The Origin of the Runes

From Scott Shell’s The Application of Peircean Semiotics to the Elder Futhark Tradition

The Elder Fuþark, a biunique writing system used by the Germanic tribes from roughly 50 CE to 700 CE, consisted of twenty-four runes in an arrangement very different from the roman alphabet (see Appendix A for Elder Fuþark rune names and meanings). In addition to their unique fuþark order, i.e., not alpha–beta, they were also divided into three groups of eight, which are often referred to as ON ǽttir (‘families’ or earlier ‘group of eight’). The following arrangement is based on Antonsen (2002, 43). I have, however, chosen to add the transcription ï for the y rune, since this has become a standard for many runologists. Antonsen, nevertheless, believes that this rune represented the sound [ǣ] in the oldest inscriptions:

ᚠ	ᚢ	ᚦ	ᚨ	ᚱ	ᚲ	ᚷ	ᚹ
f	u	þ	a	r	k	g	w
ᚺ	ᚾ	ᛁ	ᛃ	ᛇ	ᛈ	ᛘ	ᛋ
h	n	i	j	ï / ǣ	p	z	s
ᛏ	ᛒ	ᛖ	ᛗ	ᛚ	ᛜ	ᛞ	ᛟ
t	b	e	m	l	n͡g	d	o

The origin of such a system is founded primarily in three different possible theories: Latin, North Etruscan or Greek.

North Etruscan Theory

The North Etruscan theory, first proposed by Marstrander (1928), is based on the Negau B helmet, found in Negau near Maribor in Croatia. The inscription itself it based on the North Etruscan writing system; however, the language used is clearly Germanic: harigasti teiva. The first of these words, harigasti, is generally accepted as a personal name and the latter, perhaps, a god. Nevertheless, it could be translated as either “for the god Harigast” or “from Harigast for the god” (cf. McKinnell, Simek and Düwel 2004, 11). Teiva cannot be read with absolute certainty, but it is possible that this word is related to ON Týr < PGmc *tīwaz. If accepted as pre-runic, this would place the runic system, if it did evolve from the North Etruscan system, at roughly the 1^st century CE.

Greek Theory

The Greek theory was first proposed by Bugge (1874) and later continued by von Friesen (1904). This theory suggests that there was a cultural transfer from the Goths near the Black Sea. The latest work to discuss the Greek origins in any serious depth can be found in Morris (1988). However, since we now have inscriptions that predate this cultural contact, e.g., the Illerup lanceheads (100–200 CE), the theory has been mostly abandoned. The emigration of the Goths from southern Scandinavia to eastern/southeastern Europe occurred around the 100–200 CE, which would conflict with some of the earliest finds.

Latin Theory

The Latin theory, advanced by Wimmer (1874) in his Runeskriftens oprindelse og udvikling i Norden, suggests that the runes were derived from Latin epigraphy. Many of these runes do show a strong correlation in regard specifically to the Latin capitals; still, there are runes that do not appear to have a Latin equivalent. The Latin equivalents, cited from Moltke (1985, 59), are explained as follows:

(1) Identity in both form and sound in eight cases:

      B F H I L R T V                     ᛒ ᚠ ᚺ ᛁ ᛚ ᚱ ᛏ ᚢ                

(2) Similarity in both form and sound in six cases:

      A C (or K) D M O S              ᚨ ᚲ ᚦ ᛗ ᛟ ᛋ

(3) Similarity in form but not of sound in three cases:

(4) Runic forms, unknown in Latin, in seven cases:

      ᚾ n   ᛃ j   ᛇ ï   ᛜ ng   ᚹ p   ᛘ z   ᛞ d While it cannot be taken as absolute proof that the entire runic system is derived from Latin epigraphy, there are many obvious correlations. As Antonsen (2002, 98) points out, Moltke also disregards other runic variants pertaining to s, h, z, e, r, p, d, and j.

Transition from the Elder Fuþark to the Younger Fuþąrk

The transition from the Elder Fuþark to the Younger Fuþąrk (beginning roughly in the 8^th century) in Scandinavia was not sudden, but rather gradual (see Appendix B for Younger Fuþąrk rune names and meanings). This can be seen, for instance, in the Björketorp (DR 360) and Stentoften (DR 357) runestones, where the h rune represents transitional [ā, a] (transliterated as A) from PGmc *jēra > ON ár (‘year’). The Ribe skull fragment (DR EM85; 151B), dated to 725 CE, appears to mark the end of the transition period between the Elder and Younger traditions.

What is perhaps most interesting about the development form the Elder Fuþark to the Younger is that the Runemaster has begun to demonstrate clearly that he or she is a master of phonetics. The origin did not have much to do with Zahlensymbole, as Düwel (2008, 88) entertains. The reason for the transition from a 24-rune system to a 16-rune system is more likely for phonetic and orthographic economy. The following is a standardized chart where the runes are again presented in their ǽttir (‘families’):

The Runemasters are now beginning to compensate for a new system that would need to eventually include 27 vowels. They created this system based on classes of sounds. Thus, for instance, the new grapheme úr (< PGmc *ūruz), often transliterated as u, could now represent vowels that were + rounded + short, + rounded + long, and + rounded + long + nasalized: [u, o, y, ø, ū, ō, ȳ, ø̄, ū̃, ō̃, ȳ̃, ø̄̃]. Similarly, the new rune íss (< PGmc *īsan) could now represent [j, i, e, ī, ē, ī̃, ē̃]. Ultimately, the new Runemaster(s) would reduce the vowel graphemes from the Elder Fuþark to only four in the Younger tradition. The older consonant graphemes were also now consolidated, e.g., Elder Fuþark [t] *tīwaz and [d] *dagaz were now both represented bythe t-rune [t, d] in the Younger Fuþąrk. In other words, there were no orthographic voice distinctions in the new Younger system for the consonants.

Transition from the Elder Fuþark to the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc

Lastly, the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc, sometimes referred to as the Anglo-Frisian fuþorc, consisted of up to thirty-one runes:

 
Similar to the Younger Fuþąrk, the phonemic inventory expanded; however, it is interesting that this system instead expanded its orthography to help accommodate the new sounds in the language (see Appendix C for the Anglo-Saxon rune names and meanings). Thus, we are presented with the opposite of economy, found in the Younger Fuþąrk. According to Page (2006, 43), the Anglo-Saxon runes are 1–3, 26, and 5–24. The runes 4, 25, and 27–31 are of English or Anglo-Frisian innovation. Characters 4 and 25 display connections of Anglo-Frisian sound shifts—rune 27 shows i-mutation, and runes 29–31 are refinements of the script which are confined to the north of Anglo-Saxon England. The necessity for a rune to be used for the e͡a diphthong is unknown.

Notes

More specifically, Moltke (1985, 59) reverses both the n-rune and the j-rune. I have rendered them here in their standardized forms.

References

Antonsen, Elmer. 2002. Runes and Germanic Linguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bugge, Sophus. 1874. “Om Runeskriftens Oprindelse.” In Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania 1873,485–489.

Düwel, Klaus. 2008. Runenkunde. Fourth edition. Stuttgart: Metzler. 

Friesen, Otto von. 1904. “Om Runskriftens Härkomst.” Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapet i Uppsala Förhandlingar 2: 1–55.

Marstrander, Carl. 1928. “Om runene og runenavnenes oprindelse.” Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 1: 5–179.

McKinnell, John, and Rudolf Simek with Klaus Düwel. 2004. Runes, Magic and Religion: A Sourcebook. Studia Medievalia Septentrionalia 10. Wien: Fassbinder.

Moltke, Erik. 1985. Runes and their Origin: Denmark and Elsewhere, translated byPeter Foote. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

Morris, Richard. 1988. Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy. NOWELE Supplement. Odense: Odense University Press.

Page, Raymond. 2006. An Introduction to English Runes. Second edition reprint. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. Wimmer, Ludvig. 1874. Runeskriftens Oprindelse og Udvikling i Norden. Copenhagen: V. Piors Boghandel.