Tacitus, Germania, ch. 9–10 — the Germani's divination by lots

Summary

Chapter 9 gives the religious context: the Germani honor "Mercury" (interpretatio romana — probably Wodan/Odin), "Hercules," and "Mars"; part of the Suebi — "Isis." They do not confine the gods within walls or depict them in human form, but dedicate groves and forests to them. [historical-fact]

Chapter 10 describes the divination practice. The Germani rely "above all" on auspices and lots (sortes). The procedure: a branch is cut from a fruit-bearing tree, cut into sticks (surculi), they are marked with "certain signs" (notae) and scattered at random over a white cloth. The priest (for a public matter) or the father of the family (for a private one) invokes the gods, looking to the sky, lifts each stick three times, and interprets them "by the mark previously impressed." Further in the same chapter — divination by the flight of birds, by the neighing and snorting of sacred white horses, and by the outcome of a single combat between a captive and a tribesman. [historical-fact] [ethnographic-data — an external Roman observation, not a self-attestation of the Germani]

Key claims

• The Germani practice auspices and divination by lots more diligently than anyone; the custom of the lots is simple. [ethnographic-data]

  "Augury and divination by lot no people practice more diligently. The use of the lots is simple." — Germania 10 (Church & Brodribb 1876)

• A branch from a fruit tree is cut into pieces, marked with "certain marks," and scattered over a white cloth; they are interpreted by the previously impressed mark. [ethnographic-data]

  "A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. … [the priest or father] takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them." — Germania 10 (Church & Brodribb 1876)

• The Latin original of the key phrase about notae: [historical-fact]

  "Virgam frugiferae arbori decisam in surculos amputant eosque notis quibusdam discretos super candidam vestem temere ac fortuito spargunt." — Germania 10 (Latin, The Latin Library)

Literally: "a branch cut from a fruit-bearing tree they cut into sticks, and these, distinguished by certain signs (notis quibusdam), they scatter at random and by chance over a white cloth."

• The Germani are also familiar with divination by the flight and cries of birds, and by the neighing/ snorting of sacred white horses kept at public expense in the sacred groves; this kind of auspice they trust most. [ethnographic-data]

• These "signs" (notae) are runic writing. [unverified] — Tacitus's text does NOT say "runes"; notae means simply "marks/signs," and the interpretation as runes is a later reconstruction (see below).

Why this is contested for runology

• Tacitus's terminology is neutral. The Latin notae = "signs, marks, tokens" — it is not a special term for writing (for writing it would be litterae). Tacitus does not claim these are the letters of any alphabet. [historical-fact]

• The chronology doesn't add up. Germania was written ca. 98 CE. The oldest indisputable Elder Futhark inscriptions date to about the 2nd c. CE (e.g. the Øvre Stabu spearhead, the Vimose comb — ca. 150–200), i.e. somewhat later than Tacitus's text. [historical-fact] So identifying the 98-CE notae with an already-formed runic script is chronologically unfounded.

• An alternative explanation. The "signs" could have been arbitrary counting/lot marks (notches, simple distinguishing symbols), not the graphemes of a writing system. For divination by lots, distinguishable marks are enough, not an alphabet. [unverified — both readings are hypotheses]

• Historiographical status. The link "Tacitus's notae = runes" is popular in revivalist and esoteric literature as "proof" of ancient runic divination, but in the academic milieu it is presented at most as a possibility, not a fact. The claim "Tacitus described runic divination" should be held under the tag [unverified]. [revival-claim] for the popular version.

Links

• rune magic from the inscriptions (overview) — this analysis closes the "open question about Tacitus" in that note.
• the rune poems (Dickins 1915) — the rune poems; the Futhark datings are needed for the chronological frame.