|
Rune Origins
Rune Origins
Rune Origins
The Vinland Map purports to be a
15th century map depicting Viking exploration of North America
centuries before Columbus.
This
volatile area of discussion amongst runologist has and will always
be a hotly debated subject area. Amongst rune scholars the origins
of runes will continue to remain a mystery due to the scant
availability of evidence both in archaeology or the written text.
However it must be said that similarities exists of runes being
like the Latin and Greek alphabets systems and therefore
given rise to theories that the runes must have come from these
alphabets. More information is coming to pass to suggest that the
age of the runes must have been older then previously believed. At
this point they are being connected to some of the earliest
writing systems. I must point out that the following information
is not new and actually already known but ignored for some time by
academics. This begs the question of why? I shall therefore
attempt only to stimulate the reader with some qualifying recent
although not new thoughts on the subject. I leave it up to the
reader to draw their own conclusions. It really depends on whose
theories you choose to believe.
The Golden horns of Gallehus were two golden horns, one
shorter than the other, discovered in
North Slesvig, or
Schleswig, in Denmark. The horns were believed to date to the fifth
century (Germanic Iron Age). The horns were made of solid gold and
constructed from rings, each covered with figures soldered onto the
rings, with yet more figures carved into the rings between the
larger figures. These figures probably depict some actual events or
Norse saga which is now unknown to us. The most probable theory is
that the illustrations comes from Celtic mythology rather than
Norse: the horns portray a man with horns and a necklace, very
similar in appearance to the Celtic god Cernunnos (especially
compared to the Cernunnos portrait on the Gundestrup cauldron, also
found in Denmark), and several iconographic elements such as a
he-goat, snakes and deer, commonly associated with Cernunnos.
Several other archaeological findings from southern Scandinavia also
show influence from Celtic religion.
ek hlewagastiR holtijaR horna tawidô
I, Hlegest of Holt [the] horn made [did].
This inscription dates from as far back as the 4th century, yet we
can still see four major stressed syllables, connected by
alliteration. The half-lines appear to be both of type A, the most
common. Clearly, by the time the first lines of verse in English,
German, and Norse arrive on the scene, the Germanic poetic tradition
was already ancient.
The first horn (the long, intact one) was 75,8 centimeter
measured on the outer perimeter, the opening diameter was 10,4
centimeter, and weighed 3,2 kg. This horn was discovered on
July 20 1639 by a
peasant girl named Kirsten Svendsdatter in the
village
of Gallehus, near Møgeltønder when she saw it protrude above the
ground. She wrote a letter to the Danish king Christian IV of
Denmark
who retrieved it and in turn gave it to the Danish prince (also named
Christian), who refurbished it into a drinking horn. The Danish
antiquarian Olaus Wormius wrote a treatise named
De aureo cornu on the
first Golden horn in 1641. The first preserved sketch of the horn
comes from this treatise. In 1678 it was described in the scientific
journal Journal de Savants.
Odenstedt
argues for a theory based on A. Baeksted's book "Målruner
> og troldruner, 1952. He writes:
"It
has been claimed that the reason why none of the supposed runic
letters, list of customers, etc., have been preserved is that they
were written on wood and have all rotted away. But against this it
may be objected (as Baeksted did) that it is not feasible to
postulate that what has been lost had an entirely different
character from what has been preserved. Germanic spiritual culture
was traditionally oral. The art of writing was a luxury which
Germanic people had seen Romans practice and which they no doubt
envied and tried to imitate, with very limited success."
Ref:
Odenstedt, Bengt. On the Origin and Early History of the Runic
Script. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990
I
think older runologists was interested in a pointless question --
which alphabet was the prototype and the pattern for the runic
script? There is, in my opinion, no clear influence of any
specific alphabet. The runic script could have been constructed by
chance, by anyone familiar only with the idea of classical
alphabets.
More
interesting than the graphic form is for instance the order of the
runes, the number of the runes (24), the aettir and the rune
names. Odenstedt's (and Baeksted's) point is that there was no
practical need for runic script, and that "the runic
script was created as an artificial, playful, not really needed
imitation of the Roman script."
If
this is so, then we have to explain why the rune tradition in the
first centuries when this is a fact, is so solid, homogeneous and
redundant. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'redundant'
.
One
possible explanation is that the runic script is connected to an
older oral rune row (ramsa, räkneramsa, thulur).We know that the
Greek and other alphabets was used as numbers, normally 1-9, but
also 1-24. There are also some counting rows (1 to 24) known from
classical tradition. Does anyone know more about this and/or
counting systems in Norse, classical and general ethnographical
traditions?
Has
any attempt been made to read numeric information out any of the
older runic inscriptions? Another explanation (speculation) is a
consequence of Odenstedt's (or Baeksted's) generation theory,
combined
with
Håkon Melberg's expansion theory. The runic script originated
within one well organised tribe that had been in service with- or
in close contact with the Romans. This tribe migrated northwards
around the
first
century, and during the next four centuries they obtained a
dominating role in Denmark and Scandinavia. By examining examples
of various alphabets of the world we can begin to see the
influences which may have led to development of the Germanic/Norse
rune alphabets. It is commonly thought that the Etruscan
and Latin alphabets were sources, but as you will see
below, there may have been others.
First,
let's look at the major runic alphabets (called "futharks"
based upon the first six symbols). There are many other variants,
but the Elder, Anglo-Saxon, and Younger Futharks are the most
well-known. Runes were used to write many languages including,
Gothic, German, Frisian, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian,
Icelandic, Lithuanian, Russian, Hebrew and other Semitic languages
possibly due to trade relations with the Khazars, a Semitic tribe
of traders of the Silk Road.
An
interesting new idea is by T A Markey "A Tale of Two Helmets:
The Negau A and B Inscriptions" in Journal of Indo-European
Studies 29/1 Spring 2001. Markey argues the case for a range of
alphabetic scripts having been developed in the Alpine regions,
and the Camunic as the most likely original of the runic. Few
scholars these days argue for a North Italic origin for the
futhark, so this is an interesting read.
Starting
with the Negau helmets, Markey discusses the circumstances of
their discovery - a hoard of 26 5th c. BC Etruscoid bronze helms
unearthed in a Slovenian orchard in 1881. Nos. 1 and 22 have
intelligible inscriptions ('A' and 'B' respectively), 9 others
have unidentified graffiti. Only 23 are still known to exist (1
destroyed in discovery, 2 probably stolen). All are Vetulonian
format helmets with a central ridge and projecting rim. 3 of 4
inscriptions on Helmet A are recognisably Celtic.
Negau Helmet
Runic Inscriptions
Markey
gives a handy tabulation of an array of Alpine alphabets in use
prior to being swept away in the process of Romanisation: Camunic
(Val Camonica), Golaseccan, Lugano, Bolzano, Magre, Venetic,
Marsilian, etc. The Negau B characters are then set out beside
these.
One
factor of all northern Etruscan writing systems (whether recording
Etruscan or not) is that they suppress homorganic nasals e.g.
Lepontic seTuPoKios (= setubogios) = Sentubogios (pers.name) or
Rheto-Celtic vixamulaxe = vitamulate = Windamolatos 'having
splendid warriors'. He then goes onto discuss 6 stages in
adoption of alphabetic writing
- both form and values are borrowed
- forms are borrowed but values are partly invented
- forms and values are partly borrowed, partly invented
- forms are borrowed but values are freely invented
- signs are partly borrowed, partly invented and values
are freely invented (e.g. Cherokee)
- both form and value are invented (e.g. Ogam)
All
but (6) are a form of derivation. He urges caution in
distinguishing between piecemeal congruity and systemic identity.
He then gives repros of the 4 Negau A inscriptions and analyses
them in terms of Etruscan and Celtic. As an aside he suggests
Runic 'alu' < Rhetic 'alu' < Etruscan 'ala' (dedicate)
noting that early 'alu' always stands outside the grammar of
the texts where it occurs and may have been borrowed as a
talismanic cipher. Turning to Negau B - the famous hargasti teiwa
text - Markey narrows down the possible source scripts by
exclusion e.g. initial h- in Venetic was lost before c.300 BC so
that cannot have been the writer's source. The best fit between
character forms, systemic features and sound values is
Camunic, he feels, although only one other inscription in that
script is a very close match.
25
pages of notes 21 pages of bibliography conclude the article.
I
would recommend tracking the article down because Markey is a very
well-respected authority in the field of Germanic linguistics, and
his reading of the origin of the futhark is different from the
usual suspects today. I would add as a personal footnote that I
still think that for Etruscan/Alpine alphabets to be the model for
the runes this must have happened before c.100 BC as c.50 BC Roman
script swept away all the local traditions of the southern and
western Alps. This pushes runic origins back maybe 150 years
beyond the earliest inscriptions unless the Meldorf fibula is
indeed runic."
The
runes might be read from left to right or from right to left, even
on the same artifact. Translation of runic inscriptions is
therefore extremely difficult, and complicated by the fact that
rune masters sometimes wrote cryptic puzzles or in secret script.The
creation of the runic system almost certainly owes something to
interaction between Roman and Germanic culture, though the
mechanisms at work are subject to much debate. Debate over the
runic system’s origins has produced an enormous body of
scholarship.
1.
The oldest commonly accepted runic inscription is found on a
spearhead from Øvre Stabu (Illerup, Norway) and is dated to about CE
175.
2.
There is a fibula from Meldorf (in Ditmarschen) dated to around CE 50
that contains what may be a runic inscription, though this is not
universally agreed upon.
3.
It is often assumed that a system of writing must have been forming
for at least a century or so before the earliest surviving examples,
so it might be concluded that the runic system was formulated at some
point between the beginning of the RIA (c. BCE 50 ) and the
time of the Øvre Stabu inscription. It is clear that the runic
characters were inspired in part by Mediterranean writing
systems—Roman, Greek, North Italic, or possibly some combination of
these—but there has been no firm consensus on this point.
4.
Certainly it seems likely that the Roman script was the writing system
best known to the Germanic peoples during the period when the runic
system was developed. Accompanying discussions of the runic system’s
graphical origins are arguments concerning its geographical origins
Von Friesen’s theory that runes derived from Greek characters looked
east to the Gothic territories, while scholars arguing for North
Italic origins have pointed towards the Alps.
Moltke, who looked to a largely Latin source for the runic characters,
suggested a runic origin in
Denmark. His argument may not have been wholly uninformed by
patriotism, but is lent considerable weight by the fact that virtually
all runic inscriptions pre-dating CE 400 are Scandinavian, with only
few inscriptions found in northern
Germany
and the Gothic regions of eastern Europe.
5.
Plausible though a southern Scandinavian origin during the ERIA is, it
seems unlikely that questions regarding the time and place of the
runic system’s origins will ever be universally agreed upon. There is
a fair amount of graphic variation in the characters of the Older
Fu†ark, yet it must be conceded that they exhibit remarkable
uniformity over time considering the evident lack of any institution
enforcing the maintenance of orthographic standards in the early
Germanic world. When other features, such as the number and ordering
of the characters, become discernible, they are also surprisingly
uniform. Although the earliest surviving inscription containing the
entire fu†ark dates to c.
CE 400,
similarities between the number and ordering of the characters in
later fu†ark inscriptions suggests these elements may be of
considerable antiquity.
6.
That such uniformity existed in the runic system has led some scholars
to propose a point-origin for the Older Fu†ark in some creative
individual,
7.
or development by a particular group over some period of time;
8.
in this context, if the Meldorf inscription were not truly runic, it
might nevertheless represent a use of Roman characters in the early
stages of development into runic characters.
9.
Yet it seems likely that whatever process created the runic system was
essentially complete by the time of the earliest inscriptions, c.
CE 200.
Many
scholars have attempted to identify a setting in which runes were
initially developed. Erik Moltke suggested Danish merchants, while
Otto Höfler suggested bands of élite warriors. It is, in fact, most
common for a culture’s script to have some kind of magico-religious
function alongside its primary secular, utilitarian function. The
runic system is unlikely to have been an exception. Much has been made
of the word erilaz/erila® which appears on a number of
Older Fu†ark inscriptions. The word apparently designated some kind
of office, perhaps even that of runemaster. Some have suggested a
connection with the Eruli tribe (or tribes), implying that they were
famous for their runic skills, or that they had invented runes.The
inscriptions bearing the word erila® date no earlier than c.
CE300 , however, and any such identification based on these
inscriptions must be exceedingly tenuous. Moreover, no
classical source
attributes such literary skills to the Eruli
1. The Etruscan
alphabet itself -- like many other ancient alphabets bears only a
superficial resemblance to the runes. As Etruria was
absorbed by Roman Empire, its script was progressively displaced by
Latin. Much of the Etruscan alphabet was adapted for use by a number
of Alpine tribes at about this time, and these North Italic scripts
bear a closer correspondence to the runes -- but only because they
also incorporated several Latin characters into their alphabets. Even
so, taking all variants of these alphabets together, only 10 of the 24
runes in the futhark conform both in appearance and sound value to
characters used in Etruscan or North Italic inscriptions.
2.
There was no single "North Italic" script. Rather, there were four
main written languages (and some variants) among the Alpine tribes,
each with its own alphabet: Raitic, Lepontic, Venetic, and Noric. Not
one of these individual languages, however, contained all 10 of the
"Etruscan" characters that correspond to particular runes. In fact,
the originator of the futhark would have had to be conversant with
inscriptions in five different regional languages, combining a few
characters of each of them, to arrive at a composite "North
Italic/Etruscan" script which could then be used as the foundation of
yet another, runic, alphabet. Such a procedure is unprecedented in
the history of alphabet development.
3. The futhark
was apparently created far away
from any Etruscan sphere of influence, at a time when the practice of
writing in Etruscan had almost completely disappeared.
4. The original
advocate of the Etruscan theory, Carl Marstrander (1928), based his
claim on an awl found at Maria-Saalerberg,
Austria,
dated to the 2nd century BCE, which had been identified as bearing an
Etruscan inscription. Marstrander identified the inscribed characters
as runes, which he interpreted as "Nefo carved me." Unfortunately,
the awl was subsequently established as a modern forgery -- its
inscription was neither Etruscan, nor runic, nor 2000 years old. Yet
Marstrander's advocacy of the Etruscan theory is still cited in its
support down to the present day even though the basis of his argument
has been shown to be a hoax.
Moltke nets all this out rather concisely during the discussion of his
paper, "The Origins of the
Runes," in the
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Runes & Runic
Inscriptions (1981), p. 16:
"Regarding
the mention of Mediterranean alphabets, Moltke dismissed the Etruscan
theory as 'stupid,' pointing out that its first support was sought in
the false inscription from Maria Saaler Berg and that in order to
create the runes from Etruscan letters the inventor would have had to
wander from one Alpine tribe to another, borrowing one rune here and
another one there."
Next Page
Quick Links:
[ Rune Origins ]
[
About me ] [
Links ] [
Freyja Runes Seidr
] [
Sabine the
Wolwa ]
[
Pierced by the light ] [
Rune School
] [
Rune
Origins ] [
Rune FAQ
] [
Poetry ] [
Vik
Costumes
]
[
View Comments ] [
Screaming
Queen Syndrome ] [
Book of Seidr ] [
Viktor Rydberg
]
[
Modern Myths
] [
Book Hoard
] [
HE Davidson ]
[
Heimdallr ]
[
Return of the Vikings ]
[
Norse Mythology ]
[
Your
Articles
]
 |
