Talk:Arguel inscription

imgage

The drawing dates to 1921 and is thus probably still under copyright, but it can probably be argued to qualify for fair use. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fake?

Just when I finished with the article, I noted that Looijenga (2003) finds it "self-evident" that the inscription is a fake. While she cites literature for the verdict on the Kleines Schulerloch inscription, apparently a glance at a photograph of the Arguel pebble was enough to make up her mind. All other souces cited seem to take it for granted as genuine. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Düwel (Runenkunde, 2001) remains silent on this find, though he has a chapter titled "Fälschungen", and briefly discusses those mentioned by Looijenga, as well as several she does not. It may be worth noting here that they apparently disagree on the nature of the Weser Runenknocken find. Hmm... --80.218.71.231 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hm. discounting the 1921/1922 publications, which enthusiastically took it as genuine, and the 1966 publications, which are by the finder (or forger) himself, we are left only with the 2003 catalogue entry in Carte archéologique de la Gaule, which uncritically reports the earlier literature (1921/2, 1966). Against this, we have Looijenga saying it is "evidently" a fake. I haven't seen a photograph, but based on the drawing I must say I have my doubts too. The runes look as if they were naively copied from the Unicode specification sheet. Hardly any of the early inscriptions is so nicely done, with no bindrunes, no non-standard runes, and a clean arrangement of letters as if in print.

Add to this the exceptional attestation of "Wodan". The forger would have had a single template for this, the Nordendorf fibula. Say Milliat made his own runic inscription, saying "heritage" and "Woden", plus some incomprehensible stuff (because after all a real runic inscription always has some inexplicable parts). After that, he thinks, "how about seeing whether these local antiquarians fall for it". After they jump on it and enthusiastically publish it in their conference proceedings in the same year, it's too late to turn back without being publicly exposed as a fraud, which wouldn't be the best recommendation for a young legal professional.

In any case, this is either an "evident fake", or a very very remarkable exception. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I ran across another reading of the inscription:

Arbi tag / Wodan / Luigoþ hang / Rejkim

with the suggested translation:

"arrache l’héritage, Wotan, enlève aux puissants la lumière"

This is from Jean-Pierre Poly (2004:328) La petite pierre d'Arguel: l'ordalie germanique en Gaule aux V-VII siècles in: Retour aux Sources: Textes, Études et Documents d'Histoire Médiévale. I don't have the original article at the moment, so I don't know if Poly performs any kind of critical examination. But either of us could get it (NEBIS shows there's a copy under GN 50872) and find out. It was published in 2004, so it's possible that Poly also takes Looijenga's comments into consideration. --80.218.71.231 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the interpretation I attribute (in my own ad hoc translation) to "J.-A. Bizet", taken from the Joan 2003 source. So it cannot be original to Poly 2004. But the 2004 article would be good to quote for a recent author thinking the inscription may be genuine. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about looking it up next time I'm at the library. Regarding the Bizet reading as it stands in the article: liuhop -- with p? Is this a typo for þ? Looking at the drawing, I could understand þ, w or maybe even a d variant, but p? --80.218.71.231 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only confirm that it is not my typo. I am only transcribing this. I could not be bothered to go to the library over this, but I will be grateful if you can. We have no idea how accurate the drawing is, so if the drawing confirms Michel's reading, that doesn't really mean anything.

I agree that þ would be more likely. If this is just Joan (2003) being unable to tell a þ from a p, I guess this is symptomatic for the quality of sources we have to base this on. None of the good runologists seems to take any interest in the inscription, which is rather damning as a fact in itself. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained a copy of Poly's article - which is interesting - but it seems we would need to dig up his sources in order to get the full story on this piece. In particular:

Bizet, J. A. (1948). L'inscription runique d'Arguel in: Études germaniques III. (I'm having trouble tracking this down; is the periodical intended?)
Musset, L. (1965). Introduction à la runologie. (Arguel is listed as "N° 38" in this work; should contain a reproduction of the original photograph.)
Gutenbrunner, S. (1954). Die alte Niebelungendichtungen im Lichte der Runendenkmäler in: Festschrift für Dietrich Kralik. (Apparently contains some discussion of the find/inscription - I'm assuming in connection with Hagn; see below.) [NEBIS: FH 329]
Schnall, Uwe (1973). Die Runeninschriften des Europäischen Kontinents, Abhandlungen des Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Phil.-Hist. Kl., Folge 3, Nr 80. (May contain a reproduction of the original photograph and some discussion. See Vol. 2 of Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten.)
Anderson, XXX (Unsure where this somewhat cryptic ref leads, but it appears to be as important as those listed above.)

Poly gives more than one reading of the inscription as well as conjectured parallel readings in West Saxon/Old English (Aerbe tâec Wodan. Lêogeth Hagn. Eolh ic eom.) and Old High German (Arbi zeiko Wodan. Liogit Hagen. Elaho ih bim.), but I'm unsure which of them is from him and which is being quoted from someone else. It seems he reads ᛉ of line A4 as eo and not as a nordic ʀ, resulting in Arbi tag Wodan. Luegoth Hagn. Eolh eik im. which he translates as "Montre l'héritage Wodan. Hagn ment. Moi je suis l'Elan". Though I would need to consult the works listed above first, I'm pretty sure this is Poly's reading. As for the dating, he writes:

Le caillou fut gravé après l'arrivée des Warasques à Besançon en 454 et avant ou guère après leur christianisation commencée dans les années 620 où Eustase de Luxeuil entreprit de les évangéliser avec l'aide du duc Waldelène et son fils Donat, évêque de la cité. (pg. 338)

As an expert on the Middle Ages, Poly is primarily interested in the historical circumstances of the inscription - granting that it's not a fake. He doesn't seem interested in proving it one way or another, but rather accepts that the inscription is genuine, and goes from there. He mentions early on in the article that there was (and perhaps continues to be) disagreement between French and German scholars as to whether or not it's genuine. The stone itself was apparently submitted to a university (Poly doesn't mention which one) for analysis, and the result then was that the inscription was genuine. As it was returned to the finder and has subsequently gone missing, no further analysis of the object is possible.

I should be able to locate the Gutenbrunner book, but I would need help tracking down Bizet, Musset and Schnall. If anyone has an idea on Anderson, help would be appreciated. --80.218.71.231 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No pic in the Musset. 82.216.139.58 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguel wiki french page states the stone was given to Besançon museum. 82.216.139.58 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your efforts. I gather from the above that

the inscription was considered genuine in academic literature at least until the 1970s
there is disagreement on its authenticity, apparently along national lines French vs. German, which we can trace to 2003

the references we now have certainly allow us an encyclopedic discussion of the inscription, but I am unsure whether the current merge request may not be justified. We do not seem to have a clear policy on WP:NOTE for articles on individual runic inscriptions. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]