The Rök Runestone
and the End of the WorldPer Holmberg (University of Gothenburg), Bo Gräslund (Uppsala
University), Olof Sundqvist (Stockholm University), and Henrik Williams(Uppsala University)

Abstract
The Rök runestone from central middle Sweden, dated to around 800 CE, isfamous, among other things, for a supposed reference to the emperor Theodo­
ric the Great. This study proposes instead that the inscription deals with ananxiety triggered by a son’s death and the fear of a new climate crisis similar tothe catastrophic one after 536 CE. Combining perspectives and findings fromsemiotics, philology, archaeology, and history of religion, the study presents
a completely new interpretation which follows a unified theme, showing how
the monument can be understood in the socio-cultural and religious context ofearly Viking Age Scandinavia. The inscription consists, according to the pro­
posed interpretation, of nine enigmatic questions. Five of the questions con­cern the sun, and four of them, it is argued, ask about issues related to the god
Odin. A central finding is that there are relevant parallels to the inscription inearly Scandinavian poetry, especially in the Eddic poem Vafþrúðnismál.
Keywords: Rök, runestones, Viking Age, riddles, Eddic poetry, skaldic poetry,climate crisisT

he Rök runestone (Ög 136) is the most famous runic monument of
the Viking Age. It was erected c. 800 CE in a prosperous agricultural
district in today’s central middle Sweden by Varinn as a memorial to his
son Vāmōðʀ. Except for one damaged line, its more than 700 runes andother characters are still clearly legible, and cover all five visible sides
of a five-ton granite slab, over two and a half meters high above theground. A century and a half of scholarly investigation has however failed
to establish persuasively what the inscription means, or provide a con­

Holmberg, Per, Bo Gräslund, Olof Sundqvist, and Henrik Williams.
“The Rök Runestone and the End of the World.”
Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 9–10 (2018–2019): 7–38.
DOI: 10.33063/diva-401040© 2020 Per Holmberg, Bo Gräslund, Olof Sundqvist, and Henrik Williams (CC BY)

8 • Per Holmberg et al.
vincing understanding of its function. This study argues that the in­scrip­tion like almost all Viking Age runic memorials deals with the death andsome­times after­life of a relative, a tragedy intensified by the anxiety con­nected with recent disasters and catastrophic events related to the climate
crisis after 536 CE.
The Rök runestone was first documented in the seventeenth century
when it was used as a building block in a medieval building by the Rök
church. The first difficulty in understanding the inscription is presented
by its use of different orthographical systems. The short-twig runes usedon the front side, the first narrow side, and the main part of the back of
the stone were correctly read by Sophus Bugge (1873–78; 1910), who also
succeeded in decoding the substitution cipher on the back. The two lines
with older futhark runes on the back, as well as the three lines with anumerical cipher, were given a relatively convincing reading by Otto vonFriesen (1920). While there is general agreement on the identi­fication of
the runic characters and the decipherment of the cryptic passages (wefollow the standard transliteration), no consensus has been reached on
the reading order of the inscription. More than fifteen solutions have beenpro­posed (cf. Lönnqvist 1999; we follow none of them). Also the dating
has been re-examined in the scholarly debate, but the conclusion that thein­scrip­tion is carved around 800 CE seems to stand (cf. Barnes 2007 forarguments against a later dating).
The standard interpretation has been to identify a sequence of runeson the front side of the stone with the name Theodoric (first suggested
by Guð­brandur Vigfússon in Vigfússon and York Powell 1879, 452), andto under­stand this as a reference to the Ostrogoth king Theodoric theGreat, who ruled in Ravenna in 493–526 CE. A central challenge formost twentieth-century proposals has been to offer a coherent expla­na­tion of this reference. The other supposed actors in the inscription, such
as Ingivaldʀ, Sibbi, and Vilinn, have been assigned roles that match the
adopted Theodoric frame.
The most influential proposal has been Elias Wessén’s that Varinn
wanted to show off his extensive knowledge of hero narratives (Wessén
1958, cf. already Brate 1918, 250, and later Lönnroth 1977, Widmark 1992,
Harris 2010). Other interpretations have made stronger claims about therelation­ship between Varinn and Theodoric. It has been suggested that
Varinn claimed kinship with Theodoric by alluding to his valor (Schück
1908, Grønvik 2003), that Varinn’s son was in fact considered the reborn
Theodo­ric (Bugge 1910, 37 f.), or that Varinn wanted to consecrate his sonto Theodoric who was deified as Odin (Höfler 1952, e.g. 81 f., cf. Niel­sen
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 91969, 31). Other suggestions have been inspired by the ambivalent medi­e­val reception of Theodoric the Great in the legends about Dietrich, andtake the reference to be a warning example (Lindroth 1911, Pipping 1932).
Some inter­pretations even take Theodoric to be an enemy figure, howeverrefer­ring to someone other than Theodoric the Great. It has been asserted
that the name is that of a later Gothic king who would have fought abattle in the vicinity of Rök (Friesen 1920, 46–48), or a Frankish king andname­sake who would have been an enemy of the early kin of Varinn(Malone 1934, Jacob­sen 1961, 8–11).
A dividing line through the sprawl of different proposals has been
wheth­er the function of the inscription is understood as primarily nar­ra­tive or ritual. Proponents of narrative interpretations argue that the in­scrip­tion is a sequence of allusions to narratives, of which Theodoric is themain character of the first one (e.g. Schück 1908, Pipping 1932, Wessén
1958, Jacobsen 1961, Lönnroth 1977, Harris 2010) and struggle hard to findmeaning­ful connections to the following supposed narratives and a motive
for the monument. The ritual interpretations have been forced to spec­u­lateabout how conceptions of Theodoric might have had a specific impor­tancefor the funeral of Vāmōðʀ (e.g. Brate 1918, Höfler 1952, Niel­sen 1969). We
will demonstrate that the function is both narrative and ritual.
In a more recent study Bo Ralph (2007) has argued that the Theodoricread­ing has led research into a dead end, and should be abandoned (cf. also
Holm­berg 2016). The present study is inspired by that line of reasoning.
The most important feature of our new approach is a consistent com­
parison with Old Norse texts dealing with events tied to Ragnarok (Ragna­rǫk), the end of the world. A number of researchers before us have pointed
to parallels in mainly Eddic poetry, but also in other Old Norse literature.
We would however assert that this parallelism is far more pronounced
than previously thought and that in fact the whole of the Rök inscrip­tion
deals with an escha­to­log­ical theme evidenced also in Eddic and skaldic
poetry. We realize that positing such close ties to texts only attested manycen­tu­ries after 800 CE might sound too daring. The origins of Eddic poems
are noto­ri­ously hard to pinpoint in time. Datings have ranged from before
the Viking Age to as late as the Middle Ages (cf. Harris 2016, 39–42). The
most recent discussion, as far as we know, of Eddic poetry dating (Thor­vald­sen 2016) symptomatically comes to no definite result.1
The eschatological tradition about Ragnarok is best preserved in the Eddic poems Vǫluspá
and Vaf­þrúðnis­mál. Vǫluspá is usually dated to c. 1000, but recently it has been regarded as
an early-tenth-century poem (see Hultgård 2017, 75, cf. Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn
1

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)10 • Per Holmberg et al.
Nevertheless, we maintain firstly that some mythological motifs were
known already in the beginning of the Viking Age, also in eastern Scan­di­navia, secondly that it is not the poems themselves that we claim to haveexisted that early, but only the narrative contents in some (presumably
main­ly oral) form. Scholars do agree that not all poems are of the sameage, and it should be borne in mind that their first origin and their written
at­tes­tation might be centuries apart; in any case, Eddic poetry is an im­
por­tant source to heathen beliefs (cf. Meulengracht Sørensen 1991, 225 f.).
The earliest of the skalds, Bragi hinn gamli Boddason, was active in thefirst half of the ninth century and thus almost contemporary with the Rök
carver. Bragi dealt with events in Norse mythology. In his Ragnars­drápa
there are allusions to the everlasting battle Hjaðninga­víg, to the Sigurd
cycle and to heathen deities, as well as to the wolf Fenrir (cf. Clunies Ross
2017a, 30–45), all elements also represented in Eddic poems. In the frag­ments of his poem about Þórr’s fishing expedition we find the same basic
narrative as in the Eddic poem Hymiskviða and Snorri Sturluson’s Edda
(cf. Clunies Ross 2017b, Faulkes 2005, 44 f.).
Eddic motifs in pictorial form are found on late Viking Age runestones,in­clud­ing scenes specifically representing Ragnarok (Jansson 1987, 144–
52). One of the motifs on the Gotlandic picture stones from the Late Mero­vingian Period and the Viking Age, which have been seen as true analogies
to the Rök stone (Wessen, 1958, 71), can possibly support the belief thatdead retainers were expected to be welcomed to Valhalla (Valhǫll) by theval­kyries (valkyrjur, sing. valkyrja) who offered them mead from a hornat their arrival. On these stones we see a rider sitting on an eight-legged
horse. He is welcomed by a lady who offers him a drinking horn. Alreadyin the early twentieth century, Fredrik Nordin (1903, 150) interpreted thisas a mythic scene, where one of Odin’s warriors (einherjar) was invited toVal­halla by a valkyrie. This motif can, for instance, be seen on the eighth
century Tjäng­vide 1 stone from Alskog parish, Gotland (Nylén 1988, 69 f.;
critically considered by Hultgård 2017, 171–75). The fact that the horse on
the stone has eight legs supports this inter­pretation, since Odin’s horse
Sleipnir had that shape in the Old Norse traditions. The motif on the stone
may be related to the burials of aristo­cratic warriors and to the eschato­
logical belief that they will take part in the final battle of Ragnarok.
Óla­son 2014, 1: 131). Vafþrúðnismál is usually conceived of as an early Eddic lay, perhaps
from the early tenth century, but also this dating has been debated (see Jónas Kristjánsson
and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 176 f., cf. Hultgård 2017, 122). Translations from Eddic poems
are our own.

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 11
There is also the question of how much people knew of ancient events
around 800 CE. The perhaps oldest heroic poem of all, Hlǫðs­kviða (“TheBattle of the Goths and the Huns”) is set in the era of the Migration Age(roughly between the fourth and sixth centuries CE) but is pre­served
only in the medieval Hervarar saga. The ninth century skald Þjóð­ólfr ór
Hvíni’s Ynglinga­tal recounts episodes twenty-seven gen­er­ations back,and Háleygja­tal a century later had probably the same number originally(Sund­qvist 2002, 46). On the Rök stone mention is made of an incident ninegen­er­ations back. Con­sidering that previous scholars take it for granted
that this refers to Theode­ric the Great from the early sixth century and that
he was still remembered hundreds of years later, it should not be a problem
if we posit the memory of an occasion contemporary with Theodoric.
The Rök inscription is too complex and offers too many inter­pretationalpos­si­bil­ities to merely read word by word and from there arrive at the pur­pose of the text. Magnus Olsen (1921, 207) argued that it is risky to con­struct
an overall view primarily based on the linguistic interpretation of separate
sections and that one must rather externally elucidate the in­scrip­tion as awhole (cf. also Widmark 1992, 29). In practice this means that it is necessary
to have some idea of a unified understanding of this rune­stone’s text even
before trying to explain it, the testing of a hypoth­esis in other words.

Analytical perspective of the study
The Rök runestone belongs to a small set of Viking Age stone monuments
carved before the runestone boom in the second half of the tenth century(Åker­ström 2019). Though these early monuments are dissimilar in termsof structure, function, and content, three abstract common denominatorsof their semiotics have guided our interpretation of the Rök runestone(cf. Holm­berg 2016, 67–69). The establishment of these three principles
is informed by the theory of social semiotics, and its understanding oflin­guis­tic meaning in three dimensions: textually as different ways oforganizing text, ideationally as resources for construing the world, andinter­personally as potentials of interaction between the text and its read­ers (Halli­day 1978).
First, the textual organization typically leads the reader stepwise to­wards the end of the inscription. This aligns with later Viking Age in­scrip­
tions (cf. Bianchi 2010, 73–84). The application of this principle to the Rök
runestone inscription makes it clear that previous proposals for read­ing
order have not succeeded in finding a way through the inscription with­out jumps between lines that are not spatially connected.
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)12 • Per Holmberg et al.
Second, the ideational content of other early Viking Age inscriptionsre­presents mainly local actions. Previous interpretations of the Rök rune­
stone have, in spite of this pattern, tended to assume that references arebeing made to deeds performed far away from the stone. A main differencebe­tween the interpretation we have established and the standard one by
Wessén, as well as other previously suggested alternatives, is that we do
not recognize any of the same set of actors, whether Theodoric, Ingivaldʀ,
Sibbi or Vilinn (Wessén 1958, 15–17).
Third, the interpersonal demand on the reader to respond to the in­scrip­tions of all Viking Age stone monuments is typically signaled lin­guis­
tically by grammatical choices at clause level that express speech acts ofstatements or prayers, opening up the monument as a place for inter­action.
This contrasts with earlier runic monuments, where response alter­natives
are typically implicit. In the case of the Rök runestone it is evi­dent that
previous research has tended to downplay the dimension of inter­action,and pre­supposed that the inscription substantially consists of state­ments,
instead of noticing the constant shift between different speech acts.
In contrast to all previous interpretative attempts, we try to tie the con­tents of the Rök text quite closely to other early Scandinavian texts, pri­mar­ily to two Eddic poems: the wisdom contest in Vafþrúðnis­mál (Jónas
Kristjáns­son and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 356–66) and the apocalyptic
vision of the seeress in Vǫluspá (1: 291–307), and to two skaldic poemsin the Eddic style, the anonymous Eiríksmál (Fulk 2012a) and Hákonar­
mál by Eyvindr skálda­spillir Finns­son (Fulk 2012b), which deal with thedeath of King Eiríkr Bloodaxe and King Hákon the Good respectively.
We do not claim that the extant poems were known in 800 CE but thatthe my­thol­ogy and ideology which form their basis did. Earlier efforts tofind inter­textual parallels, such as Olsen’s important attempt to show how
the Rök rune­stone resembles the structure of questions (twelve of themeven numbered, resembling the numbering of memories in the Rök text)
between Odin and Vafþrúðnir in Vafþrúðnismál, have been blocked by theinter­pretative tradition of identifying a reference to Theodoric the Great(Olsen 1921, 207–10, 222–24, cf. Bugge 1910, 238, and Lönnroth, 1977, 15).
The relations we will map onto the Eddic mythology conform to the focus
on local matters. We will also demonstrate that the over-all purpose of the
Rök text echoes its opening lines: an attempt to put the death of a son ina meaning­ful context.
Guided by these principles we have been able to make consistent choices
between the almost open-ended interpretative alternatives on different
levels. The potential problem with our analytical perspective, of which we
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 13
are well aware, is that it has the risk of exaggerating similarities, both with
contemporary runic monuments and later ancient Scandinavian writings.

Recontextualising the Rök runestone
The Rök runestone was probably carved and erected at or close to what
today is the site of the Rök church, to which the monument has given its
name. The word rök means ‘monolith’ cf. Gotlandic rauk, a column-like sea
stack, and the runestone was clearly impressive enough to denote the siteof its place­ment, as well as later the parish and the church (cf. Andersson
1999, 1 with literature). It is reasonable to suggest that the stone, whichshows all signs of being a memorial of high prestige, originally functioned
as some kind of central marker at a gathering place, serving as a site forcult practices and funerals (cf. Williams 2013, 61–76 on high prestige runicmonuments, and Nordberg 2003, 252–59 on funeral rites). The rune­stone
could have had, we suggest, also a potential as an axis mundi; the site in
the vicinity of the stone is simultaneously the symbolic center of heavenand earth, a place where one can pass from one cosmic zone to another,and communicate with the other world by means of religious rituals,
mak­ing it a potential place of enlightenment (cf. Eliade 1987, 20–65).
Archaeological research shows that the area around Rök has been an
intensive agri­cultural district for 6000 years, and its prosperity is mani­
fested in several prominent sites for the religious practices of the ruling
elite at different periods in time. Along the road between Rök and the Om­
berg mountain eight kilometers to the west lie Bronze Age burial mounds,
and the weapon graves in the Smörkullen cemetery date to the RomanIron Age (see Browall 2003). The region’s prosperity was not, however,uninter­rupted. A sudden decline in cultivation took place in the middle ofthe sixth century, when farms reverted to forests, and old settlements werefor­saken (Widgren 1983). Data from ice-core sulphur layers in Green­land
and Antarctica, supported by dendro­chronological analysis, show that the
decline in cultivation, a widespread phenomenon in the middle of thesixth century, was related to a series of volcanic eruptions 536–47 CE
prob­a­bly in North and Central America (Sigl et al. 2015, Toohey et al.
2016, Büntgen et al. 2016).
The impact on the climate of this series of severe volcanic events was
dramatic, and is well attested to by data from all over the northern hemi­
sphere, which shows abnormally cold summers for the period 536–50 CE(Charpentier Ljungqvist 2010, 2017). On the basis of the decline of culti­
vation, settlements, graves and other archaeological data, it has been esti­
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)14 • Per Holmberg et al.
mated that the population of the Scandinavian peninsula decreased by
50 % or more (Gräslund and Price 2012). The region around Rök was ahighly specialized agricultural area, and seems to have had relatively low
resil­ience (Widgren 1983, 2013).
At the time of the carving of the Rök runestone the socio-economic sit­u­ation had recovered, but the extreme climate events had had pervasive
effects. In the restructuring of farming after the climate crisis, social strati­fi­cation had increased, and power seems to have been concentrated in thehands of a new type of leadership, legitimized by ritual assurance of goodhar­vests, as well as military control of land (Löwenborg 2012, Andrén2014). Claiming a special relation to Odin, the new ruling elite con­structedthem­selves as necessary defenders against both real-life ene­mies, anddestructive cosmic powers, since Odin was conceived of as a divine war­lord engaged in the outcome of both human battles and the escha­to­logicalbattle of Ragna­rok, where he would lead divine and human warriors in a
final encounter with the giants (Nordberg 2003, Sundqvist 2016).
It has in fact been argued that the specific motifs of Ragnarok show
traces of the experience of the climate crisis (Gräslund 2007, Gräslund andPrice 2012, Price and Gräslund 2015). Even if these eschatological themes
as such are much older, they were most likely revitalized after the 536 CE
crisis (Hult­gård 2017, 295, 396‒415). It is also likely that these historicalevents affected the specific expression of the mythological themes.
Both Vafþrúðnismál (st. 11–14, 20–25) and Vǫluspá (st. 3–6) start out
from a state of cosmological balance established by Odin’s act of creationand manifested by the regular rhythm of light. When the cosmologicalcrisis is elaborated, four motifs are, according to the analysis of Gräs­lundand Price (2012, Price and Gräslund 2015), especially striking in relation
to the extreme weather events after 536 CE.
• The idea of a fimbulvetr, a period of extreme cold preceding Ragnarok
in Vafþrúðnismál st. 44, also referred to as summers with svǫrt … sól­
skin ‘black sunlight’ in Vǫluspá st. 40.
• The wolf Fenrir, one of the giants, who swallows the sun (hana Fenrirfari) in Vafþrúðnismál st. 46 f., and whose whelp is called tungls
tjúgari ‘robber of a celestial body’ in Vǫluspá st. 39.
• The rauðum dreyra ‘red painting’ of ragna sjǫt ‘the dwellings of thegods’ in Vǫluspá 40, compatible with the violently crimson skies of
the northern hemi­sphere that have been reported after big eruptionsof other tropical volcanoes such as Tambora 1815 and Krakatau 1883
(see Price and Gräslund 2015, 124).

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 15
• The birth of the sun’s daughter (Eina dóttur berr Álfrǫðull) in Vaf­þrúðnis­mál st. 46 f., which can be connected to the longed-for returnof the sun.
It is worth noting that the mythological solar events are presented in Vaf­þrúð­nis­mál with close parallels to what is related about the fate of Odin.
Odin too is killed by the wolf (Úlfr gleypa mun Aldafǫðr); and Odin also
succeeds in begetting an offspring that warrants the final victory over thedestructive powers, i.e. Víðarr who then avenges his father and kills thewolf (þess mun Viðarr vreka; Vafþrúðnismál st. 53, cf. Vǫluspá st. 52 f.).
The age and distribution of the mythological conceptions presented in
Vaf­þrúð­nismál and Vǫluspá cannot be determined conclusively, since theIce­landic manuscripts (as said above) date from the thirteenth century andlater. However, the poems are taken to be among the most reliable sources
for Norse mythology (Hultgård 2017, 73–75, 122). The motif of the wolf
func­tions as a pars pro toto for the Ragnarok events in Eiríks­mál (st. 7: nær
ulfr inn hǫsvi sœkir á sjǫt goða ‘when the grey wolf will attack the home of
the gods’; Fulk 2012a, 1011) and Hákonarmál (st. 20: Mun óbundinn á ýtasjǫt Fenrisulfr fara ‘The wolf Fenrir, unbound, will enter the abode of men’;Fulk 2012b, 192 f.) both dated to the tenth century. It is also alluded to in
Sona­torrek (st. 13: mána bjarnar ‘enemy of the moon’ = Fenris­ulfr, 24: ulfs ofbági ‘enemy of the wolf’ = Odin, and 25: Tveggja bági ‘enemy of the wolf’ =Odin) the greatest of Norse elegies for a dead son (Einars­son 2003, 146–54)
and a poem some scholars (e.g. Friesen 1920, 91) take for granted is com­posed by Egill Skalla­gríms­son himself in the tenth century. The spread ofthe motif of the wolf is evidently indicated also by some­what later Viking
Age rune­stones (cf. Källström 2016): e.g. the Nor­we­gian Vang runestone(N 84) which shows the wolf swallowing the sun, the Led­berg runestone insouth­eastern Sweden (Ög 181) and the Andreas III stone on the Isle of Man(Barnes 2019, 101 and 270) where the wolf devours Odin, as well as threerune­stones in southern Sweden with other wolf motifs (DR 271 Tullstorp
church, DR 284 Hunnestad 3 and the lost DR 286 Hunnestad 5). Moreover,it should be noted that the inscription of the Skarpåker runestone (Sö 154),
raised to the memory of a dead son, seems to echo an expression from thethird stanza of Vǫluspá when it pro­claims the end of the world: ‘Earth shallbe riven and High Heaven’ (cf. Hult­gård 2017, 179–83, 390–93).
That rulers were supposed to serve Odin after death in the battle ofRagna­rok is clearly indicated by Eiríksmál and Hákonarmál, which tell of
the adoption of king Eiríkr and king Hákon respectively into the group of
Odin’s warriors which parallels the circle of warriors around the earthly
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)16 • Per Holmberg et al.
ruler, for example referred to as ýtar and einherjar in Vaf­þrúðnis­mál st.
40 f. The conditions for this posthumous mission were noble descent (i.e.
belonging to the ruling class), a suitable death (i.e. in battle), and a ritu­
ally proper funeral ceremony, with this final practice appearing to have
had the potential to compensate for an ordinary, non-violent death (Nord­berg 2003, 120–36). One part of the funeral rituals might have been theenig­mat­ic questions whose answers were known only by a select few, in­clud­ing the dead (Price 2010, 145). Vaf­þrúð­nis­mál seems to preserve sometraits from this ritual context: its location in the hall of Vafþrúðnir, and theending of the poem, where Vafþrúðnir in stanza 54 is asked: hvat mælti
Óðinn, áðr á bál stigi, sjálfr í eyra syni? ‘what whispered Odin in the earof his dead son before he was carried to the pyre?’ (cf. Schjødt 2008, 338).
The eschatological themes of Ragnarok and the memory of the 536 CE
crisis, passed down through the centuries, may have been reactivated at
the time of Vāmōðʀ’s demise, partly by his death itself. Identi­fying theother factors that could have contributed depends on the dating of themonu­ment. Three extraordinary events around the time should be taken
into consideration: the strongest known solar storm in 775 CE, with doc­u­mented dramatic red skies (Sukhodolov et al. 2017); the exceptionally coldsummer of 775 CE (Sigl et al. 2015); and the almost total solar eclipse in
810 CE, which would have given the impression that the sun was extin­
guished shortly after dawn (Espenak and Meeus 2006).

The structure of the inscription
The Rök runestone inscription consists of twenty-eight lines, of whichtwenty are vertical and eight more or less horizontal. We concur with thescholarly consensus that suggests that the reading should start with thetwo vertical lines that mention the son Vāmōðʀ and his father Varinn (sideA, lines 1 and 2 in fig. 1), and continue with the next seven vertical lines
from left to right (side A, lines 3–8 and side B, line 11), only interrupted
by the reading of the two horizontal lines when this is demanded by thesyn­tax of the inscription (lines 9 and 10). We take this way of reading as a
key to the much debated reading order of the back (C), the second narrowside (D) and the top side (E).
Thus, we propose that the reading should continue with vertical lines
from left to right, with the interruption of horizontal lines where thisis necessary for syntactical reasons. This means that the reading of theback (C) must start with the horizontal line below (line 12), before theeleven last vertical lines can be read (lines 13–23) until the counter­clock­Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 17

E
C

24

A

D

B
25

1
9

2

3

4

5

26
27
28

6 7 8

13 14 151011

16
6 17 18

0 21 22
19 20

23

12

Fig. 1. Reading order of the Rök runestone (numbers) and reading directions (arrows).
Illus­tration by Marco Bianchi (CC BY) and photos by Bengt A. Lundberg, Swedish Na­tion­
al Heritage Board (CC BY).

wise circle around the stone is completed with the last vertical line (23)on the second narrow side (D). Since the narrow side is connected to the
top side (E), the five remaining horizontal lines on the top side and theupper part of the back are most easily read from above (lines 24–28). The
new numbering of lines is given in fig. 1. The dotted arrows indicate thereading direction of each line.
The inscription can thus be seen to be structured in six passages, when
the reading order proposed above is combined with the observation ofortho­graphic changes. The inscription starts with large short-twig runes(lines 1–2), and continues with smaller short-twig runes (3‒11), runes inolder futhark (12–13), and then another set of short-twig runes (14–22).
There­after come numerical ciphers (23–25), followed by lines which par­tial­ly involve a substitution cipher (26–28). The ten last runes (the second
half of line 28) are read as a numerical cipher in the same reading direction
as the first part of the line. The division of these passages is shown in fig. 2.
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)18 • Per Holmberg et al.
A: 1–A: 2

A: 3–B: 11

C: 12–
C: 13

C: 14–
C: 22

D: 23,
C: 26–
E: 24, C: 25 C: 28

C: 28 Theten last
runes

Short-twig Short-twig Runes
Short-twig Numerical
runes;
runes
from older runes
cipherlarge size
futhark(Partially) Numericalsubsti­tu­
ciphertion cipher

Memoryof thedead son

Last
Summary
memory of
the battle
betweenthe powers

Memory of Memory
the lightof thesacrificefor light

Statement; Question 1; Question 3
Statement Question 2;
Statement;
Statement

Memory of Last
the battle
memory of
betweenthe light
the powers
Question 4;
Question 5;
Statement;
Statement?

Demand;Demand;Demand;Question 8;
Question 6; Statement;
Question 7 Question 9;
Statement

Fig. 2. Structure of the Rök runestone inscription

The inscription is characterized by great diversity at micro level, but atthe level of passages there is noticeable uniformity: all six passages areconstructed as memories. In the first passage, this is accomplished lin­
guis­tically in a typical way by use of the phrase aft Vāmōð ‘after Vā­mōðʀ’.
Each of the following passages refers explicitly to itself as a mem­ory(minni). This is done only once in each passage, either in its first clause,
or in one case, in the final (the damaged line 22). These memories con­cern
cosmological events, as we will argue, and provide a setting for Vā­mōðʀ’s
demise. While the standard linguistic interpretation has been that minni
is part of a compound denoting ‘folk memory’ (mōgminni), we read thephrase as a reminder that it is ritually related to Odin, the god of enig­
matic knowl­edge: Ygg minni ‘a memory for Yggr’ (Norden­streng 1912).
The name Yggr, meaning ‘the terrible one’, is a byname for Odin, and isfor example used when he enters the hall of Vafþrúðnir to begin the wis­dom contest in Vafþrúðnis­mál st. 5: inn gekk Yggr þegar ‘Yggr went in at
once’. Thus, the concept of memory should not only be understood in its
ordinary sense as a recollection of the past, something of which the people
who read the inscription are reminded. Instead, these memories are ritualacts of social and religious significance relating to the past, present, andfuture, that together contribute to the maintenance and renewal of theworld (cf. Lincoln 1986). The alternation between present and past tense
through­out the Rök text should be seen in this light. It is also important toFuthark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 19
notice that the memories, if only viewed as text passages, are incomplete.
They are completed only through the efforts of readers.
Each passage is formed as a complex of speech acts (with the exceptionof the passage constituted by question 3, see fig. 2). These complexes invite
readers to respond, thus completing the memories. Especially striking is
the use of questions, which prompt the reader to contribute information.
Altogether, the inscription contains nine questions. Grammatically, they
are realized in three different ways. The first five questions are expressedin clause complexes with an initial plural imperative (sagum) followedby an embedded inter­rogative clause (hværiaʀ …, etc.): Sagum … þat,hværiaʀ valrauƀaʀ vāʀin tvāʀ þāʀ … ?, ‘Let us say this … which spoils of
war there were two … ?’ (etc.). The following questions use a more eco­nomic grammar, either the free interrogative clause: ‘To whom is born anoff­spring?’, or in three cases the elliptic alternative to leave out ‘who(m)(is)’. The latter grammatical strategy has prevented previous researchers
from identifying these passages as semantic questions, though thiselliptic grammar is attested to in the context of Scandinavian riddles (cf.
e.g. Ström 1939, 171 f.). The structure of the inscription is summarized in
fig. 2.

The interpretation of the inscription
Our interpretation is given in Early Old Norse transcription and English
translation in fig. 3. In the following sections we will comment on eachpassage, supplemented by a transliteration, and point out some crucial
relations to other Old Norse texts.
Memory of the dead son: the first passage
aft uamuþ stąnta runaʀ þaʀ + 〈i〉n uarin faþi faþiʀ aft faikiąn sunu2
Aft Vāmōð stãnda rūnaʀ þāʀ. Æn Varinn fāði, faðiʀ, aft faigiãn sunu.
After Vāmōðʀ stand these runes. And Varinn, the father, made them after thedeath-doomed son.

The Rök inscription begins in a not unexpected manner, i.e. with a me­mo­rial formula. It states that the runic monument commemorates a son,Since both older and younger futhark runes are found on Rök we transliterate Ê as ą,  asᴀ, Š as ᴅ, E as ᴇ, G as ɢ, H as ʜ, Ȝ as ï, M as ᴍ, and O as o.
2

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)20 • Per Holmberg et al.
Q. Early Old Norse transcription

English translation

Aft Vāmōð stãnda rūnaʀ þāʀ. Æn
Varinn fāði, faðiʀ, aft faigiãn sunu.

After Vāmōðʀ stand these runes. And Varinn,
the father, made them after the death-doomedson.

Sagum Ygg minni þat, hværiaʀ
valrauƀaʀ vāʀin tvāʀ þāʀ, svāð tvalf
sinnum vāʀin numnaʀ at valrauƀu
bāðaʀ sãmãn ā̃ ȳmissum mãnnum?

Let us say this as a memory for Yggʀ, which
spoils of war there were two, which twelve
times were taken as spoils of war, both from
one to another?

Þat sagum ãnnart, hvā’ʀ fur
nīu aldum ā̃n urði fiaru meðrhraiðgutum, auk dø̄ miʀ æ̃ nn umb
sakaʀ?

This let us say as second, who nine
generations ago lost their life with theHraiðgutaʀ [i.e. in the east]; but still decides
the matter?

2Raið iau, rinkʀ hinn þurmōði,stilliʀ flutna, strãndu Hraiðmaraʀ.
Sitiʀ nū garuʀ ā̃ guta sīnum,skialdi umb fatlaðʀ, skati mǣringa.

Ride the horse did the bold champion, chiefof men, over the shores of the Hraiðsea [i.e.
over the eastern horizon]. Now he sits armedon his horse, his shield strapped, foremost of
the famous.

3

Sagum Ygg minni þat, hvā’ʀ īgyldinga vāʀi guldin at kvā̃naʀ
hūsli?

Let us say this as a memory for Yggʀ, who
because of a howler [i.e. wolf] has sufferedthrough a woman’s sacrifice?

4

Þat sagum tvalfta, hvar hæstʀ sēgunnaʀ etu vēttvãngi ā̃, kunungaʀtvaiʀ tigiʀ svāð ā̃ liggia?

This let us say as twelfth, where the horseof the battle [i.e. the wolf] sees food on thebattlefield, where twenty kings lie?

5Þat sagum þrēttāunda, hværiʀ tvaiʀ
tigiʀ kunungaʀ sātin at Sīulundi
fiagura vinddura at fiagurum
nampnum, burniʀ fiagurum
brø̄ ðrum? Valkaʀ fim, Rāðulfs
syniʀ, Hraiðulfaʀ fim, Rōgulfs
syniʀ, Hā̃īslaʀ fim, Haruðs syniʀ,Gunnmundaʀ fim, Bernaʀ syniʀ.
En Ygg m[inni] … (partly illegible)

This let us say as thirteenth, which twenty
kings were at the Grove of Sparks [i.e. thebattlefield] in four directions, of four names,born of four brothers?
Five Valkis, sons of Rāðulfʀ, five Hraiðulfʀs,sons of Rōgulfʀ, five Hā̃īsls, sons of Haruðʀ,
five Gunnmundʀs, sons of Bern.
And for Yggʀ a m(emory) …

1

Sagum Ygg minni: þor!

Let us say a memory for Yggʀ, dare!

6Siƀi vīaværi?

[Who is] a protector of sanctuaries for abrother?

7Ōlni rȳðʀ?

[Whom] does the ravager [i.e. the wolf]
redden with blood?

Sagum Ygg minni,

Let us say a memory for Yggʀ,8(h)vaim sē burinn niðʀ, dræ̃ ngi! Villi to whom is born an offspring, to the youngnē’s þat.
man! It is not a lie.

9Knūã knātti iatun? Villi nē’s þat.

[Who] could beat a giant? It is not a lie.

(H)nit.

Clash!

Fig. 3. Interpretation and translation of the Rök runestone inscription. (Q. = Question.)

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 21
Vā­mōðʀ, and that his father, Varinn, made the runes (or possibly caused
them to be made). Two details should be noticed: the word for ‘runes’ inthe first line, and the unusual word for ‘dead’ in the second.
Since ‘these runes’ (rūnaʀ þāʀ) aims at the message of the whole in­scrip­tion it frames the passages to come. The word rūnaʀ can also mean‘(secret) knowledge’, as in Vafþrúðnismál st. 42, and would then morespe­cif­ically refer to the memories of the inscription and its questions. The
present tense anticipates that the memory of the son will be preserved
through any crisis as long as there are humans, or gods, to read the runes
and complete the memories by providing the knowledge asked for.
The adjective for ‘deceased’ in the second statement is faigʀ (Englishfey), which usually means ‘fated to die’ or ‘marked to die’ (cf. Vafþrúðnis­mál st. 55) but seemingly means just ‘dead’ in Vǫluspá st. 40. There, it may
well have been chosen only to alliterate, and the same could be true on
Rök (cf. fāði and faðiʀ). On the other hand, as Vāmōðʀ was likely part of
the ruling elite, his death could have been conceived as determined by
Odin in preparation for a new important mission.
Memory of the light: the passage with questions 1–2
sakum uk mini þat huariaʀ ualraubaʀ uaʀin tuaʀ þaʀ suaþ tualf sinumuaʀinumnaʀ
t ualraubu baþaʀ sąmąn ą umisumąnum þat sakum ąnart huaʀ fur niu altum ąn urþi fiaru miʀ hraiþkutum auk
tumiʀ ąn ub sakaʀraiþ iau rikʀ hin þurmuþi stiliʀ flutna strąntu hraiþmaraʀ sitiʀ nu karuʀą kuta sinum skialti ub fatlaþʀ skati marika
Sagum Ygg minni þat, hværiaʀ valrauƀaʀ vāʀin tvāʀ þāʀ, svāð tvalf sinnum
vāʀin numnaʀ at valrauƀu bāðaʀ sãmãn ā̃ ȳmissum mãnnum?
Þat sagum ãnnart, hvā’ʀ fur nīu aldum ā̃n urði fiaru meðr hraiðgutum, auk
dø̄ miʀ æ̃ nn umb sakaʀ?
Raið iau, rinkʀ hinn þurmōði, stilliʀ flutna, strãndu Hraiðmaraʀ. Sitiʀ nū garuʀ
ā̃ guta sīnum, skialdi umb fatlaðʀ, skati mǣringa.
Let us say this as a memory for Yggʀ, which spoils of war there were two,
which twelve times were taken as spoils of war, both from one to another?
This let us say as second, who nine generations ago lost their life with theHraið­gutaʀ [i.e. in the east]; but still decides the matter?

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)22 • Per Holmberg et al.
Ride the horse did the bold champion, chief of men, over the shores of theHraið­sea [i.e. over the eastern horizon]. Now he sits armed on his horse, hisshield strapped, foremost of the famous.

We do not see any reference to Theodoric in this passage, as has previously
been suggested. Line 9 is traditionally interpreted as rēð Þiōðrīkʀ hinn þur­mōði and understood to mean ‘rule did Theodoric the bold’. Instead, we
fol­low Ralph (2007, 150–53) in reading it as raið iau, rinkʀ hinn þurmōði
‘ride the horse did the bold champion’, with allitteration on reið and rinkʀ
instead of Þiōðrīkʀ and þurmōði (cf. Naumann 2018, 150 f.).
The questions are: Which ‘spoils of war’ are referred to in the first ques­tion, and who died in the second? We agree with Ralph (2007, 143) thatthe passage thematizes the rhythm of light: the exchange of the spoils of
war is the interplay between the moon and the sun, and the one who died,but still lives, is the sun.3 Mentioning the sun and the moon references theworld’s creation, but also its immanent instability and fated end, echoing
the down­fall of Vāmōðʀ and suggesting his purpose in the afterlife.
The scene staged by the first question is that of a mutual wartime plun­
der that plays out twelve times between two apparently evenly matched
forces, and following Ralph it refers to the twelve lunar cycles contained in
one year. It is light that is taken from the sun by the moon until it becomes
full, and light that is then plundered again by the sun, until the moon wanescom­pletely. Ralph points out that a riddle with similar content is attested toin Old English poetry (p. 142 f.; riddle 27, see Williamson 1977, 85).
It is also important to point out that both Vafþrúðnismál and Vǫluspá
are concerned with the cosmological rhythm of light, before they turn tothe events surrounding the end of the world. The metaphor of war indi­cates a di­men­sion of menacing instability in the cosmological balance, acentral theme of Old Norse mythology. There are however no other Old
Norse sources for the idea that the rhythm of light is an ongoing con­flict between moon and sun. Vafþrúðnismál st. 23 mentions that they arebrother and sister, and that himin hverfa þau skulu hverjan dag ǫldum atártali ‘they shall dis­appear from heaven every day, to measure years for
The sequence huaʀ is either the masculine hvaʀ (> hvāʀ) form of the Runic Swedish inter­rogative pronoun (Peterson 2006, 25) which has a defective paradigm (cf. Seip 1931). The
nom. fem. sing. form is otherwise unattested but must of course have existed and should
phonetically have been either *hú (cf. Gothic ƕō) or analogically *hvā. In the former casethe relative pronoun must be Runic Swedish æʀ or aʀ (cf. Peterson 2006, s.v. es, and Noreen
1904, § 512 Anm. 1), in the latter we must posit an enclitic ’ʀ (cf. Peterson, 2006, s.v. es). We
have somewhat arbitrarily chosen hvā’ʀ.
3Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 23
people’, but does not suggest that they rob the light from each other. Yet,
Ralph’s convincing sug­gestion must result in a new approach when inter­preting the rest of the Rök text, although not necessarily in the direction
he follows.
The metaphor of dying in the second question has been seen as a meta­phor for the daily sunset (implicitly in Ralph 2007, explicitly in Holm­berg
2016, 90). For two reasons, however, the death referred to here seems topoint towards a specific historical, cosmic event, rather than alluding to therecurrent sunset. First, it is said to be a death ‘with the Hraið­gutaʀ’ which
is a poetic expression for an event to the east (i.e. at dawn), and not west­
wards (cf. Holmberg 2016, 89 f.). Second and most important, the event is
temporally specified to ‘nine generations ago’ (fur nīu aldum). Given the
cur­rent dating of the inscription to around 800 CE and an ap­prox­ima­tionof each generation to thirty years, the event alluded to would have hap­
pened in the early sixth century. Thus, the climate crisis from 536 CE turns
out to be an obvious candidate for this “death” of the sun, when it failed torise in the east. Two hundred and seventy years is a long time indeed, but
a memory of nine generations does not seem un­rea­son­able. The runestone
at Norra Sandsjö (Sm 71) gives the names of six gen­er­ations (Jans­son 1987,
101). It might also be significant that the number nine had a strong sym­
bolic meaning of fulfilment. The most well-known example is Háva­mál st.
138 (see Sundqvist 2010, 68–96). If Vāmōðʀ was the ninth in the line of his
kin since the death of the sun, his demise could have provoked the idea ofa new menace. The conclusion of the question seems to remind the reader
that the rhythm of light was re-established. The wording ‘still de­cides thematter’ (dø̄ miʀ æ̃ nn umb sakaʀ, Höfler 1952, 39, Lönnroth 1977, 25 f., Wid­
mark 1992, 35) then alludes to the sun’s re­newed presence.
The message of two statements in the end of the passage comprising astanza of the Old Norse verse form fornyrðislag is clear. The sunlight still
pre­vails, and its path over the firmament is compared to a horse and rider.
The most striking parallel is found in Vafþrúðnismál st. 12, although thisstanza focuses on the horse of the daylight-rider:
Skinfaxi heitir, / er inn skíra dregr / dag um dróttmǫgu; / hesta beztr / þykkir
hann með / Hreiðgotom /Skinfaxi is called who draws/carries the bright day to humanity; the best ofhorses he is considered among Hreiðgotar.

Two similarities are obvious. The personified sunlight is referred to in
the shape of a rider or charioteer (called Dagr in Vafþrúðnismál st. 25 andFuthark 9–10 (2018–2019)24 • Per Holmberg et al.
else­where).4 Secondly, both texts mention the Hreiðgotar. The motivation
for this reference in Vafþrúðnis­mál seems to be that the Hreiðgotar live
closer to where the sun rises and thus get the best opportunity to value
the sun-horse. Accordingly, we suggest that riding over ‘the shores of theHraið­sea’ (strãndu Hraið[guta]maraʀ) is a poetic expression for daybreak(cf. Holm­berg 2016, 89 f.). Another detail to be noted is the repeated ideathat the rid­ing champion is the superior one in a circle of other men or
heroes (stilliʀ flutna, ‘chief of men’ and skati mǣringa, ‘foremost of thefamous’). A clue to their identity seems to be the greeting phrase in Sigr­drífu­mál st. 4, used by a valkyrie: Heill dagr! Heillir dags synir! ‘Hail, day!
Hail, sons of day!’ (Jó­nas Kristjáns­son and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 2: 314).
One idea expressed in the Rök stanza may be that Dagr is the one whogathers all men for the fight against destructive powers, since he wakes
them up in the morning. It should also be noted that dǫglingar is a wordfor ‘kings’, descendents of the deity Dagr; it is used also in Hákonarmál st.
9 for the death-doomed kings.
Memory of the sacrifice for light: the passage with question 3sᴀɢwᴍ oɢ ᴍᴇnï [cipher rune 4:4 = þ]ᴀᴅ ʜoᴀʀ ï ɢolᴅ〈i〉ɢᴀ oaʀï ɢolᴅïn ᴅ ɢoąnᴀʀʜoslï [see note 3 concerning the transliteration here][= sakum uk mini þat huaʀ i kultika uaʀi kultin t kuąnaʀ husli]
Sagum Ygg minni þat, hvā’ʀ ī gyldinga vāʀi guldin at kvā̃naʀ hūsli?
Let us say this as a memory for Yggʀ, who because of a howler [i.e. wolf] hassuffered through a woman’s sacrifice?

In this most difficult passage, never interpreted satisfactorily, the sequenceï ɢolᴅ〈i〉ɢᴀ (lines 12 and 13) demands a construction not known fromother sources. The standard interpretation has been — with inspiration
We should point out that the rider in the Rök inscription is not explicitely referred to as‘he’ although an English translation forces a gender choice. We posit that we are still deal­
ing with Sól, who has however been given masculine-gendered epithets. Female deities arerefer­red to as guð (originally neuter plural, later masculine singular) — Skaði is called ǫndur­guð ‘ski-god’ (Faulkes 2005, 24) — and Eir is referenced to as a masculine-gendered læknir
beztr ‘best physician’ (p. 29). Also, even the shield has a parallel in Grímnis­mál st. 38: Svalinn
heitir, hann stendr sólu fyrir, skjǫldr skínandi goði ‘Its name is Svalinn, it, the shield, stands
before the sun, the shining god’ (Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 375). It isalso possible that Dagr here assumes Sól’s function. It would in many respects rhyme better
if Dagr is seen as the hypostasis of Sól, at least in the Rök context, but this is admittedly aweaker link in our chain of reasoning. Perhaps future research will resolve the matter.
4

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 25from Ingvalds­torp, the name of a nearby village — to render the sequence
as Inguldinga, which would then mean ‘the line of Ingivaldʀ’. A better
guess would be to interpret the sequence as ī gyldinga, ‘because of ahowler’ i.e. a wolf.5 Gyldir is in Old Icelandic an attested word for wolf.
The deri­vation -ing(i) is the same as in the putative Inguldinga and it isalso used in another synonym for wolfs: heiðingi, literally meaning ‘theone from the heathland’.
The memory is then completed by the identity of someone suffering
through the sacrifice of a woman to a wolf. That Sól suffers through thesac­ri­fice of herself has such a third-person self-reference parallel in alausa­vísa by Skúli Þorsteinsson, where she is both called Glens beðja “bedmate of Glenr” and said to stride í vé gyðju “into the goddess’s [i.e. herown] sanctuary” (Heslop 2017, 367). We propose that the answer to thequestion of this passage (once again) is the sun (Sól). Before the sun is
killed by the wolf Fenrir at the beginning of the Ragnarok battle, she gives
birth to a daughter. This dramatic event, possibly related to the return of
the sun after 536 CE, is the first step in a cosmological trans­for­mation.
This world will perish, but the battle between the gods and the de­struc­tive forces, includ­ing Fenrir, will give rise to a new world where Sól’s
daughter will shine.
In one version of Hervarar saga a sun riddle is asked: Hvat er þat undra… lýðum lýsir, en loga gleypir ok keppast um at vargar ávalt? “Whatwonder is that … it gives light to men, but swallows flame, and wolves
strive after it always?” (Burrows 2014, 121). Vafþrúðnismál offers an evencloser parallel. It is the answer given in the wisdom contest to the question
about the fate of the sun (st. 47):
Eina dóttur / berr Álfröðull, / áðr hana Fenrir fari; / sú skal ríða, / þá er regin
deyja, / móður brautir, mǽr.
A daughter Álfröðull [the sun] gives birth to, before Fenrir [i.e. the wolf]
catches her up; she [i.e the daughter] will ride, when the gods die, the maiden
on her mother’s roads.

The interpretation explains why the sacrifice should be ‘because of ahowler’ (ī gyldinga) i.e. because of the wolf. That the wolf is referred to as
the ‘howler’ recalls the idea that Fenrir howls (grenjar) when he is bound
The Old Icelandic preposition í governing the accusative can have the (admittedly rare)mean­ing “die ursache oder den zweck einer handlung bezeichend” [‘denoting the cause orgoal of an act’] (Gering 1903, 526).
5

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)26 • Per Holmberg et al.
ac­cord­ing to Gylfaginning (Faulkes 2005, 29) and is reminiscent of theominous barking (Geyr nú Garmr) at Ragnarok in Vǫluspá st. 43, 47, and 56.
The choice of runes from the older futhark is noteworthy, as this was
the script used ‘nine generations ago’. This is appropriate for a reference
to the happy return of the sun after the years of darkness from 536 CE. In
the mythological conception of time, Ragnarok has already started, andso has the new creation.
Memory of the battle between the powers: the passage with questions 4–5
þat sakum tualfta huar histʀ si kunaʀ ituituąki ąn kunukaʀ tuaiʀ tikiʀsuaþ ą likia+ þat sakum þritaunta huariʀ tuaiʀ tikiʀ kunukaʀ satin t siulunti fiakura
uintur at fiakurum nabnum burn〈i〉ʀ fiakurum bruþrum
+ ualkaʀ fim ra͡þulfsuniʀ hraiþulfaʀ fim rukulfsuniʀ hąislaʀ fim haruþs
suniʀ kunmuntaʀ fim ḅirnaʀ suniʀ
nuk m--- ṃ-- alu --ḳị ainhuaʀ -þ… …þ … × ftiʀ fra
Þat sagum tvalfta, hvar hæstʀ sē gunnaʀ etu vēttvãngi ā̃, kunungaʀ tvaiʀ tigiʀsvāð ā̃ liggia?
Þat sagum þrēttāunda, hværiʀ tvaiʀ tigiʀ kunungaʀ sātin at Sīulundi fiagura
vinddura at fiagurum nampnum, burniʀ fiagurum brø̄ ðrum?
Valkaʀ fim, Rāðulfs syniʀ, Hraiðulfaʀ fim, Rōgulfs syniʀ, Hā̃īslaʀ fim, Haruðs
syniʀ, Gunnmundaʀ fim, Bernaʀ syniʀ.
En Ygg m[inni] … (partly illegible)
This let us say as twelfth, where the horse of the battle [i.e. the wolf] sees
food on the battlefield, where twenty kings lie?
This let us say as thirteenth, which twenty kings were at the Grove of Sparks[i.e. the battlefield] in four directions, of four names, born of four brothers?
Five Valkis, sons of Rāðulfʀ, five Hraiðulfʀs, sons of Rōgulfʀ, five Hāīsls, sonsof Haruðʀ, five Gunnmundʀs, sons of Bern.
And for Yggʀ a m(emory) … [last line partly illegible]

When encountering the next memory, the reader is moved from the heav­ens to the battlefield, still following the same enemy, the wolf. The newpair of questions asks for the place where twenty kings lie, and theiridentity. We suggest that the inscription has taken a narrative leap toFuthark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 27
the end of Ragnarok which would also explain the mysterious jump tomen­tion­ings of the ‘twelfth’ and ‘thirteenth’, just as mythological motifs
leap in and outside of the twelve numbered stanzas in Vaf­þrúð­nis­mál.
The place is the battlefield where Odin together with his warriors and therest of the gods will meet the wolf Fenrir and the other giants, and thetwenty kings can probably be seen as representing Odin’s warriors. The
scene establishes the purpose of Vāmōðʀ’s death: that he is to take part on
Odin’s side in the final battle of the powers.
In question 4 the phrase hæstʀ gunnaʀ (lines 14 and 15) has traditionallybeen construed as the ‘horse of [the valkyrie] Gunnr’ and interpreted asa kenning for ‘wolf’. We accept the interpretation, but read gunnaʀ notas the name of the valkyrie, but more plainly as ‘battle’, (cf. e.g. gunnar
haukr ‘the hawk of the battle’ for raven, another battlefield scavenger, in
Hró­mundr halti Eyvindarson’s Lausavísa 1, in Jónsson 1912, 90, cf. Holm­berg 2016, 95). Nevertheless, it would be more straightforward to interprethvar hæstʀ sē gunnaʀ etu vēttvãngi ā̃ as ‘where the horse sees battle foodon the battle­field’. This presupposes that hæstʀ alone can stand for ‘wolf’.
That indeed seems to be the case when the giantess Hyrrokkin’s steed,a wolf, twice is called just hestr ‘horse’ (Faulkes 2005, 46). On the other
hand, ‘battle’s food’ would not be an expected kenning as the subjective
genitive usually is that of a predator, cf. arnar matr “food of the eagle[CORPSES]” in a half-stanza by Einar Skúlason (Gade 2017, 159).
In question 5 we do not accept the idea that the sequence t siulunti
fiakura uintura (lines 17 and 18) carries any information about the stayof these kings on Zealand for four winters. As the scene is the final battle­
field, called Vígríðr (Vafþrúðnismál st. 18) but also Óskópnir in Eddic
poems (Fáfnismál st. 15; Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014,
2: 306), we propose that Sīulundʀ ‘the Grove of Sparks’ is simply an East
Norse variant. (The fight did not take place in a wood or copse of trees
but on a field or plain named after a nearby grove.) We follow, with somehesi­tation, the interpretation of vinddura as referring to the four points ofthe compass (Pipping 1932, 50‒52, cf. Ralph 2007, 155).
Both questions have parallels in Vafþrúðnismál. In the poem (st. 17 f.)
Odin is asked about the place for the final battle between giants and gods.
He gives the name of the battlefield (Vígríðr) and adds that: hundrað rasta
hann er á hverjan veg ‘it is a hundred miles in every direction’ (st. 18).
Later (st. 40 f.) Odin asks a question about a group of men who practicefighting daily, and Vafþrúðnir is able to give the answer: Odin’s warriors(the ein­herjar). In the wisdom contest of Vafþrúðnismál these questions
are, on the surface, neutral questions about mythological knowl­edge. In
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)28 • Per Holmberg et al.
the Rök in­scrip­tion the questions are a snapshot of a critical moment in
the battle, when the wolf catches sight of Odin’s warriors, now seem­
ingly defense­less or dead, and intends to devour them. There are otherdescrip­tions that focus on the run-up to this clash, e.g. er Óðinn ferr viðúlf vega ‘when Odin fares to fight with the wolf’ (Vǫluspá st. 52) and áttahundruð ein­herja ganga senn ór einum durum þá er þeir fara at vitni at vega‘eight hundred einherjar go through each door [of Valhalla] at the sametime when they fare to fight the wolf’ (Grímnismál st. 23, Jónas Kristjáns­
son and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 372). A crucial passage is the argu­ment
given by Odin himself to explain the death of king Eírikr in Eiríks­mál st. 7:
it is unknown when the grey wolf will run towards the dwellings of thegods (see above). In other words, the rea­son for king Eírikr’s death is that
Odin needs to let warriors die in order for them to be present at the fightagainst the wolf at Ragnarok.
In the case of Eiríksmál, six kings are presented as a new group of war­riors for the final battle in a way that might be a relevant parallel since thisgroup of brothers-in-arms is organized in the same way as each unit in
the Rök inscription. The list of names in the Rök inscription (‘five Valkis,
sons of Rāðulfʀ’ etc.) is structured (5+1) + (5+1) + (5+1) + (5+1). King
Eiríkr presents his group of warriors in a similar way (5+1) in Eiríksmál 9:
Konungar eru fimm; kenni ek þér nafn allra; ek em inn sétti sjalfr. “There
are five kings; I shall identify for you the names of all; I am myself thesixth” (Fulk 2012a, 1003). Unfortunately the poem breaks off at this point.
The twenty kings in the Rök text belong to four groups of brothers
who are mentioned under the same name: five Valkis, five Hraiðulfʀs, five
Hāīsls, and five Gunnmundʀs, although this likely refers only to the oldest
brother in each group (Olrik in Bugge 1910, 259–61). The inscription also
gives the names of the father of each unit — Rāðulfʀ, Rōgulfʀ, Haruðʀ, andBern — who, in turn, are brothers. It should be noted that in Hákonar­mál
st. 16 the king is said to have eight brothers waiting for him among thewarriors in Valhalla: þú átt inni hér átta brœðr “you have eight brothers inthis place” (Fulk 2012b, 190). The carver of the inscription has obviously
done his utmost to accommodate all of the names on the stone, whichsuggests that there is something important about them. These names may
perhaps have a battle-related meaning (Lönnroth 1977, 33–36).
Unfortunately, we lack the clue which was probably given in the final,
now damaged line of the passage. The first four runes nukm can be thebeginning of a variant of the memory-formula found in other passages:
En Ygg m(inni) ‘And for Yggʀ a m(emory)’. But the meaning of the whole
speech act cannot be reconstructed.
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 29

Last memory of the light: the passage with questions 6–7[cipher runes — 2:4 3:6 3:2 1:3 3:2 3:6 1:3 2:3 2:2 2:3 3:3 3:2 3:5 = -akum uk miniþur]
[cipher runes 2:5 2:3 = si]bi [cipher runes 3:2 2:3 = ui]a[cipher runes 3:2 2:4 =ua]ri[cipher runes 3:3 1:4 2:2 2:3 3:5 3:2 = ulni ru]þʀSagum Ygg minni: þor!
Siƀi vīaværi?
Ōlni rȳðʀ?
Let us say a memory for Yggʀ, dare!
[Who is] a protector of sanctuaries for a brother?
[Whom] does the ravager [i.e. the wolf] redden with blood?

At this point in the process of reading the text, the counter­clockwise circle
around the stone is completed, and the inscription meets a border which isdif­fi­cult to cross: more ciphers. Some readers must have had to stop here,
even if they belonged to those who knew how to read runes, and to the selectfew who knew all of the answers so far. Here, too, all researchers includ­ing
us reach a point where interpretation becomes extremely complicated. Ourpro­posal is just one possibility, we hope better than previous ones.
We read the narrow side (line 23) as the imperative form þor of the verb
þora ‘to dare, be brave’ (von Friesen 1920, 86), not as an invocation of Þōrr,the god Thor. The reader who is initiated into the advanced numericalcipher is challenged to say the memory for Yggʀ, and encouraged to con­tinue — ‘to dare’ — possibly also to risk mentioning the main figures in the
final scenes of Ragnarok. In the following two lines (24 and 25) we accept
von Friesen’s solution of the numerical cross cipher (1920, 17–19). How­ever, we propose a new lexico­grammatical reading, which takes each line
as a separate clause with implicit inter­rogatives. On the top side of thestone (24) we do not read the name Sibbi, but the dative of siƀʀ ‘brother’.
Consequently, we do not find any information about Sibbi in the next line(25), but interpret the two words as Ōlni ‘the ravager’ and rȳðʀ ‘redden(with blood)’ (cf. Grønvik 2003, 74).6
Grønvik reconstructs an ia-stem *Ólnir whereas we posit the an-stem form. We have con­sidered the alternative lexicogrammatical reading Ull nē rȳðʀ? (and the translation ‘[who]6

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)30 • Per Holmberg et al.
Both questions seem to be concerned with the same threats to therhythm of light as have been thematised already by previous questions,
namely the rivalry between the heavenly siblings and the wolf Fenrir.
The answer (again) is Sól, the sun. Firstly, the sun takes the role as
the pro­tec­tor of sanctuaries or holy places for her brother, the moon.
This role rhymes with the mention of her salir ‘halls’ in Vǫluspá st. 5
and her vé ‘sanctuary’ in the lausavísa by Skúli Þorsteinsson (Heslop
2017, 367; see above). It should be noted that the rising of the moonis also mentioned in the latter stanza: ljos … Mána kemr ofan ‘the …
light … of Máni … comes down’. The sun’s dwellings are presumably
shared with her brother the moon while taking turn resting from theirheavenly travels. Secondly, we are reminded that Sól loses her life toFenrir. Possibly rȳðr also alludes to rýðr ragna sjǫt ‘reddens the gods’
dwellings’ (Vǫluspá st. 40) by another (or the same?) wolf, the devourerof a celestial body, in Vǫluspá st. 39: tungls tjúgari. There might also be areference here to the frightful red skies of 536 CE (and 775 CE). But thetimes of such disasters will come to an end, which will soon be clear in
the concluding memory.
Finally, it should be noted that the cross cipher itself might be an icon­o­graphic clue to the answers to this pair of questions: the crosses are similar
to swastikas, the symbol of the power of the sun in Iron Age iconography(see Huth and Nordberg 2005).
Last memory of the battle between the powers:
the passage with questions 8–9[cipher runes airfb = sakum] [cipher runes fr = uk] [cipher runes bnhn =mini][cipher runes finb = uaim] [cipher runes an = si] [cipher runes tfąnhnu =buriniþ]ʀ trąki uili nis þat +[cipher runes rhfþ = knuą] [cipher runes rhis = knat]iatun uili nis þat +Sagum Ygg minni,(h)vaim sē burinn niðʀ, dræ̃ ngi! Villi nē’s þat.
Knūã knātti iatun? Villi nē’s þat.
does not redden Ullʀ with blood?’). It is a possible advantage that the grammatical subject
becomes the requested element, as in the other two elliptic questions. However, we havenot been able to give this reading a contextually relevant interpretation.

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 31
Let us say a memory for Yggʀ,to whom is born an offspring, to the young man! It is not a lie.
[Who] could beat a giant? It is not a lie.

In the last passage the standard interpretation identifies two references
to somebody called Vilinn (lines 27 and 28). We follow instead Grønvik’s(2003, 75) proposal that the inscription here insists twice that the preceding
question asks for something that is true, not a lie (villi).
The reader is once again reminded of Odin, and challenged by two finalquestions. The repeated formula of confirmation (‘it is not a lie’) sug­geststhat the inscription has reached a decisive point in the course of escha­to­logical events. The memory concerns, we propose, the removal of the last
threat to the light, the wolf. The answer to the first question, addressed tothe dead youth Vāmoðʀ, is Odin, to whom Víðarr is born as an avenger,
and Víðarr — the slayer of the wolf — is the answer to the second. Thus, incompleting the final memory, the reader joins in the proclaiming of thevictory of the gods, to which Vāmōðʀ will also contribute.
A condition for answering this pair of questions is that the wolf is iden­ti­fied as a jǫtunn, one of the giants, as it is indeed explicitly called in
Gylfa­ginning (Faulkes 2005, 14) and possibly in Vǫluspá st. 46. Then a close
parallel in Vafþrúðnismál becomes evident. When Odin in the end of thepoem asks about his own fate in Ragnarok, he learns from Vafþrúðnir’s
answer that even if he will be swallowed by the wolf, he will be avenged
by his son Víðarr (st. 53):
Ulfr gleypa / mun Aldafǫðr, / þess mun Víðarr vreka; / kalda kjapta / hann klyfja
mun / vitnis vígi at.
The wolf will devour the Father of men [i.e. Odin], this Víðarr will avenge; coldjaws of the wolf he will cleave in the moment of battle.

In the preceding stanzas (50 f.) the poem makes it clear that Víðarr, unlike
Odin, belongs to the gods who will survive Ragnarok.
Summary: the ten last runes[cipher runes 2:2 2:3 1:1 = nit](H)nitClash!

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)32 • Per Holmberg et al.
The traditional understanding of the ten last runes has been that they
form a numerical cipher whose solution is nit. Given the interpretationof the inscription argued for here, a new alternative unfolds that has notbeen considered in previous research.
If the runes are read as a numerical cipher, the best lexical interpretation
would be hnit, ‘clash, battle’.7 This word is then a one-word summary forthe main theme of the inscription. A similar sort of label is found on Björke­torp stone (DR 360) from the seventh century, where on a separate surface
it probably says “prophecy of destruction”, summarizing the content ofthat inscription (Moltke 1985, 141). In the Eddic poem Hymiskviða (st.
23), the Midgard Serpent is called the hnitbróðir of the wolf (cf. Jónas
Kristjáns­son and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 2: 403), the most likely trans­
lation of which is ‘battle brother’. The battle alluded to is of course Ragna­
rok where all giants, in the Rök inscription represented by the wolf, will
perish. This battle is also the intended destination for Vāmōðʀ whom hisfather doubtlessly hoped would belong to the survivors, enjoying the blissof the renewed Earth — and the new, now unthreatened sun — together
with the remaining gods, including Víðarr.

Concluding remarks
This article offers a fundamentally novel and coherent understanding of
how the Rök inscription is to be read, how it is to be translated and why
it has its specific contents. Of course, we are not so arrogant as to believethat we have now solved every problem in the Rök text. Details remain to
be worked out, still murky passages clarified, if possible, and many of ourargu­ments need explaining in full. The reading order that we propose may
also be questioned, but our interpretation does not depend on its absoluteaccuracy.
The main object for Varinn was to place the death of his son in a mean­ing­ful context of eschatological events, through a monument that would
last forever. The expectations of a final battle against destructive cosmo­
logical powers — in which Varinn’s son was supposed to take part — wereconnected to a memory of climate crisis and probably to the anxiety about a
The word hnit itself has been identified before but used in a different interpretationalframe­work (cf. Widmark 1992, 33 with references). The presumed lack of an initital hcan­not be seen as an obstacle since almost all interpreters accept this for the word uaim
hvaim. The representation of initial /h/ before a consonant varies, also in quite early Viking
Age inscriptions, cf. Sm 52 Forsheda (Jansson 1984, 84) from c. 1000 CE: rhulf Hrōlfʀ withh but lifstin Hlīfstæin without.
7

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 33
similar one occurring. The enigmatic questions, the intricate cryptograms,
and the labyrinth reading order made the monument a challenge for aselect few, and a potential place for their enlightenment.
We stand on the shoulders of previous researchers and have found valu­
able suggestions by all of them. No longer, however, must we accept seriesof disassociated tales or unmotivated riddles, nor unparalleled accounts ofre­venge and speculations about reincarnation or proto-national conflicts.
Our inter­pretation is firmly based on the semiotics of runestones and aclose adherence to mythological Old Norse texts, and we believe that ourinter­pretation has higher explanatory value than previous analyses. All
in all, the Rök stone remains the most impressive of all runic monuments,
even more stirring, we hope, with this new comprehension.
Our study shows that recent archaeological findings about the severe
con­se­quences of the climate events after 536 CE could open for new dis­coveries, and it should encourage investigations into whether the eschato­
logical motifs are present in more artifacts and runic texts than previously
noted. The study definitely deepens the picture of eschatological beliefs
in early Viking Age elite contexts, and the suggestion that the Rök stonemonu­ment was related to ritual speech acts in some kind of funeral con­text should be subject to further critical investigation. In relation to suchexami­nation, the Sitz im Leben of the monument and the ritual context of
it will most likely also be further elaborated.8

References
Andrén, Anders. 2014. Tracing Old Norse Cosmology: The World Tree, Middle Earthand the Sun in Archaeological Perspectives. Roads to Midgard, 16. Stockholm.
Andersson, Thorsten. 1999. “Häjla, Rökstenens by.” In Runor och Namn: Hyllnings­
skrift till Lena Peterson den 27 januari 1999, ed. Lennart Elmevik and Svante
Strand­berg (main editors) as well as Eva Brylla, Mats Wahlberg, and Henrik
Williams, 1–9. Namn och samhälle, 10. Uppsala.
Barnes, Michael P. 2007. “Rök-steinen: Noen runologiske og språklige over­veielser.” Maal og minne 2007: 120–32.
― . 2019. The Runic Inscriptions of the Isle of Man: Based on a Manuscript by R. I.
Page, and with Contributions by James E. Knirk, K. Jonas Nordby, Henrik Wil­
liams, and Sir David Wilson. Runrön, 22. Uppsala and London.
This work was partly supported by The Swedish Research Council (Rök Runestone Revis­
ited 2016-02493). We are especially thankful for comments given by Professor Anna-Malin
Karls­son, Associate professor Magnus Källström, Associate professor Andreas Nord­berg,
Associate professor Torun Zachrisson and our anonymous reviewers.
8

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)34 • Per Holmberg et al.
Bianchi, Marco. 2010. Runor som resurs: Vikingatida skriftkultur i Uppland och
Söder­manland. Runrön, 20. Uppsala.
Brate, Erik. 1918. “Rök, kyrkogården, Lysings hd.” In Östergötlands runinskrifter,
by Erik Brate, 231–55. Vol. 2 of Sveriges runinskrifter. Stockholm, 1911–18.
Browall, Hans. 2003. Det forntida Alvastra. The Museum of National Antiquities,
Mono­graphs, 6. Stockholm.
Bugge, Sophus. 1873–78. “Tolkning af runeindskriften på Rökstenen i Öster­göt­
land: Et bidrag til kundskab om svensk sprog, skrift og skaldekunst i oldtiden.”
Antikvarisk tidskrift för Sverige 5: 1–148, 211–15.
― . 1910. Der Runenstein von Rök in Östergötland, Schweden. Ed. Magnus Olsen.
Stock­holm.
Büntgen, Ulf, Vladimir S. Myglan, Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, Michael
McCormick, Nicola Di Cosmo, Michael Sigl, Johann Jungclaus, Sebastian
Wagner, Paul J. Krusic, Jan Esper, Jed O. Kaplan, Michiel A. C. de Vaan, Jürg
Luter­bacher, Lukas Wacker, Willy Tegel, and Alexander V. Kirdyanov. 2016.
“Cooling and Societal Change during the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536
to around 660 CE.” Nature Geoscience 9: 231‒36.
Burrows, Hannah. 2014. “Wit and Wisdom.” In Eddic, Scaldic and Beyond: Poetic
Variety in Medieval Iceland and Norway, ed. Martin Chase, 114–35. Fordham
Series in Medieval Studies. New York.
Charpentier Ljungqvist, Fredrik. 2010. “A New Reconstruction of Temperature
Variability in the Extra‐Tropical Northern Hemisphere during the Last Two
Millennia.” Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92: 339–51.
― . 2017. Klimatet och människan under 12000 år. Stockholm.
Clunies Ross, Margaret, ed. 2017a. “Ragnarsdrápa.” In Gade and Marold 2017, 27–46.
― . 2017b. “Þórr’s fishing.” In Gade and Marold 2017, 47–53.
DR + number = inscription published in Danmarks runeindskrifter, by Lis Jacobsen
and Erik Moltke, 3 vols.: Text; Atlas; Registre (København, 1941–42).
Einar Skúlason. “Fragments.” See Gade 2017.
Einarsson, Bjarni, ed. 2003. Egils saga. London.
Eiríksmál. See Fulk 2012a.
Eliade, Mircea. 1987. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. San Diego.
Espenak, Fred, and Jean Meeus. 2006. “Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses.”Web­
page for NASA, https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html (re­trieved 2018-11-07).
Fáfnismál. In Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 2: 303–12.
Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 2005. Edda: Prologue and Gylfaginning. 2nd ed. London.
Friesen, Otto von. 1920. Rökstenen: Runstenen vid Röks kyrka, Lysings härad,Öster­götland. Stockholm.
Fulk, Robert D., ed. 2012a. “Eiríksmál.” In Whaley 2012, 1003–13.
― . 2012b. “Hákonarmál.” In Whaley 2012, 171–95.
Gade, Kari Ellen, ed. 2017. “[Einar Skúlason] Fragments.” In Gade and Marold
2017, 151–68.

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 35
Gade, Kari Ellen, and Edith Marold, eds. 2017. Poetry from Treatises on Poetics.
Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages, 3. Turnhout.
Gering, Hugo. 1903. Vollständiges Wörterbuch zu den Liedern der Edda. Germa­nis­tische Handbibliothek, 7.2. Halle a. S.
Grímnismál. In Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 367–379.
Gräslund, Bo. 2007. “Fimbulvintern, Ragnarök och klimatkrisen år 536‒537 e.Kr.”
Saga och sed: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademiens årsbok 2007: 93–123.
Gräslund, Bo, and Neil Price. 2012. “Twilight of the Gods? ‘The Dust Veil Event’of AD 536 in Critical Perspective.” Antiquity 2012: 428‒43.
Grønvik, Ottar. 2003. Der Rökstein: Über die religiöse Bestimmung und das welt­liche
Schick­sal eines Helden aus der frühen Wikingerzeit. Osloer Beiträge zur Germa­
nistik, 33. Frankfurt am Main.
Hákonarmál. See Fulk 2012b.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretationof Language and Meaning. London.
Harris, Joseph C. 2010. “Varin’s Philosophy and the Rök Stone’s Mythology of
Death.” In New Perspectives on Myth, ed. Wim M. J. van Binsbergen and Eric
Ven­brux, 91–105. Haarlem.
― . 2016. “Traditions of Eddic Scholarship.” In A Handbook to Eddic Poetry:
Myths and Legends of Early Scandinavia, ed. Carolyne Larrington, Judy Quinn,
and Brittany Schorn, 33–57. Cambridge.
Heslop, Kate, ed. 2017. “[Skúli Þorsteinsson] Lausavísa.” In Gade and Marold
2017, 366–68.
Höfler, Otto. 1952. Der Runenstein von Rök und die germanische Individual­weihe.
Tübingen.
Holmberg, Per. 2016. “Svaren på Rökstenens gåtor: En socialsemiotisk analys
av menings­skapande och rumslighet.” Futhark: International Journal of Runic
Studies 6 (2015): 65–106.
Hultgård, Anders. 2017. Midgård brinner: Ragnarök i religionshistorisk belysning.
Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi, 146. Uppsala.
Huth, Christoph, and Andreas Nordberg. 2005. “Sonnensymbol.” In Reallexikon derGer­manischen Altertumskunde, founded by Johannes Hoops, ed. Heinrich Beck,
Die­ter Geuenich, and Heiko Steuer, 29: 239–44. 2nd ed. Berlin and New York.
Hymiskviða. In Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 399–407.
Jacobsen, Lis. 1961. “Rökstudier.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 76: 1–50.
Jansson, Sven B. F. 1987. Runes in Sweden. Stockholm.
Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason, eds. 2014. Eddukvæði. 2 vols. Íslenzk
forn­rit. Reykjavík.
Jónsson, Finnur, ed. 1912. Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning. B. Rettet tekst, vol.
1. København and Kristiania.
Källström, Magnus. 2016. “Bär den norska Vangstenen ett Ragnaröksmotiv?”
Forn­vännen 111: 268–71.

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)36 • Per Holmberg et al.
Lincoln, Bruce. 1986. Myth, Cosmos, and Society: Indo-European Themes of Creation
and Destruction. Cambridge, Mass., and London.
Lindroth, Hjalmar. 1911. “Bidrag till Rökstensinskriftens tolkning.” Studier i nor­disk filologi 2.8: 1–16.
Lönnqvist, Olov. 1999. “Vilken väg valde Varin? Läsvägar på Rökstenen.” Sagaoch sed: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademiens årsbok 1999: 117–36.
Lönnroth, Lars. 1977. “The Riddles of the Rök-stone: A Structural Approach.”
Arkiv för nordisk filologi 92: 1–57.
Löwenborg, Daniel. 2012. “An Iron Age Shock Doctrine: Did the AD 536‒7 Event
Trigger Large-Scale Social Changes in the Mälaren Valley Area?” Journal ofArchaeology and Ancient History 4: 3–29.
Malone, Kemp. 1934. “The Theodoric of the Rök inscription.” Acta philologica
Scandi­navica 9: 76–84
Meulengracht Sørensen, Preben. 1991. “Om eddadigtenes alder.” In Nordisk
heden­dom: Et symposium. Ed. Gro Steinsland, Ulf Drobin, Juha Pentikäinen,
and Preben Meulengracht Sørensen, 217–28. Odense.
Moltke, Erik. 1985. Runes and their Origin, Denmark and Elsewhere. Copenhagen.
N + no. = inscription published in Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer, by
Magnus Olsen et al., 6 vols. to date (Oslo, 1941–).
Naumann, Hans-Peter, in collaboration with Marco Bianchi and Ulrike MarxAlber­ding. 2018. Metrische Runeninschriften in Skandinavien: Einführung,
Edition und Kommentare. Tübingen.
Nielsen, Niels Åge. 1969. Runerne på Rökstenen. Odense University Studies in
Scandi­navian Linguistics, 2. Odense.
Nordberg, Andreas. 2003. Krigarna i Odins sal: Dödsföreställningar och krigarkult.
Stock­holm.
Nordenstreng, Rolf. 1912. “Vad är syftet med Rökstenens inskrift.” Studier i
nordisk filologi 3: 1–4.
Nordin, Fredrik S. 1903. “Till frågan om de gotländska bildstenarnas utveck­lings­former.” Studier tillägnade Oscar Montelius 9/3 1903 af lärjungar, 142–55.
Stockholm.
Nylén, Erik. 1988. Stones, Ships and Symbols: The Picture Stones of Gotland from theViking Age and Before. Stockholm.
Olsen, Magnus. 1921. “Til Rök-indskriften.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 37: 201–32.
Peterson, Lena. 2006. Svenskt runordsregister. 3. uppl. Runrön, 2. Only available
online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-157958
Pipping, Hugo. 1932. “Rökstensinskriften en rättsurkund.” Studier i nordisk filologi
22.1: 50‒2.
Price, Neil. 2010. “Passing into Poetry: Viking-Age Mortuary Drama and theOrigins of Norse Mythology.” Medieval Archaeology 54: 123–55.
Price, Neil, and Bo Gräslund. 2015. “Excavating the Fimbulwinter? Archaeology,
Geo­mythology and the Climate Event(s) of AD 536.” In Past Vulnerability:Vol­canic Eruptions and Human Vulnerability in Traditional Societies Past andPresent, ed. Felix Riede, 109–32. Aarhus.
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)

The Rök Runestone and the End of the World • 37
Ragnarsdrápa. See Clunies Ross 2017a.
Ralph, Bo. 2007. “Gåtan som lösning: Ett bidrag till förståelsen av Rökstenens run­inskrift.” Maal og minne 2007: 133–57.
Schjødt, Jens Peter. 2008. Initiation between Two Worlds: Structure and Symbolism
in Pre-Christian Scandinavian Religion. The Viking Collection, 17. Odense.
Schück, Henrik. 1908. Bidrag till tolkning af Rök-inskriften. Uppsala.
Seip, Didrik Arup. 1931. “Pronomenet hvem i gammelnorsk.” In his Studier i norskspråk­historie, 32‒35. Oslo.
Sigl, M., M. Winstrup, J. R. McConnell, K. C. Welten, G. Plunkett, F. Ludlow, U.
Bünt­gen, M. Caffee, N. Chellman, D. Dahl-Jensen, H. Fischer, S. Kipfstuhl, C.
Kostick, O. J. Maselli, F. Mekhaldi, R. Mulvaney, R. Muscheler, D. R. Pasteris,
J. R. Pilcher, M. Salzer, S. Schüpbach, J. P. Steffensen, B. M. Vinther, and T. E.
Woodruff. 2015. “Timing and Climate Forcing of Volcanic Eruptions for the
Past 2,500 Years.” Nature 523: 543–49.
Skúli Þorsteinsson. “Lausavísa.” See Heslop 2017.
Sonatorrek. In Einarsson 2003, 146–54.
Ström, Fredrik. 1939. Svenska folkgåtor. Stockholm.
Sukhodolov, Timofei, Ilya Usoskin, Eugene Rozanov, et al. 2017. “AtmosphericIm­pacts of the Strongest Known Solar Particle Storm of 775 AD.” Scientific
Reports 7, 45257. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45257
Sundqvist, Olof. 2002. Freyr’s Offspring: Rulers and Religion in Ancient Svea Society.
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum, 21. Uppsala.
― . 2010. “Om hängningen, de nio nätterna och den dyrköpta kunskapen i Háva­
mál 138–45: Den kultiska kontexten.” Scripta Islandica 2010: 68–96.
― . 2016. An Arena for Higher Powers: Ceremonial Buildings and Religious Strate­
gies for Rulership in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Leiden and Boston.
Sö + no. = inscription published in Södermanlands runinskrifter, by Erik Brate andElias Wessén = Sveriges runinskrifter, vol. 3 (Stockholm, 1924–36).
Thorvaldsen, Bernt Ø. 2016. “The Dating of Eddic Poetry.” In A Handbook to Eddic
Poetry: Myths and Legends of Early Scandinavia, ed. Carolyne Larrington, Judy
Quinn, and Brittany Schorn, 72–91. Cambridge.
Toohey, Matthew, Kirstin Krüger, Michael Sigl, Frode Stordal, and Henrik Sven­sen. 2016. “Climatic and Societal Impacts of a Volcanic Double Event at the
Dawn of the Middle Ages.” Climatic Change 136: 401–12.
Vafþruðnismál. In Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 356–66.
Wessén, Elias. 1958. Runstenen vid Röks kyrka. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och
Antikvitets Akademien, Handlingar, filologisk-filosofiska ser., 5. Stockholm.
Whaley, Diana, ed. 2012. Poetry from the Kings’ Sagas, vol. 1. Skaldic Poetry of the
Scandinavian Middle Ages, 1. Turnhout.
Widgren, Mats. 1983. Settlement and Farming Systems in the Early Iron Age: A
Study of Fossil Agrarian Landscapes in Östergötland, Sweden. Acta Universitatis
Stock­holmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Human Geography. Stockholm.
― . 2013. “Climate and Causation in the Swedish Iron Age: Learning from the
Present to Understand the Past.” Geografisk tidsskrift 112.2: 126‒34.
Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)38 • Per Holmberg et al.
Widmark, Gun. 1992. “Varför ristade Varin runor? Tankar kring Rökstenen.”
Saga och sed: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademiens årsbok 1992: 25–44.
Vigfússon, Guðbrandur, and Frederick York Powell. 1879. An Icelandic Prose
Reader, with Notes, Grammar, and Glossary. Oxford.
Williams, Henrik. 2013. “Runstenarnas sociala dimension.” Futhark: International
Jour­nal of Runic Studies 4: 61–76.
Williamson, Craig, ed. 1977. The Old English Riddles of the Exeter Book. Chapel
Hill.
Vǫluspá. In Jónas Kristjánsson and Vésteinn Ólason 2014, 1: 292–321.
Åkerström, Hanna. 2019. “Det tidigvikingatida runmaterialet: En inventering.”
Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 8 (2017): 7–88.
Ög + no. = inscription published in Östergötlands runinskrifter, by Erik Brate =Sveriges runinskrifter, vol. 2 (Stockholm, 1911–18).

Futhark 9–10 (2018–2019)