Runes 101 - Runes in History - The Blank Rune

Occasionally, I am asked about the blank Rune.  Is it a thing?  What does it mean?  Should I use it?

The simple answer to the latter question in my view is no, but the real answer is more complex than that and has to do with historical facts, which I can explain by addressing the other two questions.

Is the blank Rune a thing?  Yes and no.  Yes the blank Rune is a thing, but only since the 1970s at the earliest.  Is the blank Rune a thing in the Elder Futhark or any of the other furtharks?  No.  There is no evidence in the eddas, sagas or any other relative historical documents that even suggest that such a thing existed.

The first mention of a blank Rune comes in Ralph Blume's 1982, "The Book of Runes".  This is where the controversy around the blank Rune begins.  So, let's talk about Blum's take on it.

Blum refers to the blank Rune as "the unknowable", "the Divine, Odin, the Allfather".  Both of these descriptions are entirely inaccurate.

The unknowable.  The whole point of Odin sacrificing himself to himself was to gain the knowledge of the Runes.  So, the idea that there would be a Rune that represents the unknowable goes against Odin's actions.

Old Icelandic Rune Poem for Óss

The Divine, Odin, the Allfather.  All Runes are linked to Odin, because of his sacrifice to gain their knowledge.  If there is a single Rune associated with him, it would be Ansuz, and I say that only because the Old Icelandic Rune Poem refers to Óss (the Younger Futhark) as god (Odin) is progenitor, Asgard's chief, and Valhalla's lord.

I won't even venture into his detailed explanation of the meaning of the blank Rune, where he gives no less than eight different things that it represents.  It further demonstrates his lack of understanding of the cultural history in which the original use of Runes formed.

For those of you who aren't so concerned about the blank Rune's complete disregard for the historical and mythological contexts, consider this simple point.  The Runes are an alphabet.  The term "Futhark" is literally the word formed by the first six letters:

To suggest that an alphabet would have a blank in it is ridiculous.  It would be a non-letter.

So, yes the blank Rune is a thing, a very recent thing.  Should it be used when seeking guidance from the Runes as an oracle?  No.

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 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.

Runes 101 - Runes in History - Bergen Fire

Bergen, Norway

Over the weekend, I finally got around to reading an article I found quite a while back about some runic inscriptions from Bergen, Norway.  Well,  these were no ordinary inscriptions.  In fact, nearly 700 of them were discovered after a huge fire broke out in 1955. During the 14th century, the area had been home to a group of German merchants, called the Hanse or Hanseatic League, which controlled much of the northern European trade along the coast, including Bergen's fish trade.  The 1955 fire, which began when lightning struck the nearby wharf, burned through four large building complexes.

Two amazing discoveries were made as a result of this fire.  First, it was not the first fire in the area.  In fact,  "German Bryggen" (The German Bergen) has burned at least seven times since the late twelfth century.  What these past fires provide archeologists and other researchers with is a tool to date artifacts found in the area.  When a large fire like this occurs, basically, it leaves a charcoal line in the strata.  Because researchers know the dates of the fires, and thus the charcoal layers, they can determine the age of the artifacts in the surrounding layers.

The other aspect to this fire and the aspect which is relevant to this post is the findings of the archeological research that ensued following the burn.  As I mentioned above, archeologists found nearly 700 runic inscriptions in the area.  Some of the inscriptions occur as late as the 14th century, which surprised me, because I had assumed that the use of Runes had died out shortly after Christianity took over.  Apparently, many other people thought that it had ceased by the end of the 12th century as well.

The really cool thing about these inscriptions is that, not only do they give us a glimpse of daily life in Bergen over a number of centuries, but they are quite varied.  Occurring primarily on wooden sticks, the carvings range from simple labels that could be affixed to other items to declare ownership, to letters dealing with finances and other business matters, in addition to poems, quotes from mythology, biblical quotes or prayers, and even proclamations of love and romance, and a letter from a crown prince, who was seeking ships to build a naval force.  A few wooden sticks also included charms and spells.

I'm not sure which of these inscriptions I find the most interesting.  The fact that people carved complete letters into wood is pretty cool and the love poems are fun, but I may have to go with either the contrasting mythological and biblical quotes, demonstrating a potential culture clash, or the sticks with spells and charms - a.k.a. magic.  According to the article I read, more than 100 of the runic inscriptions are related to magic and about half of those use the Futhark as their magic.  That is to say the writer would inscribe something (such as a wish or a warning) on one side of the stick and, on the other, would carve out the entire Futhark.  What was interesting to me is that this is claimed to be an "immensely old" form of sorcery, yet the Futhark used (in the images I saw) was the Scandinavian and Younger Furthark which contains only 16 letters, whereas the Elder Futhark, from which this and the Anglo Saxon Younger Futhark derive, contains 24 (see my earlier post Runes 101 - Runes in History).  I would have expected that the Elder Futhark would have been used, but this represents regional variations of the Futhark that developed with time and distance.

This is a fascinating topic, one I feel I could spend years researching.  However, what I will do instead is add to this brief introduction a few links to information about the Bergen fire runic inscriptions and the article on the subject from 1966 that I read.

For those of you interested in learning more, please read on...

Links:

http://www.nb.no/baser/runer/eindex.html

http://www.nb.no/baser/runer/ribwww/english/runeindex.html

http://www.nb.no/baser/runer/drh98.html

Article:

The Runes of Bergen: Voices from the Middle Ages

Image credit: 123RF Stock Photo