Runes and Rye: Administration in Denmark and the Emergence of the Younger Futhark, 500–800

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Comparative Studies in Society and History Pub Date : 2023-06-30 DOI:10.1017/s001041752300021x
R. Cole
{"title":"Runes and Rye: Administration in Denmark and the Emergence of the Younger Futhark, 500–800","authors":"R. Cole","doi":"10.1017/s001041752300021x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, I take up the case of runic writing to reflect upon James Scott’s view of the nexus between writing and various forms of domination in early states, especially the use of literacy for taxation in cereal-growing societies. Scott’s theses provide interesting matter “to think with,” even when his grasp of historical detail has been found wanting. It is not controversial to grant Scott that cuneiform writing was a remarkable tool for statecraft, and exploitation, in the first states of Mesopotamia, around 3500 BC. The same is true of writing in other early states. But in the first states of Scandinavia, particularly Denmark ca. AD 500–800, writing had a more troubled relationship with the state. No evidence survives that runic writing was used to administer taxation or much else, as it was in other agrarian civilisations. It is true that the runic script was used to commemorate kings, most famously by Haraldr Blátǫnn (r. ca. 958–ca. 986.). But, statistically speaking, it was more often used to aggrandize the sort of local big men who usually resisted centralized power. In this article, I survey the relationship between runic writing and administration. I consider what the Danish situation suggests about the relationship between states and writing and offer a tentative hypothesis of a short-lived attempt at runic bureaucracy around 800, which created—and quickly lost control of—a shortened variety of the runic script (the Younger Futhark).","PeriodicalId":47791,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s001041752300021x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I take up the case of runic writing to reflect upon James Scott’s view of the nexus between writing and various forms of domination in early states, especially the use of literacy for taxation in cereal-growing societies. Scott’s theses provide interesting matter “to think with,” even when his grasp of historical detail has been found wanting. It is not controversial to grant Scott that cuneiform writing was a remarkable tool for statecraft, and exploitation, in the first states of Mesopotamia, around 3500 BC. The same is true of writing in other early states. But in the first states of Scandinavia, particularly Denmark ca. AD 500–800, writing had a more troubled relationship with the state. No evidence survives that runic writing was used to administer taxation or much else, as it was in other agrarian civilisations. It is true that the runic script was used to commemorate kings, most famously by Haraldr Blátǫnn (r. ca. 958–ca. 986.). But, statistically speaking, it was more often used to aggrandize the sort of local big men who usually resisted centralized power. In this article, I survey the relationship between runic writing and administration. I consider what the Danish situation suggests about the relationship between states and writing and offer a tentative hypothesis of a short-lived attempt at runic bureaucracy around 800, which created—and quickly lost control of—a shortened variety of the runic script (the Younger Futhark).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
符文和黑麦:丹麦的行政管理和年轻的Futhark的出现,500-800
在这篇文章中,我以北欧文字为例,反思詹姆斯·斯科特关于早期国家中文字与各种形式的统治之间关系的观点,特别是在谷物种植社会中使用识字来征税。斯科特的论文提供了“值得思考”的有趣素材,尽管人们发现他对历史细节的把握不足。在公元前3500年左右,在美索不达米亚的第一个国家,楔形文字是一种卓越的治国工具,这是没有争议的。其他早期国家的文字也是如此。但在斯堪的纳维亚半岛的早期国家,尤其是公元500-800年的丹麦,文字与国家的关系更加棘手。没有证据表明,像其他农业文明那样,符文文字被用来管理税收或其他许多事情。符文文字确实是用来纪念国王的,最著名的是哈拉尔德Blátǫnn (r.c . 958-ca。986年)。但是,从统计上讲,它更多的是用来夸大那些通常抵制中央集权的地方大人物。在这篇文章中,我调查了符文写作与行政之间的关系。我考虑了丹麦的情况所暗示的国家与文字之间的关系,并提出了一个初步的假设,即公元800年前后,人们曾短暂地尝试建立符文官僚机构,创造了一种较短的符文文字(Younger Futhark),但很快就失去了控制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Comparative Studies in Society and History (CSSH) is an international forum for new research and interpretation concerning problems of recurrent patterning and change in human societies through time and in the contemporary world. CSSH sets up a working alliance among specialists in all branches of the social sciences and humanities as a way of bringing together multidisciplinary research, cultural studies, and theory, especially in anthropology, history, political science, and sociology. Review articles and discussion bring readers in touch with current findings and issues.
期刊最新文献
The Suffering Subject: Colonial Flogging in Northern Nigeria and a Humanitarian Public, 1904–1933 Flexible States in History: Rethinking Secularism, Violence, and Centralized Power in Modern Egypt Navigating “Race” at Tahiti: Polynesian and European Encounters Editorial Foreword Parliament and Revolution: Poland, Finland, and the End of Empire in the Early Twentieth Century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1