Talk:Staveless runes

Good start, but a bit difficult for non-runologists
This is a good article, but I found the going a little tough since I knew little about runes. In particular, the following sentence is bewildering at first read-thru: "Enoksen notes that it appears from the title page of Johannes Bureus' runic ABC that Bureus had some understanding of the staveless runestones in 1611, but that this has been denied by virtually all runologists." My brain said "Who's Enoksen? Did I miss a reference to him earlier?" and "what 'runic ABC' ?" etc.

A graphic comparing a few "regular" runes and these staveless runes would help immensely. Also phrases such as "The runes may look hard to recognize . . . " are not what one finds in an encyclopedia.

Also, this entire article seems to be based on one book. Are there any other sources???

Keep up the good work, Madman 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me that you like the article :). I have added an illustration of the short-twig runes which was one of the two main types of the Younger Futhark. You'll find Enoksen's book, which was used as the source, under the heading named "references". The "runic ABC" may be worth an article of its own and if I have the time, I may write it tonight. Best,--Berig 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)