View source for Runic (Unicode block)

{{Infobox Unicode block
|blockname  = Runic
|rangestart = 16A0
|rangeend   = 16FF
|script1 = {{nowrap|[[Social:Runes|Runic]] (86 char.)}}
|script2 = {{nowrap|[[Script (Unicode)#Special script property values|Common]] (3 char.)}}
|alphabets  = Futhark
|3_0        = 81
|7_0        = 8
|note = <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.unicode.org/ucd/|title=Unicode character database|work=The Unicode Standard|access-date=2023-07-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.unicode.org/versions/enumeratedversions.html|title=Enumerated Versions of The Unicode Standard|work=The Unicode Standard|access-date=2023-07-26}}</ref>
}}

'''Runic''' is a [[Unicode block]] containing [[Social:Runes|runic characters]].
It was introduced in Unicode 3.0 (1999), with eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 (2014).<ref>{{cite web |first1=Michael |last1=Everson |first2=Andrew |last2=West |title=Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS |url=http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4013.pdf |id=ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4013R |date=10 May 2011}}</ref>
The original encoding of runes in UCS was based on the recommendations of the "ISO Runes Project" submitted in 1997.{{efn|"At the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions in Valdres, Norway, in August&nbsp;1990, the need to represent runes by real graphic symbols in text production of various kinds was discussed. Project meetings were held in Oslo in March&nbsp;1993 and in Stockholm in November 1994 and March 1995. The proposal from the "ISO Runes Project" (cf. ''Digitala runor'', TemaNord 1997:623, København 1997) was accepted with some minor adjustments in 2001, and Unicode now includes runic characters in accordance with the proposal."<ref>{{cite web |first=Helmer |last=Gustavson |title=Nytt om runer |id=17 |orig-year=2002 |year=2004 |pages=45–46 |url=https://www.khm.uio.no/english/research/publications/nytt-om-runer/konv/nor_2002/isorunes.htm}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book |title=Digitala runor |publisher=Nordisk ministerråd (Nordic Council of Ministers |year=1997 |pages=see especially 29ff for the list of proposed characters |isbn=9789289301404 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lQ54Mj8K83gC&pg=PA29}}</ref>}}

The block is intended for the representation of text written in Elder Futhark, Anglo-Saxon runes, Younger Futhark (both in the long-branch and short-twig variants), Scandinavian medieval runes and early modern runic calendars; the additions introduced in version 7.0 in addition allow support of the mode of writing Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes used by J. R. R. Tolkien, and the special vowel signs used in the [[Engineering:Franks Casket|Franks Casket]] inscription.{{efn|This is not to be confused with Tolkien's own  ''[[Social:Cirth|Cirth]]'' script which is "runic" in appearance but has no direct relation to the historical runes. This alphabet has no official Unicode  encoding (although there is a proposed [[ConScript Unicode Registry]] encoding).<ref>{{cite web |title=Cirth: U+E080 - U+E0FF |series=ConScript Unicode Registry encoding |url=http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/cirth.html}}</ref>}}

==Background==
The distinction made by Unicode between character and glyph variant is somewhat problematic in the case of the runes; the reason is the high degree of variation of letter shapes in historical inscriptions, with many "characters" appearing in highly variant shapes, and many specific shapes taking the role of a number of different characters over the period of runic use (roughly the 3rd to 14th centuries AD).
The division between Elder Futhark, Younger Futhark and Anglo-Saxon runes are well-established and useful categories, but they are connected by a continuum of gradual development, inscriptions using a mixture of older and newer forms of runes, etc. For this reason, the runic Unicode block is of very limited usefulness in representing of historical inscriptions and is better suited for contemporary runic writing than for palaeographic purposes.

The original publication of the Unicode standard is explicitly aware of these problems, and of the compromises necessary regarding the "character / glyph" dichotomy. The charts published show only "idealized reference glyphs", and explicitly delegates the task of creating useful implementations of the standard to font designers, ideally necessitating a separate font for each historical period.{{efn|"The known inscriptions can include considerable variations of shape for a given rune, sometimes to the point where the nonspecialist will mistake the shape for a different rune. There is no dominant main form for some runes, particularly for many runes added in the Anglo-Friesian and medieval Nordic systems. When transcribing a Runic inscription into its Unicode-encoded form, one cannot rely on the idealized  reference glyph shape in the character charts alone. One must take into account to which of the four Runic systems an inscription belongs, and be knowledgeable about the permitted
form variations within each system. The reference glyphs were chosen to provide an image that distinguishes each rune visually from all other runes in the same system. For actual use, it might be advisable to use a separate font for each Runic system."{{citation needed|date=July 2020}} }}
Glyph shape was taken into consideration explicitly for "unification" of an older rune with one of its descendant characters.{{efn|"When a rune in an earlier writing system evolved into several different runes in a later system, the unification of the earlier rune with one of the later runes was based on similarity in graphic form rather than similarity in sound value."{{citation needed|date=July 2020}} }}
On the other hand, the Younger Futhark era script variants of long-branch, and short-twig, in principle a historical instance of "glyph variants", have been encoded separately, while the further variant form of staveless runes has not.{{efn|"Two sharply different graphic forms, the  long-branch and the short-twig form, were used for nine of the 16 Viking Age Nordic runes. Although only one form is used in a given inscription, there are runologically important exceptions. In some cases, the two forms were used to convey different meanings in later use in the medieval system. Therefore the two forms have been separated in the Unicode Standard. ... Staveless runes are a third form of the Viking Age Nordic runes, a kind of runic shorthand. The number of known inscriptions is small and the graphic forms of many of the runes show great variability between inscriptions. For this reason, staveless runes have been unified with the corresponding Viking Age Nordic runes."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://tka4.org/materials/lib/Articles-Books/Programming/OS/The%20Unicode%20standard%20version%203.0%20%28AW%29.pdf |title=The Unicode Standard |edition=3.0 |at=chapter 7.6, pp.&nbsp;174–175 |date=January 2000}}</ref>}}

The ISO Runes Project treated the runes as essentially glyph variants of the Latin script. Everson argued that the native ''futhark'' ordering is well established, and that it is unusual for UCS to order letters not in Latin alphabetical order rather than according to native tradition, and a corresponding sorting order of the runic letter Unicode characters was adopted for ISO/IEC 14651 in 2001.{{efn|"On 2000-12-24 Olle Järnefors published on behalf of the ISORUNES Project in Sweden a
proposal for ordering the Runes in the Common Tailorable Template (CTT) of ISO/IEC
14651. In my view this ordering is unsuitable for the CTT for a number of reasons."<ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Everson |title=Ordering the runic script |url=http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/SC22/WG20/docs/n809-runic-order.pdf |id=ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 N809 |year=2001}} Everson's proposal was accepted and the character sort order was changed in 2001.</ref><ref name=LaBonté2001>{{cite web |title=Final disposition of comments of ballot results on PDAM-1 to ISO/IEC 14651:2001 |editor-first=Alain |editor-last=LaBonté |department=Project editor |publisher=SC22/WG20 |series=ISO/IEC 14651:2001 |url=http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG20/docs/n882-FDoC-FPDAM1-14651.htm |id=SC22/WG20 N882R |date=10 February 2001}}</ref>
"Due to the summer holidays, one of our experts was unable to report
back to us by the due date of 2001-09-01. While we voted positively
on 2001-08-30, Ireland would like to change our vote to DISAPPROVAL,
with the following technical comment:<br/>
In the tailorable template, the Runic script is ordered according to
Latin transliteration order. This produces ordering which does not
fully satisfy any user community. The Runes should be reordered to
the Futhark order in the tailorable template.<br/>
Note that the SC22/WG20 minutes are ambiguous as to what should have
been sent out for ballot:<br/>
'Runes were added after 14651 cut-off. Order of the Runes in N833 are
according to the preference of the ISO Runes project (Sweden). Other
people, such as Everson and Ken, disagree with the ISO project and
prefer the current usage on the web. Reason: academic work is done in
transliterations and the order is for the transliterated characters.
Everson's proposal is very close to the binary order in 10646
(Futhark) for all extensions in various countries.  Transliterated
order would have to be a tailoring.  Current draft table shows the
ISO Runes order.... Discussion about the merits of either ordering.
Decision that the order stays as in the table which is the Futhark
order.' [...]<br/>
We believe that ambiguities in transliteration ordering will mean
that researchers in the Nordic countries and Britain and Ireland will
have to tailor ANYWAY to get a correct transliteration ordering.
Therefore the not-quite-perfect transliteration order in the
tailorable template serves little purpose. On the other hand, the
many non-researcher users of the Runes (who far outnumber the
researchers), universally prefer the Futhark order, and require no
tailoring for it. Since MOST users will not need to tailor, it seems
only logical that the Futhark order should be the order used in the
template."<ref name=LaBonté2001/>}}

==Characters==
The original 81 characters adopted for Unicode 3.0 included 75 letters, three punctuation marks and three "runic symbols".

The names given to the runic letter characters are "a bit clumsy" in a deliberate compromise between scholarly and amateur requirements.
They list simplified ([[ASCII]]) representations of the three names of a "unified" rune in  the Elder Futhark, the Anglo-Saxon and the Younger Futhark traditions, followed by the letter transliterating the rune (if applicable).{{efn|"The names given to the Runes in the UCS may be a bit clumsy, but they are intended to serve the needs of scholars and amateurs alike; not everyone is familiar with Runic transliteration practices, and not everyone is conversant with the traditional names in Germanic, English, and Scandinavian usage. So the names concatenate those three together with the scholarly transliteration letter."<ref>Everson, "Ordering the runic script" (2001) p. 1.</ref>}}
The ordering follows the basic ''futhark'' sequence, but with (non-unified) variants  inserted after the standard Elder Futhark form of each letter, as follows:

{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Code point !! Rune !! Name !! Elder Futhark !! Anglo-Saxon !! Younger Futhark<br/>(long-branch) !! Younger Futhark<br/>(short-twig) !! Medieval !! Dalecarlian
|-
|16A0 || {{runic|ᚠ}} ||FEHU FEOH FE F || {{tick}} || {{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16A1 ||  {{runic|ᚡ}} ||V|| || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16A2 	||  {{runic|ᚢ}} || URUZ UR U || {{tick}} || {{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16A3 	||  {{runic|ᚣ}} || 	YR ||  || {{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16A4 	||  {{runic|ᚤ}} || 	Y || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16A5 || {{runic|ᚥ}} || W || || || || || {{tick}}{{efn|Modern innovation, intended as representing the Latin letter W in the context of medieval runic inscriptions.{{clarify|date=April 2015}}<!-- so-indicated in the 1997 ISORUNES proposal; of course, there ''was'' no "letter W" in the medieval period, so at best this could be from early modern inscriptions? or a modern innovation? -->}} ||
|-
|16A6 	||  {{runic|ᚦ}}|| THURISAZ THURS THORN || {{tick}} || {{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16A7 	|| {{runic|ᚧ}}|| ETH || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16A8 	|| {{runic|ᚨ}} || ANSUZ A  || {{tick}} || {{tick}}{{efn|The Anglo-Saxon ''æsc'' rune with the same shape is encoded separately, as 16AB.}} || || || ||
|-
|16A9 	|| {{runic|ᚩ}}|| OS O || || {{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16AA 	|| {{runic|ᚪ}}|| AC A|| || {{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16AB 	|| {{runic|ᚫ}}|| AESC || || {{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16AC 	|| {{runic|ᚬ}}|| LONG-BRANCH-OSS O || || || {{tick}} || || ||
|-
|16AD 	|| {{runic|ᚭ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-OSS O || || || || {{tick}} || ||
|-
|16AE 	|| {{runic|ᚮ}}|| O || || || || || {{tick}} ||
|-
|16AF 	|| {{runic|ᚯ}}|| OE || || || || || {{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16B0 	|| {{runic|ᚰ}}|| ON || || || || || {{tick}}{{efn|nasal o, translitterated with ''ǫ''}}||
|-
|16B1 	|| {{runic|ᚱ}} || RAIDO RAD REID R || {{tick}} || {{tick}} || {{tick}} || {{tick}} || {{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16B2 	|| {{runic|ᚲ}} || KAUNA || {{tick}} || || || || ||
|-
|16B3 	|| {{runic|ᚳ}}|| CEN || || {{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16B4 	|| {{runic|ᚴ}}|| KAUN K  || || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16B5 	|| {{runic|ᚵ}}|| G || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16B6 	|| {{runic|ᚶ}}|| ENG || || || || ||{{tick}}{{efn|The 1997 ISORUNES proposed name for this was "RUNIC LETTER YOUNGER K WITH DOT", intended as representing the /ŋ/ phoneme in medieval runic inscriptions (Elder Futhark already had a separate ng-rune, sometimes shown in ligature with the ''i''-rune (the so-called "lantern rune"<ref>{{cite book |first=Richard Lee |last=Morris |title=Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy |year=1988 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8LPEXoYbHZ4C&pg=PA130 |page=130|isbn=8774926837 }}</ref>)}} ||
|-
|16B7 	|| {{runic|ᚷ}}|| GEBO GYFU G  ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||  ||  || || {{tick}}{{efn|ᚷ is an alternative stylistic representation of ᛅ in Dalecarlian use.}}
|-
|16B8 	|| {{runic|ᚸ}}|| GAR  ||  ||{{tick}} ||  ||  || ||
|-
|16B9 	|| {{runic|ᚹ}}|| WUNJO WYNN W  ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||  ||  || ||{{tick}}
|-
|16BA 	|| {{runic|ᚺ}}|| HAGLAZ H  ||{{tick}}   ||  ||  || || ||
|-
|16BB 	|| {{runic|ᚻ}}|| HAEGL H  || || {{tick}}   ||  ||  || ||
|-
|16BC 	|| {{runic|ᚼ}}|| LONG-BRANCH-HAGALL H  || || ||{{tick}}  ||  || ||{{tick}}
|-
|16BD 	|| {{runic|ᚽ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-HAGALL H  || || || || {{tick}}  || ||
|-
|16BE 	|| {{runic|ᚾ}}|| NAUDIZ NYD NAUD N  ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}  ||  || ||
|-
|16BF 	|| {{runic|ᚿ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-NAUD N  || || || ||{{tick}}  ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|-
|16C1 || {{runic|ᛁ}} ||ISAZ IS ISS I || {{tick}} || {{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16C2 	|| {{runic|ᛂ}}|| E || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16C3 	|| {{runic|ᛃ}}|| JERAN J ||{{tick}} || || || || ||
|-
|16C4 	|| {{runic|ᛄ}}|| GER || ||{{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16C5 	|| {{runic|ᛅ}}|| LONG-BRANCH-AR AE || || ||{{tick}} || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16C6 	|| {{runic|ᛆ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-AR A || || || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16C7 	|| {{runic|ᛇ}}|| IWAZ EOH ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16C8 	|| {{runic|ᛈ}}|| PERTHO PEORTH P ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16C9 	|| {{runic|ᛉ}}|| ALGIZ EOLHX ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || || || ||
|-
|16CA 	|| {{runic|ᛊ}}|| SOWILO S ||{{tick}} || || || || ||
|-
|16CB 	|| {{runic|ᛋ}}|| SIGEL LONG-BRANCH-SOL S || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16CC 	|| {{runic|ᛌ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-SOL S || || || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16CD 	|| {{runic|ᛍ}}|| C || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16CE 	|| {{runic|ᛎ}}|| Z || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16CF 	|| {{runic|ᛏ}}|| TIWAZ TIR TYR T ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || || ||
|-
|16D0 	|| {{runic|ᛐ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-TYR T || || || ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}  ||{{tick}}
|-
|16D1 	|| {{runic|ᛑ}}|| D || || || || ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16D2 	|| {{runic|ᛒ}}|| BERKANAN BEORC BJARKAN B ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||  ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16D3 	|| {{runic|ᛓ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-BJARKAN B || ||  || || {{tick}} || ||
|-
|16D4 	|| {{runic|ᛔ}}|| DOTTED-P ||  ||  || ||  ||{{tick}} ||
|-
|16D5 	|| {{runic|ᛕ}}|| OPEN-P ||  ||  || || || {{tick}} ||
|-
|16D6 	|| {{runic|ᛖ}}|| EHWAZ EH E ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16D7 	|| {{runic|ᛗ}}|| MANNAZ MAN M ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16D8 	|| {{runic|ᛘ}}|| LONG-BRANCH-MADR M || || ||{{tick}} ||  || {{tick}}  ||{{tick}}
|-
|16D9 	|| {{runic|ᛙ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-MADR M || || || ||{{tick}}   || {{tick}} ||
|-
|16DA 	|| {{runic|ᛚ}}|| LAUKAZ LAGU LOGR L ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}}  ||{{tick}}
|-
|16DB || {{runic|ᛛ}}|| DOTTED-L || || || || ||{{tick}}{{efn|The 1997 ISO Runes proposed name for this was "RUNIC LETTER YOUNGER L WITH DOT", transliterated as ''{{sc|l}}''. }} ||
|-
|16DC 	|| {{runic|ᛜ}}|| INGWAZ ||{{tick}} || || ||  || ||
|-
|16DD 	|| {{runic|ᛝ}}|| ING || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16DE 	|| {{runic|ᛞ}}|| DAGAZ DAEG D ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16DF 	|| {{runic|ᛟ}}|| OTHALAN ETHEL O ||{{tick}} ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E0 	|| {{runic|ᛠ}}|| EAR || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||{{tick}}
|-
|16E1 	|| {{runic|ᛡ}}|| IOR || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E2 	|| {{runic|ᛢ}}|| CWEORTH || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E3 	|| {{runic|ᛣ}}|| CALC || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E4 	|| {{runic|ᛤ}}|| CEALC || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E5 	|| {{runic|ᛥ}}|| STAN || ||{{tick}} || ||  || ||
|-
|16E6 	|| {{runic|ᛦ}}|| LONG-BRANCH-YR || || ||{{tick}} ||  || {{tick}} ||{{tick}}
|-
|16E7 	|| {{runic|ᛧ}}|| SHORT-TWIG-YR || || || ||{{tick}}  || ||
|-
|16E8 	|| {{runic|ᛨ}}|| ICELANDIC-YR || || || ||  || {{tick}} ||
|-
|16E9 	|| {{runic|ᛩ}}|| Q || || || ||  || {{tick}} || {{tick}}
|-
|16EA 	|| {{runic|ᛪ}}|| X || || || ||  || {{tick}} ||
|-
|}

The three "punctuation marks" are three variant forms of separators found in runic inscriptions, one a single dot, one a double dot and one cross-shaped.
{|class=wikitable
|-
|'''Code point''' || '''Rune''' || '''Name'''
|-
|16EB || {{runic|᛫}} ||RUNIC SINGLE PUNCTUATION
|-
|16EC || {{runic|᛬}} ||RUNIC MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION
|-
|16ED || {{runic|᛭}} ||RUNIC CROSS PUNCTUATION
|-
|}

The three "runic symbols" are the ''Arlaug, Tvimadur'' and ''Belgthor'' symbols used exclusively for enumerating years in runic calendars of the early modern period.
{|class=wikitable
|-
|'''Code point''' || '''Rune''' || '''Name'''
|-
|16EE || {{runic|ᛮ}} ||RUNIC ARLAUG SYMBOL
|-
|16EF || {{runic|ᛯ}} ||RUNIC TVIMADUR SYMBOL
|-
|16F0 || {{runic|ᛰ}} ||RUNIC BELGTHOR SYMBOL
|-
|}

The eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 concern the Anglo-Saxon runes.
Three are variant letters used by J. R. R. Tolkien to write Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes, representing the English ''k'', ''oo'' and ''sh'' graphemes.{{efn|The ''k'' rune was published with ''The Hobbit'' (1937), e.g. for writing Tolkien's own name, as {{runic|ᛁ ᚱ ᚱ ᛏᚩᛚᛱᛁᛖᚾ}}. His ''oo'' and ''sh'' runes are known from a postcard written to Katherine Farrer (sic, the name is mistakenly given as ''Ferrer'' by Everson and West) on 30&nbsp;November 1947, published as no. 112 in ''The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien'' (1981) ("A postcard, apparently written on 30 November 1947, using the system of runes employed in ''The Hobbit'' [...] Mrs Farrer, a writer of detective stories, was married to the theologian Austin Farrer, then Chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford.").<ref>{{cite web |first1=Michael |last1=Everson |first2=Andrew |last2=West |title=Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS |url=http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4013.pdf |id=ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4013R |date=10 May 2011}}</ref>}}
{|class=wikitable
|-
|'''Code point''' || '''Rune''' || '''Name'''
|-
|16F1 || {{runic|ᛱ}} ||RUNIC LETTER K
|-
|16F2 || {{runic|ᛲ}} ||RUNIC LETTER SH
|-
|16F3 || {{runic|ᛳ}} ||RUNIC LETTER OO
|-
|}

The five others are letter variants used in one of the [[Engineering:Franks Casket|Franks Casket]] inscriptions, "cryptogrammic" replacements for the standard Anglo-Saxon ''o'', ''i'', ''e'', ''a'' and ''æ'' vowel runes.
{|class=wikitable
|-
|'''Code point''' || '''Rune''' || '''Name'''
|-
|16F4 || {{runic|ᛴ}} ||RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET OS
|-
|16F5 || {{runic|ᛵ}} ||RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET IS
|-
|16F6 || {{runic|ᛶ}} ||RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET EH
|-
|16F7 || {{runic|ᛷ}} ||RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AC
|-
|16F8 || {{runic|ᛸ}} ||RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AESC
|-
|}

==Fonts==
Numerous Unicode fonts support the Runic block, although most of them are strictly limited to displaying a single glyph per character, often closely modeled on the shape shown in the Unicode block chart.

Free Unicode fonts that support the runic block include: [[Junicode]], GNU FreeFont (in its monospace, bitmap face), Caslon,{{citation needed|reason=Which version of Caslon?|date=July 2023}} the serif font Quivira, and Babelstone Runic in its many different formats. Commercial fonts supporting the block include  Alphabetum,  [[Code2000]], [[Everson Mono]], Aboriginal Serif, Aboriginal Sans, Segoe UI Symbol, and TITUS Cyberbit Basic.

[[Software:Microsoft Windows|Microsoft Windows]] did not support the Runic block in any of its included fonts during 2000—2008, but with the release of [[Software:Windows 7|Windows 7]] in 2009, the system has been delivered with a font supporting the block, [[Segoe|Segoe UI Symbol]]. In Windows&nbsp;10 the Runic block was moved into the font Segoe UI Historic.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688099.aspx |title=Script and Font Support in Windows |publisher=Microsoft |access-date=2015-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150913222146/https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688099.aspx|archive-date=2015-09-13}}</ref>

==Chart==

==History==
The following Unicode-related documents record the purpose and process of defining specific characters in the Runic block:

{| class="wikitable collapsible"
|-
! [[Unicode#Versions|Version]] !! {{nobr|Final code points{{efn|name=final|Proposed code points and characters names may differ from final code points and names.}} !! Count !! [[Organization:Unicode Consortium|UTC]]&nbsp;ID !! [[Organization:International Committee for Information Technology Standards|L2]]&nbsp;ID !! WG2&nbsp;ID !! Document
|-
| rowspan="25" | 3.0 || rowspan="25" | U+16A0..16F0 || rowspan="25" | 81 || || || N1210 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Proposal Concerning Inclusion of the Runic Characters |date=1995-04-28}} {{full citation |date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
|-
| {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L1995-UTC/UTC65-Minutes.TXT UTC/1995-xxx]}} || || ||<ref>{{cite report |publisher=Unicode Technical Committee |title=Meeting #65 Minutes |date=1995-06-02 |series=Runic Proposal}}</ref>
|-
| || || N1229 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Response to Michael Everson comments (N 1230) on Runic |date=1995-06-16}} {{full citation |date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || N1230 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Feedback on Runic |date=1995-06-21 |first=Michael |last=Everson}} {{full citation |date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || N1239 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Icelandic position on Runic|date=1995-06-23 |first=Þorvaður Kári |last=Ólafsson}} {{full citation |date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/95-090}} || {{nobr|[http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1253.doc N1253 (doc],}} [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1253.txt txt]) ||<ref>{{cite report |edition=Unconfirmed |title=WG 2, Meeting #28 Minutes |place=Helsinki, Finland |date=2–27 June 1995 |publication-date=1995-09-09 |first1=V.S. |last1=Umamaheswaran |first2=Mike |last2=Ksar |at=§6.4.8}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/95-118}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1262.txt N1262] || <ref>{{cite report |title=Consensus Name and ordering proposal for the Fuþark |date=1995-09-19 |first=Michael |last=Everson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/96-035}} || N1330 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Revised Proposal Concerning Inclusion into ISO/IEC 10646 of the Repertoire of Runic Characters |date=1996-03-13 |first=Wera |last=Lundström}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/96-051}} || N1382 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Runic Script: Description and Proposed Character Name Table |date=1996-04-18}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1353.doc N1353] ||<ref>{{cite report |edition=Draft |title=WG2 Meeting #30 Minutes |place=Copenhagen |date=1996-06-25|first1=V.S. |last1=Umamaheswaran |first2=Mike |last2=Ksar |at=§8.6}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L1996-UTC/UTC69-Minutes-part-2.txt UTC/1996-027.2]}} || || ||<ref>{{cite report |title=UTC #69 Minutes |date=1996-07-01 |first=Steve |last=Greenfield |at=Part&nbsp;2, §E. Runic}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/96-100}} || {{nobr|[http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1417.doc N1417 (doc],}} [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1417.txt txt]) || <ref>{{cite report |title=Second Revised Proposal for Runic Character Names |date=1996-07-23}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|X3L2/96-101}} || N1443 || <ref>{{cite report |title=Allocating Ogham and Runes to the BMP: a strategy for making the BMP maximally useful |date=1996-08-04 |first1=Michael |last1=Everson |first2=Olle |last2=Jarnefors}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1453.pdf N1453] || <ref>{{cite report |title=WG 2 Meeting 31 Minutes |place=Quebec |date=1996-12-06 |first1=Mike |last1=Ksar |first2=V.S. |last2=Umamaheswaran |at=§8.6}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L1996/UTC71-Minutes.htm X3L2/96-123]}} || ||  <ref>{{cite report |edition=Preliminary |title=UTC #71 & X3L2 #168 ad hoc meeting Minutes |place=San Diego |date=5-6 December 1996 |publication-date=1996-12-18 |first1=Joan |last1=Aliprand |first2=Arnold |last2=Winkler |at=§4.5 Runic}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|L2/97-048}} || N1542 || <ref>{{cite report |title=Proposed pDAM text for Runic |date=1997-03-27 |first=Michael |last=Everson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || N1620 ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Runic Proposal Update |date=1997-07-03 |first=Michael |last=Everson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|L2/97-288}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1603.doc N1603] || <ref>{{cite report |edition=Unconfirmed |title=WG 2 Meeting #33 Minutes |place=Heraklion, Crete, Greece |date=20 June - 4 July 1997 |publication-date=1997-10-24 |first=V.S. |last=Umamaheswaran |at=§8.5}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|L2/98-077}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1695.doc N1695] || <ref>{{cite report |title=Proposed Disposition of Comments on SC2 letter ballot on FPDAMs 16, 19, & 20 (Braille patterns, Runic, Ogham) |date=1998-02-22 |first=Bruce |last=Paterson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L1998/98132.pdf L2/98-132]}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1771.pdf N1771] ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Revised Text of ISO 10646 Amendment 19 - Runic |date=1998-04-06 |first=Bruce |last=Paterson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L1998/98134.pdf L2/98-134]}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1772.pdf N1772] ||<ref>{{cite report |title=Revised Text of ISO 10646 Amendment 20 - Ogham |date=1998-04-06 |first=Bruce |last=Paterson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || [https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n1763-02n3055.pdf N1763] || <ref>{{cite report |title=Disposition of Comments Report on SC 2 N2970: Amendment 19 - Runic |date=1998-04-06 |first=Bruce |last=Paterson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|L2/98-286}} || [http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1703w97.doc N1703] ||<ref>{{cite report |edition=Unconfirmed |title=WG 2 Meeting #34 Minutes |place=Redmond, WA, USA |date=16–20 March 1998 |publication-date=1998-07-02 |first1=V.S. |last1=Umamaheswaran |first2=Mike |last2=Ksar |at=§6.2.3 FPDAM-19 on Runic and FPDAM-20 on Ogham}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01023-runic-order.pdf L2/01-023]}} || || <ref>{{cite report |title=Ordering the Runic script |date=2001-01-09 |first=Michael |last=Everson}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
|-
| || || [https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4103.pdf N4103] || <ref>{{cite report |edition=Unconfirmed |title=WG 2 meeting #58 minutes |date=2012-01-03 |at=§11.9 Additional Runic characters}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12007.htm L2/12-007]}} || || <ref>{{cite report |title=UTC #130 / L2 #227 Minutes |date=2012-02-14 |first=Lisa |last=Moore |at=§C.5}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|-
| || || {{nobr|[https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4253.pdf N4253 (pdf],}} [https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4253.doc doc]) || <ref>{{cite report |edition=Unconfirmed |title=WG 2 meeting #59 minutes |date=2012-09-12 |at=§M59.16l}} {{full citation|date=July 2020}}</ref>
|}

== Footnotes ==
{{notelist|1}}

== References ==
{{reflist|25em}}

[[Category:Unicode blocks]]

{{Sourceattribution|Runic (Unicode block)}}