Historical Precedent for the 3 Rune Cast

[EarlofLeicester]

I read a post here on M-B (I think) that someone thought that the current method or reading the runes was a modern interpretation and unlikely to be connected with the methods used by people over a thousand years ago.  That bothered me, because I feel comfortable with rune casting, especially the 3 rune cast, and I remembered reading somewhere that there was a historical precedent for it.  And here it is:

The later Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (58-120AD) records a Germanic tribal Runemal in some detail in Chapter 10 of his ethnographical work Germania from about 97AD when he was Consul to the region:

To divination they pay much attention. Their method is a simple one: they cut a branch from a fruit-bearing tree and divide it into small pieces which they mark with certain distinctive signs and scatter at random onto a white cloth. Then the priest of the community (if it is done publicly) or the father of the family (if it is done privately) after invoking the gods and with eyes raised to heaven, picks up three pieces one at a time and interprets them in accordance with the signs previously marked on them.

(Thanks to Oswald the Runemaker's site for the info:  http://www.runemaker.com/history3.shtml).  This is pretty much how I do it, although I didn't make my own runes...

[Gem]

Nosing through the rune forum here.. isn't  Conrnelius actually referring to ogham staves? Runes came in much later i thought?

[Wælwulf]

Actually, Publius Cornelius Tacitus was referring to the runes (or some precursor or derivative thereof) not the Ogham. The quote is from Tacitus' Germania. There is a version in the original latin here, or in english here. It's a relativly short read, & somewhat informative, however, remember that it was written by a Roman, so it is out of cultural context (Tacitus apparently did try very hard to be impartial, however). Linguistic evidence seems to support a date of around 200BCE, however they could come from a much earlier date. I remember seeing a newer discovery of the earliest set, but I can't recall the date. I'll have to look through my notes for it.

[MoonGoddess]

A lot of the historical stuff on the origins and histories of Runes can be a bit confusing.  I myself while I was doing a little research today almost thought that Ogham was indeed part of the origins in Runes, where in fact it was only discribing how some of the runes got there meanings...So I put my book away and took a break.

I know this question is going to sound quite stupid but it has been coming up alot in my research and I don't know what it means.  I know BC means before Christ which up until I got my head stuck in dusty book did I come across the term BCE, so what does the E stand for...[blushes perfusely].  I am more a hands on girl then a history buff.

[Wælwulf]

As a general rule, something with a firm grounding in visual recognition, such as, an alphabet (be it mystical or otherwise) should only be considered related if they look similar. Otherwise, it's just the idea that is related.

If nobody asked "stupid" questions, ignorance would reign supreme & we would probably all be some serious morons :P It's all a matter of perception as to whether something is stupid or not. At any rate, in academic circles for a while now, it's been in written usage for at least the last one-hundred years, (in America at least (I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that it's been bleeding over into the rest of the general public as of late)) it's been used as an alternative for BC/AD, BCE being "Before Common Era", & CE being "Common Era". I'm a history buff, among other things, so feel free, & I'll do my best.

[Gem]

Actually, Publius Cornelius Tacitus was referring to the runes (or some precursor or derivative thereof) not the Ogham. .

Why do you make that distinction? I still think that Cornelius was describing staves not runes. Have you read the original pieces?

[Wælwulf]

Why do you make that distinction? I still think that Cornelius was describing staves not runes. Have you read the original pieces?

My apologies. you are correct, Tacitus makes no distinction as to what he means by "certain marks".

However, if you are trying to argue that Tacitus was indeed speaking of Ogham (i.e. something Celtic, not Germanic), then you really should read the linked Germania texts that I put in there. It concerns Germania, not the conquest of Gallia. While these were both happening around the same time period, the text is obviously referring to Germans, not Gauls.

...& yes, I have read the originals.

[Gem]

ahhh but distinguishing celtic and germanic and staves and runes would also have to take into consideration other written languages that were also possibly around and could also be given the credit for helping the evolution of a symbol derived divination method? Or are we talking written language here only?

I am sure I know you..... do you read runes?

[Wælwulf]

ahhh but distinguishing celtic and germanic and staves and runes would also have to take into consideration other written languages that were also possibly around and could also be given the credit for helping the evolution of a symbol derived divination method? Or are we talking written language here only?

I am sure I know you..... do you read runes?

Of course, as long as there is interaction between groups of people, there are borrowings on both sides. There always has been & that will continue. However, I believe that I've lost sight of what it is that you're trying to say.

If you're trying to put forth Ogham as what Tacitus was referring to, or that it's just as likely Ogham as Runes, then we need to look at the big picture here.

Just as there are differences today in groups that live in near proximity to one another, but are from different cultures, this was also the case then. It is indisputable that he was writing of Germania about Germanic tribes. He gives a listing of political borders for the area, which sets unmistakably the area that we are speaking about. He also gives the names of various tribes, some of which are the Ingævones, Suevians, & Vandalians.

Another issue being overlooked is the Gaulish language & the Ogham as a system of writing. The issue is this, Ogham is a gaelic alphabet. There was a voiceless labiovelar shift after the gaelic branch of the celtic people settled in Scotland & Ireland. This is what gives us the difference in "P" & "Q" celtic. The tribes of Gaul spoke a "P" celtic language, & there is no glyph for that sound in Ogham. It is strictly a "Q" celtic alphabet.

I'm also relatively certain that no Ogham inscriptions have been found on the continent.

The oldest known Ogham inscriptions found, to my knowledge, are actually from a later date than the oldest known Runic ones. Granted, I have no doubts they were both in use long before that date, but...

For information on Gaul from a Roman perspective, Julius Ceasar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico", also known as "The Gallic War", or "The Conquest of Gaul".

Whether we are discussing glyphs for a method of divination, or a system of writing, one needs to take into account the method of development of glyphs for said reasons. When looking at the developments & mutations of something visual, like an alphabet for whatever reason, counting, divination, writing, etc., it needs to be understood that, while it is possible that the ideas for the two may have developed after some intercourse, the glyphs are not at all related. They bear no similarities in shape.

While I will yield to the thought that it could have been something completely different that he was talking about, it cannot be said that he was talking about the Ogham. Anything is possible, but the probabilities of the situation suggest Runes, or another symbol set entirely.

We have no more evidence for Ogham having been utilized as a symbol set for divination than we do for Runes. We have only guesses based on probabilities. One could use the "Tochmarc Étaíne" as an argument for the use of Ogham as a method of divination, this is open to debate just as Tacitus is.

Of course, if that's not what we're talking about here...

Were you saying that you think that you know me?

EDIT:
I remembered what the older Runic inscription was. It was the Meldorf brooch dated to around 45CE.

[Gem]

Whether we are discussing glyphs for a method of divination, or a system of writing, one needs to take into account the method of development of glyphs for said reasons. When looking at the developments & mutations of something visual, like an alphabet for whatever reason, counting, divination, writing, etc., it needs to be understood that, while it is possible that the ideas for the two may have developed after some intercourse, the glyphs are not at all related. They bear no similarities in shape

I think I lost you there, lol, You surely can't be saying that what we now know as the ogham markings and what we call runes have no similarities? One could also argue that they actually date back to heiroglyphs and early curatic artwork?

[MoonGoddess]

I think I lost you there, lol, You surely can't be saying that what we now know as the ogham markings and what we call runes have no similarities? One could also argue that they actually date back to heiroglyphs and early curatic artwork?

That just reminded me I posted some thing in the Runes Dictionary which I have been thinking about moving here as it is not really a meaning, it is about Ogham. So I will do that now.

[Wælwulf]

I think I lost you there, lol, You surely can't be saying that what we now know as the ogham markings and what we call runes have no similarities? One could also argue that they actually date back to hieroglyphs and early curatic artwork?

Not no similarities, no. There are some similarities in idea. Just as there are similarities between astrology & tarot. I don't see any visual similarities, no... & yes, I think you lost me.

How would one go about arguing the case for relation to hieroglyphs?

What does "curatic" mean? I'm unfamiliar with that term.

[Gem]

Ooops sorry its a slang uni term for the first cursive hieroglyphs, its very like the hieratic, found in a few tombs and papyri.

Well for instance look at the feather of Ma'at? the oblique strokes of a feather and haegl or os or ansuz or fehu?

[ligit]

i agree with gem, runic letter have been around during acient egypt, they even have a language in the same letters, i know a friend who have a history book about it and know of people who can actually speak it

[Wælwulf]

Ooops sorry its a slang uni term for the first cursive hieroglyphs, its very like the hieratic, found in a few tombs and papyri.

Interesting, is it like the cursive in the Papyrus of Ani? I'd like to learn more about that; what do you suggest?

i agree with gem, runic letter have been around during ancient egypt, they even have a language in the same letters, i know a friend who have a history book about it and know of people who can actually speak it

The only strictly Egyptian scripts that I'm aware of are the Hieroglyphic, various cursive scripts, including the Hieratic (which is more stylized), Demotic, Meroitic, Coptic, & Old Nubian.

What are commonly referred to as runes are not supported by any historical or archæological data as having been in ancient Egypt. The oldest surviving artifact (found to date) with the elder fuþark on it is the Meldorf Brooch, found in Denmark, dating to ca. 50CE.

I would assume that what you are referring to is Coptic. It is generally accepted that the Coptic alphabet is a hybridization between Greek & Demotic script.  The other languages associated directly with hieroglyphs or runes are dead languages (coptic is also a mostly dead language, since the around 17th century (1)); yes, there are some derivatives, like modern english, german, swedish, etc.

Code: Select all

(1) Coptic may have survived in isolated pockets in Upper Egypt into the 19th century (James Edward Quibell, When did Coptic become extinct? in: Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 39 (1901), p. 87). According to The Daily Star Egypt (Tuesday, 23 January 2007), there are even two families still speaking the language today. It is still in use as the liturgical language of Coptic Christianity. 

What is the history book that your friend has?