History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedDoes the Runic and Gok-Turk monuments have the same origins?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Does the Runic and Gok-Turk monuments have the same origins?
    Posted: 03-Dec-2005 at 02:44

Hi everyone,

Some time this year I managed to source a copy of a research work titled "Mystery of The Futhark Alphabet"  by a scientist that I found quite interesting, as it could shed some light on the traditionally accepted history of Europe especially northern sections of it and Central Asia.

The research work is penned by Turgay Kürüm who happens to be a linguistics expert specializing on ancient Turkish languages especially those of the Gök-Turk period. His work entails what seems to be an extensive comparison between the Runic monuments (with Futhark alphabet located in N.Europe) and Turkish monuments  (with Gokturk "Sky-Turk" alphabet located in C.Asia).

I am no linguist but his work has astounded me with its results, showing the similarities if not the sameness of the two alphabets and perhaps the similarities of the cultures the various peoples these inscription monuments originated from.  Furthermore different views on various mythological characters such as Odin and Titan Prometheus are put forward, and  some questioning on the wording of” Tabgaç” by once again pointing it out as “Otbogaç” meaning a fire-breathing dragon (as potrayed on their flag).

For those interested I will forward this research below in hopes there are more knowledgable members amoung you who can further comment on it, as I am certainly amazed at the outcome Mr Kürüm has put foward and would like to know more, I will also try to contact him to investigate further.

Best wishes,

Tuman Yabgu

 

(Note: I apoligize for the copy and paste but I wanted the research conveniently accessed by all those interested)

------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------

 

MYSTERY OF THE FUTHARK
ALPHABET

The Kylver stone from
Stanga (Gotland) SWEDEN
The Mojbro stone from
Uppland SWEDEN
The Istaby stone from
Blekinge SWEDEN


The Futhark alphabet was used by the North European Germanic peoples (the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) between the 3rd and 17th centuries A.D. About 3500 stone monuments in Europe, concentrated mostly in Sweden and Norway, are claimed to have been inscribed with this writing.

The purpose of this article is to draw the readers' attention to the fact that this Futhark alphabet, which is also called the Runic (1) stemmed from the very same origin as did the ancient Turkish (2) inscriptions with Gokturk (3) alphabet.The article is concerned solely with reading the alphabet known as "the primitive futhark", found inscribed on a rock in Kylver on Gotland Island, Sweden, in addition to the other two stone monuments, namely the Mojbro stone in Uppland, and the Istaby stone in Blekinge, with their photographs available, and which are considered to belong to the group classified as the oldest runic inscriptions, by matching their characters with those in the Gokturk inscriptions, and thus being able to decipher them in Turkish. Further ideas, interpretations and opinions in relation to this particular subject shall not be treated within this article. I suggest that more interested readers should get in touch with us directly.

I would like to emphasize the point that I am not advocating any claim on these texts being written in the Gokturk script or vice versa. My claim is that the alphabets of these monuments found in both Europe and the Central Asia have stemmed from a common origin in a very remote past. Then, it was only a natural development for the Turkish, and the Germanic tribes that, although in locations so far away from each other, they could seperately carry on with this heritage of writing. I hold the belief that I have been able to prove the claim summarized above by reading the monuments written in Futhark alphabet, or the Oldest Runic, in Turkish through the help of the Gokturk alphabet. The result submitted to your reading here is just a small part of a greater research that has been going on for the past several years (4).

The Orhun (5) monuments were discovered by a Swedish officer named Strahlenberg, and his finding was made known by publications in 1730. In 1893, the Danish scholar Thomsen was able to decipher these inscriptions and declare that they were written in Turkish (6).The monuments of Kultigin and Bilge Kagan, situated near the Kosho-Tsaydam lake in the Orhun River valley to the south of the Lake Baykal, and that of Sage Tonyukuk, the Deputy-Khan (7) a little farther, are the three important memorials which make up what is known in general as the Orhun Monuments. The inscription used on them consists 38 characters. Numerous stone monuments are also found around the Yenisei River, but they belong to a period much earlier than that of the Orhun pieces, and there are in excess of 150 Skyturkish character-forms used on. The ancient Turkish script was written vertically with the lines running from top left downwards to the bottom right, and read accordingly, that is from right to left when the text is laid down on its right side. The individual marks are not joined, and the full or partial sentences are seperated with a column mark " : " in between.


The eight vowel sounds of Turkish, are represented in couples by 4 marks, and they usually are not employed in the beginning and the middle syllables of a word, but are shown in the last syllable, or if they occur at the end. For example:

a ferocious bull, or a fire-breathing dragon (8).

The "god", or "a deity".

As for the Futhark alphabet employed on the stones found in Sweden, the monuments bearing this inscription are studied in two main chapters in Prof.Jansson's study:

a) The oldest runic inscriptions

b) The 16-rune Futhark and Runic inscriptions from the Viking Age.

The oldest runic inscriptions are written with an alphabet of 24 characters (9).The chapter, from pages 9 to 24, in Prof.Jansson's book of 185 pages is devoted to this particular period. The three stone inscriptions which are mentioned in this part are:

- The stone from Kylver farm in Stanga (Gotland). This is the oldest relic found in Sweden, dating back to the fifth century. 

- The Mojbro stone from Uppland. 

- The Istaby stone from Blekinge.

Although these three monuments are declared as not deciphered yet, the author is attempting at some unfounded assumptions in relation to their contents. According to the map supplied at the end of this book, there happens to be numerous stones, which are inscribed with the same alphabet and belong to the same period of history, in more than 70 locations in the north and northwest of Europe. (Appendix A). In this article, the decipherment of the three stones mentioned above is accounted.

The monuments considered to be in the 16-rune futhark group belong to a later period called the Viking Age which started at about AD. 800. During this period, the 24-characters of the Primitive Norse runes became simplified and reduced to 16-rune series.The pages 25-30 and the rest of the book in Jansson's study are allocated to this subject which is beyond the concern of my article.

The Europen 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 C.Asian Gokturk 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 C.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 read-ing 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

The stone from Kylver farm in Stanga (Gotland) .

Now, we can take a closer look at the photograph supplied on page 13 in Prof. Jansson's book: The whole Primitive Norse rune-row is recorded on a stone, used as a side-slab in a sarcophagus, and found in Kylver farm in Gotland.

Since the characters from the 1st to the 6th spell out futhark, this word is used to denote the runic script. However, some characters are cut slightly different on the stone than what is shown within the text above:

An identical form of the futhark character shown under #23 is also found in the Tonyukuk inscription, and commented upon on page 149 in Prof.Ergin's book, although it is not given in the main list of symbols. In this book, it is stated to mean "head". But for me, it signifies k+l. kel kelle, which is a synonim for the same word, and a composite form of these two distinct characters. The same thing can be said for the character #13: It is a composite form of the symbols

meaning (to) talk, (to) speak in English. It is also interesting if we consider the form as a pictoglyph of an open mouth.

Now, I shall venture to read this 24-character rune row, from right to left, by applying the rules of reading Gokturk inscriptions:

The meaning obtained thru reading the above piece, as if it were written in ancient Turkish, can roughly be rendered in today's English as follows:

The light of wisdom arrived/descended, he himself carved onto this erect stone, with ( the pointed tip of ) his arrow/dagger, the words he uttered/spoke through his own mouth.

I shall refrain from venturing into any philological or philosophical interpretations here. But, I would like to draw your attention to the emergence of the word O.d.ng, when the characters numbered 24, 23, 22 are considered in their runic namesakes. In the Scandinavian mythology, it was Odin, the Norse God who brought the gift of divine script to mankind. Then, the very name of the god in these three symbols read out as the light of wisdom (alias the divine reason), or the sage/lord of light in ancient Turkish... The readers further interested in this subject should get in touch with me.

The Mojbro stone from Uppland, which is a memorial monument:

In this script, our attention is drawn to the placement of some characters backwards. Especially, the rune R, read as "op", is peculiar. For this reason, I have read it as "po". Reading from right to left, starting with the bottom line:

The meaning obtained thru reading the above piece, as if it were written in ancient Turkish, can roughly be rendered in today's English as follows:

(May both of) the dog(s) charge well; so that the sacred sky-spirit acknowledges their boldness..

On this stone, under the inscription, there is a carving of a rider on his horse, holding up a round shield in his left hand while brandishing his weapon in his right. There are two dogs running beside the horse, as if all of them are engaged in an attack.

Also, the writing style of the symbols and the density of symbols, means the less character spacing, on the left corner, proves the original writing style was from right to left.

 

 

 

 

The Istaby stone from Blekinge, which was carved in the transition period between the Primitive Norse period and Viking Age:

Reading the inscription from right to left:

he (who was) brave (and) lived through many hardships (of) army, committed not flight (or did not desert his post of duty) lies herein...

Truly a fitting epitaph for a soul who endured much in his wordly life.

My deciphering ends here, because the photographs of only these three stones are supplied within the chapter titled "The Oldest Runic Inscriptions" in Prof. Jansson's book. In conclusion, I admit that I might have made some minor mistakes and errors in my treatment of the subject. However, I hold the opinion that these stones do contain the messages of similar meanings in more or less the same way as I have striven to put forward. My purpose is to initiate a new interest in this ancient inscriptions and be of help in starting up a fresh discussion in regard to their contents. For this reason, I have not dwelt on speculative interpretations, but wanted to remark that the Primitive Norse futhark or the rune alphabet have stemmed from a much older common origin as that of the Gokturks.


January 1994

Turgay Kurum

Address
Yeni Lara Yolu, Doktorlar Sitesi No:10 Guzeloba
ANTALYA / TURKIYE
Tel: 90 - 242 - 349 51 41
Fax: 90 - 242 - 349 51 37
E-Mail : turgay@antalyaonline.net
 
 
 
 

    FOOTNOTES

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ergin, Prof. Muharrem, Orhun Abideleri; Bogazici Yayinlari, Istanbul, Turkiye 1988. More specific information on the Gokturks and their inscription is accessible in Prof. Ergin's concise book.

Jansson, Prof. Sven B.F., Runes in Sweden; translated by Peter Foote, Gidlunds, Varnamo, Sweden 1987. (English edition of Runinskrifter i Sverige, AWE/Gebers 1963). The photographs of the stone monuments in Sweden (Appendix A) are provided in Prof. Jansson's book. The inscriptions are clearly legible in these photographs.

Buyuk Larousse, Interpress-Milliyet, Istanbul,Turkiye 1993; The Turkish edition of Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique, Larousse (GDEL), Paris, France. The Gokturk alphabet used in this article is taken from the encyclopedia's entry Gokturkce on page 4678, vol. 9. (Appendices B and C).

 
- Appendix A -

- Appendix B -

- Appendix C -



Edited by Tuman Yabgu
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2005 at 05:56

This was presented before in the forum. If I recall, there were comments that the explanations presented above were quite arbitrary and not adequately supported. You can search in the forum archives for further info.

But please, when you copy/paste, post the link where you got the information from, as well.

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2005 at 07:05
Though it is not totally impossible the Runic and Gokturk alphabeths have the same origin, in that case Latin/Greek/Phoenican, the idea to read Scandinavian stones in Turkish has no other value than entertainment considering that even though the script systems show similarities, the languages are completely different. This "read-it-in-my-language" has by the way been made by many people from many different countries for many inscriptions from many places over the world.


The big problem with the idea that they both appeared from the same source is that the sound values are quite different - wheras the futhark follows the original Latin or Greek letters and sounds quite closely, the Gokturk does not.

Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 11:50

Hi all,

When I posted the above research work I was hoping to receive input by other forumers who might have scientific knowledge on the matter of futhark and Gok-Turk alphabets, and start a discussion platform that could shed some light on what seems to be amazing discoveries and perhaps lead to more people thinking about the histories involved.

Instead from the two post replies to this research work seems to be no more then an attempt to "brush aside the findings with ones back hand" without any scientific explanations against it.

This is all too sad as what seems to be realities regarding the findinings are strong in documenting the similarities of the two alphabets if not their sameness. Further morre, the deciphering of the futhark manuscripts are in correlation to their make up, that is the Mojbro manuscripts and its deciphering in Gok-Turk language is in correlation whith what is graphically portrayed on the tablet. The same is found in case of the Istaby manuscripts which happen to be a burial zone. And once again the Kylver study is striking in that it shows a literal depiction of a "wise man" who brought the gift of writing to the people with the the letter O d n g been prominent in the manuscripts describing this "wise man". We all know that the Nordic people have a deep rooted belief that it was Odin who was the God gifting man with writing.

These findings are too strong to be not "brushed aside with the back of the hand" as some might aspire to and deserve a more objective analysis distant from nationalist aspirations and fears.

The truth is out there !

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 12:33
Originally posted by Tuman Yabgu Tuman Yabgu wrote:


Instead from the two post replies to this research work seems to be no more then an attempt to "brush aside the findings with ones back hand" without any scientific explanations against it.


"Without scientific explanations"? The simple fact that the Scandinavians did not speak Turkish ought to be explanation enough...

Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 13:07

As Styrbiorn said "The simple fact that Scandinavians did not speak Turkish ought to be explanation enough.." is not a basis of argument that is neither scientific nor has any relevance to the research work, so it is not a strong argument against the findings.

What the author of this research work is trying to put forward is similarities/sameness between the inscriptions on these stone monuments in Europe and C.Asia, and possible sameness of the creators of these geographically distant monuments.

Afterall we do know that Turkish inhabitants of C.Asia during those times were involved in mass migrations outwards from all ends of C.Asia towards neighbouring geographies including  west and north inwards to N. and C. Europe.

Claiming that Scandinavians did not/does not speak Turkish is a weak argument against the findings put forward in this research.

Afterall Bulgarians do not speak Turkish yet one of the first settlers in current day Bulgaria were the Bulgar Turks who spoke Turkish, although current day Bulgaria is predominantly Slavic in social and linguistic composition today, since the mass Slavic settlement there after the Bulgar Turk settlement. 

So trying to refute the striking findings in this research work by stating that Scandinavians did not/do not speak Turkish is baseless. Afterall we are talking of an era early in history where futhark alphabets and Gok-Turk alphabets were found and of their similarities.

The findings of course do not negate the fact that independent evolution of these two alphabets with different evolitionary affectors for each could not have occured in time in seperation from one and other.

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2406
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 13:14
well the prob is Tuman Yabgu, its hard to find a guy here from yours level.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 13:15
So basicly, you are trying to say that the ancient Scandinavians were, in fact, Turks?

Back to Top
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 13:43

Well Styrbiorn that is not what I am claiming at all, for you to think that is my claim is only a reflection of a psychological state people naturally have when they encounter possible differences and contradictions about their identity.

What I have made clear in my posts relating this topic and my point been based on the striking scientific revelations in the reaearch work is that the originators of futhark alphabet and those of Gok-Turks alphabet have had a convergence some time in distant passed.

That is to say that the language used by the Gok-Turk people and those European inhabitants who created these inscription monuments so distant from each other geographically have a similar entity.

Note that the scientist whose work we are arguing on has stated he is taking in hand the "primitive futhark" and Gok-Turk inscriptions, the differences resulting in the evolution of these distant languages in time does not and is not a sound basis to argue against the findings.

Although it is very easy to claim "this and that" about history like it has been of the Vikings venturing to C.Asia and originating the Gok-Turk monuments as their signs of existance there which was later falsified even by Nordic scientists. One must keep an open mind and be objective when scientifically discussing issues that relate historical matters.

Beacuse the interpretation of history as we know it has been under political and cultural effects which has lead to many different opinions on many historical issue. Unless we are objective and contend with scientific findings no possible truth with regards to general history and specifically of the futhar and Gok-Turk inscriptions can be found out.

Lets keep an open mind and be just in our reasoning.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 13:54
Then what exactly are you claiming?
Back to Top
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 14:12

Dear Styrbiorn,

I will once again explain what my claim is.

I am claiming, with the scientific evidence put forward in this research work, that the possibility of people who originated the inscription monuments in Europe as titled "futhark inscriptions" and those of creators of "Gok-Turk inscriptions" have at some period of time passed have had a conjucture or/and are stemmed from the same human entity.

This is not claiming Scandinavians are Turkish of origin or vice-versa, instead it is a claim tackling the traditionally accept knowledge that human kind are all seperate from each other, I am claiming that if we are to be objective and truthfull to scientific findings we will see that humanity is one and same, hence in the case of Adam and Eve.

Lets observe history of humanity away from the political/nationalistic aspirations and fears we have and bring an objective way of looking at what might be proven quite contrary to what we have believed so far.

Truth is out there ! for those who will be unbiased scientifically and true to reality it self.

Complicated wordings but I hope you know what I mean.

Best regards.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 16:07

Thanks for being patient with me, I'll try to elaborate a little.


Originally posted by Tuman Yabgu Tuman Yabgu wrote:


I am claiming, with the scientific evidence put forward in this research work, that the possibility of people who originated the inscription monuments in Europe as titled "futhark inscriptions" and those of creators of "Gok-Turk inscriptions" have at some period of time passed have had a conjucture or/and are stemmed from the same human entity.



What "scientific" evidence? That there are similarities in the appearance? The same "science" was used by Däniken to "prove" a lot of things.

What gnaws me is that the "novel" idea of reading the inscriptions in Turkish is extremely non-scientific, and has been practiced by many a quack. Rudbeck used it to "prove" the most extraordinary things, others have read the very same stones in that article in Hebrew and other languages, claming that script was brought to Scandinavia by Jews or whatnot. It does absolutely nothing to show that the script systems had common roots. By reading in Turkish you try to prove that they were written by Turkic-speaking persons, for anything else it has no value whatsoever.

Quote <snip>, instead it is a claim tackling the traditionally accept knowledge that human kind are all seperate from each other

Traditionally accepted by whom? AFAIK I have never seen any such idea. Of course there are connections, but don't go overboard looking for them - the same ideas might be developed separately, pyramids in Egypt and Mesopotamia, Calculus by Newton and Leibnitz, etc.



Now, to the actualy script systems.

The Germanic runes were inherited from the Latins or Greeks, their alphabeth adapted to fit the available means to write on - wood and stone, and the earliest dates from the 2nd century. Orkhun A on the other hand, is a descendant from the Sogdian alphabeth and didn't develop until five centuries after this. The Germanic runes and Orkhun A do have some visual similarities due to the simple fact they were both adapted to be written on wood and stone, but it ends there. The sound values are completely different, which they hadn't been had they had a direct common root.

Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 05:46

I recommend this post, where we seriously debunk the myth about the alledged futhark-turkic runes-connection once and for all

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3255& ; ;PN=1&TPN=1

The Kylver Stone has no message, but simply contains the older runic script fuþarkgwhnijpïRstbemlh and the word sueus (Probably the name of the dead)

The Möjbro stone reads frawaradaR ana hahai sl*ginaR which means "Advisor of lords slain on (his) steed"

The Istaby stone reads afatR hariwulafa / haþuwulafR haeruwulafiR warait runaR þaiaR

meaning "In memory of Haerulf - Hadulv, Hjorulv's son, wrote these runes".



Edited by Mangudai
Nu guhká go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dán eatnam alde

Ossfok i sö kringest sturwekster ö ståtliger. Summer åv kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 517
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 12:02
Originally posted by Mangudai Mangudai wrote:

I recommend this post, where we seriously debunk the myth about the alledged futhark-turkic runes-connection once and for all

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3255& ; ; ;PN=1&TPN=1

The Kylver Stone has no message, but simply contains the older runic script fuþarkgwhnijpïRstbemlh and the word sueus (Probably the name of the dead)

As far as I understand the claim, it is not something like Scandinavians are Turks.

The claim is that some interpretations of reading some runes in Scandinavia is insufficient according to Scandinavian runic rules and language. On the other hand if these runes had been tried to read by using Turkic runic rules and Turkish language we can understand the meaning.

What is the outcome of this claim? (if it is true)

It doesn't mean that Scandinavians are Turks. But in an unknown time some Turkic tribes might come to Scandinavia.

 

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 517
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 12:27

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
Orkhun A on the other hand, is a descendant from the Sogdian alphabeth and didn't develop until five centuries after this. The Germanic runes and Orkhun A do have some visual similarities due to the simple fact they were both adapted to be written on wood and stone, but it ends there.

Did you ever see a Sogdian text? It is sure that Turkish runes were not derived from Sogdian.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 14:03
Originally posted by Alparslan Alparslan wrote:

As far as I understand the claim, it is not something like Scandinavians are Turks.


The claim is that some interpretations of reading some runes in Scandinavia is insufficient according to Scandinavian runic rules and language. On the other hand if these runes had been tried to read by using Turkic runic rules and Turkish language we can understand the meaning.


What is the outcome of this claim? (if it is true)


It doesn't mean that Scandinavians are Turks. But in an unknown time some Turkic tribes might come to Scandinavia.


 


The thing is that the interpreting of the stones are not insufficient, in fact those stones have been deciphered. Reading them in Turkish and claiming that they are written by Turks is as ludicrous as Rudbeck's Swedish interpretation of other texts (using the same "novel" idea) as a claim to proof all writing systems are in fact descendants of the Germanic runes.

Originally posted by Alparslan Alparslan wrote:

Did you ever see a Sogdian text? It is sure that Turkish runes were not derived from Sogdian.

Really? So how come the sources on the subject disagree with you?
Back to Top
Tuman Yabgu View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 30-Nov-2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 15:01

Analysis of Kyvler inscriptions:

Total of 24 letters

Letters that are same : 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24…totaling 15

Letters that are same but mirror image : 6, 18, ….totaling 2

Letters that are similar : 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 20, 23….totaling 7

 

A  mathematical calculation from these values reveals :

Percentage of letters that are same : 62.5 %

Percentage of letters that are same and very similar : 91.66 %

Percentage of letters that are same, very similar and mirror image of each : 100%

 

One must think that just like how two seperate persons handwritings are different in our current days these inscriptions were in fact a form of handwriting, so it is normal for 7 letters to have small variations.  Also a note of importance is the letter numbered 13 which is a pictoragh of a mouth  and correlates with the Gok-Türk meanin of it to “öt” that is in english to speak.

 

The above runic inscrpitions when read in Gok-Turk alphabet revealed this below meaning;

Translated to current day english the meaning taking a shape like this:

The light of wisdom arrived/descended, he himself carved onto this erect stone, with ( the pointed tip of ) his arrow/dagger, the words he uttered/spoke through his own mouth.

As stated by Mangudai the Kylver inscriptions when read in their language has no meaning and an assuption that a word “sueus” which is a make up of letters in their interpratations as a probably a name for a person:

“The Kylver Stone has no message, but simply contains the older runic script fuþarkgwhnijpïRstbeml and the word sueus (Probably the name of the dead)”

This is interesting as no meanings are sourced for this long inscription but only a cluster of letters are chosen as a probable name of a person.

Where as when one takes this inscription at hand with Gok-Turk alphabet one finds a detail description of a wise man who originated this monument.

What is further striking is the letters numbered 24, 23, 22 when taken into hand in runic language spell out the word “Odng” arbitararly, which is quite could have formed the foundations of Odin as the nordic god that brought the gift of writing to these people in time.

Analysis of the Mojbro inscriptions :

Total of 26 letters.

(reading left to right)

Letters that are same: 1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,19,20,22…total of 16

Letters that are same but mirror image :21,23,25…total of 3

Letters that are similar : 3,8,12,14,18,21,26….total of  7

 

A mathematical calculation from these reveals :

Percentage of letters that are same : 61.52%

Percentage of letters that are same and similar : 88.46%

Percentage of letters that are same, similar and mirror image of each : 100%

 

Once again the idea of differences between handwritings resulting in different shapes of letters in our current day are evident here as these inscriptions were hand carved into the stone with out a device that would standardize writings in their era.

 

The above inscriptions when read in Gok-Turk alphabet revealed this below meaning;

Translated to current day english the meaning taking a shape like this:

(May both of) the dog(s) charge well; so that the sacred sky-spirit acknowledges their boldness..

This deciphering of the Mojbro inscriptions in Gok-Turk language resulting in the above meaning in english is strikingly in correlation with what is portrayed on the monument it self, where there is a soldier on horse with a shield and a sword in position to charge an enemy accompanied by two dogs infront and beside him (pls look at the actual stone monument and the drwaing representing it in previous posts to confirm).

 

Mangudai informs us about this Mjobro inscriptions as such:

“The Möjbro stone reads frawaradaR ana hahai sl*ginaR which means "Advisor of lords slain on (his) steed"”

Which has no correlation with what is depicted ont he incsription monument even though it graphically portrays a mounted soldier with two dogs which is further supported with the Gok-Turk deciphering of the inscription that comes with it.

 

 

Analysis of the Istaby inscriptions : 

Total number of 37 letters

(reading from left to right)

 

Letters that are same : 2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20,21,22,25,26,28,29,30, 31,32,33…total of 25

Letters that are similar : 1,9,11,20,24,28,36…total of 7

Letters that are mirro image of each: 8,19,25,35,37..total of 5

 

A mathematical calculation from these reveals:

Percentage of letters that are same: 67.56%

Percentage of letters that are same and similar : 86.48%

Percentage of letters that are same,similar and mirror image of each : 100%

 

What we see here is once again the percentages of comparison which prevailed in the previous two inscriptions, a point of importance is that there is a continual occurance of the various values between all 3 examples, and the letters which show similarity between the runic and Gok-Turk alphabet show consistance including the mirror image reflections of the letters, which could be a proof of the alphabet uniformity on these 3 independt stones and also their unifiormity when compared to Gok-Turk alphabet is indicative of this uniformity instead of a pure chance occurance.>>

 

The above inscriptions when read in the Gok-Turk alphabet revealed this meaning below:

Translated to current day english the meaning taking shape like this:

he (who was) brave (and) lived through many hardships (of) army, committed not flight (or did not desert his post of duty) lies herein...

 

Whereas Mangudai claims that it says in runic;

“The Istaby stone reads afatR hariwulafa / haþuwulafR haeruwulafiR warait runaR þaiaR meaning "In memory of Haerulf - Hadulv, Hjorulv's son, wrote these runes"

Now when look at Mangudais claim the first thing that come across is the instability between the names of “Haerulf” “Hadulv” and “Hiorulv”, the runic deciphering which he claims is accurate has not been able to name the person which this burial monument is named, giving three possibilities from one set of letter gatherings which is questionable, because if the runic inscriptions could we to be deciphered in any other language besides Gok-Turk they would have been able to decide whether the name of the person is Haerulf or Hadulv or Hiorulv, after all a letter should be able to have one correspondent to it when deciphered and should result in one name been established.

Furthermore the interpretation Mangudai provides is much shorter than the long inspription on the stone, which is a further possible evidence that it is not a correct deciphering and an estimate.

However the Gok-Turk deciphering of the inscription monument is more involved, giving a brief explanation of the man who lays there, the hardships he had encountered and his bravery.

Another point I would like to make is the Turks have throughout its history have been a nation-state-army, that is every Turks is considered born a soldier and all Turkish states throughout history have had its civilian-army as its foundation in its establishment, and every Turk is accounted as a soldier for the Turkish nation, and there are numerous manuscripts and monuments whithin all Turkish states’ history of glorification of those who were brave in their duties, this is evident since the Hunnic Turkish states to current day articacts.

So the glorification of a soldier on this inscription monument falls correct with the traditional Turkish social culture which is deep rooted.

Of course all nations have such a notion glorfying their soldiers, but the example which we see in Istaby inscription monuments is very much in correlation with those Orhun monuments found in C.Asia which could only yield support to this idea.

 

Summary:

Having looked at the runic inscriptions in light of Gok-Turk alphabet we can clearly see that;

-the mathematical percentage  of the letters that are exactly same in shape is very very high at  an avarage of 63.86%

-the mathematical percentage of the letters exactly same of each other and those that have very small variations  in shape is at an avarage of 88.86%

-the mathematical percentage of letters that are exactly same, that have small  very variations and those that are mirror image of each is at 100% !

 

-the mathematical percentage of letters that are completely different from each other with out any probability of been derived from each other is 0% !

 

This mathematical result is in it self enough to support the claims that the runic scriptures and Gok-Turk scpritures have a common origin. 

 

Furthermore the mathematical probability of sameness and such similarities between two geographically seperate independent alphabets to have so much percentages of exact sameness and similarity I would guess is very very very minute, with perhaps 1000000000’s to 1 ration of a probability!

 

If this mathematical reasoning isnt enough to support the claims that the runic and Gok-Turk alphabets originated from a common point, a study of the deciphered meanings could be of further help. We see from the deciphered meanings in Gok-Turk alphabet a clear correlation between the inscription and the make up of the inscription monuments, that is to say the Istaby inscriptions which is a monument to a buried man is in correlation with its Gok-Turk deciphered meaning of its inscriptions, The Kyvler inscription monument tells us of a wise man who authored the inscription it self and the Mojbro incription monument with a graphical portrayel of a mounted soldier with two dogs in direct correlation with the inscription of it in Gok-Turk language.

 

Where as on the other hand Istaby inscriptions’ decipherement attempt in other languages as documented by Mangudai results in a conflicting and undecided name of a person,  The Mojbro inscriptions results in a meaning which is vague and has no correlation with what is graphically portrayed on the monument it self. And like Mangudai  has clearly shown the Kyvler inscriptions have no meaningfull message when attempted to decipher it in the prevalent methods.

 

This outcome once again proves the success of runic monuments been decipherable in Gok-Turk language.

 

If this wasnt enough we can look at various indirect results and findings of these inscriptions monuments been deciphered in Gok-Turk language. We know from historical articals that Turks in history have placed an utmost importance on their states, which was a cumulation of  nation-peoples army-state structure Where the military might of the state wasnt limited to a few elite but all people of their states were to partake and thus formed the military force of their nations. This nation-army-state structure of the Turks lead to a traditional  culture in which bravery and glorification of the soldiers were  emphasized (theories can be made about this as an effort to further continue the nation-army-state structure which could be true). This traditional glorification besides many different aspect can also be found in the various monuments found in C.Asia, and that of the Istaby inscription monument found in Sweden conforms to this tradition.

 

Another aspect which should be taken into consideration is those of  man been gifted with the art of writing, we can clearly see in the  Kyvler inscription monuments of a event where a wise man had decended/arrived  demonstrating the form of writing to the people by originating his scriptures on the stone which is at hand in case of Kyvler inscription monument, and we know that nordic people of Europe consider this person as a god namely Odin, what is striking is that when the letters on the monument numbered 24,23 and 22 are taken into hand it spells out Odng,  couldnt the nordic people have taken to accept this arbitrary cumulation of letters were the name of this person who brought writing and named this person Odin and generated him as a god? It is very much possible, especially in light of these findings.

 

As Styrbiorn argues against these findings as been nothing more then been a quack and resembling them to the Jews attempts to decipher the runic inscriptions in ancient Hebrew and thus trying to rfute the Gok-Turk decipherment of the runic inscriptions as nothing more than an “entertainment”, a “novel” idea and holding “no value whatsoever” is a foundless and an easy  undocumented unscientific slogonazid attempt at refutation.   For one thing the Jewis attempt at deciphering of the runic inscriptions did not result in any interpretations that are relevant to the inscripton monuments, furthermore no mathematical facts resulted in this attempt as canbe clearly seen in the above overview. This approach is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges and making claims on it.

 

The fact that Turks have been migrating towards into Europe thousands of years before the origin of these debated monuments, the fact that mathematical probability of two geaographically seperated languages having such a high percentage of sameness, the fact that the deciphered meanings of the contents of these inscription monuments are in correlation whit what is portrayed on them, the fact that the inscriptions when tried to deciphered in so called “runic language” results in challanging conflicting and even no meanings at all, the fact that when these inscription monuments when deciphered in Gok-Turk language fall correct with their make up and the culture of the Gok-Turk people is evidence enough to suggest that the runic inscription monuments have an origin with that of the Gok-Turk language and culture.

Best Regards,

Tuman Yabgu

The truth is out there!



Edited by Tuman Yabgu
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 15:18

Yes the truth is out there, but Tuman Yagbus pseudo-sciense has nothing to do with it... You other readers on this board may choose to believe what you like - either you can believe in the official translation from ancient norse, or you may believe in this turkic nonsense and elaborate mathematical mumbo jumbo. Give me a break...

William of Occam tell us that the easiest explanation probably is the right one. What is most likely - that some mysterious, ancient turks are supposed to have come to northern Europe in the 2nd century (oldest runic script) and left only their script with no other sign of their existance? (the runes then only to appear in 7th century Mongolia?!) Or simply that norse and turcic runes developed seperately and look like each other because their common usage - carving wood and stone? C'mon...

The norse transliteration and translation of the Kylver, Istaby and Möjbro-stones have been made by real archeologists, the "turcic translations" have never appeared in any academic book - simply because they're false. I don't know ancient orkhon runes or their language, but I bet that anyone with knowledge in the Orkhon turcic language and writing can discard the translations as false



Edited by Mangudai
Nu guhká go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dán eatnam alde

Ossfok i sö kringest sturwekster ö ståtliger. Summer åv kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 15:25
Quote “The Kylver Stone has no message, but simply contains the older runic script fuþarkgwhnijpïRstbeml and the word sueus (Probably the name of the dead)”

This is interesting as no meanings are sourced for this long inscription but only a cluster of letters are chosen as a probable name of a person.

It's not any cluster of letters but a versions of the Runic alphabeth put into stone. I guess that is just a coincidence though

Quote
Which has no correlation with what is depicted ont he incsription monument even though it graphically portrays a mounted soldier with two dogs which is further supported with the Gok-Turk deciphering of the inscription that comes with it.


So what? There are virtually thousands of stones where the pictures have nothing to do with the text. Further, it is supposed that the figure is the dead man . The Norse often buried their dead with their horses and dogs as well as with ships and weapons. In fact it makes a whole lot more sense than erecting a monument over a couple of dogs, ignoring the depicted warrior...

Quote Now when look at Mangudais claim the first thing that come across is the instability between the names of “Haerulf” “Hadulv” and “Hiorulv”, the runic deciphering which he claims is accurate has not been able to name the person which this burial monument is named, giving three possibilities from one set of letter gatherings which is questionable, because if the runic inscriptions could we to be deciphered in any other language besides Gok-Turk they would have been able to decide whether the name of the person is Haerulf or Hadulv or Hiorulv, after all a letter should be able to have one correspondent to it when deciphered and should result in one name been established.>>

Sorry, but this is nonsense. First off, the runes on the stones are hard to read from the test of time, and secondly there were no spelling rules in the past and the names can thusly be interpreted in a few different ways. The interpretation provided by the Turk is on the other hand far too perfect.


Quote
So the glorification of a soldier on this inscription monument falls correct with the traditional Turkish social culture which is deep rooted.>>

Which only goes to prove you have no idea what you are talking about, ie that you have apparently have no idea about the Scandinavian warrior society. There are, again, thousands of monuments hailing the fallen in battle.
Quote
Of course all nations have such a notion glorfying their soldiers, but the example which we see in Istaby inscription monuments is very much in correlation with those Orhun monuments found in C.Asia which could only yield support to this idea.


Ok... There are more than 2000 similar runic monuments in Scandinavia, and couple in C.Asia. A better (though equally ridiculous) claim would thus be that the Turks got their alphabeths from a travelling Swede. Afterall the runic alphabet is 5 centuries older than Orkhon A.



Quote
For one thing the Jewis attempt at deciphering of the runic inscriptions did not result in any interpretations that are relevant to the inscripton monuments, furthermore no mathematical facts resulted in this attempt as canbe clearly seen in the above overview. This approach is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges and making claims on it.

Ohhh, so you know about it? Then I suggest you post what sources you used to read about it in, because AFAIK no non-Swedish source on the Hebrew interpretation of these stones has ever been published.


Quote the mathematical percentage of the letters that are exactly same in shape is very very high at an avarage of 63.86%
-the mathematical percentage of the letters exactly same of each other and those that have very small variations in shape is at an avarage of 88.86%
-the mathematical percentage of letters that are exactly same, that have small very variations and those that are mirror image of each is at 100% !
-the mathematical percentage of letters that are completely different from each other with out any probability of been derived from each other is 0% !
This mathematical result is in it self enough to support the claims that the runic scriptures and Gok-Turk scpritures have a common origin.

Splendid! Now, how many of the Runes and the Orhkon letters share the same sound value. Answer: 0 (zero).

(I also advice you to stop writing "mathematical" before percentage - percentage is mathematical by definition - because everyone who has the slightest knowledge about maths will immidiately understand you don't know much about it. Just a little tip.)



---

Seriously, this rampant nationalism has no place on these fora. If you do not realize that the very simple facts that the Germanic people got the runes from Latin around 150BC (many centuries before any Turk got to Europe) and that there is no evidence or sources whatsover of Turks going to Scandinavia puts this theory on par with Rudbeck's Atlantica and Däniken's works, there is simply no point in this discussion.



Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2005 at 15:38
One can't convince a fanatic who have decided in advance what to believe. But I'd love to hear from our fellow forumers which version they think makes more sense...
Nu guhká go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dán eatnam alde

Ossfok i sö kringest sturwekster ö ståtliger. Summer åv kulluma i riktit finer!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.