!! FIELD NOTES ON RUNIC MISREADINGS !!
✦ unorthodox philology · marginalia · dead ends · since 1997 ✦
NEW! ENTRY #28: WHEELER-WHITMORE FRAGMENT EXPOSED BEST VIEWED WITH NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR 4.7 88x31 GIFS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[ HIT COUNTER: 02847 ] POWERED BY GEOCITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEST VIEWED WITH CRT
MAIL ME WEBRING GUESTBOOK ANGELFIRE
⚠ THIS SITE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ⚠  |  last updated: 10/14/1999  |  NEW!
Entry #28 — "On the Wheeler-Whitmore Newfoundland Fragment and the Habit of Translating One's Own Assumptions"
Posted 14 October 1999 | by A. R. Halvorsen | filed under #runology #epigraphy | 4 comments so far

I had not intended to write about Wheeler or Whitmore.

Not because their 1927 paper is obscure — it isn't — but because it is simply one more instance in a long and frankly exhausting tradition of overconfident antiquarians turning weathered stone into a mirror for their own worldview.

Still, it has been repeatedly sent to me this month by students, usually with the same question: "Is this really how bad it can get?"

Yes. It can.

This is entry number twenty-eight in this series. I have written about missionary translations of Greenlandic inscriptions, nineteenth-century Icelandic nationalist forgeries, and one particularly imaginative Swedish philologist who insisted every rune was secretly Greek in disguise. This is my first encounter with Wheeler and Whitmore.

I am not sure whether that is a gap in my reading or a mercy.


1. The inscription itself

The fragment recovered from coastal Newfoundland (1923 excavation, Wheeler) is, in its reconstructed form, reasonably consistent with a late Younger Futhark memorial text with mixed orthographic drift — nothing unusual for a peripheral or transitional carving tradition.

ᛁᚱᛋᚨ · ᛒᚱᛁᚾᛃᚨᚱᛋ · ᛋᛟᚾ · ᛚᛁᚠᛋ · ᛋᚹᛟᚱᚾ · ᛋᚴᛁᛚᛞᛘᛖᛃᚨᚱ
ᚱᛅᛁᛋᛏᛁ · ᚦᛁᛋ · ᛋᛏᛁᚾ · ᛏᛁᛚ · ᛗᛁᚾᛁᛅ · ᛋᛁᚾ
ᛋᛏᛁᚾᚨ · ᚦᛅᛉᛅ · ᚢᛁ · ᛒᚨᚱᚢᛗ · ᚢᛁᛋᛏᚱ
ᛋᛏᛁᚾᚨ · ᛋᚨᛗ · ᚢᛁ · ᛋᛏᛅᛏᛏᚢᛗ · ᚢᛁᛏᛅ · ᛚᛅᚾᛏ
ᚠᛟᚱ · ᛗᛁᚾᚾᛅ · ᛗᚨᚾᚾᛅ · ᛏᛁᛚ · ᛋᛏᛁᚱᚴᚨ

True Original (as carved):
"Yrsa, Brynjar's daughter, Leif's sworn shieldmaiden, raised this rock for her blood-kin.
The burdens we bore west, we bury far from Vinland — to watch over them, if need be.
The Andskotarnir are our singular charge. We keep them from home."

Wheeler's Proposed Translation (1927):
"Yrjar, Brynjar's son, Leif's sworn warrior, raised this stone to mark the tribe's glory.
The stones we carried west, we placed across Vinland to hold the land for civilized men against the savages, if they dare rise.
The And-Skraelings are our singular right. We drive them from their homes."

A corrected reading of the inscription is approximately:

corrected translation (Halvorsen 1999, after standard runological consensus):
"Yrsa, Brynjar's daughter, Leif's sworn shieldmaiden, raised this rock for her blood-kin.
The burdens we bore west, we bury far from Vinland — to watch over them, if need be.
The Andskotarnir are our singular charge. We keep them from home."

This is not an especially controversial translation in 1999 terms. The grammar is straightforward once one accepts standard runic compression conventions and does not attempt to regularize names into more familiar masculine forms. Note the word Andskotarnir — a striking term that Wheeler deliberately flattened into "And-Skraelings" to fit his frontier narrative. The original meaning carries a more ambiguous weight: "the ones shot against" or "adversaries sent from outside."


2. Wheeler & Whitmore's interpretation

Their published reading departs from the above in ways that are… instructive.

This is not translation in the strict sense. It is substitution with vocabulary drawn from a much later ideological register.

The result is a document that says more about 1920s Boston than 11th-century Newfoundland.


3. What is actually notable here

It would be easy to dismiss this as routine historical distortion, but that would be unfair to the underlying excavation.

Wheeler's fieldwork — stripped of its interpretive framing — was unusually close to what would, decades later, become the confirmed L'Anse aux Meadows settlement. Not identical, but geographically and materially adjacent enough that one has to acknowledge the coincidence is not trivial.

That proximity matters.

Because it means the site itself may have been part of a broader Norse coastal network in Newfoundland that we are only partially reconstructing even now.

Unfortunately, almost nothing of the original assemblage survives in any usable form.

The chalice recovered from the site appears to have been donated to a Boston ecclesiastical institution shortly after excavation. The remaining objects — bone gaming pieces, metal fragments, and the inscribed stone itself — are either untraceable or presumed dispersed into private collections associated with the Wheeler estate.

The field context is therefore irrecoverable in any modern archaeological sense. We have text, partial documentation, and a loss of material coherence that cannot be repaired.

That is, in practical terms, the real damage here — not the translation itself, but the destruction of interpretive ground truth.

+ field notebook anomaly: Wheeler's original squeezes (Harvard Depository) show erasure marks near the name field. The feminine suffix "-a" was recorded as "-ar" in his transliteration. The word Andskotarnir was heavily re-inked. Classic amateur hour.

4. A corrected reading (minimal commentary version)

For clarity, a conservative rendering of the inscription is as follows:

"Yrsa, Brynjar's daughter, Leif's sworn shieldmaiden, raised this rock for her blood-kin.
The burdens we bore west, we bury far from Vinland — to watch over them, if need be.
The Andskotarnir are our singular charge. We keep them from home."

This does not require heroic interpretation.

It is a memorial inscription with implied displacement: something carried west, something concealed or interred, and an obligation of watchfulness that continues beyond arrival. The final line about Andskotarnir is the hardest to parse — it may refer to hostile forces, exiled kin, or even cursed objects. Wheeler's certainty was pure invention.

That ambiguity is normal.

It is also where interpretation should usually stop.


5. Closing note

There is a tendency — especially in early 20th-century scholarship — to assume that unclear texts must conceal grand clarity.

In practice, they usually conceal ordinary lives, ordinary obligations, and ordinary language compressed by stone and weather.

The Wheeler-Whitmore paper is not remarkable because it is uniquely wrong.

It is remarkable because it is so familiar.

— A. R. Halvorsen
Department of Comparative Philology (adjunct) · Reykjavik & Boston
(this page does not use javascript because i don't trust it)
📟 FIELD NOTES #28 📟  |  posted 14.10.1999  |  a.halvorsen@phil.old
"reading against the grain since 1992"
[ TOTAL HITS: 02847 ]  |  LAST MODIFIED: 14-OCT-1999
<< PREV ENTRY (#27)    BACK TO CRUDE INDEX    NEXT ENTRY (#29) >>
* this site is self-hosted on a pentium 166 with 32mb ram *
★★★★★ UNDER CONSTRUCTION ★★★★★
[ RUNIC WEBRING ]   « prev  |  random  |  next »  |  join the ring