In Chapter 10 of Germania, Tacitus describes a Germanic ritual involving the cutting of twigs from a fruit-bearing tree, marking them with symbols, and casting them onto a white cloth for divinatory purposes. While Tacitus does not specify what these marks were, applying Occam’s Razor and historical context makes it highly probable that the marks were runes, or at the very least, proto-runic symbols.

What Were the Marks on the Twigs?

Tacitus mentions that the lots were marked with symbols that were interpreted when drawn at random. The most plausible explanation is that these symbols were runes for several reasons:
1. Runic Origins Align with Tacitus’ Timeframe
The Elder Futhark, the earliest known runic alphabet, dates to at least the 2nd century CE, but linguistic evidence suggests it existed earlier. Tacitus wrote Germania in 98 CE, well within the period when runes could have been in use.
2. Lack of Alternative Symbol Systems
No evidence of any other formalized system of symbolic marks used for divination in early Germanic culture exists. While abstract notches or lines are possible, it is far more likely that early runes served both practical and mystical purposes, including divination.
3. Tacitus’ Perspective
Tacitus was writing for a Roman audience unfamiliar with Germanic culture. The word “runes” (from Proto-Germanic rūnō, meaning “mystery” or “secret”) would have had no Latin equivalent. Describing them as marked twigs was likely the simplest way to convey the concept.

Sortilege as an Enduring Tradition

Even if we entertain the idea that the symbols were not runes, this does not weaken the legitimacy of using runes for divination today. The method Tacitus describes—casting lots to gain insight—is ancient and universal. The act of drawing lots (sortilege) is far older than runic writing itself, and the adoption of runes for this purpose would have been a natural evolution of the practice.

Runes as the Perfect Symbolic System for Sortilege

Later Norse sources, such as Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál, describe the magical and esoteric power of runes. These texts strongly suggest that runes were more than a writing system—they were tools of divine communication and fate manipulation.
• Runes bring meaning and structure to sortilege, enhancing the practice beyond simple chance.
• Each rune carries layered meanings, allowing the practitioner to draw on cultural, spiritual, and psychological insights.

Modern Rune Casting: A Continuation, Not a Reinvention

The lack of explicit mention of runes in Tacitus’ account does not diminish the legitimacy of modern rune casting. On the contrary, it reinforces its place within an ancient tradition of divination by sortilege. The use of runes as symbolic tools for insight is a logical continuation of the method Tacitus described, whether or not the early Germans used fully developed runes at the time.
• Runes today serve as both practical symbols and spiritual keys, offering practitioners a direct link to their ancestors’ methods of seeking knowledge from the divine or their own subconscious.
• Sortilege evolves with culture, and the symbolic set used—whether ancient or modern—remains valid as long as it functions within the same framework.

Conclusion

Tacitus’ account in Germania strongly suggests that early Germans practiced sortilege using symbols that were most likely early runes. Even if these symbols were not fully developed runes, the practice of casting lots for divination provides a direct precedent for modern rune casting. Rather than weakening the case for runic divination, the broad framework of sortilege strengthens it. Using runes today is not only consistent with ancient traditions—it enriches and extends them in a meaningful and culturally grounded way.