Description
The runic inscription consists of text inscribed on a thin interwined beast with one upper loop around a Christian cross and two lower loops. This runestone was discovered in 1975 being used as building material at the southern buttress of the Vasa burial chapel during renovations at the Uppsala Cathedral. Many runestones have been reused in building, road, and bridge construction before their historical importance was recognized. The runic inscription was carved by the runemaster Öpir, whose signature is at the bottom of the inscription in a horizontal text band. Öpir was active in the Uppland region during the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries. The inscription is classified as being in runestone style Pr4, which is also known as the Urnes style. This runestone style is characterized by slim and stylized animals that are interwoven into tight patterns. The animal heads are typically seen in profile with slender almond-shaped eyes and upwardly curled appendages on the noses and the necks.
The runic text is missing a pronoun, the word "his" before "brother." Öpir is known to have left off possessive pronouns in some of his other inscricriptions, such as that on U 993 in Brunnby. Additionally, he left off the final "" in rúnar, or "runes," which he also did on inscriptions such as that on U 181 in Össeby-Garn.
Of the personal names listed in the runic inscription, Ketilbjôrn means "Kettle Bear" and Karlungr, originally used as a nickname, means "Young Man."
The Rundata designation for this Uppland inscription, U Fv1976;107, refers to the year and page number of the issue of Fornvännen in which the runestone was first described.
Read more about this topic: Uppland Runic Inscription Fv1976 107
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“The Sage of Toronto ... spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by a “global village” instantly and effortlessly accessible to all. Villages, unlike towns, have always been ruled by conformism, isolation, petty surveillance, boredom and repetitive malicious gossip about the same families. Which is a precise enough description of the global spectacle’s present vulgarity.”
—Guy Debord (b. 1931)
“An intentional object is given by a word or a phrase which gives a description under which.”
—Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe (b. 1919)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)