[Anonymous]

Barnes, Michael P. “Runes: A Handbook.” Boydell Press. 2013.

Barnes is an acknowledged “runologist” or someone who studies runes from an academic perspective. This is a fairly new discipline. When Barnes was writing 12 years ago, he stated the subject as a serious academic discipline had only just begun in Universities. There was, at the time of the writing, no standard textbook and no universally agreed upon theories. (I believe that is still the case, but I could be wrong)

Runes had of course been looked at for decades prior, but these largely were amateurs of antiquarian interests from different backgrounds: historians, archaeologists, linguists, even art historians. Their work betrays the bias of their academic disciplines.

Barnes introduces us to a more academic approach, taking into account how they were written, their probable origin, and their uses.

The three or four main alphabets, or Futharks, are examined, along with chapters on the rarely discussed Medieval runes and “crypto runes.” The more prominent artefacts are analyzed and the book contains many great black and white photographs of runic artefacts.

At the beginning of the book, one will find a brief discussion of the central divide in runology. The question is to what extent the runes were used for esoteric purposes. At one end are the “imaginative” types who believe that runes were inherently magical (think Stephen Flowers). At the other end are the “skeptical” types who believe the runes were merely a writing system, an alphabet.

Barnes is on the skeptic side he: admits that in some isolated cases the runes may have been written with an esoteric component in mind, but he asserts that the overwhelming majority of runic inscriptions seem to have prosaic ends.

My central critique is I feel Barnes is overstating his case a bit. Contrast his attitude with Stephen Pollington. Pollington has said the primary purpose of runes was communication, but communication can take the form of prosaic writing to human beings, or esoteric communication with the unseen powers of the world. I personally prefer Pollington’s approach.

Nonetheless, this is an excellent book that teaches the reader how to look at the runes critically. It is clearly written, abounds with information and analysis, and as stated previously has many beautiful photographs.

This is a hard to find academic book that may have to be ordered directly from the publisher. It is not inexpensive. It will probably appeal only to serious students of the runes.

[Author]

Posts