At 21:52 -0400 2002-07-04, John Cowan wrote: >The Unicode Standard (version 3.0, chapter 7) claims that Ogham and >Runic were still in non-revivalist use to the 16th and 19th centuries >respectively. Does anyone know where the evidence for these statements >was found?
Runic: Benneth, Solbritt, Jonas Ferenius, Helmer Gustavson, & Marit �hl�n. 1994. _Runm�rkt: fr�n brev till klotter. Runorna under medeltiden. [Stockholm]: Carlsson Bokf�rlag. ISBN 91-7798-877-9 Ogham: Well, it depends on what you mean by non-revivalist. A nineteenth-century manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy, Betham 23 M 11, contains a treatise on cryptographic Oghams which is of some interest, and continues the ninth-century collection of secret Oghams in the Book of Ballymote. In a sense, both of those manuscripts are revivalist, since traditional Ogham carved on stone had its heyday in the 5th to 7th centuries. So I am not sure what the Unicode standard is referring to here. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
