Just under a quarter of the bracteates (= IK numbers) bear inscriptions in the Elder Futhark. These can be divided into: 1. legible inscriptions; 2. the Futhark sequence or segments thereof; 3. short ‘formulaic words’; and 4. sequences of characters that seem meaningless to us today – including inscriptions comprising runelike characters, Latin capital letters and imitations of capital letters.
The runes on bracteates are always incorporated into the die, not being added later. Strikingly, however, when images are copied, the runes are treated independently of the actual image. Thus, bracteates within the same family often vary their inscriptions whilst the overall image design remains virtually identical (see, for example, Family C1). Therefore, a specific connection between the image and the inscription of a bracteate cannot be automatically assumed.
Most inscriptions run in a circular pattern around the central image, either in a border zone specifically designated for this purpose (e.g. IK 1 Ågedal-C; IK 377,1 Vadstena area-C) or within the image field itself (e.g. IK 129,1 Nebenstedt-B; IK 251 Gammel Stenderup-C). They may run from right to left or from left to right. The inscription is often interrupted by elements of the main image (e.g. IK 129,1 Nebenstedt-B; IK 98 Køge area-C). In most cases, however, the runes fill only segments of the circle (e.g. IK 374 Undley-A; IK 149,1 Skåne region (I)-B). As a general rule, the runic inscription points with its base towards the centre of the pictorial field. There are only a few exceptions to this, for example, if the runes are written into the image, oriented towards specific elements of it (e.g. IK 147 Randers area-C; IK 153 Skåne region (II)-C).
Of particular note is the reproduction of the entire runic sequence on bracteates (IK 377,1 Vadstena area-C and 377,2 Mariedam area; distorted: IK 260 Grumpan-C) Furthermore, the beginning with only a few characters of the runic Futhark sequence is frequently found (IK 110 Lindkær-C; IK 392,1 Gudme-C).
Many bracteates bear short runic sequences which are repeated and/or varied across different specimens, often abbreviated. These include, for example, alu, laukaR and laþu. These are special words that function as magical formulas (or magic words; Germ. ‘Formelwörter’). They are evidently linked to the amuletic nature of the bracteates and are intended to ward off evil (alu; see e.g. IK 44 Djupbrunns-C), call upon supernatural forces for help (laþu; see IK 83 Højstrup strand-C) and promote health (laukaR, IK 42 Darum I-B). Different magical formulas can also appear together on the same bracteate (example: IK 166 Skrydstrup-B, with ‘alu’ and ‘laukar’). Apart from those, the word ‘erilaR’ is also significant: it is thought to be the title of the runemaster.
For more detailed information on runes and the runic bracteates see:
Research project “Runic writing in the Germanic languages”: RunesDb
Runor, by Riksantikvarieembetet och Uppsala Universitet: runor.raa.se
- Antonsen, Elmer H.: A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Sprachstrukturen: Reihe A, Historische Sprachstrukturen 3 (Tübingen 1975).
- Düwel/Nedoma 2023: Klaus Düwel, Robert Nedoma, Runenkunde. 5. aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage (Stuttgart/Weimar 2023).
- Düwel, Klaus: Magische Runenzeichen und magische Runeninschriften. In: S. Nyström (ed.), Runor och ABC. Elva föreläsningar från ett symposium i Stockholm våren 1995, Hg. Staffan Nyström. Sällskapet Runica et Mediævalia, Opuscula 4 (Stockholm 1997), 23–42.
- Heizmann, Wilhelm: Die Formelwörter der Goldbrakteaten. In: W. Heizmann, M. Axboe (eds.), Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit – Auswertung und Neufunde. Ergänzungsbände zum RGA 40 (Berlin/New York 2011), 525-601.
A comprehensive history of research into gold bracteates would be far too lengthy to be adequately covered here. Known since the 17th century, bracteates attracted wider scholarly attention in the early 19th century, when scholars such as Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, Jens J.J.A. Worsaae, Oscar Montelius, Hans Hildebrand and Sophus Müller studied, published and discussed them in detail. The classification into types (Types) that is still authoritative today was mainly developed by Montelius. The fundamental theories regarding the origin of the images, which were seen as imitations and further developments of Roman coin and medallion images, as well as their basic interpretation as amulets bearing images of gods, were also put forward during this period. Wilhelm Grimm was the first to study the runes on bracteates in 1821.
The 20th century saw the emergence of major publications on gold bracteates. Particularly noteworthy are the works of Helge Öberg, who attempts to systematise the pictorial representations (Guldbrakteaterna från Nordens Folkvandringstid. Uppsala 1942), Mogens B. Mackeprang with the first catalogue of all specimens (De nordiske Guldbrakteater. Aarhus 1952), Karl Hauck with approaches to a semantic interpretation (Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern. München 1970) und Morten Axboe with studies in their manufacture and regional variations (The Scandinavian Gold Bracteates. Acta Archaeologica 52, 1981, 1–100). The large catalogue compiled under the direction of Karl Hauck finally made all gold bracteates accessible as images with textual information, including the runic inscriptions, and opened up methodological interpretations and systematic approaches to classify the bracteates as well (Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Ikonographischer Katalog. München. 1985–1989).
- Behr, Charlotte: Forschungsgeschichte. In: W. Heizmann, M. Axboe (eds.), Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit – Auswertung und Neufunde. Ergänzungsbände zum RGA. Berlin/New York 2011, 153-229.