The Mystery of the FUTHARK Alphabet

The European scholars have come to recognize from the very beginning the obvious similarity between the character forms of the Primitive Norse stones and those of the Central Asian Göktürk monuments, but for certain various reasons have refrained from tackling this point by denying all kinds of plausible relations. All throughout the period of 160 years that elapsed between the years of 1730 and 1893, that is between the discovery of Orhun monuments and their definitely final decipherment, fanciful theories were fabricated about the Vikings’ (or Indo-Germans’, or Celts’, or Goths’) prehistoric emigrations into Central Asia, and the erection of Orhun stones as landmarks of their presence and civilization dating back to several thousands of years BC in that region. Only when in 1893, it was understood that these inscriptions were not written in any other tongue but pure Turkish, then those fanciful theories were discarded, and the proposed pre-historic datings were revised to be not earlier than AD 700. Even today, a number of academicians are still straining at finding a Sogdian, Persian or Aramaic origin for Turkish inscriptions, but their efforts at proving their claims all end in vain. A casual comparision of ancient scripts is all needed to see that the characters used in Orhun monuments are more identical with the futhark than any of those alleged originals. Besides this close resemblance, it is an exciting fact that the Primitive Norse runes declared to have ambiguous contexts can be rendered meaningfully when they are exposed to our novel method of reading ancient Turkish scripts.

As I have remarked at the beginning of this article, it must be kept in mind that the ancient Turkish script used in Central Asia and the Primitive Norse futhark in Europe, as well as those other scripts mentioned in passing above, have all stemmed from a common origin in a very remote past. Then, the Turkish, Germanic, and other tribes have independently relied on this common legacy of writing for the monuments in their own tongues.

, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory, Sacred Art. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


  • It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.


    - Giordano Bruno