We have seen with amazement the rebirth of the Runes as a divinatory/oracular system as the years progressed and modern humanity dug through the systems and oracles that have survived to this day, in the desire to find reliable means with which to elucidate the future.
It is interesting to see the great variety of meanings and associations given to each Rune of the Elder Futhark. Some have even ventured to give meanings to the Runes of the Younger Futhark or the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.
However, the truth is that we cannot provide any concrete meaning, symbolism or association to the Runes from a compiled, reliable and accurate source that has survived from that time until today.
Almost all historical traces of divinatory uses disappeared with the prohibition of magic and occult arts by Christianity, in the midst of an era plagued by accusations of heresy and threats of death at the stake; but, thanks to the texts of the Sagas, Eddas, poems and magical recipe books, we have been able to learn about the uses that were given to it in ancient times, back in the Viking era from 793 CE to 1100 CE.
Knowing what each Rune was used for and what its meaning was is not an easy task. First we must understand the form of social interaction of the population with its theological part and the ways of using the symbols in relation to their daily activities. These actions are reflected in the stories told in verse from that time. Thus, in the books of Galdr or Galdra's, in the Poems of Egil Skallagrimmson (for example) or in the Eddas and Sagas, we see between the lines and in a poetic and intoned way the uses of the talismans and the runes with a certain historical veracity.
Egil Skallagrimmson, many Icelandic sagas are attributed to him
Unfortunately, in the eyes of those who are not accustomed to research and analysis, these references to Runes and Talismans are not sufficient proof of their existence. And I say unfortunately, because it seems that people have become accustomed to having information compiled and ready to digest (so typical of our Google era), and they are suspicious when it comes to digging into historical texts that only fleetingly name a rune or talisman as one more detail, among other details, of an epic story or historical event.
Some scholars of Scandinavian culture and religious communities claim (strongly) that there are no records of the runic tradition or its usefulness, even going so far as to question the credibility of the records of “divination methods” recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus in his book Germania, in which he described how the Scandinavians carved distinctive signs into pieces of a tree they had previously cut, which were then thrown onto a canvas to read their “fortune.”
Tacitus's detractors point out that we cannot determine exactly what symbols were carved on these pieces of wood. They even try to undermine credibility by suggesting that they are probably symbols unknown to us until now.
Roman historian Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
While it is true that Tacitus does not indicate that these distinctive signs were Runes, we cannot affirm that they were not. Nor can we affirm that at this stage of technological advancement and archaeological excavations, we are unaware or totally ignorant of the symbolic systems used by the Scandinavians in those years. I believe that Europe has been so excavated and so well mapped at an archaeological level that it would be absurd to think of the existence of unknown and unnoticed information so important for the cosmological understanding of a people as imposing as the Scandinavians.
Furthermore, I would dare to ask: If the symbols that the Scandinavians carved on their pieces of wood were not Runes, then what were they? Are there historical records of other symbols? I believe that if there were other engravings a long time ago we would have studied and discovered that information, therefore, the theory that those engravings were indeed Runes has much more historical weight than a supposed attempt to leave in limbo something that archaeology itself has taken for granted.
Regarding the meanings of the Runes and their associations, we can find a strong debate. Depending on the kaleidoscope with which we look at them, we can find degrees of new age misinformation resulting from the desire for commercialization, such as that of Ralph Blum and his famous invented White Rune (with the desire to bring the Runes closer to a new age tarot reader audience) and on the other hand we have scholars such as Stephen Flowers who has his detractors, however he has the courage to edit and amend his research editions, openly announcing the results of his studies and what he updates in each new edition of his books.
So how do we recognize that the information is true and correct? And in this question we will find a great dilemma that not only goes through the issue of the ego of each Runologist, but also the problems of access to information about the Runes.
Rune Gymnastics, a Nazi creation (Today known as Rune Yoga)
It is true that there is a rampant New Age Runology that mixes concepts that never had anything to do with Runes. We have irresponsible people who have copied tarot readings and now do rune readings under the same schemes. We have pseudo Runologists who recommend doing runic yoga without knowing that these postures have nothing to do with yoga and that their origin is found in Runengymnastic used by Himler during the Third Reich and created by Friedrich Bernhard Marby.
Othila (Othala) rune on Nazi soldier's collar
We have Runologists recommending nonsense like mantras with Runes, “Fu Fa Fe Fi Fo Feeeee Fehuuuuu” believing that the Runes were invoked in this way in the form of Galdr, which is very different from reality, knowing that we have no exact records of how the name of each Rune was correctly pronounced (therefore the mantra would not work in our phonetic system) and second, knowing that the Galdr were actually poems or incantation phrases written and read in runic. Very far from a modern “fa, fe, fi, fo, fu”.
I have also had the misfortune of meeting Runologists who invoke angels or gods distant from Scandinavian beliefs and associate them with the Runes, or scandalous errors such as considering that the Bindrunes or Bound Runes are magical talismans that the Scandinavians themselves used.
Those who have attended my classes know that everything mentioned above is explained in detail and I try to tell them the truth, even if it kills illusions and passions. Especially with the Bind Runes. When I mention that the Bind Runes were used to save space in writing (and to save space on the rock) I sometimes see faces of disappointment. But it is better to be honest than to sell smoke.
Bindrune at the Kylver Stone Historical Remnant
However, I also clarify that it is important to know that there are historical records of the use of runes for certain purposes, therefore, we can "take advantage" of the resource of the Bound Runes as a template to create our talismans, but always making it clear that it is a modern resource and we are adapting historical forms to modern magical uses.
In the subject of the meaning of the runes there is a lot of open debate because we have books, stones, myths, stories, poems, sagas and histories that, between the lines, allow us to elucidate the use and associations that the runes and runic phrases had with respect to certain situations or gods, therefore, those who want to believe that the runes did not have magical and theological purposes, are free to believe it, but it would be good for them to read the Eddas and Sagas, there they will find information that could change their perspective. But, as I mentioned at the beginning of these lines, today it is easier to deny what we do not understand than to try to understand it, and unfortunately academic research as such is not developed and is an arduous job in which many are not willing to get involved. If esoteric researchers were more curious and patient, they could find many more surprises about the Runes and their meanings, but they would have to read a lot, unravel many loose ends and they would also have to understand that the Icelanders and Scandinavians did not write their books with the understanding of the 21st century human being in mind (with detail and precision), but for everyday use, assuming that this information (often stored in memory and passed from generation to generation verbally) would endure over time and would not be almost destroyed by the Christianization that appeared rampant in the following centuries.
Leave a comment