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

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

1. Introduction Do the Germanic runes derive from one or other of the Mediterranean alphabets?1 If so, which one: Greek, Latin, north Italian, Etruscan? And why are the runes, when set out as a series, arranged in nonalphabetical order, starting with the characters fupa r k (Fig. 1), which have given the series its traditional name? Previous attempts to determine the origin of the runes have mostly concentrated on the shape of individual runes and the similarity to particular letters.2 The unorthodox order in the fuj>ark has been considered interesting but not of primary concern in determining which alphabet, if any, may have served as a model. After all, it is not known whether the runes were arranged in fufcark order from their inception or whether they were re-arranged some time later. The earliest known 1

The word alphabet is reserved here for a sequence of letters in alphabet order. This is important in view of the distinction that came to be made between, on " the one hand, Germanic words for letters of the (Latin) .alphabet, as used in "books" - AS. bocstcef, ON. bokstafr, OS. bokstaf, OHG. buohstap, NHG. Buchstabe - 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 distinct. The first record of the word alphabetum seems to be that by Septimus Florens Tertullianus (d. AD 220). Before that the Latin word for the series of letters was elementa. It is noteworthy that the Latin alphabetum uses the Greek names of the first two letters, reflecting the predominance of Greek in things grammatical. The pure Latin abecedarius or abecedarian is later (fifth century AD). The Greek στοιχεία seem to have been distinguished from γράμματα in the same way that Priscian distinguished between elementa (or elementa litterarum) and litterae, i.e. "elementary sounds" and "letters". On the other hand, κατά στοιχειον means "in the order of the letters", i.e. alphabetically, following the basic meaning of στοιχειον of "one of a series, a component part, an element", cf. the meaning of Gothic stabeis (nom. plur.) = Grundstoffe (raw materials, elements). 2 Morris (1988) gives a good overview of earlier discussions of the origin of the runes. Currently the most favoured prototype amongst runologists is the Latin alphabet in one form or another, see, for example, Williams (1996) and Quak (1996). Indogermanische Forschungen, 104. Band 1999

The fujmrk (and ogam)

165

inscription to list a fujmrk is in fact quite late, probably not earlier than the first half of the 5th century AD (Fig. la), compared to the date of the first known inscriptions using runes, i.e. the 2nd to 3rd century AD. Recently, however, Elmar Seebold has not only tackled the question of sign order but has used it to substantiate his matching of the runes with a "proto-tyrrhenian" alphabet (Seebold, 1993:417).3 A major problem with his approaches that he has to resort to manipulations that tend to weaken his argument; For example, he associates theta with a "tektaler Reibelaut", namely the rune, and then has to reverse the order of eta ana theta. He also has to introduce a extra, "dummy" sibilant after sigma, otherwise his method of counting will not work. A key step in the procedure he proposes is to write out the alphabet so as to form pairs of letters which are then systematically re-arranged to yield the fufcark order. Such considerations fit in with his suspicion that there was probably a "magisch-mantisch begrόndete" basis to the re-arrangement of the alphabet and its use, even if the method he suggests is "nicht weiter begrόndbar" (Seebold, 1993: 420-1).4 The bulk of the present article was written in total ignorance of Seebold's work5; but in fact it will be seen to have a broad similarity in approach. Nevertheless the basic idea of matching letter pairs to rune pairs was arrived at independently and is thus worked out quite differently. The result, it is hoped, avoids some of the difficulties of Seebold's thesis. At the same time it goes beyond Seebold's conclusion in that it 3

4 5

Previously Seebold suggested (1991: 30) that the model was "ein hoch-archaisches Alphabet aus dem Kreis der lateinisch-faliskischen Schrift"- The model alphabet he proposes reads:

ab k d e f z ? h i g l m n ng o p w r s (s) 114 j th. The ? sign is a "tektaler Reibelaut" originally in the theta position before it and eta were reversed. They and th are supplementary characters added to the end; the (s) is an extra sibilant. The ng takes the place? of xi, the k the place of Italic C, the g the place of "redundant" kappa. The w takes the place of qoppa. Numerous arrangements of the alphabet for purposes of cult or magic are discussed by Dornseiff (1925). I am grateful to Sean Nowak for drawing my attention to Seebold's work as well as for substained encouragement and critical assessment. would also like to thank Professor Klaus Dόwel for his support throughout the genesis of this article, the essence of which was presented to the Seminar fόr Deutsche Philologie at Gottingen University on 28 January, 1997,

166

Alan Griffiths

indicates how the question of order may also help to elucidate some of the rune shapes. Since this emphasis on order differs from previous approaches, which have largely relied on a comparison of the shapes and sounds of individual characters rather than considering the alphabet and the fufcark as integrated systems, we begin by considering why runologists have so far failed to provide a convicing solution to the problem of runic origins (2.1) and what can be done about it (2.2-2.4). We then list the earliest fu]parks and the principal alphabets that may be considered eligible as a source for the runes (3.1-3.2). When these are matched on the basis of order, it will be found that one, and only one, of the alphabets corresponds. sufficiently closely to the oldest form of the fuj^ark to merit further consideration (3.3) despite a number of discrepancies. This encourages an attempt to demonstrate how the fufcark order can be systematically derived from a form of the alphabet that is closer to the Greek alphabet than to the Latin (4). Several difficulties relating to the equivalence of sound values can be explained in relation to the way the devisers of the Gothic alphabet and the Irish ogam derived their schemes from a Greek alphabet (5). In fact the ogam order of signs can be shown to have originated from the same alphabet as the fufcark, using a similar method (Appendix 1). By looking at the runic sound values and sign shapes from the point of view of a Greek alphabet order we discern patterns in both the phonetic structure (6) and graphic "design" (7) of the system, which suggest a certain rationalization of the source alphabet before its re-arrangement as the fujmrk. The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis (8) is restricted to the type of Mediterranean alphabet that formed a basis for the runes and the question of how the fuj)ark may have been created. It leaves open the questions when, where and why, about which it is still only possible to speculate, even given SeebokTs arguments in favour of a "magischmantisch begrόndete" motivation. 2. Method: past failure, new rigour 2.1 The runologists' conundrum

Williams (1996: 21 Iff.) has pointed out that two unsolved problems that have so far made it difficult to convince a majority of runologists of any one particular theory on the origin of the runes are:

The fujpark (and ogam)

167

1. the poor fit between the form of many of the runes and the sound values they would be expected to have on the basis of the corresponding shapes of the letters in the alphabets (e. g. Latin P [p] and Greek P [r] fit runic w in shape but not sound); 2. the inadequacy of the inventory of letters in the supposed Mediterranean source alphabets to supply all the runes in the fu{>ark; this means assuming that new runes were invented (e. g. runic d) or that one letter gave rise to two different runes, or that two alphabets were mixed to provide the full complement of runes (e.g. runic w from Latin P and runic z from Greek Ψ). These, however, are realities and not the real problem, which is the degree of freedom allowed if one accepts the practice of picking from this alphabet or that and resorting to "inventions" if all else fails. It may very well be that the creation of the fufcark was ad hoc and arbitrary; indeed the apparently archaic nature of the oldest inscriptions would appear to support the idea of arbitrary borrowings and wilful adaptations by "barbarian" people. On the other hand, anyone who has studied the fufcark in any depth must concede that, when taken as a whole, it is an intricate and sophisticated system on a par with Mediterranean alphabets. This is implicit, for example, in theories which postulate the application of certain general principles in the formation of the shapes of the runes. Such principles as "no horizontal strokes" - presumably in connexion with writing on grainy wood - do not, however, bring us much closer to origins, even if they do seem to apply.6 The apparently unavoidable need to "pick and mix" from this or that alphabet has bedevilled the study of runic origins and even today there is a lack of methodological rigour. To quote Williams (1996: 212) in extenso: "The enigmatic rise of the runes has long baffled the runologists. Why is it that this intricate, interesting and important question has so long escaped its solution? I think we must go back to the first scholarly treatment of the problem, by Ludwig Wimmer in 1874. In his monograph on the origin and development of the runes he establishes a method which has since been followed by later runologists: when a rune coincides in shape and sound value with a letter in the supposed source alphabet, its origiii is considered certain. When this is not the 6

An exception to this particular "rule'* would be the form of the e rune with the straight horizontal bar, although it might be argued that a change from this to the M shape in fact proves the rule!

:, ih tiw origin, and in shape arx· gm-j) s.om«;. MiuaJly «^uiUi fancifuJ and unprove» or even ynprovitbte, expia-

2,2 Suhttawe and circumstance

Tite f)wcc^n> WjlJiarnu -dciycribes is familiar enough, but there is an even more fundamental problem lurking in that expression "the supposed source alphabet", since it raises the question as to how the supposition is arrived at, in essence there are five aspects that are usually taken into consideration in exploring the origins of the fujwk. These can be subdivided into three aspects that relate to the linguistic substance of the fufcark and any potential source alphabet (substantial aspects) and two that relate to the circumstances in which the fu^ark may have come into being (circumstantial aspects),

The three substantial aspects are:

ί , the shapes of individual runes and of the letters of candidate source alphabets, 2. the sound values of same, plus the phonemes of candidate German dialects where the fu^ark may be deemed to have been formed or introduced, 3. the sequence of the runes in the fujwk, as first attested in inscriplions like those found at Kylver, The two circumstantial aspects are; 1. the geographical and chronological contexts, 2, the possible processes of transfer into a Germanic context - such us diffusion or implantation, Eiich of these aspects is in itself composed of a cluster of factors, which we need not analyse in detail here, The importance in drawing attention to them is that the priority given to any one over and above the other htiK generally led to investigators excluding certain possibilities almost it priori, thereby biasing the direction of their investigations. An example js the priori ly often given to the circumstantial aspects and in particular the importance attached to the idea, whether explicit or implicit, thai th§ use of runes reached the area where most of the

The fufrark (and ogam)

169

earliest inscriptions in the older fufcark have been found,i.e. Denmark and Norway, by a process of diffusion; that is to say, by a process that would imply geographical contiguity between cultural groups involved in the transfer and a chronologically continuous evolution of sign forms rather than, say, the implantation of an intentionally modified alphabet on a par with the introduction of the Gothic alphabet in the Balkans byWulfiia. Without any documentary evidence,"intentional modification" and the deliberate introduction of a system are of course difficult to prove circumstantially. On the other hand we should not allow circumstantial considerations to blind us to the substantial, i.e. linguistic, characteristics, which may point in directions we are as yet unable to prove chronologically or geographically. Even more importantly, we must not allow ourselves to be biased by circumstantial considerations into favouring one source over another from the outset. This seems to have been the case with, for example, Moltke (1985: 51), who dismissed "the Greek hypothesis" because he associated it with, in particular, von Friesen, whose theory "has now been abandoned for methodological and chronological reasons", and also with Aage Kabell, whose contribution "floats well above ground-level". The Etruscan alphabet was similarly excluded on chronological grounds - "the later we date the origin of the runes, the further into the distance Etruscan recedes" (ibid.: 61). This left the Latin alphabet, which he clearly preferred because of suitable geographical and chronological contiguity to allow him to champion the Danes who were, in his view, sufficiently close to but also independent of the Romans to have developed a separate system of writing (ibid.: 64).7 Williams (1996: 213) even goes so far as to suggest that the circumstantial evidence is such that we may "guess" that Latin capital letters were the source of the runes,8 Admittedly he does at 7

8

"Always independent of Rome, the Danes nevertheless maintained lively connections with this great civilisation and its trading-posts and military camps along the Rhine, as the archaeological evidence demonstrates. If anyone wanted to get to know the Romans and to learn f&ek writing system (with its obvious advantages), he had no need to travel to Rome. The Rhine region, the Netherlands and Gaul ail lay close at hand, and England was there as well" "Why not try the easy way out? The runes might certainly be borrowed 500 years before they first occur on actually found objects. The runes might also be borrowed from an obscure, even yet unknown, variant of the three Classical alphabets. The runes might even be borrowed from different systems of script, picking and

170

Alan Griffiths

least treat the Latin alphabet as a complete system of signs in a given order. But his circumstantially driven choice of the Latin alphabet leads him to force the fit to such an extent that he has to assocate familiar signs with sound values totally unrelated to those one might linguistically expect.9 Of course, the problem of how the runes transferred to Scandinavia cannot be ignored. But rather than allow an external factor like this to prejudice the candidature of source alphabets, a "cleaner" approach might be to consider the fu^ark as such and work from the inside out. In other words, let us put the emphasis on the linguistic characteristics of the fujmrk as a set sequence of signs with fairly well (though not always precisely) defined sound values and then (and only then) consider the implications any conclusions might have for the problem of how the fu^ark might have reached Scandinavia. There is, after all, more linguistic evidence to go on than historical. At the same time, if the linguistics point to an historically unfamiliar solution, we must be wary of being drawn into fanciful explanations such as coloured Bugge's Greek theory (which supposed an Armenian teaching Goths the runes used in Galatia!). 2.3 Three principles To sum up so far, the thesis that follows is based on three principles: L Substance before circumstance Assumptions about circumstantial aspects must not be allowed to override evidence discernible in the linguistic substance of the fu]park. For example, there must be no pre-disposition towards one or other

9

choosing at a leisurely fashion. But this is not the easy way out. "The least forced starting point for a discussion of the origin of the runes is to assume that they were invented some time around the birth of Christ, give or take a century or so. We may also assume that the dominant culture of the time, the Roman empire, is the most likely area to search for the inspiration of the German letters, if nothing makes us look elsewhere. We may finally guess that the capital letters of the Latin alphabet in its entirety is what we should use as a source candidate." Cf. Quak (1996: 172): "Wenn man die Fundlage und die Chronologie der Funde sieht, kommt von der Logik der Zeit und der Geographie her eigentlich nur das lateinische Alphabet als Ursprung in Betracht." Such as e derived from M and p from K.

The fόJDark (and ogam)

171

potential source alphabet because of a preference for the ideas of diffusion and evolution, and hence the probability of geographical contiguity and chronological continuity in the process of transfer. It could be that the linguistic substance such as sign shape and sequence points in a direction that does not fit any such predilection. If so, then the linguistic evidence must be given the benefit of the doubt and received opinion on the cultural circumstances may have to be questioned. 2. Acceptance of realities

It has to be accepted as a reality that no one alphabet on its own can account for all the signs of the fu|>afk. This implies that even if one alphabet is seen to correspond in the main to the fujmrk inventory on the basis of substantial characteristics —- including the sequence of signs - it has to be accepted that some signs will have been intentionally adapted or even borrowed from elesewhere. 3. A consistent system Admission of the possibility of intentional adaptation or borrowing must not degenerate into "an easy way out when all else fails". Any divergence in shape, in the correspondence between shape and sound value or in the sequence of signs as compared with the source alphabet to which the majority of runes correspond must not be waved away with a fanciful explanation or accepted as an arbitrary alteration. It must be demonstrated to be either consistent with the conventions displayed by other instances of alphabet transfer from one language to another, or at least not the result of an arbitrary, one-off intervention. As far as sign sequence in particular is concerned, an extension of the above principle of system and convention is to assume that the fuj^ark order was no less independent of the original alphabetical order than the rune shapes were independent of the original letter shapes. In other words, the fufcark order was the result of a re-arrangement of the alphabetical order. The re-arrangement, moreover, is unlikely to have been arbitrary, which conversely implies that it was deliberate and probably methodical. A requirement to explain how an alphabetical order was methodically converted into the fu]>ark order also adds rigour to the test of acceptability of any thesis on the origin of the runes.

172

Alan Griffiths

2.4 The relevance of ogam

In the course of our argument we shall be involving the script known as ogam or ogham that is found on monuments in Ireland from the 5th century AD on (see Appendix 1). Among the reasons for this involvement is the fact that ogam and the runes have at least six features in common:10 1. They are both first documented in areas just across the northern frontiers of the Roman Empire: 2nd to 3nd century AD in Denmark/ S. Norway for the runes; 5th century AD in Ireland for ogam. 2. Both systems assign meaningful indigenous names to their signs, whereas Greek adopts and adapts the Semitic names and Latin uses a phonetic scheme (a, be, ce, el, em, etc.) which it apparently inherited from Etruscan. 3. Both systems order their signs differently from any of the Mediterranean alphabets. 4. Both systems divide their series into groups or "families", although there are four groups (known as aicmi, singular aicme) in ogam compared to three (known as cettir, singular cett) in the fu^ark. 5. There is a specific runic sign for ng, not found in Mediterranean alphabets, although Greek practice was to account for the nasalization by writing γγ as well as γκ, γξ and γχ. Traditionally there was also an ogam sign for ng, although McManus (1986; 1991) claims that this sign may originally have represented [gw].

10

Features 2 and 4 are cited by Marstrander (1928) and features 2 to 5 are cited by Pedersen (1920-24), as indicating Celtic influence on the formation of the fuj)ark. McManus (1991: 23), also cites five other "common features, given by among others Arntz (1935): 1. Both systems appear to be designed for epigraphic use on hard materials (wood or stone), their latter-day use in manuscripts being a mere antiquarian curiosity. 2. Both scripts had particular magical associations. 3. Vocalic [u] and consonantal [w] are distinguished in both fuf>ark and ogam. 4. The fact that ogam originally had no sign for [p] might be compared with the limited use of runic p. 5. Runic h was not merely graphic and z was not restricted to foreign words, as in Latin. As McManus points out, however, the first two of these do not distinguish ogam and fu^ark from other alphabets, since Roman capitals also had a specifically epigraphical function, while the magical properties of the written word are unversal (and often overstated in the case of ogam and runes). The other three features are related to Arntz's desire to demonstrate that ogam was derived from the fufcark rather than the Latin alphabet.

The fujsark (and ogam)

173

6. The ogamic system of strokes across or just touching a running line is highly reminiscent of later cryptic runes based on a system of counting strokes. When expressed in such general terms, none of these observations is particularly helpful in establishing an unequivocal relationship between the two systems. The spread in both time and place of the earliest finds speaks against the idea of one scheme being derived from the other rather than in favour of it. However, there is one overriding methodological reason for considering ogam beside the fuj)ark: ogam is a prime example of a system where the order of the "signs" has been intentionally changed and, since the form of these signs is unrelated to letter shapes, their relation to any alphabet can be established only on the basis of sound values and their order in the inventory. In other words, no problem of sign shape muddies the waters of comparison. Moreover, if it is legitimate to compare ogam with Mediterranean alphabets, then it is also legitimate to compare ogam with the fuj)ark, if only to determine how the two treated their sources similarly or differently. By treating the fuj>ark in the same way as we have to treat the ogam inventory, namely as a series of sound values in a given order, rather than as characters, we can stand back from the problem of comparing individual sign shapes and concentrate on the system as a sequence of sound values.11 As a consequence the "derivation" of sign shape actually becomes easier. 3. Correspondences 3.1 The runic inventories

We begin with the earliest forms of the fuj>ark. In the oldest known fujmrk inscription, found at Kylver and dated to the first half of the fifth century AD (Fig. la), the 24 runes-are presented as an unbroken series. However, on bracteates found 4! Vadstena (Fig. Ib) and Grumpan (Vδstergφtland), both dated about fifty or more years later, there It is interesting to note that in teaching the alphabet Greek and Roman tutors, at least up to the second century AD began by introducing their pupils to the names and order of the letters before showing them their form; see Carcopino (J985: J2i) citing Quintilian, I 3, 16-J7/Apparently Qiiintillian strongly condemned this approach.

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. Other notable differences between the Kylver fufrark and, for example, the Vadstena inscription are: 1. Kylver is written left to right, the Vadstena (and Grumpan) version right to left. 2. Kylver's p has the usual form, Vadstena's is more like a b. 3. Kylver's s zj and rj differ from Vadstena's. 4. Kylver's /' comes after /?, Vadstena's before it. 5. The Kylver order of d ο is reversed in Vadstena (assuming the final rune is a d). 6. The a and b in Kylver are in mirror-image. We shall revisit most of these differences in the course of our discussion. 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 into account two basic types of Mediterranean alphabet, namely the Latin and the Greek, since the 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 B and D in model (learners') alphabets, included forms for both sibilants son and sigma (whereas Greek alphabets used either one or the other), and sometime before 530 BC added a figure-of-eight sign for /f/ at the end of its alphabet series.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 will be elucidated later.) 12 13

In ignoring the Etruscan alphabet 1 concur with Morris (1988: 6). The version of the Gothic alphabet given here is from the Codex Argenteus Hand 1, (as reproduced in Philippa and Quak, 1994: 23). The Etruscan alphabet is reproduced from Bonfante (1990) (but see also Caffarello, 1975: 71) and follows the form taken in the fourth to first centuries BC, except for the qoppa, which is earlier.

The fufrark.(and ogam)

175

Admittedly the lists give a very broad picture, since they largely ignore local variations as well as detailed variations over time, but they provide a baseline from which to start, without prejudging the 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 respect to time and place. Details of specific alphabets from specific dates may need to be filled in later, but with regard to order the main differences between the Greek, Etruscan and Latin alphabets are: 1. Originally Latin C had a similar sound value to that of the Greek gamma, namely [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 Sabine influence). Etruscan appears to have used the third letter in their series for a [k] before [a]. 2. Classical Greek had no use for the digamma as 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 denoted by the Etruscan letter (usually transcribed as V): To represent the sound [fj (not present in Greek), the Etruscans initially used a combination of the digamma and H, i. e. FH, but trancribed as VH. Sometime before 530 BC they replaced this by a figureof-eight sign which they listed at the end of their inventory. The Romans began by copying the Etruscan use of FH for [fj but eventually dropped the H. For [w] they made use of the vowel V (see point 7). Roman grammarians, however, "misled by shape, ascribed to F the power of the digamma; thus: F Aeolicum digamma, quod apud antiquissimos Latinorum eandemvim quam apud Aeolis habuit, eum autem prope sonum quern nunc habet, significabat p cum aspiratione; sicut etiam apud veteres Graecospro F,p, et h, Prise. 1,4, p. 12" (Lewis, s.v. F). In fact Latin F never represented the sound of digamma but a value approximating1'"that of Greek Φ, but rougher, Quint. 1,4,14; 12,10,29; cf. Prise. 1,4, p.14" (ibid- see also point 7 below). v 3. Greek had a Z where Latin had G; the Latin G was supposed to have been introduced by a freedmaa of the consul Spurius Carvilius Ruga sometime after 250 B.C.; before then Latin had a form of the Greek Z. The sound values of the Greek sibilants, including zeta, are not always clear and varied from dialect to dia~

176

Alan Griffiths

lect14 Before the "re-introduction" of Z to transcribe Greek names, in Cicero's time, Latin represented zeta as S initially (as in Sethos, sona, etc.) and as SS medially (as Atticisso, badissas, etc.); see also point 6. 4. Latin had no equivalent for Greek Θ and a sign with a sound value equivalent to Ξ, i.e. X, was placed towards the end of the Latin series, not after Ν (see point 8). 5. Classical Greek had no use for β as a letter but retained it as a numeral 6. Where Latin had an S between R and Γ, some versions of the Greek alphabet had Σ, while others, particularly in the western colonies, had no Σ but a son, shaped like an M, between Π and Ρ (rho); there were hardly any Greek alphabets that included both son and sigma - Argos was one; the value of son appears to have been a voiced [z]. The Etruscan alphabet included both san and 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. After upsilon Greek placed its aspirated Φ, i.e. [ph], originally represented in Latin by P(H) or B\ by the second century BC the value of Φ was probably that of a bilabial spirant; not until c. 400 AD were Latin PH (for Φ) and F (a labiodental) treated as identical. Later Etruscan had a phi for [ph] and a figure-of-eight sign at the end of its inventory for [f].

14

15

In Jeffrey (1990, Plate 20:16) there is even an example of a Corinthian alphabet in which xi is placed in the san position after pi and san appears in the sigma position after rho. Etruscan had difficulty in distinguishing the shapes of M [m] and M (san) and at one point attempted to solve this by using a half-obliterated M, rather like a Greek Λ in form. This letter shape was revived by Verrius Flaccus (4th century BC) to represent the hardly audible [m] intially before Latin vowels. The date of this "revival" excludes any direct relation to the runes but the process illustrates a tradition that may have some relevance to the formation of runic m and w (see Section 7.2, point 3).

The fufrark (and ogam)

177

8. Latin X Was added to its original inventory to account for [ks] in Greek words. It is phonetically equivalent to classical Greek Ξ and some western Greek values of the character Xbut not to classical Greek X [kh], 9. Latin Υ and Ζ were similarly added at the end of the series to take care of Greek sounds. 10. Greek Ψ and Ω were also later additions; a form similar to Ψ in western Greek and Etruscan alphabets - a sign like a downward-pointing 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 matching letters and runes. These are the Greek and Latin alphabets. Admittedly, the Latin alphabet was based on the Greek, most probably via an Etruscan model, but it shows distinctive features in its omission of the Greek characters theta and xi, as well as its redistribution of the phonemes /k/ and /g/ and its use of the digammafor /f/ and of V for both /u/ and /w/. The order in other Italian alphabets is hardly distinguishable from that in the Greek, Etruscan or Latin. 33 The match The first step we take in matching the fuj>ark runes to the Latin or Greek alphabet is fairly radical: we remove the vowels. There is little 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 it can be deduced that the runic consonants were sometimes learnt separately from the vowels.16 We might also note in this connexion the example of a thirdcentury BC Venetic writing tablet, now in Este, on which two consonantonly series of letters are inscribed, presumably for learning purposes, one of the series being in purely alphabetical order.17 Principally, ho16 17

Knirk (1992: 192-7). The tablet (3rd century BC, presently in the Musep Nazionale Atestino, Este, Italy) gives a consonantal syllabary round the edges and on the bottom row, reading right to left, the series of consonants in Venetic alphabet order: (v) (z) (h) (q) k l m n p s' πίφχ (?) the first four characters and the last one not being legible.

178

Alan Griffiths

wever Justification for treating the consonants separately is to be found αι 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 the earlier and later Latin alphabets and the archaic and classical Greek alphabets in 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 Κ from the later Latin; 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 eta as a consonant (Fig. 2b and 2c) is closer, but this is not the point of the exercise. What is remarkable is that when the fuj)ark consonants are written out in boustrophedon (Fig. 2f), there is a particularly close correspondence between pairs of runic consonants and pairs of alphabet consonants in the archaic Greek series which 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 sign shapes, the association of certain runes with letters having totally different sound values also presents problems. For instance the Greek digamma represented [w] and not [f], and xi did not represent [j]. And what about the value [η] 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 pairs of runic consonants can be identified with pairs of alphabet consonants, the runic pairs 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 we account for the values assigned to the runes /, w, ;; and k as well as 7, s and z? 3. Sign shapes: how do we explain the shapes of runic g, k, d, p, #, 7, z, p and w, to name but the most obvious? We deal with each of these in turn, which means that while we tackle the question of order and systematic re-ordering, for example, we must

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 the other two problems. Thus it is the order of sound values in both Wulfila's Gothic alphabet and the Irish 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 that are not immediately recognisable in the Mediterranean models. 4. Order and re-ordering 4.1 Thefupark consonants Numerous different ways of arriving at the same result are conceivable. Without documentary evidence we have no way of telling exactly what method was used. The two suggestions described below are certainly not the only possibilities. What 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 sets of eight (B to K and Λ to P) plus the last pair (T and Φ): ΒΓΔΡΖΗΘΚ AMNSIIS'QP ΤΦ 2. the subsequent recombination of these sets of consonants is transparently systematic even if the reason for it is not immediately clear. Each of the two methods is based on a distinctive 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 on the known practice of inscribing a learning alphabet round the edge of a writing tablet (cf. the Este tablet mentioned in Note 20, and the well-known Marsilliana d'Albegria tablet).18 In both cases Greek kappa is associated with runic TJ and qoppa with runic k, which for the time being may seem strange but will be explained later (Section 53).

18

See, for example, Caffareilo (1975: 56-58), and Diringer (1968; Fig. 22.2a).

180

Alan Griffiths

Suggestion 1 - based on columns and rows The first set of eight consonants, from B to K, is arranged in two rows reading from left to right, then right to left, as shown in Fig. 3a. The second set of eight, from Λ to P, is arranged in two columns, first top to bottom, then bottom to top, as shown in Fig. 3b. These columns are split in half horizontally, and the last pair of consonants, Τ and Φ, is inserted in the split (Fig. 3c). The rows from Fig. 3a are then systematically spliced pairwise into the columns, the first two pairs of each row on either side of Τ and Φ, and the second two pairs at the top of the columns, as shown in 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 - using a writing 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, Ζ to K, are then inserted as in Fig. 4c and the four from Β to F as in Fig. 4d, while the pair, Τ and Φ, are set at the corners (Fig. 4e). Finally the whole sequence from F to Δ is read in boustrophedon as in the previous suggestion in Fig. 3f. 4.2 Thefupark vowels The placing of the vowels amongst the consonants is almost symmetrical but unfortunately not quite. A particular problem is created by the alternative positions of ο and L In Figs 5a-5b the Kylver and Vadstena fu{)arks (Figs la-lb) are written in boustrophedon. The commonest order, however, combines the o/u positions of Kylver and the ///'positions of Vadstena (Fig. 5c).20 The situation is complex. In the 19

20

Significantly this involves dividing the series into three sets of eight, thus foreshadowing the three families, or cettir, of the later fufcark inscriptions such as that on the Vadstena bracteate. The vowels in the Anglo-Saxon Runic Poem, which lists the rune names, are arranged in the Vadstena order. The Codex Salisburgensis 140 gives Anglo-Saxon futhorcs, one with the Vadstena order, the other with the "commonest" order.

The fut> rk (and ogam)

181

"commonest" order (Fig, 5c) the arrangement of u o /and Γ is in fact virtually symmetrical, with ο and i'as the final runes in the bottom line and u and i the penultimate runes in the top line. It would appear that 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 .· .· —> .· ' —> d η l in b t h n j p z s w g k r p-f.

Taking the most commonly found positions for runic ο and Tin the fujwk, we now find for the Greek alphabet and the fuj>ark: In the alphabet: A precedes Β Ο precedes Π Ε precedes F all three consonants In the fujsark: e precedes b ϊ precedes/? «precedes/ are labials. In the alphabet: Ε follows Δ Ο follows Ξ In the fu^ark: ο precedes d i precedes^

I follows Θ Two consonants are a precedes/? dentals +E/j.

With the fufcark as base line, this can be illustrated as follows: Alphabet vowels: Α Θ Ε dtjlm\bthnj\pzswgkrp\f. Fufrark vowels: e i u Alphabet vowels: Ε » Ο I t d 1 ylm bthnjj ϊ ρ ζ swgkrl p1 f. FuJ)ark vowels: o t .· α where the vowels above the line are those adjoining the relevant consonants in the alphabet and the vowels below the line are those adjoining

182

Alan Griffiths

the runic consonants. The change of vowels from alphabet to fufcark is also coherent: Alphabet Ο replaced by fufcark / or ϊ Alphabet Ε replaced by fuj)ark u or o, thus giving the symmetrical distribution of Fig. 5. As regards alphabet A and I it seems that alphabet A could not simply remain a, which left only one option: Alphabet A replaced by fu]park e Alphabet I replaced by fufcark a. The omission of C//Y from the alphabet set of vowels in this scheme is consistent with the idea that Greek Υ 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 would go some way to explain the variation in the positions of the ϊ and ο runes since it could lead to confusion about whether these vowels should be inserted before or after the ρ and d runes.

5. Order and the assignment of sound values 5.1 "New" phonemes, "old" signs

When a form of the alphabet was applied to a "new59 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 Etruscan 8 = [f]), while an existing sign usually remained in its original position in the abecedary (as Latin F without 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 W beside V in modern alphabets) or be slotted into a position previously occupied by a sign that had become redundant (as the Latin G derived from C in the zeta position). Occasionally ligatures were formed and consolidated into let-

The fu^ark (and ogam)

183

ters in their own right, as with the Cyrillic representation of u], [ja], etc. from uncial Greek ιό, να, ;placed at 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 we have noted above in matching the sound values of Greek letters and those of runic/, w, j\ η and k as well as the sibilants s and z. Comparison with the way the Gothic alphabet and the Irish ogam inventory dealt with the same sound values is helpful here. 5.2 Runic f , w andj: comparison with the Gothic alphabet Comparison with the Gothic alphabet indicates a similar approach between Wulfila's solution in adapting the Greek alphabet to a Germanic 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 the assumed correspondences between the fuj)ark and Greek. It will be seen that the Gothic list introduces adaptations to the Greek consonants at two places where the fu^ark also deviates from the Greek alphabet, namely at the archaic digamma and the xi positions. The digamma position is not left vacant but is filled with a character for /kw/, while the xi position is filled with a sign, seemingly derived from a runic source, for /JA The placing of /j/ in the xi. position in the Gothic alphabet corroborates our assignment of they rune to the Greek\-xi position in the model for the fujmrk: the deviser(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 practice of using a single sign, /, for both [i] and [j]. There being no 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 of a .straightforward re-occupation of the site of a redundant sign. The treatment of the digamma position in Gothic is curious. It was not filled 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 interesting modification to represent [j] ([tj], [djj) from τι (placed beside [i]) as well as the [zh], [dz] pair from ta and δσ (beside [z]). The origin of the sibilants [sh], [sht], [ts] and [c], which follow [o:]* is too controversial for comment here.

184

Alan Griffiths

long redundant qoppa was only retained as a numeral, as in Greek. The /w/ was represented by an equivalent of upsilon, positioned after /, which is precisely the position we have presumed for it in the model alphabet for the fufcark. A striking difference between the Gothic alphabet 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 Φ with respect to position (and perhaps also phonetically, since the Greek sound value by this time approximated a bilabial spirant) but resembling a runic (or Latin)/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 sign No. 13 as NG, presumably with the value [q]. According to our analysis of the fujsark so far the rune representing [η] appears to occupy a site originally occupied by kappa, while the k rune appears in the redundant qoppa site (see Figs 2, 3 and 4). When we subject the Irish ogam to a similar analysis (see Appendix 1) we find that ogam C = [k] occurs in the kappa 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 ogamic NG was one of the characters which a later revision of ogam aimed at "rescuing from redundancy" by assigning them cosmetic values that were reflected in modified forms of their names. Thus, according to him, sign 13 originally represented Primitive Irish /gw/, 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 was emended from getal to ngetal, with an initial NG which is not a

22

The classical grammarians' association of Latin F with the Aeolian digamma and Greek F (see Section 3.2, point 2) may even be reflected in the position of / and w in the fu^ark in relation to d and/: runic d and/stand at the terminals of the'fut>ark and in the eventual division into three sets of eight (cettir) the w stands opposite/in the first cett, while the t stands opposite d in the third

The fu{>ark (and ogam)

185

radical initial in Irish and cannot therefore be authentic. (Other signs involved in 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 kennings for NG (GG) make specific reference to a relation between K and NG.23 This could simply refer 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, why should the point be made in the glosses on NG/GG rather than in those on C or (7? The assignment of ogam NG, alias /gw/, to the qoppa site and of /k/ to the kappa site as well as the Irish glosses on the relation of K and NG, go some way to support the idea that runic η and k were also seen as related and that they were originally assigned to the same sites as their ogam counterparts (g/qoppa, and k/kappa) but that for some reason the fujrark characters were subsequently interchanged. Such a conclusion would tally with an interpretation of the shapes of the k and (7 runes as having been adapted from 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, point 4). As for s and z, it is also evident from the matching of ogam sound values to those of the supposed source alphabet that, as in the fuj>ark, /s/ tallied with Greek zeta and/z/ with Greek san (Appendix 1, Figs 1-2 and 1-3). Moreover, the parallel between san, runic z and ogam Z is again supported by McManus' (1991: 38) suggestion that the manuscript transcription of ogam Z is a cosmetic one and is "clearly de23

There are three series of kennings, belonging to the Old Irish period Briatharogaim ("Word-ogams"), which provide information on the meaning of Irish letter nomenclature. For these ketmiiigs and the glosses on them, together with a commantary on each letter, see in particular McMatius (1988). The relevant glosses on NG/GG, with McManus* translations, are: "getal sen .i. ar is luth lasna leigib 7 coibnius etir cath 7 getal": i. e. that is [a kenning for] Getal \. e. for it is sustance with the leeches and there is kinship between battle and getal (4act of wounding'?). "Ngedal .i. gilcach nuo rait, ut dicitpr luth lego ngedal .i gilcach no rait, ar is luth laisna legaib 7 coibnes iter K 7 NG, no miodach ice a. ar imad a ice no/ A. gilcach no rait": Ngedal Le. reed or bog-myrtle, ut dicitur 'sustenance of a leech' is ngedal i.e. reed or bog-myrtle, for it is sustenance with the leeches and there is kinship between k and ng or a healing physician i.e. on account of the abundance of its healing (powers 7) or/i.e. reed or bog-myrtle.

186

Alan Griffiths

signed to effect an independent status for what was by then a redundant symbol", its value having merged with that already represented by 5, /s/. The initial of the Irish manuscript name of Z, straif, indicating "an intermediate realization of PCI. *st- > Olr. s-, probably [st]" (Schrijver, 1997: 310, n. 32), in fact parallels the presumed value of runic z, which was "probably half-way between modern-English r and modern English z" (Elliott, 1980: 16).

6. A phonetic pattern? 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 and son instead ofsigma: ΒΓΔΡΖΗΘΚΛΜΝΞΠ8'(2ΡΤΦ The Germanic phonemes /j/ and /η/ were assigned to the sites of xi and qoppa, /s/ and /z/ to zeta and son, /{/ and /w/ to digamma and phi: bgdfshpkl

mnjpζ η r tw

In this "pre-fu]3ark" series of eighteen consonants the /k/ and /ng/ were interchanged: b g df shpylmnjpzkrtw and from this sequence the fufcark order was derived along the lines suggested in Figs. 3 and 4. The rationale behind the switch of k and;; in the "pre-fufcark" series is not immediately obvious but an analysis of the sound values according, to a Greek division of consonants into αφθογγα, i. e. mutes (voiced, voiceless and aspirated), and άφωνα, i.e. semivowels and spirants, reveals a symmetrical phonetic pattern (Fig. 6). The first six consonants of the postulated "pre-fujsark" series divide into a group of three αφθογγα, b g d, followed by three άφωνα,/s /?, while the last six consonants comprise alternately αφθογγα arid άφωνα, 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 η l m n j, are all άφωνα, with the first two, p /;, and last two, n j, phonetically related to the second and penultimate mutes of the whole series, g and t (Fig. 6b). Finally, the trio / s h is

The fuf>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 η to g and of n to t familiar in Celtic sound-systems (Fig. 6c). The non-nasal semivowels and liquids β], [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 d and p and of z toy and r is conceivable in terms of (a) the Celtic use of a barred £>, DD,SSoi Greek Θ to represent 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 ζ rune and usually transcribed as R. The pattern would not have been symmetrical if k and TJ had not been interchanged or if a sibilant had been retained in the sigma position between r and 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 phonetic rationalization, possibly with Celtic mediation, 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 with individual Greek or Latin letters on the basis of shape as well as sound values and identify characters which have both equivalent shapes and eqivalent sound values, there is a greater correspondence between runes and Latin letters (B, C9 F, H, /, R, S, T) than there is between runes and either classical (eastern) Greek letters (Β, Ι, Τ, Ω) 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 correspondences with Latin that has been seen to favour the possibility of a Latin source for the runes. Above all, the agreement with Latin C, J% H and fl has played an important role in the arguments, despite the western Greek usage of a tailed R and an aspirated [h] that was absent in the dialects represented by the classical alphabet. However, the difference in tiie tallies is not very great compared to the general lack of correspondence (in at least 16 instances), which far outweighs the correspondences (in at most 8 instances).

188

Alan Griffiths

Even if we look beyond the major alphabet types to specific local alphabets it has to be concluded that not all rune shapes are derivable from one single known abecedary without recourse to special pleading. Consequently judgments 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, borrowings from different abecedaries or different styles of script, as well as the re-assignment of sound values. The usual assumption is that the starting-point was a single known abecedary and that the modifications, inventions, borrowings and re-assignments took place within 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. There is also, however, the matter of tradition. It is rare, for instance, for a sign to be a completely new invention. Most signs that superficially appear to be inventions are in fact modifications of existing signs. Moreover, although modified and borrowed signs as well as existing signs may be used for different sound values from those they denoted originally, 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 y< O, zark (and ogam)

191

the terminals of both lines - b, m, w and / *- three (b, w, iv) are bilabiate and appear to be similarly constructed. The phonetic stopnasal pair [b]/jm] compares with [g]/[q]9 and a shape parallel is discernible between bfm and gjrj. There might even be a deliberate parallel between g/rj/k and b/m/w:2^

Χ Ο