| Elder Futhark | |
|---|---|
| Script type | |
Period | 2nd to 8th centuries |
| Direction | Left-to-right,boustrophedon  |
| Languages | Proto-Germanic,Proto-Norse,Gothic,Alemannic,Old High German |
| Related scripts | |
Parent systems | |
Child systems | Younger Futhark,Anglo-Saxon futhorc |
| This article containsphonetic transcriptions in theInternational Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, seeHelp:IPA. For the distinction between[ ],/ / and ⟨ ⟩, seeIPA § Brackets and transcription delimiters. | |
TheElder Futhark (orFuþark,/ˈfuːðɑːrk/), also known as theOlder Futhark,Old Futhark, orGermanic Futhark, is the oldest form of therunic alphabets. It was awriting system used byGermanic peoples in theMigration Period. Inscriptions are found on artifacts including jewelry, amulets, plateware, tools, and weapons, as well asrunestones, from the 2nd to the 8th centuries.
InScandinavia, beginning in the late 8th century, the script was simplified to theYounger Futhark, while theAnglo-Saxons andFrisians instead extended it, giving rise to theAnglo-Saxon futhorc. Both the Anglo-Saxon futhorc and the Younger Futhark remained in use during theEarly and theHigh Middle Ages respectively, but knowledge of how to read the Elder Futhark was forgotten until 1865, when it was deciphered by Norwegian scholarSophus Bugge.[1]
The Elder Futhark is named after the initialphoneme 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 anætt[2] (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 commontransliteration and phoneme:
| ætt 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rune | ᚠ | ᚢ | ᚦ | ᚨ | ᚱ | ᚲ | ᚷ | ᚹ |
| transliteration | ⟨f⟩ | ⟨u⟩ | ⟨þ⟩ | ⟨a⟩ | ⟨r⟩ | ⟨k⟩ | ⟨g⟩ | ⟨w⟩ |
| phoneme | /f/ | /u/ | /θ/ or/ð/[3] | /ɑ/ | /r/ | /k/ | /g/ | /w/ |
| ætt 2 | ||||||||
| rune | ᚺ | ᚾ | ᛁ | ᛃ | ᛇ | ᛈ | ᛉ | ᛊ |
| transliteration | ⟨h⟩ | ⟨n⟩ | ⟨i⟩ | ⟨j⟩ | ⟨ï⟩ or ⟨æ⟩ | ⟨p⟩ | ⟨z⟩ or ⟨ʀ⟩ | ⟨s⟩ |
| phoneme | /h/ | /n/ | /i/ | /j/ | /ɪ/ or/æ/ | /p/ | [z] or/r₂/[note 1] | /s/ |
| ætt 3 | ||||||||
| rune | ᛏ | ᛒ | ᛖ | ᛗ | ᛚ | ᛜ | ᛞ | ᛟ |
| transliteration | ⟨t⟩ | ⟨b⟩ | ⟨e⟩ | ⟨m⟩ | ⟨l⟩ | ⟨ŋ⟩ | ⟨d⟩ | ⟨o⟩ |
| phoneme | /t/ | /b/ | /e/ | /m/ | /l/ | /ŋ/ | /d/ | /o/ |
| ||||||||
The earliest known sequential listing of the alphabet dates to 400 AD and is found on theKylver Stone inGotland, [ᚠ] and [ᚹ] only partially inscribed but widely authenticated:
| [ᚠ] | ᚢ | ᚦ | ᚨ | ᚱ | ᚲ | ᚷ | [ᚹ] | ᚺ | ᚾ | ᛁ | ᛃ | ᛈ | ᛇ | ᛉ | ᛊ | ᛏ | ᛒ | ᛖ | ᛗ | ᛚ | ᛜ | ᛞ | ᛟ |
| [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 twoVadstena and Mariedamm bracteates (6th century), showing the division in three ætts, with the positions ofï,p ando,d inverted compared to the Kylver stone:
f u þ a r k g w;h n i j ï p z s;t b e m l ŋ o d
TheGrumpan bracteate presents a listing from 500 which is identical to the one found on the previous bracteates but incomplete:
f u þ a r k g w ...h n i j ï p (z) ...t b e m l (ŋ) (o) d
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Elder Futhark" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Elder Futhark runes are commonly believed to originate in theOld Italic scripts: either a North Italic variant (Etruscan orRhaetic alphabets), or theLatin alphabet itself. Derivation from theGreek alphabet viaGothic contact to Byzantine Greek culture was a popular theory in the 19th century, but has been ruled out since the dating of theVimose 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-centuryGothic alphabet does have two letters derived from runes, 𐌾 (fromJer ᛃj) and 𐌿 (fromUruz ᚢu).
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,[4] 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, theDuenos inscription). The 4th century BCNegau 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, theMeldorf inscription of 50 may qualify as "proto-runic" use of the Latin alphabet by Germanic speakers. TheRhaetic "alphabet of Bolzano" in particular seems to fit the letter shapes well.[5] Thespearhead of Kovel, dated to 200 AD, sometimes advanced as evidence of a peculiarGothic variant of the runic alphabet, bears an inscriptiontilarids that may in fact be in an Old Italic rather than a runic alphabet, running right to left with aT and aD 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: Thep rune has a parallel in theCamunic alphabet, while it has been argued thatd derives from the shape of the lettersan (=ś) inLepontic where it seems to represent the sound /d/.[6]
Theg,a,f,i,t,m andl runes show no variation, and are generally accepted as identical to the Old Italic or Latin lettersX,A,F,I,T,M andL, respectively. There is also wide agreement that theu,r,k,h,s,b ando runes respectively correspond directly toV,R,C,H,S,B andO.
The remaining ten runes of uncertain derivation may either be original innovations, or adaptions of otherwise unneeded Latin letters of theclassical Latin alphabet (1st century, ignoring marginalizedK). There are conflicting scholarly opinions regarding them:
Of the 24 runes in the classical futhark row attested from 400 (on theKylver stone),ï,p[a] andŋ[b] are unattested in the earliest inscriptions of c. 175 to 400, whilee in this early period mostly takes a Π-shape, its M-shape (
) gaining prevalence only from the 5th century. Similarly, thes rune may have either three (
) or four (
) strokes (and more rarely five or more), and only from the 5th century does the variant with three strokes become prevalent.
The "mature" runes of the 6th to 8th centuries tend to have only three directions of strokes, the vertical and two diagonal directions. Early inscriptions also show horizontal strokes: these appear in the case ofe (mentioned above), but also int,l,ŋ andh.
The general agreement dates the creation of the first runic alphabet to roughly the 1st century. Early estimates include the 1st century,[citation needed] and late estimates push the date into the 2nd century. The question is one of estimating the "findless" period separating the script's creation from theVimose finds of c. 160. If eitherï orz indeed derive from LatinY or respectivelyZ, as suggested by Odenstedt, the first century BC is ruled out, because these letters were only introduced into the Latin alphabet during the reign ofAugustus.
Other scholars are content to assume a findless period of a few decades, pushing the date into the early 2nd century.[8] Pedersen (and with him Odenstedt) suggests a period of development of about a century to account for their assumed derivation of the shapes ofþ ᚦ andj ᛃ from LatinD andG.
The invention of the script has been ascribed to a single person[citation needed] or a group of people who had come into contact with Roman culture, maybe as mercenaries in the Roman army, or as merchants. The script was clearly designed for epigraphic purposes, but opinions differ in stressing either magical, practical or simply playful (graffiti) aspects.Bæksted 1952, p. 134 concludes that in its earliest stage, the runic script was an "artificial, playful, not really needed imitation of theRoman script", much like the Germanicbracteates were directly influenced by Roman currency, a view that is accepted byOdenstedt 1990, p. 171 in the light of the very primitive nature of the earliest (2nd to 4th century) inscription corpus.
Each rune most probably had a name, chosen to represent the sound of the rune itself according to the principle ofacrophony.
The Old English names of all 24 runes of the Elder Futhark, along with five names of runes unique to theAnglo-Saxon runes, are preserved in theOld English rune poem, compiled in the 7th century. These names are in good agreement with medieval Scandinavian records of the names of the 16Younger Futhark runes, and to some extent also with those of the letters of theGothic alphabet (recorded byAlcuin in the 9th century). Therefore, it is assumed[by whom?] that the names go back to the Elder Futhark period, at least to the 5th century. There is no positive evidence that the full row of 24 runes had been completed before the end of the 4th century, but it is likely that at least some runes had their name before that time.[original research?]
This concerns primarily the runes usedmagically, especially theTeiwaz andAnsuz runes, which are taken to symbolize or invoke deities in sequences such as that on theLindholm amulet (3rd or 4th century).[citation needed]
Reconstructed names inCommon Germanic can easily be given for most runes. Exceptions are theþ rune (which is given different names in Anglo-Saxon, Gothic and Scandinavian traditions) and thez rune (whose original name is unknown, and preserved only in corrupted form from Old English tradition). The 24 Elder Futhark runes are:[9]
| Rune | UCS | Trans. | IPA | Proto-Germanic name | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ᚠ | f | /ɸ/,/f/ | *fehu | "chattel, wealth" |
 | ᚢ | u | /u(ː)/ | ?*ūruz | "aurochs", Wild ox (or *ûram "water/slag"?) |
 | ᚦ | þ | /θ/,/ð/ | ?*þurisaz | "Thurs" (seeJötunn) or *þunraz ("the godThunraz") |
 | ᚨ | a | /a(ː)/ | *ansuz | "god" |
 | ᚱ | r | /r/ | *raidō | "ride, journey" |
 | ᚲ | k (c) | /k/ | ?*kaunan | "ulcer"? (or *kenaz "torch"?) |
 | ᚷ | g | /ɡ/ | *gebō | "gift" |
 | ᚹ | w | /w/ | *wunjō | "joy" |
  | ᚺ ᚻ | h | /h/ | *hagalaz | "hail" (the precipitation) |
 | ᚾ | n | /n/ | *naudiz | "need" |
 | ᛁ | i | /i(ː)/ | *īsaz | "ice" |
 | ᛃ | j | /j/ | *jēra- | "year, good year, harvest" |
 | ᛇ | ï (æ) | /æː/[10] | *ī(h)waz | "yew-tree" |
 | ᛈ | p | /p/ | ?*perþ- | meaning unknown; possibly "pear-tree". |
 | ᛉ | z | /z/ | ?*algiz | "elk" (or "protection, defence"[11]) |
| ᛊ ᛋ | s | /s/ | *sōwilō | "sun" |
 | ᛏ | t | /t/ | *tīwaz | "the godTiwaz" |
 | ᛒ | b | /b/ | *berkanan | "birch" |
| ᛖ | e | /e(ː)/ | *ehwaz | "horse" |
 | ᛗ | m | /m/ | *mannaz | "man" |
 | ᛚ | l | /l/ | *laguz | "water, lake" (or possibly *laukaz "leek") |
  | ᛜ | ŋ | /ŋ/ | *ingwaz | "the godIngwaz" |
 | ᛞ | d | /d/ | *dagaz | "day" |
 | ᛟ | o | /o(ː)/ | *ōþila-/*ōþala- | "heritage, estate, possession" |
Each rune derived its sound from the first phoneme of the rune's respective name, with the exception ofIngwaz andAlgiz: the Proto-Germanicz sound of theAlgiz rune never occurred in a word-initial position. The phoneme acquired anr-like quality in Proto-Norse, usuallytransliterated withʀ, and finally merged withr in Icelandic, rendering the rune superfluous as a letter. Similarly, theng-sound of theIngwaz rune does not occur word-initially.The names come from the vocabulary of daily life and mythology, some trivial, some beneficent and some inauspicious:
The following charts show the probable sound values of each rune based uponProto-Germanic phonology.[12]
| 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/ |
| 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.
Old Futhark inscriptions were found on artifacts scattered between theCarpathians andLappland, with the highest concentration inDenmark. 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.
Words frequently appearing in inscriptions onbracteates with possibly magical significance arealu,laþu andlaukaz. While their meaning is unclear,alu has been associated with "ale, intoxicating drink", in a context ofritual drinking, andlaukaz 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 asalu: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 isErilaz, apparently describing a person with knowledge of runes.
The oldest known runic inscription dates to 160 and is found on theVimose Comb discovered in the bog ofVimose,Funen.[14] The inscription readsharja, either a personal name or an epithet, viz.Proto-Germanic*harjaz (PIE*koryos) "warrior", or simply the word for "comb" (*hārijaz). Another early inscription is found on theThorsberg chape (200), probably containing the theonymUllr.
The typically Scandinavianrunestones begin to show the transition toYounger Futhark from the 6th century, with transitional examples like theBjörketorp orStentoften stones. In the early 9th century, both the older and the younger futhark were known and used, which is shown on theRök runestone where therunemaster used both.
The oldest known runestone, theHole 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 nameidiberug (possiblyidiberun), which could be interpreted as one of several names, includingIdibera,Idibergu, or the family nameIdiberung. The first three letters of the Elder Futhark,ᚠ (f),ᚢ (u) andᚦ (th), are also found on the stone, along with a formula naming the writer of the inscription.[15]
The longest known inscription in the Elder Futhark, and one of the youngest, consists of some 200 characters, is found on theEggjum stone, dated to the early 8th century, and may even contain a stanza ofOld Norse poetry.
TheCaistor-by-Norwich astragalus readingraïhan "deer" is notable as the oldest inscription of the British Isles, dating to 400, the veryend of Roman Britain.
The oldest inscriptions (before 500) found on the Continent are divided into two groups, the area of the North Sea coast and Northern Germany (including parts of the Netherlands) associated with theSaxons andFrisians on one hand (part of the "North GermanicKoine"),[16] and loosely scattered finds from along theOder to south-eastern Poland, as far as theCarpathian Mountains (e.g. thering of Pietroassa in Romania), associated with East Germanic peoples. The latter group disappeared during the 5th century at the time of contact of theGoths with theRoman Empire and their conversion toChristianity.
In this early period, there is no specifically West Germanic runic tradition. This changes from the early 6th century, and for about one century (520 to 620), anAlamannic "runic province"[17] emerges, with examples on fibulae, weapon parts and belt buckles. As in the East Germanic case, use of runes subsides with Christianization, in the case of the Alamanni in the course of the 7th century.
There are some 350 known Elder Futhark inscriptions with 81 known inscriptions from the South (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and 267 from Scandinavia.[18][19] The precise numbers are debatable because of some suspected forgeries, and some disputed inscriptions (identification as "runes" vs. accidental scratches, simple ornaments or Latin letters). 133 Scandinavian inscriptions are on bracteates (compared to 2 from the South), and 65 are onrunestones (no Southern example is extant). Southern inscriptions are predominantly on fibulae (43, compared to 15 in Scandinavia). The Scandinavian runestones belong to the later period of the Elder Futhark, and initiate the boom of medievalYounger Futhark stones (with some 6,000 surviving examples). As of 2021, one inscription was found in a settlement associated withSlavs.[20]
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 atIllerup, only 2 bore inscriptions. A similar ratio is estimated for Alemannia, with an estimated 170 excavated graves to every inscription found.[21]
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 theMerovingian 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), andFischer 2004, p. 281 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.
AfterLooijenga 1997,Lüthi 2004.
The Elder Futhark is encoded inUnicode within the unified Runic range, 16A0–16FF. Among the freely availableTrueType fonts that include this range areJunicode andFreeMono.TheKylver Stone row encoded in Unicode reads:
ᚠᚢᚦᚨᚱᚲᚷᚹᚺᚾᛁᛃᛇᛈᛉᛊᛏᛒᛖᛗᛚᛜᛞᛟ
Encoded separately are the double-barredh-rune,ᚻ and a graphical variant of theng-rune,ᛝ. These two have separate codepoints because they become independent characters in theAnglo-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 doubleᛚ bindrune is visually identical toᛏ.
The oldest known runic inscription from Sweden is found on a spearhead, recovered from a grave at Mos in the parish ofStenkyrka in Gotland. The inscription, consisting of only five runes, might be dated to the end of the third century of our era.
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
