View Full Version : A Question Concerning a Bindrune

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009, 05:52 AM
I recently discovered an intriguing bindrune during some delving, and its meaning perplexes me. I can see a few things that seem to conflict, but maybe it's just over-analysis. I'll leave the guessing to more learned individuals within this subject.

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009, 06:28 AM
Hmm, I'm not really sure which Runes this would definitely be a bind of. It could easily be:

Laguz (reversed), Raido, Algiz (invered)
Laguz, Wunjo, Algiz (invered)
Tiwaz, Raido, Algiz (invered)
Tiwaz, Wunjo, Algiz (invered)

Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 02:18 AM
T : A : R in some order.

Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 02:35 AM
My thanks for such a rapid response, 'tis interesting how one may neglect the obvious at times, and a couple of the runes mentioned struck me like a proverbial bolt in the blue.

Personally, I see an echo of Othila in there, although obviously this is something I feel is merely implied. When approaching such features of bind runes wherein such "ghost runes", as I hesitantly label them for sake of argument, are seemingly apparent, should this be noted, or is it something anathema to the whole idea?

Thursday, February 19th, 2009, 05:18 AM
This rune is for a good and happy journey, over water possibly, with fine weather, without hinderence from Odin. But its use carries a minor risk of death and a chance of great success.

Friday, February 20th, 2009, 08:40 PM
can be taken also as a spelling of TYR

Friday, February 20th, 2009, 09:02 PM
can be taken also as a spelling of TYR

Sunday, February 22nd, 2009, 08:23 PM




And that takes it into a couple interesting interpretations......

Possibly.........Bad luck, on a water journey, because of inattention to

And, I never look for "ghost Runes". A Bind Rune is what it is. The lines are scribed.
I Do not invent extra lines to suit yourself. I Read it as it is.

Monday, February 23rd, 2009, 12:42 AM
Well, here is what I see when I look at this bind rune. It is a very powerful bind, and very very elemental. I have pondered some of the ideals put forth so far and if that is how it has represented itself to you then that is fine. Runes reveal themselves in many ways, so I can see no fault in the previous viewpoints.

I am personally, more in tune with the Armenic rune system. I feel it breaks the glyphs down into 18 very basic but definite relationships. Which at least for me, has proved to shed more light upon the runic mysteries.

As a general rule, whether writing, speaking, or carving, I tend to adhere to the ideal that simple is better. Cut everything in half. The problem for me with seeing the Tiwaz rune, is it leaves little left in the way of a bind rune. I will explain. I feel, bind runes must follow some basic rules. The sum of its components must make up the whole. Also no two runes can occupy the same space at the same time. The runes themselves often tend to gravitate towards simplicity, and it is usually us who have the clouded vision. So since you have asked.

To me, the following runes do not meet this criteria: Tiwaz, Raidho, Elhaz, Ansuz, Laguz, Perthro, or Wunjo. Even though the shapes themselves are evident, it would tend to leave the bind fragmented. There are actually only two runes which I see represented here according to the Armenic system and there is also a hidden runic element which is coming into being which is a mystery in itself. As such, it is an extremely powerful combination. I have re illustrated the bind rune to show this relationship. That however, is where I end. Runic mysteries must be discovered by the initiate, not revealed. If anyone on this site is interested, I will point you in the right direction. :)