Runes
Runes
Runes
Runic alphabet
Runic
Type Alphabet
The runic alphabets are a set of related alphabets using letters known as runes to write various Germanic languages
before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialized purposes thereafter. 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 (due to sound changes undergone in Old English by the same six letters). Runology is
the study of the runic alphabets, runic inscriptions, runestones, and their history. Runology forms a specialized
branch of Germanic linguistics.
The earliest runic inscriptions date from around A.D. 150. The characters were generally replaced by the Latin
alphabet as the cultures that had used runes underwent Christianization by around A.D. 700 in central Europe and by
around A.D. 1100 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 decoration purposes in Dalarna and on
Runic calendars.
The three best-known runic alphabets are the Elder Futhark (around 150 to 800 AD), the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (400
to 1100 AD), and the Younger Futhark (800–1100). The Younger Futhark is further divided into the long-branch
runes (also called Danish, although they were also used in Norway and Sweden), short-branch or Rök runes (also
called Swedish-Norwegian, although they were also used in Denmark), and the stavesyle or Hälsinge runes (staveless
runes). The Younger Futhark developed further into the Marcomannic runes, the Medieval runes (1100 AD to 1500
AD), and the Dalecarlian runes (around 1500 to 1800 AD).
The origins of the runic alphabet 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 BC Northern Italic alphabets:
Lepontic, Rhaetic and Venetic, all of which are closely related to each other and descend from the Old Italic
alphabet.
Runic alphabet 2
Origins
The runes developed centuries after the Old Italic alphabets from
which they are historically derived. The debate on the development of
the runic script concerns the question which of the Italic alphabets
should be taken as their point of origin, and which, if any, signs should
be considered original innovations added to the letters found in the
Italic scripts. The historical context of the script's origin is the cultural
contact between Germanic people, who often served as mercenaries in
the Roman army, and the Italic peninsula during the Roman imperial A Younger Futhark inscription on the 12th
period (1st c. BC to 5th c. AD). The formation of the Elder Futhark century Vaksala Runestone in Sweden.
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 Raetic 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 (Mees 2000).
Scandinavian scholars tend to favor derivation from the Latin alphabet itself over Raetic candidates.[3] A "North
Etruscan" thesis is supported by the inscription on the Negau helmet dating to the 2nd century BC[4] This is in a
northern Etruscan alphabet, but features a Germanic name, Harigast.
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 is the absence of horizontal strokes, although this characteristic is also
shared by other alphabets, such as the early form of the Latin alphabet used for the Duenos inscription, and it is not
universal especially among early runic inscriptions, which frequently have variant rune shapes including 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 around 200 AD, found in bogs and graves around Jutland (the Vimose
inscriptions), exhibit word endings that, being interpreted by Scandinavian scholars to be Proto-Norse, are
Runic alphabet 3
considered unresolved and having been long the subject of discussion. Inscriptions like wagnija, niþijo, and harija
are supposed to incarnate tribe names, tentatively proposed to be Vangiones, the Nidensis and the Harii, tribes
located in the Rhineland.[5] Since names ending in -io reflect Germanic morphology representing the Latin ending
-ius, and the suffix -inius was reflected by Germanic -inio-,[6] 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;"[7] however, it should be noted that in the early Runic period differences between Germanic languages
are generally assumed to be small. Another theory assumes a Northwest Germanic unity preceding the emergence of
Proto-Norse proper from roughly the 5th century.[8] 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.[9]
Early inscriptions
Runic inscriptions from the 400 year period of c. 150 to 550 AD are
referred to as "Period I" inscriptions. 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 the first full futhark row on the Kylver
Stone (ca. 400 AD).
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 so much used 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.[12]
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 AD) panel.
Charm words, such as auja, laþu, laukaR and most commonly, alu,[13] 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 may also be magic
in purpose, such as salusalu and luwatuwa. Further, an inscription on the Gummarp Runestone (500 to 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.[14]
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
Runic alphabet 6
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."[15]
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[15] would be used in the same
manner as a blótspánn.
The lack of extensive 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.
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.
Medieval use
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.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Younger Futhark has 16 runes, while the
Elder Futhark has 24, is not fully explained by the some 600 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 Codex Runicus, a vellum manuscript from around
1300 AD containing one of the oldest and best
spoken language increased. From about 1100, this disadvantage was
preserved texts of the Scanian Law, written
eliminated in the medieval runes, which again increased the number of entirely in runes.
different signs to correspond with the number of phonemes in the
language.
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 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.
In the mid-1950s, however, 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 and
Runic alphabet 7
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 and Estonia. The authenticity of some monuments bearing Runic inscriptions
found in Northern America is disputed, but most of them date from modern times.
The poem Hávamál explains that the originator of the runes was the major god Odin. Stanza 138 describes how Odin
received the runes through self-sacrifice:
Við hleifi mik seldo ne viþ hornigi, No bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
nysta ek niþr, downwards I peered;
nam ek vp rvnar, I took up the runes,
opandi nam, screaming I took them,
fell ek aptr þaðan. [20]
then I fell back from there.
In the Poetic Edda poem Rígsþula another origin is related of how the runic alphabet became known to man. The
poem relates how Ríg, 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.
Runic alphabet 8
Script variants
The Anglo-Saxon rune poem gives the following characters and The Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc.
names: ᚠ feoh, ᚢ ur, ᚦ thorn, ᚩ os, ᚱ rad, ᚳ cen, ᚷ gyfu, ᚹ wynn, ᚻ haegl, ᚾ
nyd, ᛁ is, ᛄ ger, ᛇ eoh, ᛈ peordh, ᛉ eolh, ᛋ sigel, ᛏ tir, ᛒ beorc, ᛖ eh, ᛗ mann, ᛚ lagu, ᛝ ing, ᛟ ethel, ᛞ daeg, ᚪ ac, ᚫ aesc, ᚣ
yr, ᛡ ior, ᛠ ear.
The expanded alphabet features the additional letters ᛢ cweorth, ᛣ calc, ᛤ cealc and ᛥ stan- 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.
Wilhelm Grimm discussed these runes in 1821 (Ueber deutsche Runen, chapter 18, pp. 149–159).
Runic alphabet 10
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
Runic alphabet 11
Academic study
The modern study of runes was initiated in 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 (1701–44) further extended the science of runes and travelled
around the whole of Sweden to examine the runstenar (runestones). From the "golden age of philology" in the 19th
century, runology formed a specialized branch of Germanic linguistics.
Runic alphabet 12
Body of inscriptions
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.
and Germanic occultism in the 19th century, and in the context of the
Fantasy genre and of Germanic Neopaganism in the 20th.
Occultism
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 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.
From 1933, Schutzstaffel unit insignia displayed
Another modern-day runic row is the Uthark, commonly known two Sig Runes.
through the work of the Swedish scholar and occultist Thomas
Karlsson, founder of the Ordo Draconis et Atri Adamantis (or Dragon Rouge), who 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.
Nazi Germany
Runes have been used in Nazi symbolism by Nazis and Neo-Nazi groups that associate themselves with Germanic
traditions, mainly the Sig, Eihwaz, Tiwaz, 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 in favor of the Wiligut runes created by the official Nazi Runologist Karl
Maria Wiligut.
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; however, the shape of the Armanen rune "Gibor",
as envisaged by von List, is substantially different from the form currently used. Who exactly it is that changed the
shape of Gibor is open to debate, but it appeared in its "new form" in the early 1930s. Nevertheless, if one examines
Von List's original documents, one will find a somewhat different design, one that bears little resemblance to the
"Wolfsangel".
Runic alphabet 13
Unicode fonts that support the runic range include the following Free
Unicode fonts; Junicode, Free Mono, and Caslon Roman and the
following non-free Unicode fonts; Code2000, Everson Mono, and
TITUS Cyberbit Basic.
Table of runic letters (U+16A0–U+16EA):
Runic Steel Stamps, Elder Futhark
16A0 ᚠ fehu feoh fe f 16B0 ᚰ on 16C0 ᛀ dotted-n 16D0 ᛐ short-twig-tyr t 16E0 ᛠ ear
16A1 ᚡ v 16B1 ᚱ raido rad reid r 16C1 ᛁ 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 16E2 ᛢ cweorth
bjarkan b
16A6 ᚦ thurisaz thurs 16B6 ᚶ eng 16C6 ᛆ short-twig-ar a 16D6 ᛖ ehwaz eh e 16E6 ᛦ long-branch-yr
thorn
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 16E8 ᛨ Icelandic-yr
m
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 16DB ᛛ dotted-l 16EB ᛫ single
long-branch-sol punctuation
s
16AC ᚬ long-branch-oss 16BC ᚼ long-branch-hagall 16CC ᛌ short-twig-sol s 16DC ᛜ ingwaz 16EC ᛬ multiple
o h 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 ᛏ tiwaz tir tyr t 16DF ᛟ othalan ethel o 16EF ᛯ tvimadur
symbol
Runic alphabet 15
16F0 ᛰ belgthor
symbol
Runic
Unicode.org chart [25] (PDF)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F
U+16Ax ᚠ ᚡ ᚢ ᚣ ᚤ ᚥ ᚦ ᚧ ᚨ ᚩ ᚪ ᚫ ᚬ ᚭ ᚮ ᚯ
U+16Bx ᚰ ᚱ ᚲ ᚳ ᚴ ᚵ ᚶ ᚷ ᚸ ᚹ ᚺ ᚻ ᚼ ᚽ ᚾ ᚿ
U+16Cx ᛀ ᛁ ᛂ ᛃ ᛄ ᛅ ᛆ ᛇ ᛈ ᛉ ᛊ ᛋ ᛌ ᛍ ᛎ ᛏ
U+16Dx ᛐ ᛑ ᛒ ᛓ ᛔ ᛕ ᛖ ᛗ ᛘ ᛙ ᛚ ᛛ ᛜ ᛝ ᛞ ᛟ
U+16Ex ᛠ ᛡ ᛢ ᛣ ᛤ ᛥ ᛦ ᛧ ᛨ ᛩ ᛪ ᛫ ᛬ ᛭ ᛮ ᛯ
U+16Fx ᛰ
See also
• Codex Runicus
• Computus Runicus
• Erilaz
• Runamo – a false runic inscription
• Rundata
• Solomon and Saturn
• Totenkopf Ring
Other scripts, reminiscent of, based on or related to runes:
• Ogham, the early Irish monumental alphabet
• Old Italic alphabet
• Orkhon script and Old Hungarian script (sometimes referred to as Turkic and Hungarian runes)
• Siglas Poveiras
• Slavic runes (unattested sign system postulated from medieval accounts)
• the "Armanen runes", invented by Guido von List
• the Cirth "runes", invented by J. R. R. Tolkien
Runic alphabet 16
References
Notes
[1] The oldest known runic inscription dates to around 150 AD and is found on a comb discovered in the bog of Vimose, Funen, Denmark
(Stoklund 2003:173). The inscription reads harja; a disputed candidate for a 1st century inscription is on the Meldorf fibula in southern
Jutland.
[2] "Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language" (http:/ / www. lkz. lt/ en/ dze. htm). Lkz.lt. . Retrieved 2010-04-13.
[3] Odenstedt 1990; Williams 1996). Cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages (book under preparation) (http:/ / ariadne. uio. no/ runenews/
odmarune. htm)
[4] Markey 2001
[5] Looijenga, J. H. (1997). Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent 150-700CE (http:/ / dissertations. ub. rug. nl/ faculties/ arts/ 1997/
j. h. looijenga/ ), dissertation, Groningen University.
[6] Weisgerber 1968:135, 392ff. and Weisgerber 1966/67:207
[7] Looijenga, J. H. (1997). Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700 (http:/ / dissertations. ub. rug. nl/ faculties/ arts/ 1997/
j. h. looijenga/ ), dissertation, Groningen University.
[8] 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
[9] cited after . Antonsen (1965), p. 36
[10] Hávamál (http:/ / www. heimskringla. no/ original/ edda/ havamal. php)
[11] Larrington, Carolyne. (Trans.) (1999) The Poetic Edda, p. 37. Oxford World's Classics ISBN 0192839462
[12] Entry DR 360 in Rundata 2.0 for Windows.
[13] Macleod, Mindy. Mees, Bernard. (2006) Runic Amulets and Magic Objects (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=hx7UigqsTKoC&
printsec=frontcover& source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage& q=& f=false), pp. 100–101. Boydell Press ISBN 1843832054
[14] Page, R.I. (2005) Runes, p. 31. The British Museum Press ISBN 0-7141-8065-3
[15] Foote, P.G., and Wilson, D.M. (1970). The Viking Achievement, Sidgwick & Jackson: London, UK, ISBN 0-283-97926-7
[16] Entry Vg 63 in Rundata 2.0 for Windows.
[17] Entry Vg 119 in Rundata 2.0 for Windows.
[18] Hávamál (http:/ / www. heimskringla. no/ original/ edda/ havamal. php) at «Norrøne Tekster og Kvad», Norway.
[19] Larrington, Carolyne. (Trans.) (1999) The Poetic Edda, p. 25. Oxford World's Classics ISBN 0192839462
[20] Larrington, Carolyne. (Trans.) (1999) The Poetic Edda, p. 34. Oxford World's Classics ISBN 0192839462
[21] Page, R.I. (2005) Runes, pp. 8, 15, and 16. The British Museum Press ISBN 0-7141-8065-3
[22] Jacobsen & Moltke, 1941–42, p. VII
[23] Werner, 2004, p. 20
[24] Looijenga, Tineke (2003). Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. p. 160. ISBN 9004123962.
[25] http:/ / www. unicode. org/ charts/ PDF/ U16A0. pdf
Bibliography
• 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 (http://www.runor.se/) in Swedish)
• Düwel, Klaus (2001). Runenkunde, Verlag J.B. Metzler (In German).
• Foote, P. G., and Wilson, D. M. (1970), p. 401. The Viking Achievement, Sidgwick & Jackson: London, UK,
ISBN 0-283-97926-7
• Jacobsen, Lis; Moltke, Erik (1941–42). Danmarks Runeindskrifter. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaards Forlag.
• Looijenga, J. H. (1997). Runes Around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700 (http://dissertations.ub.
rug.nl/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga/), dissertation, Groningen University.
• MacLeod, Mindy, and Mees, Bernard (2006). Runic Amulets and Magic Objects (http://books.google.com/
books?id=hx7UigqsTKoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false). Boydell
Press: Woodbridge, UK; Rochester, NY, ISBN 1843832054.
Runic alphabet 17
• Markey, T. L. (2001). "A Tale of the Two Helmets: Negau A and B.". Journal of Indo-European Studies 29:
69–172.
• McKinnell, John and Rudolf Simek, with Klaus Düwel (2004). Runes, Magic, and Religion: A Sourcebook. Wien:
Fassbaender, ISBN 3900538816.
• 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 (http://www.boydell.co.uk/5115946X.HTM), 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 (http://books.google.com/
books?id=1QDKqY-NWvUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false),
Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-186-4
• Stoklund, M. (2003). The first runes - the literary language of the Germani in The Spoils of Victory - the North in
the Shadow of the Roman Empire Nationalmuseet (?)
• Thorsson, Edred (1987). Runelore: a Handbook of Esoteric Runology. United States: Samuel Weiser, Inc..
ISBN 0-87728-667-1.
• Werner, Carl-Gustav (2004). The Allrunes Font and Package (ftp://tug.ctan.org/pub/tex-archive/fonts/
allrunes/allrunes.pdf)PDF.
• Williams, Henrik (1996). "The Origin of the Runes". Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren 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
• Nytt om Runer runology journal. (http://www.khm.uio.no/forskning/publikasjoner/runenews/)
• Bibliography of Runic Scholarship (http://www.galinngrund.org/Runes-Bibliography.htm)
• Unicode Code Chart (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U16A0.pdf)PDF (68.3 KB)
Runes See also: Epigraphy · Runestones · Rune poems · Runology · Runic divination v•d•
Elder Futhark: ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚨ ᚱ ᚲ ᚷ ᚹ ᚺ ᚾ ᛁ ᛃ ᛇ ᛈ ᛉ ᛊ ᛏ ᛒ ᛖ ᛗ ᛚ ᛜ ᛞ ᛟ
Younger Futhark: ᚠ ᚢ ᚦ ᚬą ᚱ ᚴ ᚼ ᚾ ᛁ ᛅa ᛋ ᛏ ᛒ ᛘ ᛚ ᛦʀ
Transliteration: f u þ a r k g w· h n i j ï p z s· t b e m l ŋ d o
Article Sources and Contributors 18
Image:Kyrkklocka från Saleby i Västergötland med runinskrift från 1228 (ur Sverige Runinskrifter).png Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kyrkklocka_från_Saleby_i_Västergötland_med_runinskrift_från_1228_(ur_Sverige_Runinskrifter).png License: Public Domain Contributors:
BK, Bloodofox, Den fjättrade ankan, Fred J, 1 anonymous edits
Image:Dalrunor.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dalrunor.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Tasnu Arakun
Image:Antler comb from Vimose, Funen, Denmark (DR 207).jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Antler_comb_from_Vimose,_Funen,_Denmark_(DR_207).jpg
License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: User:Bloodofox
Image:Flag Schutzstaffel.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_Schutzstaffel.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:NielsF
Image:Ring-runes.gif Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ring-runes.gif License: Public Domain Contributors: Expatkiwi
File:Runen Schlagstempel.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Runen_Schlagstempel.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: User:Mrgould
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/