Pseudo-runes

Pseudo-runesare letters that look likeGermanicrunesbut are not true ancient runes. The term is mostly used of incised characters that are intended to imitate runes. Pseudo-runes in this sense are difficult to distinguish fromcipher runes,which are characters used as a replacement of standard runes but which do have an intended reading, while pseudo-runes have no linguistic content.

The term "pseudo-runes" has also been used for runes "invented" after the end of the period of runic epigraphy, used only in medieval manuscripts but not in inscriptions. It has also been used for unrelated historical scripts with an appearance similar to runes, and of modern Latin alphabet variants intended to be reminiscent of runic script.

Imitation runes

Reverse ofÆdwen's brooch,an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon silver disc brooch with seven pseudo-runes on a silver strip in the centre

The main use of the term pseudo-rune is in reference to epigraphic inscriptions using letters that imitate the appearance of runes, but which cannot be read as runes.These are different from cryptic or magical runic inscriptions comprising a seemingly random jumble of runic letters, which cannot be interpreted by modern scholars, but can at least be read. In contrast, pseudo-runic inscriptions consist mostly of false letters (some pseudo-runes within a pseudo-runic inscription may coincidentally appear similar or identical to true runes), and so cannot be read at all, even nonsensically.

It has been suggested that pseudo-runic inscriptions were not made by specialist 'rune masters' as is thought to have been the case when carving traditional runic inscriptions, but were made by artisans who were largely ignorant of runes.According toNowell Myres,pseudo-runes may have been "intended to impress the illiterate as having some arcane significance".

Manuscript-only runes

The term pseudo-rune has also been used byR. I. Pageto refer to runic letters that only occur in manuscripts and are not attested in any extant runic inscription. Such runes includecweorðᛢ,stanᛥ, andiorᛡ. The main variant shape of the runegéris identical to ᛡ (with ᛄ being a secondary variant of ger), and should not be confused for ior when found epigraphically.The age of these "manuscript-only" runes overlaps with the period of runic inscriptions, e.g.cweorthandstanare both found in the 9th-centuryCodex Vindobonensis 795.

Unhistorical runes

Hagal rune

Wendehorn rune

Of a different type are the pseudo-runes invented in the modern period, such as the unhistorical runes in theArmanen Futharkh(or Armanen runes) created byGuido von Listin 1902 and later authors ofGermanic mysticism(e.g.Gibor,Hagal,Wendehorn).

Other rune-like scripts

The historicalOld TurkicandOld Hungarianscripts, unrelated with the runes but similar in application (inscriptions etched in stone), have sometimes been referred to as pseudo-runes or pseudo-runic,or alternatively as "runiform".

See also

• Bind runes
• Calendar runes
• House marks
• List of runestones
• Pseudo-Kufic– Imitations of Arabic in European Middle Ages and Renaissance art

References

• Myres, John Nowell Linton(1977),A Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Pottery of the Pagan Period,vol. 1, Cambridge University Press,ISBN9780521212854
• Page, Raymond Ian(2006) [1973],An Introduction to English Runes(2nd ed.), Boydell Press,ISBN0-85115-946-X
• Page, Raymond Ian;Parsons, David (1995),Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking Runes,Boydell & Brewer,ISBN9780851155999
• Rumble, Alexander R.(2006),Writing And Texts in Anglo-Saxon England,D. S. Brewer,ISBN9781843840909
• Wilson, David Raoul (1992),Anglo-Saxon Paganism,Taylor & Francis,ISBN9780415018975