[Regia-NA] futhark numbers

[Arthur]

Thank you very much for the information. It helps. I will have to check out 
those websites when I get the time. I heard that one thing wrong with the 
Kensington Stone is that the numbers are not right. I can't remember very 
well but the book seemed to indicate that there was a correct way of doing 
it and the Kensington Stone was not right. I think the book was "Vikings, 
the North Atlantic Saga" but I am not sure.
Thanks again,
Kjartan.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jack Garrett [SMTP:garrett at pacbell.net]
Sent:	Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:28 PM
To:	list-Regia-NA
Subject:	Re: [Regia-NA] futhark numbers

Kjartan,

I've had the same question for years, and still don't have a good answer. 
 I have a half-dozen books on runes, but none addresses how numbers would 
have been written.  The inscriptions on stones that I've seen just don't 
mention numbers at all.

However...

The one stone that does have numbers - and dates - is the Kensington Stone, 
found in Minnesota in 1898.  It's generally regarded as a fake, but those 
who translated the runes carved on the stone seemed to have little trouble 
deciphering the number runes and the numbering system used.  Frustratingly, 
I've yet to see those runes described anywhere outside the Kensington Stone 
context.  Here's a site that shows the runes and their translation:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6726/kensington/kenrunes.htm

There is a method of carving runes that seems to be close to the number 
runes on the Kensington Stone.  It uses their "ett" placement (that's 
"aett", if it looks odd after bouncing around various email systems). 
 Here's a site that shows that:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/futhark.html

I thought at one point that the Kensington number runes might be borrowed 
from Ogham/Ogam Celtic alphabet, but they're not really close to that 
either.

The Kensington runes seem to use a Roman Numeral system for what has been 
translated to be "22 Norwegians", showing two "double five" runes followed 
by why I think are two "two" runes.  Yet, the date, 1362, is shown in 
proper Arabic tens position manner with runes for 1, 3, 6 and 2.  What does 
this all mean?  I haven't a clue.  It's supposed to be a fake, after all.

So ... I'm still looking.  Sorry this doesn't help much.  Anyone else?

Ottar Lei?arstjarna
Jack Garrett

Alamo, California

Arthur <shutterbug49 at att.net> wrote:
Greetings,
I was wondering if the futhark had a number system. I would like to be able 
to write numbers without having to write the word for the number.
Thanks,
Fare thee well.
Kjartan.

Brian Lathrop, Colorado Springs.
_______________________________________________
list-Regia-NA site list
list-Regia-NA at lig.net
http://lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na
 << File: ATT00000.html >>  << File: ATT00001.txt >>