Runic Amulets and Magic Objects by Mindy MacLeod and Bernard Mees
The Boydell Press, 2006
278 pages
This book is essential reading for anyone interested in runes or indeed European cultural history. Macleod and Mees decline to adopt the recent fashion in academic circles for dismissing the idea that the runes had any kind of magical significance, just as they refuse to pretend that different regions were hermetically sealed from one another. They steer a balanced path between emphasising the many mundane applications of the runes and their magical function, and indeed the book focuses on the latter, as may be inferred from the title.
The authors document and interpret scores of inscriptions from amulets, artefacts, monuments, and written texts, bringing incredible breadth and depth of learning to the task. Their vibrant enthusiasm for the subject matter is infectious, and consequently the book is anything but dry or boring. Indeed, there are even moments of high humour, such as a hilarious passage that recounts some of the more ribald love magic charms of the runic era!
The interpretations and explanations of the inscriptions are fleshed out with background perspective on cultural history and a real empathy for folk long dead, and this make the book much more than just a study of dusty museum pieces to be nit-picked and quarrelled over. The endlessly unfolding cultural and political evolution of Northern Europe over the centuries is explored through the angular scratchings of the runes, and the reality of Europe’s convoluted history is graphically exposed in the inscriptions that remain.
One of the most striking things that emerges from this book is the incredible diversity of runic writings. Although we talk about, say, “the Elder Futhark” as though it were a defined and uniform 24 character alphabet, the reality is that rune carvers modified the characters ceaselessly, obeying all manner of personal whims as to the orientation, style, and variety of ways of carving the runes. There is an almost aggressive outpouring of creative invention in the way that the rune carvers improvised on the basic themes of these archaic characters, a phenomena that we in our age of standardised spelling and formatting might struggle to grasp.
The book goes deep into the patterns and structures by which magical runic inscriptions on charms and amulets were composed. Indeed, their analysis of the five-fold structure of these inscriptions is elegant and brilliant, as is their discussion o the significance of terms like “alu.” Anyone interested in making their own modern rune carvings would benefit greatly from this book, which inadvertently serves as a detailed and clear “how to” manual.
In the course this analysis of the structure of runic amulet inscriptions the authors also underscore how indebted the Germanic runic tradition was to the Etruscans – for the fundamental magical structure used in the rune inscriptions was adopted wholesale from Etruscan/Rhaetic traditions. This is a fine illustration of the point that cultural exchange and mixing can sometimes strengthen the cultures involved and help them become more unique and distinct: this non-Germanic influence surely seeded one of the most distinctive aspects of Germanic culture. The tendency of some academics to only focus on specific regions (say, England) therefore risks grossly distorting our understanding of both history and the runes.
The book also makes the point that the runes were heavily used for Christian as well as Heathen purposes in later centuries, that they were combined with various other magical traditions, sometimes quite elegantly and even seamlessly, though it is clear that their place as a magical tool eroded by the middle ages and their usage became progressively more trivialised. This in turn underscores the complex cultural dynamics unleashed by the coming of Christianity, and the durability of Heathen cultural practices and aesthetics post-conversion, although the magical tradition of the runes seems to have ultimately declined into ignorance and ignominy.
The authors express some very valid criticisms of the use of the Icelandic sagas as sources for understanding rune lore, but their analysis of the Eddic poems “Havamal” and “Sigrdrifumal” concludes that these sources do provide valuable insights for understanding rune magic, again making the point that in the past some academics have been perhaps sceptical of these sources to an unjustifiable extent. This is very useful information, particularly as the mistake of seeing the sagas as a faithful representation of Dark Age Scandinavian culture seems very common.
I find myself disagreeing with the authors’ view that the various rune poems were merely mnemonics for remembering the rune alphabet orders, however. From personal experience I can assure the reader that memorising these poems for the most part) is far more arduous than merely memorising the Futhark alphabet(s) – indeed, I have forgotten my verbatim memory of the poems (though the substance remains), but remembering the correct Futhark order is easy and was, I found, almost a prerequisite for being able to absorb the rune poems into memory. An intelligent young child could happily memorise the rune names and order, but almost certainly not the poems.
Furthermore, the poems themselves seem to echo many aspects of Heathen culture and worldview and paint incredibly evocative images that, at least in my opinion, resonate much further than any putative modern mnemonic equivalent (“the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” comes to mind). There are various other criticisms that could be made of the book, too, although ultimately it survives its flaws admirably.
On the whole this book is a revelatory window into the free-wheeling, anarchic, and bracing world of rune magic as attested by primary sources (as opposed to wishful thinking in either too-fanciful or too-cynical directions). It is fun, fascinating, and inspiring, and strongly, strongly recommended. The price tag is rather high, and this may dissuade some from making the purchase – but please, take the plunge, Runic Amulets and Magic Objects is worth every penny.
Opinions are divided as to whether the Etruscans were indigenous to Italy or migrants from northwest Anatolia. Their alphabets were non-Indo-European and were adopted from another source, and there is no conclusive opinion on it. The Greek alphabets had a Phoenician source even though the Greek language itself was Indo-European in origin. Things are not so sure with the Etruscan alphabets. Their visual resemblance to the Orkhon script is interesting.
I don’t even think Time-periods are hermetically sealed from one another, much less cultures in ancient geography. As to the runes having a magical significance: it is very likely that most writing did. We still refer to a great read as literally ‘spellbinding’ and many of us will offer that even a codified language like english still has magical properties in spoken and written form. Common sense, right?
I’ve always found that some of the evidence surrounding the runes is misleading: this was a culture that largely avoided writing things down, perhaps because they knew intuitively that people latch on too tightly to written records, and the living-meanings that warp and shift naturally to maintain MEANING (which is of ultimate importance) are instead twisted and interpreted according to the inclinations of the interpreters of a given culture or age.
That’s an important thing to consider… as soon as those words hit the paper, they were dead. It’s clear that the runes themselves, choked full of meaning and symbolism, working cohesively together or individually, are not yet ‘dead’ or stagnant. But the evidence we have of them in the rune poems, unfortunately, is.
Not to discourage analysis of the rune poems, of course (that’d be an odd statement to infer from someone who teaches the runes). I agree that it seems unlikely the poems were meant as a memory device: it’s OUR memories that suffer, probably not so much the ancients… oral culture is quite amazingly different in it’s ability to store information…
But these poems were probably written (with considerable revisionary powers) by an outsider, more a historian in his own time. Just look at Tacitus’ bias when dealing with the northern cultures. Many perspectives… just as many then as now, surely?
Anyway, just some thoughts. I stumbled upon one of Matt’s articles (his most recent) and thought it was yours Heimlich, so left a comment there too. I love what you’ve done with the website. A little envious maybe. But I don’t do black websites anymore ;)
-Tyriel
RuneSecrets.com
Hi Tyriel,
I hear what you are saying, and of course the rune poems are not perfect sources. But I don’t think that meaning dies just because it has been recorded. For me the old myths, just like the words of Jung or Nietzsche or Ralston Saul, are just as alive now as when they were recorded. Words are doors into imagination, and what dies (in my opinion anyway) is not the door but our willingness or ability to enter.
That said, just about everything we have of Northern myth was recorded by Christians – does that mean we chuck out the whole of the Poetic Edda, too? These sources might have been written down by Christians, but they are clearly not Christian in content. These are old documents but they’re the best place to start that we have.
At some point we have to take a leap of faith. Personally I have found the rune poems to be like deep wells into the collective unconscious – the more I explore them, the deeper they get. For me personally they’ve been a profound window into the runes.
I’m not sure which oral histories you are referring to – my understanding is that there is no living oral rune magic tradition and has not been for centuries – or if there is then it is thoroughly underground.
And even if someone did come along and claim to be the recipient of such a tradition it would be impossible to authenticate…so, limited though they may be, the rune poems have more credibility than any such tradition is likely to be able to achieve.
I tend to find that when I go back to historical sources I find that they offer much more interesting ideas and insights than the innovations of most modern authors on runes. The imagery of the rune poems is heavily saturated with the pre-modern Germanic worldview, and the Christian gloss on some of the stanzas washes off easily. With a critical mind one can make informed decisions about what to rely on and what not to rely on…Runic Amulets and Magic Objects is a useful tool for acheiving that end, too.
So I agree, historical sources such as the rune poems are not the be all and end all. But for me they are incredibly inspiring and have enriched my runic practice immeasurably. I’ve not found anything comparable, but I invite you to offer some suggestions to that effect…
Thanks for your complimentary sentiments, by the way!
H
Perhaps I just need to touch base with my primary sources again… because I see your point.
However, I think one thing needs addressing, and that is when you say “Personally I have found the rune poems to be like deep wells into the collective unconscious – the more I explore them, the deeper they get.” I can agree with that.
But I’ve also noticed that I can delve into anything of substance with the same intensity and come up with some related explorations into the runes. Jung in particular, but you’ll catch me reading lots of things often with a pencil in my hand (or mouth since I quit smoking a while ago ;) and marking runes down the columns of books where a thought lines up with something from one of the runes… anyone else do this?
The ghost of Heidegger speaks: meaning is the temporalisation of being as memory in Dasein, determined not by any subjective will on Dasein’s part, but by the epochal appropriation of being destined by the primordial forces of the history of being, which is always beyond the grasp of reason and subjectivity – Dasein is essentially being thrown into this epochal appropriation as it experiences time foremost as temporality of its projection into future.
The significance of runes for Dasein’s constitution of meaning therefore has an epochal character. This does not mean that people of different ages read and interpret runes in different ways; instead, the memory of runes becomes manifest in different degrees according to the spiritual distress of an epoch. We moderns live in the age of nihilism and have hunger for memory beyond the individual, family and nation.