Runes 102 - Book Reviews - Runes: Ancient Scripts

I came to the Runes through academic channels, which may be why Martin Findell's book, Runes: Ancient Scripts, caught my eye.  Though it's short, Findell provides a reasonable overview of the Runes as an alphabet, which is the primary goal of his book.

There are a number of aspects of this book that I like.  First, for those who are new to Runes, the writing isn't too dense; it does a good job of providing background on the Runes as a form of writing and communication.  And, although most of you who read my blog are engaged with Runes as an oracle, we should understand both sides of this coin.  Findell explains what Runes are in terms of a writing vehicle; he follows a chronology as the Runes changed and split from the original Futhark to the Anglo Saxon Futhorc and the Younger Futhark used in Scandinavia during the Viking Age.  I like the fact that he suggests there may have been more than a single original version of the Futhark.  There is some truth behind it if for no other reason than the existing examples of the Runic writing are scarce and there are inconsistencies in form.  It is similar to different dialects in language.

In his chapter on Rune names, Findell shows us one of the most interesting images in the entire book.  It is an 18th century copy "of an earlier late 10th-/11th-century manuscript [that] preserves the earliest [copy] of the rune-poems from which we can learn about the tradition of runes-names." The picture is from a book by George Hickes, an English Divine (church clergy) and scholar who lived from 1642-1715.  Some researchers believe that the Rune Poems were used as a way of remembering the letters of the Futharks.  I can see that given the ABC songs we are taught as children.  In modern times, we have adopted the meanings named in the poems to serve as the foundation for using Runes as an oracle.

The other insightful piece of Findell's book is his chapter on the work of Runologists.  From an academic and historical perspective, his explanation begins to lend an eye to the depth of work that has transpired to develop our understanding of runic writing and the cultures and environments in which runic inscriptions were made.  Runology, while being its own area of academic study, incorporates work in numerous disciplines - linguistics, archeology, art history, literary history, and cultural history.  I could also see anthropology and geography fitting into that mix.  Findell shares some of the challenges with interpreting inscriptions as well as the processes used to gain a full understanding of each object and not simply figuring out what is carved on it.

In his final chapter, Findell includes a nod to MR James and JRR Tolkien, but claims that there is seldom any connection between "fantasy Runes" (those developed by James and Tolkien in their books) and real Runes.  I would amend that slightly to suggest that the mistake is that some readers take James and Tolkien at face value and consider their fantasy Runes to be the real ones.  Next, he touches on the Nazi misappropriation of Runes, something that still taints the Runes and their surrounding culture.

Where I feel Findell goes astray is near the end when he seems to condemn modern uses of Runes for divination, stating that new age or pagan magic is perhaps the most prevalent present-day use of Runes.  While that remark is true, the tone of his writing changes and he seems to denounce it, stating, "Most pagan books or websites will mention the historical use of Runes as writing, but this is treated as something secondary to their symbolic and oracular function."  He further suggests that the Runes are viewed primarily as magical symbols and function as a writing vehicle "only secondarily and incidentally".  I largely disagree with this, for while Findell points out that most "pagan books and websites" present the Runes as an alphabet secondarily, that is because their primary purpose is to present them as an oracle, just as Findell presents them primarily as a written language and discusses modern uses secondarily.

I am sure there are some people who see the Runes as nothing more than a divination tool.  However, my experience has been that those who take Runes seriously and are dedicated to them as an oracle give equal credence to their history, historical culture, and role as a writing form.  This is actually why I reviewed this book; not to correct his assumptions about the Runes as an oracle, but rather to share information about the Runes as a writing vehicle, which we come to understand through the complex and multi-faceted approach that academics, like Findell, take in their work to unravel the mystery and history of the Runes and the cultural of which they were a part.

Runes 101 - Runes in History - The Anglo-Saxon Futhorc

Anglo-Saxon Futhorc

The Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (ASF) possess some distinct characteristics that differentiate it from its predecessor, the Elder Futhark (EF).  Without leaping into the debate about its place of origin, I want to look at its characters (letters) and Rune poem instead.  (I should also say that the ASF names evolved and changed, but I use the EF names, unless I am referring to one of the additional ASF Runes.)

Where the EF has 24 characters, the ASF has 33.  The additional characters were created to accommodate different sounds, such as the 'ior' Rune to make the ia or io sound.  The table below compares the characters of the first 24 letters of the two futharks and shows how some of the characters in the ASF took on different shapes.  The additional ASF letters are presented in the image directly following the table.  We'll get to those shortly.  For now, let's look at the table.  The EF is presented in the lighter colored rows and the characters that have taken on different shapes in the ASF are highlighted in light squares.  Some changes are subtle, such as the slope in Uruz, which can also be depicted as a straight, slanted line; and Sowilo, where the character becomes more vertical than slanted.   Ansuz, Hagalaz, Ingwaz, and Dagaz add lines to their shapes, but the biggest changes are to Kenaz and Jera.  One other note, although I did not do it here, I've seen instances with the ASF where Dagaz and Othala switch places.  In other words, Othala comes before Dagaz.  Although I've seen them listed in this order in the EF, it seems to be a more dominate occurrence in the ASF.

Elder Futhark (light lines) and Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (dark lines)

Of course, the ASF has 9 additional Runes, beyond the 24 shown in the table.  They are depicted like this:

The additional letters of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc

Although the EF derives it meanings from the Anglo-Saxon Rune poem, the poem itself has 29 verses. Still, this means that the final four Runes in the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc have no poem verse.  Even with the four additional verses, some of the corresponding Rune meanings are still unclear.

Notice that the second of these additional Runes is identical to the EF version of Ansuz in its shape.  Despite this, it is the newer shape that has the older meaning from the poem.  It is named os and means god.  The 'new' Rune, aesc, means ash.

I listed the meaning of yr as unclear.  This is because I found it interpreted as bow, saddle, a yew, and one source left it named yr.  The final line of its verse has been interpreted in at least three different ways too, calling it war gear, army gear, and reliable equipment for a journey.  If I had to pick one, I would likely go with saddle, though I'd still be unsure.

Also unclear is cweord.  One source listed it as fire, another as a variation of Perthro, whose meaning is not entirely clear either.  Unlike yr, however, cweord does not have a Rune poem verse to aid in understanding its meaning.

It was interesting that ior is interpreted as eel, snake, and beaver by the different sources I found.  Based on the Rune poem verse, I believe beaver is the closest to the verse's meaning, but eel seems to be the most commonly used interpretation.

There is one other Rune in the image at the top of this page.  I am not sure if this is another form of chalice or spear, though it may be a regional variation.  I found it referred to as both and omitted completely from another source.  Again, there is no verse to help explain what it means.

As you can tell from every other post on this blog, I use the Elder Futhark.  Therefore, I am not entirely familiar with the ASF.  What I have attempted to give you here is the briefest of overviews of it to help distinguish some of the different characters and the simplest interpretation of their meanings.  I encourage those of you who have greater knowledge of this Futhark than I do to share your comments on this post.


Anglo-Saxon Futhorc image credit: Copyright: azzardo / 123RF Stock Photo

Runes 101 - Runes in Mythology - The Adventures of Merlin

Last week, I started watching a British fantasy show on Netflix, called The Adventures of Merlin.  Broadly based on King Arthur and Camelot, this show depicts Merlin and Prince Arthur as youth (Late teens, early twenties) and, even though Arthur's father, King Uther, has outlawed magic by penalty of death, there is still plenty of magic and mythology around, which is why this is a Runes in Mythology post.

In season 1, episode 6, a sorcerer comes to Camelot.  While I won't give away the plot, I will say this: he has a small box with him that's full of beetles which he can 'bring to life' and 'freeze' by chanting.  However, what makes the box interesting is that it has four Runes inscribed on it and looks roughly like this:

The first glance of the box caught my eye immediately and I can't tell you how many times I had to hit pause to capture just the right image of it to inspect the Runes.  Once I got it, a few realizations came to mind.

First, Othala is inverted.  Second, like Othala, the third Rune is also an 'o' Rune reversed and, as near as I can tell, from a Futhark called the Latinized or Medieval Futhark (which according to the source I found was used primarily for decoration and not actually for inscription).  Last, the first and last Runes are not etched exactly like the Elder Futhark Runes.

In fact, the 'f' Rune (Fehu) is curved and seems to derive from one of the Younger Futhark versions, while Jera is etched similar to the Elder Futhark, but not exactly, having more of a diamond shape to it, than the interlocked aspect it actually has.

I struggle with Rune usage such as this.  One one hand, I am happy to see the Runes being used and love that family and friends consult me immediately whenever they see anything the suspect is a Rune.  On the other, it bugs me that they are so confused and misrepresented, deriving from different futharks - Fehu from a younger Futhark;  Othala the Elder, but inverted; the third is an 'o' Rune from a medieval futhark; and Jera's similar depiction of the Elder, with a slightly off diamond shape.

Perhaps what struck me as being the most odd about these Runes is that they appeared in a show about Merlin and King Arthur.  I mean these tales are from England, so I would expect the Runes they use in the show to be from the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.

Maybe I shouldn't dwell on such small details, but I can't help but feel like, in anything, if you're going to do it, you should do it as correctly as possible and this clearly isn't.  So, I'm torn - happy to see the Runes and to be able to recognize the short comings of their presentation, but disappointed in those same presentation errors.