![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statement that modern use of Runes for divination started with Blum's book in 1982 is patently false. There are plenty of cultural references to the fact that they could be so used well before 1982. It may not be scholarly but there is even a reference in a 1971 episode of Doctor Who! (The Dæmons). -- Justificatus ( talk) 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better image than one using Blum's "runes?" Septegram 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm for it. 惑乱 分からん 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and merged this with Runecasting and redirected Germanic runic astrology here. There really wasn't an article per se, just a list of links, many of them unverifiable. If anyone wants to put forth the effort to make a subheading for Runic Astrology in this article, that would probably be more appropriate. (The links and scant material from Germanic runic astrology are still obtainable from the history of the entry.) - WeniWidiWiki 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
User Dab removed three categories from this page:
I'm going to re-add "Divination" because this unquestionably falls under that category, and invite discussion on the subject of the other two.
Septegram*
Talk*
Contributions*
14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Both systems are modern fabrications. So Flowers has a PhD in Germanic philology. That doesn't stop him from publishing batshit Magickal fantasy cruft. Blum's may be pulled out of thin air even more, but this article should just treat the two for what they are and not attempt to tout the one as "superior" (in whatever respect) to the other. From my point of view, both are idle nonsense, of course, and to be able to compare their value, you'd need to agree that they have any value at all in the first place. dab (𒁳) 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you've got it right. His thesis was Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder Tradition(1984). This is why the now removed bits under the now titled innovations seemed relevant. Also, I guess we should determine the scope of this entry... I've mentioned the "runic astrology" but there is also "rune radionics" and "orgone generators" [1] which are *really* out there. After looking at some sites on the subjects, all of these groups seem to be constrained solely to use of the Armanen system. Looking through the "runic astrology" links, they primarily seem to be based on the Armanen system as well. Should this be under "Armanen" or should we just deal with it on a case by case basis? WeniWidiWiki 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree about a merger with Runic divination, although I'm willing to discuss it. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between magic and divination. I will try to explain. Divination is a part of magic. Because rune or letters may or may not have magical power. They can be used to look in the future. But the divination part is only very limited part of it. There is a lot of history part into it. At the moment only the shaman could read and write he has power, let call it magic. To pass this power on she must use letters or runs to pass it on. So the runes became powerfull, magical. Another example is card magic and card divination or as it call cartomancy. And as far as I know two articles that discribes two different worlds. I guess I should add some more words into rune magic article. Carsrac ( talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Since divination is a branch of magic, the target article should be at Runic magic. It should focus on historical evidence of "period" runic magic (such as the sigrúnar in Sigrdrífumál and corresponding archaeological evidence), and discuss latter-day esotericism in a separate section. -- dab (𒁳) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
it uses rune magic -- 76.185.151.205 ( talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[Davemon] please stop messing up the toc. Also, it is a bit ironical to complain about "removing cited content" when this is exactly what your edit did in the first place. If you want to add cited content, try to do that in an edit that doesn't at the same time mess up the toc and remove other content. As for "better titles", try to appreciate the article structure. It is divided in two parts, "historical" and "modern". In principle the two could also be standalone articles each. Your division of the historical part into "written attestation" vs. "archaeological record" is misguided. What you mean to say is "literary references" vs. "epigraphy". -- dab (𒁳) 08:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Bloodofox is trolling, he is on one of his feuds against myself.
Davémon, it is perfectly possible to divide the "historical" section into a part on epigraphy and one on historiography. Perhaps there would be less confusion if we first split the historical and the modern stuff into two separate articles, as the two topics have very little to do with one another. -- dab (𒁳) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In explanation of this edit: The historical section establishes beyond any doubt that there were pre-Christian Germanic practices of:
What we fail to establish is that the two things have anything to do with one another. Each instance where runes are mentioned explicitly are unrelated to divination, but instead used for apotropaic magic, or for good luck or success. It appears that the function of the runes inherited in its entirety by the Icelandic magical staves, which are used for all these things, but not for divination.
I am not making any positive claim here, such as "runes were not used for divination". I just want to propose some caution in this area. We know there was divination, and we know there was runic magic, but so far we have not excluded the possibility that these were two entirely distinct practices. -- dab (𒁳) 13:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's be serious, they're all Odin's runes, because it was He who hung on the Tree and retrieved them for us.
That aside, I added the "Citation needed" to the assertion that Blum called his "blank rune" "Odin's rune" deliberately. I heard that the manufacturer said it was easier to make the ceramic rectangles in a 5X5 layout than otherwise, so he retconned a "blank rune" as something intentional and nifty, rather than just cheaper (would have had more integrity and utility, and less controversy, if he'd just said "and here's a spare in case you lose one"). Can anyone document either way? I've found this [3], but that doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently, footnote 16 contains the remark "Unfortunately, Thorsson's work is highly speculative and he has noted ties to the AFA (Asatru Folk Assembly) which impact his credibility." That may well all be true (see above topic #Flowers vs. Blum), but is it supported by WP:RS as opposed to WP:BECAUSEISAYSO?
Also, full disclosure: *I* have "ties to" the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Humanist Association; does that impact *my* credibility? If not, why not? And then why would the religion of anyone else impact *their* credibility? Do we screen out Catholic (or Protestant), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Wiccan sources? What exactly is on the proscribed list of religions? Please advise. – .Raven .talk 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statement that modern use of Runes for divination started with Blum's book in 1982 is patently false. There are plenty of cultural references to the fact that they could be so used well before 1982. It may not be scholarly but there is even a reference in a 1971 episode of Doctor Who! (The Dæmons). -- Justificatus ( talk) 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better image than one using Blum's "runes?" Septegram 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm for it. 惑乱 分からん 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and merged this with Runecasting and redirected Germanic runic astrology here. There really wasn't an article per se, just a list of links, many of them unverifiable. If anyone wants to put forth the effort to make a subheading for Runic Astrology in this article, that would probably be more appropriate. (The links and scant material from Germanic runic astrology are still obtainable from the history of the entry.) - WeniWidiWiki 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
User Dab removed three categories from this page:
I'm going to re-add "Divination" because this unquestionably falls under that category, and invite discussion on the subject of the other two.
Septegram*
Talk*
Contributions*
14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Both systems are modern fabrications. So Flowers has a PhD in Germanic philology. That doesn't stop him from publishing batshit Magickal fantasy cruft. Blum's may be pulled out of thin air even more, but this article should just treat the two for what they are and not attempt to tout the one as "superior" (in whatever respect) to the other. From my point of view, both are idle nonsense, of course, and to be able to compare their value, you'd need to agree that they have any value at all in the first place. dab (𒁳) 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you've got it right. His thesis was Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder Tradition(1984). This is why the now removed bits under the now titled innovations seemed relevant. Also, I guess we should determine the scope of this entry... I've mentioned the "runic astrology" but there is also "rune radionics" and "orgone generators" [1] which are *really* out there. After looking at some sites on the subjects, all of these groups seem to be constrained solely to use of the Armanen system. Looking through the "runic astrology" links, they primarily seem to be based on the Armanen system as well. Should this be under "Armanen" or should we just deal with it on a case by case basis? WeniWidiWiki 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree about a merger with Runic divination, although I'm willing to discuss it. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between magic and divination. I will try to explain. Divination is a part of magic. Because rune or letters may or may not have magical power. They can be used to look in the future. But the divination part is only very limited part of it. There is a lot of history part into it. At the moment only the shaman could read and write he has power, let call it magic. To pass this power on she must use letters or runs to pass it on. So the runes became powerfull, magical. Another example is card magic and card divination or as it call cartomancy. And as far as I know two articles that discribes two different worlds. I guess I should add some more words into rune magic article. Carsrac ( talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Since divination is a branch of magic, the target article should be at Runic magic. It should focus on historical evidence of "period" runic magic (such as the sigrúnar in Sigrdrífumál and corresponding archaeological evidence), and discuss latter-day esotericism in a separate section. -- dab (𒁳) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
it uses rune magic -- 76.185.151.205 ( talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[Davemon] please stop messing up the toc. Also, it is a bit ironical to complain about "removing cited content" when this is exactly what your edit did in the first place. If you want to add cited content, try to do that in an edit that doesn't at the same time mess up the toc and remove other content. As for "better titles", try to appreciate the article structure. It is divided in two parts, "historical" and "modern". In principle the two could also be standalone articles each. Your division of the historical part into "written attestation" vs. "archaeological record" is misguided. What you mean to say is "literary references" vs. "epigraphy". -- dab (𒁳) 08:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Bloodofox is trolling, he is on one of his feuds against myself.
Davémon, it is perfectly possible to divide the "historical" section into a part on epigraphy and one on historiography. Perhaps there would be less confusion if we first split the historical and the modern stuff into two separate articles, as the two topics have very little to do with one another. -- dab (𒁳) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In explanation of this edit: The historical section establishes beyond any doubt that there were pre-Christian Germanic practices of:
What we fail to establish is that the two things have anything to do with one another. Each instance where runes are mentioned explicitly are unrelated to divination, but instead used for apotropaic magic, or for good luck or success. It appears that the function of the runes inherited in its entirety by the Icelandic magical staves, which are used for all these things, but not for divination.
I am not making any positive claim here, such as "runes were not used for divination". I just want to propose some caution in this area. We know there was divination, and we know there was runic magic, but so far we have not excluded the possibility that these were two entirely distinct practices. -- dab (𒁳) 13:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's be serious, they're all Odin's runes, because it was He who hung on the Tree and retrieved them for us.
That aside, I added the "Citation needed" to the assertion that Blum called his "blank rune" "Odin's rune" deliberately. I heard that the manufacturer said it was easier to make the ceramic rectangles in a 5X5 layout than otherwise, so he retconned a "blank rune" as something intentional and nifty, rather than just cheaper (would have had more integrity and utility, and less controversy, if he'd just said "and here's a spare in case you lose one"). Can anyone document either way? I've found this [3], but that doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently, footnote 16 contains the remark "Unfortunately, Thorsson's work is highly speculative and he has noted ties to the AFA (Asatru Folk Assembly) which impact his credibility." That may well all be true (see above topic #Flowers vs. Blum), but is it supported by WP:RS as opposed to WP:BECAUSEISAYSO?
Also, full disclosure: *I* have "ties to" the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Humanist Association; does that impact *my* credibility? If not, why not? And then why would the religion of anyone else impact *their* credibility? Do we screen out Catholic (or Protestant), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Wiccan sources? What exactly is on the proscribed list of religions? Please advise. – .Raven .talk 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)