Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic (fwd)

Someone asked, several months back, about evidence for late use
of Runic and Ogham writing.   Here's what Michael Everson sent me
when I asked the Unicode list about it.

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:17:42 +0100
From: Michael Everson <everson@...>

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 =C5hl=E9n.=20
1994. _Runm=E4rkt: fr=E5n brev till klotter. Runorna under medeltiden.=20
[Stockholm]: Carlsson Bokf=F8rlag. ISBN 91-7798-877-9

Ogham:
Well, it depends on what you mean by non-revivalist. A=20
nineteenth-century manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy, Betham 23 M=20
11, contains a treatise on cryptographic Oghams which is of some=20
interest, and continues the ninth-century collection of secret Oghams=20
in the Book of Ballymote. In a sense, both of those manuscripts are=20
revivalist, since traditional Ogham carved on stone had its heyday in=20
the 5th to 7th centuries. So I am not sure what the Unicode standard=20
is referring to here.
--=20
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com


--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_