"Runes and Rivers" : considerations on the Typology and Distribution Patterns of Merovingian Period Runic Inscriptions along the North Sea, the Rhine, and the Danube
p. 235-241
Résumés
Le but de ce document est de fournir une discussion interdisciplinaire sur la relation entre la diffusion de l’écriture runique et certains des principaux cours d’eau de l’Europe, à savoir la mer du Nord, le Rhin et le Danube. L’hypothèse d’une mer du Nord unificatrice est proposée ; ceci explique à son tour la diffusion des inscriptions runiques sur des pommeaux d’épée dans la période 520-570 à travers la Manche. Sur l’estuaire du Danube, il y a un groupe relativement isolé d’inscriptions gothiques de la fin du ive au milieu du Ve siècle qui ne présentent pas de liens évidents avec la zone située entre le Rhin et le Danube, dans le sud-ouest de l’Allemagne, secteur qui peut être décrit comme un centre d’activité runique de la fin du vie jusqu’au début du viie siècle.
Das Ziel dieser Arbeit istes, eine interdisziplinäre Diskussion zur Beziehung zwischen der Verbreitung der Runenschrift und einigen der wichtigsten Wasserstraßen Europas (Nordsee, Rhein und Donau) anzustofien. Die Verteihmgskarte der merowingerzeitlichen Runeninschriften scheint nämlich eine deutliche Konzentration der Inschriften entlang bestimmter Fließgewässer anzuzeigen, wobei sich darüber hinaus eine typologische Ausdifferenzierung der Runenfunde entlang der Gewässer erweisen lässt. Wir legen dar, dass die Nordsee als ein verbindendes Gewässer verstanden werden muss. Unter dieser Perspektive kann etwa die Verbreitung von Runeninschriften auf Schwertknäufen beidseits des Ärmelkanals in der Zeit von 520 bis 570 erklärt werden. Ferner stellen wir fest, dass es an der Donau-Mündung eine relativ isolierte Gruppe von « gotischen » Inschriften aus dem späten 4. bis zur Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts gibt, die keine offensichtlichen Verbindungen zum Gebiet zwischen Rhein und der Donau in Südwestdeutschland erkennen lassen, obschon letzteres Gebiet als Zentrum der runischen Schriftlichkeit im späten 6. und frühen 7. Jahrhundert bezeichnet werden muss. An der Nordseeküste und am Ärmelkanal finden sich insbesondere mit den runenbeschrifteten Schwertknäufen zahlreiche Objekte, die auf eine kriegerische mannliche Kultur hinweisen. Runenfunde an den Ufern des Rheins und der Donau stellen dagegen mit den Fibelinschriften ein weiblicheres Muster dar. Aber kann dieser oberflächliche Eindruck auch einer gründlicheren Untersuchung aus einer zugleich archäologischen und linguistischen Perspektive standhalten ?
the purpose of this paper is to provide an interdisciplinary discussion ofthe relationship between the diffusion of the runic script and sonie of the major waterways of Europe, namely the North Sea, the Rhine, and the Danube. Judging from a distribution map, runic inscriptions from the Merovingian Period appear to have a very distinct concentration along bodies of water. Moreover, there would seem to be a typological différentiation of runic objects along different bodies of water. In this paper, we have decided to evaluate three zones with concentrations of runic inscriptions that are located along major bodies of water: the North Sea, the Rhine and the Danube. It is argued that the North Sea must be considered a uniting body of water, which in turn explains the diffusion of runic inscriptions on sword pommels in the period 520-570 across the English Channel. On the Danube estuary there is a relatively isolated group of Gothic inscriptions from the late 4th to the mid 5th century that do not show any obvions connections to the area between the Rhine and the Danube in southwestern Germany that may be described as a center of runic activity in the late 6,h and early 7th century. The North Sea shores and the English Channel offer many runic inscriptions pertaining to a martial male culture, notably swordpommels. Along the Rhine and the Danube, there is a more female pattern with inscriptions on brooches. But can this superficial impression also stand up to a more rigorous examination from a combined archaeological and linguistic perspective ?
Texte intégral
1The earliest known runic inscriptions are found in the wetlands of South Scandinavia. The Vimose comb, for instance, is often dated to c. AD. 150/160. Water is what preserved these runic inscriptions to our day. The idea behind the wetland deposits is, however, very different from the diffusion of runic script along waterways. The war booty wetland deposits are final resting places for particular assemblies of material culture, and the deposits have deliberately been fixated within a liminal zone. The navigable waterways and fertile river valleys of the Continent offer very different landscapes, though - namely those of contact and diffusion.
2The earliest runic inscription on the Continent is the comb from Frienstedt, Thuringia, which dates to the late 3rd century AD (Schmidt et alii, 2012). This is a very recent find that adds substantial empirical evidence to older théories of continental runic diffusion from the Roman Period to the Merovingian Period (e.g. Kraus, Jankuhn, 1966 ; Koch, 1977 ; Düwel, 1994a ; Martin, 2004). Thanks to the find from Frienstedt, scholars are now free to explore new paths. In this paper, an archaeologist and a linguist together discuss what options are available from an interdisciplinary perspective in tenus of understanding the diffusion of runic script along major bodies of water.
3Judging from two distribution maps, (fig. 1 and 2), runic inscriptions from the Merovingian Period appear to have a very distinct concentration along bodies of water. Moreover, there would seem to be a typological différentiation of runic objects along different bodies of water (fig. 1 and 2). In this paper, we have decided to evaluate three zones with concentrations of runic inscriptions that are located along major bodies of water: the North Sea, the Rhine and the Danube. The North Sea shores and the English Channel offer niany runic inscriptions pertaining to a martial male culture, notably sword pommels (fig. 1). Along the Rhine and the Danube, there is a more female pattern with inscriptions on brooches (fig. 2).
4But can tltis superficial impression also stand up to a more rigorous examination from a combined archaeological and linguistic perspective ? The following considérations - and they are no more than that - may raise the question if the diffusion of the runic script should be associated with waterways to a larger degree than lias previously been the case in scholarship. The question is easily replied to with an affirmative answer, since waterways have been considered important in the process of diffusion of phenomena within prehistoric cultures, but are increasing in importance given new scholarship in the field. There are a number of difficult issues with an interdisciplinary metliod in runology as the perspectives of archaeologists and linguists are very different on a number of key topics, notably how script and writing as manifestations of material culture are to be understood in ternis of ethnicity, language, and gender.
5An archaeologist is unlikely to want to patch finds from the Danube estuary together with tliose from the Rhine estuary, the spindle whorl from Leţcani and the sword mouth from Bergakker can both be labeled “Continental runic objects” but this a very sweeping generalization. Similarly, the terni “South Germanie”, which is often applied to the Merovingian Period finds in Alemannia and Bavaria, camiot be extended to include the finds from Britain within the discourse of archaeology, simply because a linguist sees the latter as West Germanic as well.
1. The North Sea
6The English Channel is not a separating body of water. Rather it is a nexus of the North Sea that brings Southern Scandinavia together with the European Continent as far down as Brittany. This widespread distribution suggests a loose polycentric network of varions Germanie affinities that came to expand in the wake of the collapse of Roman rule in Britain in 410 well into the Merovingian Period. The relative absence or scarcity of Latin literacy in what must be regarded as a Roman periphery may also have served as an impetus for graphemic innovation and the development within the runic script. In particular, it is in this area that the Anglo-Frisian Futhorc was created sometime in the early 5th century (PAGE, 1961, 1999 ; Looijenga, 2003).
7The North Sea is also an area where runic inscriptions on sword pommels could represent a subséquent network of “ring-lords”, literate functionaries in the mid 6th century (Fischer, Soulat, 2007 ; Fischer et alii, 2008). Yet most runic inscriptions on sword pommels camiot be attributed to any distinct linguistic entity, notably the Gilton four pommel. Still, evidence of the Anglo-Frisian futhorc may well be present in Fréthun (Pas-de-Calais) in Gaul by c. 560 AD (Fischer et alii, 2008). Tltis scénario was suggestedby Page (1961) and tltis the appears reasonable in the light of recent discoveries rallier than the hypothesis of the Anglo-Saxon futhorc being a distinct product of a few Anglo-Saxon monasteries of the mid 7th century as lias been previously suggested (Parsons, 1999). Finally, the North Seaincludes the estuary of the Rhine, a body of water that further upstream constitutes the second case study.
2. The Rhine
8During the Roman period, the Rhine had served the Empire in varions roles as a frontier, a fortified border and as a transportation route. Most importantly 4th century Roman military expéditions began to use it to transport large number of auxiliary troops from the Old Rhine estuary down to areas troubled by Germanie incursions. The late 4th early 5th century find from Bergakker in the Netherlands belongs to this period and is as such rallier difficult to intégrale with the later finds. The Rhine would also harbor important pockets of Romance-speakers and Latin literacy would ne ver disappear completely along the river.
Fig. 1. Distribution of runic inscriptions on brooches.
(After DÜWEL, 1994a)
Fig. 2. Distribution pattern of runic inscriptions on swordpommels.

(After Fischer et alii, 2008)

9By tire early 6th century we start to lind tire lirst traces of runic activity further south around Breisgau and in tire Baar région. Besides a group of inscriptions on female objects, there is the spatha scabbard mouth from Eichstetten (Sasse et alii, 2001), suggesting that there lias been a corpus of inscriptions on male objects, as along the North Sea. There is nothing in the linguistic nature of the runic inscriptions on female objects in this area that separates them from those on the upper Danube, though (see section 3 below).
3. The Danube
10Germanie tribes settled the Danube estuary on the Black Sea already in the late 3rd century. At this point there was active Latin and Greek literacy in the area, which inspired early 20th century runologists to argue for a possible Greek influence on the runic script (Friesen, 1933), sometliing that is no longer probable given the dendroclironologial records from the Scandinavian wetland finds.
11The earliest runic inscriptions in Moldova and Romania date to the 4th century (Blosiu, 1975). These are found in graves and hoards that are generally seen as East Germanic. The Pietroasa inscription on a gold necklace is difficult to intégrale into a group as such although the hoard itself is perfectly normal in the range of Barbarian gold hoards from the area. The Acquincum and the Szabadbattayan inscriptions in Hungary belong to tliis horizon as well. But the Sântana de Mures-Chernyakhov culture gradually disappears in the late 5th century and the area hence ceases to produce any significant numbers of grave goods and hoards.
12By the mid to late 6th century there is a new and different cluster of runic inscriptions further upstream, in the row grave cemeteries of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria with some stray finds in Hungary. The latter shows no separate characteristic features apart from the contemporary corpus along the Rhine but can be understood as a collective entity in linguistic terms. This means that the Danubian corpus should be divided into two with a chronological hiatus somewhere in the late 5th century, since the younger part of the 6th century lits well into the contemporary corpus on the Rhine, which can be described as a cohesive “runic province" from a linguistic perspective.
Conclusion
13It would appear that the runic inscriptions on the North Sea and the lower Danube are older than those on the Rhine and the upper Danube but that these two discourses were also more susceptible to change and influences from Scandinavia and Latin. The Late Migration Period of the 5th century seems pivotai in the Norfli Sea with strong connections between Kent and Jutland, along with tire influence from Gallo-Roman Latin literacy (see also Möllenberg, 2011). The lower Danube has inscriptions that are perhaps to be attributed to the strong Gothic and Langobardic presence in the area in the Late Roman and Migration Periods.
14Linguistically, the runic inscriptions on the Rhine and the upper Danube appear to be relatively isolated from the other two areas. The runic literacy of this combined area is characterized by short, laconic inscriptions, usually Personal naines or difficult to interpret. Besides there is a group of inscriptions that simulate script and imitate active literacy (Graf, 2010,2011b). Even if these are only a small minority of the corpus, fliey still manifest a régional continuity of sorts or adhérence to the older discourse of nonsense writing also présent in the earlier Latin epigrapltic tradition of the Late Roman period. The linguistic character of the “South Germanie” inscriptions is not related to the distribution pattern of runic inscriptions in general, they are tied to a smaller géographie area and camiot therefore be employed to generalize about the wider diffusion of the runic script, e.g. in Britain.
15The recent discovery of the runic spoon from Ichtratzheim (Fischer, Fossurier et alii, 2014) enlarges the corpus of the continental or “South Germanie” inscriptions respectively by anoflier important piece. But it raises more questions than it provides answers. Who was the buried woman ? What kind of role did she have in society ? What was the function of lier inscribed spoon ? Why was it inscribed ? Could the woman read either Latin or runes ? Was lier personal name identical with the runic sequence abuda ? Why was the spoon a "talking object”, and what does a “talking object” really signify ?
16The only thing that is absolutely certain is that the Ichtratzheim spoon was once qualified to be a spoon in runic writing. But it must be emphasized that the general uncertainty produced by the Ichtratzheim spoon is not to be deplored. Raflier we must celebrate this as a great discovery, conducive to new empirical inquiries and increased scientific rigor raflier than unsubstantiated theoretical generalizations. Thus, we have to expand the proper interdisciplinary research raflier than engaging in mere onomastics coupled with autodidactic forays into the realm of archaeological typologies and chronologies. Ichtratzheim is the arguably most important new runic context from France because it highlights the need for a critical deconstruction of niany of the fundamental tenets of Merovingian Period runology from an international and interdisciplinary perspective. Such a deconstruction has three points of departure.
First, the discovery of a new cohérent group of new runic finds from France and Kent along the English Chamiel (Fischer et alii, 2008 ; Fischer, Soulat, 2009 ; Truc et alii, 2009) contradict the “Thuringian Hypothesis” of a 6th century runic diffusion from Scandinavia via Thuringia to Alemamiia (Koch, 1977 ; Martin, 2004). The “Thuringian Hypothesis” appears very unlikely as it notably fails to provide any corresponding empirical evidence (FISCHER, 2005 ; Graf, 2009). In particular, the new find from Frienstedt, Gennany shows that runes were in use in Thuringia already by the late 3rd century, and the hypothetical further influx from 6th century Scandinavia is no longer a necessary rhetorical recourse. Thus, we are free to reopen the question of runic diffusion anew.
Second, the new discoveries in France of Latin and runic inscriptions on the same objects contradict previous attempts to separate the two discourses in Alemannia in ternis of gender and visibility (Düwel, 1994b, 1997). The Chéhéry inscriptions (Fischer, Lémant, 2003) sltift from runic to Latin, wltile the Ichtratzheim inscriptions sltift from Latin to runes in the same time period. As a resuit, we must abandon the past theoretical dichotomy and instead widen the search and extend the discussion of Migration Period literacy to encompass the Mediterranean and Black Sea spheres of the Post-Roman world as well as the Norfli Sea and Scandinavia.
Third, the interrelated questions of distribution patterns and social status and political behavior are very critical. It may well be that there is actually a substantial différence between inscription types and social status as the burial rite is not an immaculate reflection of the “Sitz im Leben”. Grave 108 of Ichtratzheim (Bas-Rhin) is comfortably situated well above the “obère Mittelschicht” in tenus of social status just as the male runic grave 11 of Saint-Dizier (Haut-Manie), and the female runic grave from Chéhéry (Ardennes). Rather, a less elevated social rank is more typical of the far less opulent runic graves from Alemannia and Bavaria (Düwel, 1994a ; Martin, 2004). There is a wider explanation to this : the amount of métal grave goods in local cemeteries (and thus the frequency of preserved runic inscriptions) may be related to the local ability to accumulate wealth from the surrounding cultural landscape. This brings us to the realm of the political.
17Besides the kleptocratic behavior of theft and plunder or gift exchange through peer-polity, tltis is what usually allows for a surplus that can be traded for métal objects. In particular, certain cemeteries with runic finds such as Trossingen and Neudingen-Baar are located in the relatively poor backwater region of Tuttlingen, which lias a lot of marshes. The latter coincidentally preserve wooden grave goods such as the loom sword from Neudingen-Baar grave 319 and the runic chair from Trossingen (Fingerlin, Düwel, 2001 ; Theune-Grosskopf, Nedoma, 2006). By contrast, slightly richer cemeteries are found in the more fertile lands of the Breisgau, where Bad Krozingen and Eichstetten are located (Fingerlin et alii, 2004 ; Sasse et alii, 2001). But it is statistically unlikely that a preserved runic inscription on wood in a relatively poor grave is going to appear in the Breisgau.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Bibliographie
Blosiu C., 1975, « Necropola din secolul al IV-1ea E.N. de la Letcani (Jud. Iasi) », Archeologia Molodovei, VIII, p. 203-273 (Academia de stiinte sociale si politice a Republicii Socialiste România).
10.1515/9783110877366 :Düwel K., 1994a, « Runische und lateinische Epigraphik im süddeutschen Raum zur Merowingerzeit », in : Düwel K. dir., Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung, Internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.-27. Juni 1992 in Bad Homburg, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 229- 308 (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, E 10).
Düwel K., 1994b, « Fibeln mit Runeninschrift », in : Beck H. et alii dir., Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 8, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 536-541.
Düwel K., 1997, « Epigraphische Zeugnisse für die Macht der Schrift im östlichen Frankenreich », in : Die Franken : Wegbereiter Europas, Katalog zur Ausstellung im Reiß-Museum Mannheim (8.9.96-6.1.97), Mainz, P. Von Zabern, p. 540-552.
10.1007/978-3-476-99765-4 :Düwel K, 2010, Runenkunde, Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler, 278 p. (vierte Auflage).
Fingerlin G., Düwel K., 2001, « Neudingen », in : Beck H. et alii dir., Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 21, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 108-111.
Fingerlin G., DüweLK., Pieper P., 2004, « Eine Runeninschrift aus Bad Krozingen (Kreis Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald) », in : Naumann H. P. ed., Alamannien und der Norden, Symposium 18-20 Oktober, Zürich, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 224- 65 (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, E 43).
fischer S., 2005, Roman imperialism and runic literacy : the westernization of Northern Europe (150-800 AD), Uppsala, Upsala Univ., 262 p. (Aun, 33).
Fischer S., Lémant J.-P., 2003, « Epigraphic Evidence of Frankish Exogamy », in : Taayke E. et alii ed., Essays on The Early Franks, Proceeding of the Workshop at Wirdum, Groningen, Netherlands, 2000, Groningen, Barkhuis, p. 241- 266 (Groningen Archaeological Studies, 1).
Fischer S., Soulat J., 2009, « Runic Sword and Raw Materials - Anglo-Saxon Interaction with Northern Gaul : a Présentation of Two Research Projects at the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale », in: The 58th international Sachs ensympo sium, 1er-5 sept. 2007. Trondheim, Muséum of Natural History and Archaeology, p. 72-79 (Vitark, T).
fischer S. et alii, 2008, Les Seigneurs des Anneaux, Saint-Gemiain-en-Laye, AFAM, 2e éd. revue et corrigée, 170 p. (Bull, de liaison de l’AFAM, Hors série n° 2 ; Inscriptions runiques de France, t.I).
Fischer S., Croix S., Soulat J., 2008, «Les pommeaux avec inscriptions runiques à l’époque mérovingienne », in : Varéon C. dir., Nos ancêtres les Barbares : voyage autour de trois tombes de chefs francs, Catalogue d’exposition du musée de Saint-Dizier, Paris, Somogy éd. d’art/Saint-Dizier, Musée de Saint-Dizier, p. 78-83.
10.33063/jaah.vi11.134 :Fischer S., Fossurier C., Graf M. H., Châtelet M., Soulat J., 2014, « An inscribed silver spoon from Ichtratzheim (Bas-Rhin) », Journal of Archaeology and Ancient History, n° 11, p. 1-25.
Friesen O. von, 1933, « De germanska, anglofrisiska och tyska runoma », Nordisk kultur, 6, p. 1-79.
Graf M. H., 2009, «Die Runeninschriften von Weimar im Lichte der neueren Thüringerforschung », in : Castritius H., Geuenich D., Werner M. ed., Die Frühzeit der Thüringer : Archdologie, Sprache, Geschichte, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 119-133 (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, E 63).
Graf M. H., 2010, Paraschriftliche Zeichen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften : Studien zur Schriftkultur des kontinentalgermanischen Runenhorizonts, Zürich, Chronos Verl., 190 p. (Medienwandel — Medienwissen — Medienwechsel. Historische Perspektiven, 12).
Graf M. H., 2011a, « Schrift, Sprache, und was dazwischen liegt. Zur Materialität epigraphischer Schriftlichkeit der ältesten Runeninschriften », in : Schulte M., Nedoma R. ed., Language and literacy in early Scandinavia and beyond, Volda, Univ. Press of Southern Denmark, p. 213-248 (NOWELE, 62/63).
Graf M. H., 2011b, « Schrifttheoretische Überlegungen zu nichtlexikalischen Inschriften aus dem südgermanischen Runenkorpus », Futhark, 2, p. 103-122.
10.7788/akg-1958-jg02 :Grundmann H., 1958, « Litterarus -illitteratus : der Wandel einer Bildungsnorm vom Altertum zum Mittelalter », Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 40, p. 1-65.
Grünzweig F. E., 2004, Runeninschriften auf Waffen : Inschriften vom 2. Jh. n. Chr. bis ins Hochmittelalter, Wien, WSS, 203 p. (Wiener Studien zur Skandinavistik, 11).
Hines J., 2007, « Functions of literacy and the use of runes », in : Nyström S. ed., Runor och Abc. Elva föreläsningar från ett symposium i Stockholm våren 1995, Stockholm, Runica et Mediævalia, p. 79-92.
Koch U., 1977, Dos Reihengräberfeld bei Schretzheim, Berlin, Mann, 2 vol., 245 et 147 p.
Kraus W., Jankuhn IL, 1966, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 328 p.
Looijenga T., 2003, Texts andcontexts ofthe oldest runic inscriptions, Boston/Leiden, Brill, 383 p. (The Northern World, 4).
Martin M., 1997, « Schrift ans dem Norden : Runen in der Alamannia - archäologisch betrachtet », in : Archäologischen Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg hrsg., Die Alamannen, Ausstellung Südwest LB-Forum, Stuttgart, 14. Juni 1997 bis 14. Sept. 1997, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zürich, 24. Oktober 1997 bis 25. Januar 1998, Rômisches Landesmuseum der Stadt Augsburg, 6. März 1998 bis 7. Juni 1998, Stuttgart, Theiss, p. 499-502.
Martin M., 2004, « Kontinentalgermanische Runeninschriften und ‘ alemannische Runenprovinz’ », in : Naumann H.-P. ed., Alemannien und der Norden, Internationales vom 18.-20. Oktober 201 in Zürich, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, p. 165- 212 (Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, E 43).
Möllenberg S., 2011, Tradition und Trans fer in spätgermanischer Zeit : süddeutsches, englisches und skandinavisches Fundgut des 6. Jahrhunderts, Berlin/Boston, de Gruyter, 265 p.
10.2307/43626908 :Page R. I. 1961, « The Old English Rune ear », Medium Ævum, 30, p. 65-79.
10.1080/00766097.1984.11735455 :Page R. I., 1984, « On the Translitération of English Runes », Médiéval Archaeology, 28. p. 22-45.
Page R. I., 1999, An introduction to English runes, Woodbridge, Rochester, Boydell press, 249 p.
Parsons D. N., 1999, Recasting the Runes : the reform of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, Uppsala, Inst, för Nordiska Språk, Uppsala Univ., 148 p. (Uppsala Runrôn, 14).
Sasse b., Alt K. W., Hollack B., 2001, Ein frühmittelalterliches Reihengraberfeld bei Eichstetten am Kaiserstuhl, Stuttgart, K. Theiss Verl., 650 p. (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, 75).
10.13173/SPR.49.2.123 :Schmidt C., Nedoma R., Düwel K., 2012, « Die Runeninschrift auf dem Kamm von Frienstedt, Stadt Erfurt », Die Sprache, 49, p. 123-186.
Soulat J., 2009, Le matériel archéologique de type saxon et anglo-saxon en Gaule mérovingienne, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, AFAM, 221 p. (Mémoires de l’Ass. française d’Archéologie mérovingienne, XX).
Soulat J., 2010, « La présence saxonne et anglo-saxonne sur le littoral de la Manche », in : Lebecq S., Béthouard B., Verslype L. dir., Quentovic : environnement, archéologie, histoire, Actes du colloque international de Montreuil-sur-Mer, Etaples et Le Touquet, 11-13 mai 2006 et de la journée d’études de Lille sur les origines de Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1er déc. 2006, Lille, CEGES, p. 147-163.
Soulat j., 2011, « Between Frankish and Merovingian influences in early Anglo-Saxon Sussex (fifth-Seventh centuries) », in : Brookes S., Harrington S., Reynolds A. ed., Studies in early anglo-saxon art and archaeology, Papers in honour of Martin Welch, Oxford, Archaeopress, p. 62-71 (BAR, British Sériés, 527).
Theune-GrosskopFB.,NedomaR., 2006, « Stuhlbeigabe in völkerwanderungs- und merowingerzeitlichen Grábem im Spiegel eines neuen Befundes mit Runeninschrift aus Trossingen, Lkr. Tuttlingen », Archdologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 38, p. 423- 436.
Truc M.-C., Bell B., Cabart H., Calugaro T., Paresys C., Tegel W., Yvinec J.-H., Fischer S., 2009, «Trois riches tombes du vie siècle sur le site de ‘la Tuilerie’ à Saint-Dizier (Haute-Marne) », in : Guillaume J., Peytremann É. dir., L’Austrasie : société, économies, territoires, christianisation, Actes des XXVIèmes journées internationales d’Archéologie mérovingienne, Nancy, 2-25 sept. 2005, Nancy, Presses univ. de Nancy, p. 313-329 (Mémoires de l’Ass. française d’Archéologie mérovingienne, XIX).
Auteurs
Associate professor, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University.
Dr, Schweizerdeutsches Wörterbuch, Zürich.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhénan, rhodanien et parisien : carrefour ou frontière ?
Pascal Duhamel (dir.)
1996
Les sépultures tumulaires aristocratiques du Hallstatt ancien de Poiseul-la-Ville (Côte-d’Or)
Bruno Chaume et Michel Feugère
1990
Verrerie de l’Est de la France. XIIIe-XVIIIe siècles
Fabrication - Consommation
Jean-Olivier Guilhot, Stéphanie Jacquemot et Pierre Thion (dir.)
1990
Les cimetières mérovingiens de la côte chalonnaise et de la côte mâconnaise
Henri Gaillard de Sémainville
1980
En marge du village
La zone d’activités spécifiques et les groupes funéraires de Sermersheim (Bas-Rhin) du VIe au XIIe siècle
Édith Peytremann (dir.)
2018
Iconographie du quotidien dans l’art provincial romain : modèles régionaux
Sabine Lefebvre (dir.)
2017
Les meules du Néolithique à l’époque médiévale : technique, culture, diffusion
Olivier Buchsenschutz, Stéphanie Lepareux-Couturier et Gilles Fronteau (dir.)
2017