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:
“As they are not seen on their way down the streams, it is thought by fishermen that they never return, but waste away and die, clinging to rocks and stumps of trees for an indefinite period; a tragic feature in the scenery of the river bottoms worthy to be remembered with Shakespeare’s description of the sea-floor.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“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)
“The type of fig leaf which each culture employs to cover its social taboos offers a twofold description of its morality. It reveals that certain unacknowledged behavior exists and it suggests the form that such behavior takes.”
—Freda Adler (b. 1934)