thumb|Distribution of pre–sixth-century Elder Futhark finds
The Elder Futhark, or Pan-Germanic Futhark (also spelt Fuþark, , ), is the oldest form of the runic alphabets. It was a writing system used by Germanic peoples in the Migration Period. Inscriptions are found on artifacts including jewelry, amulets, plateware, tools, and weapons, as well as runestones, from the 2nd to the 8th centuries.
In Scandinavia, beginning in the late 8th century, the script was simplified to the Younger Futhark, while the Anglo-Saxons and Frisians instead extended it, giving rise to the Anglo-Saxon futhorc. Both the Anglo-Saxon futhorc and the Younger Futhark remained in use during the Early and the High Middle Ages respectively, but knowledge of how to read the Elder Futhark was forgotten until 1865, when it was deciphered by Norwegian scholar Sophus Bugge.
Description
The Elder Futhark is named after the initial phoneme of the first six rune names: /f/, /u/, /ð/, /ɑ/, /r/, and /k/ corresponding with ᚠ, ᚢ, ᚦ, ᚨ, ᚱ, and ᚲ respectively. It has 24 runes, often arranged in three groups of eight runes; each group is in modern times called an ætt (pl. ættir; meaning 'clan, group', although sometimes thought to mean eight). What the groups were originally called remains unknown. In the following table, each rune is given with its common transliteration and phoneme:
{| class="wikitable"
! colspan=9 | ætt 1
|-
! rune
| ᚠ || ᚢ || ᚦ || ᚨ || ᚱ || ᚲ || ᚷ || ᚹ
|-
! transliteration
| || || || || || || ||
|-
! phoneme
| || || or || || || || ||
|-
! colspan=9 | ætt 2
|-
! rune
| ᚺ || ᚾ || ᛁ || ᛃ || ᛇ || ᛈ || ᛉ || ᛊ
|-
! transliteration
| || || || || or || || or ||
|-
! phoneme
| || || || || or || || or ||
|-
! colspan=9 | ætt 3
|-
! rune
| ᛏ || ᛒ || ᛖ || ᛗ || ᛚ || ᛜ || ᛞ || ᛟ
|-
! transliteration
| || || || || || || ||
|-
! phoneme
| || || || || || || ||
|-
| colspan=9 |
|}
The earliest known sequential listing of the alphabet dates to 400 AD and is found on the Kylver Stone in Gotland, [ᚠ] and [ᚹ] only partially inscribed but widely authenticated:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 1em;"
|- class="script-runic"
| [ᚠ] || ᚢ || ᚦ || ᚨ || ᚱ || ᚲ || ᚷ || [ᚹ] || ᚺ || ᚾ || ᛁ || ᛃ || ᛈ || ᛇ || ᛉ || ᛊ || ᛏ || ᛒ || ᛖ || ᛗ || ᛚ || ᛜ || ᛞ || ᛟ
|- style="text-align: center;"
| [f] || u || þ || a || r || k || g || [w] || h || n || i || j || p || ï || z || s || t || b || e || m || l || ŋ || d || o
|}
Two instances of another early inscription were found on the two Vadstena and Mariedamm bracteates (6th century), showing the division in three ætts, with the positions of ï, p and o, d inverted compared to the Kylver stone:
<blockquote>
f u þ a r k g w; h n i j ï p z s; t b e m l ŋ o d
</blockquote>
The Grumpan bracteate presents a listing from 500 which is identical to the one found on the previous bracteates but incomplete:
<blockquote>
f u þ a r k g w ... h n i j ï p (z) ... t b e m l (ŋ) (o) d
</blockquote>
Origins
Derivation from Italic alphabets
The Elder Futhark runes are commonly believed to originate in the Old Italic scripts: either a North Italic variant (Etruscan or Rhaetic alphabets), or the Latin alphabet itself. Derivation from the Greek alphabet via Gothic contact to Byzantine Greek culture was a popular theory in the 19th century, but has been ruled out since the dating of the Vimose inscriptions to the 2nd century (whereas the Goths were in contact with Greek culture only from the early 3rd century). Conversely, the Greek-derived 4th-century Gothic alphabet does have two letters that may have been derived from runes, 𐌾 (from Jer ᛃ j) and 𐌿 (from Uruz ᚢ u).
The main problem is that a derivation from the classical Latin alphabet as used in the 1st and 2nd centuries, while the most obvious possibility suggested by the historical, geographical and cultural context, is not as straightforward as could be expected, especially regarding letter shapes, and many scholars are not satisfied by it. Instead, it is observed that many runic letters suspiciously resemble letters with similar sound values from alphabets used in the Alpine region in the last centuries BC, alphabets which are all derived from the northern Etruscan alphabet; however, again, there is no derivation so straightforward as to convince most scholars.
The angular shapes of the runes, presumably an adaptation to the incision in wood or metal, are not a Germanic innovation, but a property that is shared with other early alphabets, including the Old Italic ones (compare, for example, the Duenos inscription). The 4th century BC Negau helmet B inscription features a Germanic name, Harigastiz, in a North Etruscan alphabet, and may be a testimony of the earliest contact of Germanic speakers with alphabetic writing. Similarly, the Meldorf inscription of 50 may qualify as "proto-runic" use of the Latin alphabet by Germanic speakers. The Rhaetic "alphabet of Bolzano" in particular seems to fit the letter shapes well. The spearhead of Kovel, dated to 200 AD, sometimes advanced as evidence of a peculiar Gothic variant of the runic alphabet, bears an inscription tilarids that may in fact be in an Old Italic rather than a runic alphabet, running right to left with a T and a D closer to the Latin or Etruscan than to the Bolzano or runic alphabets. Perhaps an "eclectic" approach can yield the best results for the explanation of the origin of the runes: most shapes of the letters can be accounted for when deriving them from several distinct North Italic writing systems: The p rune has a parallel in the Camunic alphabet, while it has been argued that d derives from the shape of the letter san (= ś) in Lepontic, where it seems to represent the sound /d/.
The g, a, f, i, t, m and l runes show no variation, and are generally accepted as identical to the Old Italic or Latin letters X, A, F, I, T, M and L, respectively. There is also wide agreement that the u, r, k, h, s, b and o runes respectively correspond directly to V, R, C, H, S, B and O.
The remaining ten runes of uncertain derivation may either be original innovations, or adaptions of otherwise unneeded Latin letters of the classical Latin alphabet (1st century, ignoring marginalized K). There are conflicting scholarly opinions regarding them:
- ᛖ may be from E.
- ᚾ may be from Raetic N.
{| class="wikitable"
|Consonants
|Labial
|Dental
|Alveolar
|Palatal
|Velar
|-
|Nasal
|ᛗ /m/
|
|ᚾ /n/
|
|ᛜ /ŋ/
|-
|Plosive
|ᛈ /p/, ᛒ /b/
|ᛏ /t/, ᛞ /d/
|
|
|ᚲ /k/, ᚷ /g/
|-
|Fricative
|ᚠ /ɸ/, ᛒ /β/
|ᚦ /θ/, ᛞ /ð/
|ᛊ ᛋ /s/, ᛉ /z/
|
|ᚺ ᚻ /x/, ᚷ /ɣ/
|-
|Approximant
|
|
|ᛚ /l/
|ᛃ /j/
|ᚹ /w/
|-
|Trill
|
|
|ᚱ /r/
|
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|Vowels
|Front
|Back
|-
|Close
|ᛁ /i/
|ᚢ /u/
|-
|Close Mid
|ᛖ /e/
|ᛟ /o/
|-
|Open
|
|ᚨ /ɑ/
|}
ᛇ has been excluded from the table because what its sound might have been is highly disputed. It may have been a diphthong, or it may have been a monophthong falling somewhere within the range of [ɪ] to [æ]. The only certain fact is that it represented a front vowel.
Inscription corpus
[[Image:Einangsteinen inscription.jpg|thumb|300px|[ek go]dagastiz runo faihido inscription on the 4th century "Einang stone"]]
Old Futhark inscriptions were found on artifacts scattered between the Carpathians and Lappland, with the highest concentration in Denmark. They are usually short inscriptions on jewelry (bracteates, fibulae, belt buckles), utensils (combs, spinning whorls) or weapons (lance tips, seaxes) and were mostly found in graves or bogs.
Scandinavian inscriptions
Words frequently appearing in inscriptions on bracteates with possibly magical significance are alu, laþu and laukaz. While their meaning is unclear, alu has been associated with "ale, intoxicating drink", in a context of ritual drinking, and laukaz with "leek, garlic", in a context of fertility and growth. An example of a longer early inscription is on a 4th-century axe-handle found in Nydam, Jutland: wagagastiz / alu:??hgusikijaz:aiþalataz (wagagastiz "wave-guest" could be a personal name, the rest has been read as alu:wihgu sikijaz:aiþalataz with a putative meaning "wave/flame-guest, from a bog, alu, I, oath-sayer consecrate/fight". The obscurity even of emended readings is typical for runic inscriptions that go beyond simple personal names). A term frequently found in early inscriptions is Erilaz, apparently describing a person with knowledge of runes.
The oldest known runic inscription dates to 160 and is found on the Vimose Comb discovered in the bog of Vimose, Funen. The inscription reads harja, either a personal name or an epithet, viz. Proto-Germanic (PIE ) "warrior", or simply the word for "comb" (). Another early inscription is found on the Thorsberg chape (200), probably containing the theonym Ullr.
The typically Scandinavian runestones begin to show the transition to Younger Futhark from the 6th century, with transitional examples like the Björketorp or Stentoften stones. In the early 9th century, both the older and the younger futhark were known and used, which is shown on the Rök runestone where the runemaster used both.
The oldest known runestone, the Hole Runestone, dates to the Roman Iron Age, c. 50 BCE–275 CE, and was found as fragments in Ringerike, Norway, during excavations from 2021-2023. The stone features several inscriptions including a name idiberug (possibly idiberun), which could be interpreted as one of several names, including Idibera, Idibergu, or the family name Idiberung. The first three letters of the Elder Futhark, ᚠ (f), ᚢ (u) and ᚦ (th), are also found on the stone, along with a formula naming the writer of the inscription.
Elder Futhark inscriptions were rare, with very few active literati, in relation to the total population, at any time, so that knowledge of the runes was probably an actual "secret" throughout the Migration period. Of 366 lances excavated at Illerup, only 2 bore inscriptions. A similar ratio is estimated for Alemannia, with an estimated 170 excavated graves to every inscription found.
Estimates of the total number of inscriptions produced are based on the "minimal runological estimate" of 40,000 (ten individuals making ten inscriptions per year for four centuries). The actual number was probably considerably higher. The 80 known Southern inscriptions are from some 100,000 known graves. With an estimated total of 50,000,000 graves (based on population density estimates), some 80,000 inscriptions would have been produced in total in the Merovingian South alone (and maybe close to 400,000 in total, so that of the order of 0.1% of the corpus has come down to us), and estimates a population of several hundred active literati throughout the period, with as many as 1,600 during the Alamannic "runic boom" of the 6th century.
List of inscriptions
After , .
- Scandinavia
- Period I (150–550)
- Hole Runestone (50 BCE–275 CE)
- Vimose inscriptions (6 objects, 160–300)
- Øvre Stabu spearhead (c. 180), raunijaz
- Illerup inscriptions (9 objects)
- Mos spearhead (c. 300), gaois(?)
- Golden horns of Gallehus (c. 400)
- Einang stone (400)
- Kylver Stone (400)
- Rö Runestone (400–450)
- Kalleby Runestone (5th century)
- Möjbro Runestone (400–550)
- Järsberg Runestone (500–550)
- Hogganvik runestone (5th century)
- Bracteates: total 133 (see also Alu)
- Seeland-II-C (500)
- Vadstena bracteate
- Tjurkö bracteate
- Period II (550–700)
- Skåäng Runestone (6th century?)
- Björketorp Runestone
- Gummarp Runestone
- Istaby Runestone
- Stentoften Runestone
- South-Eastern Europe (200–550): 4 AD.
- Gothic runic inscriptions (200–350)
- Continental inscriptions (mainly Germany; 200–700): 50 legible, 15 illegible (39 brooches, 11 weapon parts, 4 fittings and belt buckles, 3 strap ends, 8 other)
- Thorsberg chape (200)
- Bülach fibula
- Charnay fibula
- Nordendorf fibula
- Pforzen buckle
- English and Frisian (300–700): 44; (see also futhorc)
- Caistor-by-Norwich astragalus
Unicode
The Elder Futhark is encoded in Unicode within the unified Runic range, 16A0–16FF. Among the freely available TrueType fonts that include this range are Junicode and FreeMono.
The Kylver Stone row encoded in Unicode reads:
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Encoded separately are the double-barred h-rune, and a graphical variant of the ng-rune, . These two have separate codepoints because they become independent characters in the Anglo-Saxon futhorc. The numerous other graphical variants of Elder Futhark runes are considered glyph variants better rendered by the use of different fonts and so not given Unicode codepoints. Similarly, bind runes are considered ligatures and not given Unicode codepoints. The only bindrunes that can arguably be rendered as a single Unicode glyph are those that coincidentally look exactly like another rune, e.g. the double ᛚ bindrune is visually identical to ᛏ.
See also
- Rune poem
- Runic script
- Younger Futhark
Notes
References
Bibliography
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
External links
- Mees, Bernard. 2024. "On Recent Elder Futhark finds". Hyldyr.
- Runenprojekt inscription database at the University of Kiel. .
- Omniglot.com – Elder Futhark