The Elder Futhark — 24 runes: reconstructed names and meanings

⚠️ Disclaimer: the status of the names (read BEFORE the table)

The Elder Futhark rune names are SCHOLARLY RECONSTRUCTIONS, NOT names directly attested in the Elder Futhark inscriptions. In the Elder Futhark inscriptions themselves (ca. 2nd–8th c.) the rune names are not recorded — there are only the signs and rare rune rows (e.g. the Kylver stone). The proto-forms (*fehu, *ūruz, *þurisaz …) are recovered by the comparative method from:

• the rune poems — the Anglo-Saxon (the futhorc, 29 runes), Norwegian, and Icelandic (the Younger Futhark, 16 runes); see the rune poems (Dickins 1915);
• the Gothic letter names from the manuscript Codex Vindobonensis 795 (a treatise linked to Alcuin and the Carolingian tradition) —;
• comparative Germanic linguistics (recovering the Proto-Germanic form from cognates in Old English, Old Norse, Gothic, Old High German).

Don't confuse them with the names of the Old English rune poem (Feoh, Ur, Ðorn, Os …). Those names belong to the Anglo-Saxon futhorc — a later and separate row; they are one of the inputs of the reconstruction, not the proto-forms themselves. The same goes for the Scandinavian Younger Futhark names.

An asterisk (*) before a name = a reconstructed, unattested form (this is standard linguistic notation). The name meanings in the last column are also reconstructions, not "magical meanings"; esoteric interpretations (Thorsson, Aswynn, Blum, von List's Armanen row) are a separate esoteric/ contested layer (T2) and are not given here.

The table below is checked against open navigational sources (Wikipedia "Elder Futhark" / "Runic alphabet"), which in turn rest on academic runology (Düwel, Antonsen, Page, Looijenga, and others). Wikipedia is navigation, not a primary source; the academic attributions are flagged and are subject to verification against the primary literature.

The table of 24 runes

The order is the standard futhark row (three ættir of 8 runes). A note on order: in the attested Elder Futhark rows (the Kylver stone, ca. 400; the Vadstena bracteate) the last two runes go as …ingwaz, dagaz, othila/othala (i.e. d before o). Part of the teaching literature gives an alternative tail …ingwaz, othila, dagaz (o before d). Below the row is given in the attested order (d first, then o); the alternative order is noted in the remark on rows 23–24. These are different order traditions, not an error of either.

The transliteration is given in Latin by the accepted runological convention (þ = th, ŋ = ng, z/ʀ — the late voiced/voiceless sibilant). The IPA values are approximate: the exact phonetics of several signs (esp. №13, №15) is contested.

Contested reconstructions

Recorded as different interpretations; no choice of the "correct" one is made.

• №6 — *kaunan vs. *kenaz. Two competing proto-forms and two different meanings: *kaunan → "sore, ulcer, boil" (based on the Icelandic poem kaun "sore" and the Norwegian tradition); *kenaz → "torch" (based on OE cēn "torch," cf. the poem: Cen = torch). These are not spelling variants of one word, but different etymological reconstructions with different semantics. Both occur widely in the literature.
• №13 — *ī(h)waz / *eihwaz / *iwaz, the sound. The meaning ("yew") is stable, but the phonetic value of the sign is "highly contested" (Wikipedia, citing Odenstedt/Looijenga and others): it may have been a diphthong, it may have been a monophthong in the range between front and back. It's transliterated variously (ï, æ, e²).
• №14 — *perþrō / *perþ- / *pertra, the meaning "unknown." The darkest rune: the name's meaning is academically unrecovered ("Unknown" — Wikipedia). Guesses: "a dice cup/lot," "a pear tree," "a vulva" — all speculative. The name form is also unstable. Looijenga (1997) suggests the sign is a variant of b. [unverified] /
• №15 — *algiz vs. *elhaz, the meaning. Wikipedia states outright: "the original name is unknown, it survives only in a corrupted form from the Old English tradition" (there — eolh(x) "elk-sedge"). Reconstructions of the name: *algiz / *elhaz ("elk/deer"). The meanings scholars have proposed: "protection/defense" (one 1980 work), "sedge" (another, later); Wikipedia notes that "neither of these meanings occurs in the rest of the runological literature." Both the name and the sound (z ~ late ʀ) and the meaning — all contested. [unverified]
• №22 — *ingwaz, the status. The name is recovered from the theonym (the Germanic god/hero Ingwaz / Ing, cf. the OE poem: Ing — a hero who departed "eastward" over the waves). The sign (ŋ) itself is rare in the inscriptions; the name form is a reconstruction from the theonym, not from an attested rune name.
• №3 — the origin of the sign *þurisaz. The dispute here is not about the name but about the origin of the grapheme: from Latin D or from Raetic Θ (Wikipedia). This doesn't change anything about the name/meaning "thurs"; recorded for completeness.
• The order of rows 23–24 (dagaz ↔ othila) — see the note in the table header: the attested (Kylver) vs. the teaching-alternative.

Links

• the rune poems (Dickins 1915) — the rune poems (Anglo-Saxon futhorc + Younger Futhark); this is the primary textual input for the reconstruction of the names. For the positional matching of the OE poem's names ↔ the Elder Futhark proto-forms, see that note (the 24+5 table).
• The Gothic letter names (Codex Vindobonensis 795) — the second, supporting input of the reconstruction → Gothic letter names.