Part 7
Where did the runes come from?
Historical origins of the runes
It might be advisable now to examine the runes themselves, as they are the basis for all Stáv activities. First of all, we should define the term 'runes'. The most common contemporary use of the term is to describe a system of divination using stones or wooden strips inscribed with symbols, and while this is considered as little more than child's play when compared to the deeper functions of the Stáv system, we do indeed still use runes in this manner, primarily as a psycho-spiritual counselling tool. Perhaps the first literary record of runes describes exactly this practice. Divination rites were recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus in 98 CE (see Tacitus' Germania, 10, Penguin, page 109, 1970)
"For omens and the casting of lots they have the highest regard. Their procedure in casting lots is always the same. They cut off a branch from a nut-bearing tree and slice it into strips; these they mark with different signs and throw them completely at random onto a white cloth. Then the priest of the state, if the consultation is a public one, or the father of the family if it is in private, offers a prayer to the gods, and looking up at the sky picks up three strips, one at a time, and reads their meaning from the signs previously scored on them..."
Tacitus' account is interesting both for what it does and does not state. He records the casting of lots, but does not call them runes. This may be because the word rune was not at that time found in Latin (it was later adopted into Latin [as runa] from Gothonic languages from whence it was re-absorbed into English after slipping from usage). Earlier translators were happy to render Tacitus' symbols on lots as runes e.g. H. Mattingly, Tacitus on Britain and Germany, Penguin, 1948, renders the same passage;
"For auspices and the casting of lots they have the highest regard. Their procedure in casting lots is uniform. They break off the branch of a fruit-bearing tree and slice it into strips; they distinguish these by certain runes and throw them, as random chance will have it, onto a white cloth. Then the priest of state if the consultation is a public one, the father of the family if it is private, after a prayer to the gods and an intent gaze heavenwards, picks up three, one at a time, and reads their meaning from the runes scored on them.”
Venantius Fortunatas, a later writer, agreeing with Tacitus does describe the symbols on lots as runes i.e. he calls them Runa. However, it is possible that the Gothonic people did not refer to their lots as runes. We should not conclude however that the practice of lot casting was unrelated to the runes, nor that it quickly passed away. The first stanza of the Anglo-Saxon rune-poem, dealing with the rune Feoh, advises a person what should be done
"if he wile for Drihtne domes hleotan"
- literally, 'if he wishes for the Drihtne's doom (judgement) of his lot'. The term 'lot' may of course refer to one's 'lot in life' or to a 'lot' used in divination - which is 'judged' by the god. Tacitus clearly links the practice of this form of divination to religion, rather than being a secular (if magical) affair. He also states that it was a masculine practice (performed by a priest rather than priestess, or the father, not mother, of a family)- these are themes we will re-encounter in Stáv as the use of runes rather than trances for divination was considered primarily a masculine practice (although many women used runes and do so today).
However, if the hypothesis of gods, lots and runes is correct, why did the author of the Anglo-Saxon poem, like Tacitus, not call the lots 'runes'? The answer may perhaps lie in the precise meaning of the term 'rune'. The word, or a local variant, is found only in North European languages of Indo-European origin i.e. Gothonic and Celtic tongues, or as a loan word in languages which have had close cultural contact e.g. Finnish, where the word Runa means a song or poem. The Finnish term is akin to the earliest usages of rune, which are linked to vocal rather than visual qualities. The two most likely etymological roots for rune are *reu meaning 'to roar' or 'to whisper' (from where we derive to rown (whisper) in the ear) or from the root *gowron meaning a magical binding - something we shall address later, although it should be apparent that this is the key concept behind the nature of bind-runes. Here we encounter an aspect of the runes which may be of prime importance. The term rune originally related to something vocal; spoken, chanted, whispered or roared. Later the word became linked to something visual for example the written symbols and the postures we form - the symbols we now call runes. This is a motif in all pre-modern societies, as archaic cultures had oral traditions long before developing writing. As we have seen in Tacitus, lots with symbols upon them (runes in the modern sense), were used in magical practices. The term rune is also linked to speech and therefore to poetry. We could infer that poetry was thus linked to magic (a theme we will explore later) which is supported in Norse sources by terms such as Galdar (literally 'to crow'), which meant both 'a lay / poem / speech' and also the masculine (or Æsir) form of magic. If we take a step back from the concept of either a spoken or written 'rune', we may wonder just what was spoken or written. Here we approach perhaps the best definition of a 'rune' - a rune is a 'mystery'. In Anglo-Saxon, a king's secretary (one privy to his secrets) was a 'geruna' or 'runwita', literally 'the keeper of the king's runes'. Secrets are referred to in such a manner in the Anglo-Saxon poem Wanderer;
"Swa cwaeth snottor on mode, gesaet him sundor aet rune."
'Thus quoth the wise man as he sat out, pondering mystery.'
(my translation)
R.W.V.Elliott renders the passage
'Thus spoke the wise man as he sat apart in secret musing.'
(R.W.V.Elliott, Runes, page 1, Manchester University Press, 1988)
The word rune is used in this sense, as 'mystery', in all Gothonic and Celtic dialects e.g. Old Irish 'run'; Middle Welsh 'rhin', Old Norse 'rún', Old English 'run' and Gothic, Old Saxon and Old High German 'runa'. It was later adopted into Latin (as 'runa') from Gothonic languages, from whence it was re-absorbed into English after slipping from usage. We might thus infer that a rune-poem was designed to either hide or reveal mysteries. If this is true, the poems literally deal with the 'occult' - that which is hidden.
Where did the runes come from?
In order to understand something of their historical and cultural placement, we may ask 'Where did the runes originate?'. Here we enter the realms of pre-history and must rely on archaeological sources and historical or linguistic attempts at reconstruction. By definition, there are no written records from pre-literate cultures, yet Neolithic and even Palaeolithic carvings are still extant which contain symbols identical to those we now call runes. It is generally accepted that such carvings are of a religio-magical nature. It is almost certain that these symbols were not an attempt to form a written language. Presumably the symbols were representations of concepts (rather than words) and thus were indeed “runes” - symbolically represented magico-religious secrets. It is also quite reasonable to assume that these symbols had names, although there is little reason to assume they were organised in any sequence.
Some prehistoric symbols continued to be used alongside runes (outside the fúþårk system) e.g. the sun-wheel or swastika. Such symbols were perhaps the reverse of letters - a word may have been used to describe a symbol rather than a symbol being used to represent a sound or word. At some point this concept altered. We might examine where and when this may have taken place. Turning to archaeological sources, the oldest extant runic inscription is thought to be on the Meldorf brooch (around 50 C.E.) and was found off the west coast of Jutland. Obviously, any hypotheses concerning the development prior to this point are not based on material evidence. There are three basic theories concerning the origin of the runic script, which we can term :
(1) The Roman theory
(2) The Etruscan theory
(3) The Indigenous theory
(1) The Roman theory is that the Gothonic tribes came into contact with Roman civilisation during one of their periods of invasion, migration or colonisation. This may have taken place as early as the second century B.C.E. with the invasions of the Cimbri and Teutones along the Danube and Rhine, and certainly continued until about the fifth century C.E. (it is worth noting that in Germania, completed in 98 C.E., Tacitus does not aliken the symbols used in the casting of lots to the Roman script, calling them simply 'notis', roughly 'signs' or 'sigils'). With this contact, the Gothonic tribes may have adapted the Latin alphabet and put it to use, and the futhark may have spread along trade routes to the Northern and Eastern limits of the tribes. This theory can be supported by the similarity of several Latin and Runic characters, however there are many more differences.
(2) The Etruscan theory follows similar lines to the Roman hypothesis but implies Etruscan influence stimulated the development of the futhark. Historically, the Cimbri probably came into contact with the Suevi as early as 300 B.C.E. somewhere in the Alps, quite some time prior to the earliest extant artefact (although it is important to bear in mind the axiom that absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence - the earliest artefacts may have been made from perishable substances or may be yet undiscovered). It is however, difficult to support such an early date for the formation of the futhark from available evidence. On the positive side, there is a remarkable similarity between the staves of the futhark and the characters of the North-Italic script used by the Etruscans, although there is not one single direct phonemic correspondence between the North-Italic script and any Futhark i.e. characters found in both alphabets always represent different sounds. There is some evidence of Gothonic-Etruscan cross cultural interaction in the form of the Negau helmet (approx. 300 B.C.E.) which appears to bear a Gothonic inscription written in a North-Italic script.
(3) The Indigenous theory. The third hypothesis is that the futhark was a purely indigenous production. This theory was first put forward in Germany and was eagerly embraced by the Nazis who were keen to promote nationalistic concepts. While it would be easy to dismiss the hypothesis on the grounds of nationalistic, cultural or even racial bias, to do so would be short sighted. Symbols later used as runes were certainly indigenous, as well as being found elsewhere. Gothonic culture was innovative and progressive and just as likely to develop a script form as any other linguistic group in Europe. There has been a tendency in the past to view 'civilisation' as the product of Greece and Rome which was exported northwards to savages and barbarians. Just as modern post-colonial writers have questioned the 'advances' brought to their cultures by ethnocentric Europeans, so it is perhaps time to question whether Rome etc. really had more 'advanced' (rather than simply different) civilisations than those of Northern Europe.
In older works, many authors suggested a hypothesis of Greek origin, but this was rendered more or less untenable by the discovery of earlier artefacts e.g. the Meldorf brooch. Other theories exist, such as linkage to the Phoenician alphabet (which influenced early Greek as well as both Roman and Etruscan scripts); that it was an offshoot of the Vinca script (circa 5300 - 3500 BCE in the Balkans); or even that it came from Atlantis - But these are highly speculative at best. No one hypothesis offers a complete solution, each has problems and incongruencies. What can be stated is that whether the futhark was purely Gothonic or influenced by the Etruscans or Romans, it is of Indo-European origin (as all three groups belong to this category).
If the indigenous theory is combined with either of the other hypotheses, we may approach a more reasonable suggestion; The runic symbols were part of Gothonic culture and this culture came into contact with others. It is possible that from external sources, the Gothonic peoples adopted the concept of an alphabet (but not that alphabet itself). The Gothonic peoples had a well developed paradigm of the universe and their position within it. These concepts may have been expressed in the variety of pre-futhark glyphs (which we could term 'proto-runes') some of which are still extant. At some point, perhaps because of external contact, the Gothonic peoples developed the notion of a phonetic script, using pre-existing native symbols, many of which also occurred in other alphabets. This phonetic script was not purely based on any other script. It is not unreasonable to suggest that pre-existing names for symbols may have suggested a phoneticisation of the runic-script for example the rune we call 'Þórr', known to the Anglo-Saxons as 'thorn' and in Old Norse and Old Icelandic as 'Þurs', may have been '*Þurisaz' in Indo-European. If the symbol used as a rune-stave was known by this name, it may have been used to write down phonetically the morpheme 'th'. All the names of the runes in each of the futharks begin with the morphemes they represent. When, at some uncertain time prior to 50 C.E., the first futhark was formed, it was both an alphabet representing the phonemes necessary to the existing language and a symbolic model of the universe.
When were the runes used? Who used them?
We have suggested that a rune is basically a 'mystery', which was encoded in an uttered or written form. These staves were sequenced to form a fúþårk. From around the time of the Meldorf brooch there was a development of the runic systems for about 1000 years, after which they were generally replaced by the current alphabet. The development of the fúþårk was drastically altered by or during the 'Viking period' around 800 C.E., with the formation of the Younger Fúþårk which predominated in Scandinavia, and the expansion to a 29 (possibly up to 33) rune system in Anglo-Saxon England. The Elder or Common Germanic Fúþårk seems to have been predominant until around 800 C.E. with some variation in the sequence, for example, some inscriptions of the Elder Fúþårk have the staves for 'eo' and 'p' reversed, others reverse the 'o' and 'd' staves. Approximately 300 Elder Fúþårk inscriptions are still extant, but only three or so have the full 24 rune sequence. All of these, from the fifth or sixth centuries, have some variation in either order or formation of the staves. The existence of only a handful of complete Elder Fúþårk inscriptions throws some doubt on the early use of runes, especially as most academic theories about the names and meanings of the staves are drawn from the later Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Fúþårks and applied retrospectively (there is no extant poem dealing with the Elder fúþårk, if one ever existed). This stated, by 250 C.E. inscriptions were common throughout Gothonic territories, indicating communication between the various Gothonic peoples. Most of these early inscriptions are on mobile objects such as weapons, armour, jewellery and trinkets - which means that it is almost impossible to be sure where the inscriptions were cut or by whom - even if an object can be shown to originate from a certain location or period, the runes could have been cut at another time or elsewhere. It seems likely that before 200 C.E. the carving of rune-staves was mostly confined to Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, southern Sweden and South East Norway. The only extant fixed objects from the period are rock carvings e.g. on cliff faces and the slightly more mobile bauta stones (rocks which were decorated and moved to a fixed position). The Northern and Eastern Gothonic populations expanded and migrated taking runes to Poland, Russia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and more distant regions.
Other Theories
Some more radical theories suggest the development of the Younger Futhark at around 500 C.E., principally based upon the existence of rune-poems in manuscripts from the St. Gallen monastery but more work is needed before such a date can be either proven or invalidated - although this is in keeping with the oral traditions of the Hafskjold family who have preserved Stáv to the present day. The transition toward the formation of the rune-staves found in the "Younger Futhark" and away from those depicted in the "Elder Futhark" would certainly have begun at around this time.
The Origin of the Runes in Hafskjold-Stav Oral Tradition
We who practice Stáv based upon the Hafskjold tradition use a Norwegian version of the Fúþårk (which is very similar to the Futhark used in Denmark) which has undergone certain developmental changes over the course of generations. The Hafskjold oral tradition suggests that the “Younger Fúþårk” (the 16 rune system) was formed from the extensive range of runic knowledge and traditions by representatives of the three main, ancient, cultural centres in Scandinavia: Uppsala in Sweden, Stokke in Norway and Veile in Denmark. The meetings of these rune-masters are thought to have taken place at an island in the estuary of the Gota river, where Gothenburg is now situated. At some points in Scandinavia's turbulent history this area was on the borders of the three countries and it is possible that the area was regarded as a kind of neutral ground. These meetings and thus the formation of the Stáv futhark took place around the middle of the fifth century and it is believed that a main motivating factor in the systematising and condensing of the runic teachings was the coming of Christianity, which the northern tribes would have first encountered during the Migration period. Presumably the learned rune-masters could foresee a time when the knowledge of the runes would need to be hidden until a point when it could once more be publicly revealed.
Hafskjold-Stáv
Exactly how the Hafskjolds, or rather their ancestors, began to practise Stáv is lost in the mists of time, but the tradition extends back for at least 44 generations and probably far further, although naturally the system has waxed and waned throughout the family's history and therefore some practices are more recent and some have been lost. The Hafskjold family extends back to the Jarls of Moere in West Norway, who traced their descent from the god Heimdallr (and also Fornjotr, Kari, Logi, Hler, Aegir and others). A little prior to 500 C.E. a daughter of the then Jarl of Möre gave birth to a boy who was named Erling. The child's father was a wanderer named Hós who had stayed with the family for a short time and had fathered Erling in secret. Rumours quickly spread as to the identity of 'Hös' (which means 'the Grey One') and it was popularly believed that he was in fact the god Óðínn in physical form, that he was what the Hindus would call an Avatar. For some reason, perhaps due to Óðínn's slightly dubious reputation, Erling and his mother appear to have fallen out of favour and became regarded with some suspicion. The child and his mother, together with some retainers, travelled east over the mountains and settled at Drammensfiord, which has remained the family seat to this day. Erling would have arrived around 500 C.E. He built a temple-stronghold which was sacred to his father, the place being known as Höskoll, the hill of Óðínn (literally, 'the Grey One's hill') and the family became known as the Höskolls or Hösling (descendants of Hós), later becoming known as the Hafskjold's (Hafskjold translates as 'ocean-shield' and perhaps stems from their heraldic coat-of-arms, and a subtle reference to Heimdallr who was the child of the waves). Ivar Hafskjold, who has been the first of the line to teach Stáv outside the family, is the 44th descendant of Hós, although the teachings of the system go back beyond this and stem from Heimdal, the rune Hagl (Heimdall's rune) being the base of the entire system. It cannot be said with any certainty how far back the Hafskjold-Stáv system goes, but as it stems from the Earls of Moere, the system dates back at least as far as the year 500 C.E. and possibly far farther. The family feel that there has never been a time when they were not practising Stáv.
Diversity within Stáv
It would be a mistake to regard the Hafskjold-Stáv tradition and Stáv as a whole as exactly the same thing. Although the version of Stáv we teach is drawn from the direct and unbroken teachings of the Hafskjold family, this is only one of many systems that would once have been widespread across Northern Europe. Unfortunately, few other traditions have survived, or, if they have survived, they remain secret. It is quite possible that radically different approaches to Stáv were once practised. Our teachings are drawn from the Hafskjold tradition which is a Herse (warrior) branch of a Jarl (priestly / intellectual) family. This tradition relates primarily to the teachings of the god Heimdall, and to a lesser extent, Odin. In short, this means that there are many ways of viewing Stáv which may be just as valid, yet different from, the Hafskjold approach. Students on this course are encouraged to initially explore the Hafskjold tradition and reach their own interpretation of it, then apply this to their own lives as best they can. Beyond this, the personal appreciation of Stáv is such that effectively each individual finds their own tradition. This may seem contradictory but in fact is fundamental to understanding Stáv. A personal interpretation of Stáv is still part of the tradition if it is drawn from exposure to the Rúnar and teachings; it simply becomes a new expression of the tradition. On the other hand, each exploration of the tradition, which has no fixed dogma, is a personal interpretation and thus something new. In the distant past, followers and descendants of gods such as Þórr, Frigg, Týr, Freyr, Freyja, etc. almost certainly had different systems, perhaps stressing different approaches to the Rúnar, although all ultimately are drawn from the same source. As modern Stáv is encountered by more people, with different family backgrounds, a similar situation may arise. Stáv has never lost sight of this and remains a polytheistic system and actively encourages a diversity of approaches dependent upon the individual.
Core Teachings
What follows is quite simply a list and breakdown of some of the key teachings in the Hafskjold Stáv system. Other than where necessary for translation from Norse, to explain an unfamiliar term, or “decode” the staves in a bind-rune, no explanation of “why” these teachings exist will be given at this point. Later there are some suggestions for some exercises for working with this material and other surviving sources.
Basic “key” meanings of the rune staves
Fé : Wealth, cattle, gold, animals, freedom, fertility, peace, harmony
Ur : Primal nature, the aurochs, refinement, waste or by products, ore, metal, rain, shoe, hoof
Þor : Thunder, thorn, protection, defence, hammer, lightning, menstruation
Ås : Wisdom, speech, poetry, knowledge, magic, mouth, riddles, estuary, a / the god
Rei : Road, riding, death, the wild-hunt, wheel, rest
Kreft : Cancer, hidden, transformation, a burning brand, illness, deception, sores, inner-fire
Hagl : Hail, fire and ice, a gap, the sky, rainbow, the world tree
Nød : Need, compulsion, necessity, fate, destiny, opportunity, hardship, weaving, work
Is : Ice, glacier, blindness, a bridge, potential, beauty, frozen, hunting
Ar : Acre, field, harvest, year, season, fruit, bounty, nurture, growth
Sól : Sun, light, justice, the sun-wheel, funeral pyre, victory
Týr : War, law, order, star, honour, loyalty, sacrifice, duty, victory
Bjørk : Birch, birth, healing, mother-hood, marriage
Mann : Moon, mankind, jewels, dust, mortality, sex
Laug : Lake, leek, water, sea, wealth, gold, trade, moist earth
Yr : Yew, bow and arrow, fire, winter, shield, wilderness, travel over snow and ice
In the next module we will be looking at the associations between the runes and the diety figures.