Runic (Unicode block)
title: "Runic (Unicode block)" type: doc version: 1 created: 2026-02-28 author: "Wikipedia contributors" status: active scope: public tags: ["unicode-blocks", "modern-runic-writing"] topic_path: "general/unicode-blocks" source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_(Unicode_block)" license: "CC BY-SA 4.0" wikipedia_page_id: 0 wikipedia_revision_id: 0
::data[format=table title="Infobox Unicode block"]
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| blockname | Runic |
| rangestart | 16A0 |
| rangeend | 16FF |
| script1 | Runic (86 char.) |
| script2 | Common (3 char.) |
| alphabets | Futhark |
| 3_0 | 81 |
| 7_0 | 8 |
| note | |
| :: |
|blockname = Runic |rangestart = 16A0 |rangeend = 16FF |script1 = Runic (86 char.) |script2 = Common (3 char.) |alphabets = Futhark |3_0 = 81 |7_0 = 8 |note =
::figure[src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/UCB_Runic.png" caption="Graphical representation of the Runic Unicode block"] ::
Runic is a Unicode block containing runic characters. It was introduced in Unicode 3.0 (1999), with eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 (2014). The original encoding of runes in UCS was based on the recommendations of the "ISO Runes Project" submitted in 1997.{{efn|"At the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions in Valdres, Norway, in August 1990, the need to represent runes by real graphic symbols in text production of various kinds was discussed. Project meetings were held in Oslo in March 1993 and in Stockholm in November 1994 and March 1995. The proposal from the "ISO Runes Project" (cf. Digitala runor, TemaNord 1997:623, København 1997) was accepted with some minor adjustments in 2001, and Unicode now includes runic characters in accordance with the proposal."
The block is intended for the representation of text written in Elder Futhark, Anglo-Saxon runes, Younger Futhark (both in the long-branch and short-twig variants), Scandinavian medieval runes and early modern runic calendars; the additions introduced in version 7.0 in addition allow support of the mode of writing Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes used by J. R. R. Tolkien, and the special vowel signs used in the Franks Casket inscription.
Background
The distinction made by Unicode between character and glyph variant is somewhat problematic in the case of the runes; the reason is the high degree of variation of letter shapes in historical inscriptions, with many "characters" appearing in highly variant shapes, and many specific shapes taking the role of a number of different characters over the period of runic use (roughly the 3rd to 14th centuries AD). The division between Elder Futhark, Younger Futhark and Anglo-Saxon runes are well-established and useful categories, but they are connected by a continuum of gradual development, inscriptions using a mixture of older and newer forms of runes, etc. For this reason, the runic Unicode block is of very limited usefulness in representing of historical inscriptions and is better suited for contemporary runic writing than for palaeographic purposes.
The original publication of the Unicode standard is explicitly aware of these problems, and of the compromises necessary regarding the "character / glyph" dichotomy. The charts published show only "idealized reference glyphs", and explicitly delegates the task of creating useful implementations of the standard to font designers, ideally necessitating a separate font for each historical period. Glyph shape was taken into consideration explicitly for "unification" of an older rune with one of its descendant characters. On the other hand, the Younger Futhark era script variants of long-branch, and short-twig, in principle a historical instance of "glyph variants", have been encoded separately, while the further variant form of staveless runes has not.
The ISO Runes Project treated the runes as essentially glyph variants of the Latin script. Everson argued that the native futhark ordering is well established, and that it is unusual for UCS to order letters not in Latin alphabetical order rather than according to native tradition, and a corresponding sorting order of the runic letter Unicode characters was adopted for ISO/IEC 14651 in 2001.{{efn|"On 2000-12-24 Olle Järnefors published on behalf of the ISORUNES Project in Sweden a proposal for ordering the Runes in the Common Tailorable Template (CTT) of ISO/IEC 14651. In my view this ordering is unsuitable for the CTT for a number of reasons." "Due to the summer holidays, one of our experts was unable to report back to us by the due date of 2001-09-01. While we voted positively on 2001-08-30, Ireland would like to change our vote to DISAPPROVAL, with the following technical comment:
In the tailorable template, the Runic script is ordered according to Latin transliteration order. This produces ordering which does not fully satisfy any user community. The Runes should be reordered to the Futhark order in the tailorable template.
Note that the SC22/WG20 minutes are ambiguous as to what should have been sent out for ballot:
'Runes were added after 14651 cut-off. Order of the Runes in N833 are according to the preference of the ISO Runes project (Sweden). Other people, such as Everson and Ken, disagree with the ISO project and prefer the current usage on the web. Reason: academic work is done in transliterations and the order is for the transliterated characters. Everson's proposal is very close to the binary order in 10646 (Futhark) for all extensions in various countries. Transliterated order would have to be a tailoring. Current draft table shows the ISO Runes order.... Discussion about the merits of either ordering. Decision that the order stays as in the table which is the Futhark order.' [...]
We believe that ambiguities in transliteration ordering will mean that researchers in the Nordic countries and Britain and Ireland will have to tailor ANYWAY to get a correct transliteration ordering. Therefore the not-quite-perfect transliteration order in the tailorable template serves little purpose. On the other hand, the many non-researcher users of the Runes (who far outnumber the researchers), universally prefer the Futhark order, and require no tailoring for it. Since MOST users will not need to tailor, it seems only logical that the Futhark order should be the order used in the template."}}
Characters
The original 81 characters adopted for Unicode 3.0 included 75 letters, three punctuation marks and three "runic symbols".
The names given to the runic letter characters are "a bit clumsy" in a deliberate compromise between scholarly and amateur requirements. They list simplified (ASCII) representations of the three names of a "unified" rune in the Elder Futhark, the Anglo-Saxon and the Younger Futhark traditions, followed by the letter transliterating the rune (if applicable). The ordering follows the basic futhark sequence, but with (non-unified) variants inserted after the standard Elder Futhark form of each letter, as follows:
::data[format=table] | Code point | Rune | Name | Elder Futhark | Anglo-Saxon | Younger Futhark (long-branch) | Younger Futhark (short-twig) | Medieval | Dalecarlian | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 16A0 | | FEHU FEOH FE F | | | | | | | | 16A1 | | V | | | | | | | | 16A2 | | URUZ UR U | | | | | | | | 16A3 | | YR | | | | | | | | 16A4 | | Y | | | | | | | | 16A5 | | W | | | | | | | | 16A6 | | THURISAZ THURS THORN | | | | | | | | 16A7 | | ETH | | | | | | | | 16A8 | | ANSUZ A | | | | | | | | 16A9 | | OS O | | | | | | | | 16AA | | AC A | | | | | | | | 16AB | | AESC | | | | | | | | 16AC | | LONG-BRANCH-OSS O | | | | | | | | 16AD | | SHORT-TWIG-OSS O | | | | | | | | 16AE | | O | | | | | | | | 16AF | | OE | | | | | | | | 16B0 | | ON | | | | | | | | 16B1 | | RAIDO RAD REID R | | | | | | | | 16B2 | | KAUNA | | | | | | | | 16B3 | | CEN | | | | | | | | 16B4 | | KAUN K | | | | | | | | 16B5 | | G | | | | | | | | 16B6 | | ENG | | | | | | | | 16B7 | | GEBO GYFU G | | | | | | | | 16B8 | | GAR | | | | | | | | 16B9 | | WUNJO WYNN W | | | | | | | | 16BA | | HAGLAZ H | | | | | | | | 16BB | | HAEGL H | | | | | | | | 16BC | | LONG-BRANCH-HAGALL H | | | | | | | | 16BD | | SHORT-TWIG-HAGALL H | | | | | | | | 16BE | | NAUDIZ NYD NAUD N | | | | | | | | 16BF | | SHORT-TWIG-NAUD N | | | | | | | | 16C0 | | DOTTED-N | | | | | | | | 16C1 | | ISAZ IS ISS I | | | | | | | | 16C2 | | E | | | | | | | | 16C3 | | JERAN J | | | | | | | | 16C4 | | GER | | | | | | | | 16C5 | | LONG-BRANCH-AR AE | | | | | | | | 16C6 | | SHORT-TWIG-AR A | | | | | | | | 16C7 | | IWAZ EOH | | | | | | | | 16C8 | | PERTHO PEORTH P | | | | | | | | 16C9 | | ALGIZ EOLHX | | | | | | | | 16CA | | SOWILO S | | | | | | | | 16CB | | SIGEL LONG-BRANCH-SOL S | | | | | | | | 16CC | | SHORT-TWIG-SOL S | | | | | | | | 16CD | | C | | | | | | | | 16CE | | Z | | | | | | | | 16CF | | TIWAZ TIR TYR T | | | | | | | | 16D0 | | SHORT-TWIG-TYR T | | | | | | | | 16D1 | | D | | | | | | | | 16D2 | | BERKANAN BEORC BJARKAN B | | | | | | | | 16D3 | | SHORT-TWIG-BJARKAN B | | | | | | | | 16D4 | | DOTTED-P | | | | | | | | 16D5 | | OPEN-P | | | | | | | | 16D6 | | EHWAZ EH E | | | | | | | | 16D7 | | MANNAZ MAN M | | | | | | | | 16D8 | | LONG-BRANCH-MADR M | | | | | | | | 16D9 | | SHORT-TWIG-MADR M | | | | | | | | 16DA | | LAUKAZ LAGU LOGR L | | | | | | | | 16DB | | DOTTED-L | | | | | | | | 16DC | | INGWAZ | | | | | | | | 16DD | | ING | | | | | | | | 16DE | | DAGAZ DAEG D | | | | | | | | 16DF | | OTHALAN ETHEL O | | | | | | | | 16E0 | | EAR | | | | | | | | 16E1 | | IOR | | | | | | | | 16E2 | | CWEORTH | | | | | | | | 16E3 | | CALC | | | | | | | | 16E4 | | CEALC | | | | | | | | 16E5 | | STAN | | | | | | | | 16E6 | | LONG-BRANCH-YR | | | | | | | | 16E7 | | SHORT-TWIG-YR | | | | | | | | 16E8 | | ICELANDIC-YR | | | | | | | | 16E9 | | Q | | | | | | | | 16EA | | X | | | | | | | ::
The three "punctuation marks" are three variant forms of separators found in runic inscriptions, one a single dot, one a double dot and one cross-shaped. ::data[format=table]
| Code point | Rune | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 16EB | RUNIC SINGLE PUNCTUATION | |
| 16EC | RUNIC MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION | |
| 16ED | RUNIC CROSS PUNCTUATION | |
| :: |
The three "runic symbols" are the Arlaug, Tvimadur and Belgthor symbols used exclusively for enumerating years in runic calendars of the early modern period. ::data[format=table]
| Code point | Rune | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 16EE | RUNIC ARLAUG SYMBOL | |
| 16EF | RUNIC TVIMADUR SYMBOL | |
| 16F0 | RUNIC BELGTHOR SYMBOL | |
| :: |
The eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 concern the Anglo-Saxon runes. Three are variant letters used by J. R. R. Tolkien to write Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes, representing the English k, oo and sh graphemes. ::data[format=table]
| Code point | Rune | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 16F1 | RUNIC LETTER K | |
| 16F2 | RUNIC LETTER SH | |
| 16F3 | RUNIC LETTER OO | |
| :: |
The five others are letter variants used in one of the Franks Casket inscriptions, "cryptogrammic" replacements for the standard Anglo-Saxon o, i, e, a and æ vowel runes. ::data[format=table]
| Code point | Rune | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 16F4 | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET OS | |
| 16F5 | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET IS | |
| 16F6 | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET EH | |
| 16F7 | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AC | |
| 16F8 | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AESC | |
| :: |
Fonts
Numerous Unicode fonts support the Runic block, although most of them are strictly limited to displaying a single glyph per character, often closely modeled on the shape shown in the Unicode block chart.
Free Unicode fonts that support the runic block include: Junicode, GNU FreeFont (in its monospace, bitmap face), Caslon, the serif font Quivira, and Babelstone Runic in its many different formats. Commercial fonts supporting the block include Alphabetum, Code2000, Everson Mono, Aboriginal Serif, Aboriginal Sans, Segoe UI Symbol, and TITUS Cyberbit Basic.
Microsoft Windows did not support the Runic block in any of its included fonts during 2000—2008, but with the release of Windows 7 in 2009, the system has been delivered with a font supporting the block, Segoe UI Symbol. In Windows 10 the Runic block was moved into the font Segoe UI Historic.
Chart
History
The following Unicode-related documents record the purpose and process of defining specific characters in the Runic block:
::data[format=table]
| Version | Count | UTC ID | L2 ID | WG2 ID | Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.0 | U+16A0..16F0 | 81 | N1210 | ||
| N1222 | |||||
| N1229 | |||||
| N1230 | |||||
| N1239 | |||||
| txt) | |||||
| N1262 | |||||
| N1330 | |||||
| N1382 | |||||
| N1353 | |||||
| txt) | |||||
| N1443 | |||||
| N1453 | |||||
| N1542 | |||||
| N1620 | |||||
| N1603 | |||||
| N1695 | |||||
| N1771 | |||||
| N1772 | |||||
| N1763 | |||||
| N1703 | |||||
| 7.0 | U+16F1..16F8 | 8 | N4013R | ||
| N4103 | |||||
| doc) | |||||
| :: |
Footnotes
References
References
- "Unicode character database". The Unicode Standard.
- "Enumerated Versions of The Unicode Standard". The Unicode Standard.
- (10 May 2011). "Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS".
- Gustavson, Helmer. (2004). "Nytt om runer".
- "Cirth: U+E080 - U+E0FF".
- "Runic". The Unicode Standard, Version 16.0.0.
- "Runic". The Unicode Standard, Version 16.0.0.
- "Runic". The Unicode Standard, Version 16.0.0.
- Everson, Michael. (2001). "Ordering the runic script".
- (10 February 2001). "Final disposition of comments of ballot results on PDAM-1 to ISO/IEC 14651:2001". SC22/WG20.
- Everson, "Ordering the runic script" (2001) p. 1.
- Morris, Richard Lee. (1988). "Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy". John Benjamins.
- (10 May 2011). "Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS".
- "Script and Font Support in Windows". Microsoft.
- Proposed code points and characters names may differ from final code points and names
::callout[type=info title="Wikipedia Source"] This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page. ::