________________
516
THE ALPHABET by the Greek colonists of the Black Sea, is by Agrell attributed to the Goths, and is supposed to have taken place in the second or third century A.D. All these theories are unacceptable; the direction of writing of the earliest runic inscriptions, and the shapes of the letters, exclude a prio their origin in a late Greek or Latin alphabet, and especially in a cursive style. A few scholars, amongst them Bredsdorff, see in the Gothic alphabet the prototype of the runes, which is certainly not the case, for the very same reason.
We may with more probability accept the opinion that the runic script was derived from a North Etruscan alphabet. This theory has been propounded by many scholars, such as Weinhold, Oberziner, Bugge, Marstrander, Hammerstram (who also sces Gallic influences in the invention of the runes). Feist (who suggests later Celtic and Latin influences), Arntz, Buonamici, and many others. Rhys Carpenter, who also accepts this theory, rightly points out that "the temporal chasm between the latest specimen of North Italic and the earliest specimen of runic is not too great to be spanned."
Accepting a North Etruscan source for the runes, and not excluding some Latin influences, we can more easily understand why the runic scripts, although they have a very ancient appearance, are relatively late. The phonetic value of some letters, for instance of the letter fe, which would have had the value of a m (digamma) were the script of Greek origin, are also more readily explained by a North Etruscan origin, with Latin influences, of the runes.
As to the date of the invention of the runes, I agree with Rhys Carpenter that the transmission of the North Etruscan alphabet "beyond the Italian frontier" must have taken place earlier than the time of Julius Cæsar, but need not have been earlier than the second century B.c. The Negau and Maria Saalerberg inscriptions, already referred to, may belong to the type which can be considered as the link between the North Etruscan and the
ic alphabets. For the comparison of the runes with the Kök Turki runes, see p. 314 and Fig. 146, 1.
It is still an open problem whether the runes were originally employed only for magical purposes or as a usual means of communication. The other still unsolved question is whether the runes were originally carved on wood, and, therefore, the straight strokes and the angular shapes, which could be carved with ease, were preferred to curves, or whether they were originally used mainly for drawing and painting on clay and metal, and the angular shapes were due to the script from which the runes have been borrowed. In this regard, Sir Ellis Minns rightly points out the importance of the absence of horizontal strokes in the runic letters. "Runes must have been developed for carving on round sticks. Then every letter can be very quickly made with a knife."
