The Runic Futhork Table of Siegfried Kummer
*********
Tucked away at the end of Siegfried Kummer’s Runen-Magie (Rune-Magic) is the Runen-Futhorktafel (Runic Futhork Table).[1] The Futhork Table lists 21 Rune rows and provides important insight into Kummer’s knowledge of the various rune systems known at the time of the publication of Runen-Magie (1933). Such analysis reveals not only the variability of the known Rune rows at the time but provides greater clarity of the depth of understanding that Kummer and his fellow Armanists had of the runes.
Kummer’s Table is basically divided into two halves. The first half (columns 1-9) lists known Futhorks[2] in order and shows the ideograph of each rune as it appeared in various documents, runestones, bracteates, etc. The left-most column provides the sound of the rune in question. This side-by-side comparison of Futhorks is an extremely valuable presentation that shows at a glance both the commonality and variability of the known runic systems. The second half (columns 10-18) shows other Rune rows arranged in alphabetic order. We see immediately that Kummer recognized commonality between the first nine rune rows —all of which he designated as “Futhorks” while the second set are generally labeled “Futharks” and include, for example, the Younger Nordic Futhark. This demonstrates that Kummer considered Guido von List’s system to be closer to what we today call the Elder Futhark than to the Younger —which bears a strikingly close resemblance. It is important to note that Kummer assigns the letter “O” to the fourth rune in each of the first 9 systems. For the Armanists, the O-Rune has two forms: OS and OTHIL. Kummer writes, “The OS-rune is also the OTHIL-rune, the rune of breath, life-breath, world breath, the Odes, breath, and has another meaning in this form.”[3] The table is completed with three further columns (19-21) which provide the following: 19) a comprehensive Runic alphabet for those who want to write or read runes; 20) Runic numerals from the wheel-cross of the Aryo-Germanic peoples; and 21) Runic numerals used by the Armanen. What follows is an analysis of each of the Rune rows of Kummer’s Table.
1. Runic Futhork: 18 Rune row according to G. v. List
First and foremost in Kummer’s table is the “18 Rune row according to G. v. List” commonly referred to as the “Armanen Runes.” This system is that described by List in his Das Geheimnis der Runen (The Secret of the Runes) of 1908. List recognized an association of a particular rune to each of Odin’s Rune Spells described in the Hávamál (“The Sayings of Har”) —a book of wisdom sayings attributed to the god Odin himself —Har being one of the many names of Odin. For Kummer, this Futhork is the most important and the oldest —and that upon which he built his magical system. He writes in Runen-Magie,
“Other than the oldest Runic Futhork (alphabet), which has 18 runes and corresponds to the ‘Rune Poem’ of the Hávamál, there are various other Rune-rows. Primarily the oldest, the 18-Rune Futhork comes into consideration, for penetrating into higher Rune-wisdom, into the Runic mysteries, with the initiations they provide. The cosmic and magical legitimacy of this Futhork cannot be supplanted by any other Rune-row.”[4]
While today, the Elder Futhark is identified by most as the oldest Rune row, we should consider a few noteworthy points to understand Kummer’s position. First of all, mythologically the runes are cosmological principles or mysteries that date back to the beginning of the multiverse. Since it was Odin who picked up the runes and presumably the runestaves while he sacrificed himself to himself on the World Tree Yggdrasil,[5] it follows that the runes have their origin in pre-history and, from the mythological perspective of the Germanic people, can indeed be considered the original language. Rudolf John Gorsleben writes,
“Nobody created them, because they have always existed, since ‘Ur-da.’ They are unconsciously present in everyone and they are simply the primal expression of our psycho-physical connection with the cosmos.”[6]
Moving from mythology to the Futhork’s origin in the Hávamál, we should understand that Kummer and many of his colleagues dated the writing of the Hávamál back to an earlier time than is generally accepted today. The only surviving source for the Hávamál is the thirteenth century Codex Regius.[7] While the Codex Regius is certainly not the oldest of texts, the Hávamál itself may certainly date from a much earlier time. Scholars often date the Hávamál text back to the ninth or tenth centuries. Readers should consider that texts from antiquity often predate the earliest known copies by many hundreds of years. Works at that time were copied by hand with the earliest manuscripts often lost to the ages. For example, the earliest copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars date from 900 CE while it would have been written between 100 and 44 BCE — a difference of 1000 years. Similarly the earliest copies of Tacitus’s Annals date to 1100 CE while the work was authored in 100 CE.[8]
Guido von List commented on the antiquity of the runes in Das Geheimnis der Runen. He writes of the “great antiquity of the runes, which have doubtlessly been found on bronze artifacts and pottery shards.”[9] Our examination of Kummer’s table will shed light on just such discoveries. List continues,
“If you wish to trace the linguistic stems back to the root words of the primal Germanic language, and then follow these further back into the seed- and primal-words of the original Aryan language, you must always write the stem words in runes—or at least have this means of writing in front of you.”[10]
Here List’s idea becomes critical to understand Kummer’s assertion about the age of the runes as a writing system. List is arguing that, regardless of the age of the Hávamál, that the runes themselves date back to the earliest Germanic language. This primal language was comprised generally of unisyllabic seed words which date even further back to what he calls the “original Aryan language.”[11] While “Aryan” has taken on a negative connotation since its use by the National Socialists, it may be best understood by the more accepted term “Indo-European” today. List is voicing the accepted (at the time) idea that the primal Indo-Europeans predated even the Germanic peoples. The language of such people he called the “holy original language”[12] and its written expression was the runes.
While this idea may seem fantastic today, before List, Johannes Bureus (1568-1652) asserted something similar. Bureus attempted to prove that the runes of Scandinavia were actually relics of an original language which was lost to the East following the biblical flood. This language was preserved by the Hyperborean peoples of the North which somehow escaped God’s wrath.[13]
2. Runic Futhork of the Edda according to R. J. Gorsleben
Kummer lists the “Futhork of the Edda of Rudolf John Gorsleben” second on his table. The order, as we shall see, is clearly not random, but listed by significance and presumed age. Gorsleben’s Futhork is very similar to List’s and today that which is most commonly associated with the Armanen system. Gorsleben’s system is explained in his magnum opus Hoch-Zeit der Menschheit (High-time of Humanity) of 1930. Gorsleben’s runes have a perfected idealized form rather than the less than perfect form seen on most runestones and engravings. Gorsleben notably renders the FA rune in an “upside down” position. He also changes the direction of the GIBOR rune and places it on a diagonal axis.
Gorsleben bases his supposition that the 18 Rune Row is the oldest based on its spiritual and magical use. He writes,
“Wodan’s Rune Song in the Edda has 18 stanzas for the eighteen Sacred Runes and there are eighteen sounds for the eighteen Runes, with which we can express words, which appear in Germanic languages. A spiritual Rune research comes to the conclusion that the various Rune arrays, beginning from a Nordic one with 15 parts all the way to the Anglo-Saxon one with its 33 symbols must have originated in the Futhork of 18 Runes to which the Edda alluded.”[14]
He continues,
“The doubtless high age of the Rune song, its deep and sacred content, its unmistakable property of being a mystery of initiation into a Rune secret, which unveils more than an alphabet, justify us in our assumption that in the rune array of 18 we have found its most ancient shape, which has to be accepted as the point of origin of all other arrays, which are to be dated as being younger. This question is decided by the fact that these later arrays of Runes were mainly used as symbols for writing, while we cannot say the same thing about the Rune Futhork as we find it in the Rune Song of Wodan in the Edda, which therefore is the real thing, that which is original.”[15]
From an archeological perspective, Gorsleben points to an urn decorated in runes from the bronze age found in the city of Alba Longa near Rome. This seventh century BCE city pre-dated Rome itself leading Gorsleben to conclude,
“The urn is covered with Rune symbols, which, seemingly in disarray at first glimpse, still have a recognizable structure. Strange is the indifference of archaeologists when confronted with obvious [artifacts] of this type. At least they should have wondered what relation these symbols had to the Latin alphabet, in the realm of which these strange hieroglyphs were found. Indeed, these symbols are much older than the Latin alphabet otherwise we would recognize some relation. But this urn has unmistakable Rune symbols, which can only be read with the Nordic Rune alphabet… Therefore we could prove that clear Rune symbols have been used in Italy several thousand years before the Common Era as well as everywhere else on the Earth.”[16]
Today, scholars do not accept the idea that runes influenced the development of Mediterranean or other writing, but rather that runes derived from one or more Mediterranean systems.[17] The three main writing systems that are generally discussed as the forerunners of runic script are the Greek, the Etruscan, and the Roman. While once a popular theory, the Greek origin of runic script was based on the hypothesis that Goths came in contact with Greek writing around 200 CE. Today, for both geographic and chronological reasons, this theory is generally no longer accepted.[18]
Another theory is that runes were based on Etruscan or one of the the Italic scripts derived from it. The Etruscan language was used by the Etruscan civilization in Italy in what is today Tuscany. It was in use from 700 BCE to about 50 CE. Edred Thorsson calls this theory the “most interesting” of the various historical theories.[19] While some are skeptical that Germanic people living in the alps adopted this script, chronologically, this theory seems to be the most appealing. One artifact that supports this theory is the famous helmet of Negau from 300 BCE written in the North-Italic alphabet. A review of this inscription appears very rune-like.
Others argue that it is more likely that runes were derived from the expanding Roman civilization and language sometime in the first century. One problem with this theory is that no runic inscriptions have been found in southern Germany dated earlier than the fifth century.[20] One would expect to find various examples of runic inscriptions from the area in southern Germany dating back to the early encounters with Rome.
3. Runic Futhork, the Kylver stone, Sweden
The next most important mention in Kummer’s table is the Kylver stone of Sweden which has today been dated to the fifth century. It was a relatively sensational discovery in 1903 only three decades prior to Kummer’s writing. It was discovered during an excavation of a cemetery at Kylver, Stånga, Gotland—Sweden’s largest island. The stone is a flat limestone rock used to cover a grave. The runic inscription was on the underside of the stone. Today recognized as one of the best (and few) examples of a complete Elder Futhark, Kummer still refers to this stone as “Futhork.” With its characters beyond List’s 18, one can surmise that Kummer considered the Kylver stone as an early, but later, example of runic script.
The Kylver stone is one of only four examples that provide a complete Futhark - and these each have minor variations. The Kylver stone has runes 13 and 14 as *PERTHRO and *EIHWAZ rather than the more “normal” *EIHWAZ - *PERTHRO. It is worth noting that in Kummer’s Table, he has these two runes in their normal order and not as they appear on the actual stone. The Kylver stone also has *DAGAZ and *OTHALA as runes 23 and 24. This is the only known inscription with *OTHALA as the final rune—although that has become the standard in most texts today. As a substantiation of List’s scholarship, it should be noted that the A-rune (for List O-rune) *ANSUZ / OS appears in its mirror-form facing left. The S-rune (*SOWELO / SIG) and B-rune (*BERKANO / BAR) also appear in reverse to what is generally found. It is further noted that the Z-rune (*ELHAZ) appears upside down. It is interesting to note that Kummer includes the upside-down Z-rune in the z-position in his table and has not placed it with the M-rune MAN which appears in its M-like-form in the inscription. The inscription also has a bind-rune that is tree-like with 6 twigs to the left and 8 to the right. While such bind runes have been deciphered to indicate which aett is being indicated, and then which rune within the aett, this one is left unexplained with its 6 twigs facing left (as there are only three aetts in any of the Futharks).
4. Runic Futhork, the gold bracteate of Vadstena
Fourth in Kummer’s table is the gold bracteate of Vadstena. A bracteate is a flat, thin, single-sided gold medal often worn as a pendant. This particular artifact was discovered in Vadstena, Sweden in 1774. It is estimated to have been made around 500 CE. At the center of the bracteate is an image of a man on horseback that is likely an image of Odin. The “hair” of the man resembles a raven and a second raven faces the first. These are presumed to be images of Odin’s raven’s Huginn and Muninn (Thought and Memory).
In a circle around the image is a complete Elder Futhark. In addition, the Futhark, which is divided into 3 aetts, begins with the magical reference (T)UWATUWA. Kummer correctly shows that many of the runes are reversed on this piece. In fact, all images which may be reversed are, with only those that are the same facing either right or left corresponding to the typical rune ideogram. Importantly then, this is another example of the OS rune facing left. The bracteate ends with *OTHALA / ODAL as the twenty-third rune and *DAGAZ in the final, twenty-fourth position. Kummer does not show *DAGAZ in his table, thereby showing this Futhark only having 23 runes. The final rune, it was discovered years later, is hidden beneath the necklace holder molded to the top of the bracteate. The rune in the fourteenth position does not resemble *PERTHRO as one might expect, but rather as an additional reverse image *BERKANO / BAR.
5. Runic Futhork Stone from Gotland in Sweden
While there are several runestones that have been discovered in Gotland, the most famous, and likely that to which Kummer is referring is today generally known as the Rök runestone. It is found in Östergötland, Sweden. It is considered the first piece of written Swedish literature. Created around 800 CE it was discovered in the nineteenth century built into the wall of a church in Rök. While generally considered an example of the Younger Futhark, the stone also contains several Elder Futhark runes.
One interesting feature of the Rök runestone is that is contains a substitution code that must be understood to decipher the inscription. In an attempt to hide the meaning that was carved into the stone, its creator carved the rune that proceeds the intended rune in the Futhark. Therefore, the intended rune is replaced by the one immediately preceding it. Hence one writes FA when one intends UR and one carves UR when one intends THORN.
6. Runic Futhork, the silver brooch of Charnay
The Silver Brooch of Charnay is more commonly referred to as the Charnay Fibula today. A fibula is a pin used for fastening garments, often at the right shoulder. Fibulae were both decorative and functional whereas a brooch is suggestive of a purely decorative purpose. The Charnay Fibula dates back to the mid-sixth century. It was discovered in Burgundy, a province in east-central France.
The runic inscription on the Fibula is said to include the first twenty runes of the Elder Futhark —therefore from *FEHU through *MANNAZ. There are several other inscriptions on the fibula whose interpretation remains open to debate. Of the futhark sequence, it is important to note a few variations. First, Kummer identified the *ANSUZ rune as the O-rune, OS. The J-rune, *JERA has an unusual form — resembling a reversed SIG. The P-rune, *PERTHRO resembles an English “W” and the Z-rune, *Algiz appears like a bind rune comprised of both MAN and YR. A visual examination of the Fibula reveals a rune row comprised of: fuþarkgwhnijipzstb
Whether the rune that follows is *EHWAZ is difficult to determine—but clearly the rune that follows that appears more like an “F” than the *MANNAZ rune. Indeed, in Kummer’s table, he ends his row with the B-rune, but indicates, quite accurately, that the brooch also contains an *OTHALA and *DAGAZ rune, among the additional inscriptions.
Werner von Bülow documented this brooch in his Rune Table[21] where it is identified as “the silver buckle of Charnay in Burgundy. Like Kummer he lists the first 18 runes of the Futhark (*FEHU through *BERKANO) and identifies that the piece includes *OTHALA and *DAGAZ. He likewise identifies what is considered the A-Rune today as the O-Rune. The early-twentieth century rune masters including Kummer and Gorsleben identified the Futhork sequence as representative of the “Lord’s Prayer” or the “Our Father” where each rune corresponded to a word from the prayer in German. One version of that prayer in German begins Vater unser, der Du bist im Himmel ("Our Father, you are in Heaven"). By changing im Himmel ("in Heaven") to oben (above), we arrive at Vater unser der Du bist oben… or "Our Father, you are above…" Vater then corresponds to FA, unser to UR, der Du (bist) to THORN, and oben to OS. The balance of the prayer continues through the remaining runes of the 18 rune Futhork of List, et al. This theory requires then that the A-rune be rendered as an “O."[22]
7. Runic Futhork, the Themes scramsax
The Themes scramsax is also known as the Seax of Beagnoth. The Seax is a tenth century Anglo-Saxon single-edged knife. It was discovered in the river Thames near Battersea in 1857. Archaeologists have dated the weapon to the late-ninth century. The smith cut patterned grooves into the blade and inlaid them with copper, bronze, and silver. In addition to the colored decorative lines, the smith inlaid a futhork of 28 runes and the personal name beagnoth, presumably his own name or that of the sword’s owner.[23]
The inlaid 28 character futhork is the only inscription of its kind.[24] There are however a number of unusual features about this inscription. Firstly, the order of the runes does not exactly match the traditional sequence of the earlier 24-character Elder Futhark. Neither does it correspond exactly to the 28-character Anglo-Saxon Futhorc preserved in the Vienna Codex.[25] The first 19 runes are in the correct sequence, but the next four (ING, DAEG, LAGU, MAN) are in an unusual order that does not match any other source. The final two runes YR and EAR are also in reverse order from the Vienna Codex.
Despite these, and some other minor variations, Gorsleben emphasized the importance of the similarities of the sequence of the runes between this artifact and that of the brooch of Charnay, and the gold bracteate of Vadstena.[26] For Gorsleben, the geographic range of the discovery of these pieces and the commonality of the rune row confirms not only the correctness of the row but that, at least the initial sequence of runes represents the oldest Nordic alphabet.
8. Runic Futhork: The holy Row according to Prof. H. Wirth
Herman Wirth was born on 6 May 1885 and died on 16 February 1981. Wirth received a Ph.D. at the University of Leipzig in Flemish/Dutch philology in 1910 and later became a professor a the University of Bern in Switzerland.[27] Today this Dutch-German historian is best remembered as one of the founders of the Deutsche Ahnenerbe in 1935. It is important to recall that Kummer's book was published two years earlier. The Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage) was a National Socialist SS think-tank whose scientific scope included history, folklore, religious studies, symbology, musicology, as well as racial and ecological studies.[28]
The Ahnenerbe grew out of Wirth’s research of the 1920s and his two large studies Der Aufgang der Menschheit (The Ascent of Mankind) and Die heilige Urschrift der Menschheit (The Holy Primeval Script of Mankind). These works emphasized what Wirth referred to as Geistesurgeschichte or pre-history of the Spirit.[29] From his studies Wirth theorized that mankind’s earliest writing system, the runes, developed in a primal North Atlantic Atlantean culture that was both matriarchal and monotheistic.[30] Not unlike Johannes Bureus before him, Wirth sought to prove that the runes were symbols of what Gorsleben refers to as the “Ur-script of the Ur-language.”[31] One of Wirth’s key contributions was his support of the idea that the runes were hieroglyphic —that individual runes stood for the meaning of the names.[32] Wirth believed that the modern day Germanic peoples were the most direct descendants of the primal Atlanteans, and hence the studies of the antiquities and mythologies of the Germanics was the best way to understand the ancient Atlantean culture.[33]
It is noteworthy that many of Wirth’s theories were at odds with SS leadership generally and with Heinrich Himmler specifically. Wirth was forced to resign his position as honorary president in December 1938 and spent the balance of the National Socialist era in exile, forbidden to lecture or publish.[34]
The Rune Row in Kummer’s Futhork Table largely matches that of the Elder Futhark with a few minor variations. The most significant of these variations are that the *ALGIZ rune has both the upward and downward pointing arms (MAN and YR together) and the *INGWAZ rune has its more complete form (like two x’s one on top of another) except it is displayed horizontally.
9. Runic Futhork of Breza (incomplete)
In 1930, only a few years before Kummer published his Runen-Magie, a building was excavated at Breza, a village on the river Stavnja, not far from Sarajevo (Bosnia). Discovered during the excavation was a fragment of a semi-circular half-column with an incomplete Futhork.[35] The building and inscription have been dated to 510-540 CE. The fragment is 56 cm high and 30 cm at the cross-section. The runes, which appear to have been carved with a knife, are of the Elder Futhark. The last four runes are missing, presumably because the edge of the column has been broken. The sequence of the runes matches the Elder Futhark until T. This is followed by E, M, L. The missing B, ING, D, and O runes however would likely have appeared on the broken piece which agrees spatially with where these runes would have been expected. fuþarkgwhnijïpzstem(l)
10 through 21. Other Runic Rows.
Clearly the Runic Futhorks numbered 1 through 9 were the most significant ones for Kummer. He follows these nine with an additional twelve Runic Rows. Kummer writes, “the other Runic Rows which follow are arranged according to the alphabetic order.” Their inclusion in his Table demonstrates Kummer’s broader knowledge of other Rune rows —and their great variability. None of the remaining rows are referred to as “Futhork” by Kummer. I shall provide brief commentary on each.
The 10th Runic Row is identified as the “Common Germanic Futhark according to Wilser.” This reference is to the work of Ludwig Wilser (1850-1923). Wilser was a German doctor who authored many books on volkisch and racial theories. Today his work is largely unknown to the English-speaking world. His 24-rune Futhark as recorded by Kummer is basically the well-known Elder system. He identifies that there is variation with the F-rune (it may point right or left), the B-rune (it may be straight or rounded in form), and several other minor variations.
The 11th row is that of the Nordic Rune Poem also known as the Norwegian Rune Poem or the Old Norwegian Rune Rhyme. The Norwegian Rune Poem dates from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. The original manuscript has been lost to a fire that blazed through Copenhagen in 1728. Luckily the seventeenth century Danish historian Olaus Wormius published a version in his 1636 volume Runes, or the Oldest Literature of the Danes, Commonly Known as Gothic Poetry.[36] The poem contains verses for each of the 16 runes of the Younger Futhark. Each line begins with a statement about the rune itself followed by a gnomic statement that may or may not be easily associated back to the first half-line.
The 12th row is that of the Old English Rune Poem (OERP). The OERP is the earliest of the rune poems, dating back to the eighth or ninth century. Its 29 verses align with the runes of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc. The original manuscript was destroyed in the Cotton Fire of 1731 leaving us only with a facsimile published by George Hickes in 1705 in his Grammatical-Critical and Archeological Thesaurus of the Ancient Northern Tongues.[37] Scholars think that the rune names were a later addition to the poem—with the original displaying only the runestave followed by the poem itself.
Kummer’s 13th row is identified as the “Late Nordic Futhark.” This system has 31 runes identified. The system seems to most closely align to the runes of Old Northumbria (North East English / South-east Scotland). It includes the unique forms of YR, EAR, IOR and STAN for example. This later period rune row demonstrates the addition of additional forms based on the expanded sounds in language. In the area of Friesland, the Futhark expanded to 28 characters around the year 600. This further expanded to 33 runes in the early-ninth century in the Northumbrian kingdom of England.[38] Pennick points out that some of the additional Northumbrian runes have Celtic influence and are related to the Ogham alphabet.[39]
The 14th row of the Table is the Futhark of Hrabanus Maurus. This refers to the ninth century Frankish Benedictine monk, Rabanus Maurus Magnentius (780-856). Maurus was also a theologian, poet, encyclopedist, and military writer. He was the author of the encyclopedia De serum naturis (On the Natures of Things) and became the Archbishop of Mainz.[40] Maurus was called the Praeceptor Germaniae or the “teacher of Germany.” A rune row recorded in a treatise De Inventione Litterarum has been ascribed to Maurus. This rune row has come to be known as the Marcomannic runes. The name is derived from eighth or ninth century manuscripts that attribute the runes to Marcomanni, quos nos Nordmannos vocamus ("Marcomanni, whom we call Northmen"). This is a reference to the Germanic tribe the Marcomanni who had a powerful kingdom north of Danube during the time of the Roman Empire. Wilhelm Grimm discussed these runes in his 1821 Über deutsche Runen (Concerning German Runes) which was presumably Kummer’s source.
The 15th Runic Row is the Futhark of the brothers Olaus and Johannes Magnus. Olaus Magnus (1490-1557) was a Swedish writer, cartographer, and Catholic clergyman. His brother Johannes (1488-1544) was a Catholic Archbishop, theologian, genealogist, and historian. Johannes wrote an extensive history of the Swedish people and their kings Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque regibus (History of all Kings of Goths and Swedes) which was published posthumously in 1554. This creative account contains information from various writers, the Bible, and Magnus’s own fiction. He states, for example, that Sweden’s first king was Magog, the second son of Japheth who is recorded in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Magnus’s pre-1000 CE account was allegedly taken from runic records recorded in the Younger Futhark and stored at Uppsala. Magnus claimed that the runes served the Goths as an alphabet for two thousand years before the time of Jesus. Magnus’s work was important in the spread of the idea that humanity originated in the North.[41]
The 16th Runic row is labeled the “Younger Nordic Futhark.” This is a reference to the Viking-age runes that were used throughout the period 800-1100 CE. The Younger Futhark system saw a reduction in the number of runes to 16. The Younger system is that which we encounter in the many of the Eddic tales and Sagas. It is often theorized that this system was used for magical purposes. The Younger Futhark is recorded on some 3000 runestones scattered throughout Scandinavia.
Kummer’s 17th row is that of King Wladamar’s Runes. This is reference to King Valdemar II of Denmark. Icelandic poet, scholar, and nephew of Snorri Sturluson, Óláfr Þórðarson hvítaskáld (1210-1259) composed his Third Grammatical Treatise which in addition to considering the foundations of grammar and figures of speech compared the runes to letters of various alphabets. Hvítaskáld’s work is identified as one of the earliest works of runology. Óláfr stayed at Valdemar’s court over the winter of 1240-41. In his work he attributes a sentence which is said to contain all of the runes of the Futhark to King Valdemar II.[42] The sentence is of particular interest because it is one of the oldest Danish sentences (on parchment) and it is a pangram[43] that contains all of the letters of the rune row—hence providing information about the runes that were in use, or known, at the time.
The 18th row recorded in Kummer’s Tale is the “North Etruscan letters according to E. Hubricht.” While I am unable to locate any references to E. Hubricht, this reference is to the alphabet used by the Etruscans, an ancient civilization of central and northern Italy. The Etruscan alphabet was used from approximately 700 BCE to 100 CE. While not considered a Rune row today, the Etruscan alphabet was the immediate ancestor of the Latin alphabet. A few of the symbols appear similar in form to runic characters. As noted above, the Etruscan alphabet has been put forth as one of the possible predecessors of the Elder Futhark system. The suggestion that Etruscan alphabet directly influenced the earliest runic writing was first proposed by C.J.S. Marstrander in 1928 only a few years before Kummer’s book.[44]
Kummer’s 19th row is described as “Comprehensive Runic alphabet for those who want to write in Runes or be able to read them.” This is a 30 character Rune row included for the very purpose that Kummer uses in his description. Essentially this row is a compilation of rows that precede it in Kummer’s table. The 20th row is the “Original Runic numerals from the wheel-cross of the Aryo-Germanic peoples.” This is essentially a stylized list of numerals from 1 to 38. The 21st row is the “Runic numerical sequence used by the Armanen.” The origin of this numeric system, also numbered 1-38 is unclear. The form of these numerals resemble rune forms. The final row on the table is not numbered but rather appears horizontally across the bottom of the table. Kummer calls this row “the holy whispering Row of Man-Runes.” Here the runic forms appear in Rune Yoga forms with indications of a dot representing a human head on the runes, and small marks or indications of feet. Kummer makes reference to “whisper” in his introduction to Heilige Runenmacht. He writes, “‘When runes whisper, shine, sound, runes will bring advice to us.’ Above all, the practitioner must be calm, patient and have perseverance; he also has to be able to keep silent, because the first little successes are easily lost if he shares them with others. Later he will recognize the primary rule of silence when entering into great mysteries.”[45] In the bottom right of the table is a runic version of Kummer’s initials, SAK contained in a stylized shape with four wave-like points.
Conclusion
Siegfried Kummer’s Rune Futhork Table demonstrates, along with his key to the table, a vast knowledge of various Rune rows known up to the time of the publication of his work (1933). It shows variability in rune forms and variability in the number of runes in each system. He documents the key archeological finds as well as the important literary and scholarly accounts of the runes. Kummer identifies the 18 Futhork runes as the most important —and the oldest of runic systems. We must not forget, that this table, filled with important historical and archaeological sources, appears in a work entitled, Rune Magic. It is from this perspective that Kummer’s highest purpose is revealed and evidenced in his Rune Yoga row of “holy Whispering” runes that appear at the bottom of his Table.
Kummer embraced a magical interpretation of the runes. His studies convinced him that several magical formulas existed and were passed down since ancient times. Kummer warns near the end of Runen-Magie that rune practitioners must use the might of the runes very carefully —and be responsible for their own actions. He goes on, “The conscious and noble Runer will never reject laws or utilize powers whose effect he does not understand and has not sufficiently tested.”[46] Quite auspiciously (for 1933) Kummer warns that no one should misuse runic magical formulas for they will be unable to “escape the avenging might of the Runes."[47]
Kummer’s studies were clearly quite extensive. He was aware of the various known Rune rows and inscriptions of his time. He recognized however, as a true Rune Magician, the importance and power of Guido Von List’s 18 Rune Futhork for magical work. He also understood that the path upward to the Peak and to the Light was the more difficult path. He warned his students against the easier and more inviting path to the depths—a path that brings destruction.
Kummer’s Table provides, for those willing to tread the difficult upward path, a wealth of knowledge and rune wisdom. It is a work whose depths deserve to be further explored.
Notes:1 All references from Runen-Magie come from Edred Thorsson’s translation of Kummer’s work, originally published in English in 1993. Siegfried A. Kummer, Rune-Magic, trans. Edred Thorsson (Bastrop, TX: Lodestar, 2017).
2 Futhork like Futhark is based on the first six runestaves of the system: F-U-Th-O-R-K.
3 Siegfried Kummer, Holy Rune Might: Rebirth of Armanendom through Rune Exercises and Dance, trans. Aelfric Avery (Vavenby, CA: Woodharrow Bund Press, 2019), 78.
4 Kummer, Rune-Magic, 7.
5 See Hávamál verses 138-39.
6 Rudolf John Gorsleben, Hoch-Zeit der Menschheit (Peak-Time of Humanity), Karl Hans Welz trans. http://www.runemagick.com/gorsleben.pdf. 278.
7 The Codex Regius is an Icelandic codex that was discovered in 1643. It contains many of the Old Norse poems which comprise the Poetic Edda.
8 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 38.
9 Guido von List, The Secret of the Runes, trans. Stephen E. Flowers (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 1988), 42.
10 Ibid, 43.
11 Ibid.
12 Guido von List, The Religion of the Aryo-Germanic Folk: Esoteric and Exoteric, trans. Edred Thorsson (Bastrop, TX: Lodestar, 2014), 3.
13 Tobias Churton, The Invisible History of the Rosicrucians: The World’s Most Mysterious Secret Society (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2009), 119.
14 Gorsleben, 618.
15 Ibid, 619.
16 Ibid, 288.
17 Michael P. Barnes, Runes: A Handbook (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2012), 10.
18 Ibid, 10-11.
19 Edred Thorsson, Runelore: The Magic, History, and Hidden Codes of the Runes (San Francisco: Weiser Books, 2012), 8.
20 Barnes, 11.
21 Gorsleben, 284.
22 See Kummer, Holy Rune Might, 141 and Gorsleben’s lengthy discussion that comprises chapter XXVII of his Hoch-Zeit, “The ‘Our Father,’ a Rune-Row Runeing 651-665.
23 R.I. Page, Runes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 40.
24 Barnes, 49.
25 The Vienna Codex refers to the Codex Vindobonensis 795, a ninth century manuscript that was most likely compiled in 798 CE. It contains a description of the Old English runes.
26 Gorsleben, 651.
27 Stephen E. Flowers, The Occult in National Socialism: The Symbolic, Scientific, and Magical Influences on the Third Reich (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2022), 283.
28 Ibid, 280.
29 Joscelyn Godwin, “Herman Wirth on Folksong” TYR: Myth, Culture, Tradition Vol. 2 (Atlanta: Ultra, 2003-04), 263.
30 Ibid.
31 Gorsleben, 25.
32 Flowers, 285.
33 Ibid.
34 Godwin, 263.
35 Tineke Looijenga, “Who wrote the Breza futhark, and why?” Grippe, Kamm und Eulenspiegel (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 263.
36 P.D. Brown and Michael Moynihan (ed), The Rune Poems: A Reawakened Tradition (North Augusta, SC: Arcana Europa, 2022), 25.
37 Ibid, 1.
38 Nigel Pennick, Runic Lore & Legend: Wyrdstaves of Old Northumbria (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 2019), 47-83. 39 Ibid, 48.
40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabanus_Maurus
41 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Magnus
42 Katrín Axelsdóttir, “All the King’s Runes,” Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 9-10 (2018-2019), 231-260.
43 A pangram is a sentence that uses every letter of a given alphabet at least once. A well known example in English is “A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.”
44 Thorsson, 8.
45 Kummer, Holy Rune Might, 28.
46 Kummer maintained a large record of hundreds of pages of tests of the conditions and results of various rune magical practices including Rune Yoga. The author has learned of this volume through private correspondence with Stephen E. Flowers.
47 Kummer, Rune Magic, 34.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment