The "Blank Rune Controversy"

Presented by Rig Svenson

Guys, the next time you decide to write about runes or indeed work with them consider if what you are writing about is correct at all. This is so especially when you have in your possession one of the many diverse 25 rune sets or 25 rune based divination books readily available at most New Age shops. The rune set includes a "Blank Rune", sometimes called "Odin Rune" or more likely "Wyrd Rune". Take the hint that the manufacturer/author is not an authority on the runes when the blank rune is treated as part of runic divinatory practices.

First and foremost, there is no historical evidence that the runemasters of old ever used the blank rune. A rune is a symbol and certainly not the token that carries it. Have you ever seen a blank symbol? Or certainly if sound is the power behind the runes, how would you speak blank rune galdor?

One does not just change the laws of nature and develop them over time. Rune magic is essentially sound and timing. How do you pronounce the so-called blank rune? Perhaps those who advocate the blank rune can help me out with that. Now if you want to just add and take away at your whim, see how such an ideal makes any sense? Pretty soon we could add the I-Ching or Yin Yang or even Reiki symbols to the runes. By this rationale, would this enhance the runic system also? Or corrupt it?

The "blank rune" was invented by Ralph Blum and has no significance whatsoever in pre runic tradition.

Ralph Blum's New-Age divination manual called "The Book of Runes" (1982). Unfortunately, the book with its Rune tiles was not as well researched as it could have been. Despite an impressive bibliography, it is very superficial, not very accurate, and overlooks important knowledge. Although he has brought the Runes to the attention of a huge number of people, many of those in the Northern/Runic Traditions feel that Blum has exploited one of their most precious religious symbols for a quick profit. Blum reportedly has said he first started using a blank rune because he didn't know anything about the subject -- which, if true, would stand as the only valid statement he has ever made concerning the runes. The other version suggests that when Blum decided to start cranking out cheap little mass-produced runic "tiles," he found it was easier to stamp them out of a 5x5 matrix than 6x4 or 8x3.

Of course, a 5x5 matrix has one tile left over, which was packaged up with the others and counted as a 25th "rune," even though there was nothing on it. Apart from adding a made up “rune”, he chooses to ignore the traditional Futhark order, and the 3 by 8 arrangement. The Futhark order was followed faithfully by Rune-Masters for hundreds of years, even long after the influence of the Roman alphabet. The common word for the Runes was the "Futhark" after the first six staves of the row. Blum ignores this and puts the runes into a random order within a 5 by 5 arrangement.

The Traditional Elder Futhark sequence order and 24 numbers were preserved over the centuries and were in this particular order for a reason. One can speculate on a diversity of reasons but none the less, it is fact supported by archaeological evidence. Can the same be said of the Blank rune? I doubt it though staunch supporters of the blank rune would tell or argue with you that this introduction enhances the runic system.

Here are some points to consider when writing on runes or validating runic work. Does the author:
1. Stick to the traditional order of the runes and use only historically attested symbols with resourced findings backed up by academic support.
2. Avoid values based on outside traditions, personal revelations or personal magical experimentation.
3. Not mix and match i.e. Native American Runic Wheels, Quaballistic Runic Trees etc
4. Not use different rune names throughout their work. Elhaz then Algiz
5. Not include personal agendas e.g. Only Ayrans need bother with runes, feminine runes e.t.c.

The Futhark contains everything within either itself or the combination of various runes. The inclusion of the blank rune is totally against traditional rune teachings and anyone who is somewhat familiar with the runes will know that its fate divinatory meaning can be found embedded in other runes depending on the circumstances of the casting in relation to the querent. The meanings Ralph Blum uses actually come from him pulling I Ching hexagrams in relation to the runes? Enough said. The blank rune was in essence a spare Ralph Blum rune tile, probably meant originally as a replacement for lost runes and deserves throwing in the bin where it belongs. As for the issue of divination with “rune stones”, that is another matter and the remit of my new book.