What did one cryptogram say to the other?

nNThsfhNboxsEhN:
Changes in the Runic Writing System and the Importance of Cryptographic Inscriptions

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in English
Language & Linguistics in the School of Critical Studies, University of Glasgow

August 2016

2170271

Word Count: 15222

 Table of Contents

Abstract 3
List of Figures 5
Preface 6
Editorial Notes 7
Literature Review 9
The Evolution of the Germanic Runes 12
Cryptographic Runes & the Franks Casket 23
Discussion 40
Bibliography 44
Appendix 50

2170271 2
 Abstract

The runic system was used in the early Germanic languages for centuries, but as the
Germanic language began diverging into the primitive forms of modern Scandinavian and north
west continental languages the runes changed to reflect the changes in the spoken language. The
rune A was used to represent the low back vowel sound /ɑ/; however, the sound change known as
First Fronting, or Anglo-Frisian Brightening, after the languages it occurred in, caused the /ɑ/ to
be fronted to /a/. As with most changes, there were some environments that did not change; those
who used the runes chose to move the original A rune to remain with the fronted vowel and a new
rune, a was developed for use with the unchanged back vowel. This was a change that was easy
for ancient peoples to work with due to the lack of standardization; once spelling systems become
fixed it is harder to adapt to changes in the spoken language. As the spoken language changes
eventually the written language will also change to reflect the more formal spoken language.

While First Fronting was limited to Old English and Old Frisian, the i-umlaut affected
nearly all Germanic languages except Gothic. I-umlaut, or i-mutation, was a major vowel shift in
which any vowel that was followed by /i/ or /j/ were pulled toward the high front corner of the
vowel system. This shift caused the back vowels to become fronted and the front vowels to be
raised. In this way /a/ became /e/ as in the word mann, in the neuter accusative plural form it
became menn. The long vowel /a/ was raised to the long /æ/ as can be seen from the Germanic
*hailjan to the Old English hælan (heal) remaining háljan in Gothic. The high front vowel /i/ was
unaffected by this umlaut since it could neither be fronted any more, nor could it be raised anymore.
In the back vowels, /o/ was fronted to /œ/, but was subsequently unrounded and often realized as
/e/. The high back vowel /u/ was fronted to the new phoneme /y/, which would have been
pronounced similar to the vowel in the French word tu of today. This new phoneme caused the
creation of the new runic symbol y, yr, by combining the existing runes u, ur, and i, is, to symbolize
the /i/ and /u/ sound combination.

Phonological variation occurs every day and is often fleeting, rarely impacting the written
word; even the Great Vowel Shift did not affect English spelling. While this is in part due to the

2170271 3
phonographic system in use today, major variation can be witnessed in its affects in the runic
system, showing how much the language has changed since its emergence.

Cryptographic inscriptions have been found in Britain and Scandinavia, though rare in Britain.
These cryptographic systems varied in complexity, from simple abbreviations to the substitution
of regular graphemes with arbitrary symbols. Ciphers occurred the most often in Norse
inscriptions in various forms and appears to have been widely known amongst the people. The
only legible cryptographic inscription from Britain is the Franks Casket, the inscriptions on the
right panel of the casket have the vowels replaced by arbitrary symbols to conceal the message.
While there have been numerous theories presented as to the transliteration and translation of the
inscription, none can be definitively said to be correct.

2170271 4
 List of Figures

1. I-mutation of Vowels
2. Effect of i-mutation on mouse/mice
3. Rök Substitution Cipher
4. Rotbrunna Inscription
5. Rök Cipher
6. Maeshowe Twig Runes

2170271 5
 Preface

The early Germanic languages used the runic writing system known as the fuþark throughout what
is present day Germany and Scandinavia prior to the adoption of the Latin alphabet. The Germanic
runes are thought to have been derived from the Old Italic alphabet when Germanic peoples were
in contact with the Roman Empire. The original, or elder fuþark was used by all Germanic groups
until roughly 500 AD, following the relocation of the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons to Britannia.
Following this social split, it became possible for different phonological variations to take root in
each group, pushing the languages further apart. As with any society, the Anglo-Saxons and the
Norse had secrets, and to protect their secrets codes and ciphers were created to encrypt messages
and texts. Just as today, these codes and ciphers varied in complexity, leaving many inscriptions
unintelligible to this day. It has been suggested that runic literacy was prevalent throughout the
Germanic world, if so, how prevalent were the code runes? How were the runes used
comparatively in Anglo-Saxon Britain and Nordic Scandinavia? How did the runes change
compared to the spoken languages? What were the rune makers to insistent to hide, but still write
in a lasting manner such as carving?

To answer these questions, I shall examine some of the numerous runic inscriptions have survived,
carved in stone, bone, or metals, and can be used to compare the evolution of the coded Germanic
writing system. The most notable coded inscription to be examined is the Franks Casket; placing
it in historical and cultural context will assist in determining its significance and the significance
of the inscription. Then an examination of the inscription in context will be provided to ascertain
why it was placed in code to begin with.

2170271 6
 Notes

On Transliteration:

Transliteration is the interpretation of one writing system by another in an effort to represent the
sounds of one language in the spelling of another. The Chinese system of pīnyīn (Chinese 拼音)
is an attempt to transliterate the Chinese character based language into Roman letters for the better
understanding of Western learners. Translation is the interpretation of one language by another, as
拼音 is transliterated to pīnyīn, it is then translated to literally mean ‘spelled sounds’. As Chinese
is a tonal language, the pīnyīn system includes a set of four diacritic marks to denote the tonal
values of the vowels to fully Romanize the significantly different writing system.

As with the system of transliteration set down by R.I. Page in 1999; transliterations of Anglo-
Saxon texts will be spaced between each letter within single quotes, such as ‘m æ g i’ when
referring back to the mAgi carving on the Franks Casket. Non Anglo-Saxon inscriptions shall be
bolded, but not spaced, and not enclosed within quotes, such as skanomodu of the solidus and
Roman letters will be in all capitals, without quotes or spaces.

On Translation:

Terms that are non-English, yet are not a direct transcription from a runic inscription, will be
recorded in italics and the translation into English will be recorded in plain text, using single quotes.

On Evidence:

Runes are traditionally found carved into various materials such as stone, wood, metal, or bone,
rather than on parchment; these inscriptions are usually short and placed on items that were meant
to be portable, the exception being runestones. Since inscribed items travelled around the world,
through trade or relocation of people, it is not uncommon that an item is discovered far from where
it was created, such as the Franks Casket which was Northumbrian in origin, but eventually

2170271 7
rediscovered in France. As well, rune carvers would also travel, bringing their dialectal
peculiarities, and sometimes language, with them. Thus, Viking runes inscribed in the fuþa̩rk have
been located in parts of Britain and as far as North America. With this transferability of artifacts
and carvers it is possible to determine the origin based off of the type of runes utilized due to the
divergence of the fuþa̩rk and the fuþorc.

2170271 8
 Literature Review

The field of Runic studies is thought to have begun in earnest with the seventeenth century
Danish scholar Ole Worm, who first published his Literatura Antiquissima in 1636. He later went
on to also publish the Danicorum Monumantorum Libri Sex in 1643 and Specimen Lexici Runici
in 1650. At this time runes and runic inscriptions were commonly thought of as a strictly
Scandinavian form of writing, it was not until George Hickes compiled his encyclopedic
Thesaurus1 in 1705 that the common Englishman realized that runes existed in their own country
as well. English scholars had been studying Anglo-Saxon inscriptions for nearly a century.
Though, several of the runic scholars were unsure of what the writing system was that they were
examining; Reginald Bainbrigg recorded inscriptions from the font at Bridekirk for William
Camden’s 1607 Britannia2 and supposed the runes were “either the Arabians’, or the Syrians’
letters before Esdras for they resemble them very much”. The foundation of English runic studies
was built by scholars in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Hickes’s Thesaurus
published a large amount of runic material that had never before been printed and following the
Cotton library fire of 1731, is now the only source of several manuscripts that were destroyed as
well as monuments that have become illegible and artifacts that have been stolen. As interest in
Anglo-Saxon studies waned in England, English scholars turned to those from Scandinavia to
assist in the interpretation of runic inscriptions; however, due to the differences in the runic systems
of the two cultures, the Scandinavian scholars had difficulties. In the early nineteenth century
Icelandic scholar, Finn Magnusen attempted to interpret the inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross.
While Magnusen was well versed in Danish runes, he read the Anglo-Saxon runes as a combination
of Old Saxon, Old English, Old Norse, Old Frisian, and Netherlandish, thus his interpretation was
completely wrong.

In the early nineteenth century the new philologists, Franz Bopp, Rasmus Rask, and Jacob
Grimm, emerged onto the academic scene. Rask’s notable work was his Undersøgelse on det
gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse, published in 1818. Jacob Grimm published

1
Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archæologicus
2
Bainbrigg’s sketches now in the British Library MS Cotton Julius F.vi, fos. 305, 352. (Page, 1999:3)

2170271 9
his Deutsche Grammatik in 1819 and 1822, which was “the first large-scale historical examination
of the old vernacular and its cognates” (Aarsleff, 1983:161) and included what would become
known as Grimm’s Law and set the foundation for a new era of study. It was primarily through
Rask and Grimm that the new philology was introduced to Britain by way of Benjamin Thorpe
and John Mitchell Kemble, both of which worked extensively with Old English and linguistic
history. Kemble was a well-respected academic, publishing extensively throughout his life,
including on Anglo-Saxon runes. As a response to Magnusen’s error translating the Ruthwell
Cross, in 1840 Kemble published an article, ‘On Anglo-Saxon Runes’, differentiating Anglo-
Saxon and Scandinavian runes and discussing the relationship between the two writing systems.
Kemble stated that while the runic systems were obviously derived from one original source, they
were far distant enough that the Scandinavian runologists held no special qualifications or
understanding when dealing with the Anglo-Saxon variety. Shortly after, George Stephens
compiled an extensive collection of runic inscriptions found in Scandinavia and England which
was printed between 1866-1901, though his linguistic insight as to the meaning of the runes left
much to be desired (Page, 1999:8). Several years later came Henry Sweet, who was the leading
philologist of his time and the founder of the modern discipline of phonetic science. He was best
known for his work in historical English, especially his Anglo-Saxon Reader (1876) and Anglo-
Saxon Primer (1882), which are still in print and used today. Joseph Wright came to the forefront
of language study in the late nineteenth century with his Neogrammarian approach to historical
English. The Neogrammarian hypothesis states that a diachronic sound change will simultaneously
affect all words in which its environment is met, with no exceptions. Wright’s perspective laid the
framework for later works such as Alistair Campbell’s (1959) Old English Grammar and Richard
Hogg’s (1992) A Grammar of Old English: Phonology, all of which remain some of the best texts
available.

The twentieth century’s advancements in linguistic studies begin in 1906, when Ferdinand
de Saussure commenced his lecture series that was later published by his students as the Course
in General Linguistics, which made the distinction between synchronic and diachronic approaches
to language studies. This Course is often observed to be the foundational work upon which
structuralism was built, summarized in the phrase tout se tient, ‘everything is connected to
everything else’.] In 1932 Bruce Dickins produced ‘A System of Transliteration for Old English

2170271 10
Runic Inscriptions’ as well as a partial corpus of Anglo-Saxon texts; his system of transliteration
was widely utilized for the better part of the century and remains the basis from which
contemporary transliteration is built. In 1954 Derolez published his Runica Manuscripta which
described the known runic manuscripts from the plain Anglo-Saxon fuþorc runes to the varieties
of codes and ciphers used by rune carvers to hide their texts. This has remained the most complete
compilation of runic history and uses as depicted by medieval manuscripts. Elliot’s (1959) Runes:
An Introduction is a valuable source for basic factual information, while still acknowledging the
mystical symbolism of rune names and possible pagan uses. This text examines the historic runic
alphabets, the main sources of runic knowledge, and various trends regarding the development of
the inscriptions. R.I. Page’s (1999) Introduction to English Runes takes a more skeptical view of
runes and their uses than Elliot. This text is particularly focused on the Anglo-Saxon runic
traditions; it contains historical facts about the runes as they were used by the Anglo-Saxons, along
with descriptions of inscription which reflect their daily use. In 2013, Michael Barnes published
Runes: a Handbook, which describes the history and linguistic evolution of the Germanic runes
while including cultural information to provide a setting for the information being presented.
Barnes also includes a significant amount of information introducing cryptographic and ciphered
runic inscription

One of the ongoing debates in runic studies is the role of magic or mysticism in Germanic
culture and how the runes were used in this manner. Some researchers, such as Page, take a
skeptical approach to runes and ignore any suggestion that the runes might have been used for an
esoteric purpose. At the same time, Elliot and many other researchers embrace the mystical
interpretations of runic inscriptions. Elliot goes as far as to say, “The primary characteristics of
runes . . . is the important part they played in the realms of Germanic ritual and magic” (Elliot,
1959:62). Elliot also argues that the runic writing system was impractical for common use and
was never intended to be used for practical or literary purposes, rather for divination and charm
making. While some scholars believe as Elliot states, that runes are inherently mystical, it is clear
that the runic system was primarily communicative. However, cryptic inscriptions demonstrate
that the runes were able to be utilized in creative ways; the name rune means ‘secret’, suggesting
that everything may not be as it seems at first.

2170271 11
 The Evolution of the Germanic Runes

While the Germanic tribes that would later become the British (the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes) were still on the Continent, they were speaking a subset of West Germanic known as North
Sea Germanic. The Frisians were a West Germanic tribe living in what is now Holland and
northeast Germany, sharing a boarder with the Saxons to the north. These West Germanic tribes
on the North Sea were in very close contact with the North Germanic tribes, who would descend
into the Old Norse tribes of Scandinavia. This close geography of these tribes allowed for the
extensive diffusion and sharing of language and culture. These early Germanic tribes used the
runic writing system known as the fuþark, so named for the initial six sounds, prior to the adoption
of the Roman alphabet. The runic alphabets underwent numerous variations and changes during
its period of use and some rune carvers created systems of codes and ciphers to encrypt their
messages.

There are three main runic alphabets: the elder fuþark, the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc, and the
younger fuþark. The elder fuþark consisted of 24 runic characters and was used by all Germanic
groups until roughly 400 AD, following the relocation of the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons to
Britannia. Following this social split, it became possible for different phonological variations to
take root in each group, pushing the languages further apart and subsequently altering the runic
alphabets used by each group. The Anglo-Saxon fuþorc consisted of 33 runic characters and
demonstrates the close ties between the Anglo-Saxons and the Frisians, both groups utilized this
runic alphabet despite the distance between them. The younger fuþark can be divided into the
‘short twig’ runes and the ‘long branch’ runes; each only consisting of 16 characters and varying,
mostly in distribution, as the short twig runes were commonly used in Norway and Sweden, while
the long branch runes were primarily used in Denmark.

In the fuþark the runes were named with a word that began with the same sound. In some
cases, the sound being represented is not suitable to be an initial sound in Old English, therefore a
word or name containing the sound was substituted. These rune names were taught using a
mnemonic verse known as the Anglo-Saxon Runic Poem, similar poems are found in Norwegian

2170271 12
and Icelandic culture. The poem is a twenty-nine stanza work of alliterative verse, listing the rune
name and a short explanation about the name. As the spoken languages changed and diverged,
rune carvers were forced to adjust the writing system to keep up with the phonological changes.
In some cases, the changes were arbitrary and had no correlation with the sounds of the language,
while others were direct effects of major alterations in the spoken language.

No Changes:

Ff - feoh, ‘wealth’
The f rune underwent minimal adjustments during the time of runic writing. The most
common variations are the length of the lower arm, whether it would come to the same height as
the upper, f, or if it would only traverse the same distance away from the stave as the upper, . In
some instances, the arms have been found to be curved rather than straight, .

u - ur, ‘aurochs’

The most common variants of the u-rune are , , and . The form was used in
Scandinavia until around 550 and has been recorded until 700 in England, though the asymmetric
form was the most popular in all areas. The asymmetric variations are also used to indicate the
direction in which the text is meant to be read, in the above forms the text would be read from left
to right, if the rune was reversed the text would be read from right to left.

T– thorn, ‘thorn’
The thorn rune has been depicted as both curved and angular, with the size of the protrusion
varied between a small bulge on the stave to a large angle reaching nearly to the ends of the stave.
The protrusion is usually located in the center of the stave, to slightly lower as to reduce chances
of confusion with the rune wynn. The rounded version of the rune is common in Scandinavian
inscriptions, while continental and English inscriptions favor the angular form. The direction of
the protrusion can also be used as an indication of the direction of the text; therefore, if the
protrusion is pointing to the left, the text is to be read from right to left.

r– rad,

2170271 13
 The rad rune is similar in form to the Roman letter R and has been found in both angular
and rounded forms. The rune is most commonly inscribed with the arm only connecting to the
stave at the topmost point, though some variants come close in the center. The close variation is
common in English and continental inscriptions, while the wider spaced variation is more
prevalent in Scandinavian inscriptions. As with the thorn rune, the direction of the ‘rad’ rune
denotes the direction of the text.

g– gyfu, ‘gift’
There is little variation to be discussed concerning this rune, the simplistic shape was
retained from the elder fuþark into the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc, but was relinquished by the younger
fuþark in Scandinavia.

w– wynn, ‘joy’
The wynn rune operates in a similar fashion to thorn, with an angular and rounded form
that utilizes the protrusion to indicate the direction in which the text was to be read. As well, the
angular form is more common in continental and English inscriptions, while the rounded version
is more prevelant in Scandinavian inscriptions. The rune carvers were careful to consistently keep
the protrusion confined to the top half of the stave, so as to keep it differentiated from the similar
þ rune.

n– nyd, ‘constraint’
This rune allows for variation in its form, without altering the meaning, as the short bar is
able to be inscribed as either rising, falling, or occasionally perpendicular to the stave. The n form
does become the most commonly used in all three runic systems and does not indicate the direction
in which the text is meant to be read. A notable variation is found on the Franks Casket, in which
the rune is tilted approximately 30º clockwise on the central axis .

i– is, ‘ice’

2170271 14
 As with most of the simple runes, is remains unchanged and with no notable variation
throughout the various runic alphabets.

I– eoh, ‘yew-tree’
The rune is rather rare in inscriptions, with a few recorded usages in Scandinavia and on
the continent between 400-600 AD and a few throughout Anglo-Saxon history. The only known
variation of the rune is it written facing the opposite direction and these two forms are used
indiscriminately, with no indication of which direction to read the text.

p– peorð
This rune has rarely been recorded in Scandinavian and continental inscriptions, while it
occurs in later English inscriptions, it is still a limited use character. In some cases, a variation of
the b rune was used to represent the voiceless as well as the voiced sound.

x– eolhx
This rune has one common variant, , which occurs in Scandinavian inscriptions between
400-750, though it has not been located on the continent or in England.

t– tir, ‘Týr’
As another simple rune, tir displays little variation and or significant change in any of the
runic alphabets.

b– beorc, ‘birch-tree’
The b rune is most commonly formed with one vertical stave and two protrusions to the
right, usually connecting to the stave in the center. There are some instances recorded of the
protrusions not connecting with the stave or connecting with an empty space between the two
connecting points . The protrusions can be angular or rounded and the side of the stave from
which they emerge indicates the direction the text is meant to be read.

e– eh, ‘horse’

2170271 15
 There is little variation in the history of this rune, prior to 400 it was recorded in
Scandinavia as ∏, but such realization was never recorded in continental or English inscriptions.
After 400 the e variation became the most prevalent in all areas.

m– man, ‘man, human’

The only slight variations noted for the man rune are , , and , however, remained
the most commonly utilized figure in each of the runic alphabets.

l– lagu, ‘water’
This is another simple rune that saw only minimal variation, in which the arm would be
carved as horizontal or near horizontal rather than at the downward angle. Lagu is also one of the
runes used to indicate the direction the text is meant to be read based on which side bears the arm,
though there are a few instances of retrograde l-runes in Scandinavia, in which the rune is facing
the left, yet the text is meant to be read to the right.

d– dæg, ‘day’
Throughout Scandinavian and continental inscriptions, the slight variation , is the most
common, with only two instances of the d rune having been recorded. The later d did not become
prevalent in Anglo-Frisian inscriptions until after 650 and became the norm in English inscriptions.

Minor Changes:

c– cen, ‘torch’
In the elder fuþark the k rune was written as < and was often carved as half the size of the
average runes. The cen rune was most commonly found as an angular rune, though there is record
of a limited number of rounded variants and indicated the direction of the text with the direction
Y
of the wide, open end. The first occurrence of the form was recorded in a small version in the
early sixth century and in full size in the late sixth century. The form consisting of a straight
central stave and a short diagonal arm, either up in the younger fuþark or down in the fuþorc,
emerged in the mid to late seventh century.

2170271 16
j– ger, ‘fruitful year’
In the elder fuþark the j rune was with several similar variations and occurs most
commonly as a small rune, with some full sized instances recorded.

h– hægl, ‘hail’
In the elder fuþark the h rune was written in nearly the same manner, the slight difference
being the number of diagonal bars. The Scandinavians formed the rune with only one line, ,
while the continental and Anglo-Frisian inscriptions were formed with two. In both instances, the
angle of the bars, whether rising or falling between staves, does not matter or affect the meaning
of the rune.

s– sigel, ‘sun’
The s rune often consists of three or four diagonal lines, occasionally the rune would be
inscribed with up to eight diagonal line segments. The three line variation, , is the most
commonly found among all groups, becoming the only known variation after the seventh and
eighth centuries. Around the year 550 the rune began to develop the perpendicular staves
connected by a diagonal bar and became the standard form in both the younger fuþark and the
Anglo-Saxon fuþorc (Odenstedt, 1990:92).

N– ing3, ‘the hero Ing’

Variants of the ing rune are •, , ( ). The first two variants were both half sized runes
and is thought to have been extended to the full sized N rune used in later English inscriptions.

Major Changes:

o– os, a – ac, ‘oak-tree’, A – æsc, ‘ash-tree’

3
For more information on rune variation see Odenstedt (1990).

2170271 17
 In the history of the Germanic languages there are several sound changes that have affected
some, but not all of the languages in the family. In Old English and Old Frisian when /ɑː/ occurred
before a nasal, the vowel would become nasalized and rounded, lifting it to /oː/. This can be seen
in the Anglo-Saxon forms of h𝑜̅ n ‘hang’ from *hanxan cf. hangen ‘hung’ (Hogg, 1992:57). On
this way the original Germanic rune name *ansuz, A, underwent the same nasalization, rounding,
and loss of n to shift the West Germanic *ans- into the Old English 𝑜̅ s. Due to the change in the
initial sound of the name of the rune, a new symbol was needed for the shifted sound. The newly
formed 𝑜̅ 𝑠 retained its original position in the fuþorc, but provided with the new symbol o (Page,
1999:44). First fronting, also known as Anglo-Frisian Brightening, is notable for occurring in
Primitive Old English and Primitive Old Frisian, but not in the other Germanic languages. In this
instance, the Proto-Germanic open back vowel /a/ was fronted, sometimes called ‘brightening’, to
be realized as /æ/ in most environments. Anglo-Frisian Brightening occurred in the following
manners:
(a) The West Germanic *a > æ in closed syllables and in open syllables if the following
vowel was non-back. This causes the differences between dæg/dæges/dæge, ‘day (n.
acc. sing., gen. sing., dat. sing.)’ and the forms dagas/daga/dagum ‘day (id. pl.)’
(b) The West Germanic *a remains a in open syllables in which the following vowel is
back, or where the following vowel was historically back, but where there is a
synchronic front vowel. This occurs in environments such as, faran ‘go’, lagu ‘water’,
and macian ‘make’. The West Germanic *a also remained when preceding a w, clawu
‘claw’; before nasals, mann ‘man’; and before any geminate consonant preceding a
back vowel, such as in habban ‘have’ or abbod ‘abbot’ (Lass & Anderson, 1975:62).
(c) The West Germanic *a becomes æ when followed, or historically followed, by an
umlauted vowel in the next syllable.
This can be put together to form the rule:

a > æ, except /_ C [+nasal], [w] (despite Campbell 1959:55, see Hogg, 1992:80)

With the introduction of the new phoneme /æ/, once again the rune masters of the time had to make
adjustments to the writing system to reflect the changes in the sound system. At this time, the A
symbol was used for the fronted vowel and renamed æsc ‘ash-tree’, with the appropriate vowel

2170271 18
sound; while the low back vowel was given the new symbol and name a ac, ‘oak-tree’. While
there are always some doubts as to the validity of any theory, especially those concerning
prehistoric events, there is no doubt that these runic forms were only used in English and Frisian
inscriptions, even if they did not develop the same way or at the same time in both cultures.

k– calc, ‘chalk’, G – gar, ‘spear’.

Another change that only affected Old English is palatalization. This change affected the
velars /k, g/ and differentiated the velar sounds from the palatial sounds. Campbell describes the
allophones of /k/ to be as different as Present Day English kit and cat, a slight difference based on
the following vowel sound. While he describes the /g/ allophone as, “Palatial ʒ was a spirant which
coincided with the sound derived from Prim. Gmc. i̯ (y in PDE young)” (1959). When in word
initial position front palatial allophones occurred preceding front vowels, including diphthongs
beginning with a front vowel; while the back velars occurred before back vowels, diphthongs
beginning with a back vowel, and umlauts. Examples of initial velars include: g𝑢̅þ ‘war’, g𝑒̅ s
‘geese’, caru ‘sorrow’, and galan ‘sing’. Velars were also placed before consonants, even if a
front vowel followed that consonant, such as in climban, grimm, and glæd. Examples of initial
palatials include: cirice ‘church’, georn ‘eager’, c𝑒̅ osan ‘choose’, and ginnan ‘begin’. In the final
position /k/ and /g/ were palatialized following front vowels, including those that became front
vowels due to the i-mutation4 as this implies that /i/ or /i̯ / originally followed the /k/ or /g/. This
can be seen in words such as: pic ‘pitch’, dæg ‘day’, bodig ‘body’, and b𝑒̅ c ‘books’. Velar
consonants did remain when following back vowels or diphthongs ending with a back vowel, such
as boc ‘book’ and eac ‘also’. When the forms appeared medially within a word the same rules
applied as if it was final.

With these new differentiations, rune carvers felt the need to display the differences in the
writing system. The adjustment of the velar consonants /k/ and /g/ caused the creation of three
runes: G k and K. Many Anglo-Saxon manuscript writers, as well as rune carvers, did not
differentiate between the allophones in their spelling systems. Those who utilized the new runes
retained the original runes c ‘c’ and g ‘g’ for the fronted palatial consonants demonstrated in their
names, cen ‘torch’ and gyfu ‘gift’. The back consonants were then produced using the new forms

4
To be discussed in greater detail later

2170271 19
k for the back k/c and was named calc, G was used for g and was named gar. An additionally
specialized rune can be found on the Ruthwell Cross, K, this symbol is used in contexts in which a
back k/c is then followed by a secondary fronted vowel and can be seen in the word cyning ‘king’.
The inscription of the Ruthwell Cross is the only known usage of this rune form.

y– yr
While the palatialization of the velar consonants was limited to Old English, the i-mutation
affected nearly all Germanic languages, the exception being Gothic. I-mutation, or i-umlaut, was
a major vowel shift in which any vowel followed by /i/ or /j/ was pulled toward the high front
corner of the vowel system, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. I-mutation of vowels

This shift caused the back vowels to become fronted and the front vowels to be raised. In
this way /a/ became /e/5 as in the word mann, in the neuter accusative plural form it became menn.
The front vowel /æ/ was raised to /e/ as in the Germanic word *badja becoming the Old English
word bedd which remained as badi in Gothic. The long vowel /a/ was raised to the long /æ/ as can
̅lan ‘heal’ remaining háljan in Gothic.
be seen from the Germanic *hailjan to the Old English hæ
The high front vowel /i/ was unaffected by this umlaut since it could neither be further fronted, nor
could it be raised any farther. In the back vowels, /o/ was fronted to /œ/, but was subsequently
unrounded and often realized as /e/. The high back vowel /u/ was fronted to the new phoneme /y/,

5
/a/ was not raised to /æ/ at this time as that had already occurred in most instances due to Anglo-Frisian
Brightening.

2170271 20
which would have been pronounced similar to the vowel in the French word tu of today. This
change can be seen in the word *trumjan, ‘strengthen’, which became trymman and the older form
was retained in the adjective tr𝑢̅m, ‘strong’. In the same way, the long /u/ was fronted to a long
/y/, which can be seen in the difference between the verb ryman, ‘to make space’, and the adjective
r𝑢̅m, ‘spacious’. Apart from the high front vowel /i/ that had no space to move in the vowel system,
i-mutation had no effect on the long vowels /i, e, æ/. There are several categories in which i-
mutation was particularly common. First, the second and third person present indicative
conjugations, i-mutation often shifted the stem vowel from /e/ to /i/, such as the verb niman, ‘to
take’, was derived from the root *neman. Secondly, verbs that are formed from nouns or adjectives,
looking at combination ‘to judge’ and ‘judgment’, d𝑒̅ man and d𝑜̅ m, compared to the same verb in
Gothic domjan. The third point of common i-mutation is the comparative and superlative forms
of common adjectives and adverbs. For example, ‘old’ eald, ‘older’ yldra, ‘oldest’ yldest. In this
case the West Germanic suffixes *-iro and *-isto caused the original /ea/ to mutate to /ie/ then
again up to /y/, this is demonstrated in the early West Saxon form of ‘older’ as ieldra. This leads
to the fourth common mutation area, the long diphthongs /ea, eo, io/, which as demonstrated above,
mutated into /ie/ in West Saxon, then into /i/ or /y/. I-mutation was also a common occurrence in
the past participles of vocalic verbs, wyrd as ‘fate’ or what has happened, and weorðan ‘become’.
Often the trigger phonemes were found in either inflectional or derivational suffixes that would
later be lost, ushering in Middle English. I-mutation had two immediate effects on the languages;
first, there was an increase in the incidence of the vowels /æ/ and /e/. Secondly, two new phonemes
were created that had previously been unknown in Germanic, the front rounded vowels /y/ and /ø/.
Since /æ/ and /e/ were previously distinctive phonemes the new instances merged with the old
instances, but the new phonemes remained distinctive. Prior to i-mutation vowel rounding was
non-distinctive, all of the front vowels and low back vowel were unrounded, the only rounded
vowels were the non-low back vowels /o/ and /u/. With these new non-low front rounded vowels
and the subsequent loss of the /i, j/ triggers, these sounds become allophonic with the rounded
vowels. Figure 2 demonstrates the effect of the new vowels on the system using the mouse/mice
example.
Singular Plural
Pre- IM mu:s mu:-i-
IM mu:s my:-i-

2170271 21
 i-deletion ----- my:s
OE output mu:s my:s
Figure 2. Effect of i-mutation on mouse/mice
The initial i-mutation row depicts the phonetic change that would have occurred at the time, though it would
not yet have been a phonological change, one that is pronounced but no yet being recognized as the norm. The i-
deletion row demonstrates how a new minimal pair has been created, therefore setting /y/ up as a new phoneme.
Finally, the output row shows the new contrast between the singular form and the plural form distinguished by
phoneme.

Upon the creation of the front, rounded vowel /y/ a new rune symbol was created to represent the
sound. Since the original phoneme was /u/ being pulled toward /i/, it is fitting that the symbol was
derived from these two runes u and i. The new symbol was then y , yr, the name was also an
amalgamation of ur and is from the original runes, retaining the form of ur, yet shifting the sound
to reflect the influence of /i/ upon the phoneme.

While sound change and rune variation have caused difficulty in understanding various
runic inscriptions, some inscriptions were created to baffle outsiders. These cryptic inscriptions
have been found in several forms, from the simple to the bizarre, and some remain unintelligible
centuries later. The creation of a cryptic form of writing insinuates a high level of literacy within
the society, causing the need for a secretive form of communication.

Cryptographic Runes & the Franks Casket

Cryptography can be broken into two distinct types, codes and ciphers. Codes involve a
1:1 correspondence, changing each word as a whole; instead of explicitly saying, “The President
is coming” security might alternatively say, “The eagle is flying.” Coded messages can make

2170271 22
sense semantically, as “the eagle is flying”, or they can be an ambiguous string of words. A cipher,
instead, changes each word letter by letter; this could be by systematically substituting another
letter in its place or using an arbitrary symbol instead.

There are several types of cryptic runic inscriptions found on various artifacts. The
simplest manner of concealing a message is to leave out runes or abbreviate words. The problem
with this though is that it becomes difficult to determine if the eliminated runes are due to a form
of coding the message, or of the carver’s own ignorance or mistake. Messages could be ciphered
by inscribing the runes in reverse or changing the order of the runes within the word. Some
inscriptions use a substitution cipher, in which the carved runes are meant to be replaced by,
usually, the rune immediately preceding or following it in the fuþark. The most difficult of the
cryptic systems is the substitution of arbitrary symbols for certain runes, such as the inscription on
the right panel of the Franks Casket.

The most basic way to conceal a text is with transposition, or the rearrangement of the
letters or runes. This can be seen on the fourth century arrow shafts found in Nydam, Jutland. The
inscribed lua is presumed to be a ciphered alu, which Derolez translates as ‘protection’ (1954:138).
Another example of transposition in runic inscriptions is the Rimsø stone, also from Jutland. The
stone is a memorial to a mother that died and is primarily standard inscriptions, save for the section
that reads: ikam:tsrau:mas:iþua*[. When examined in this orientation, it appears to be something
other than Scandinavian, however, when read backwards it begins to take on meaning:
sam:uarst:maki ‘the worst for a son’. When the final section is reversed iþua becomes auþi,
which has been taken to be what remains of [t]auþi meaning ‘death’. Since the runes are missing
following iþua, it has been suggested that the word moður may be the final piece, which would
form a short poetic form: Moður es dauði sæm værst megi ‘A mother’s death is the worst [thing]
for a son’ (Barnes, 2013:147).

A more difficult concealment is the substitution cipher demonstrated on the ninth century
Rök stone from Östergötland, Sweden. In some of the inscriptions on the stone the runes have been
replaced by the rune immediately preceding it in the fuþark. So the inscription airfbfrbnh stands
in for the intended sakumukmini, which is able to be separated and translated as: sagum ok minni,

2170271 23
‘I/we also tell the ancient tale’, or sagum ungmænni ‘I/we tell the young men’. Substitution ciphers
are able to be used with any pattern, the Rök stone uses a single backward replacement, but the
cipher will be effective when shifting either forward or back within the alphabet as long as it
remains consistent (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A similar substitution as found on the Rök stone in which the top line represents the inscribed rune and the
second line show the shift, two spaces forward in this case, with how the runes should be interpreted directly below.

Isruna:
Evidence of early documentation of the runic scripts can be found in the five surviving
Latin manuscripts which make up the Isruna Tract:
1. St. Gall, Stiftsbibliotheek, MS. 270
2. Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS. 9565-9566
3. Trier, Priesterseminar, MS. R. III. 13
4. Vatican Library, MS. Urbin. Lat. 290
5. Salzburg, Sift St. Peter, MS. a IX. 32 6

These manuscripts range in origin from the early ninth through the eleventh centuries and contain
a fuþorc followed by a description of runic cryptography. Each of the five manuscripts describe
the Germanic fuþark as being divided into three sections of eight runes, called aetir. Each of the
codes works on the basis that each rune is named by a depiction of the number of the group, then
the number of the rune within the group, which is commonly transcribed using a fraction, such as
1/1 = f, 1/2 = u, 3/8 = o (Deleroz, 1954:89). However, in Viking Age coded inscriptions the 6:5:5
cipher is the most commonly used. As the aetir were described in three groups of eight in the
Isruna Tract, in the younger fuþark the sixteen runes were divided into one group of six runes and
two groups of five runes each. A key to the 6:5:5 cipher was discovered on a twelfth century bone
from Schleswig in northern Germany. The bone is inscribed with a sixteen rune fuþark, above the

6
Derolez (1954:89)

2170271 24
f, h, and t runes are three, two, or one dot(s) respectively, indicating the group number. Preceding
each individual rune is a vertical line of dots to indicate the rune number within the group; for this
cipher the f rune would be 3/1. The manuscripts describe four different ways in which these figures
could be indicated: isruna, lagoruna, hahalruna, and stopfruna; the manuscripts also describe a
fifth clopfruna, which appears to work in a different manner.

The first cryptographic system is the isruna, from the series of short and long i-runes,
named is in Old English, which make up the code. The group is indicated by a series of long i-
runes followed by the short i-runes which indicate rune number. This has been documented on
the Rotbrunna stone:

Figure 4. Is runes on the Rotbrunna Stone, Uppland, Sweden.

In this inscription is then transliterated: 2/4 2/3 3/5 2/3 3/6 3/5, airikr, which is the name ‘Eirik’.
The inscription goes on to fully read ‘Eirik wrote [these runes]’ (Deleroz, 1954:145). The second
type of code is the lagoruna system, which works in a similar way as the isruna, but utilizing the
l-rune, lago, instead. A similar version of the cipher can be seen on the Rök stone in several
variations, one which utilizes the I rune in a series, is inscribed in one direction to indicate the
group and in the opposite direction to indicate the rune.

Figure 5. 6:5:5 cipher on the Rök Stone, Östergötland, Sweden

This inscription can be broken down into 3/3, 3/2, and 3/5, þur, which is taken to be an invocation
of the god þorr ‘Thor’.

2170271 25
 The third system is the hahalruna, or ‘twig runes’, this code is based off of a single rune
stave; the group is indicated by the number of lines inscribed to the left and the rune number is
depicted by the number of lines on the right of the stave. Twig runes in the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc
have been found on the Hackness Cross in England; though it has been worn illegible across most
of the surface, a portion of the twig runes remain clear enough to identify. Scandinavian twig
runes have been located at Maeshowe, Orkney within a prehistoric cairn that was looted and
vandalized by Vikings. The cairn is estimated to have been constructed around 3000 BC and was
built of local flagstone. The Maeshowe carvings were initially analyzed and numbered by Farrer
(1862) and his arrangement has endured since; Barnes (1994) did attempt a renumbering of the
inscriptions in a more logical manner, with limited success. Inscription Farrer VIII (Barnes’ #9)
consists of two lines of plain runes followed by one line of twig runes. The plain text translates
to, ‘Ingibjo̩rg, the fair widow. Many a woman has gone stooping in here. A great show off.’ (Barnes,
1994:95); the coded line is assumed to be the signature of the carver.

Figure 6. Twig runes from Maeshowe, Orkney, Scotland

The code can be transliterated as: 2/4 3/5 1/4 2/3 3/6 3/5, arlikr, which Barnes (1994:99) considers
to be the name ‘Erlingr’. While the twig runes can be as straightforward as those in Maeshowe,
more creative designs have been located in Bergen, Norway. Sticks with carvings of fish or men’s
faces have the arms of the coded runes hidden within the images.

The fourth cryptographic system in the Isruna Tract is the stopfruna, which utilizes dots
organized into horizontal lines. The group is inscribed with a series of dots on the upper line with
the rune number inscribed bellow in another line of dots; in occasional inscriptions these will be
switched with the rune number above and the group bellow. This code derives its name from the
Old High German word for ‘dot’ stupf or stopf (Deleroz, 1954:134).

2170271 26
 The final system is the clopfruna, from the Old High German klopfon, ‘to knock’, and the
texts describe it as a system that was meant to be used in a way similar to modern Morse code.
The message would be tapped out using two different tones, one to indicate group and one to
indicate rune number; since the system is unable to be written down, most information regarding
it is speculation.

Arbitrary Symbols:

The most complicated coded inscriptions are those which include arbitrary symbols in
place of the intended runes. The best known example of arbitrary symbols mixed with runes is the
Franks Casket, which was discovered in the early nineteenth century in the possession of the Auzon
family in France. The casket is often referred to as either the Auzon Casket, for the family who
held it, or the Franks Casket, for Sir Augustus Wollaston Franks who later acquired the pieces of
the casket and donated them to the British Museum in 1867. The Auzon family was in possession
of the lid and three sides of the casket, the right side was located in the Museo Nazionale in
Florence, Italy in 1890 and a cast replaced the original on the remounted casket.

The casket is a box carved of whale bone which has been dated to the early eighth century
from Northumbria. The box measures 9 inches long, by 7½ inches wide, by 5 1/8 inches tall and
includes intricate carvings on each side 7 and what remains of the lid. The front of the casket is
divided into two sections, the left side depicts a scene from Germanic legend and the right, a
Christian scene. The Germanic scene is that of Vo̩lundr, or Weland, the Smith at his forge offering
a goblet of drugged beer to the princess Bo̩þvildr and her maidservant as he stands over the corpse
of King Niþo̩þr’s son, making a cup from the victim’s skull. Behind the women is a figure of a
man, who is often identified as Egil, strangling birds whose feathers he used to make wings to free
Weland from King Niþo̩þr. The Christian scene is that of the Adoration of the Magi, in which the
three men approach the Christ child and Mary to present their gifts. The incised runes mAgi ‘m æ g
i’ centered on the top of the section and what appears to be a trefoil from the Germanic background

7
Images available in the Appendix

2170271 27
above the last magi. A runic inscription is placed around the outside of three panels, which has no
relation to the images within:

‘f i s c · f l o d u · / a h o f o n f e r g / e n b e r i g /
<w a r þ g a : s r i c g r o r n þ æ r h e o n g r e u t g i s w o m /
>h r o n æ s b a n’

fisc flodu ahof on fergenberig

warþ gasric grorn þær he on greut giswom

As opposed to the images of fanciful myth, the inscription has been taken as a description of the
material used to create the vessel.

‘The flood cast up the fish on the mountainous cliff

The king of terror became sad where he swam on the shingle.
Whale's bone.’

The left side of the casket features Romulus and Remus being suckled by the she-wolf
while a second wolf prowls above and pairs of hunters close in from either side. The inscription
running around the outside of the panel is straightforward and simple, beginning at the top-left
corner:

‘r o m w a l u s a n d r e u m w a l u s t w œ g e n / g i b r o þ æ r /
a f œ d d æ h i æ w y l i f i n r o m æ c æ s t r i : / o þ l æ u n n e g’

From here the inscription can be separated to read: Romwalus and Reumwalus, twœgen gibroþær,
afœddæ hiæ wylif in Romæcæstri, oþlæ unneg. This is then translated to ‘Romulus and Remus,
two brothers, a she-wolf nourished them in Rome, far from their native land’ 8. As this inscription
is not alliterative, the phrase oþlæ unneg, which appears on the left side of the panel, could appear
at either the beginning or the end of the inscription with no semantic change.

8
Transliteration and translation from Page (1999:175).

2170271 28
 The back of the casket is divided into quarters around a central image and portrays the
defeat of Jerusalem by Titus in the first Jewish-Roman War. The central image is the Temple
containing the Ark of the Covenant as described in I Kings 44 ESV. The top left section shows
the Roman army, led by Titus attacking a Jewish defender while the spearmen prepare for battle.
Directly across the panel, civilians rush away from the city and invaders, despairing over the loss
and carnage of the Temple. Below the fleeing citizens, a group of figures is being led away and a
small inscription in the corner helpfully defines them as ‘g i s l’ or ‘hostages’. The lower left
section is a trial scene, defined by another small inscription of ‘d o m’ meaning ‘court’ or
‘judgement’, while a seated figure seems to decide the fate of captives being led away. The
inscription in this back panel is only on three side, avoiding the bottom, and is a mixture of Anglo-
Saxon runes and Roman letters as well as switching from Old English to Latin. This code
switching may suggest that the carver was copying the text from a source written in the Latin
language and Roman letters and mistakenly copied the original rather than translating and
transliterating as he had previously. It is assumed that the carver noticed his mistake and attempted
to salvage the inscription by returning to runes, though completing the sentence in Latin.

‘h e r f e g t a þ / t i t u s e n d g i u þ e a s u’
HICFUGIANTHIERUSALIM / ‘a f i t a t o r e s’

However, the word ‘g i u þ e a s u’ has caused much debate due to its etymologically impossible
ending. While most explanations include the carver omitting letters, Page (1999:177) suggests
“that ‘g i u þ e a s u’ is a confused form of Latin Giuþaeus, a form for Iudaeus, ‘Jew’.” This
inscription then translates to ‘Here Titus and a Jew fight: here its inhabitants flee from Jerusalem’.

The top panel of the casket has a central disc, void of decoration which appears to be where
a handle was once attached to the box. The theme of the carving around the disc has not been
positively identified, but there are several theories as to the story. This panel depicts a battle scene,
armed men attack from the left upon a house on the right as a lone archer defends it. Within the
house sits a figure under an arch and above the archer’s shoulder is the inscription Agili ‘æ g i l i’.
The most widely accepted theory is that it is a previously unknown scene from the life of Egill,

2170271 29
the brother of Weland the Smith. This achieves credibility due to Weland being featured on the
front panel of the casket, that þiðriks saga describes Egill’s skills as a bowman, and the similarity
between Egill and ‘æ g i l i’. However, the carving on one panel does not necessarily relate to the
carvings on another and no such story has otherwise been recorded of the hero Egill. The names
in fact may not be related at all, while similar names have been found in Germanic culture, this ‘æ
g i l i’ may have been an Old English creation and have no connection with the legendary figure,
it could be an English hero. Becker (1973) poses the idea that Valhalla is illustrated on the lid of
the casket, where Egill is depicted defending the gods’ palace against the frost giants with the
support of his Valkyrie, or possibly Woden himself. This theory of Valhalla connects to Becker’s
theories about the subject matter of the right side of the casket. It has also been suggested that this
may be the battle of Troy, Karl Schneider (1959) determined that ‘æ g i l i’ was the Anglo-Saxon
equivalent of Achilles. This would then suggest that either the archer is Achilles or the building
belongs to Achilles, Schneider believed the panel to depict the massacre of Andromache's brothers
by Achilles at Thebes, leaving the seated figure to be the mother of Andromache being held
hostage. Peeters (1996:44) and Cocco (2009) each believe the carving to refer to biblical stories,
the defeat of Agila or the story of Elisha telling Joash to shoot an arrow of victory over the Syrian
army9, respectively.

The replaced right side of the casket is one undivided image, with three runic words
included within the images and a continuous runic inscription bordering the scene. This carving
has been debated and discussed at length, as it is not entirely clear, though several theories have
been presented. The left side of the image focuses on a man with the head and feet of a beast,
possibly the head of a dragon and the hooved feet of a goat, seated on a mound and grasping a
branch in his hands. Facing this figure is what appears to be a warrior, armor clad with a shield
and spear. The central image is that of a horse peering down at a small figure within another
mound, faced by a hooded figure bearing a staff. Between the figures is a small chalice or goblet
and words in plain runes surround the horse, bita, wudu, risci, ‘biter, wood, rushes’ (Page,
1999:178). The final third of the image is a group of three figures huddled close together,
conversing or possibly two attempting to lead the third away. Not only is the meaning behind the
imagery held in question, but the runic inscriptions surrounding the images is written in code,

9
2 Kings 13:17 ESV

2170271 30
hiding the full meaning of the text as well. In the right panel inscriptions, the consonant symbols
remain unchanged, but the vowels are replaced by arbitrary symbols in nearly every case, regular
vowel runes are used in two instances in this text. The replaced vowel runes are as follows:

This causes the main inscription to read:

These inscriptions can then be transcribed into three lines of alliterative verse:

her hos sitæþ on hærmbergæ

agl . . . drigiþ; swæ hiri erta egi sgraf,
særden sorgæ and sefa tornæ.

Due to the coded vowel runes and the lack of between word spacing, several translations have been
presented for these lines of text; Elliot supplies the following rendering:

‘Here the horse stands above the mound of woe,

2170271 31
 It suffers tribulation; just as to her Erta appointed anxiety,
A grave of grief, in sorrow and anguish of heart’ 10.

This translation, however, poses several problems. Firstly, it is claimed that hos is meant to be
read as hors, despite the lack of ‘r’ rune; secondly, sitæþ is also succumbed to a slight alteration
as the word should properly be sitiþ, in which, if it is in fact the horse standing in the carving that
is being discussed, the term ‘sits’ would be illogical. While hiri could be interpreted as an Anglian
variant of hiræ, ‘to her’, indicating that the figure above the mound is female, Erta is unclear. It is
taken to be understood as a variation of the name Erce, the ‘earth-mother’ from the alliterative
charm:

Erce, Erce, Erce, eorþan modor.11

Due to the substituted symbols used in place of the vowels, it becomes problematic if the carver
found himself in need of the ‘c’ rune, which was given the value of ‘a’ in this inscription. Because
of this, Elliot believes that the word sgraf was meant to be scraf, the past tense of scrifan, ‘to
appoint’, but rather than use a rune that could be mistaken for the vowel, the rune carver substituted
the g rune, which would elicit a similar sound when read aloud. Napier and Dickins have also
suggested that the plain rune e was instead meant to be read as œ to render the aforementioned
særden as sær dœn, ‘rendered miserable’, rather than ‘grave of grief’. Page (1999:178) translates
the inscription in a similar manner, yet rather than assuming the subject of the inscription is the
horse, he attributes the suffering to a woman:

‘Here Hos sits on the sorrow-mound;

she suffers distress in that Ertae had decreed for her a
wretched den (?wood) of sorrows and of torments of mind’.

10
Transcription and translation from Elliot (1959:106).
11
Elliot, 1959:106.

2170271 32
When examining both the images and the inscriptions together it is still difficult to ascertain what
the carving is depicting. In 1890 Söderberg suggested that the images were meant to refer back to
the Northern Sigurðr story. In this context the figures in the left third of the image are believed to
be Fáfnir, the man who became a dragon, and Sigurd, the warrior who slew him for his treasure.
The central image is then thought of as Sigurd’s burial mound surrounded by his grieving widow
Guthrun and his stallion Grani. Similarly, Eleanor Clark (1930) believed the small figure inside
the mound to be Sigurd, his body mutilated by wolves, with the goddess Urd standing above him
to pass her judgement on his soul. Clark moved that the three figures to the right would then be
Guthren being led away from her husband’s tomb by her brothers, who planned Sigurd’s death,
Gunnar and Hogne. This leaves the left image to depict Sigurd at the gateway to Odainsaker, the
afterlife realm of bliss guarded by a winged dragon. According to Clark, the most convincing
piece of evidence to support the Sigurd legend theory is the line from Guthrunarkvitha II:

“The head of Grani was bowed to the grass,

The steed knew well his master was slain." 12

While Clark and Söderberg present the theory in a plausible manner to match the images on the
panel, both fail to take into consideration the inscription around the outside of the images. While
an admirable attempt, it seems an oversight to ignore what would probably be the explanation of
the enclosed images as the inscriptions were on other panels.

Another interpretation of the right side carving is that it represents Hengist and Horsa, the
brothers who led the Germanic tribes into Britain. A.C. Bouman (1965) and Simone d'Ardenne
(1966) pose the theory that the figure within the mound in the central image is the slain Horsa,
following the battle of Ægelesthrep in 455. The horse then, is to represent Hengist himself
mourning over his fallen brother and the female figure is that of Hengist’s daughter Renwein. Both
scholars then determine that the seated figure to the left bears the head of a horse and is Horsa in
spirit form, seated on his own burial mound and would then be the hos that is referenced in the
surrounding inscription. Located in each of the corners of the carving, there is a small horse figure,

12 Translation of H.A. Bellows, Oxford Univ. Press, 1926, as cited by Clark (1930:339).

2170271 33
which Bouman takes as additional support for the ‘horse’ theme of the side. Thomas Bredehoft
(2011) suggests that the right panel may also include another cryptic rune. He notes two variations
of the r rune, one in which the lines to the right of the stave create sharp angles and a second which
is more fluid and the lines do not make contact with the stave as they descend. The traditional
rune with the sharp angles is taken to be read as ‘r’, while the smooth version is thought to be a
cryptic ‘u’, which causes some slight alterations to the translation. Bredehoft’s new transcription
reads:

‘Her Hos sitæ? on hæum bergæ

agl[.] drigi?, swæ hiri Eutae gisgraf
sæuden sorgæ and sefa tornæ.’

‘Here sits Hos on [or in] the high hill [or barrow];
she endures agl[.] as the Jute appointed to her,
a sæuden of sorrow and troubles of mind.’

This does provide three slight differences from the older translation, most notably the shift from
the goddess Erta to the Germanic tribe of the Jutes. While the ‘eu’ is otherwise unknown to be
used in this word, as it is ‘Iutis’ in Bede and ‘Eotena’ in Beowulf, there is another example of this
substitution on the front panel of the casket. Bredehoft compares the ‘g r e u t’ from the front of
the casket to the Beowulf ‘greote’ and extrapolates that parallel relationship to also be utilized on
the right side panel. This shift from ‘e r t a e’ to ‘e u t a e’ causes Bredehoft to attribute the imagery
on the panel to scenes of Hengist and Horsa.

With the variability of the transliteration and translation of the inscription allows for a
different sort of reading, presented by Wilhelm Krause (1959) and expanded upon by Alfred
Becker (1973, 2002). Krause divides herhos as herh os, herh meaning ‘temple’ and os being
‘deity’, rather than the more traditional her hos, which would have seemed to fit due to the horse
carved into the image; Krause interprets herh in this context as ‘sacred grove’ and os as a ‘goddess’
or ‘valkyrie’. Now, the image becomes that of a warrior who died battling a fearsome beast, upon
his burial a horse marked with two divine trefoils visits his grave, who may be Woden’s stallion

2170271 34
Sleipnir. Krause surmises that the female figure is that of the Valkyrie who has returned to the
warrior in her bird form and will use the chalice pictured above to revive him and take him on to
Valhalla, leaving the three figures on the far right to be the Norns, the three goddesses of fate and
destiny.

In 1997 David Howlett proposed that the image might be a retelling of the death of Balder,
who was pierced by a branch of mistletoe due to the machinations of Loki the Trickster. This tale
was then described by the Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus in the late twelfth century. Meant
to be read from right to left, the images depict the three wood maidens, who are possibly the Norns,
on the far right, the central image is Balder within the mound as Hel prophesizes Balder’s death
and Woden looks on in the form of a stallion. Howlett then determines that the figures to the left
should be Woden, still in his equine form, seated upon Balder’s grave and telling his son Boe to
avenge his brother’s death.

While Germanic legends are the most common theories as to the story behind the
mysterious right side, some Christian theories have also been presented. In 1996 Leopold Peeters
suggested that this might be an illustration of Nebuchadnezzar; the image on the left representing
Nebuchadnezzar after he was driven away to live as an animal in Daniel 4:28-33. In this theory
the animal in the central image would be one of the asses the mad king went to live with and the
figure within the burial mound is that of his son Belshazzar with his mother mourning above.
Peeters also suggests that the cryptic runes around the edges of the panel may be reminiscent of
the mysterious handwriting which appears on the palace wall in Daniel 5:5. Another Christian
interpretation comes from Austin Simmons (2010) in which he parses the inscription to read:

Herh os-sitæþ on hærm-bergæ

agl drigiþ swæ hiri er tae-gi-sgraf
sæ-rden sorgæ and sefa-tornæ.

‘The idol sits far off on the dire hill,

suffers abasement in sorrow and heart-rage

2170271 35
 as the den of pain had ordained for it.’

Simmons takes this inscription to refer to the ‘idol’ as Satan in a semi-bestial form of an ass,
awaiting torture from the warrior, meant to represent Hell itself, from the story of the Harrowing
of Hell. In this story, Hell becomes personified as a warrior to mete out punishment upon Satan
for his actions that lead to Christ’s crucifixion, allowing him to descend to Hell and free the trapped
souls. Following this theme, the central image is suggested to depict the Nativity, with Jesus in
the manger, and the far right image is a depiction of the Passion. This translation allows the prefix
oþ- to be assimilated into the following sibilant sound and be realized as os-, a verbal change in
the pronunciation which seems unlikely to have been thought of as formal enough to make an
adjustment to the spelling of the phrase on an object of such value.

These various interpretations of the right side of the Franks Casket provide a glimpse into
the processes of each scholar, especially as several of the scholars attempt to identify the images
with no regard to the inscribed text on the panel. The images on the casket were intended to be
perceived in pairs, bringing together a Christian story with a Germanic legend. The front panel is
divided between Welend’s escape from King Niþo̩þr’s imprisonment and the Magi bestowing gifts
upon the Christ child. Both of these images reflect a central theme of redemption and wealth. The
scene on the lid can also be compared to the scene on the back panel, both depicting a battle scene,
either a successful military campaign shown in Jerusalem or the defense of one’s own home and
lands by Egill. Following this pattern, the left and right panels would be meant to be read in
parallel, the scene of Romulus and Remus from the left and the mystery legend of the right.

While the legend is still missing most of the narrative, certain aspects which have been
debated for the past century can be seen more clearly when examined through the lens of cultural
anthropology and theology. If the inscription is like those on the other panels, it is meant as a
description of the scene presented and should be taken as the basis of any explanations presented
or suggested about the possible meaning of the panel. With the inscription as the foundation of
study, the legend of Sigurd does not fit the story presented by the panel, as the inscription points
toward a female-centric scene. The pairings of Germanic legends and Christian stories also make
the suggestions of Satan and the Nativity as well as Nebuchadnezzar to fail to hold credibility in

2170271 36
the themes of the carvings as the paired Romulus and Remus story comes from the Roman
background of the new Christians entering Britain.

At this point, I propose a slight alteration to the translation presented by Page (1999:178).
Elliot suggested the g rune in the word sgraf may have been used to denote the voiceless /k/ rather
than the voiced /g/ in this case, due to the similarities between the original c rune and the coded a
rune; this theory can be extended to include the partial word agl… to become acl… which then
forms the root of the verb ‘to frighten’ and the missing runes could then be assumed to be the
conjugated ending. As previously stated, Napier and Dickins have suggested that the plain rune e

was instead meant to be read as œ to render særden as sær dœn, ‘rendered miserable’, rather than
‘grave of grief’, as Elliot translated. I will defer to their judgement, as there is no reason for a
vowel that is coded in all other instances on this panel to suddenly be inscribed in a plain rune, it
is logical to assume that it is a code for another, similar, vowel. The altered translation would then
read as:

‘Here Hos sits on a hill of sorrow, frightening,

Enduring fear as Erta ordained her,
Rendered miserable in sorrow and anguish of heart.’

While still imperfect, it does provide a new direction to investigate within the mythology and
culture of the Anglo-Saxons and the Germanic peoples before them.

The Erta referred to in the inscription has been connected to the earth mother Ercae from
the Anglo-Saxon charm; however, it would seem plausible to be a variation of the Norse goddess
Urd, as the transition from a voiced stop to a tap to a voiceless stop is not uncommon. In Norse
mythology Urd is also occasionally connected to the earth goddess Jord, also called Fjorgen, and
is believed to have lived in a cave within the roots of Yggdrasil. Within this cave was the well of
wisdom from which she daily watered the tree and caused it to grow strong and powerful, the same
well from which Woden sacrificed an eye to drink. Urd is often associated with fate and is most
commonly known as the eldest of the three Norns. Due to her association with fate, the Norse
drew a strong correlation between Urd and divination, which was an integral part of pre-Christian

2170271 37
life. Often a seer’s predictions would come from the casting of runes and be in the form of a
mysterious poem which the seer would then decipher. The Norse believed that aspects of animals,
birds, or the sky could be used as oracles for communication with the gods; particularly horses
were considered confidants of the gods (Davidson, 1988:150) and their reactions could give insight
to possible outcomes of questions.

The Norse practice of kennings, or poetic metaphor, utilizes a description of the noun in
question rather than naming it outright, so a ‘hill of sorrow’ automatically brings forth the image
of a grave or barrow mound. Therefore, the body within the mound could then be a specific
character within the legend or could be an arbitrary body to denote it as a burial mound rather than
an empty hill. Since “according to Norse literary tradition, the burial mound was a place on which
kings and seers might sit in order to obtain wisdom and inspiration” (Davidson, 1988:19), such as
in the Volsunga Saga the King Rerir sat upon a mound to pray to the gods for a son.

If the panel is reexamined with this information in mind a story begins to emerge from the
fog. The first image on the left depicts the mysterious Hos atop her mound, where she has been
fated to frighten in her monstrous form. The central image could then be identified as a seer or
seeress atop a burial mound attempting to divine the future, through the observation of the animals,
the casting of runes, or scrying. This would also explain the appearance of the trefoil by the horse
if it was a divine messenger to the figure divining. The three figures, cloaked and wearing longer
skirts than the others, on the right appear to be Norns, one of which is Urd presiding over fate,
including that of Hos.

The coding of the runic inscription could be explained by Urd’s ties to fate and her messages being
read in cryptographic readings of the runes by seers, thus the code could be as a way of either
invoking the goddess or negating what would otherwise have been an invocation through runes on
bone as the seers once carved their runes into bone. Northumbria in the early eighth century had
a well-educated court and, while mostly Christian, would still have strong ties to the old pagan
religion of their past. This casket may have been owned by someone who was Christian, at least
in the public eye, but still respected the cultural past of his ancestors. In this way, it would not do
to have an object that could be seen as a way to commune with a pagan goddess in Christian society.

2170271 38
 Discussion

As previously examined, runes changed in realization through carving errors, carelessness,

or, occasionally, to accommodate a sounds change in the phonological system of the language. As

2170271 39
the Germanic tribes diverged geographically the languages were able to shift with the cultures.
Christian missionaries began moving through Britain in the seventh century, changing the
sociocultural dynamic of the landscape; while the Anglo-Saxons were moving away from their
pagan roots and embracing the new faith, the Scandinavian tribes would remain untouched by the
Christians until the fourteenth century. Though the runic writing system held on for several
centuries following the Christianization of Britain, the Latin of the church soon spread to the
educated nobles of the land, taking the place of the traditional runes. Around the time that the new
alphabet was taking hold in Britain, the cryptic inscriptions in Scandinavia were widespread and
would remain so until the arrival of Christianity.

Cryptographic runes can be found in various formal settings, such as the memorial Rimsø
and Rök stones, baptismal fonts, and charms. These cryptographic runes were also used in
informal writing, carving messages onto sticks, the graffiti in Maeshowe, and the signature of the
Rotbrunna Stone. The high levels of literacy in Scandinavia lends itself to the high level of cipher
usage, the more people who were able to read would require the cipher to hide information from
unwanted eyes. Cryptographic runes occur in both Britain and Scandinavia; while these forms are
prevalent in Scandinavia, they are extremely rare in Britain. Three cryptic inscriptions have been
located in Britain: the Franks Casket, the Hackness Cross, and the Maeshowe carvings. The
Hackness Cross is unable to be deciphered due to the extreme weathering of the inscription, only
a few twig runes remain intelligible. The carvings within the Maeshowe cairn are of Scandinavian
origin, done by Norsemen following the Crusades and have no Anglo-Saxon ties. Of these three
inscriptions the Franks Casket is the only one that is Anglo-Saxon made and legible, as previously
seen it is one of the more difficult cryptographic inscriptions to decipher. Both the Franks Casket
and the Hackness Cross are objects from a formal setting, either the church or the possession of a
high ranking noble, where an air of affluence or mystery would be welcome. Objects such as these
were most likely intended to be more decorative rather than serving a practical, everyday use. The
arbitrary symbols replacing the vowels on the right panel of the Franks Casket were presumably
significantly easier to decipher when the box was created; a similar inscription created today would
be relatively easy to interpret with an intimate understanding of the language in use. The lack of
Anglo-Saxon cryptographic inscriptions suggests that when a code or cipher was employed, it was
meant to conceal information.

2170271 40
 In Scandinavia there are a significantly higher number of cryptographic inscriptions, most
of which use the 6:5:5 cipher in various forms. Due to the large number of examples of ciphered
inscriptions, it appears that the literacy level in general runes, as well as the cipher itself, was quite
high13. The twig runes in Maeshowe are often considered to be an example of how the cipher was
used as a “higher level of literacy”, demonstrating how well the carver could use the runic system,
as opposed to being used as a method of concealment.

As a writing system, runes were primarily intended to be used as a method of

communication. In the early Germanic fuþark the runemasters were creative with the developing
system, using variations of the same rune until a general level of stabilization occurred. While
the majority of inscriptions that have been studied are meant for communication, the
Scandinavian culture reflects an alternative use for runes, magic. The word rune means ‘secret;
something hidden’ which has encouraged some scholars to believe that runes were initially used
for esoteric purposes. Modern runologists either embrace or reject the idea of runic magic, with
little room left in between. The runes were believed to have been gifted to Odin, also called
Woden in Old English, following his nine days hanging from Yggdrasill. Odin was pierced by a
spear which held him aloft in the tree while death took him and he learned the nine songs from
the son of the giant Bolthor, who also fathered Bestla, Odin’s mother; so the knowledge was
received from his maternal uncle. This relationship is significant in Germanic society and is
referred to as swustersunu in Anglo-Saxon; in this relationship the uncle would be charged with
the moral upbringing of his nephew, similar to the role of godfathers in Christian society. The
songs learned from his uncle allowed Odin to receive mead from the cauldron Odrorir and he is
then able to learn the eighteen magical runes. These runes gave Odin the power to heal, blunt
metal, seduce women, and speak with a hanged man, as well as other powers with each rune.
Since the forms of the runes are not revealed within the legend for all to know, Odin was known

13
Derolez (1990) discusses the literacy of the Anglo-Saxons based on the number of surviving runic inscriptions as
well as the possible number originally created. The main point being that there is no reason to carve runes that no
one would be able to understand, it would defeat the purpose of the carving. This could then be applied as well to
the Scandinavian cultures; inscriptions are useless if no one is able to understand the messages. The high numbers
of inscriptions would then suggest a high literacy rate, especially the concentration of examples found in Bergen,
Norway in the 1950s, as well as the everyday contents of those inscriptions.

2170271 41
as a master of magic. Just as with his sacrifice of an eye for wisdom, Odin must make a sacrifice
for the knowledge of the runes, himself.

In Egil’s saga the power of the runes is demonstrated by Egil in two major instances: to
determine that his drink has been poisoned, and to create a níðstang, or ‘curse pole’. While visiting
King Eric and Queen Gunnhilda, Egil shames the warriors of the household by drinking more than
they are able. He is given a horn of poisoned drink, but carves a series of runes into the horn and
smears it with blood to activate the spell. When the vessel burst apart and the drink falls to the
floor, Egil knows that he has betrayed and kills the one responsible, placing him in a bad position
with the king. Later in the saga, Egil has another unfortunate incident with King Eric and erects a
níðstang, a tall pole with the head of a horse mounted at the top and the curse carved in runes on
the pole to wish ill upon the receiver.

"And when all was ready for sailing, Egil went up into the island. He took in his hand a
hazel-pole, and went to a rocky eminence that looked inward to the mainland. Then he took
a horse's head and fixed it on the pole. After that, in solemn form of curse, he thus spake:
'Here set I up a curse-pole, and this curse I turn on king Eric and queen Gunnhilda. (Here
he turned the horse's head landwards.) This curse I turn also on the guardian-spirits who
dwell in this land, that they may all wander astray, nor reach or find their home till they
have driven out of the land king Eric and Gunnhilda.' This spoken, he planted the pole
down in a rift of the rock, and let it stand there. The horse's head he turned inwards to the
mainland; but on the pole he cut runes, expressing the whole form of curse." – Egil’s Saga,
Chapter 60 (Eiriksson, 2004)

The curse is then drawing on the power of the runes and the sacrifice of the horse was to appease
the gods for allowing the use of magic in this instance.

Several times throughout the eddas, runes are referred to in a mystical light, such as
divination. As each rune was given a name, it also held a power of its own and could imbue that
power onto a person or object if properly applied. These runes would often be painted or carved
on shields and weapons before battle for luck and power, or on the warriors for strength and
bravery in battle. While there are some examples of runic charms in Britain, such as the alu
inscriptions on funeral urns to hold cremated remains is thought to be a protection charm, most
surviving examples of runes were used as an everyday writing system without inherent magical
intentions.

2170271 42
 The common Germanic roots cause the Norse and Anglo-Saxon cultural views of runes to
be similar. Both cultures started out with the runes as a general writing system and used them to
form magical charms and cryptograms, the difference in the roles of runes lies with the
Christianization of Europe. All of the Germanic legends have passed through the Christianization
of the culture and may have been altered by the clergy in an attempt to draw the reluctant pagans
into the new religion by inserting Christian themes. Examples of such cultural tampering can be
seen in the placement of Christian holidays on the traditionally pagan holidays of Jul and Ostara,
or Eostra, which are now Christmas and Easter. It is possible that the legends were altered to
portray the runes in a more prominently mystical role than they previously held as a way to
suppress the old pagan writing system and implement Latin. During the height of the code runes
in Scandinavia, missionaries were spreading Latin throughout the Anglo-Saxon lands. If the
Christian missionaries had arrived to Britain later, there may have been an increased level of
cryptographic inscriptions, especially with the creation of the Danelaw in the ninth century.

Unless more examples are discovered in Britain, there is little that can be done with Anglo-
Saxon cryptographic runes, except continue to ponder over the meaning of the Franks Casket right
panel. If the runes are ever able to be read, it may be discovered that the twig runes on the Hackness
Cross were later additions carved by Norsemen during the Danelaw period as the cross was
constructed shortly before the invasion. With the majority of examples being of Norse creation, it
would appear that cryptographic inscriptions were an important part of Scandinavian culture that
may have been imported to the Anglo-Saxons, but did not catch on with the increasing use of Latin
throughout the land.

Bibliography

2170271 43
Aarsleff, H. (1983). The study of language in England 1780-1860. London: Athlone press.

Barnes, M. (1994). The runic inscriptions of Maeshowe, Orkney. Uppsala: Institutionen för
nordiska spark Uppsala universitet.

Barnes, M. (2013). Runes: a handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Becker, A. (1973). Franks Casket: Zu den Bildern und Inschriften des Runenkästchens von
Auzon. Regensburg.

Borden, A. R. (1982). A comprehensive Old English dictionary. Lanham: University Press of

America

Bouman, A.C.(1965) The Franks Casket. Neophilologus, 3, 241-9.

Brinton, L. J., & Arnovick, L.K. (2006). The English language: a linguistic history. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Campbell, A. (1959). Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Clark, E. G. (1930) The right side of the Franks Casket. Publications of the Modern Language
Association, 45, 339-353.

Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: an introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Crossley-Holland, K. (2011). The penguin book of Norse myths: Gods of the Vikings. London:
Penguin Books.

2170271 44
Davidson, H. E. (1993). The lost beliefs of northern Europe. London: Routledge.

Davidson, H. E. (1998). Roles of the northern goddess. London: Routledge.

Davies, O. (2011). Paganism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Derolez, R. (1954). Runica manuscripta: The English tradition. Brugge: De Tempel.

Derolez, R. (1990). Runic Literacy Among the Anglo-Saxons. In A. Bammesberger & A.

Wollman (Eds.), Britain 400-600: Language and History. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitatsverlag.

Eichner, H. (1991). Zu Franks Casket/Rune Auzon. In A. Bammesberger (Ed.), Old English

Runes and their Continental Background (pp. 603-628). Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitatsverlag.

Elliott, R. W. (1959). Runes: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Eiriksson, L. (2004). Egil's saga (B. Scudder & O. Thorsson, Eds.). New York: Penguin Books.

Ewing, T. (2008). Gods and worshippers in the Viking and Germanic world. Stroud: Tempus
Publishing.

Fennell, B. (2001). A history of English. Oxford: Blackwell.

Findell, M. (2014). Runes. London: The British Museum Press.

Geipel, J. (1971). The Viking Legacy. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Gordon, E. V., & Taylor, A. R. (1957). An introduction to Old Norse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

2170271 45
Hall, J. R. C. (1969) A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hauge, A. (2002) Bergen Runic Fish. Retrieved from http://www.arild-hauge.com/esecreter.htm

Hauge, A. (2002). Bergen Runic Heads. Retrieved from http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-

hauge/bergen-head.jpg

Haugen, E. (1976). The Scandinavian languages: An introduction to their history. London: Faber
& Faber Limited.

Howlett, D. R. (1997). British books in biblical style. Dublin: Four Courts Press.

Hines, J. (1990). The Runic Inscription of Early Anglo-Saxon England. In A. Bammesberger &
A. Wollman (Eds.), Britain 400-600: Language and History. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitatsverlag.

Hogg, R. M. (1992). A grammar of Old English (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.

Jobes, G. (1961). Dictionary of mythology, folklore, and symbols. New York City: The
Scarecrow Press Inc.

Jones, C. (1989). A history of English phonology. London: Longman.

Krause, W. (1959). Erta, ein anglischer Gott, Die Sprache 5. Festschrift Havers, 46-54.

Lass, R., & Anderson, J. M. (1975). Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Lass, R. (1984). Phonology: An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

2170271 46
Lass, R. (1994). Old English: A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Leith, D. (1997). A social history of English (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Looijenga, T. (2003). Texts & contexts of the oldest Runic inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.

Miller, D. G. (1994). Ancient scripts and phonological knowledge. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Milroy, J. (2003). On the role of the speaker in language change. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for
language change (143-157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Minkova, D. (2014). A historical phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Moltke, E. (1981). Runes and their origin: Denmark and elsewhere. (P. Foote, Trans.).
Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark.

Musset, L. (1965). Introduction a la Runologie. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.

Neuman de Vegvar, C. L. (1987). The Northumbrian renaissance. London: Associated

University Presses.

Nielsen, H. F. (1989). The Germanic languages: Origins and early dialectal interrelations.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

2170271 47
Odenstedt, B. (1990). On the origin and early history of the runic script: Typology and graphic
variation in the older futhark. Uppsala: Gustav Adolfs akademien.

Page, R. I. (1987). Runes. London: British Museum Publications.

Page, R. I. (1999). An introduction to English runes. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Peeters, L. (1996). The Franks Casket: A Judeo-Christian Interpretation. Amsterdamer Beiträge

Zur älteren Germanistik, 46, 17-52.

Piper, F., & Murphy, S. (2002). Cryptography: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Prins, A. A. (1972). A history of English phonemes. From Indo-European to present-day

English. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Pyles, T., & Algeo, J. (1982). The origins and development of the English language. London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Robinson, A. (2009). Writing and script: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Robinson, O. (1992). Old English and its closest relatives. London: Routledge.

Quirk, R., & Wrenn, C. L. (1955). An Old English grammar. London: Methuen &.

Sampson, G. (1987). Writing systems. London: Hutchinson Education.

Samuels, M. L. (1972). Linguistic Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2170271 48
Schwab, U. (2008) Franks Casket: fünf Studien zum Runenkästchen von Auzon, ed. by Hasso C.
Heiland. Vol. 15 of Studia medievalia septentrionalia, Vienna: Fassbaender.

Smith, J. J. (2007). Sound change and the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, J. J. (2009). Old English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Spurkland, T. (2005). Norwegian runes and runic inscriptions (B. Van der Hoek, Trans.).
Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Sweet, H. (1998). The student’s dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (19th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Walshe, M. O. (1965). Introduction to the Scandinavian languages. London: Andre Deutsch.

Webster, L. (2012). The franks casket. London: The British Museum Press.

Wright, J. (1908). Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wyld, H. C. (1927). A short history of English. London: Murray.

Appendix

2170271 49
The Elder Fuþark

Page (1987:15-16)

The Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc

2170271 50
Elliot (1959:48-49)

The Younger Fuþark

2170271 51
Elliot (1959:48-49)

Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem

2170271 52
Copy of the Anglo-Saxon rune poem in George Hickes' "Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus
grammatico-criticus et archæologicus" (Oxford, 1705), copied from Cotton MS Otho B.x folios 165a-165b, which
was destroyed in the 1731 fire. {PD-1923}

Images of the Franks Casket:

2170271 53
Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Front Panel © Carrie Skellen

Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Back Panel © Carrie Skellen

2170271 54
Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Left Panel © Carrie Skellen

Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Right Panel © Carrie Skellen

2170271 55
Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Right Panel Detail © Carrie Skellen

Franks Casket, Northumbrian, 8th century, Carved whale bone. Right Panel Central Image Detail © Carrie Skellen

Other Cryptographic Inscriptions:

Bergen Fish, Norwegian, 14th century, Carved wood. Hauge, A. (2002)

Bergen Heads, Norwegian, 14th century, Carved wood. Hauge, A. (2002)

2170271 56