Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
This book provides an accessible, general account of runes and runic writing from their inception to their final demise. It also covers modern uses of runes, and deals with such topics as encoded texts, rune names, how runic inscriptions were made, runological method, and the history of runic research. A final chapter explains where those keen ...
Pagan ‘Witch runes’, there is only historical documentation of three true sets of runes. The three historic runic types are those of the Elder Futhark, the Younger Futhark and the Anglo-Frisian Futhark. There exists also the Armanen Futhorc of Guido von List’s esoteric development, although this
This document discusses the origin of the Anglo-Frisian runic innovations. It argues that early Old English and Old Frisian runic inscriptions shared a common stock of runes, including some not found elsewhere. This stock included new runes created for the o and a sounds.
Anglo-Saxon runes or Anglo-Frisian runes are runes that were used by the Anglo-Saxons and Medieval Frisians (collectively called Anglo-Frisians) as an alphabet in their native writing system, recording both Old English and Old Frisian (Old English: rūna, ᚱᚢᚾᚪ, "rune").
To find an answer to the question what makes an object with runes Frisian, runologists turn to its provenance and runological and linguistic features. Quak (1990) gives an
Historically, there are four major Rune-rows in existence... The Elder Futhark of 24 Runes, the Younger Futhark of 16 Runes, the Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-Frisian, or English) Futhorc of 33 Runes, and the Armanen Futhork of 18 Runes. The first three of these Rune Rows have historical validity. That is, their existence can be proven
Abstract: In this paper it is argued that an independent or separate “Frisian” runic tradition did not exist; “Frisian” runes are part of the Anglo-Saxon corpus. This results from the observation that the Frisian terp-area was abandoned for over a century from the end of the third through the fourth century AD.
