The 'Runic alphabets' are a set of related
alphabets using letters (known as ''runes''), formerly used to write
Germanic languages before and shortly after the
Christianization of
Scandinavia and the
British Isles. The Scandinavian variants are also known as ''Futhark'' (or ''fuþark'', derived from their first six letters: ''F, U,
Þ, A, R,'' and ''K''); the Anglo-Saxon variant as ''Futhorc'' (due to sound changes undergone in
Old English by the same six letters).
Overview
The earliest runic inscriptions date from
c150CE, and the alphabet was generally replaced by the
Latin alphabet with
Christianization, by c
700CE in central Europe and by c
1100 CE in Scandinavia. However, the use of runes persisted for specialized purposes in Scandinavia, longest in rural
Sweden until the early 20th Century (used mainly for decoration as runes in
Dalarna and on
Runic calendars).
The three best known runic alphabets are:
★ the
Elder Futhark (c150–800
CE)
★ the
Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (400–1100
CE)
★ the
Younger Futhark (800–1100
CE)
The Younger Futhark is further divided into (the division between Danish and Norwegian-Swedish poorly reflects geographic distribution):
★ the
Danish futhark script (also: long-twig runes)
★ the
Swedish–
Norwegian runic script (also: Short-twig or Rök Runes)
★ the Hälsinge Runes (staveless runes)
The Younger Futhark developed further into:
★ the Marcomannic Runes
★ the Medieval Runes (1100–1500
CE)
★ the
Dalecarlian Runes (c1500–1800s
CE)
The origins of the runic scripts are uncertain. Many characters of the elder futhark bear a close resemblance to characters from the Latin alphabet. Other candidates are the
5th to
1st century BCE Northern Italic alphabets,
Lepontic,
Rhaetic and
Venetic, all closely related to each other and themselves descended from the
Old Italic alphabet. These scripts bear a remarkable resemblance to the Futhark in many regards.
Background
The runes were introduced to, or invented by, the
Germanic peoples in the 1st or 2nd century. (The oldest known runic inscription dates to ca. the
160s and is found on a comb discovered in the bog of Vimose,
Funen. The inscription reads ''harja''; a disputed candidate for a 1st century inscription is on the
Meldorf fibula). This period may correspond to the late
Proto-Germanic or Common Germanic stage linguistically, with a continuum of dialects not yet clearly separated into the three branches of later centuries, viz.
North Germanic,
West Germanic and
East Germanic.
No distinction is made in surviving runic inscriptions between long and short vowels, although such a distinction was certainly present phonologically in the spoken languages of the time. Similarly, there are no signs for
labiovelars in the Elder Futhark (such signs were introduced in both the Anglo-Saxon
Futhorc and the
Gothic alphabet as variants of ''p''; see
peorð.)
The name given to the signs, contrasting them with Latin or Greek letters, is attested on a 6th century
alamannic runestaff as ''runa'', and possibly as ''runo'' on the
Einang stone (c4th Century). The name is from a root ''run-'' (Gothic ''runa'') meaning "secret" or "whisper". (C.f. also
Finnish, where ''runo'' was loaned to mean "poem".)
Origins
Mythological
In old Scandinavian belief, the runes were of divine origin (
Old Norse: ''reginkunnr'') and this is attested as early as on the c. 600 AD
Noleby Runestone (''Runo fahi raginakundo toj[e'k]a''... meaning "I prepare the suitable divine rune ..."
[Rundata.]) and in an attestation from the
9th Century on the
Sparlösa Runestone (''Ok rað runa
R þa
R rægi[n]kundu'' meaning "And interpret the runes of divine origin"
[Rundata.]). More notably, in ''
Hávamál'', stanza 80, the runes are also described as ''reginkunnr'':
| :80. Þat er þá reynt, :er þú að rúnum spyrr :inum reginkunnum, :þeim er gerðu ginnregin :ok fáði fimbulþulr, :þá hefir hann bazt, ef hann þegir.[1] | :80. Then ‘tis made manifest,:if of runes thou questionest him,:those to the high ones known, :which the great powers invented,:and the great talker painted,:that he had best hold silence.[2] | |
The eddic poem explains that their originator was the god
Odin, and stanzas 138, 139 describe how Odin received the rune through his self-
sacrifice. The text (in
Old Norse and in English translation) is as follows:
''Veit ec at ec hecc vindga meiði a''
''netr allar nÃo,''
''geiri vndaþr oc gefinn Oðni,''
''sialfr sialfom mer,''
''a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn.'' ''Við hleifi mic seldo ne viþ hornigi,''
''nysta ec niþr,''
''nam ec vp rvnar,''
''opandi nam,''
''fell ec aptr þaðan.'' | I know that I hung on a windy tree
nights all nine,
wounded with a spear and given to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots runNo bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered,
I took up the runes,
screaming I took them,
then I fell back from there |
There are two accounts of how runes became known to mortal men. It is told in
Rigsþula how
Rig, identified as
Heimdall in the introduction, sired three sons, Thrall (slave), Churl (freeman) and Jarl (noble), on human women. These sons became the ancestors of the three classes of men indicated by their names. When Jarl reached an age when he began to handle weapons and show other signs of nobility, Rig returned and having claimed him as a son, taught him the runes. In
1555, the exiled Swedish archbishop
Olaus Magnus recorded a tradition that a man named
Kettil Runske had stolen three rune staffs from Odin and learned the runes and their magic.
Historical
Main articles: Elder Futhark
Codex Runicus, a vellum manuscript from c1300
CE containing one of the oldest and best preserved texts of the
Scanian Law, written entirely in runes.
The runes developed comparatively late, centuries after the Mediterranean alphabets from which they are probably descended. There are some similarities to alphabets of
Phoenician origin (Latin, Greek, Italic) that cannot possibly all be due to chance; an
Old Italic alphabet, more particularly the
Raetic alphabet of
Bolzano, is often quoted as a candidate for the origin of the runes, with only five Elder Futhark runes ( ''e'', ''ï'', ''j'', ''ŋ'', ''p'') having no counterpart in the Bolzano alphabet (Mees 2000). This hypothesis is often denied by Scandinavian scholars, who usually favour a Latin origin for most or all of the runic letters (Odenstedt 1990; Williams 1996); cf.
[1]. An Old Italic or "North Etruscan" thesis is supported by the inscription on the
Negau helmet dating to the
2nd century BC (Markey 2001). This is in a northern Etruscan alphabet, but features a Germanic name, ''Harigast''. New archaeological evidence came from
Monte Calvario (Auronzo di Cadore).
The angular shapes of the runes are shared with most contemporary alphabets of the period used for carving in wood or stone. A peculiarity of the runic alphabet as compared to the Old Italic family is rather the absence of ''horizontal'' strokes. Runes were commonly carved on the edge of narrow pieces of wood. The primary grooves cut spanned the whole piece vertically, against the grain of the wood: curves are difficult to make, and horizontal lines get lost among the grain of the split wood. This vertical characteristic is also shared by other alphabets, such as the early form of the
Latin alphabet used for the
Duenos inscription.
The "
West Germanic hypothesis" speculates on an introduction by
West Germanic tribes. This hypothesis is based on claiming that the earliest inscriptions of c200
CE, found in bogs and graves around Jutland (the
Vimose inscriptions), exhibit word endings that, being interpreted by
Scandinavian scholars to be
Proto-Norse, are considered unresolved and having been long the subject of discussion. Inscriptions like ''wagnija'', ''niþijo'', and ''harija'' are supposed to incarnate tribenames, tentatively proposed to be
Vangiones, the
Nidensis and the
Harii, tribes located in the Rhineland.
[3] Since names ending in -io reflect Germanic
morphology representing the Latin ending -ius, and the suffix -inius was reflected by Germanic -inio-
[4], the question of the problematic ending -ijo in masculine Proto Norse would be resolved by assuming Roman (Rhineland) influences, while "the awkward
ending -a of laguþewa (cf. Syrett 1994:44f.) can be solved by accepting the fact that the name may indeed be West Germanic."
[5]
However, it should be noted that in the early Runic period differences between Germanic languages are generally assumed to be minute. Another theory assumes a
Northwest Germanic unity preceding the emergence of
Proto-Norse proper from roughly the 5th century
[6]. An alternative suggestion explaining the impossibility to classify the earliest inscriptions as either North or West Germanic is forwarded by È. A. Makaev, who assumes a "special runic
koine", an early "literary Germanic" employed by the entire Late Common Germanic linguistic community after the separation of Gothic (2nd to 5th centuries), while the spoken dialects may already have been more diverse.
[7]
The genesis of the Elder Futhark was complete by the early 5th century, with the
Kylver Stone being the first evidence of the ''futhark'' ordering as well as of the ''p'' rune.
Magic and Divination
The Björketorp Runestone. It is 4.2 m tall.
In the ''Ljóðatal'' section of the ''
Hávamál'', the runes are attributed with the power to bring that which is dead to life:-
''Þat kann ec iþ tolpta,''
''ef ec se a tre vppi''
''vafa virgilná:''
''sva ec rist oc i rvnom fác,''
''at sa gengr gvmi''
''oc melir viþ mic.''[2] | A twelfth [spell] I know;
when I see aloft upon a tree
A corpse swinging from a rope,
Then I cut and paint runes
So that the man walks
And speaks with me. |
The earliest runic inscriptions were certainly not coherent texts of any length, but simple markings on artifacts (e.g.
bracteates, combs, etc.), giving the name of either the craftsman or the proprietor, or, sometimes, remaining a linguistic mystery. Because of this, it is possible that the early runes were not so much used as a simple writing system, but rather as
magical signs to be used for charms, or for
divination. The name ''rune'' itself, taken to mean "secret, something hidden", seems to indicate that knowledge of the runes was originally considered esoteric, or restricted to an elite. The eerie 6th century
Björketorp Runestone warns in
Proto-Norse using the word ''rune'' in both senses:
Haidzruno runu, falahak haidera, ginnarunaz. Arageu haeramalausz uti az. Weladaude, sa'z þat barutz. Uþarba spa.
I, master of the runes(?) conceal here runes of power. Incessantly (plagued by) maleficence, (doomed to) insidious death (is) he who breaks this (monument). I prophesy destruction / prophecy of destruction.[8]
The same curse and use of the word rune is also found on the
Stentoften Runestone. There are also some inscriptions suggesting a medieval belief in the magical significance of runes, such as the
Franks Casket (700
CE) panel.
However, it has proven difficult to find unambiguous traces of runic "oracles": Although
Norse literature is full of references to runes, it nowhere contains specific instructions on divination. There are at least three sources on divination with rather vague descriptions that may or may not refer to runes, Tacitus's ''Germania'', Snorri Sturluson's ''Ynglinga saga'' and Rimbert's ''Vita Ansgari''.
The first source,
Tacitus' ''
Germania'', describes "signs" chosen in groups of three.
A second source is the ''
Ynglinga saga'', where
Granmar, the king of
Södermanland, goes to
Uppsala for the
blót. There, the "chips" fell in a way that said that he would not live long (''Féll honum þá svo spánn sem hann mundi eigi lengi lifa'').
The third source is
Rimbert's ''
Vita Ansgari'', where there are three accounts of what seems to be the use of runes for divination, but Rimbert calls it "drawing lots". One of these accounts is the description of how a renegade Swedish king
Anund Uppsale first brings a Danish fleet to
Birka, but then changes his mind and asks the Danes to "draw lots". According to the story, this "drawing of lots" was quite informative, telling them that attacking Birka would bring bad luck and that they should attack a Slavic town instead.
The lack of knowledge on historical usage of the runes has not stopped modern authors from extrapolating entire systems of divination from what few specifics exist, usually loosely based on the runes' reconstructed names and additional outside influence (see
runic divination).
A recent study of runic magic suggests that runes were used to create magical objects such as amulets (MacLeod and Mees 2006), but not in a way that would indicate that runic writing was any more inherently magical than were other writing systems such as Latin or Greek.
Common use
Some later runic finds are on monuments (
rune stones), which often contain solemn inscriptions about people who died or performed great deeds. For a long time it was assumed that this kind of grand inscription was the primary use of runes, and that their use was associated with a certain societal class of rune-carvers.
However, in the middle of the 1950s, about 600 inscriptions known as the
Bryggen inscriptions were found in
Bergen. These inscriptions were made on wood and bone, often in the shape of sticks of various sizes, and contained inscriptions of an everyday nature — ranging from name tags, prayers (often in
Latin), personal messages, business letters, expressions of affection, to bawdy phrases of a profane and sometimes even vulgar nature. Following this find, it is nowadays commonly assumed that at least in late use, Runic was a widespread and common writing system.
In the later Middle Ages, runes were also used in the
Clog almanacs (sometimes called ''Runic staff'', ''Prim'' or ''Scandinavian calendar'') of Sweden. The authenticity of some monuments bearing Runic inscriptions found in Northern America is disputed, but most of them date from modern times.
Gothic runes
Theories of the existence of separate
Gothic runes have been advanced, even identifying them as the original alphabet from which the Futhark were derived, but these have little support in actual findings (mainly the
spearhead of Kovel, with its right-to-left inscription, its T-shaped
tiwaz and its rectangular
dagaz). If there ever were genuinely Gothic runes, they were soon replaced by the
Gothic alphabet. The letters of the Gothic alphabet, however, as given by the
Alcuin manuscript (9th century), are obviously related to the names of the Futhark. The names are clearly Gothic, but it is impossible to say whether they are as old as, or even older than, the letters themselves. A handful of Elder Futhark inscriptions were found in Gothic territory, such as the 4th century
ring of Pietroassa.
Later development
As Proto-Germanic evolved into its later language groups, the words assigned to the runes and the sounds represented by the runes themselves began to diverge somewhat, and each culture would either create new runes, rename or rearrange its rune names slightly, or even stop using obsolete runes completely, to accommodate these changes. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc has several runes peculiar to itself to represent
diphthongs unique to (or at least prevalent in) the Anglo-Saxon dialect. However, the fact that the younger Futhark has sixteen runes, while the Elder Futhark has twenty four, is not fully explained by the some six hundred years of sound changes that had occurred in the
North Germanic language group. The development here might seem rather astonishing, since the younger form of the alphabet came to use fewer different rune-signs at the same time as the development of the language led to a greater number of different phonemes than had been present at the time of the older futhark. For example, voiced and unvoiced consonants merged in script, and so did many vowels, while the number of vowels in the spoken language increased. From about 1100, this disadvantage was eliminated in the medieval runes, which again increased the number of different signs to correspond with the number of phonemes in the language.
Corpus
The largest group of surviving Runic inscription are
Viking Age Younger Futhark runestones, most commonly found in Sweden. Another large group are medieval runes, most commonly found on small objects, often wooden sticks. The largest concentration of runic inscriptions are the
Bryggen inscriptions found in
Bergen, more than 650 in total.
Elder Futhark inscriptions number around 350, about 260 of which are from Scandinavia, of which about half are on
bracteates.
Anglo-Saxon Futhorc-inscriptions number around 100 items.
The following table lists the number of known inscriptions (in any alphabet variant) by geographical region:
| Area | number of rune inscriptions |
|---|
| Sweden | 3432 |
| Norway | 1552 |
| Denmark | 844 |
| 'Scandinavian total' | '5826' |
| Continental Europe except Scandinavia and Frisia | 80 |
| Frisia | 20 |
| The British Isles except Ireland | > 200 |
| Greenland | > 100 |
| Iceland | < 100 |
| Ireland | 16 |
| Faroes | 9 |
| 'Non-Scandinavian total' | '> 500' |
| 'Total' | '> 6400' |
In the burial mound of
Maes Howe in
Orkney are many runic inscriptions, believed to have been made by Vikings in the 12th Century. See
Maeshowe although there are no internal photographs.
Elder Fuþark
:''Main article:
Elder Futhark.''
The Elder Futhark, used for writing
proto-Norse (''urnordisk'', ''urnordiska''), consist of twenty-four runes, often arranged in three rows of eight. The earliest known sequential listing of the full set of 24 runes dates to c400
CE and is found on the
Kylver Stone in
Gotland. The 24 Elder Futhark runes with their common
transliterations are:
 f |  u |  th,þ |  a |  r |  k |  g |  w |
 h |  n |  i |  j |  ï,ei |  p |  z |  s |
 t |  b |  e |  m |  l |  Å‹ |  d |  o |
Names
Each rune most probably had a name, chosen to represent the sound of the rune itself. The names are, however, not directly attested for the Elder Futhark themselves.
Reconstructed names in
Proto-Germanic have been suggested for them by, based on the names given for runes of the later alphabets in the
rune poems and the names of the letters of the
Gothic alphabet.
:
f
"wealth,
cattle"
:
u
"
aurochs" (or 'û'ram "
water /
slag"?)
:
th,þ
"
giant"
:
a
"one of the
Aesir" (or 'a'hsam "ear (of corn)"?)
:
r
"ride, journey"
:
k
"
ulcer, illness"
:
g
"gift"
:
w
"comfort, glory,
joy"
:
h
"
hail (the precipitation)"
:
n
"
need"
:
i
"
ice"
:
j
"
year" or "
harvest"
:
ï,ei
/ 'î'waz "
yew"
:
p
? "chance, fate,
orlog"
:
R
"
elk"?
:
s
"Sun"
:
t
(''
Tiwaz or Tyr, God of War)
:
b
"
birch"
:
e
"
horse"
:
m
"
man"
:
l
"
lake" (or 'l'aukaz "
leek"?)
:
Å‹
, Earth God
:
d
"
day"
:
o
"estate,
inheritance"
Frisian and Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc
:''Main article:
Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.''
The Fuþorc
The Futhorc are an extended alphabet, consisting of 29, and later even 33 characters. It was used probably from the 5th century onward. There are competing theories as to the origins of the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc. One theory proposes that it was developed in
Frisia and later spread to
England. Another holds that runes were introduced by Scandinavians to England where the fuþorc was modified and exported to Frisia. Both theories have their inherent weaknesses and a definitive answer likely awaits more archaeological evidence. Futhorc inscriptions are found e.g. on the
Thames scramasax, in the
Vienna Codex, in
Cotton Otho B.x (
Anglo-Saxon rune poem) and on the
Ruthwell Cross.
The
Anglo-Saxon rune poem has: feoh, ur, thorn, os, rad, cen, gyfu, wynn, haegl, nyd, is, ger, eoh, peordh, eolh, sigel, tir, beorc, eh, mann, lagu, ing, ethel, daeg, ac, aesc, yr, ior, ear.
The expanded alphabet has the additional letters cweorth, calc, cealc and stan. It should be mentioned that these additional letters have only been found in manuscripts.
Feoh, þorn, and sigel stood for [f], [þ], and [s] in most environments, but voiced to [v], [ð], and [z] between vowels or voiced consonants. Gyfu and wynn stood for the letters
yogh and
wynn which became [g] and [w] in
Middle English.
Younger Fuþark
Main articles: Younger Futhark
The Younger Fuþark, also called Scandinavian Fuþark, is a reduced form of the
Elder Futhark, consisting of only 16 characters. The reduction correlates with phonetic changes when
Proto-Norse evolved into
Old Norse. They are found in Scandinavia and
Viking Age settlements abroad, probably in use from the 9th century onward. They are divided into long-branch (Danish) and short-twig (Swedish and Norwegian) runes. The difference between the two versions has been a matter of controversy. A general opinion is that the difference was functional, i.e. the long-branch runes were used for documentation on stone, whereas the short-branch runes were in every day use for private or official messages on wood.
Names
The Icelandic and Norwegian
rune poems have 16 runes, with the letter names fe ("wealth"), ur ("iron"/"rain"),
Thurs,
As/Oss, reidh ("ride"), kaun ("ulcer"), hagall ("hail"), naudhr/naud ("need"), is/iss ("ice"), ar ("plenty"), sol ("sun"),
Tyr, bjarkan/bjarken ("birch"), madhr/madr ("man"), logr/lög ("water"), yr ("yew").
Evolution
In the 7th century appeared an intermediary form of runes between the
Elder Futhark and the Younger Futhark, but there are very few inscriptions. Two of them are the
Stentoften Runestone and the
Björketorp Runestone, where the
haglaz rune
has evolved into
having the same form as the h-rune of the younger futhark, but it is used for an a-phoneme. The k-rune, which looks like a Y is a transition form between
and
in the two futharks.
The two futharks were in parallel use for some time, and one example of this is the
Rök Runestone.
.png)
the Younger Futhark (long-branch runes)
Long-branch runes
The long-branch runes are the following signs:
.png)
short-twig runes
Short-twig runes
The short-twig runes (or Rök runes) are a simplified version of the long-branch runes, consisting of the following sixteen signs:
-
.png)
staveless runes
Hälsinge Runes (staveless runes)
The Hälsinge runes are named after the traditional province of
Hälsingland in
Sweden, where they were first noted in modern times. However, they were used in a considerably larger area, and they were used between the
10th and
12th centuries. The runes seem to be a simplification of the Swedish–Norwegian runes and lack vertical strokes, hence the name 'staveless.' They cover the same set of letters as the other Younger Futhark alphabets. This variant has no assigned Unicode range (as of Unicode 4.0).
"Marcomannic runes"
Marcomannic runes
In a treatise called ''de inventione litterarum'', preserved in 8th and 9th century manuscripts, mainly from the southern part of the
Carolingian Empire (
Alemannia,
Bavaria), ascribed to
Hrabanus Maurus, a runic alphabet consisting of a curious mixture of Elder Futhark with Anglo-Saxon Futhorc is recorded. The alphabet is traditionally called "Marcomannic runes", but it has no connection with the
Marcomanni and is rather an attempt of Carolingian scholars to represent all letters of the Latin alphabets with runic equivalents.
Medieval Runes
Medieval Runes
In the middle ages, the younger futhark in Scandinavia was expanded, so that it once more contained one sign for each phoneme of the old Norse language. Dotted variants of voiceless signs were introduced to denote the corresponding voiced consonants, or vice versa, voiceless variants of voiced consonants, and several new runes also appeared for vowel sounds. Inscriptions in medieval Scandinavian runes show a large number of variant rune-forms, and some letters, such as ''s,'' ''c'' and ''z,'' were often used interchangeably.
[Jacobsen & Moltke, 1941–42, p. VII][Werner, 2004, p. 20]
Medieval runes were in use until the 15th Century. Of the total number of Norwegian runic inscriptions preserved today, most are medieval runes. Notably, more than 600 inscriptions using these runes have been discovered in
Bergen since the 1950s, mostly on wooden sticks (the so-called
Bryggen inscriptions). This indicates that runes were in common use side by side with the Latin alphabet for several centuries. Indeed some of the medieval runic inscriptions are actually in Latin language.
Dalecarlian Runes
According to Carl-Gustav Werner, "in the isolated province
of
Dalarna in Sweden a mix of runes and Latin letters developed."(Werner 2004, p. 7) The Dalecarlian runes came into use in the early 16th Century and remained in some use up to the 20th Century. Some discussion remains on whether their use was an unbroken tradition throughout this period or whether people in the 19th and 20th centuries learned runes from books written on the subject. The character inventory was mainly used for transcribing
Elfdalian.
Modern use
The Germanic runes have seen numerous usages in modern use, usually in association with or referencing
Germanic paganism.
Occultism and Nazi Germany
One of the important figures in
Germanic mysticism and runic revivalism in the late 19th and early 20th century was the
Austrian occultist, mysticist and
völkisch author
Guido von List.
In 1908, List published in ''Das Geheimnis der Runen'' ("The Secret of the Runes") a set of 18 so-called "
Armanen Runes", based on the Younger Futhark and runes of List's own introduction, which were allegedly revealed to him in a state of temporary blindness after a cataract operation on both eyes in 1902.
Runes have been used in
Nazi symbolism by
Nazis and
neo-Nazi groups that associate themselves with Germanic traditions, mainly the
Sigal,
Eihwaz,
Tyr,
Odal and
Algiz runes.
The fascination that runes seem to have exerted on the Nazis can be traced to
Guido von List. His rune row, however, was later rejected by the Nazis for that of the official Nazi runeologist
Karl Maria Wiligut (''See
Wiligut runes'').
In Nazi contexts, the ''s''-rune is referred to as "
Sig" (after List, probably from Anglo-Saxon Sigel). The "
Wolfsangel", while not a rune historically, has the shape of List's "Gibor" rune.
Another modern day runic row is the
Uthark commonly known through the work of the
Swedish scholar and occultist
Thomas Karlsson, founder of the '
Ordo Draconis et Atri Adamantis' (or
Dragon Rouge), and refers to them as the 'Night-side of the Runes'. This runic row and theory had however been the subject of an earlier study by the Swedish
philologist Sigurd Agrell [3].
Neopaganism and New Age
As forms of Neopaganism can be quite different and have very different origins, recognition and usage of runes can vary considerably.
As with
Germanic paganism in general, the runes are a major element in
Germanic neopaganism used for a wide variety of purposes in varying senses of
reconstructionism, depending on the type of group.
New Agers and some
Wiccans may also sometimes use runes under various (generally non-reconstructive) conditions, such as
divination.
Modern popular culture
Historical and fictional runes appear commonly in modern popular culture, particularly in fantasy literature, video games and various other forms of media. Such exist in the popular online game
Runescape
Unicode
Runic alphabets are assigned
Unicode range 16A0–16FF. This block is intended to encode all shapes of runic letters. Each letter is encoded only once, regardless of the number of alphabets in which it occurs.
The block contains 81 symbols: 75 runic letters (16A0–16EA), three punctuation marks
(Runic Single Punctuation 16EB ᛫, Runic Multiple Punctuation 16EC ᛬ and Runic Cross Punctuation 16ED á›), and three runic symbols that are used in mediaeval calendar staves ("Golden number Runes", Runic
Arlaug Symbol 16EE á›®, Runic
Tvimadur Symbol 16EF ᛯ and Runic
Belgthor Symbol 16F0 ᛰ). Characters 16F1–16FF are unassigned (as of Unicode Version 5.0).
Unicode fonts that support the runic range include:
★
free
★
★
Junicode
★
★
Free Mono
★
★
Caslon Roman
★ non-free
★
★
Code2000
★
★
Everson Mono
★
★
TITUS Cyberbit Basic
Table of runic letters (U+16A0–U+16EA):
| 16A0 | ᚠ| fehu feoh fe f | 16B0 | ᚰ | on | 16C0 | ᛀ | dotted-n | 16D0 | ᛠ| short-twig-tyr t | 16E0 | ᛠ| ear |
| 16A1 | ᚡ | v | 16B1 | ᚱ | raido rad reid r | 16C1 | ᛠ| isaz is iss i | 16D1 | ᛑ | d | 16E1 | ᛡ | ior |
| 16A2 | ᚢ | uruz ur u | 16B2 | ᚲ | kauna | 16C2 | ᛂ | e | 16D2 | ᛒ | berkanan beorc bjarkan b | 16E2 | ᛢ | cweorth |
| 16A3 | ᚣ | yr | 16B3 | ᚳ | cen | 16C3 | ᛃ | jeran j | 16D3 | ᛓ | short-twig-bjarkan b | 16E3 | ᛣ | calc |
| 16A4 | ᚤ | y | 16B4 | ᚴ | kaun k | 16C4 | ᛄ | ger | 16D4 | ᛔ | dotted-p | 16E4 | ᛤ | cealc |
| 16A5 | ᚥ | w | 16B5 | ᚵ | g | 16C5 | ᛅ | long-branch-ar ae | 16D5 | ᛕ | open-p | 16E5 | ᛥ | stan |
| 16A6 | ᚦ | thurisaz thurs thorn | 16B6 | ᚶ | eng | 16C6 | ᛆ | short-twig-ar a | 16D6 | ᛖ | ehwaz eh e | 16E6 | ᛦ | long-branch-yr |
| 16A7 | ᚧ | eth | 16B7 | ᚷ | gebo gyfu g | 16C7 | ᛇ | iwaz eoh | 16D7 | ᛗ | mannaz man m | 16E7 | ᛧ | short-twig-yr |
| 16A8 | ᚨ | ansuz a | 16B8 | ᚸ | gar | 16C8 | ᛈ | pertho peorth p | 16D8 | ᛘ | long-branch-madr m | 16E8 | ᛨ | Icelandic-yr |
| 16A9 | ᚩ | os o | 16B9 | ᚹ | wunjo wynn w | 16C9 | ᛉ | algiz eolhx | 16D9 | ᛙ | short-twig-madr m | 16E9 | ᛩ | q |
| 16AA | ᚪ | ac a | 16BA | ᚺ | haglaz h | 16CA | ᛊ | sowilo s | 16DA | ᛚ | laukaz lagu logr l | 16EA | ᛪ | x |
| 16AB | ᚫ | aesc | 16BB | ᚻ | haegl h | 16CB | ᛋ | sigel long-branch-sol s | 16DB | ᛛ | dotted-l | 16EB | ᛫ | single punctuation |
| 16AC | ᚬ | long-branch-oss o | 16BC | ᚼ | long-branch-hagall h | 16CC | ᛌ | short-twig-sol s | 16DC | ᛜ | ingwaz | 16EC | ᛬ | multiple punctuation |
| 16AD | áš | short-twig-oss o | 16BD | áš½ | short-twig-hagall h | 16CD | á› | c | 16DD | á› | ing | 16ED | á› | cross punctuation |
| 16AE | ᚮ | o | 16BE | ᚾ | naudiz nyd naud n | 16CE | ᛎ | z | 16DE | ᛞ | dagaz daeg d | 16EE | ᛮ | arlaug symbol |
| 16AF | ᚯ | oe | 16BF | ᚿ | short-twig-naud n | 16CF | ᛠ| tiwaz tir tyr t | 16DF | ᛟ | othalan ethel o | 16EF | ᛯ | tvimadur symbol |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 16F0 | á›° | belgthor symbol |
J.R.R Tolkien
In the famous J.R.R Tolkien's novels, such as The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings series he uses runes to interpret the writings on the maps
See also
★
Elder Futhark
★
Rune poem
★
Rune stone
★
Runamo – a false runic inscription
★
Erilaz
★
Solomon and Saturn
★
Codex Runicus
★
Computus Runicus
★
Runic divination
Other scripts, reminiscent of, based on or related to runes:
★
Old Italic alphabet
★
Ogham, the early Irish monumental alphabet
★ the "
Armanen runes", invented by
Guido von List
★ the
Cirth "runes", invented by
J.R.R. Tolkien
★
Orkhon script and
Old Hungarian script (sometimes referred to as runes, due to superficial similarity)
★
Siglas Poveiras
Notes
1. ''Hávamál'' at «Norrøne Tekster og Kvad», Norway.
2. Thorpe's translation, at the Northvegr foundation.
3. Looijenga, J. H. (1997). ''Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent 150-700CE'', dissertation, Groningen University.
4. Weisgerber 1968:135, 392ff. and Weisgerber 1966/67:207
5. Looijenga, J. H. (1997). ''Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700'', dissertation, Groningen University.
6. Penzl (1994) assumes a period of "Proto-Nordic-Westgermanic" unity down to the 5th century and the Gallehus horns inscription. H. Penzl, Language (1994), p. 186; in greater detail in ''Englisch: Eine Sprachgeschichte nach Texten von 350 bis 1992 : vom Nordisch-Westgermanischen zum Neuenglischen'' (1994); the division between Northwest Germanic and Proto-Norse is somewhat arbitrary, see Elmer H. Antonsen, ''On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic'', Language (1965), p. 36
7. cited after . Antonsen (1965), p. 36
8. Translation provided by Rundata.
References
★ Bammesberger, A and G. Waxenberger (eds), ''Das ''fuþark'' und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen'', Walter de Gruyter (2006), ISBN 3-11-019008-7.
★ Blum, Ralph. (1932. ''The Book of Runes - A Handbook for the use of Ancient Oracle : The Viking Runes'',Oracle Books, St. Martin's Press, new York, ISBN 0-312-00729-9.
★ Brate, Erik (1922). ''Sveriges runinskrifter'', (
online text in
Swedish)
★ Düwel, Klaus (2001). ''Runenkunde'', Verlag J.B. Metzler (In German).
★
Danmarks runeindskrifter, , Lis, Jacobsen, Ejnar Munksgaards Forlag, 1941–42,
★ Looijenga, J. H. (1997). ''
Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700'', dissertation, Groningen University.
★ MacLeod, Mindy, and Bernard Mees (2006). ''
Runic Amulets and Magic Objects" . The Boydell Press, Woodbridge.
★ Markey, T.L. (2001). A tale of the two helmets: Negau A and B. ''Journal of Indo-European Studies'' 29: 69-172.
★ Mees, Bernard (200). The North Etruscan thesis of the origin of the runes. ''Arkiv for nordisk fililogi'' 115: 33-82.
★ Odenstedt, Bengt (1990). ''On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script'', Uppsala, ISBN 9185352209.
★ Page, R.I. (1999). ''
An Introduction to English Runes'', The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. ISBN 0-85115-946-X.
★ Prosdocimi, A.L. (2003-4). Sulla formazione dell'alfabeto runico. Promessa di novità documentali forse decisive. ''Archivio per l'Alto Adige''. XCVII-XCVIII:427-440
★ Robinson, Orrin W. (1992). ''Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages'' Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1454-1
★ Spurkland, Terje (2005). ''Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions", Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-186-4
★ Werner, Carl-Gustav (2004). ''The allrunes Font and Package''.
★ Williams, Henrik. (1996). The origin of the runes. ''Amsterdamer Beiträge zur ältereen Germanistik' 45: 211-18.
★ Williams, Henrik (2004). "Reasons for runes," in ''The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process'', Cambridge University Press, pp. 262-273. ISBN 0-521-83861-4
External links
★
History, development and systems of runes
★
Mystery Of The Futhark Alphabet
★
the Futhark (ancientscripts.com)
★
Omniglot Rune Page
★
The Development of Old Germanic Alphabets (titus.uni-frankfurt.de, with an image of the
Negau helmet)
★ Encoding
★
★
★ Esoteric Rune Study
★
★
Rune Gild
★
★
Rune School
★
★
Rune-Net
★
★
Runewebvitki
★
★
Galdragildi
.png)
العربية
ä¸å›½
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिनà¥à¤¦à¥€
Italiano
日本語
Português
РуÑÑкий
Español
