Back to A Different Lens

Runes, the letters of the early Germanic peoples, "used at once for writing, for magic, and for divination," per its own description, carry three debunked facts under contested-use. Read individually they are three separate debunkings sharing one theme, modern practices claiming ancient authority, rather than one debunking restated three times.

A General Claim, and Two Named Modern Inventors

The first fact states the general claim: "Divinatory rune-casting has no attested basis in the medieval runic record." The other two name two different, unrelated twentieth-century sources for two different modern systems that each borrow the runes' ancient authority. "The modern rune oracle derives from Ralph Blum's The Book of Runes (1982)." Separately, "the Armanen runes used in some occult systems are an eighteen-rune invention of Guido von List (1908), not a historical futhark." Blum's oracle and von List's Armanen system share nothing but the borrowed name; one is a 1982 divination product, the other a 1908 occult reworking of the alphabet itself into a different, invented set of eighteen characters.

Three Claims to Antiquity, Three Different Culprits

Read as a count, three debunked facts about one subject look like the atlas dismissing runic divination once and repeating itself. Read individually, they are a general verdict about the medieval record plus two named, unconnected modern inventions, each claiming a continuity with antiquity that the historical futhark itself never provided. The runes' own real historical use, in writing, in charms and bind-runes, and in the myth of Odin winning them by hanging on the world tree, is left untouched by any of the three; what is debunked is specifically the modern claim of an unbroken line to that use.

Where To Read More

• RunesDivinatory DisciplinesThree separate modern debunkings sharing one theme: a general claim, Blum's 1982 oracle, and von List's 1908 Armanen invention