The fu?ark (and ogam): order as a key to origin

47 Pages·1999·2.99 MB·English

by  Alan Griffiths

The fuj)ark (and ogam): order as a key to origin
1. Introduction
Do the Germanic runes derive from one or other of the Mediterra-
nean alphabets?1 If so, which one: Greek, Latin, north Italian, Etrus-
can? And why are the runes, when set out as a series, arranged in non-
alphabetical order, starting with the characters fupa r k (Fig. 1), which
have given the series its traditional name?
Previous attempts to determine the origin of the runes have mostly
concentrated on the shape of individual runes and the similarity to
particular letters.2 The unorthodox order in the fuj>ark has been con-
sidered interesting but not of primary concern in determining which
alphabet, if any, may have served as a model. After all, it is not known
whether the runes were arranged in fufcark order from their inception
or whether they were re-arranged some time later. The earliest known
1 The word alphabet is reserved here for a sequence of letters in alphabet order.
This is important in view of the distinction that came to be made between, on
" the one hand, Germanic words for letters of the (Latin) .alphabet, as used in
"books" - AS. bocstcef, ON. bokstafr, OS. bokstaf, OHG. buohstap, NHG. Buch-
stabe - and, on the other, OS. stab, AS. (run)stcef^ ON. (runa)stafr for runes,
thus indicating that the two systems were probably perceived as functionally di-
stinct. The first record of the word alphabetum seems to be that by Septimus
Florens Tertullianus (d. AD 220). Before that the Latin word for the series of
letters was elementa. It is noteworthy that the Latin alphabetum uses the Greek
names of the first two letters, reflecting the predominance of Greek in things
grammatical. The pure Latin abecedarius or abecedarian is later (fifth century
AD). The Greek ίαεχιοτσ seem to have been distinguished from γράμματα in
the same way that Priscian distinguished between elementa (or elementa litterarum)
and litterae, i.e. "elementary sounds" and "letters". On the other hand, τάακ
ονιεχιοτσ means "in the order of the letters", i.e. alphabetically, following the
basic meaning of ονιεχιοτσ of "one of a series, a component part, an element",
cf. the meaning of Gothic stabeis (nom. plur.) = Grundstoffe (raw materials, ele-
ments).
2 Morris (1988) gives a good overview of earlier discussions of the origin of the
runes. Currently the most favoured prototype amongst runologists is the Latin
alphabet in one form or another, see, for example, Williams (1996) and Quak
(1996).
Indogermanische Forschungen, 104. Band 1999
The fujmrk (and ogam) 165
inscription to list a fujmrk is in fact quite late, probably not earlier
than the first half of the 5th century AD (Fig. la), compared to the
date of the first known inscriptions using runes, i.e. the 2nd to 3rd
century AD.
Recently, however, Elmar Seebold has not only tackled the question
of sign order but has used it to substantiate his matching of the runes
with a "proto-tyrrhenian" alphabet (Seebold, 1993:417).3 A major pro-
blem with his approaches that he has to resort to manipulations that
tend to weaken his argument; For example, he associates theta with a
"tektaler Reibelaut", namely the rune, and then has to reverse the
order of eta ana theta. He also has to introduce a extra, "dummy"
sibilant after sigma, otherwise his method of counting will not work.
A key step in the procedure he proposes is to write out the alphabet
so as to form pairs of letters which are then systematically re-arranged
to yield the fufcark order. Such considerations fit in with his suspicion
that there was probably a "magisch-mantisch begrnό dete" basis to the
re-arrangement of the alphabet and its use, even if the method he sug-
gests is "nicht weiter begrnό dbar" (Seebold, 1993: 420-1).4
The bulk of the present article was written in total ignorance of See-
bold's work5; but in fact it will be seen to have a broad similarity in
approach. Nevertheless the basic idea of matching letter pairs to rune
pairs was arrived at independently and is thus worked out quite diffe-
rently. The result, it is hoped, avoids some of the difficulties of Seebold's
thesis. At the same time it goes beyond Seebold's conclusion in that it
3 Previously Seebold suggested (1991: 30) that the model was "ein hoch-archaisches
Alphabet aus dem Kreis der lateinisch-faliskischen Schrift"- The model alphabet
he proposes reads:
ab k d e f z ? h i g l m n ng o p w r s (s) 114 j th.
The ? sign is a "tektaler Reibelaut" originally in the theta position before it and
eta were reversed. They and th are supplementary characters added to the end;
the (s) is an extra sibilant. The ng takes the place? of xi, the k the place of Italic
C, the g the place of "redundant" kappa. The w takes the place of qoppa.
4 Numerous arrangements of the alphabet for purposes of cult or magic are dis-
cussed by Dornseiff (1925).
5 I am grateful to Sean Nowak for drawing my attention to Seebold's work as
well as for substained encouragement and critical assessment. would also like
to thank Professor Klaus Dwό el for his support throughout the genesis of this
article, the essence of which was presented to the Seminar fόr Deutsche Philologie
at Gottingen University on 28 January, 1997,
166 Alan Griffiths
indicates how the question of order may also help to elucidate some
of the rune shapes.
Since this emphasis on order differs from previous approaches, which
have largely relied on a comparison of the shapes and sounds of indi-
vidual characters rather than considering the alphabet and the fufcark
as integrated systems, we begin by considering why runologists have
so far failed to provide a convicing solution to the problem of runic
origins (2.1) and what can be done about it (2.2-2.4). We then list the
earliest fu]parks and the principal alphabets that may be considered
eligible as a source for the runes (3.1-3.2). When these are matched
on the basis of order, it will be found that one, and only one, of the
alphabets corresponds. sufficiently closely to the oldest form of the
fuj^ark to merit further consideration (3.3) despite a number of discre-
pancies. This encourages an attempt to demonstrate how the fufcark
order can be systematically derived from a form of the alphabet that
is closer to the Greek alphabet than to the Latin (4). Several difficulties
relating to the equivalence of sound values can be explained in relation
to the way the devisers of the Gothic alphabet and the Irish ogam
derived their schemes from a Greek alphabet (5). In fact the ogam order
of signs can be shown to have originated from the same alphabet as
the fufcark, using a similar method (Appendix 1). By looking at the
runic sound values and sign shapes from the point of view of a Greek
alphabet order we discern patterns in both the phonetic structure (6)
and graphic "design" (7) of the system, which suggest a certain rationali-
zation of the source alphabet before its re-arrangement as the fujmrk.
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis (8) is restricted to the
type of Mediterranean alphabet that formed a basis for the runes and
the question of how the fuj)ark may have been created. It leaves open
the questions when, where and why, about which it is still only possible
to speculate, even given SeebokTs arguments in favour of a "magisch-
mantisch begrnό dete" motivation.
2. Method: past failure, new rigour
2.1 The runologists' conundrum
Williams (1996: 21 Iff.) has pointed out that two unsolved problems
that have so far made it difficult to convince a majority of runologists
of any one particular theory on the origin of the runes are:
The fujpark (and ogam) 167
1. the poor fit between the form of many of the runes and the sound
values they would be expected to have on the basis of the corre-
sponding shapes of the letters in the alphabets (e. g. Latin P [p] and
Greek P [r] fit runic w in shape but not sound);
2. the inadequacy of the inventory of letters in the supposed Medi-
terranean source alphabets to supply all the runes in the fu{>ark;
this means assuming that new runes were invented (e. g. runic d) or
that one letter gave rise to two different runes, or that two alphabets
were mixed to provide the full complement of runes (e.g. runic w
from Latin P and runic z from Greek )Ψ .
These, however, are realities and not the real problem, which is the
degree of freedom allowed if one accepts the practice of picking from
this alphabet or that and resorting to "inventions" if all else fails. It
may very well be that the creation of the fufcark was ad hoc and arbitrary;
indeed the apparently archaic nature of the oldest inscriptions would
appear to support the idea of arbitrary borrowings and wilful adapta-
tions by "barbarian" people. On the other hand, anyone who has stu-
died the fufcark in any depth must concede that, when taken as a whole,
it is an intricate and sophisticated system on a par with Mediterranean
alphabets. This is implicit, for example, in theories which postulate the
application of certain general principles in the formation of the shapes
of the runes. Such principles as "no horizontal strokes" - presumably
in connexion with writing on grainy wood - do not, however, bring
us much closer to origins, even if they do seem to apply.6
The apparently unavoidable need to "pick and mix" from this or
that alphabet has bedevilled the study of runic origins and even today
there is a lack of methodological rigour. To quote Williams (1996: 212)
in extenso:
"The enigmatic rise of the runes has long baffled the runologists. Why is it that
this intricate, interesting and important question has so long escaped its solution?
I think we must go back to the first scholarly treatment of the problem, by
Ludwig Wimmer in 1874. In his monograph on the origin and development of
the runes he establishes a method which has since been followed by later runo-
logists: when a rune coincides in shape and sound value with a letter in the
supposed source alphabet, its origiii is considered certain. When this is not the
6 An exception to this particular "rule'* would be the form of the e rune with the
straight horizontal bar, although it might be argued that a change from this to
the M shape in fact proves the rule!
:, ih<; ru/joiogftt '.«i] <;aif/ on along two diifcmjt paifo; «jtherit ruw·; i«, <
<;r«jd an wvaitioo, or else a letter <A the &uppo*ed yxwoe alphabet, which h
; m j/fojJM/i'^aUo»;. b «l^jjuaMxJ ί«ί> tiw origin, and <diy;repi;nae*> in shape
arx· gm-j) s.om«;. MiuaJly «^uiUi fancifuJ and unprove» or even ynprovitbte, expia-
2,2 Suhttawe and circumstance
Tite f)wcc^n> WjlJiarnu -dciycribes is familiar enough, but there is an
even more fundamental problem lurking in that expression "the sup-
posed source alphabet", since it raises the question as to how the sup-
position is arrived at,
in essence there are five aspects that are usually taken into conside-
ration in exploring the origins of the fujwk. These can be subdivided
into three aspects that relate to the linguistic substance of the fufcark
and any potential source alphabet (substantial aspects) and two that
relate to the circumstances in which the fu^ark may have come into
being (circumstantial aspects),
The three substantial aspects are:
ί , the shapes of individual runes and of the letters of candidate source
alphabets,
2. the sound values of same, plus the phonemes of candidate German
dialects where the fu^ark may be deemed to have been formed or
introduced,
3. the sequence of the runes in the fujwk, as first attested in inscrip-
lions like those found at Kylver,
The two circumstantial aspects are;
1. the geographical and chronological contexts,
2, the possible processes of transfer into a Germanic context - such
us diffusion or implantation,
Eiich of these aspects is in itself composed of a cluster of factors,
which we need not analyse in detail here, The importance in drawing
attention to them is that the priority given to any one over and above
the other htiK generally led to investigators excluding certain possibilities
almost it priori, thereby biasing the direction of their investigations.
An example js the priori ly often given to the circumstantial aspects
and in particular the importance attached to the idea, whether explicit
or implicit, thai th§ use of runes reached the area where most of the
The fufrark (and ogam) 169
earliest inscriptions in the older fufcark have been found,i.e. Denmark
and Norway, by a process of diffusion; that is to say, by a process that
would imply geographical contiguity between cultural groups involved
in the transfer and a chronologically continuous evolution of sign forms
rather than, say, the implantation of an intentionally modified alphabet
on a par with the introduction of the Gothic alphabet in the Balkans
byWulfiia.
Without any documentary evidence,"intentional modification" and
the deliberate introduction of a system are of course difficult to prove
circumstantially. On the other hand we should not allow circumstantial
considerations to blind us to the substantial, i.e. linguistic, characte-
ristics, which may point in directions we are as yet unable to prove
chronologically or geographically. Even more importantly, we must
not allow ourselves to be biased by circumstantial considerations into
favouring one source over another from the outset. This seems to have
been the case with, for example, Moltke (1985: 51), who dismissed "the
Greek hypothesis" because he associated it with, in particular, von Frie-
sen, whose theory "has now been abandoned for methodological and
chronological reasons", and also with Aage Kabell, whose contribution
"floats well above ground-level". The Etruscan alphabet was similarly
excluded on chronological grounds - "the later we date the origin of
the runes, the further into the distance Etruscan recedes" (ibid.: 61).
This left the Latin alphabet, which he clearly preferred because of suit-
able geographical and chronological contiguity to allow him to cham-
pion the Danes who were, in his view, sufficiently close to but also
independent of the Romans to have developed a separate system of
writing (ibid.: 64).7 Williams (1996: 213) even goes so far as to suggest
that the circumstantial evidence is such that we may "guess" that Latin
capital letters were the source of the runes,8 Admittedly he does at
7 "Always independent of Rome, the Danes nevertheless maintained lively connec-
tions with this great civilisation and its trading-posts and military camps along
the Rhine, as the archaeological evidence demonstrates. If anyone wanted to get
to know the Romans and to learn f&ek writing system (with its obvious advan-
tages), he had no need to travel to Rome. The Rhine region, the Netherlands
and Gaul ail lay close at hand, and England was there as well"
8 "Why not try the easy way out? The runes might certainly be borrowed 500 years
before they first occur on actually found objects. The runes might also be borrowed
from an obscure, even yet unknown, variant of the three Classical alphabets.
The runes might even be borrowed from different systems of script, picking and
170 Alan Griffiths
least treat the Latin alphabet as a complete system of signs in a given
order. But his circumstantially driven choice of the Latin alphabet leads
him to force the fit to such an extent that he has to assocate familiar
signs with sound values totally unrelated to those one might linguisti-
cally expect.9
Of course, the problem of how the runes transferred to Scandinavia
cannot be ignored. But rather than allow an external factor like this
to prejudice the candidature of source alphabets, a "cleaner" approach
might be to consider the fu^ark as such and work from the inside out.
In other words, let us put the emphasis on the linguistic characteristics
of the fujmrk as a set sequence of signs with fairly well (though not
always precisely) defined sound values and then (and only then) consider
the implications any conclusions might have for the problem of how
the fu^ark might have reached Scandinavia. There is, after all, more
linguistic evidence to go on than historical. At the same time, if the
linguistics point to an historically unfamiliar solution, we must be wary
of being drawn into fanciful explanations such as coloured Bugge's
Greek theory (which supposed an Armenian teaching Goths the runes
used in Galatia!).
2.3 Three principles
To sum up so far, the thesis that follows is based on three principles:
L Substance before circumstance
Assumptions about circumstantial aspects must not be allowed to
override evidence discernible in the linguistic substance of the fu]park.
For example, there must be no pre-disposition towards one or other
choosing at a leisurely fashion. But this is not the easy way out.
"The least forced starting point for a discussion of the origin of the runes is to
assume that they were invented some time around the birth of Christ, give or
take a century or so. We may also assume that the dominant culture of the
time, the Roman empire, is the most likely area to search for the inspiration
of the German letters, if nothing makes us look elsewhere. We may finally guess
that the capital letters of the Latin alphabet in its entirety is what we should
use as a source candidate." Cf. Quak (1996: 172): "Wenn man die Fundlage
und die Chronologie der Funde sieht, kommt von der Logik der Zeit und der
Geographie her eigentlich nur das lateinische Alphabet als Ursprung in Be-
tracht."
9 Such as e derived from M and p from K.
The fόJDark (and ogam) 171
potential source alphabet because of a preference for the ideas of
diffusion and evolution, and hence the probability of geographical
contiguity and chronological continuity in the process of transfer.
It could be that the linguistic substance such as sign shape and se-
quence points in a direction that does not fit any such predilection.
If so, then the linguistic evidence must be given the benefit of the
doubt and received opinion on the cultural circumstances may have
to be questioned.
2. Acceptance of realities
It has to be accepted as a reality that no one alphabet on its own
can account for all the signs of the fu|>afk. This implies that even
if one alphabet is seen to correspond in the main to the fujmrk
inventory on the basis of substantial characteristics —- including
the sequence of signs - it has to be accepted that some signs will
have been intentionally adapted or even borrowed from elese-
where.
3. A consistent system
Admission of the possibility of intentional adaptation or borrowing
must not degenerate into "an easy way out when all else fails". Any
divergence in shape, in the correspondence between shape and sound
value or in the sequence of signs as compared with the source al-
phabet to which the majority of runes correspond must not be waved
away with a fanciful explanation or accepted as an arbitrary altera-
tion. It must be demonstrated to be either consistent with the con-
ventions displayed by other instances of alphabet transfer from one
language to another, or at least not the result of an arbitrary, one-off
intervention.
As far as sign sequence in particular is concerned, an extension of the
above principle of system and convention is to assume that the fuj^ark
order was no less independent of the original alphabetical order than
the rune shapes were independent of the original letter shapes. In other
words, the fufcark order was the result of a re-arrangement of the al-
phabetical order. The re-arrangement, moreover, is unlikely to have
been arbitrary, which conversely implies that it was deliberate and pro-
bably methodical. A requirement to explain how an alphabetical order
was methodically converted into the fu]>ark order also adds rigour to
the test of acceptability of any thesis on the origin of the runes.
172 Alan Griffiths
2.4 The relevance of ogam
In the course of our argument we shall be involving the script known
as ogam or ogham that is found on monuments in Ireland from the
5th century AD on (see Appendix 1). Among the reasons for this in-
volvement is the fact that ogam and the runes have at least six features
in common:10
1. They are both first documented in areas just across the northern
frontiers of the Roman Empire: 2nd to 3nd century AD in Denmark/
S. Norway for the runes; 5th century AD in Ireland for ogam.
2. Both systems assign meaningful indigenous names to their signs,
whereas Greek adopts and adapts the Semitic names and Latin uses
a phonetic scheme (a, be, ce, el, em, etc.) which it apparently inherited
from Etruscan.
3. Both systems order their signs differently from any of the Medi-
terranean alphabets.
4. Both systems divide their series into groups or "families", al-
though there are four groups (known as aicmi, singular aicme) in
ogam compared to three (known as cettir, singular cett) in the fu^ark.
5. There is a specific runic sign for ng, not found in Mediterranean
alphabets, although Greek practice was to account for the nasali-
zation by writing γγ as well as κ,γ γξ and χ.γ Traditionally there
was also an ogam sign for ng, although McManus (1986; 1991) claims
that this sign may originally have represented [gw].
10 Features 2 and 4 are cited by Marstrander (1928) and features 2 to 5 are cited
by Pedersen (1920-24), as indicating Celtic influence on the formation of the
fuj)ark. McManus (1991: 23), also cites five other "common features, given by
among others Arntz (1935): 1. Both systems appear to be designed for epigraphic
use on hard materials (wood or stone), their latter-day use in manuscripts being
a mere antiquarian curiosity. 2. Both scripts had particular magical associations.
3. Vocalic [u] and consonantal [w] are distinguished in both fuf>ark and ogam.
4. The fact that ogam originally had no sign for [p] might be compared with the
limited use of runic p. 5. Runic h was not merely graphic and z was not restricted
to foreign words, as in Latin. As McManus points out, however, the first two
of these do not distinguish ogam and fu^ark from other alphabets, since Roman
capitals also had a specifically epigraphical function, while the magical properties
of the written word are unversal (and often overstated in the case of ogam and
runes). The other three features are related to Arntz's desire to demonstrate
that ogam was derived from the fufcark rather than the Latin alphabet.
The fujsark (and ogam) 173
6. The ogamic system of strokes across or just touching a running
line is highly reminiscent of later cryptic runes based on a system
of counting strokes.
When expressed in such general terms, none of these observations is
particularly helpful in establishing an unequivocal relationship between
the two systems. The spread in both time and place of the earliest finds
speaks against the idea of one scheme being derived from the other
rather than in favour of it. However, there is one overriding methodo-
logical reason for considering ogam beside the fuj)ark: ogam is a prime
example of a system where the order of the "signs" has been intention-
ally changed and, since the form of these signs is unrelated to letter
shapes, their relation to any alphabet can be established only on the
basis of sound values and their order in the inventory. In other words,
no problem of sign shape muddies the waters of comparison. Moreover,
if it is legitimate to compare ogam with Mediterranean alphabets, then
it is also legitimate to compare ogam with the fuj)ark, if only to de-
termine how the two treated their sources similarly or differently.
By treating the fuj>ark in the same way as we have to treat the ogam
inventory, namely as a series of sound values in a given order, rather
than as characters, we can stand back from the problem of comparing
individual sign shapes and concentrate on the system as a sequence of
sound values.11 As a consequence the "derivation" of sign shape ac-
tually becomes easier.
3. Correspondences
3.1 The runic inventories
We begin with the earliest forms of the fuj>ark. In the oldest known
fujmrk inscription, found at Kylver and dated to the first half of the
fifth century AD (Fig. la), the 24 runes-are presented as an unbroken
series. However, on bracteates found 4! Vadstena (Fig. Ib) and Grum-
pan (Vsδ tergtφ land), both dated about fifty or more years later, there
It is interesting to note that in teaching the alphabet Greek and Roman tutors,
at least up to the second century AD began by introducing their pupils to the
names and order of the letters before showing them their form; see Carcopino
(J985: J2i) citing Quintilian, I 3, 16-J7/Apparently Qiiintillian strongly con-
demned this approach.