Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 08:17:42 EDT

At 21:52 -0400 2002-07-04, John Cowan wrote:
>The Unicode Standard (version 3.0, chapter 7) claims that Ogham and
>Runic were still in non-revivalist use to the 16th and 19th centuries
>respectively. Does anyone know where the evidence for these statements
>was found?

Benneth, Solbritt, Jonas Ferenius, Helmer Gustavson, & Marit Åhlén.
1994. _Runmärkt: från brev till klotter. Runorna under medeltiden.
[Stockholm]: Carlsson Bokførlag. ISBN 91-7798-877-9

Well, it depends on what you mean by non-revivalist. A
nineteenth-century manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy, Betham 23 M
11, contains a treatise on cryptographic Oghams which is of some
interest, and continues the ninth-century collection of secret Oghams
in the Book of Ballymote. In a sense, both of those manuscripts are
revivalist, since traditional Ogham carved on stone had its heyday in
the 5th to 7th centuries. So I am not sure what the Unicode standard
is referring to here.

Michael Everson *** Everson Typography ***

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 07:44:48 EDT