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 Åhlén.
1994. _Runmärkt: från brev till klotter. Runorna under medeltiden.
[Stockholm]: Carlsson Bokførlag. 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