The Origins of the Runes

by mār Enlil

 

Runes, this Germanic alphabet, are at the center of many neo-pagan and esoteric fantasies. They are presented as a sacred, even magical, alphabet. However, this is not the case. This view stems more from modern fantasies than from historical facts. In this article, we will explore various explanations regarding the origin of the runes.

 

There is no settled mystery. Runes have been the subject of several hypotheses, but none is universally accepted, even though some hypotheses are more credible than others.   It should be noted that the oldest runic inscriptions date from the mid-2nd century. The name “rune” comes from a reconstructed Proto-Germanic form, *rūnō, which can be translated as “secret, mystery; secret conversation.”

 

Although often associated with Scandinavia, runic inscriptions are also found in Germany (especially in the southwest) and in England. Runes have also been found in Eastern Europe, but they are linked to Germanic peoples.

 

As a side note, runes were used in the province of Dalarna, Sweden, until 1980.

 

A Northern Italic origin?

 

This is the most plausible hypothesis.

 

The word “rune” itself may derive from Lepontic, a Celtic language of northern Italy, *runo-ātis, meaning “belonging to the secret.”

 

Various North Italic Alphabets

Venetic - Eastern Rhaetian - Western Rhaetian - Camunian - Lepontic

Italian linguists Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante hypothesize that the runes originated from a North Italic alphabet, specifically Venetic: but since the Romans conquered Venetia after 200 BCE, and the Latin alphabet subsequently became dominant while Venetic culture declined in importance, the Germanic peoples may have adopted the Venetic alphabet during the 3rd century BCE, or even earlier.

 

However, if the Germanic peoples borrowed the script in the 3rd century BCE and the earliest runic inscription dates to the 2nd century, this implies that, for 500 years, the Germanic peoples wrote nothing. Yet, if you do not write for 500 years, over the course of generations, knowledge of the script and writing is lost.

 

But in 1811, 28 Negau helmets were discovered in Slovenia, dating from the 4th century BCE. On the Negau B helmet is an inscription in an archaic Germanic language, written using the North Etruscan (Rhaetian) alphabet. This is the oldest known inscription in a Germanic language. It consists of two elements: *harikasti*, a Germanic personal name, and *teiva*, likely related to the Indo-European *deiwas*, meaning “god.” The most recent interpretation is by Tom Markey (2001), who reads the inscription as “Harigast the priest.”

 

In Germania, written at the end of the 1st century, Tacitus tells us that the Germans carved symbols onto small pieces of wood, which they then cast to predict the future. However, we know of no runes dating from this period, except perhaps the Meldorf brooch, found in northern Germany and dated to the first half of the 1st century. Scholars suggest these might be proto-runes or poorly written Latin characters. This would mean that runes spread from south to north, rather than the other way around, as is commonly believed. Of course, if the earliest runes were written on perishable materials that did not withstand the test of time, it stands to reason that none have survived, which explains this 500-year gap.

 

However, it should be noted that some runes are likely of Latin origin. The resemblance is too great to be a mere coincidence.

Runic name	Runic letter	Latin equivalent
Fehu	ᚠ	F
Hagalaz	ᚺ	H
Isa	ᛁ	I
Sowilo	ᛋ	S
Tiwaz	ᛏ	T
Berkano	ᛒ	B

In my humble opinion, I believe that the runes originated from the North Italic alphabets, which later, in the 1st or 2nd century, were influenced by Latin through connections with Rome—whether through trade or through Germanic mercenaries in the Roman army.

 

However, there are also other hypotheses, which we will examine.

 

A Phoenician Origin?

 

If the runes derive from the ancient Italic script, then they have an indirect Phoenician origin, since the Italic script itself derives from the Phoenician script. However, some argue for a direct Phoenician origin. According to them, the Phoenicians traveled as far as Great Britain and Scandinavia, bringing their script with them.

 

This hypothesis is primarily associated with Theo Vennemann (b. 1937), a German linguist and philologist, who not only posits a Carthaginian-Phoenician origin for the runes but also argues that the Proto-Germanic languages developed under Carthaginian influence.

 

Vennemann’s main argument is that runes, in addition to representing sounds, also represent concepts, just like the Phoenician alphabet. For example, the first Phoenician letter, 𐤀 (alef), means “ox.” This is similar to the first runic letter, ᚠ (fehu), which means “cattle.” In the same vein, he posits that the rune ūruz (ᚣ), meaning “aurochs”—an ancient species of bovine that became extinct in the 17th century—is derived from the Phoenician letter gīmel (𐤂), meaning “camel.” According to him, because camels were absent from Germania, the Germanic peoples adopted the best of their own livestock—namely, the aurochs.

 

According to Vennemann, the Phoenician script was brought to Germania between Himilco’s expedition (5th century BCE) and the end of the Second Punic War (218–202 BCE), during which Carthage lost most of its possessions (Sicily, Spain). According to Vennemann, during this period, the Carthaginians are believed to have founded trading colonies in Germania. These contacts not only gave rise to the runes but also to the sound changes known as Grimm’s Law, which set the Germanic languages apart from other Indo-European languages.

Note the differences between Gothic (a Germanic language) and other Indo-European languages

However, no Carthaginian colonies on the Germanic coasts have been discovered through archaeological research. Furthermore, no ancient author mentions these colonies. Pliny the Elder and Avienus, who mention Himilcon’s voyage, say nothing about Carthaginian colonies.

 

Vennemann’s thesis therefore lacks archaeological and historical evidence.

 

A Greek origin?

 

This hypothesis is not very popular in academic circles, as there was little contact between the Germanic peoples and the Greeks. However, in 2014, the scholar Edmund Fairfax argued that the runes had a Greek origin and were passed down to the Germanic peoples by the Gauls. To my knowledge, he is the only scholar to support this hypothesis.

 

The Greeks had ties to the Celts. And we know, from Julius Caesar and Tacitus, as well as from archaeology, that the Celts wrote texts using the Greek alphabet. A transmission from the Celts to the Germanic peoples is therefore possible.

 

But it is important to note that the runes resemble the North Italic and Phoenician alphabets more than they do the Greek alphabet. The Greek origin is primarily a 19th-century hypothesis that has fallen out of favor.

 

An Indigenous Germanic Origin?

 

This hypothesis is even less popular. As we have seen, there are a great many similarities between the runes and the North Italic and Phoenician scripts. The resemblance cannot be a coincidence. Objectively speaking, there has been a borrowing. Even if their usage was unique, the alphabetical structure clearly shows a Mediterranean influence.

 

Conclusion

 

Of course, there are other hypotheses and explanations, such as a Balkan origin or a prehistoric Nordic origin. The vast majority of scholars support a Mediterranean origin based on the Phoenician script. A transmission from the south to the north, via northern Italy, is the most coherent and convincing hypothesis.