Runes Are Not Magic
written by Nyx Lumiere
A guide for muggles, secretly written by a wizard who wanted to dissuade them from being fascinated about runic practices. ᚠᚥ ᚢ ᚣ ᚦ ᚨ ᚱ ᚲ ᚷ ᚹ ᚺ ᚾ ᛁ ᛃ ᛇ ᛈ ᛊ ᛒ ᛖ ᛗ ᛚ ᛄ ᛞ ᛟ ᛪ ᛬ ᛭ ᛮ ᛯ ᚿ
Last Updated
05/31/21
Chapters
4
Reads
2,447
Theories on The Origin of Runes
Chapter 2
Many fantastical theories about the origin of runes exist, from astrological formulas to lunar phases. Looijenga recounts that during the sixteenth century, religiously influenced runologists such as Johan Goransson believed that runes were invented by a Christian named Gomer in 2000 BC, who was guided by the voice of god. (5) In a similar spirit, many early scholars presumed the original makers of runes where religious figures participating cultic ceremonies. However there is no evidence of priests to have ever recording runes during the first centuries of runic history, and the church's involvement in the usage of runes only occurred several centuries following. (15) I believe this type of historian bias, reflects the tendency to study artefacts from a present lens. Often the involvement of mysticism is used as a premise in research, rather than a hypothesis - and contemporary models of Futhark usage do little to explain the original development of the script.
Such examples show the importance of archaeology and other scientific methods when studying ancient runes. (4) By the twenty first century there was a shift in perspective, when runologist Baeksted dismissed the occult theory in favour of empirical research and proven data. Other runologists such as Kraus and Arntz worked in tandem with Baeksted to re-evaluate everything that was believed about runes, and soon this practice became the standard. (5)
However a great extent of Runology is mere speculation, and concept that Looijenga and Page is refer to as "Derolez's warning”. Dorolez addressed a question at a lecture, which has stumped runologists for some time. Dorolez stated that there are no more than 20 runic inscriptions uncovered per century. In addition they are found scattered across a fairly large area in Europe – and yet the script shows a perplexing homogeneity across space and time. What complicates the situation further is that only about 1% of
alleged runic artefacts have survived up to date. Taking this into consideration, Derolez warned his colleagues that it is trying to jump to meaningful conclusions about runes. (Page, 171) (Looijenga, “Runology” 22)
As for the origin of runes, Looijenga provides an answer to the riddle. Looijenga argues that the uniformity and scarcity of runes can only be explained by the alphabet being used only by a select few. Looijenga also proposes that Germanic veterans who served in the Roman army were probable candidates. She believes that they may have brought knowledge of Latin when returning to their homeland, and would have had the financial recourses to ensure this knowledge spread. Looijenga argues that this military-trade model may explain the introduction of runes in Scandinavia, and the similarity between the Futhark and Latin. (Looijenga “North Sea”, 41).
Both Luthi and Looijenga believe runes were used primarily by the upper class. Luthi explains that literacy in itself was a sign of high status. In addition, the materials that runes were inscribed on were often of high value and belonging to those who had attained great wealth. (178) Looijenga suggests that those that engraved runes on material goods where craftsmen and artisans, and those who commissioned the goods where wealthy veterans and merchants. Looijenga believed these elite had contact with the romans for several reasons (Looijenga, “Runology” 107)
For one, trade between the Romans and Germanic people may explain the scattering of runic artefacts over a vast area. Trade also explains the craftsmanship of runic artefacts such as weapons resembling Roman models. The practice of engraving a manufacturer’s mark on trade goods in fact, is a Roman Custom. Another borrowed practice could have been the inscribing personal names on weapons. Writing one’s name on objects is also a sign of ownership and by extension, accumulated wealth. (Looijenga, “North Sea” 42-52)
Such examples show the importance of archaeology and other scientific methods when studying ancient runes. (4) By the twenty first century there was a shift in perspective, when runologist Baeksted dismissed the occult theory in favour of empirical research and proven data. Other runologists such as Kraus and Arntz worked in tandem with Baeksted to re-evaluate everything that was believed about runes, and soon this practice became the standard. (5)
However a great extent of Runology is mere speculation, and concept that Looijenga and Page is refer to as "Derolez's warning”. Dorolez addressed a question at a lecture, which has stumped runologists for some time. Dorolez stated that there are no more than 20 runic inscriptions uncovered per century. In addition they are found scattered across a fairly large area in Europe – and yet the script shows a perplexing homogeneity across space and time. What complicates the situation further is that only about 1% of
alleged runic artefacts have survived up to date. Taking this into consideration, Derolez warned his colleagues that it is trying to jump to meaningful conclusions about runes. (Page, 171) (Looijenga, “Runology” 22)
As for the origin of runes, Looijenga provides an answer to the riddle. Looijenga argues that the uniformity and scarcity of runes can only be explained by the alphabet being used only by a select few. Looijenga also proposes that Germanic veterans who served in the Roman army were probable candidates. She believes that they may have brought knowledge of Latin when returning to their homeland, and would have had the financial recourses to ensure this knowledge spread. Looijenga argues that this military-trade model may explain the introduction of runes in Scandinavia, and the similarity between the Futhark and Latin. (Looijenga “North Sea”, 41).
Both Luthi and Looijenga believe runes were used primarily by the upper class. Luthi explains that literacy in itself was a sign of high status. In addition, the materials that runes were inscribed on were often of high value and belonging to those who had attained great wealth. (178) Looijenga suggests that those that engraved runes on material goods where craftsmen and artisans, and those who commissioned the goods where wealthy veterans and merchants. Looijenga believed these elite had contact with the romans for several reasons (Looijenga, “Runology” 107)
For one, trade between the Romans and Germanic people may explain the scattering of runic artefacts over a vast area. Trade also explains the craftsmanship of runic artefacts such as weapons resembling Roman models. The practice of engraving a manufacturer’s mark on trade goods in fact, is a Roman Custom. Another borrowed practice could have been the inscribing personal names on weapons. Writing one’s name on objects is also a sign of ownership and by extension, accumulated wealth. (Looijenga, “North Sea” 42-52)
