I read a post here on M-B (I think) that someone thought that the current method or reading the runes was a modern interpretation and unlikely to be connected with the methods used by people over a thousand years ago.  That bothered me, because I feel comfortable with rune casting, especially the 3 rune cast, and I remembered reading somewhere that there was a historical precedent for it.  And here it is:

The later Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (58-120AD) records a Germanic tribal Runemal in some detail in Chapter 10 of his ethnographical work Germania from about 97AD when he was Consul to the region:

To divination they pay much attention. Their method is a simple one: they cut a branch from a fruit-bearing tree and divide it into small pieces which they mark with certain distinctive signs and scatter at random onto a white cloth. Then the priest of the community (if it is done publicly) or the father of the family (if it is done privately) after invoking the gods and with eyes raised to heaven, picks up three pieces one at a time and interprets them in accordance with the signs previously marked on them.

(Thanks to Oswald the Runemaker's site for the info:  http://www.runemaker.com/history3.shtml).  This is pretty much how I do it, although I didn't make my own runes...

Nosing through the rune forum here.. isn't  Conrnelius actually referring to ogham staves? Runes came in much later i thought?

Actually, Publius Cornelius Tacitus was referring to the runes (or some precursor or derivative thereof) not the Ogham. The quote is from Tacitus' Germania. There is a version in the original latin here, or in english here. It's a relativly short read, & somewhat informative, however, remember that it was written by a Roman, so it is out of cultural context (Tacitus apparently did try very hard to be impartial, however). Linguistic evidence seems to support a date of around 200BCE, however they could come from a much earlier date. I remember seeing a newer discovery of the earliest set, but I can't recall the date. I'll have to look through my notes for it.

A lot of the historical stuff on the origins and histories of Runes can be a bit confusing.  I myself while I was doing a little research today almost thought that Ogham was indeed part of the origins in Runes, where in fact it was only discribing how some of the runes got there meanings...So I put my book away and took a break.

I know this question is going to sound quite stupid but it has been coming up alot in my research and I don't know what it means.  I know BC means before Christ which up until I got my head stuck in dusty book did I come across the term BCE, so what does the E stand for...[blushes perfusely].  I am more a hands on girl then a history buff.

As a general rule, something with a firm grounding in visual recognition, such as, an alphabet (be it mystical or otherwise) should only be considered related if they look similar. Otherwise, it's just the idea that is related.

If nobody asked "stupid" questions, ignorance would reign supreme & we would probably all be some serious morons :P It's all a matter of perception as to whether something is stupid or not. At any rate, in academic circles for a while now, it's been in written usage for at least the last one-hundred years, (in America at least (I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that it's been bleeding over into the rest of the general public as of late)) it's been used as an alternative for BC/AD, BCE being "Before Common Era", & CE being "Common Era". I'm a history buff, among other things, so feel free, & I'll do my best.