How many actual rune sets are there???

[LillCrystalDragon]

Greetings for the Runes board...

I have just figured out what i am suppose to be learning next upon learning my crystal readings..  reading runes...

now i had another thought as i was triyng to find some runes online here..  i coldnt figure it out which is which will be best for me..

so as I was hiking in the mountains with hubby and puppy.. I nearly got knocked on the head with an idea...  Ill make my own!!  out of bark..  Like im saying to myself  ya know thas a great idea..  thats how they ddi it wayyyyyy back then right??

well now my question is  

HOW many actual runes sets are there?  im seeing anywhere between 3 to 25???


The very first rune necklace   i bought was at fair ground i placed my hand over all them and the travelling warrior  pretty much zapped me ..  as in take me home! lol..  so hes been with me ever since and he hasnt let me down.. umm yep i see him actually  in my minds eye..  name is agustas hes with me everytime im with my twin or hubby and there either lost or confused on the road hel appear.. lol...

thank you in advance for any help  given

Thank you!
LillCD

[EarlofLeicester]

Hi LillCD

Historically there are 3 verifiable sets, the Elder Futhark (old Scandinavian), Anglo-Saxon (old English) and Younger Futhark (a newer and less effective subset of the Elder Futhark).  These are the three that are generally considered historically reliable.  As for those that are created in modern times, well, there are variants, and I am not sure how many there are.  Since the runes are generally expected to be historical as opposed to fabrication, I generally focus on the historical since it is reliable, in my mind.  Actually, I have been investigating some information on a possible runeset that would predate the Elder Futhark (the oldest of the 3 mentioned above) but am not ready to discuss that one yet, although I suspect it would be a potentially popular alternative to the 3 above, although it is related to the Futharks as well.

[MoonGoddess]

Oooh! a possible older one then the Elder Futhark, I'm listening.  Once you found out about it I am all ears.  I might delve in myself.

I myself use the Elder Futhark, the good old 24 Runes is good enough for me.  But what ever is right for you, you should choose.  Good luck with your bark runes, I think that is a great idea.

[EarlofLeicester]

Oooh! a possible older one then the Elder Futhark, I'm listening.  Once you found out about it I am all ears.  I might delve in myself.

I myself use the Elder Futhark, the good old 24 Runes is good enough for me.  But what ever is right for you, you should choose.  Good luck with your bark runes, I think that is a great idea.

Hi MoonG!  I blogged about the possibly older set here:
http://mysticboard.org/we ... .php?e=567
Yes, I am still inclined to stick with the gool ole 24 Runes of the Elder Futhark myself.  Still, I am intrigued by a set of ancient Goddess Runes to be sure.

[MoonGoddess]

That was the next one I was going to read when I had some time, might have to wait until my study is moved out into the dining room.

Skimmed over it just then, you have some interesting points, which I would love to discuss in detail.  My brain seems a little fissaled at the moment, Bridget has been doing gymnastics inside...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh will you stop that...lol says me massaging her out of the way of a vital organ.

[EarlofLeicester]

That was the next one I was going to read when I had some time, might have to wait until my study is moved out into the dining room.

Skimmed over it just then, you have some interesting points, which I would love to discuss in detail.  My brain seems a little fissaled at the moment, Bridget has been doing gymnastics inside...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh will you stop that...lol says me massaging her out of the way of a vital organ.

Well, I would definitely love your thoughts on the matter. The merging of historically accurate Goddesscentric thought with Runecraft really appeals to me.  I have to see if I can find the book in the bookstore and if I bite (i.e. buy it), maybe make a set of Goddess Runes.  If it looks right.  Some stuff these days is written by quacks, some is so uncannilly accurate (you probably know what I mean).  I'm hoping its the latter.

Well, wasn't one of Brigid's skills smithcraft?  I'm sure she fashioning hersel something nice in there!  But hopefully she will leave those vital organs intact!

[sorceress426]

That has been the biggest problem.  It appears to be really hard to find the real to the point info. Everyone has a different take on the same idea. It's worse than pulling weeds. If you have any specific ideas for rune reading materials, could you post them please?

[gauloise82]

Me, I think that the 24+ 1 are the most correct solution. Each one sees midday has its door. They has some which prefer old the futhark, others the new one. Each one chooses its method. Philippe

[EarlofLeicester]

Thinking about your comment, Philippe. While it is true, a best solution presents itself for each practitioner, consider what are the runes.  They are symbols.  When you say +1, I assume you mean the blank rune.  Is a blank rune a symbol?  is a lack of a symbol a symbol?  It is my opinion, based on what I know of the historical use of the runes by the Germanic peoples of so very long ago, that they did not have a blank rune symbol. In fact they did not even have the notion of a space between words, although sometimes a colon was used used to act like a space. But the point I am making is that there was even a symbol for nothing.  A non-symbol clearly never occurred to them.  

Which begs the question, does it have to be like it was 1000-2000 years ago?  Well, the ancient Germanics were skilled in use of the runes and I will wager that the best of their time would have a greater command of runelore than someone in our time. It seems to me that imitation of their skills (and use of their runesets) is the best way to proceed IMHO and I will always advise this to anyone who asks me.

[EarlofLeicester]

I posted this before, but will post again:

All of these sites are highly recommended, sell runes (except Sunnyway) and offer information on the use of runes


Excellent source for the wooden runes I use from M-B's own Misty


Source of boxed wooden sets, runic pendulums and so much more.


Tara Hill Designs!  Another great source of wooden runes and so much more.


Excellent source for information on runes (including the Rune Poems) and the Norse culture that gave us the runes.

The Sunnyway site contains the ancient Rune Poems, like I said, which contain the meaning of the runes that was understood by the Germanics of yesteryear. Anyone who picks up the runes should consider reading them to help foster an undertstanding of them.  The Anglo-Saxon Rune poem is probably the most readable contentwise.

[Wælwulf]

This is a commentary on the article describing cinemind.com/atwater/GodHistory.html]Goddess Runes by P.M.H. Atwater. Referenced in the post by Earl.

Disclaimer: This is only my opinion & thoughts on the subject. I'm not stating this as matter of fact. I invite anyone interested to discuss this in a civilized manner & correct any mistakes I have made, or misconceptions that I may have.

While I think that the Runes have been evolving over quite a long time, I am of the opinion (just opinion, I'm not a god) that we should take the things that P.M.H. Atwater says with a grain of salt (go with me here for a minute).

Firstly, both of her degrees are honorary (although I have known some very well informed people with honorary degrees). Her Ph. D. was honorarily awarded for Therapeutic Counseling, & a L.H.D. or Doctor of Humane Letters is strictly an honorary degree (that I'm pretty sure she received for her work in NDEs). As we can see, she has no degrees in History, Anthropology (linguistic, cultural, or otherwise), Archæology, or a degree in any related field of study that her work seems to be derived from. This would, in my opinion, be the equivalent of me having a degree in Anthropology & writing a book on open heart surgury.

Also, she seems to focus more than is necessary on the Celts (is this needed at all?) (yes, they had some intercourse & had some similar aspects, but I can't see what they would have to do with the Runes). I suppose one could attempt to discuss Ogham, but Ogham were not related to the Runes, for obvious reasons (i.e. shape, to begin with).

Next, from what I saw on her site, she cites very few scholarly works on the subject (of the case for "Goddess Runes") (yes, she cites sources, but very few done by "reputable" scholars, although there are some). Her site also says, in reference to the elder fuþark, "Popularized by P.M.H.Atwater with her books "THE MAGICAL LANGUAGE OF RUNES" and "GODDESS RUNES."" I'm somewhat sceptical of anyone who would allow their horn to be tooted on their own site.

Her statement "Gerhard Herm, author of "THE CELTS," hypothesizes an Ur-language, Ur people, and Ur-homeland ("Ur" meaning "original") in an attempt to explain how Sanskrit, the ancient metaphysical language of India, could be so closely related to the early languages of Old Europe, especially that of Iceland."  is fine, I question, however, why anyone speaking of philology would seem to have little if any knowledge of the roots of Icelandic. It's very closely related to several other European languages, including English. It's a Germanic language. Why would Icelandic be singled out? Maybe I missed something, but I'm having difficulty processing this.

Also, "every early language had at its central core the need to communicate a relationship with The Source of All Being". While this is a nice sentiment, I have my doubts that there was much more to the beginnings of language than a need to communicate with one another to more easily facilitate daily life (i.e. hunting, etc.). While language can be used for this, with fantastic results, it doesn't seem to add up to me.

She then says, "Germanic - the first appearance was supposedly around 2,000 B.C., although some historians staunchly insist that it did not exist until after A.D. 800.". She, unfortunately, cites no sources for this. The problem with this statement is this. I'm not sure what historian would have this opinion, due to the fact that one of the oldest known surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts is "Cædmon's Hymn", which has been dated to the seventh century. It would take quite some time (in a temporal anomaly) for a language to evolve after the ninth century into a Germanic language to be written down in the seventh.

She inappropriately uses the term "Viking" to refer to the people & the language. The term Viking actually refers to the act of going "viking" or raiding. "Northern or Viking/Scandinavian - the last to appear on the scene, probably in the eighth century and until the twelfth.". Maybe this isn't how she meant it, & I'm wrong about this, but that's how I interpreted it.

It's curious that she uses the terms Germanic, Viking, & Anglo-Saxon in the same sentence (Anglo-Saxon is/are a Germanic language/peoples).  This, once again, goes back to my argument concerning her usage of "Celt" & "Viking". "Regardless of what mythology you read from this later epoch of Celtic/ Germanic/Viking/Anglo-Saxon history, there is reference after reference given to runes: runes everlasting, runes giving life, runes as magic signs, runes to invoke the gods and spirit keepers." she said.

"Most of us, when we think of runes, conjure up images of Celtic warriors and their Druid priests or of Viking raiders and their attiba (wizards) and volva (female seers).". "Attiba", I'm unfamiliar with this term, & have been unable to locate any references to the word outside of individual's names. Could someone enlighten me?

Anything is possible, however, I find myself somewhat skeptical. I do, however, sometimes have a tendency to be critical of extraneous fluff.

This is not a criticism of their functionality. If it works for you, it works. From a historical perspective, I have some reservations.

I noticed other inconsistencies (many seeming to spawn from taking things outside of their cultural context, &/or are obvious derivatives of Christianity/Judaism), but I think I've bored you all enough.

EDIT: Sorry, I found one more thing...

"I came across this set of ancient runes right after my third near-death experience. They were introduced to me by Dana Corby, a woman of generosity and charm." From what I could find, she has no actual historical evidence (that I could find) for the creation of these stones.

Maybe I misspoke & she isn't trying to state that these are historical. I've never read the book though, so my thoughts on that are up in the air.

Sorry, I'm done now.

[MoonGoddess]

You do have a lot to say on the matter...lol And about time some has come into this forum with something to say.  I glanced briefly at her web site but haven't had much chance to really read anything she has said.  It is an interesting concept having an older set of Runes 'Goddess Runes', but some of what I did read did sound she was getting all feministic about it.  Any who if you are interested I will be starting up classes soon online about Runes until our other moderator EarlofLeicester comes back to take over.  My first lesson will be on the history and origins of Runes, it is good to hear someone else views and if you have any experience in the subject I would love to discuss it with you as we are all learning.

MoonGoddess

[Wælwulf]

Yeah, sorry, I have a problem with people that I perceive as charlatans (& there are, unfortunately, too many among us). I sometimes feel it as a duty to the community to attempt to expose people like that. Sometimes, it goes well, other times, it blows up in my face. My intentions are, however, always well meaning.

I'll be around if you want/need to discuss anything.

[MoonGoddess]

We try to have a relaxed atmosphere on MB and try to be as welcoming as possible.  Do not worry we have our ways of weeding out people who mean no good.  I try to base my information on facts and not here say so anything you read from me is from my collection of books or websites...speaking of which I might make a new thread to add those there and other people can add the sources they get their information from.

MoonGoddess

[EarlofLeicester]

Well, I will stick with my earlier comment in this thread, namely:

Yes, I am still inclined to stick with the gool ole 24 Runes of the Elder Futhark myself

Sometimes I like to investigate new topics, although the Goddess Runes, as Waelwulf points out, appear to suffer from historical authenticity deprivation.  (Does that mean I was had?) Anyway, the elder futhark (no blank tile, please) remains the rune set of choice IMHO.  The Anglo-Saxon would be second, I guess, but I would just stick with the Elder Futhark.