one working on the problem for very many years, and with ample (if often critical) feedback to build on, would have uncovered convincing traces by now. That they have not strongly suggests that such do not exist. If this is the best argument that can be made for the Punic hypothesis, then the hypothesis would appear to be incorrect.
- legulere 4y agoI always wonder with runes if there is a huge survivorship bias. Runes most likely lack horizontal strokes to be easier to carve into wood, but wood doesn't endure time as much. Also with stones there's probably a similar effect: in central Europe stones like sandstone or limestone are more common. They are weathering faster than other stones.
- cal85 4y agoI'm confused as to what you're saying here, but it sounds interesting. Can you clarify? Survivorship bias of what over what?
- arminiusreturns 4y agoIt's well known in protohistory that most of the religious sites were wooded, both with idols and altars of wood, but also in the forest itself in special places such as groves. The romans destroyed most of it, and later the christians (but I repeat myself). So I think gp is just reiterating this. Here in America our high country and high country desert really make us lucky for having close to surface access of ancient things, makes archaeology and paleontology much easier.
- legulere 4y agoI'm saying that maybe writing runes on stones was uncommon compared to write them on wood and that maybe runes were more common in central Europe than what we see, because those runes endured less than the ones on stones in Scandinavia.
- eesmith 4y agoIf it helps any, the earliest dated rune is from a bone comb, and have also been found on wood and wax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggen_inscriptions says that find helped show that runes were used for things besides "inscriptions of names and solemn phrases." This would suggest that were runes widely used in central Europe, on wood, then it would still be possible to find traces of that use. FWIW, knowing basically nothing on the topic, I did a Google Scholar search with 'rune "central Europe"', which returned things like: "Runes from Lány (Czech Republic) - The oldest inscription among Slavs. A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440321000030 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544032... I also found that Old Hungarian script was a runic script - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script , usually carved on wood or sticks.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoI've loved runes ever since I saw them on JRR Tolkiens book as a little kid. Very very cool to see something this old. “Not all inscriptions have a linguistic meaning,” says Zilmer. “It’s possible that someone has imitated, explored or played with the writing. Maybe someone was learning how to carve runes.” Yeah as I understand a lot of run carvings were more symbolic, loads of stuff where people just repeat a rune over and over because it represents a god, or how many times ᚨᛚᚢ has been found.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoA very neat book on this topic (he was my professor for years much later than that book): A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions, by Elmer Antonsen 1975 https://a.co/d/9nITdEY https://a.co/d/9nITdEY
- msrenee 4y agoNeat! If anyone's looking to buy and dissuaded by the Amazon price, it looks like Abebooks has cheaper used copies.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoInteresting, 1800-2000 years ago is right back in a time when it's somewhat harder to make a distinction between the various Germanic language families. Very close to a more common Germanic era, so if there's much written here it could tell us a lot about Germanic family language evolution. But it does sound like it's the usual "I, cmrdporcupine, wrote this rune" graffiti form :-) Not a lot of words
- luxuryballs 4y agoanyone know of any good explanations on why radiocarbon dating is considered reliable enough to support claims like this?
- thombat 4y agoIs there some reason to suspect that a widely-used dating technique couldn't be applied to this case?