|Elder Futhark from the 2nd century AD|
|Younger Futhark, Anglo-Saxon futhorc|
|ISO 15924||Runr, 211 , Runic|
Runes are the letters in a set of related alphabets known as runic alphabets. Runes were used to write various Germanic languages before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialised purposes thereafter. In addition to representing a sound value (a phoneme), runes can be used to represent the concepts after which they are named (ideographs). Examples of this are often referred to as Begriffsrunen by academics. The Scandinavian variants are also known as futhark or fuþark (derived from their first six letters of the alphabet: F, U, Þ, A, R, and K); the Anglo-Saxon variant is futhorc or fuþorc (due to sound-changes undergone in Old English by the names of those six letters).
The earliest known runic inscriptions date from around 150 AD. The characters were generally replaced by the Latin alphabet as the cultures that had used runes underwent Christianisation, by approximately 700 AD in central Europe and 1100 AD in northern Europe. However, the use of runes persisted for specialized purposes in northern Europe. Until the early 20th century, runes were used in rural Sweden for decorative purposes in Dalarna and on Runic calendars.
The three best-known runic alphabets are the Elder Futhark (around 150–800 AD), the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (400–1100 AD), and the Younger Futhark (800–1100 AD). The Younger Futhark is divided further into the long-branch runes (also called Danish, although they were also used in Norway, Sweden, and Frisia); short-branch or Rök runes (also called Swedish-Norwegian, although they were also used in Denmark); and the stavlösa or Hälsinge runes (staveless runes). The Younger Futhark developed further into the medieval runes (1100–1500 AD), and the Dalecarlian runes (c. 1500–1800 AD).
Historically, the runic alphabet is a derivation of the Old Italic scripts of antiquity, with the addition of some innovations. Which variant of the Old Italic branch in particular gave rise to the runes is uncertain. Suggestions include Raetic, Venetic, Etruscan, or Old Latin as candidates. At the time, all of these scripts had the same angular letter shapes suited for epigraphy, which would become characteristic of the runes.
The process of transmission of the script is unknown. The oldest inscriptions are found in Denmark and northern Germany. A "West Germanic hypothesis" suggests transmission via Elbe Germanic groups, while a "Gothic hypothesis" presumes transmission via East Germanic expansion.
The name stems from a Proto-Germanic form reconstructed as *rūnō, which may be translated as 'secret, mystery; secret conversation; rune'. It is the source of Gothic rūna (𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌰, 'secret, mystery, counsel'), Old English rún ('whisper, mystery, secret, rune'), Old Saxon rūna ('secret counsel, confidential talk'), Middle Dutch rūne ('id'), Old High German rūna ('secret, mystery'), and Old Norse rún ('secret, mystery, rune'). The earliest Germanic epigraphic attestation is the Primitive Norse rūnō (accusative singular), found on the Einang stone (350–400 AD) and the Noleby stone (450 AD).
The term is related to Proto-Celtic *rūna ('secret, magic'), which is attested in Old Irish rún ('mystery, secret'), Middle Welsh rin ('mystery, charm'), or Middle Breton rin ('secret wisdom'), and possibly also in the ancient Gaulish Cobrunus (< *com-rūnos 'confident'; compare Middle Welsh cyfrin, Middle Breton queffrin, Middle Irish comrún 'shared secret, confidence') and Sacruna (< *sacro-runa 'sacred secret'), or in Lepontic Runatis (< runo-ātis 'belonging to the secret'). However, it is difficult to tell whether they are cognates (linguistic siblings from a common origin), or if the Proto-Germanic form reflects an early borrowing from Celtic. Various connections have been proposed with other Indo-European terms (for example: Sanskrit ráuti रौति 'roar', Latin rūmor 'noise, rumor'; or Ancient Greek eréō ἐρέω 'ask', ereunáō ἐρευνάω 'investigate'), although linguist Ranko Matasović finds them difficult to justify for semantic or linguistic reasons. Because of this, some scholars have speculated that the Germanic and Celtic words may have been a shared religious term borrowed from an unknown non-Indo-European language.
In early Germanic, a rune could also be referred to as a *rūna-stabaz, a compound of *rūnō and *stabaz ('staff; letter'). It is attested in Old Norse rúna-stafr, Old English rún-stæf, and Old High German rūn-stab. Other Germanic terms derived from *rūnō include *runōn ('counsellor'), *rūnjan and *ga-rūnjan ('secret, mystery'), *raunō ('trial, inquiry, experiment'), *hugi-rūnō ('secret of the mind, magical rune'), and *halja-rūnō ('witch, sorceress'; literally '[possessor of the] Hel-secret'). It is also often part of personal names, including Gothic Runilo (𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌹𐌻𐍉), Frankish Rúnfrid, Old Norse Alfrún, Dagrún, Guðrún, Sigrún, Ǫlrún, Old English Ælfrún, or Langobardic Goderūna.
The Finnish word runo, meaning 'poem', is an early borrowing from Proto-Germanic, and the source of the term for rune, riimukirjain, meaning 'scratched letter'. The root may also be found in the Baltic languages, where Lithuanian runoti means both 'to cut (with a knife)' and 'to speak'.
The Old English form rún survived into the early modern period as roun, which is now obsolete. The modern English rune is a later formation that is partly derived from Late Latin runa, Old Norse rún, and Danish rune.
History and use
The runes were in use among the Germanic peoples from the 1st or 2nd century AD.[a] This period corresponds to the late Common Germanic stage linguistically, with a continuum of dialects not yet clearly separated into the three branches of later centuries: 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 formation 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.
Specifically, the Rhaetic alphabet of Bolzano is often advanced as a candidate for the origin of the runes, with only five Elder Futhark runes (ᛖ e, ᛇ ï, ᛃ j, ᛜ ŋ, ᛈ p) having no counterpart in the Bolzano alphabet. Scandinavian scholars tend to favor derivation from the Latin alphabet itself over Raetic candidates. A "North Etruscan" thesis is supported by the inscription on the Negau helmet dating to the 2nd century BC. This is in a northern Etruscan alphabet but features a Germanic name, Harigast. Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante suggest that runes derived from some North Italic alphabet, specifically Venetic: but since Romans conquered Veneto after 200 BC, and then the Latin alphabet became prominent and Venetic culture diminished in importance, Germanic people could have adopted the Venetic alphabet within the 3rd century BC or even earlier.
The angular shapes of the runes are shared with most contemporary alphabets of the period that were used for carving in wood or stone. There are no horizontal strokes: when carving a message on a flat staff or stick, it would be along the grain, thus both less legible and more likely to split the wood. This characteristic is also shared by other alphabets, such as the early form of the Latin alphabet used for the Duenos inscription, but it is not universal, especially among early runic inscriptions, which frequently have variant rune shapes, including horizontal strokes. Runic manuscripts (that is written rather than carved runes, such as Codex Runicus) also show horizontal strokes.
The "West Germanic hypothesis" speculates on an introduction by West Germanic tribes. This hypothesis is based on claiming that the earliest inscriptions of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, 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 long having been the subject of discussion. Inscriptions such as wagnija, niþijo, and harija are supposed to represent tribe names, tentatively proposed to be Vangiones, the Nidensis, and the Harii tribes located in the Rhineland. Since names ending in -io reflect Germanic morphology representing the Latin ending -ius, and the suffix -inius was reflected by Germanic -inio-, 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 may be solved by accepting the fact that the name may indeed be West Germanic". In the early Runic period, differences between Germanic languages are generally presumed to be small. Another theory presumes a Northwest Germanic unity preceding the emergence of Proto-Norse proper from roughly the 5th century.[b][c] An alternative suggestion explaining the impossibility of classifying the earliest inscriptions as either North or West Germanic is forwarded by È. A. Makaev, who presumes 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.
Runic inscriptions from the 400-year period 150–550 AD are described as "Period I". These inscriptions are generally in Elder Futhark, but the set of letter shapes and bindrunes employed is far from standardized. Notably the j, s, and ŋ runes undergo considerable modifications, while others, such as p and ï, remain unattested altogether prior to the first full futhark row on the Kylver Stone (c. 400 AD).
Artifacts such as spear heads or shield mounts have been found that bear runic marking that may be dated to 200 AD, as evidenced by artifacts found across northern Europe in Schleswig (North Germany), Funen, Zealand, Jutland (Denmark), and Scania (Sweden). Earlier—but less reliable—artifacts have been found in Meldorf, Süderdithmarschen, in northern Germany; these include brooches and combs found in graves, most notably the Meldorf fibula, and are supposed to have the earliest markings resembling runic inscriptions.
Magical or divinatory use
Þat kann ek it tolfta,
I know a twelfth one
The earliest runic inscriptions found on artifacts give the name of either the craftsman or the proprietor, or sometimes, remain a linguistic mystery. Due to this, it is possible that the early runes were not used so much as a simple writing system, but rather as magical signs to be used for charms. Although some say the runes were used for divination, there is no direct evidence to suggest they were ever used in this way. 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 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.
The same curse and use of the word, rune, is also found on the Stentoften Runestone. There also are some inscriptions suggesting a medieval belief in the magical significance of runes, such as the Franks Casket (AD 700) panel.
Charm words, such as auja, laþu, laukaʀ, and most commonly, alu, appear on a number of Migration period Elder Futhark inscriptions as well as variants and abbreviations of them. Much speculation and study has been produced on the potential meaning of these inscriptions. Rhyming groups appear on some early bracteates that also may be magical in purpose, such as salusalu and luwatuwa. Further, an inscription on the Gummarp Runestone (500–700 AD) gives a cryptic inscription describing the use of three runic letters followed by the Elder Futhark f-rune written three times in succession.
Nevertheless, 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 1st-century Germania, Snorri Sturluson's 13th-century Ynglinga saga, and Rimbert's 9th-century Vita Ansgari.
The first source, Tacitus's Germania, describes "signs" chosen in groups of three and cut from "a nut-bearing tree", although the runes do not seem to have been in use at the time of Tacitus' writings. 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). These "chips", however, are easily explainable as a blótspánn (sacrificial chip), which was "marked, possibly with sacrificial blood, shaken, and thrown down like dice, and their positive or negative significance then decided."[page needed]
The third source is Rimbert's Vita Ansgari, where there are three accounts of what some believe 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 tool in the "drawing of lots", however, is easily explainable as a hlautlein (lot-twig), which according to Foote and Wilson would be used in the same manner as a blótspánn.
The lack of extensive knowledge on historical use of the runes has not stopped modern authors from extrapolating entire systems of divination from what few specifics exist, usually loosely based on the reconstructed names of the runes and additional outside influence.
A recent study of runic magic suggests that runes were used to create magical objects such as amulets,[page needed] 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.
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 create new runes, rename or rearrange its rune names slightly, or 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.
Some later runic finds are on monuments (runestones), which often contain solemn inscriptions about people who died or performed great deeds. For a long time it was presumed 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.
In the mid-1950s, however, approximately 670 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, and expressions of affection, to bawdy phrases of a profane and sometimes even of a vulgar nature. Following this find, it is nowadays commonly presumed that, at least in late use, Runic was a widespread and common writing system.
In the later Middle Ages, runes also were used in the clog almanacs (sometimes called Runic staff, Prim, or Scandinavian calendar) of Sweden and Estonia. The authenticity of some monuments bearing Runic inscriptions found in Northern America is disputed; most of them have been dated to modern times.
Runes in Eddic poetry
In Norse mythology, the runic alphabet is attested to a divine origin (Old Norse: reginkunnr). This is attested as early as on the Noleby Runestone from c. 600 AD that reads Runo fahi raginakundo toj[e'k]a..., meaning "I prepare the suitable divine rune..." and in an attestation from the 9th century on the Sparlösa Runestone, which reads Ok rað runaʀ þaʀ rægi[n]kundu, meaning "And interpret the runes of divine origin". In the Poetic Edda poem Hávamál, Stanza 80, the runes also are described as reginkunnr:
Þat er þá reynt,
That is now proved,
The poem Hávamál explains that the originator of the runes was the major deity, Odin. Stanza 138 describes how Odin received the runes through self-sacrifice:
Veit ek at ek hekk vindga meiði a
In stanza 139, Odin continues:
Við hleifi mik seldo ne viþ hornigi,
In the Poetic Edda poem Rígsþula another origin is related of how the runic alphabet became known to humans. The poem relates how Ríg, identified as Heimdall in the introduction, sired three sons—Thrall (slave), Churl (freeman), and Jarl (noble)—by human women. These sons became the ancestors of the three classes of humans indicated by their names. When Jarl reached an age when he began to handle weapons and show other signs of nobility, Ríg 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.
Elder Futhark (2nd to 8th centuries)
The Elder Futhark, used for writing Proto-Norse, consists of 24 runes that often are arranged in three groups of eight; each group is referred to as an Ætt (Old Norse, meaning 'clan, group'). The earliest known sequential listing of the full set of 24 runes dates to approximately AD 400 and is found on the Kylver Stone in Gotland, Sweden.
Most probably each rune had a name, chosen to represent the sound of the rune itself. The names are, however, not directly attested for the Elder Futhark themselves. Germanic philologists reconstruct names in Proto-Germanic based on the names given for the runes in the later alphabets attested in the rune poems and the linked names of the letters of the Gothic alphabet. For example, the letter /a/ was named from the runic letter called Ansuz. An asterisk before the rune names means that they are unattested reconstructions. The 24 Elder Futhark runes are:
|ᚢ||u||/u(ː)/||?*ūruz||"aurochs" (or *ûram "water/slag"?)|
|ᚦ||þ||/θ/, /ð/||?*þurisaz||"Thurs" (see Jötunn) or *þunraz ("the god Thunraz")|
|ᚲ||k (c)||/k/||?*kaunan||"ulcer"? (or *kenaz "torch"?)|
|ᚺ ᚻ||h||/h/||*hagalaz||"hail" (the precipitation)|
|ᛃ||j||/j/||*jēra-||"year, good year, harvest"|
|ᛈ||p||/p/||?*perþ-||meaning unknown; possibly "pear-tree".|
|ᛉ||z||/z/||?*algiz||"elk" (or "protection, defence")|
|ᛏ||t||/t/||*tīwaz||"the god Tiwaz"|
|ᛚ||l||/l/||*laguz||"water, lake" (or possibly *laukaz "leek")|
|ᛜ ᛝ||ŋ||/ŋ/||*ingwaz||"the god Ingwaz"|
|ᛟ||o||/o(ː)/||*ōþila-/*ōþala-||"heritage, estate, possession"|
Anglo-Saxon runes (5th to 11th centuries)
The futhorc (sometimes written "fuþorc") are an extended alphabet, consisting of 29, and later 33 characters. It was probably used from the 5th century onwards. There are competing theories as to the origins of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc. One theory proposes that it was developed in Frisia and later spread to England, while another holds that Scandinavians introduced runes to England, where the futhorc was modified and exported to Frisia. Some examples of futhorc inscriptions are found 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 gives the following characters and names: ᚠ feoh, ᚢ ur, ᚦ þorn, ᚩ os, ᚱ rad, ᚳ cen, ᚷ gyfu, ᚹ ƿynn, ᚻ hægl, ᚾ nyd, ᛁ is, ᛄ ger, ᛇ eoh, ᛈ peorð, ᛉ eolh, ᛋ sigel, ᛏ tir, ᛒ beorc, ᛖ eh, ᛗ mann, ᛚ lagu, ᛝ ing, ᛟ œthel, ᛞ dæg, ᚪ ac, ᚫ æsc, ᚣ yr, ᛡ ior, ᛠ ear.
Extra runes attested to outside of the rune poem include ᛢ cweorð, ᛣ calc, ᚸ gar, and ᛥ stan. Some of 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.
"Marcomannic runes" (8th to 9th centuries)
A runic alphabet consisting of a mixture of Elder Futhark with Anglo-Saxon futhorc is recorded in a treatise called De Inventione Litterarum, ascribed to Hrabanus Maurus and preserved in 8th- and 9th-century manuscripts mainly from the southern part of the Carolingian Empire (Alemannia, Bavaria). The manuscript text attributes the runes to the Marcomanni, quos nos Nordmannos vocamus, and hence traditionally, the alphabet is called "Marcomannic runes", but it has no connection with the Marcomanni, and rather is an attempt of Carolingian scholars to represent all letters of the Latin alphabets with runic equivalents.
Younger Futhark (9th to 11th centuries)
The Younger Futhark, also called Scandinavian Futhark, 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 is a matter of controversy. A general opinion is that the difference between them was functional (viz., the long-branch runes were used for documentation on stone, whereas the short-twig runes were in everyday use for private or official messages on wood).
Medieval runes (12th to 15th centuries)
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 often were used interchangeably.
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 written in Latin.
Dalecarlian runes (16th to 19th centuries)
According to Carl-Gustav Werner, "In the isolated province of Dalarna in Sweden a mix of runes and Latin letters developed." 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 used mainly for transcribing Elfdalian.
Use as ideographs (Begriffsrunen)
In addition to their historic use as letters in the runic alphabets, runes were also used to represent their names (ideographs). Such instances are sometimes referred to by way of the modern German loan word Begriffsrunen, meaning 'concept-runes' (singular Begriffsrune). The criteria for the use of Begriffsrunen and the frequency of their use by ancient rune-writers remains controversial. The topic of Begriffsrunen has produced much discussion among runologists. Runologist Klaus Düwel has proposed a two-point criteria for the identification of runes as Begriffsrunen: A graphic argument and a semantic argument.
Examples of Begriffsrunen (or potential Begriffsrunen) include the following:
|Lindholm amulet||2nd to 4th centuries||Elder Futhark||Proto-Norse||Several different runes||In this inscription, several runes repeat in a sentence to form an unknown meaning. Various scholars have proposed that these runes represent repeated Begriffsrunen.|
|Ring of Pietroassa||250–400 AD||Elder Futhark||Gothic||Odal (rune)||This object was cut by thieves, damaging one of the runes. The identity of this rune was debated by scholars until a photograph of it was republished that, according to runologist Bernard Mees, clearly indicates it to have been Odal (rune).|
|Stentoften Runestone||500–700 AD||Elder Futhark||Proto-Norse||Jēran||This inscription is commonly cited as containing a Begriffsrune.|
In addition to the instances above, several different runes occurs as ideographs in Old English and Old Norse manuscripts (featuring Anglo-Saxon runes and Younger Futhark runes respectively). Runologist Thomas Birkett summarizes these numerous instances as follows:
The maðr rune is found regularly in Icelandic manuscripts, the fé rune somewhat less frequently, whilst in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts the runes mon, dæg, wynn and eþel are all used on occasion. These are some of the most functional of the rune names, occurring relatively often in written language, unlike the elusive peorð, for example, which would be of little or no use as an abbreviation because of its rarity. The practicality of using an abbreviation for a familiar noun such as ‘man’ is demonstrated clearly in the Old Norse poem Hávamál, where the maðr rune is used a total of forty-five times, saving a significant amount of space and effort (Codex Regius: 5-14)
The modern study of runes was initiated during the Renaissance, by Johannes Bureus (1568–1652). Bureus viewed runes as holy or magical in a kabbalistic sense. The study of runes was continued by Olof Rudbeck Sr (1630–1702) and presented in his collection Atlantica. Anders Celsius (1701–1744) further extended the science of runes and travelled around the whole of Sweden to examine the runstenar. From the "golden age of philology" in the 19th century, runology formed a specialized branch of Germanic linguistics.
Body of inscriptions
The largest group of surviving Runic inscription are Viking Age Younger Futhark runestones, commonly found in Denmark and 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.
Runic alphabets have seen numerous uses since the 18th-century Viking revival, in Scandinavian Romantic nationalism (Gothicismus) and Germanic occultism in the 19th century, and in the context of the Fantasy genre and of Germanic Neopaganism in the 20th century.
Germanic mysticism and Nazi Germany
The pioneer of the Armanist branch of Ariosophy and one of the more important figures in esotericism in Germany and Austria in the late 19th and early 20th century was the Austrian occultist, mysticist, and völkisch author, Guido von List. In 1908, he published in Das Geheimnis der Runen ("The Secret of the Runes") a set of eighteen so-called, "Armanen runes", based on the Younger Futhark and runes of List's own introduction, which allegedly were revealed to him in a state of temporary blindness after cataract operations on both eyes in 1902. The use of runes in Germanic mysticism, notably List's "Armanen runes" and the derived "Wiligut runes" by Karl Maria Wiligut, played a certain role in Nazi symbolism. The fascination with runic symbolism was mostly limited to Heinrich Himmler, and not shared by the other members of the Nazi top echelon. Consequently, runes appear mostly in insignia associated with the Schutzstaffel ("SS"), the paramilitary organization led by Himmler. Wiligut is credited with designing the SS-Ehrenring, which displays a number of "Wiligut runes".
Modern neopaganism and esotericism
Runes are popular in Germanic neopaganism, and to a lesser extent in other forms of Neopaganism and New Age esotericism. Various systems of Runic divination have been published since the 1980s, notably by Ralph Blum (1982), Stephen Flowers (1984, onward), Stephan Grundy (1990), and Nigel Pennick (1995).
The Uthark theory originally was proposed as a scholarly hypothesis by Sigurd Agrell in 1932. In 2002, Swedish esotericist Thomas Karlsson popularized this "Uthark" runic row, which he refers to as, the "night side of the runes", in the context of modern occultism.
The Bluetooth logo is the combination of two runes of the Younger Futhark, ᚼ hagall and ᛒ bjarkan, equivalent to the letters H and B, that are the initials of Harald Blåtand's name (Bluetooth in English), who was a king of Denmark from the Viking Age.
J. R. R. Tolkien and contemporary fiction
In J. R. R. Tolkien's novel The Hobbit (1937), the Anglo-Saxon runes are used on a map and on the title page to emphasize its connection to the Dwarves. They also were used in the initial drafts of The Lord of the Rings, but later were replaced by the Cirth rune-like alphabet invented by Tolkien, used to write the language of the Dwarves, Khuzdul. Following Tolkien, historical and fictional runes appear commonly in modern popular culture, particularly in fantasy literature, but also in other forms of media such as video games (for example the 1992 video game Heimdall used it as "magical symbols" associated with unnatural forces) and role-playing games, such as Metagaming's The Fantasy Trip, which used rune-based cipher for clues and jokes throughout its publications.
Runic alphabets were added to the Unicode Standard in September, 1999 with the release of version 3.0.
The Unicode block for Runic alphabets is U+16A0–U+16FF. It is intended to encode the letters of the Elder Futhark, the Anglo-Frisian runes, and the Younger Futhark long-branch and short-twig (but not the staveless) variants, in cases where cognate letters have the same shape resorting to "unification".
The block as of Unicode 3.0 contained 81 symbols: 75 runic letters (U+16A0–U+16EA), 3 punctuation marks (Runic Single Punctuation U+16EB ᛫, Runic Multiple Punctuation U+16EC ᛬ and Runic Cross Punctuation U+16ED ᛭), and three runic symbols that are used in early modern runic calendar staves ("Golden number Runes", Runic Arlaug Symbol U+16EE ᛮ, Runic Tvimadur Symbol U+16EF ᛯ, Runic Belgthor Symbol U+16F0 ᛰ). As of Unicode 7.0 (2014), eight characters were added, three attributed to J. R. R. Tolkien's mode of writing Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes, and five for the "cryptogrammic" vowel symbols used in an inscription on the Franks Casket.
Official Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF)
- Gothic runic inscriptions
- Runic inscription in the Netherlands
- Pentimal system of numerals
- Runiform (disambiguation) for "rune-like" but believed-unrelated scripts described as "runes"
- Runic magic
- Sveriges runinskrifter
- The oldest known runic inscription dates to around AD 150 and is found on a comb discovered in the bog of Vimose, Funen, Denmark. The inscription reads harja; a disputed candidate for a 1st-century inscription is on the Meldorf fibula in southern Jutland.
- Penzl & Hall 1994a assume a period of "Proto-Nordic-Westgermanic" unity down to the 5th century and the Gallehus horns inscription.
- The division between Northwest Germanic and Proto-Norse is somewhat arbitrary.
- Runic (PDF) (chart), Unicode.
- Spurkland, Terje (2005). Norwegian runes and runic inscriptions. Woodbridge: The Boydell press. pp. 42–43. ISBN 1-84383-186-4.
- Koch 2020, p. 137.
- de Vries 1962, pp. 453–454.
- Orel 2003, p. 310.
- Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. † roun, n. and rune, n.2.
- Matasović, Ranko (2009). Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Brill. p. 316. ISBN 9789004173361.
- Delamarre, Xavier (2003). Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental (in French). Errance. p. 122. ISBN 9782877723695.
- Orel 2003, pp. 155, 190, 310.
- Häkkinen, Kaisa. Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja
- Nykysuomen sanakirja: "riimu"
- "Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language". LKZ. Retrieved 2010-04-13.
- Stoklund 2003, p. 173.
- Mees 2000.
- Odenstedt 1990.
- Williams 1996.
- Dictionary of the Middle Ages (under preparation), Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 2007-06-23.
- Markey 2001.
- G. Bonfante, L. Bonfante, The Etruscan Language p. 119
- Rix, Robert W. (2011). "Runes and Roman: Germanic Literacy and the Significance of Runic Writing". Textual Cultures. 6: 114–144. doi:10.2979/textcult.6.1.114.
- Looijenga 1997.
- Weisgerber 1968, pp. 135, 392ff.
- Weisgerber 1966–1967, p. 207.
- Syrett 1994, pp. 44ff.
- Penzl & Hall 1994b, p. 186.
- Antonsen 1965, p. 36.
- "Hávamál", Norrøne Tekster og Kvad, Norway, archived from the original on 2007-05-08.
- Larrington 1999, p. 37.
- "DR 360", Rundata (entry) (2.0 for Windows ed.).
- MacLeod & Mees 2006, pp. 100–01.
- Page 2005, p. 31.
- Tacitus, Germania, 10
- Foote & Wilson 1970.
- Foote & Wilson 1970, p. 401.
- MacLeod & Mees 2006.
- William, Gareth (2007). West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-Borne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300. Brill Publishers. p. 473. ISBN 9789047421214. Retrieved 2018-05-22.
- "Vg 63", Rundata (entry) (2.0 for Windows ed.).
- "Vg 119", Rundata (entry) (2.0 for Windows ed.).
- Larrington 1999, p. 25.
- Larrington 1999, p. 34.
- Page 2005, pp. 8, 15–16.
- also rendered /ɛː/, see Proto-Germanic phonology
- Ralph Warren, Victor Elliott, Runes: an introduction, Manchester University Press ND, 1980, 51-53.
- Grimm, William (1821), "18", Ueber deutsche Runen [Concerning German runes] (in German), pp. 149–59.
- Jacobsen & Moltke 1942, p. vii.
- Werner 2004, p. 20.
- Werner 2004, p. 7.
- Brix, Lise (May 21, 2015). "Isolated people in Sweden only stopped using runes 100 years ago". ScienceNordic.
- See discussion in for example Düwel 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDüwel2004 (help): 123-124 and Looijenga 2003: 17.
- MacLeod & Mees 2006: 173.
- Birkett 2010: 1.
- Looijenga 2003: 160.
- de Gruyter, Walter (2002). The Nordic Languages, Volume 1. p. 700. ISBN 9783110197051. Retrieved 2018-05-22.
- Antonsen, Elmer H. (1965), "On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic", Language, 41 (1): 19–36, doi:10.2307/411849, JSTOR 411849.
- de Vries, Jan (1962). Altnordisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (1977 ed.). Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-05436-3.
- Düwel, Klaus (2001), Runenkunde (in German), JB Metzler
- Birkett, Thomas. 2010. "The alysendlecan rune: Runic abbreviations in their immediate literary context". Preprints to The 7th International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Oslo 2010. Last accessed 29 August, 2021. University of Oslo.
- Düwel, Klaus. 2004. "Runic" in Malcolm Read and Brian Murdoch (editors). Early Germanic Literature and Culture, p. 121–147. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 9781571131997.
- Foote, P. G.; Wilson, D. M. (1970), The Viking Achievement, London: Sidgwick & Jackson, p. 401, ISBN 978-0-283-97926-2.
- Jacobsen, Lis; Moltke, Erik (1942), Danmarks Runeindskrifter, Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaards
- Koch, John T. (2020). Celto-Germanic, Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West (PDF). Aberystwyth Canolfan Uwchefrydiau Cymreig a Cheltaidd Prifysgol Cymru, University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies. ISBN 9781907029325.
- Larrington, Carolyne (1999), The Poetic Edda, Oxford World's Classics, translated by Larrington, ISBN 978-0-19-283946-6.
- Looijenga, Tineke (2003). Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12396-0.
- Looijenga, JH (1997), Runes Around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150–700 (dissertation), Groningen University.
- MacLeod, Mindy; Mees, Bernard (2006), Runic Amulets and Magic Objects, Woodbridge, UK; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, ISBN 978-1-84383-205-8.
- Markey, TL (2001), "A Tale of the Two Helmets: Negau A and B", Journal of Indo-European Studies, 29: 69–172
- Mees, Bernard (2000), "The North Etruscan Thesis of the Origin of the Runes", Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi, 115: 33–82.
- Odenstedt, Bengt (1990), On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script, Uppsala, ISBN 978-91-85352-20-3.
- Orel, Vladimir E. (2003). A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12875-0.
- Page, Raymond Ian (2005), Runes, The British Museum Press, p. 31, ISBN 978-0-7141-8065-6.
- Penzl, Herbert; Hall, Margaret Austin (Mar 1994a), "The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: the beginnings to 1066", Language (review), 70 (1): 185–89, doi:10.2307/416753, eISSN 1535-0665, ISSN 0097-8507, JSTOR 416753.
- ———; Hall, Margaret Austin (1994b), Englisch: Eine Sprachgeschichte nach Texten von 350 bis 1992 : vom Nordisch-Westgermanischen zum Neuenglischen, Germanistische Lehrbuchsammlung: Literatur, 82, Lang, ISBN 978-3-906751-79-5.
- Stoklund, M. (2003), "The first runes – the literary language of the Germani", The Spoils of Victory – the North in the Shadow of the Roman Empire, Nationalmuseet.
- Syrett, Martin (1994), The Unaccented Vowels of Proto-Norse, North-Western European Language Evolution, 11, John Benjamins, ISBN 978-87-7838-049-4.
- Weisgerber, Johannes Leo (1966–1967), "Frühgeschichtliche Sprachbewegungen im Kölner Raum (mit 8 Karten)", Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter (in German).
- ——— (1968), Die Namen der Ubier (in German), Cologne: Opladen.
- Werner, Carl-Gustav (2004), The Allrunes Font and Package (PDF), The Comprehensive Tex Archive Network.
- Williams, Henrik (1996), "The Origin of the Runes", Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik, 45: 211–18, doi:10.1163/18756719-045-01-90000019
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Runes.|
|Wikiversity has learning resources about Rune Yoga|
- Nytt om Runer (runology journal), NO: UIO.
- Bibliography of Runic Scholarship, Galinn grund, archived from the original on 2008-09-05.
- Gamla Runinskrifter, SE: Christer hamp.
- Gosse, Edmund (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.).
- Smith, Nicole; Beale, Gareth; Richards, Julian; Scholma-Mason, Nela (2018), "Maeshowe: The Application of RTI to Norse Runes (Data Paper)", Internet Archaeology (47), doi:10.11141/ia.47.8, S2CID 165773006.
- Old Norse Online by Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum, free online lessons at the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin, contains a lesson on runic inscriptions