Alan Griffiths-The Fu_ark (and Ogam)_ Order as a Key to Origin-Walter de Gruyter (1999)

8/9/2019 Alan Griffiths-The Fu_ark (and Ogam)_ Order as a Key to Origin-Walter de Gruyter (1999)

1/47

The fuj)ark

and ogam): order

as a key to

origin

1. Introduction

Do the Germanic runes derive fromone orotherof the

Mediterra-

nean

alphabets?

1

If so,

which one:

Greek, Latin, north Italian,

Etrus-

can?And why are therunes, whenset out as a

series,arranged

in non-

alphabetical

order,

starting

with

the

charactersfupa

r k

(Fig.

1),

which

have given the series its traditional name?

Previous

attemptsto

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, ifany,mayhave served as amodel. After all,it is not known

whether the runes were arranged in

fufcark

order

from their inception

or whether they were re-arranged some timelater.The earliest known

1

The word alphabet is reserved here for a sequence ofletters 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). Beforethat 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 seem to have been distinguished from in

the same way that Priscian distinguished between

elementa

(or

elementa litterarum)

and

litterae, i.e. "elementary sounds"

and

"letters".

On the

other hand,

means

"in the

order

of the

letters",

i.e.

alphabetically, following

the

basic m eaning

ofof

"one

of a

series,

a

component part,

an

element",

cf.

themeaning ofGothic 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


2/47

Thefujmrk (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

centuryAD.

Recently,

however, Elmar Seebold has not only tackled the question

ofsign order but has used it to substantiate his matching of the runes

with

a"proto-tyrrhenian"alphabet (Seebold,1993:417).

3

Amajorpro-

blem

with his

approaches

that he has to resort to manipulations that

tend to

weaken

his

argument;

For

example,heassociates

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,otherwisehis

method

of counting willnot work.

A

key

step

in the

procedure

he

proposes

is to

writeout

the

alphabet

so

as

to formpairs of letters which are then systematically re-arranged

to yield the

fufcark

order. Such considerations fit in with his suspicion

that therewasprobablya"magisch-mantisch

begrndete"

basisto the

re-arrangementof thealphabet and itsuse, evenif themethodhesug-

gests

is

"nicht

weiter begrndbar" (Seebold, 1993:

420-1).

4

The bulk of the present

article

waswritten intotalignorance of See-

bold's

work

5

; but in fact it

will

be

seen

to

have

a

broad similarity

in

approach. Nevertheless the basic idea of matching letter pairs to rune

pairswasarrivedat independentlyand isthus workedout 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'sconclusion in that it

3

PreviouslySeeboldsuggested

(1991: 30) that the

model

was

"ein

hoch-archaisches

Alphabet

aus dem

Kreis

der lateinisch-faliskischen Schrift"- Themodel

alphabet

heproposes reads:

ab

k d e f z ? h i

g

l

m

nng 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.

Theyand thare

supplementary

characters

added

to the

end;

the (s) is an

extra

sibilant.Theng

takes

theplace?

of

xi,thek the

place

of

Italic

C,

the

g

the

place

of

"redundant"

kappa.

The

w

takes

the

place

of

qoppa.

4

Numerousarrangements of thealphabetfor

purposes

ofcultormagic are dis-

cussed by

Dornseiff

(1925).

5

I am

grateful

to

Sean Nowak

for

drawing

my

attention

to

Seebold's work

as

well

as fo r substained encouragement and critical assessment. wouldalso like

to

thank Professor Klaus Dwel

for his

support

throughout the

genesis

of

this

article,

theessenceof

which

was

presented

to the

Seminar

fr

Deutsche

Philologie

at

Gottingen

University

on 28January, 1997,


3/47

166

Alan Griffiths

indicates

how the

question

of

order

may

also help

to

elucidate some

of the rune shapes.

Sincethis

emphasis

on

order

differs

from

previous

approaches,

which

have

largely

reliedon a comparisonof the shapesand sounds ofindi-

vidualcharacters rather than considering

the

alphabet

and the

fufcark

as integrated systems,webeginby consideringwhy runologists have

so far

failed

to providea 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) despiteanumberofdiscre-

pancies. This encourages

an

attempt

to

demonstrate

how the fufcark

order can be systematically derived from a form of thealphabet that

is

closer to the Greek alphabet than to the Latin (4). Several difficulties

relatingto 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 schemesfrom a Greek alphabet (5). Infactthe 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)

andgraphic

"design"

(7) of thesystem, which suggestacertain rationali-

zation

of the

source alphabet before

its

re-arrangement

as the

fujmrk.

Theconclusion to bedrawn

from

this analysis(8) isrestricted to the

type

of

Mediterranean alphabet that formed

a

basis

for the

runes

and

the question ofhowthe fuj)ark mayhave been created. It leaves open

thequestionswhen,whereand why,about whichit isstill only possible

to speculate, even given

SeebokTs

arguments in favour of a

"magisch-

mantisch

begrndete" motivation.

2.Method:past

failure, new rigour

2.1 The runologists conundrum

Williams

(1996: 21Iff.)has pointed outthattwo unsolved problems

that haveso farmadeit

difficult

toconvinceamajorityofrunologists

of any one particular theory on the origin of the runes are:


4/47

The fujpark (and ogam) 167

1.

the poor fit between theform of many of the runes and the sound

values

they would be expected to have

on

the basis of the corre-

sponding shapesof thelettersin thealphabets (e. g.Latin P [p] and

Greek P[r] fitrunic

w

inshape 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 thatnewrunes were invented(e. g.runicd) 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.

runicw

from

Latin

P

and

runic

z

from

Greek

).

These,however,are realities and not the real problem, which

is

the

degree

of freedom

allowedif one accepts the practice ofpickingfrom

this alphabet or that and resorting to "inventions" if all elsefails. It

may

very well

be

that

the

creation

of thefufcark was

ad

hocand

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-

diedthefufcarkin anydepth must concede that, when takenas awhole,

itis anintricateand sophisticated systemon a parwith Mediterranean

alphabets. This

is

implicit,

for

example,

in

theories whichpostulate

the

application of certain generalprinciplesin the form ation of the shapes

oftherunes. Such principlesas "no

horizontal

strokes"-presumably

in

connexion

with

writing

on

grainy wood-

do

not, however, bring

usmuch closer to origins, evenifthey 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:

"Theenigmatic

rise

of theruneshaslong

baffled

the

runologists.W hy

is it that

this intricate, interes tingand important question has solong

escaped

its solution?

I think

we

must

go

back

to the first

scholarly treatment

of the

problem,

by

Ludwig

Wimmer

in

1874.

In his

m onograph

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,

itsorigiiiis

considered

certain.When thisis not the

6

An exception to thisparticular"rule'*wouldbe

the

formof theerune with the

straight horizontal bar,although it might beargued thatachange from this to

the

M shape infactproves therule


5/47

:,

ih

tiw

origin,

and

in

shape

arxgm-j) s.om;. MiuaJly

ûiUi

fancifuJ and unproveorevenynprovitbte,expia-

2,2 Suhttaweand 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

isarrived at,

inessence there

are fiveaspects

that

are

usually

taken

intoconside-

ration in

exploring

the

origins

of the

fujwk. These

can be

subdivided

into

three

aspects

that relate to the linguisticsubstanceof the fufcark

and any

potential source alphabet (substantial aspects)

and two that

relate

to the

circumstances

in

which

the fuârk may

have

come

into

being (circumstantial

aspects),

The

three

substantial

aspects are:

,

the

shapes

of

individualrunes

and of the

letters

of

candidate

source

alphabets,

2. the

sound

valuesofsame,plusthe

phonemes

ofcandidate

German

dialects where the fuârk may bedeemed to have been formed or

introduced,

3. the

sequence

of the

runes

in thefujwk,as firstattested in

inscrip-

lions

l ike

those

found

at

Kylver,

The twocircumstantialaspectsare;

1. the geographical and chronological contexts,

2, thepossible

processes

oftransfer intoa Germanic context

-

such

us

d i f fus ion 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

thepriority given to any oneover and above

theother h t i K

generally

led toinvestigators

excluding

certain

possibilities

almost

it

priori,

thereby biasing the direction of their investigations.

An example js

the

priorily

often given

to

the

circumstantial aspects

and in particular theimportance attached to theidea,whetherexplicit

or i m p l i c i t , t h a i

th

use of runes reached the area where most of the


6/47

The fufrark (and

ogam)

169

earliest inscriptionsin theolderfufcark have beenfound,i.e. Denmark

andNorway,

by a

process

of

diffusion;

that

is

to

say,

by a

process that

would

implygeographical contiguity between cultura l groups involved

in

the transfe r and a chronologically continuous evolution of sign form s

rather than,say, theimplantationof an intention ally modified alphabet

onaparwiththeintroductionof the Gothic alphabet in theBalkans

byWulfiia.

Without any documentaryevidence,"intentionalmodification" and

thedeliberate introduction of asystemare ofcourse difficult to prove

circumstantially.

O n the other h and we should not allow circum stantial

considerationsto blindus 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

favouringone source over another

from

the outset. This seems to have

been

thecase with,for

example,

M oltke(1985:51),whodismissed"the

Greek

hypothesis"

because

he

associated

it

with,

in

particular,

von

Frie-

sen, whose theory"has

now

been abandoned

for

methodological

and

chronologicalreasons",

andalso with Aage Kabell, whose contribution

"floats well

aboveground-level".

The

Etruscan alphabet

was

similarly

excluded on chronological grounds- "thelaterwedate theoriginof

the

runes, the further intothe distance Etruscan recedes"(ibid.:61).

Thisleft theLatin alphabet, whichheclearly preferred because ofsuit-

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 circum stantial 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 greatcivilisation and its

trading-posts

and military camps along

the

Rhine,

as the

archaeological

evidence

demonstrates.

If anyon e wanted to get

to knowthe Romansand to learn

f&ek

writingsystem (with itsobvious advan-

tages), he had no

need

to travel to Rome. The Rhine region, the

Netherlands

and Gaul

aillay

close

at

hand,and England

was

there

aswell"

8

"Whynot try theeasywayout?Therunes migh t

certainly

beborrowed500years

before

they first occur on actua lly

foundobjects.

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


7/47

170 Alan Griffiths

least treat

the

Latin alphabet

as a

complete system

of

signs

in a

given

order.

But his

circum stantially driven choice

of the

Latin alphabet leads

him

to force the fit to such an extent that he has toassocate familiar

signswith sound values totally unrelated to those onemight linguisti-

callyexpect.

9

Of

course, the

problem

of how the

run es transferred

to

Scandinavia

cannot be ignored. But rather than allowan external factor like this

toprejudicethe candidature ofsourcealphabets, a"cleaner"approach

might

be to consider the

fu^ark

as such and workfrom 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

alwaysprecisely)definedsound 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

Arm enian teaching

Goths

the

runes

used

in Galatia ).

2.3

Three

principles

To sum up sofar, the thesis that followsisbased on three principles:

L Substancebefore

circumstance

Assumptions about circumstantial aspects must

not be

allowed

to

override evidence discernible

in the

linguistic substance

of the

fu]park.

For example, there mustbe nopre-disposition towardsone orother

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

theGerman letters, ifnothing makesuslook elsewhere.We may finallyguess

that

the

capital letters

of the

Latin alphabet

in its

entirety

is

what

we

should

use as a sourcecandidate." 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

ase

derived from

M andp

from

K.


8/47

The fJDark (and ogam) 171

potential source alphabet because of a preference for the ideas of

diffusion

and

evolution,

and

hence theprobability of geographical

contiguity

and

chronological continuity

in the

process

of

transfer.

It

could

be

that

the

linguistic substance such

as

sign shape

and se-

quencepoints in adirection that does not fit any such predilection.

If

so,

then the linguistic evidence mustbe

given

the

benefit

of the

doubt

and

received opinion

on the cultural

circumstances

may

have

to bequestioned.

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 beaccepted

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 degenerateinto"an easy way outwhenall elsefails".Any

divergencein

shape,

inthe

correspondence between shape

and

sound

value

or in the sequence of signs as

compared

with the source al-

phabet towhichthemajorityof runes correspond m ust not be waved

awaywith

afanciful

explanation

or

accepted

as an

arbitrary altera-

tion.

It

mustbedemonstrated

to be

either consistent with

the

con-

ventions

displayed

by

other instances

of

alphabet transfer

from one

languagetoanother,or atleastnot theresultof anarbitrary, one-off

intervention.

As far as

sign sequence

in

particular

isconcerned,an

extension

of the

above principleofsystemand conventionis toassume that the fuj^ark

orderwas nolessindependentof theoriginalalphabetical order than

the

ru ne shapes w ere

independent of the

original letter shapes.

In

other

words, the

fufcark

order was the result of a re-arrangement of the al-

phabetical

order.

There-arrangement,

moreover,

is

unlikely

to

have

been arbitrary ,

which

conversely implies that

it was

deliberate

and

pro-

bably

methodical.Arequirementtoexplainhow an alphabetical order

was

methodically converted into the fu]>ark order alsoadds rigour to

the

test

ofacceptabilityof any

thesis

on theoriginof the

runes.


9/47

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

incommon:

10

1.They

are

both

first

documented

in

areas just across

the

northern

frontiersof the

Rom an Empire:

2nd to 3nd

century

AD inDenmark/

S.

Norway

for the

runes;

5th

century

AD in

Ireland

for

ogam.

2.

Both systems assign meaningful indigenous names

to

their

signs,

whereas

Greek adoptsandadapts theSemitic namesandLatin uses

aphonetic

scheme

(a, be,ce,el,em,

etc.) which

it

apparently inherited

from

Etruscan.

3.Both systemsorder 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 tothree (knownascettir,singularcett) in the fu^ark.

5.There is aspecific runic signfor

ng,

not found in Mediterranean

alphabets, although Greek practice

was to

account

for the

nasali-

zation by writing as well as , and . Traditionally there

wasalso

an

ogam sign

for

ng,although McManus (1986; 1991) claims

that this sign may originally have represented [g

w

].

10

Features 2 and 4 are cited by Marstrander (1928) and features2 to 5 are cited

by

Pedersen

(1920-24), as indicating Celtic influence on the formation of the

fuj)ark. McManus (1991: 23), also citesfive other "common features, givenby

among others Arntz(1935):1. Both systems appear

to be

designed

for

epigraphic

useon hard materials (wood orstone),their latter-day use in manuscrip ts being

a mere antiqu arian 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 ofrunicp. 5.Runic

h

was notmerely graphicand

z

was notrestricted

to foreign words, as in Latin. As McManus points out, however, the first two

ofthese

do not

distinguish ogam

and

fu^ark from other alphabets, since Roman

capitals also

had a

specificallyepigraphical function, while

the

magical properties

of

the writtenwordareunversal (and often overstated in thecase ofogamand

runes).

The

other

three features are related to Arntz's desire to demonstrate

that ogam wasderived from the fufcark rather than the Latin alphabet.


10/47

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 asystem

of

counting strokes.

When

expressed in such general

terms, none

of these observations is

particularly

helpful in

establishinganunequivocal relationshipbetween

the twosystems.Thespread inbothtime andplace of theearliestfinds

speaks against

the

idea

of one

scheme being derived

from the

other

ratherthan infavourof it.However,there is one overriding methodo-

logical reason

for

considering ogam

beside the

fuj)ark:

ogam

is a

prime

exampleof asystem wheretheorder of the"signs"has been intention-

ally changed and, sincethe form of these signs isunrelated to letter

shapes, their relation to any alphabet can be established only on the

basisof

sound values

and

their orderin

the

inventory.

In

other words,

no

problem

of

signshapemuddies

the

waters

of

comparison. Moreover,

ifit islegitimatetocompare ogam with Mediterranean alphabets, then

it

is

also legitimate

to

compare ogamwith

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,namelyas aseriesof sound valuesin agiven order, rather

thanas

characters,

we can

stand back from

the

problem

of

comparing

individual

sign shapes andconcentrateon the system as a sequence of

sound

values.

11

As a consequence the"derivation"of sign shape ac-

tuallybecomes 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 Kylverand dated to the firsthalf of the

fifthcentury AD(Fig. la),the 24

runes-are

presentedas anunbroken

series. However,

on bracteates

found

4 Vadstena

(Fig.Ib)

andGrum-

pan

(Vstergtland), both dated about

fifty or

more years later, there

It

is

interesting

to

note

thatin

teaching

the

alphabet

Greek and

Roman

tutors,

at

least

up to the

second century

AD

began

by

introducing their pupils

to the

names

andorderof the

letters before showing them

their

form;

see

Carcopino

(J985: J2 i )citing

Quintilian,

I3,

16-J7/Apparently

Qiiintillian strongly con-

demned thisapproach.


11/47

174 Alan Griffiths

are punctuation marks at the two points in the sequence where the

fufcark

was

split into three groups

of

"families", later known

as

cettir.

Othernotable

differences

betweentheKylverfufrark and,forexample,

the

Vadstena inscription are:

1.Kylveriswrittenleft toright,theVadstena (and

Grumpan)

version

right to left.

2.

Kylver's

p

has the

usual form, Vadstena's

is

more like

a

b.

3.Kylver'ss zj and rj differ from Vadstena's.

4.

Kylver's

/'

comes

after

/?,

Vadstena's

before

it.

5.

The

Kylver order

of

d

is

reversed

in

Vadstena (assuming

the

finalrune is a d).

6.

The

a

and

b

inKylverare in mirror-image.

Weshall revisit mostofthese

differences

in thecourseof ourdiscussion.

3.2 The abecedaries

As far as the

order

of

runes

and

letters

is

concerned

(as

distinct from

shape),

we

should

in

theory need only

take

intoaccount

two

basic types

ofMediterranean alphabet, namelytheLatin and the Greek, sincethe

north

Italian,

Lepontic and Etruscan versions are in essence Greek.

The

main

differences

between Etruscan

and

Greek alphabets

are

that

Etruscan had no separate character for /o/, only used the characters

BandDin model (learners') alphabets, included forms for both sibilants

son

and

sigma

(whereas Greek alphabets used either one or the other),

and sometime before530 BCaddeda figure-of-eightsign for /f/ at the

end of its alphabetseries.

1

^However, because Etruscan has played such

a

prominent role

in

previous discussions

of

runic origins

we

include

it

along with Latin

and

Greek (see Table 1).

:

Wulfila's Gothic alphabet

is also included since we shall be referring to the way this alphabet

treated its Greek

model.

13

(The fu|>ark and ogam values have been

included and willbeelucidated later.)

12

In ignoring the Etruscan alphabet 1 concur w ith Morris (1988: 6).

13

The

version

of the

Gothic alphabet given here

isfrom theCodex

ArgenteusHand

1, (as reproduced in Philippa and Quak, 1994: 23). The Etruscan alphabetis

reproduced from Bo nfante (1990) (butseealso

Caffarello,

1975: 71) and follows

the

form

taken in the fourth to first centuries BC,except for the qoppa,which

isearlier.


12/47

The

fufrark.(and

ogam) 175

Admittedly

the lists give a very broad

picture,

since they largely ignore

local variations as well as detailed variations overtime,but they provide

a

baselinefrom which

tostart,

without

prejudgingthe

issue

as to

date

and

place.

In

fact

one of th

advantages

of

concentrating on order

rather

than sign

shapes

is

that alphabetical

order changed much less

radically than letter shapes with

respectto

time

and

place. Details

of

specific

alphabets

from specific

dates

m ay

needto

be filled inlater, but

withregard

to

order

the

main

differences

between

the

Greek, Etruscan

and Latin alphabets are:

1.

Originally Latin Chad a similar sound valueto

that

of the Greek

gamma,nam ely [g],

but as

early

as the

time

of the

kings

the

Romans

began using

C for [kj in

place

of K

(possibly through Tuscan

or

Sabineinfluence). Etruscan appears tohave used the third letterin

their series for a [k]before[a].

2. Classical Greek had no use for thedigammaas a letter but retained

it

as a numeral in the sixth position; the original pronunciation of

the digamma was probably

like that

of

[w], which

was

also

the

sound denotedby theEtruscan letter (usually transcribed as

V):

To

represent

the sound

[fj

(not present in Greek), the Etruscans ini-

tiallyused

a

combination

of the

digamma

and H, i.

e.FH,

but

tran-

cribedas

VH.

Sometime before530 BCthey replaced thisby a figure-

of-eight sign which they listed at the

end

of their inventory. The

Rom ans began

by

copying

the

Etruscan

use ofFH for [fj but

even-

tually

dropped the

H.

For [w]they made use

of

the vowelV(see

point

7).

Roman

grammarians,

however,

"misledby

shape, ascribed

to F the

power

of the digamma;

thus:

F Aeolicum

digamma,

quod

apud

antiquissimos

Latinorumeandemvimquamapud Aeolishabuit,

eumautemprope sonum

quernnunchabet,

significabat

p cum

aspira-

tione;

sicut

etiamapud veteres

Graecospro

F,p,et h,

Prise.

1,4,

p. 12"

(Lewis,s.v. F).

In

fact

Latin

F

never represented the sound

of di-

gamma

but a value

approximating

1

'"that

ofGreek

,

but rougher,

Quint.1,4,14;

12,10,29;cf. Prise. 1,4,p.14"(ibid- seealso point7

below). v

3.

Greekhad a Z

where

Latinhad G; theLatin Gwassupposed to

have

been introduced

by a freedmaa of the

consul

Spurius Carvi-

lius Ruga sometime after 250

B.C.;

before then Latin had a form

of the Greek Z. The

sound

values of the Greek sibilants, inclu-

ding

zeta,

are not always clear and varied from dialect to dia~


13/47

176 Alan

Griffiths

lect

14

Beforethe

re-introduction

of Z to

transcribe Greek

names,

in

Cicero's

time, Latin represented

zeta

as

S

initially

(as in

Sethos,

sona,

etc.) and asSS medially (asAtticisso,badissas,etc.); seealso

point6.

4.Latin had no equivalent for Greek and a sign with asound

value

equivalent

to , i.e. X, was

placed towards

the end of the

Latin

series,

not

after (see point

8).

5.Classical Greek

had no use for as a

letter

but

retained

it as a

numeral

6.

Where Latin

had an

S

between

R

and

,

some versions

of the

Greek alphabet had ,whileothers,particularlyin thewesternco-

lonies, had no but a son,

shaped like

an

M, between

and

(rho);

there were hardly

any

Greek alphabets that included both

son

and sigma- Argoswasone;thevalueofsonappearstohave been

a

voiced [z].

The

Etruscan alphabet included both

sanand sigma,

but

there

appears

to

have been

a

difference

in

their usage between

the

dialects

of

north

and

south.

15

7.

Latin

V

doubled

as

vowel

/u/ and

semivowel /w/. There

was an

attempt

by the

emperor Claudius

to

introduce

a

separate sign

for

the

Latin semivowel, namely

an

inverted

and

reversed

F, but

this

was

never

widely

adopted. This Roman modification

of a form of

the

digamma

for

/w/,however,

reflects

their continued awareness

of

the

value

of the

Greek

and

Etruscan letter.AfterupsilonGreek placed

its

aspirated

,i.e.

[ph], originally represented

in

Latin

byP(H) or

B\

by the

second century

BC the

value

of was

probably that

of

a bilabial spirant;notuntilc. 400 ADwere Latin

PH

(for) and

F (alabiodental) treated asidentical. Later Etruscan had aphifor

[ph]and a figure-of-eight

sign

at the end of its

inventory

for [f].

14

InJeffrey

(1990, Plate

20:16)

there

is

even

an

example

of a

Corinthian alphabet

inwhich

xi

isplaced in the

san

position afterpiand

san

appears in thesigma

position

after rho.

15

Etruscan had difficulty indistinguishing theshapes ofM[m] andM

(san)

and

at one

point attempted

to

solve this

by

using

a

half-obliterated M,rather like

a

Greek

in

form. This letter

shapewas

revived

by

Verrius

Flaccus

(4th century

BC) to represent the hardly audible [m]intially before Latin vowels.The date

of this"revival"excludesanydirect relation to therunesbut theprocess

illu-

stratesa

tradition that

may

have some relevance

to the

formation

of

runic

m

and w(see Section 7.2, point3).


14/47

Thefufrark

(and

ogam) 177

8.

Latin

X

Was

added

to

its

original inventory

to

account

for

[ks]

in Greek words.It isphonetically equivalenttoclassical Greek

and some western Greek valuesof thecharacterXbutnot toclassical

GreekX [kh],

9. Latin and

were

similarly added at the end of the series to

take care of Greek sounds.

10.

Greek andwere also later

additions;

aform similar to in

westernGreekandEtruscan alphabets

-

asign likeadownward-poin-

ting

arrow-

had a sound value similar to that of classical Greek X

[kh].

To sum up, only two alphabets need be considered if we take the

order

of

characters

as a

prime criterion

in

m atching letters

and

runes.

These

are the

Greek

and

Latin alphabets. Admittedly,

the

Latin alpha-

bet was based on the Greek, most probably via an Etruscan model,

but itshows distinctive featuresin itsomissionof theGreek characters

theta

and

xi,

as

well

as its

redistribution

of the

phonemes

/k/

and

/g/

andits use of the

digammafor

/f/ and of

V

for

both

/u/

and

/w/.

The

order

in

other Italian alphabets

is

hardly distinguishablefrom that

in

theGreek, EtruscanorLatin.

33 Thematch

The firststepwetake in matching the fuj>ark runesto the Latinor

Greek alphabet isfairly radical: weremovethe vowels. There islittle

a

priori

justification

for this other than to observe that the Irish ogam

treated

its

vowels separately from

its

consonants

and

that there

are a

number

of

later

fujrark

inscriptions

from

which

itcan

be deduced that

the runic consonants were sometimes learnt separately

from the vo-

wels.

16

We

might also note

in

this connexion

the

example

of a

third-

century BCVenetic writing tablet,now inEste,onwhichtwoconsonant-

only series of letters are inscribed, presumably for learningpurposes,

one

of the series being in

purely

alphabetical

order.

17

Principally, ho-

16

Knirk

(1992:

192-7).

17

The

tablet

(3rd

century

BC,presentlyin the

Musep

NazionaleAtestino,Este,

Italy)

gives

a

consonantal

syllabary round

the

edges

and on the

bottom row,

reading right to

left,

the

series

of

consonants

inVenetic

alphabet order:

(v) (z) (h)

(q)

k lmnps' (?)

thefirst

four

charactersand the

last

one not

beinglegible.


15/47

178 Alan Griffiths

weverJustification

fortreatingtheconsonants separatelyis to befound

posteriori, in the end

result, i.e.

the

almost

perfect

match between

runic

and

alphabet consonant orders.

Having

removed the vowels, we now write out the consonants of

theearlier and later Latin alphabets and the archaic and classical Greek

alphabetsin pairs (Fig. 2a to 2e). Comparison between the later Latin

and classical Greek series (Fig. 2a and 2c) is disturbed by the omissions

from these

two

alphabets: theta,xi

and

from

the

laterLatin;digamma,

qoppa and eta (a vowel)from the classical

Greek.

As is only to be

expected,

the correspondence between the earlier Latin series and the

archaic Greek series using

sigma

and etaas a consonant (Fig. 2b and

2c)iscloser,but thisis not thepointof theexercise. W hatisremarkable

is

that when

the

fuj)ark consonants

are

written

out in

boustrophedon

(Fig.

2f),

there is aparticularly close correspondence between pairs of

runicconsonantsandpairsofalphabet consonants in thearchaic Greek

serieswhich includes

san

rather than sigma (Fig. 2e).

In

fact none

of

the other

four

forms of the Greek or Latin alphabet compares with

the runes so closely.

The correspondence can be seen even more clearly if the rune pairs

are

arranged

in the

same order

as the

Greek alphabet (Fig. 2g).

It is

not exact: apart from obvious

difficulties

in reconciling some of the

signshapes, the association of certain runes with letters having totally

different sound values alsopresentsproblems.

For

instance

the

Greek

digamma represented

[w] and not

[f],

and xi did not

represent

[j]. And

what about the value [] for the rune positioned in association

with

kappa, and [k] for the rune associated with archaic qoppal

The discrepancies between the two sets of characters are of three

types:

1.

Order,although certain pairsofrunic consonantscan be

identified

withpairs of

alphabet consonants,

the

runicpairs

have

obviously

been re-arranged. Is this re-arrangement as arbitrary as it at first

appears

or can we

discern some system

in it?

2.

Sound values: how do weaccount for the values assigned to the

runes/, w,;;and kaswellas 7,sand z?

3.Signshapes: how do

we

explain the

shapes

of

runicg,

k, d,p,#,

7,z,p and w, to name but the most obvious?

We

deal witheach

of

these

in

tu rn, which means

that

while

we

tackle

the question of order and systematic re-ordering, for example, we must


16/47

The f park-(and

ogam)

179

assume

that the problems of sound value and sign shape are resolvable.

We

deal with

the

question

of

order

and

system

first

because

this

plays

a

role

in our

resolution

of theothertw o

problems.

Thus

it is the

order

ofsound valuesinboth Wulfila'sGothicalphabet and theIrish ogam

when

compared with their source alphabets that helps to corroborate

the posited association of Greek letters with the runes mentioned in

point 2 above. Finally it is also order that may provide the

key

to a

system

in the shaping of certain runes tha t are not imm ediately recog-

nisable

in the Mediterranean

models.

4.

Order

and re-ordering

4.1

Thefupark consonants

Numerous

different

ways

of

arriving

at the

same result

are

conceiv-

able. Without documentary evidence wehaveno way oftelling exactly

whatmethod was used. The two suggestions described below are cer-

tainlynot the

only possibilities. W hat

is

important

is to

recognise that:

1. the

starting-point

in

each case

is an

arrangement

of

eighteen Greek

consonants

in

alphabetical order

and

divided into three groups-

two setsofeight(B to K and to P) plusthe last

pair

(T and ):

A M N S I I S ' Q P

2.

the subsequent recombination of these sets of consonants is trans-

parentlysystematic evenif thereason for it is not immediatelyclear.

Eachof the twomethodsisbasedon adistinctive principle.The first

uses

a

system

of

columns

and rows, and is

suggested

by the

fact

that

the fujsark itself maintains pairs of consonants recognisable from a

Greek alphabet as shown above (Fig.

2f).

The second method is based

onthe knownpracticeof inscribing a learning alphabet round the edge

ofa

writing

tablet

(cf.

the Este

tablet

mentioned inNote 20, and the

well-knownMarsillianad'Albegriatablet).

18

In both cases Greek

kappa

isassociated

with

runic TJ and qoppa with

runic

k,which for the time

being

mayseem strangebut willbeexplained later (Section 53).

18

See,

for

example, Caffareilo (1975:56-58),

and

Diringer (1968; Fig.22.2a).


17/47

180

Alan Griffiths

Suggestion

1

based

on

columns

androws

The first set ofeight consonants, from B to K, isarranged in two

rows

reading

from

left

to

right, then right

to left, as

shown

in

Fig.

3a.

The

second

set of

eight,

from

to P, is

arranged

in two

columns,

first

top tobottom, then bottomtotop,asshowninFig.3b.These columns

aresplit inhalf horizontally, and the last pair ofconsonants, and

, is

inserted

in the

split (Fig. 3c).

The

rowsfrom Fig.

3a are

then sys-

tematically

spliced pairwise into

the

columns,

the first two

pairs

of

each

rowoneither sideof and , and thesecond twopairsat the top of

the columns, asshownin Fig.3d. If we now read down one column

and up the

other(Fig.

3e) and

subsequently write

the

runes

out in

this

order

but in

three rows

in

boustrophedon

(Fig.

3f),

we

have

the

fujrark

order.

19

, .

Suggestion 2 - usingawriting tablet

Here the first eight consonants are written out as in Fig.4a. The

second

set of

eight consonants

is

inscribed round

the

three sides

of a

writing

tablet

(Fig. 4b),

the

fourth, open side being

the

side with

the

handle.

The

four consonants,

to K , are

then inserted

as in

Fig.

4c

and the

four from

to F as in

Fig.

4d,

while

the

pair,

and , are

set at the

corners (Fig. 4e). Finally

the

whole sequence

fromF to is

read in

boustrophedon

as in theprevious suggestion inFig.3f.

4.2 Thefupark vowels

Theplacingof thevowels amongst theconsonants is almost sym-

metrical

but

unfortunately

not

quite.

A

particular problem

is

created

by

thealternative positions of

and

L

InFigs

5a-5b

theKylverand

Vadstenafu{)arks(Figs

la-lb)

arewritten

in

boustrophedon.Thecom-

monest order,however, combines

the

o/upositions

of

Kylver

and the

/// 'positionsofVadstena (Fig.5c).

20

Thesituation iscomplex. In the

19

Significantly

this involves dividing

the

series into three sets

of

eight, thus

fore-

shadowing

the

three

families, or

cettir,

of the

later fufcark inscriptions such

as

that on theVadstena bracteate.

20

The

vowels

in the

Anglo-Saxon Runic Poem, which lists

the

rune names,

are

arrangedin theVadstena order.TheCodexSalisburgensis

140

givesAnglo-Saxon

futhorcs,

one

with

theVadstenaorder, theother with the commonest order.


18/47

The fut> rk

(and

ogam) 181

"commonest"order (Fig,

5c)

the

arrangement

of u o

/and

is in

fact

virtuallysymmetrical,with andi'asthe finalrunesin thebottom line

and

u

and

i

the

penultimate

runes

in the top

line.

It

would appearthat

the

vowels

in

both

the

alphabet

and the fufcark

adjoin

similar consonants.

To see

this

we

need

to

read

the

consonants

of the three

cettir

of the

fu{>ark

in

boustrophedon

from the bottom up:

fprkgw

> :

h

nj

p

^ 5

.

. < . " ' "

'

.

t

bmlg d

whichwritten

in

line read:

> >

. '

>

d linb t h n j p z s

w

g k r p-f.

Taking

the

most commonlyfound positions

for

runic

and

Tin

the

fujwk,we now find for

the

Greek alphabet and the

fuj>ark:

In the

alphabet:

A

precedes

precedes

precedes

F all

three consonants

In the fujsark: e precedesb precedes/? precedes/ are

labials.

Inthe

alphabet:

follows follows I

follows

Two

consonants

are

In

the

fu^ark:

precedes

d

i precedes^

a

precedes/? dentals

+E/j.

With the

fufcark

as

baseline, this

can be

illustrated

as

follows:

Alphabet

vowels:

dtjlm\bthnj\pzswgkrp\f .

Fufrark vowels: e i u

Alphabet vowels:

I

t

d 1

ylm

bthnjj swgkrl

p1

f.

FuJ)ark

vowels:o t .

where

thevowels above the line

are

thoseadjoiningtherelevant con-

sonants in thealphabetand the vowels below the

line

are thoseadjoining


19/47

182

Alan

Griffiths

the runicconsonants.The change of vowels from alphabet to fufcark

is

also coherent:

Alphabet

replaced

by

fufcark /

or

Alphabet

replaced

by

fuj)ark

u

or

o,

thusgiving

the

symm etrical distribution

of

Fig.

5.

As

regards alphabet A and I it seems that alphabet A could not

simply remaina,whichleft only

one

option:

Alphabet A replaced by fu]park e

Alphabet

I

replaced

by

fufcark

a.

The omissionof C//Y from thealphabet set ofvowelsinthis scheme

is

consistent with

the

ideathat Greek

tallies with runic w,

on a par

with the

Gothic solution.

(In the

ogam setup

the U

also appears

to

have

a

separate status,

see

Appendix

1.)

A

system along these lines wouldgosomeway toexplainthevariation

in

the

positions

of the and

runes since

it

could lead

to

confusion

about whether these vowels should

be

inserted before

or

after

the

and drunes.

5. Order and the assignment of sound values

5.1 New phonemes, old signs

When

a

form

of the

alphabet

was

applied

to a

"new

59

language

and

new

phonemes had to be

accounted for,

it was not usual to invent

totally

new

signs. Mostly,

the new

phonemes were assigned

to

existing

signs which represented phonemes that did not occur in the

"new"

language, or extra signs were borrowed

from

other alphabets. Borrowed

signs

were usually placed at the end of the chosen abecedary (as Et-

ruscan 8 =

[f]),

whilean existing sign usually remained in its original

position

in the

abecedary

(as

LatinFwithout

the

H).

A

third possibility

was

for an existing sign to be slightly modified and then either be kept

next

to the

original sign

(as

/beside

/

or Wbeside V

in

m odern

al-

phabets) or be slotted into a position previously occupied by a sign

thathad become redundant (as theLatin Gderived from Cin thezeta

position).Occasionally ligatures wereformed

and

consolidated into let-


20/47

The

fu^ark

(and ogam) 183

ters in

their

own right, aswith the Cyrillic

representation

of

u], [ja],

etc. from uncial Greek

, ,;placedat the end of the

alphabet along

with

the

ligatures

for

[eng],

[ong],

etc.

from

iv,

ov.

21

It is in this light that we

iriust

consider the discrepancies wehave

noted above inmatchingthesound valuesofGreek lettersand those

ofrunic/, w,j\ and k as

well

as thesibilantssand z.

Comparison

with

the way theGothic alphabet and the

Irish

ogam inventory dealt

withthesame sound values ishelpful here.

5.2 Runicf , w andj: comparison with the

Gothic

alphabet

Comparison with

the

Gothic alphabet indicates

a

similar approach

between

Wulfila's

solution inadapting the Greek alphabet to a Ger-

manic language

and

that

adopted

earlier

in the

creation

of the fuj}ark.

Table

1

lists

the

fujrark beside

the

Gothic,

Greek,

Latin

and

Etruscan

alphabets, based on theassumedcorrespondences

between

the fuj)ark

andGreek. It willbeseen that theGothic list introduces adaptations

to theGreek consonants at twoplaces wherethe

fu^ark

also deviates

from

the

Greek

alphabet, namely

at the

archaic

digamma

and the

xi

positions.

The

digammaposition

is not left

vacant but

is filled

with

a

character

for

/kw/, while

thexi

position

is filled

with

a

sign, seemingly

derived

from

a

runic source,

for /J A

Theplacing of

/j/

in the xi.

position

in the Gothic alphabet corro-

borates our assignment of

they

rune

to

the

Greek\-xi

position in the

model for the fujmrk: thedeviser(s)of

both

the fuj?ark and the

Gothic

alphabet treated the

/j /

phoneme in the same

way.

They apparently

needed

to

represent

/j /

by

separate sign rather than

follow

the

Latin

practiceofusingasingle sign,/, for both [i]and

[j].

There beingno

exact equivalent

in

Greek,

the

Germanic sign

was

given

the

place

of

xi,for

which there

was no

use.

Superficially,

this seems

to be an

example

ofa.straightforward

re-occupation

of the

site

of a

redundant sign.

The treatment

of

the

digamma positionin Gothic is

curious.

It was

notfilled by a

sign

to

represent

the/w /

phoneme, which

had

disappeared

from

classical

Greek,

Instead,

a

q

*=

[kw]

was

introduced,

while

the

21

Cyrillic

also

shows an interestingmodification torepresent[j]

([tj],

[djj) from

(placed

beside

[i])aswellas the

[zh],

[dz]

pair

from

ta

and

(beside[z]).The

origin

of the

sibilants

[sh],

[sht], [ts]

and

[c],which follow[o:]*

is too

controversial

for

commenthere.


21/47

184

Alan Griffiths

long

redundant qoppa was

only

retained as a numeral, as in Greek.

The /w/ wasrepresentedby an equivalentof

upsilon,

positioned

after

/,

which

is

precisely

the

position

we

have presumed

for it in the

model

alphabet

for the

fufcark.

A striking

difference

between th e Gothic

al-

phabet

and our

assumptions regarding

the

fufcark

is in the

placing

of

/in

the

digamma

position in our presumed model for the

fufcark,

whereas

the Gothic series obviously treats

the / as

paralleling

with respect

to

position (and perhaps also

phonetically,

since

the

Greek sound value

by

this time approximated

a

bilabial spirant)

but

resembling

a

runic

(orLatin)/graphically.

22

5.3 Runic

g, k and

s,

z:

comparison with

the

Irish

ogam

The assignment of runic rj and k in relation to Greek kappa and

qoppa can best be appreciated by taking into account the assignment

of

sound values

in the

Irish ogam. Here

the

later manuscript tradition,

to which we owe our knowledge of such assignments, transcribes sign

No. 9,[k],as a C(as in the Anglo-Saxon furore) and signNo. 13as

NG,presumably with

the

value [q].According

to our

analysis

of the

fujsark

so far therune representing[]appearstooccupyasite originally

occupiedby

kappa,

whilethe

k

rune appearsin theredundant

qoppa

site

(see Figs 2, 3 and 4). When we subject the Irish ogam to a similar analy-

sis(see Appendix 1) we find that ogamC

=

[k] occurs in thekappa site

while

ogam sign No.

13,

transcribed as

ng,

occurs in the

qoppa

position.

McManus (1986: 18ff.; 1988:

157-9;

1991: 38, 144) suggests that

ogamicNG

was one of the

characters which

a

later revision

of

ogam

aimedat "rescuing from redundancy"by

assigning them cosmetic

va-

lues

that were reflected

in

modified forms

of

their names. Thus, accor-

ding

to him, sign 13originally represented Primitive Irish /g

w

/, which

when

subsequently delabialized merged with the value of sign 12, /g/.

In

order

to

differentiate

the

two,

the

name

of

sign

13 in the

manuscripts

wasemended

from getal

to ngetal,with an initial NGwhich is not a

22

The

classical

grammarians' association of

Latin F

with the Aeolian digamma

and

Greek F(see

Section 3.2,point2) may even be

reflected

in thepositionof

/andwin thefu^ark in

relation

todand/:

runic

d

and/stand

at theterminals

of

the'fut>ark

and in the

eventualdivision

into

three

setsof

eight

(cettir) the

w

stands

opposite/in the firstcett,whilethe

t

stands opposite

d

in the

third


22/47

Thefu{>ark (and ogam) 185

radical initial in Irish and cannot therefore be authentic. (Other signs

involvedin

this revision were those

for

H, Q,

and Z; see

Appendix

1.)

What

is also of interest in this connexion is that the glosses on the

kenningsfor

NG

(GG)

make

specific

reference

to a

relation between

K

andNG.

23

This could simplyrefer to a semantic relation between the

names chosen

for

these characters (cath,

"battle", and

getal,"act

of

wounding"?)

or to an

awareness

of the

voiceless/voiced relation

ofk/g,

but if so, whyshouldthepointbemadein theglossesonNG/GG rather

than in thoseon Cor (7?

The

assignment

of

ogam

NG,

alias/g

w

/,

to theqoppa

site

and of /k/

to the kappa siteaswellas the Irish glosseson the relation ofK and

NG,

go

some

way to

support

the

idea that runic

and

k

were also

seenasrelated andthat they were originallyassigned to thesame sites

as

their ogamcounterparts

(g/qoppa, and

k/kappa)

but

that

for

some

reason the fujrark characters were subsequently interchanged. Sucha

conclusion would tally with an interpretation of the shapes of the k

and (7

runes

as

having been adaptedfrom

kappa and

qoppa,

respectively,

by

removal of the upright stave or stroke in each

case,

to create a system

in

which

all

palatal

and

velar signs were staveless (see

Section

7.2,

point4).

As forsand z, it isalso evidentfrom

the

matchingofogam sound

values to

those

of the

supposed source alphabet that,

as in the

fuj>ark,

/s/

tallied with

Greek

zetaa n d / z / with Greek

san

(Appendix1, Figs

1-2and1-3).Moreover, theparallel between

san,

runicz andogam

Z isagain supported by

McM anus'(1991:

38)suggestion thatthe ma-

nuscript transcription

ofogamZ is a cosmetic one and is"clearlyde-

23

There

are

threeseriesof kennings, belongingto the OldIrish period Briatharo-

gaim("Word-ogams"),which provide informationon themeaningofIrish letter

nomenclature.For theseketmiiigsandtheglosses onthem,

together

withacom-

mantary

on

each

letter,see in

particular

McMatius

(1988).

The

relevant

glosses

onNG/GG,

with

McManus*

translations,

are:"getalsen .i. ar is

luth

lasna

leigib

7

co ibnius etir

cath

7getal":i. e.thatis[akenningfor]

Getal

\.e.foritissustance

with

the

leeches

and

thereiskinshipbetween battle

andgetal(

4

act

of

wounding'?).

"Ngedal

.i.

gilcach

nuo

rait,

ut

dicitpr

luth lego ngedal

.i

gilcach

norait,ar is

luth laisna legaib7coibnes iter K 7 NG, no miodach ice a. ar imad a iceno/

A.

gilcach no

rait":

Ngedal Le.

reed

orbog-myrtle,

ut

dicitur 'sustenance of a

leech'

is

ngedal i.e. reedor

bog-myrtle,for it is

sustenance with

theleechesand

there

is

kinsh ip between

kand

ng

or a

healing physician

i.e.on

account

of the

abundance

of its

healing (powers 7)or/i.e. reed

or

bog-myrtle.


23/47

186

Alan Griffiths

signed toeffect an

independent status

for

what

was by

then

a

redundant

symbol",

itsvalue having

merged

with

that already represented

by5,

/s/.The initialof theIrish manuscript nameof Z,

straif,

indicating "an

intermediaterealization

of

PCI.*st->

Olr.

s-,

probably[st]"(Schrijver,

1997:

310, n.

32),

in

fact

parallels

the

presumed value

of

runic

z,

which

was

probablyhalf-waybetween modern-English

rand

modern English

z"(Elliott,1980: 16).

6.A phoneticpattern?

From this match

of

sound values

it

would appear

that

the

model

for

the

fujwk consonants

was the set of

eighteen Greek consonants

that included

digamma,

consonantal

eta,

qoppa

andson

instead

ofsigma:

8'(2

The Germanic phonemes /j/ and //were assigned to the sites of xi

and qoppa, /s/and

/z /

tozetaand

son,

/{/and /w/ to

digamma

and

phi:

bgdfshpkl

mnjp

r

tw

Inthis"pre-fu]3ark"seriesofeighteen consonantsthe /k/ and/ng/ were

interchanged:

bg df

shpylmnjpzkrtw

and

from this sequence

the

fufcark order

was

derived along

the

lines

suggested

in

Figs.

3 and 4.

Therationale behindtheswitchofkand;;in the"pre-fufcark" series

is

not

immediately obvious

but an

analysis

of the

sound values according,

to a Greek division of consonants into ,i. e.mutes

(voiced,

voicelessand

aspirated),

and,i.e.

semivowels

and

spirants,

re-

veals

a symmetrical phonetic pattern (Fig.6).

The first sixconsonants of thepostulated"pre-fujsark" series divide

into agroup ofthree

,

b g

d,

followedbythree

,/

s /?,

whilethelastsixconsonants comprise alternately

arid,

p

z k r

Mv,

with

the

three mutes

p k t in

the

same

phonetical

sequence

as the first

three mutes

b g d

(Fig.6a).

The

middle

six

consonants

of

the "pre-fu{)ark",p l m nj are all,withthe firsttwo,p

/;,

and last two, n j, phonetically related to thesecond andpenultimate

mutes

of the

whole series, g

and

t(Fig.6b).Finally, the trio

/

s h

is


24/47

Thefuf>ark (and

ogam) 187

phonetically related to the

tri

p z

k,while

m may be seen to have a

nasal-mutation relation

to

b

comparable

to that of togand

of n

to

t familiar inCeltic sound-systems

(Fig.

6c).

The

non-nasal

semivowels

and

liquids

], [r] and

[wj,

[1]

can

also

be

seen

as

forming phonetic pairs,

and in a

Celtic/Germanic context

the

linking of the s rune to dand p and of z toy and r isconceivablein

termsof (a) theCelticuse of a

barred

>,

DD,SSoi

Greek torepresent

a group

of

related sounds also rendered by.SS (Piggott, 1974:37-8),

and (b) the later development in Old Norse of the

Germanic

[z]into

a

strongly palatized

[r]

represented

by the

rune

and

usually transcribed

as

R.

The

pattern

would not have been symmetrical if k and TJ had not

been

interchangedor if asibilanthadbeen retainedin the

sigma

position

between

rand t instead of the z in the san

position.

In

view

of this

pattern

it is

conceivable that

the

alphabet which

formed the

basis

for

the runes underwent a degree of phoneticrationalization,possiblywith

Celticmediation, before being re-ordered into the fufcark sequence.

7.Derivation of sign shape

7.1

Order and tradition

The ordering of phonemes in the

different

abecedaries tends to deviate

less perceptibly

than the

sign shapes representing

the

sounds.

If we

play

safe and

compare runes withindividualGreek

or

Latin letters

on

thebasisofshapeaswellassound valuesand identifycharacters which

have

both equivalent shapesandeqivalent sound values, thereis agrea-

ter correspondence between runes andLatin letters (B, C

9

F,H,

/,R,

S, T) than there isbetween

runes

and either classical (eastern) Greek

letters

(, , , ) or

western Greek letters

(B,

H,

I, R, S, T)

which

formed the starting-point for the Etruscan and Latin alphabets. It is

the

greater

tally of correspondenceswith

Latin

that has been seen to

favour the possibility of

a

Latin source for the

runes.

Above

all,

the

agreement with Latin C,J%Hand fl has played an important role in

the

arguments, despite

the

western Greek

usageof a

tailed

R and an

aspirated

[h]

that

was

absent

in the

dialectsrepresented

by the

classical

alphabet. However,thedifference in tiie talliesis not

very

great com-

pared to the general lack of correspondence (in at least 16

instances),

whichfar outweighs thecorrespondences (in at most 8 instances).


25/47

188 Alan

Griffiths

Even if we

look beyond

the

major alphabet types

to

specific local

alphabets it has to beconcluded thatnot allrune shapesare derivable

from

one

single kn ow n abecedary w ithout recourse

to

special pleading.

Consequently

judgm ents regarding

the

plausibility

of

explanations

for

the

source

of

this

or

that rune have

to

weigh

the

pros

and

cons

of

suggestions

involving

the

modification

of signs, the

invention

of new

signs,borrowingsfrom

different

abecedariesordifferent stylesofscript,

as

well

as the re-assignmentof sound values.The usual assumption is

thatthe starting-point was a single known abecedary andthatthe mo-

difications,

inventions, borrowings

and

re-assignments

took

place with-

in this basic framework.

Any

change

to the

basis

has to be

motivated,

usually

in terms of an inadequacy in the source alphabet to cope with

specific Germanic phonemes.

Thereisalso, however,thematter of

tradition.

It israre,for instance,

fora sign to be a completely new invention. M ost signs that superficially

appear to be inventions are infactm odifications of existing signs. More-

over, although modifiedand borrowed signs as wellasexisting signs

may beused for different sound values from

those

they denoted orig-

inally, it is

usual

for

them

to be

used

for

phonemes within

the

same

class.

Thus,

it is

unlikely

for a

sign originally representing, say,

a

labial

to shift

to a dental. This precludes such suggestions as runic

yark (and

ogam) 189

list of

signs whose shapes have evolved independently,

any

suggestion

that graphemes may be

related

to each other, or are evert arranged

according to a

system,

willseem

specious

indeed. However, given that

the

fufcark

issuch aradical re-arrangmentof the alphabet order, and

that

this

re-arrangement can be shownto havefollowed a system, it

is

not inconceivablethat there has

been

some deliberate modification

of the

shapes too.

The use ofwedgesand

upright staves with oblique

branches

point

iii

the

direction

of

intentional modification.

But did the

"redesigning" go further than this? Can w e discern a logic that m ight

explain

shapes

not

encountered

in

other abecedaries

for the

equivalent

phonemes?

12 Theconsonants

It is of

course possible

thatthe

individual

rune

shapes

and the fujpark

order

were simultaneous creations.

But it is

more likely that

the

shaping

of

the

runes predates

the

re-arrangement into

thefu^ark. If the

origin

was

indeed Greek, as we have attempted to demonstrate, then it would

not be unreasonable to suppose that the runes were first arranged in

the

order of

theGreek

alphabet

and

that the original order was one

inwhich

k

and

were

in the

kappa

and

qoppa

positions,

respectively,

as

suggested above.

Keeping the

consonants separate

fromthevowelsand

arranging them

in

alphabetical order

in twolines,we

arrive

at

Fig.

7.

Here

we see the

following

pairings based

on

shape

and

sound values:

1. In the top row ofFig.7a wehavethegraphicandphonetic pairing

-

of the

dentals

dandp and the velars

g

and

k.

The

possible logic

in

the

"design"of the shapes is demonstrated in Fig.7b.

25

Although

the

shape

of g is recognisably Greek

(Latin

X

being excluded

in

view

of the

process

of

re-ordering),

the

sound value

of

[kh] applied

to

the

eastern Greek

X and not to the

western Greek letter with this

shape, which had the va lue [ks] (whence the Latin use of the letter).

However,

it is

well documented that

the

Celts used

X for

[kh],

26

25

Antonsen's(1975)categorization ofnineshapesbymeansofstaffs,

branches,

pockets andcrooksis

helpful

in thisrespect

26

Jackson (1953);and

Kluge

(1975),s.v.Amt.

Celtic

use ofXas aGreekchi"is

known

from inscriptionsfrom Gaul (TIOCOBREXTIOon theColignyCalen-

dar)

and in

Britain (in

an

inscriptionfrom South

Shields)and it

also

appeared


27/47

190

Alan

Griffiths

which

could thereforebe the sourceof run ic use.The shape of the

d

would

at first sight seem to be an invention, but the Celticuse of

Xfor[kh]suggests also that Celtic use of a double>>for

27

may

alsohave playedarolein theshapingofrunicd.The use of

"singlet"

forms

for

k

and

fr

and

"doublet"

forms

for

g

and

d,

and not the

other way

round,

will no

doubt have been

a

matter

of choice, in-

fluencedbya sense of symmetry, since the first three consonants,

b,

g and d, form a neat trio of"doublets".

2. In the

bottom

row of

Fig.

7a the

coupling,

and t

isindicated.

The

relation between

the

shapes

and

sound values

of

these runes

is

not so

directly obvious

as the

dental

and

velar relations

in the top

row,

but they are all alveolars and are the only runes (in the early

formsof the

fu>ark)

w ith a central stave. In fact therelationbetween

nand

z

in this

respect

could verywellbeparticularly close.Ifrunic

n< N and runicz < M

(sari),

then both runes can be said to have

developed similarly, with two side-staves becoming one centralstave,

aslater found in the development of themrune. The motivation in

both cases would have been

the

need

for

differentiation,

the z

from

runiceand/or

m,

and then

from

runic

A.

It isworth noting thatin

the eventual

fuj)ark

ordering the z and

n

runes remain in symmetrical

placings about

the

centre.

28

3.Fig. 7c arranges the runes according to the phonetic pairings sug-

gested

in

Section

6

(Fig.

6c)

after

the

switchofk

and rj.If weconsider

earlier as a variant spelling on some coins of the British

'king'

Tasciovanus

(TAXCIAVfANOS]),of c. 20 BC to 10AD": Piggott (1974:

36-7).

If weexclude

the

so-called

"primitives"

(Crete,

Thera,

M

Alan Griffiths-The Fu_ark (and Ogam)_ Order as a Key to Origin-Walter de Gruyter (1999)

Documents

Transcript of Alan Griffiths-The Fu_ark (and Ogam)_ Order as a Key to Origin-Walter de Gruyter (1999)