Which Rune
Row is Best
(For
Esoteric Uses)?
[Revised]
Anyone who has ever looked into
runic studies or, for that matter, read one of the introduction-to-Heathenry
books on the market knows that there are four major rune rows used today. Some
may also be familiar with the existence of the various medieval runic systems
or variations on the major four. These may be used for purposes ranging from
artistic decoration to divination and even operative magical work. If used for
mundane purposesdecorating drinking horns and so forthit really does not
matter which rune row one uses. One may choose a particular row simply because
it is in sync with the national tradition one follows (i.e., Anglo-Frisian
Fužorc for Dutch traditions or Younger Fužork for Icelandic traditions). Or one
may use the Elder Fužark simply because this row has become industry standard
in the USA, just as the Armanen Futharkh has become the standard in Germany.
But for esoteric purposes which is the most effective rune row? The answers to
such a question are, of course, debatable. In this essay I will attempt to
provide some food for thought on the topic using history of the various rows to
shed some proverbial light.
The Gothic Fužark has become the
rune row of choice for most would-be runenmeisteren in this country. It is the
oldest known rune row (hence its nickname, Elder Fužark, among esotericists),
although there is some evidence that the Common Germanic Fužark may be of
similar age. The two rows however, are so similar that most people today would
consider them to be interchangeable. One difference that would most likely
prove significant to the runenmeister using this tradition is the fact that the
thirteenth (Uuaer/Eihwaz) and fouteenth (Pertra/Peržrō) staves, as
well as the twenty-third (Daaz/Dagaz) and twenty-fourth (Utal/Ōžala) are
reversed in the two rows.[1]
Many
people find the antiquity of this row to be its greatest asset. This is
supported by the idea that states: The older it is, the better/more valid it
is. This is not, however, necessarily true. If we applied this logic to all
the aspects of our lives, this article would never be read by most, as it would
require too much work to copy and distribute it using the old-fashioned
methods. One must also realize that most of the doctrines taught today in
association with the runes are based on sanitized versions of Armanic texts and
adapted to the Elder Fužarkthey are not ancient secrets preserved for our
benefit.
Another
difficulty presented by the antiquity of this row is the fact that there
remains absolutely no surviving lore. Any rune poems assigned to this row are
only reconstructions based on the Old Norwegian Rune Rhyme, the Old Icelandic
Rune Poem, and the Old English Rune Rhyme. Even the very names of the Elder
runes are naught but reconstructions. [2]
Add
to this the fact that one must put oneself in the position of manifesting the
theoretical mindset of a long-dead culture to even understand what this
reconstructed lore means, and one is dealing with some very sketchy ideas to
say the least!
On
the other hand, the Elder/Common Germanic Fužark is the only row that might be
considered somewhat universal among the Germanic peoples, serving very nicely
the needs of the mixed-ethnicity citizens of modern America and the
pan-Germanic approach to our religion that most modern Heathens prefer.
Also
in support of the Elder runes is the wide body of modern lore that has
come into existence developed by modern runenmeisteren. If one approaches the
Elder Fužark runes in a modern mindset rather than to attempt to revivify an
ancient system that we know next-to-nothing about, one may find this row very
useful indeed.
The
Anglo-Frisian tradition is virtually useless for esoteric purposes as it
stands. This is not to imply that it may not be preserved as a proud and viable
tradition for exoteric uses, and is certainly not intended to insult those who
maintain an interest in this innovation. But the available lore with regards to
it is so sparse that, unless the Anglo-Frisian sources are completely re-vamped
like the Elder tradition, its esoterica must be considered lost in time.
Much
controversy exists regarding the origins of this tradition. The most common
theory is that the Frisians expanded the Common Germanic row to 26 staves, and
the Anglo-Saxons further expanded this row to 29 and later to 33 staves.[3]
Other theories suggest that the Frisian runes may, in fact, exist only as a
jumble derived from neighbouring regions somewhat independent of Anglo-Saxon
influence; or that the Anglo-Saxons expanded the Common Germanic row and the
Frisians adapted it to suit their own uses.
Whatever
the origins, the surviving corpus is limited at best.
While Frisian archaeological finds appear
to indicate a rich magico-religious tradition, interpretation has proved to be
next-to impossible. And the finds are so rare that there really is very little
for runologists to build on.[4]
Anglo-Saxon
relics are much more plentiful. However, there is a conspicuous lack of
esoterica in Anglo-Saxon finds. Most of the Anglo-Saxon finds dating before the
seventh century are near-impossible to interpret. And those dating from the
seventh century onwards are generally used for mundane purposes such as texts
on coins and so forth. A few pieces do suggest that a magico-religious
tradition was significant in the early use of this row (e.g.: why would anyone
learn a script in a generally illiterate society just to inscribe a name on a
comb?), but knowledge of the means and purposes has been lost. Anglo-Saxon
runes appear to have been developed more for orthographic reasons than esoteric
ones.
The Younger
Fužorkor, as it is known to the academic community, the Standard
Nordic Fužorkhas preserved the most comprehensive and complete corpus of
all the ancient systems. This corpus has been developed in a variety of
directions ranging from the esoteric thoughts of Johann Bure
within the context of Storgoticism[5] to the more
modern, exoteric tradition of Stįv.
Like
the Elder/Common Germanic and Anglo-Frisian systems, the Younger Fužork and its
derivatives may prove to be rather clumsy form modern, urbanized individuals to
learn at first. But because the corpus has been maintained (although in
fragmented form due to the agendas of the various schools of thought) to some
degree, it is still very functional. We also have a greater number of
transcriptions than the aforementioned rows surviving to teach us how the
Icelanders and Danes have worked- and continue to work- with the Younger runes.
The
Younger Fužork does bear the limitation of possessing a smaller number of
staves, and, thus, is a less precise means of defining the worlds around and
within us. It also originated from an almost exclusively Viking worldview which
may not be applicable for many uses toward which one might use the runes today.
Included in this category are a variety
of rune rows ranging from non-alphabetic
runes to King Wladamars runes. There are too many of these systems to deal
with them individually in an article of this scope. Suffice it to say for
convenience that most of these systems are variants on the Younger rune row,
although a few may be based on the Anglo-Saxon.
There
is one major advantage to using one of the mediaeval systems: these systems
came into existence in a predominantly christian world although maintaining their
Heathen meaningsat least to some degree. While this may, superficially, appear
to be a detraction from the purity of the runes, one must realize that
confused forms can still be used meaningfully and powerfully by the skilled
runenmeister. It is also important to recognize that as twenty-first century
Americans, we are living in a predominantly christian culture. The vast
majority of individuals that make up the current heathenish community come from
christian or christian-influenced backgrounds. And despite our rants to the
contrary, this has greatly affected the worldviews and attitudes of all but a
few of us. When dealing with things esoteric, we need to be honest with
ourselves, and this may very well include recognizing that we have all been influenced
by foreign cults--most commonly by christianism.
The
obvious disadvantages to utilizing one of these are (1) that they are
strongly influenced by an exotic creed that is contrary to our own, and (2)
very little available lore exists for the modern support of any of these rows.
While the Armanen
Futharkh (often misspelled futhorc[6])
has become the standard for the German runenmeister, it tends to be frowned
upon in the United States. Therefore, its use is not common here.
The
Armanen system is the youngest of the four big name systems, having appeared
in Germanys early twentieth century. One of its advantages is this
young age, having been developed in a world very similar to our own modern,
urbanized, technological world. It is also a system that was developed and
presented specifically for esoteric and magical purposes. The Armanen Futharkh
possesses the added advantage of being the only system that possesses a
complete body of lore from which the aspiring runenmeister may build.
There
are, however, some disadvantages to this system. The most obvious is that it
does not originate from a traditional
(i.e.; ancient) source. Lists powerful emphasis on Wihinei/Wuotanismus (today manifested as Odinism or
Irminenschaft), however, indicates that this reconstructed rune row was
intended to be utilized for a reconstructed Heathenrywhich is precisely what
we are practicing today. On the other hand, Amanentum is also very closely tied
to Ariosophy, which is about as foreign to our triuwa as christianism!
Armanentum employs a variety of
techniques claiming to be derived from ancient Germanic sources, the
authenticity of which are doubtful at best (e.g., rune yoga). If one is
searching for authentic ancient ways, Armanentum is certainly not the way to
go. But if one is seeking a viable magical/esoteric system, it works very well.
Another major concern among would-be
runenmeisteren regarding the Armanen Futharkh is its alleged historical
association with the Nazi movement in Germany. While it is true that Armanentum
influenced many proto-Nazi thinkers, the system does not promote any particular
political view, nor was it widely used by any German National Socialist groups.
The most infamous users of runes in wartime Germany were certain officers in
the Schutzaffel (SS). These individuals rarely, if ever, used the
Armanen Futharkh; instead preferring the rune row developed by Karl Maria
Wiligut, the promoter of Irmin-Christianity. Further, it was Wiligutunder the
approval of Reichsführer-SS
Heinrich Himmlerwho sent many of the better-known Armanists (e.g.; Siegfried
Adolf Kummer) to concentration camps!
While all the
runic systems work more-or-less equally as well for exoteric functions, each
rune row has certain inherent advantages and disadvantages for those interested
in esoteric runology. Much of ones choice must be based on the particular
needs of the individual. Speaking on general terms, however, the Younger
Fužork, and the Armanen Futharkh seem to be the most practical for aspiring
runenmeisteren as they stand today. On the other hand a modern approach to the
Common Germanic/Elder fužark or the Anglo-Frisian Fužorcthat does not delude
its users into believing that they are discovering secrets preserved from
ancient timescould prove to be just as viable. The potential contributions
that could be made in modern runelore via the various medieval rows, however,
ought not be underestimated.
Alaf sig runa!
-- Bammesberger, Alfred Frisian and
Anglo-Saxon Runes: From the Linguistic Angle
--Hills, Catherine Frisia
and England: The Archaeological Evidence for Connections
--Page, Ray I On the baffling Nature of
Frisian Runes
Armanic Runes and their Derivatives in the
Alleged Elder Fužark (Followed by Historical Gothic Names as Described by
Wulfila)
Fa |
Fehu |
Fe
|
Ur |
Ūruz |
Uraz |
Thorn |
Žurisaz |
Thyth |
Os (Othil) |
Ansuz;
Ōžila (Ōžala) |
Aza; Utal |
Rit |
Raišō |
Reda |
Ka |
Kźnaz |
Chosma |
Hagal |
Hagalaz; Dagaz; Wunjō |
Haal; Daaz; Uuinne |
Not |
Naušiz |
Noicz |
Is |
Īsa |
Iiz |
Ar |
Jźra |
Gaar |
Sig |
Sowilō (Sówuló) |
Sugil |
Tyr |
Tiwaz (Teiwaz) |
Tyz
|
Bar |
Berkanō (Berkana); Peržrō; Inguz
(Ingwaz) |
Bercna; Pertra; Enguz |
Laf |
Laguz (Laukaz) |
Laaz |
Man |
Mannaz (Algiz); Elhaz (Eihwaz) [+
aspects] |
Ezec; Uuęr [+ aspects] |
Yr |
Ingwaz; Eihwaz (- aspects) |
Enguz; Uuęr [- aspects] |
Eh |
Ehwaz |
Eyz |
Gibor (Ge) |
Gebō |
Giuua
|
Return to Irminenschaft homepage
[1] Thorsson, Edred Runelore 1987
[2] ibid.
[3] Bammesberger, Alfred Frisian and Anglo-Saxon Runes: From the Linguistic Angle Amsterdamer Beiträge zur Ältern Germanistik 1996
[4] Page, Ray I. On the Baffling Nature of Frisian Runes
Amsterdamer Beiträge zur Ältern Germanistik 1996
[5] Bure referred to his system as Adalruna.
[6] List, Guido von Das Geheimnis der Runen 1912