Runes Origing – Theorethical Interpretation of Runic History

Origin of the Runic Writing System

The origin of the runic alphabet (specifically the Elder Futhark) has been the subject of scholarly debate for over a century. Because writing systems often develop through cultural contact and adaptation, researchers have looked for prototypes or inspirations that the Germanic peoples might have encountered before the first runic inscriptions appeared. Given that the earliest runes are dated roughly to the 2nd century AD, any candidate for influence must have been accessible to Germanic tribes in the preceding centuries. The main theories propose that runes were adapted from one of the scripts used around the Mediterranean and Alpine regions: candidates include the Latin alphabet, the Greek alphabet, or the northern Italic scripts (often referred to as “Old Italic,” which includes Etruscan and related alphabets of the Italian peninsula) (Mees, 2000). More recent research leans toward the Old Italic (specifically North Etruscan) connection as the most plausible, but historically the Latin and Greek hypotheses were prominent as well (Morris, 1988).

‍

Scholars today generally agree that the runic script was not an independent invention from scratch, but rather an adaptation of existing alphabets, modified to suit the early Germanic language phonology and the preferred carving medium (Looijenga, 2003). However, there is no single “prototype alphabet” that matches runes exactly. Instead, runes seem to be a composite, showing similarities to multiple scripts. This has led to a consensus that the creators of the runic alphabet likely drew on knowledge of several writing systems, directly or indirectly, to craft a new one for their own use (Mees, 2000).

Before examining each major theory, it’s important to note an archaeological point: Germanic people of the late pre-Roman Iron Age (c. 1st century BC to 1st century AD) were in contact with literate cultures. Germanic mercenaries served in the Roman army, traders travelled to and from the Roman Empire, and cultural influences from the south (Roman, Celtic, and Italic) were penetrating northern Europe. An often-cited find is the Negau helmet from Slovenia (dating to around 50 BC), inscribed with a name (Harigastiz) in a northern Italic alphabet by what is believed to be a Germanic person (Mees, 2000). This shows a Germanic individual using an Italic script before the invention of runes, giving weight to the idea that exposure to alphabets like Etruscan or Latin could have inspired the creation of runes.

Below, we detail the primary theories of runic origin and their evidence.

Old Italic (North Etruscan) Theory

The Old Italic theory proposes that the runes were based on the alphabets used in northern Italy and adjacent regions (such as the Alps) during the last centuries BC. These scripts include Etruscan (from which the Latin alphabet itself was derived) and other variants used by local peoples like the Raetians and Veneti. By the time of the early Roman Empire, these alphabets were falling out of use (replaced by Latin), but they would have been known in the region for centuries prior. The timeline aligns well: North Italic scripts were in use roughly between the 6th century BC and the 1st century BC, which means Germanic travellers or mercenaries in the Roman Republic era could have encountered them (Mees, 2000).

The idea that runes came from a North Italic source was first formally suggested by scholars like Carl Marstrander, and it was further developed by Magnus Hammarström in 1930 (Mees, 2000). At the time, this was a novel theory, as Latin and Greek were earlier assumed to be the primary sources. Hammarström and others pointed out that several letters in the Elder Futhark closely resemble letters in the Etruscan and related alphabets, more so than they resemble Latin or Greek characters.

For example, the Etruscan form of “F” looks like ᚠ (the rune fehu for /f/), Etruscan “R” looks like ᚱ (raiðō /r/), and Etruscan “M” looks similar to ᛗ (mannaz /m/) (Morris, 1988). Additionally, Etruscan and other northern Italic scripts share the trait of being generally angular (since they were often incised in stone or metal), which aligns with the angularity of runes.

A particularly strong piece of evidence is how text was laid out and separated: North Italic inscriptions frequently used dots or vertical lines to separate words, a practice mirrored in runic inscriptions (Åkerström, 2020). Even the direction of writing in those scripts was flexible (left-to-right or right-to-left), which is also seen in early runes. These similarities in both form and usage strengthen the case that runes were modelled on an Italic script.

One of the key archaeological finds supporting the Italic theory is the Negau helmet mentioned earlier. It demonstrates direct contact: a Germanic name inscribed in an Etruscan-based script, indicating that at least some Germanic individuals were familiar with that writing system. Another find is a set of small inscribed plaques from Emilia in northern Italy (the Este inscriptions, 2nd century BC), which Germanic visitors could have seen on their travels (Looijenga, 2003).

More concrete runic evidence emerges in the north in the 2nd century AD. The earliest runic artefact, the Vimose Comb found in Denmark and dated to ~160 AD, bears the runic inscription HARJA (a male name or title). By comparing these early runes with Old Italic letters, we find striking correspondences, suggesting a relatively recent adaptation. For instance, certain runic letters like ᚨ (A), ᚲ (K), ᚻ (H), ᛁ (I), ᛋ (S), ᛏ (T), ᛒ (B), ᛗ (M), and ᛚ (L) closely match their counterparts in northern Italic scripts. Others show partial similarities to Italic letters but perhaps were modified to represent sounds differently (Mees, 2000).

Not every rune has a clear Italic counterpart. Some runes seem to have no obvious source in any known alphabet – for example, ᛉ (algiz, in the Elder Futhark often interpreted as /z/ or /ŧ/) and ᚦ (þurisaz, /th/) lack direct analogues in Latin or Etruscan. Proponents of the Italic theory argue that the creators of runes might have innovated where needed, inventing symbols or modifying existing ones to represent sounds that the source alphabet did not have (Mees, 2000). For instance, the th sound did not exist in Latin or standard Etruscan, so the rune ᚦ could have been a creative adaptation (possibly inspired by modifying the Latin letter D (ᛞ) or combining elements of other letters) to denote this distinct Germanic sound.

Overall, the Old Italic theory is persuasive because it explains both the similarities and differences: runes share many shapes with North Italic letters, but also diverged in some to accommodate the Germanic context. Modern runologists like Tineke Looijenga and Bernard Mees support variants of this theory, suggesting that a range of North Italic scripts – not one single source – collectively influenced the rune-makers (Looijenga, 2003; Mees, 2000). In other words, the people who devised the runic alphabet around the first century AD likely knew of writing in a general sense from the Roman world, saw different alphabets in action (Latin writing on Roman military equipment, Greek letters on imported goods, and older Italic letters on monuments or artifacts), and from this exposure synthesized a new alphabet that fit their own language and needs.

One challenge to the Italic origin hypothesis is explaining the route of transmission: how exactly did knowledge of an Italian script reach the Germanic north? Archaeology suggests several channels – movement of Germanic soldiers and merchants along Roman trade routes, intermarriage or diplomacy involving literate Romans or Etruscans, or the influence of the Roman provinces in Gaul and the Rhine, where modified Latin and local scripts might have been seen. By around 50–150 AD, Germanic tribes (like the Goths, Lombards, and others) were increasingly interacting with the Roman world. It is plausible that one or a few knowledgeable individuals (perhaps mercenaries or traders) with familiarity in writing introduced the concept to their community. The runic alphabet could have been formulated by a small group of literate innovators as a tool for carving names, marking ownership, or conducting rituals, which then caught on more widely (Lüthi, 2006).

In summary, the Old Italic theory holds that runes are essentially a Germanic adaptation of the alphabets used in the Alps and northern Italy. This theory is supported by the closest letter-by-letter resemblances, a fitting chronological window, and concrete instances of cultural contact. Most scholars today view this as the leading explanation, while acknowledging that the process was likely complex and involved creative input from the Germanic inventors of the script.

Greek Theory

The Greek theory posits that the Greek alphabet (possibly in one of its archaic forms) served as the primary model for the runic alphabet. This idea had some traction in early scholarship because certain runes do resemble Greek letters, and the Greek world did have contact with Germanic tribes (for instance, through trade around the Black Sea and via the Roman Empire, which had absorbed Hellenistic culture).

One argument for Greek influence highlights the resemblance of runes like ᚠ (F) to Greek Φ (phi), ᚱ (R) to Greek Ρ (rho), and ᛚ (L) to an inverted Γ (gamma). It was suggested that perhaps a group of Goths or other East Germanic people, who were in closer contact with Greek speakers along the Black Sea, borrowed and adapted the Greek alphabet for their own use, and that this eventually became the runes. Historical accounts do show that by the 4th century AD, the Gothic bishop Ulfilas created a Gothic alphabet largely based on Greek. However, Ulfilas’s alphabet was quite different from runes and was a much later development intended for writing on parchment.

Chronologically, a direct Greek derivation for runes faces challenges. The earliest runic inscriptions (~2nd century AD) predate significant Germanic-Greek interactions in Eastern Europe (the Gothic kingdom and its Greek connections flourished in the 4th century). Also, by the time runes appear in the north, the Greek alphabet in use (circa 2nd century AD) had a different look than many runes – for example, Greek had developed curvilinear forms like Ω, whereas runes retained shapes more akin to older Italic letters. This suggests the influence, if any, came via older Greek or Greek-derived scripts (like those used by Etruscans) rather than from contemporary Greek writing.

Some proponents of the Greek theory have pointed to possible transmission through the Celtic world. The Celtiberians (in Spain) and Gauls (in France) sometimes used Greek letters in inscriptions (due to Greek traders in the western Mediterranean), and the Cimbrian tribes near the Black Sea in the 1st century BC could have picked up Greek letters. Yet, none of these scenarios provides a clear link to the specific time and place where runes emerged (farther north and slightly later).

Modern analyses tend to view the Greek theory as less convincing than the Italic one. It is acknowledged that Greek and runic scripts share a common ultimate origin (the Phoenician alphabet), which accounts for general similarities (Morris, 1988). But any direct Greek input to runes was likely secondhand. For example, the Greek alphabet influenced the North Italic alphabets, and those in turn influenced runes – a chain of influence rather than a one-step adoption.

Furthermore, many of the apparent Greek-like features in runes can be better explained by the North Italic connection. For instance, if one compares runes to archaic Greek alphabets (like those of the Western Greek colonies in Italy), one finds that the North Italic scripts already incorporated those archaic Greek shapes (Mees, 2000). So the runes could have gotten them via Etruscan without needing direct contact with Greek users.

In conclusion, while a few researchers in the past favoured a Greek origin for runes, this theory has largely fallen out of favour in academia. Greek influence is considered indirect: the runic script retains some “Pan-Mediterranean” alphabetic traits that Greeks also had, but the specific development path of runes points toward Italic mediation. The Greek theory is now regarded as a secondary or contributing hypothesis at best, rather than the primary explanation for the origin of runic writing (Mees, 2000).

Latin Theory

The Latin theory suggests that the runic alphabet was adapted directly from the Latin alphabet, which by the first and second centuries AD was the dominant script of the Roman Empire (and known along its frontiers). This idea appears plausible since Germanic tribes had frequent contacts with the Roman military and settlements, where they would have seen Latin writing on monuments, coins, military equipment, and everyday objects.

Certainly, several runes resemble Latin letters: ᚠ looks like a variant of Latin F, ᛏ like T, ᛒ like B, ᚱ like R, ᛋ like S, ᛁ like I, and ᛚ can be seen as a rotated L or an inverted Γ. Early scholars noted these correspondences and assumed that Germanic peoples who learned of writing from the Romans might have created a Germanic version of the Latin alphabet by simplifying the shapes to make them easier to carve.

However, the Latin-origin theory runs into some issues when examining the full set of runes. There are runes with no Latin equivalent (such as ᚦ for /th/ and ᛇ īhaz or ehwaz for a sound like /ɨ/ or /eo/) and choices of shapes that don’t match Latin forms well. If the runic alphabet were based on Latin, one might expect the runes to include characters for C, D, G, P as they appear in Latin, but the Elder Futhark doesn’t have direct analogs for some of these (for instance, the rune ᛣ calc in Anglo-Saxon was later invented for /k/ to distinguish from ᚲ, but original Elder Futhark had ᚲ for /k/ and no distinct rune for Latin G or P).

Additionally, the order of runes (futhark) is entirely unlike the A, B, C, D, etc. order of Latin. If Germanic scribes had learned writing from Romans, it’s likely they would have adopted the sequence as well, as happened with other cultures adopting the Latin alphabet. The unique runic ordering suggests the alphabet was constructed with a different conceptual framework, more similar to the ordering found in some Old Italic sequences or simply a new order devised for the futhark (Looijenga, 2003).

Archaeologically, the distribution of early runes does not closely track areas of strongest Roman influence. The earliest finds (Denmark, northern Germany) were outside the empire. If runes had been invented by Germanic peoples under direct Roman influence (say in a border province like Germania or Pannonia), we might expect the first runic inscriptions to appear there, but they do not. Instead, those areas, when they have writing, show Roman Latin inscriptions (by Romanised elites) rather than runes.

It’s important to note that the Latin theory isn’t entirely without merit. Latin did influence runes, especially in later periods. For example, by the medieval period, many Scandinavian runic inscriptions show the impact of the Latin literary culture (Fjellhammer Seim, 2010). Post-Viking Age runes were sometimes carved by people who also knew the Latin alphabet, leading to runic texts that include Latin words or mirror Latin stylistic elements. Moreover, some letter shapes in the Younger Futhark and Anglo-Saxon Futhorc were likely adjusted under Latin influence (e.g., the introduction of cross-shaped punctuation or dotted runes to differentiate sounds, inspired by Latin scribal practices).

One could reconcile the evidence by suggesting that the runic alphabet was a product of a milieu where Latin letters were known but not the sole influence. For instance, perhaps a Germanic craftsman who had seen Roman writing borrowed a few Latin letter forms he remembered, but also drew on other sources and his own creativity to fill in the gaps. This would result in an alphabet that partially overlaps with Latin (for common letters like F, I, T, B, L), yet has original or non-Latin forms for uniquely Germanic sounds (þ, ŋ, etc.) (Morris, 1988).

Later research has indeed cast the Latin theory as a secondary one: Latin letters likely provided some inspiration and were part of the general knowledge that informed the creation of runes, but they were not the sole or even primary template (Looijenga, 2003). The fact that the Latin and runic alphabets both ultimately derive from Phoenician explains the superficial similarity of many characters without needing direct transfer in the 1st–2nd century AD. In essence, runes and Latin share “genetic” features because they are distant cousins in the family of alphabets.

Summing up, the Latin theory is understandable given Rome’s dominance and the evident similarities in some characters, but it does not sufficiently account for the distinctive features of runes. The runic alphabet’s differences from Latin (in both content and form) suggest a more complex origin. While early Germanic people certainly encountered Latin writing and it may have sparked the idea of writing, the consensus is that they drew more heavily from the older Italic tradition (which itself influenced Latin) when forming their own script. By the time historical records resume in the medieval period, the early development of runes was obscured, leading some scholars to initially overestimate the Latin role – an understandable mistake that modern archaeology and linguistics have corrected (Looijenga, 2003).

Other Theories

In addition to the predominant theories linking the runic alphabet to Greek, Latin, or northern Italic scripts, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain its origins. These theories suggest a more localised or independent development of runic writing, emphasising the role of cultural adaptation, pre-existing symbols, or broader parallels with primitive writing systems. While these ideas are more speculative and less widely supported, they highlight aspects of the runic origin story that the mainstream theories might gloss over.

Danish Origin Theory

One theory posits that the runes were essentially a locally initiated invention in Scandinavia (particularly Denmark), even if the concept of writing and some letter shapes came from outside. This idea suggests that the runes may have originated in Denmark, potentially as a regional innovation that incorporated elements of scripts encountered through trade or interaction with neighbouring cultures. In other words, rather than Germanic people adopting an alphabet while on Roman soil, this theory envisions Scandinavian communities gathering knowledge of writing and then deliberately creating their own alphabet at home (Svanelid, 2007).

This is not a stand-alone theory in terms of letter shapes – it agrees that those were borrowed from Mediterranean models – but it emphasises who did the borrowing and adaptation. Proponents note that the oldest substantial cluster of runic finds is in Denmark and southern Scandinavia, which could imply that area was the cradle of runic writing. They argue that by the early first century AD, societies in Denmark (e.g., the late Iron Age tribal confederations) were both wealthy and socially complex enough to have members interested in writing, and perhaps also had a sense of identity that encouraged developing a unique script suited to their language. For instance, early Danish warlords or priests might have seen value in having a writing system for inscriptions on weapons, offerings, or memorial stones that was distinct from the Romans’ (even if inspired by them).

This theory aligns with a broader view of cultural pride or practicality: the Germanic peoples might not have wanted to use the Latin alphabet as-is (which may not fit their language well), yet they recognised the utility of writing. By taking the initiative to design runes, they could tailor the system to Germanic sounds and carving techniques.

While the Danish origin theory does not contradict the letter-shape evidence of Italic or Latin influence, it reframes the origin as an act of innovation by Germanic people in their own territory. It’s supported circumstantially by the distribution of finds and the relative autonomy of Scandinavia (which was outside direct Roman rule). Though we lack written records of a “creation event,” this hypothesis underscores that the birth of runes was likely an intentional and localised project, not just an incidental borrowing.

Pre-Existing Symbolism

Another idea suggests that Germanic tribes may have already possessed a system of proto-symbols or ideographic signs used to convey meaning before they ever encountered external writing systems. These could have been simple markings with understood meanings – for example, ownership marks, tally marks, or ritual symbols. When Germanic peoples came into contact with literate societies, these encounters might have inspired them to expand and regularize their existing symbols into a more systematic alphabet (Fjellhammer Seim, 2010).

In this scenario, some runes could have evolved from indigenous symbols. For instance, the rune ᛟ (ōðal, meaning inheritance or estate) looks like two mirrored triangles and might conceivably have evolved from a mark denoting property. Symbols akin to ᛞ (dagaz, shaped like an hourglass) or ᛜ (ingwaz, a diamond shape) are found carved on early Germanic artefacts without a clear phonetic meaning, possibly as magical or clan symbols. Those might have been repurposed as runic letters once the alphabet idea took hold.

This theory would explain why a few runes have shapes that don’t directly match Mediterranean letters – they might come from the Germanic symbolic repertoire. It also highlights that the transition to literacy might not have been completely foreign; the concept of making meaningful marks was already present. The runic alphabet could thus be seen as a fusion: externally inspired structure applied to a mix of external and internal symbol forms.

Concrete evidence for specific pre-Runic symbols is sparse (we don’t have a known “proto-Runic” symbol list), so this theory remains hypothetical. Yet, it’s reasonable to assume that culturally, the Germanic peoples had meaningful iconography (runes themselves later appear on objects alongside non-letter symbols, suggesting a continuum between writing and symbolic art).

Primitive Writing Systems and Convergent Evolution

Similarities between runes and other simple writing systems found across unrelated cultures provide another perspective. Early symbols used for communication or ritual purposes often shared basic geometric shapes, such as lines, angles, and crosses. These universal forms may result from the functional simplicity needed in early writing. Some theorists argue that the runes could have developed independently or semi-independently, influenced more by the practical needs of carving symbols on wood or stone than by specific external scripts.

For example, the Southwestern script of ancient Iberia (southern Portugal, c. 700–400 BC) used arrangements of strokes that by coincidence closely resemble several runic letters, despite being an entirely unrelated writing system. Such parallels suggest that humans often gravitate to similar geometric shapes when devising symbols, especially for carving. Some theorists argue that the runes could likewise have developed independently or semi-independently, shaped more by the practical needs of carving on wood or stone than by direct borrowing from another alphabet.

Such parallels in form do not necessarily imply a historical connection, but they show that the “design space” of simple letters is limited. If one didn’t know any existing alphabet and set out to create a script for carving, one might still invent symbols like ᛒ or ᚲ simply because straight lines are easiest to cut and differentiate. In this light, some have speculated that perhaps the runic script, even if inspired by foreign examples, was reinvented almost from the ground up by Germanic carvers, resulting in similar solutions (like straight-line letters) that many cultures have discovered (Lüthi, 2006).

The independent evolution theory is considered the most radical, as it minimises outside influence. Most scholars find it unlikely that runes arose with no reference to other alphabets, given the coincidences in letter shapes and the historical context of cultural contact. But it is a reminder that the creators of runes were not just passively copying; they were actively adapting and could have come up with some characters independently as a response to the medium.

Synthesis and Cultural Adaptation

The most plausible scenario, incorporating elements of all these theories, is that the runic alphabet was a synthesis of influences. Germanic individuals who had seen various writing systems took what they learned and creatively moulded it into something new. They borrowed liberally from the Old Italic (and indirectly Greek) letter forms available to them, perhaps included a few Latin forms they knew, possibly integrated one or two familiar local signs, and shaped the whole set to be easy to carve on wood or stone. This would explain why no single source alphabet matches runes exactly – the rune-makers cherry-picked and modified to serve their purposes.

Cultural adaptation played a big role. The Germanic sound system was not identical to Latin or Etruscan, so the alphabet had to accommodate new sounds (like th, ng). The resulting script shows a mix of conservation and innovation: many characters look old-fashioned (even relative to contemporary Latin of the 2nd century) as if taken from an archaic source, while others seem novel. This mix suggests the inventors might have had reference to an archaic model (perhaps older inscriptions or letters learned secondhand) and also their own input.

Certainly, these alternative theories (Danish origin, pre-existing symbols, independent invention) are not mutually exclusive with the main thesis of Mediterranean influence – they complement it by filling in how and why the Germanic people made the choices they did. It’s likely that no single factor explains the runes; rather, several factors converged. Germanic society had a need or desire for writing, and cultural pride may have driven them to make a unique system. They had exposure to multiple writing traditions, and they leveraged innate human pattern-making tendencies to finalise the runic set.

In any case, none of the alternative ideas alone can fully explain the archaeological and linguistic evidence. Instead, modern scholars acknowledge that while runes were clearly inspired by external alphabets, the Germanic inventors exercised significant creativity. The runic script was their creation, suited to their world, and that is perhaps why it endured for so many centuries even as those external alphabets (Latin and Greek) were always nearby.

Conclusion

The runic writing system stands as a fascinating example of how human cultures develop writing: it embodies both adaptation and originality. Stylistically, runes were tailored to the practical demands of carving into wood and stone, resulting in their hallmark angular and sparse forms. Yet within those constraints, runic inscriptions display a rich variety of expression – from everyday messages and memorials to complex designs intertwined with art and even cypher-like codes. This balance of function and creativity ensured that runes were not only useful for communication but also served as potent symbols of identity and mystery for the Germanic peoples.

Regarding their origin, the weight of evidence points to runes being a product of cultural contact between the Germanic world and the literate civilisations to the south. The letters of the Elder Futhark reveal clear kinship with the Old Italic alphabets (particularly Etruscan and related scripts), suggesting that Germanic peoples borrowed and modified an existing alphabet around the turn of the first millennium AD. At the same time, the runic script was no mere copy – it was adapted to fit a new linguistic context and perhaps infused with meanings from local symbols. In the process of making the alphabet their own, the inventors of the runes contributed a unique branch to the family tree of writing systems.

No single theory explains everything about the runes’ origin, but taken together, the various lines of evidence suggest a plausible narrative. Knowledgeable individuals in a Germanic community, familiar with writing through trade or military service, engineered a new alphabet by selecting and shaping letters to suit Germanic sounds and carving techniques. Over time, this runic alphabet was embraced and spread across Northern Europe, used to record names, commemorate the dead, mark belongings, and invoke gods. Even as Latin writing eventually superseded runes for most administrative and literary purposes, the runic tradition left an indelible mark on the historical and cultural landscape of Europe.

The enduring allure of the runic writing system lies in this dual nature, as both a pragmatic tool and an arcane lore. Modern scholarship continues to explore this legacy, deciphering inscriptions and debating origins, and in doing so, sheds light on the inventive spirit of the people who transformed borrowed signs and local ideas into a writing system of their own. Each rune carved in wood or stone is a tangible link to a distant past when Germanic artisans and warriors, farmers and chieftains, for the first time inscribed their own words and names, converting speech to symbol with strokes of a blade. It was the beginning of literacy in those societies – a development as significant as it was enigmatic, and one that remains a topic of active research and fascination today.

References

Åkerström, H. (2020). Visuella textkonventioner i den tidiga vikingatidens runristningar [Master’s thesis, Uppsala University]. DiVA Portal.

Freeborn, D. (1998). From Old English to Standard English: A course book in language variation across time (2nd ed.). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Fjellhammer Seim, K. (2010). Evidence of runic and Roman script in contact in post-Viking Age Norway. Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies, 1, 189–196.

Jónasson, B. (2002). En liten bok om runor [A little book about runes]. Reykjavik: Gudrun.

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

Lüthi, K. (2006). South Germanic runic inscriptions as testimonies of early literacy. In M. Stoklund, M. Lerche Nielsen, B. Nielsen, & G. Fellows-Jensen (Eds.), Runes and their secrets: Studies in runology (pp. 169–182). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Macháček, J. (2021). Runes from Lány (Czech Republic) – The oldest inscription among Slavs: A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones. Journal of Archaeological Science, 127, 105312.

Mees, B. (2000). The North Etruscan thesis of the origin of the runes. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 115(1), 38–82.

Moltke, E. (1985). Runes and their origin: Denmark and elsewhere. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

Morris, R. L. (1988). Runic and Mediterranean epigraphy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Palumbo, A. (2022). How Latin is runic Latin? [Master’s thesis, University of Oslo].

Pritsak, O. (1981). The origin of Rus’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Svanelid, T. (2007). Elitsoldater på Birka [Elite soldiers at Birka]. Populär Historia, 1, 2007.

‍