Rune Casting And the Blank Rune

[Khoren_]

As it stands, the elder futhark is the most common alphabet used in rune casting, with many "experts" implying the best runes are carved onto wooden rods or discs, rather than stones.
But there's one "rune" that seems to have little to no anthropological evidence: The "Blank" Rune. A lot of Rune Books tend to include this, but it can be sourced to being "invented" sometime in the late 1980s.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes, it is a quite recent innovation. The only rationale I can find for it is that it's the divinatory equivalent of someone saying, "Duh." Seriously, it's like adding a 65th I Ching "hexagram," one with no lines. Where the oracle shrugs and says "I dunno."

 

[Khoren_]

I have seen that at least a dozen texts include the "blank rune", with no anthropological evidence. I could understand if they added more runes based on the younger futhark and just treated them the way that astrology treated the new planets, but just throwing a "blank rune" in seems... like a poor choice

 

[Xenophon]

I have seen that at least a dozen texts include the "blank rune", with no anthropological evidence. I could understand if they added more runes based on the younger futhark and just treated them the way that astrology treated the new planets, but just throwing a "blank rune" in seems... like a poor choice

It's probably cross-pollination from some folks having a blank tarot card. I can cook-up rationales for it, but really feel no need. I smell a whiff of New Age spiritual crapulence creeping in. Today a blank rune; tomorrow Blinky the Unicorn Rune, the day after, Grüssi, the Hello Kitty rune.

 

[Khoren_]

It's probably cross-pollination from some folks having a blank tarot card.

While I'm all for people making their own traditions - even added to older ones in a means to adapt them to the modern era - adding something like a "blank" card not only throws off the probability potential, but also leaves room for misunderstanding for future users. "Is this rune blank or upsidedown!? better flip each over and in the effort mess up the possible divination outcome."

 

[Xenophon]

While I'm all for people making their own traditions - even added to older ones in a means to adapt them to the modern era - adding something like a "blank" card not only throws off the probability potential, but also leaves room for misunderstanding for future users. "Is this rune blank or upsidedown!? better flip each over and in the effort mess up the possible divination outcome."

Good points. One envisions future squabbles at to whether a blank rune is or is not upside down, too.

One imagines a B&B (beer & Beowulf) style goði sidling up alongside one and low-growling, "These are runes, son. They're not a hard-on. So stop trying to f*** with them!"

 

[Morell]

I do not use blank rune. I didn't threw it away though as it's part of the set I bought. When it appears in reading, I just ignore it.

And it's true, blank rune is modern invention.

 

[Rowena]

Yes, the blank rune was invented in 1980s by Ralph Blum, and the 'inverted rune' BS is sometime later.

Both do play an important part in modern Runecraft however - as BS detectors revealing authors who don't know their subject matter.

While there is evidence of the use of Runes in various magical practices, there is actually no direct evidence of historical Runic divination at all - only a few suggestive mentions of things like lot-twigs (which appear to be either a kind of black-ball style lottery, or a 'short-straw' style lottery), and a single description by the Roman historian Tacitus of taking auspices & casting lots using nut-tree twigs marked with 'signs' - a procedure that only grants yes/no answers to questions of the 'should we do this...' type.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anyone presenting ANY form of Runic divination as genuinely historical is wrong - not that you can't use them any way you want, just don't make, or believe, false claims to any degree of historicity.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes, the blank rune was invented in 1980s by Ralph Blum, and the 'inverted rune' BS is sometime later.

Both do play an important part in modern Runecraft however - as BS detectors revealing authors who don't know their subject matter.

While there is evidence of the use of Runes in various magical practices, there is actually no direct evidence of historical Runic divination at all - only a few suggestive mentions of things like lot-twigs (which appear to be either a kind of black-ball style lottery, or a 'short-straw' style lottery), and a single description by the Roman historian Tacitus of taking auspices & casting lots using nut-tree twigs marked with 'signs' - a procedure that only grants yes/no answers to questions of the 'should we do this...' type.

Personally I'm of the opinion that anyone presenting ANY form of Runic divination as genuinely historical is wrong - not that you can't use them any way you want, just don't make, or believe, false claims to any degree of historicity.

Aside from Tacitus' brief account, it is questionable whether and how runes were used for divination, you are right. As to whether the procedure yields "only yes/ no answers" is impossible to say without knowing the signs used and the actual procedure. If the uralt Krauts simply cast lots, one imagines Tacitus would have said so. His account hints at a more elaborate procedure. Still what other references we have seem to hint runes were historically used more in incantations than divination per se.

Stephen Flowers has done probably the best work on the runes. He is honest enough to own the fact that the historical info is scarce indeed. Hence his presenting his notions as a "reconstruction." (An academic way of saying, "I dunno, but this is pretty neat anyway.") Still and all, one scans the various attested sets of runes we have (Elder and Younger Futharks, Anglo-Saxon Runes, Johannes Bureus' 17th century rendition of runes) and sees no indication that a "blank rune" was ever used or contemplated for any purpose. It smacks of people playing with material they are too flighty to try and understand. Like I said, next thing to come will be the Hello Kitty Rune, AI Rune, LBGT rune, UBI rune (whatever's trendy this week.)

 

[Khoren_]

Aside from Tacitus' brief account, it is questionable whether and how runes were used for divination, you are right.

I'm of the opinion that - like Tarot - it was actually linked to a game, and not traditionally used as a divination subject

from what I've read - and mind you that is quite a bit - the only "true" magic that the "viking" (for whatever that term means) had was the galdr - which were more songs than anything as well

 

[Xenophon]

I'm of the opinion that - like Tarot - it was actually linked to a game, and not traditionally used as a divination subject

from what I've read - and mind you that is quite a bit - the only "true" magic that the "viking" (for whatever that term means) had was the galdr - which were more songs than anything as well

Tacitus explicitly speaks of a divination method using "bits of wood." Whether this was rune-casting is the question. But the remark is highly suggestive. Another, related but contrary point is that there's no saying whether rune-casting was necessarily universally practiced from the Baltic to the Balkans. We're talking a number of peoples scattered over a large area and during a long time. So, you're right---even if some folks did cast runes, that does not mean they all did.

Galdry? Of course, but don't forget seiðr. A völva carried considerable clout, wielding the latter skill set. And the men-folks could go fish.