The portormin (dunbeath) runestone

A stone with a short runic inscription was discovered on the beach at Portormin Harbour in Dunbeath, Caithness, in 1996. The find attracted some press attention at the time, but has been largely ignored by the runological com­mu­nity amid doubts over its authenticity. There has, however, been no det...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Findell, Martin
Format: Article
Published: University of Oslo, Museum of Cultural Heritage 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35865/
_version_ 1848795178466279424
author Findell, Martin
author_facet Findell, Martin
author_sort Findell, Martin
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description A stone with a short runic inscription was discovered on the beach at Portormin Harbour in Dunbeath, Caithness, in 1996. The find attracted some press attention at the time, but has been largely ignored by the runological com­mu­nity amid doubts over its authenticity. There has, however, been no detailed dis­cussion of the stone in a public arena. A description of the inscription is followed by discussion of several interpretations. There are good reasons for suspecting that the carvings are of modern origin, but the matter cannot be settled with certainty; the case invites comparison with the controversies sur­rounding runic inscriptions in North America.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:27:57Z
format Article
id nottingham-35865
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:27:57Z
publishDate 2016
publisher University of Oslo, Museum of Cultural Heritage
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-358652020-05-04T17:45:18Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35865/ The portormin (dunbeath) runestone Findell, Martin A stone with a short runic inscription was discovered on the beach at Portormin Harbour in Dunbeath, Caithness, in 1996. The find attracted some press attention at the time, but has been largely ignored by the runological com­mu­nity amid doubts over its authenticity. There has, however, been no detailed dis­cussion of the stone in a public arena. A description of the inscription is followed by discussion of several interpretations. There are good reasons for suspecting that the carvings are of modern origin, but the matter cannot be settled with certainty; the case invites comparison with the controversies sur­rounding runic inscriptions in North America. University of Oslo, Museum of Cultural Heritage 2016-04-23 Article PeerReviewed Findell, Martin (2016) The portormin (dunbeath) runestone. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies, 6 . pp. 153-170. ISSN 1892-0950 older runes Caithness Scotland modern runic inscriptions suspect runic inscriptions methodology find report http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A922591&dswid=5190
spellingShingle older runes
Caithness
Scotland
modern runic inscriptions
suspect runic inscriptions
methodology
find report
Findell, Martin
The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title_full The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title_fullStr The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title_full_unstemmed The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title_short The portormin (dunbeath) runestone
title_sort portormin (dunbeath) runestone
topic older runes
Caithness
Scotland
modern runic inscriptions
suspect runic inscriptions
methodology
find report
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35865/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35865/