The numbers used in the runic inscription on the Kensington Rune
Stone are called pentadic numbers. Basically it is formed by a vertical
staff with a small mark on the right hand side of the staff for each
number up through four. five is a vertical staff with a loop
(semicircle) on the right hand side near the tp, and then marks with the
loop for number six through nine. Ten, according to Ole Worm in 1643 is
a vertical staff with a horizontal cross near the top. In the KRS,
though, ten is the staff with loops to either side (or a circle) near
the top.
Ten through twenty are essentially the same with the cross staff near
the top, and the five loop beneath (these numbers do not occur in the
Rune Stone). It is important to note that there is a specific
individual rune for each number from one through ten. Higher number
would be formed through some additive combination, like with Roman
numerals.
The Arabic numbering system, instead of being additive, uses place
holders - '15' would be a 1 in the tens spot and a 5 in the ones spot or
fifteen. With Roman numeral a similar looking IV would be four. The KRS
is unique in that it combines the runic numbers with the Arabic system,
which has caused a certain amount of criticism.
"It appears from the foregoing considerations that the engraver of the
stone was familiar with the Arabic number system but did not understand
its basic logic; and that he knew the runic symbols only for numbers
less than ten and did not understanad the runic numerals he used. Since
this is true it seems very unlikely that the stone was engraved in the
fourteenth century, an much more likely that it was engraved in recent
times." (Dr. John Armstrong)
The Arabic numbering system was certainly known in Norway in the 14th
century, both sides of the runestone question agree on that, and Dr
Nielsen specifically, in ESOP v 15 shows a runic calendar with Arabic
numberals dating to the early 14th century. It is evident from this
that Arabic numerals and runics were not mutually exclusive in the same
document, which was a criticism by Whalgren.
Nielsen also shows in the same article two seperate instances where
there was in use in Scandinavia at the time, an Arabic number for ten
which consisted of a horizontal line with a circle at one end. He
postulates that if this form were switched from horizontal to vertical
it would be the same representation of ten as is used in the KRS.
Interesting, and quite possibly true, but unfortunately there is no
other evidence of the vertical ten.
On the other side, if it is authentic, the runesmith may have wanted to
use Arabic numbering throughout - perhaps to cut back on space, or maybe
it was the 'in' thing at court, but simply cut off by time and distance
no longer knew if say the number for six was a '6' or a '9', and whished
to avoid error.
Or of course there might be other reasons, of which only the carver
could answer. Unless there is a good medium at large to help, that
answer is not likely to be forthcoming.
I tend to prefer the 'authentic' answer myself. It seems a simpler
excuse for that kind of 'error' in the inscription, fitting in well with
the idea of the general newness ot the Arabic system, and the idea of a
long voyage away from proper writings to refer to. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to point to this as either a pro or con in the KRS debate.
Side of the Kensington Rune Stone: The last four runes in the lower left are pendatic numbers for 1362.
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page