Derivation from Italic alphabets The Elder Futhark runes are commonly believed to originate in the
Old Italic scripts: either a North Italic variant (
Etruscan or
Rhaetic alphabets), or the
Latin alphabet itself. Derivation from the
Greek alphabet via
Gothic contact to Byzantine Greek culture was a popular theory in the 19th century, but has been ruled out since the dating of the
Vimose inscriptions to the 2nd century (whereas the Goths were in contact with Greek culture only from the early 3rd century). Conversely, the Greek-derived 4th-century
Gothic alphabet does have two letters that may have been derived from runes, 𐌾 (from
Jer ᛃ
j) and 𐌿 (from
Uruz ᚢ
u). The main problem is that a derivation from the classical Latin alphabet as used in the 1st and 2nd centuries, while the most obvious possibility suggested by the historical, geographical and cultural context, is not as straightforward as could be expected, especially regarding letter shapes, and many scholars are not satisfied by it. Instead, it is observed that many runic letters suspiciously resemble letters with similar sound values from alphabets used in the Alpine region in the last centuries BC, alphabets which are all derived from the northern Etruscan alphabet; however, again, there is no derivation so straightforward as to convince most scholars. The angular shapes of the runes, presumably an adaptation to the incision in wood or metal, are not a Germanic innovation, but a property that is shared with other early alphabets, including the Old Italic ones (compare, for example, the
Duenos inscription). The 4th century BC
Negau helmet B inscription features a Germanic name,
Harigastiz, in a North Etruscan alphabet, and may be a testimony of the earliest contact of Germanic speakers with alphabetic writing. Similarly, the
Meldorf inscription of 50 may qualify as "proto-runic" use of the Latin alphabet by Germanic speakers. The
Rhaetic "
alphabet of Bolzano" in particular seems to fit the letter shapes well. The
spearhead of Kovel, dated to 200 AD, sometimes advanced as evidence of a peculiar
Gothic variant of the runic alphabet, bears an inscription
tilarids that may in fact be in an Old Italic rather than a runic alphabet, running right to left with a
T and a
D closer to the Latin or Etruscan than to the Bolzano or runic alphabets. Perhaps an "eclectic" approach can yield the best results for the explanation of the origin of the runes: most shapes of the letters can be accounted for when deriving them from several distinct North Italic writing systems: The
p rune has a parallel in the
Camunic alphabet, while it has been argued that
d derives from the shape of the letter
san (=
ś) in
Lepontic, where it seems to represent the sound /d/. The
g,
a,
f,
i,
t,
m and
l runes show no variation, and are generally accepted as identical to the Old Italic or Latin letters
X,
A,
F,
I,
T,
M and
L, respectively. There is also wide agreement that the
u,
r,
k,
h,
s,
b and
o runes respectively correspond directly to
V,
R,
C,
H,
S,
B and
O. The remaining ten runes of uncertain derivation may either be original innovations, or adaptions of otherwise unneeded Latin letters of the
classical Latin alphabet (1st century, ignoring marginalized
K). There are conflicting scholarly opinions regarding them: •
ᛖ may be from
E. •
ᚾ may be from Raetic
N. •
ᚦ may be from Latin
D or from Raetic
Θ. •
ᚹ may be from
Q, from Latin
P, or from Raetic
W. •
ᛇ may be from Latin
Z, from Latin
Y, or from Raetic
E. •
ᛉ may be from Raetic
Z, from Latin
Y, or from Etruscan
𐌙. •
ᛜ may be from Latin
Q. •
ᛃ may be from Latin
G. •
ᛈ may be from Raetic
P or may be an original Germanic innovation. •
ᛞ may be from Raetic
D, from Lepontic
san (
ś), or may be an original Germanic innovation. Of the 24 runes in the classical futhark row attested from 400 (on the
Kylver stone),
ï,
p and
ŋ are unattested in the earliest inscriptions of c. 175 to 400, while
e in this early period mostly takes a Π-shape, its M-shape () gaining prevalence only from the 5th century. Similarly, the
s rune may have either three () or four () strokes (and more rarely five or more), and only from the 5th century does the variant with three strokes become prevalent. The "mature" runes of the 6th to 8th centuries tend to have only three directions of strokes, the vertical and two diagonal directions. Early inscriptions also show horizontal strokes: these appear in the case of
e (mentioned above), but also in
t,
l,
ŋ and
h.
Date and purpose of invention The general agreement dates the creation of the first runic alphabet to roughly the 1st century. Early estimates include the 1st century, and late estimates push the date into the 2nd century. The question is one of estimating the "findless" period separating the script's creation from the
Vimose finds of c. 160. If either
ï or
z indeed derive from Latin
Y or respectively
Z, as suggested by Odenstedt, the first century BC is ruled out, because these letters were only introduced into the Latin alphabet during the reign of
Augustus. Other scholars are content to assume a findless period of a few decades, pushing the date into the early 2nd century. Pedersen (and with him Odenstedt) suggests a period of development of about a century to account for their assumed derivation of the shapes of
þ ᚦ and
j ᛃ from Latin
D and
G. The invention of the script has been ascribed to a single person or a group of people who had come into contact with Roman culture, maybe as mercenaries in the Roman army, or as merchants. The script was clearly designed for epigraphic purposes, but opinions differ in stressing either magical, practical or simply playful (
graffiti) aspects. concludes that in its earliest stage, the runic script was an "artificial, playful, not really needed imitation of the
Roman script", much like the Germanic
bracteates were directly influenced by Roman currency, a view that is accepted by in the light of the very primitive nature of the earliest (2nd to 4th century) inscription corpus. ==Rune names==