Rune Tree Symbol

4. Analysis

First, whenever discussing the known body of runic inscriptions, it is important to highlight that, while new runic inscriptions are found with regularity, it is highly likely that all runic inscriptions known to us, and all runic inscriptions that will be known to us, represent but a tiny fragment of the total runic inscriptions that rune-users produced over the many years in which the alphabets were in use. In turn, we should expect, since there is a clear pattern with these symbols, that many other inscriptions may well have featured the “rune tree symbol”.

Over the years, this symbol has generated no shortage of bewilderment among runologists. For example, noted runologist Elmer H. Antonsen refers to what he calls the “tree-figure” on the Kylver stone as “a figure resembling an evergreen tree” that “may be a terminal sign or decoration” and says that “in any case, we have no idea what it could otherwise mean” (Antonsen 2002: 176-177). Antonsen had earlier referred to it as “is a fir-tree like figure with six branches to the left and eight to the right” and as a “nonrunic symbol” (Antonsen 1975: 47). He does not mention that symbols like it in fact appears on several known runic inscriptions, including one Younger Futhark inscription.

In her study Viking-Age Runic Plates: Reading and Interpretations, runologist Sofia Pereswetoff-Morath discusses runes with what she identifies as “non-graphematic branches” (2019: 55-57), which include the symbol (or symbols) discussed here and runic finds like the ornate and mysterious Lund bone (SkL 77, RuneS entry: https://www.runesdb.de/find/7711).

Pereswetoff-Morath describes these as “runes equipped with extra lines devoid of linguistic meaning” and says that these may be any of the following:

1. ) ‘Cryptic non-graphematic branches’, obscuring the inscription’s content

2. ) ‘Enhancing non-graphematic branches’, endowing either the rune or the inscription with “additional magical power”

3. ) ‘Decorative non-graphematic branches’, wherein these branches are decorative

Regarding these three potential explanations, she says that the first is “very difficult to prove” and that the second and third “are difficult to distinguish from one another”. Pereswetoff-Morath says that scholars find it difficult “to avoid confusing these runes with bind-runes”, but says that, in the case of the C-bracteate featuring the rune tree symbol, “there is hardly a better solution”.

Bind-runes are typically combined either to save space, like on many runestones, or to obscure reading, such as on runic plates (movable metal objects). The identification of these symbols as bind-runes of t-runes is common to find among runologists who comment on the symbols, as some of the RuneS “interpretations” tabs show (for example: https://www.runesdb.de/find/266/interpretations ). In 2020, a C-bracteate was found in Denmark (https://samlinger.natmus.dk/do/object/558178 ) that was identified by runologist Elizabeth Ilmer at the National Museum of Denmark as featuring an isolated Elder Futhark t-rune at its top.

Each rune had a name that was phonetically and culturally meaningful. The name of the Elder Futhark t-rune is reconstructed in Proto-Germanic by historical linguists as *tīwaz. This word means either ‘a god’, a common noun, or it is a reference to a specific god. The rune names, enigmatic as they are, add utility to the alphabet: Here and there one encounters clear instances of rune-users employing runes to represent their names in both epigraphic and manuscript runic writing. These are known by scholars as ideographic runes (Begriffsrunen). All this considered, the “rune tree symbol” would therefore appear to represent repeated invocations to the gods in general or an earlier form of Proto-Norse deity (in Elder Futhark) that would become Old Norse Týr (in Younger Futhark).

With that in mind, consider this stanza from the eddic poem Sigrdrífumál (900s CE; Sapp 2022: 194, 199):

‘Victory-runes you must inscribe if you want to have victory,
and inscribe them on a sword’s hilt,
some on the battle-boards(?), some on the slaughter-cords(?),
and name Týr twice. (Pettit 2023: 525)

Sigrúnar þú skalt rísta ef þú vilt sigr hafa,
ok rísta á hjalti hjǫrs,
sumar á véttrimum, sumar á valbǫstum,
ok nefna tysvar Tý. (Pettit 2023: 524)

On this translator Edward Pettit (2023: 533) says:

Véttrim and valbǫst are obscure terms for parts of a sword. If they are parts of the hilt, perhaps the former is a metal plate or ring, the latter (also in HHv. 9) a winding around the grip.

The next stanza of the poem references the rune name nauðr (‘need’, that is, the name of the Younger Futhark n-rune) and ǫlrúnar ‘ale runes’ (compare the widely found and notably ancient runic sequence ALU, no doubt a charm word or charm sequence of some kind). Behind these stanzas appears to be archaic knowledge of runic folk practices. It’s easy to imagine that a tremendous amount of this kind of thing is now sadly lost to us.

The t-rune as a charm symbol

With all this in mind, there is a very good argument to be made that folk belief in the region dictated that, like words like ALU, the t-rune could be used as a charm symbol on objects from an early period and that memory of this survived into the textualization and manuscript transmission of eddic poetry. The word 'a god’ is a powerful one when every facet of your life involves the supernatural entities. When the symbol involves what appear to be three t-runes, this seems notable, as we see an intense emphasis on the number three, multiples of three, and three thrice, nine, in the ancient Germanic corpus (see the Kvasir Symbol Database entry “Three & Nine”). The use of the t-rune as a charm symbol seems especially likely for the C-bracteate but is a reasonable explanation for all other instances mentioned here except perhaps for instances like the cross found on the Isle of Man. In that instance the symbol appears to result from an ornate, broader approach to the runes in general that involves the use of multiple branches.

A suggested to me by J. G. Harker, it may be that the “rune tree symbol” is connected to other examples of repetition of runes found in the historical record, like on the famed Sigtuna “amulet” (U Fv1933;134), where three i-runes appear in sequence in what is clearly a ‘magical’ context. There are other interesting instances from the historical record as well, such as mention of carving th-runes three times in the eddic poem Skírnismál (modified from Pettit 2023: 221):

I carve “[thurs]” for you and three staves:
“perversion” and “frenzy” and “unbearable lust”;
I will shave it off, just as I carved it on,
if reasons should arise for this!

Like most other Eddic poems, Skírnismál is now dated to the 900s (Sapp 2022: 196).

The “rune tree symbol” as a tree

Finally, it is worth noting here that rune-users could certainly have in fact perceived of the “rune tree symbol” as resembling or even representing a tree. Trees were central to the religious practices of ancient Germanic-speakers before Christianization (see discussion in Kvasir Symbol Database’s entry “Sacred Tree & Holy Grove”). As indicated by popular uses of this symbol to represent trees today (see for example the famous logo of US company Element Skateboards), the common recognition of this motif in the past as tree-like cannot be ruled out to have also occurred among ancient rune-users, who would certainly be familiar with the distinctive shape of conifers. Perhaps to the ancient rune-users this too was a “rune tree symbol”.

Finally, a fun fact: This symbol appears at the end of every Hyldyr publication as a reference to the IK 98 C-bracteate.