Ancient Blekinge Runes' Guestbook

Info: 130 entries on 1 page(s)
4000 hits since 2000-08-19 06:23:23

130  Date: 2007-08-23 01:53:06
Tricia ( / no homepage) wrote:

It occured to me I could give a better example.
For instance the Mayan "century" of 18980
if squared equals 360240400.
Supposing the priests ran numbers together and simply knew where to insert the functions I split this # into segments
Now 360 x 240 = 86400 (or the #of secs in 24 hrs.)
or if you multiply each segment by 22 (the # of feet of the calender codex)
360 x 22 = 7920 (the # of miles dia. of earth)
240 x 22 = 5280 (the # of ft in a mile.)
400 x 22 = 8800 (88 # of perfection:egypt) or 8800 = the total possible solutions to the digits 0-20 for the quadratic equation (x+1)(x-1)
Using these solutions in correlation with the hebrew gematria (too lengthy to show here) this creates some fascinating results. designs of buildings and tunnels.

129  Date: 2007-08-23 01:45:30
Tricia ( / no homepage) wrote:

Mr. Svennson,
I will be brief. 3 years ago I experience a phenomenon involving the analysis of ancient text into a numerical language which to this date I not not found anywhere in archeological progress. It
began with the correlation between the Mayan calender(s) & the Gematria translations of the "bible" from both hebrew and greek. This has thus far lead to a system of graphing (lack of better word) both distance & time. As well as providing architectural blueprints for many of the ancient structures so perfectly it is borderline terrifying. I know absolutely nothing about you or your background. But this seemed the right path to follow on this journey through the unexplained. If you are yet interested in this topic please e-mail me. I could use some advice or guidance on what one does with this kind of discovery. Thank you for your time.

128  Date: 2007-05-16 02:01:59
Cam Rea ( / no homepage) wrote:

Very interesting site. It grabbed my attention. I'll be looking into it more.

127  Date: 2007-01-19 12:51:03
Roberto Comenale ( / wrote:

Congratulations very interesting site about the runen

126  Date: 2006-08-14 00:37:41
Bill ( / no homepage) wrote:

This is very interesting and thought provoking. I hope that you continue your researches.

125  Date: 2006-08-13 04:54:11 ( / wrote:

vdlfgmjsa cafnsytr yvexlwg dwqjlp ietr hmfgya ctzxbvp

124  Date: 2006-05-25 11:34:38
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

I agree that there are similarities between the Old Futhark runes and runic scripts used by early Turks, but I do not agree on the proposed translations of the Istaby stone presented on the site you mention. I do not rule out that there could possibly exist some Turkish inscription in Scandinavia, but if so according to my findings Istaby is not one of them. I do not believe that the Möjbro inscription is Turkish either. In 2001 I published a proposed translation of the Möjbro inscription in my book "De blekingska runornas hemligheter". The main part of the Kylver inscription plainly consists of the Runic alphabet, so that is not much to argue about. In addition to the alphabet, the famous "SUEUS" inscription is also inscribed on the Kylver stone. The exact meaning of that "SUEUS" inscription is currently unknown to me.

123  Date: 2006-05-06 15:34:33
sylveno ( / wrote:

what you think about this works Have you work on the kylver and mojbro stone to compare with ?

122  Date: 2005-10-10 03:16:18
lewruli ( / no homepage) wrote:

The ideas presented on this page are quite fanciful. Threre are many holes in the correlation of runic phonetics to hebrew grammar. Not only in regards some basic words that can be made out, but also in terms of role runes have in the formation of words. You would have thought that the 19th century obsession with the erroneous correlation of runes with Bible-ology would have fallen to rest with Guido von List and his lamed school of rune lore. This page shows a lot of imagination, but little regard or understanding of the runes themselves.

Nice try though.

121  Date: 2005-08-27 13:16:50
margareta ( / no homepage) wrote:

Good work.l love ...

120  Date: 2005-02-02 19:14:33
svante fischer ( / no homepage) wrote:

har du ngn formell akademisk utbildning alls?

119  Date: 2004-12-27 15:20:31
jan ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

hello again .. have some problems getting through to you . take an example of the navigation system from carnac line B - I . B-I is built of 1032 menhirs in 12 lines x 86 stones per line , making 1286 . add the wind , called the van , 841 , to 1286 , and the sum is 2127 . van = 29 x 29 like ales ship is built . V = 8 , in the runic alfabet . A = 4 , and N = 1 , makes VAN 841 . Lug was the principal god in gaule once , L = 21 , U = 2 , G = 7 , LUG = 2127 . The Carnac stones are built to BAAL the Cartago god of navigation , and they function as calculating machines ... well in practice it worked with a distance north - south per latitude of about 6.5 kilometers , quite easy to remember to the navigator on board a ship , and they had a quite good system to measure longitudes by , - accurate . the färlöv stone ships have the right longitude exact , and the circle of 22 stones / holes at the bow of the largest ship is quite exact . in fact it makes a triange to carnac in bretange with a proportion 1 ./. 2 north -south compared to east - west . the alfabetic order as used was : f u th a r k g v ....h n i j p e´R s.....t b e`m l ng d o ... notably the letters e´14 and p 15 have changed place compared to other runic alfabets ....alfabets I have seen anyway ... these things do happen ... LUG 2127 then was made the god of 254 weeks in 5 years of an 8 year calender , by 2 x 127 = 254 . LUG was visible as a horse , preferbly a white horse .Anyway I know the coast from kivik north rather well , but havent seen those runestones in blekinge ... have seen the new found one in färlöv email gallerieleblanc or gallerileblanc , - but I cant make it function and dont know why ....jan

118  Date: 2004-12-27 14:32:47
jan ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

hello ..lets hope this gets through to you . from jan, lund , working with old navigation . every interrested for information on an old king named ale , ala and alewih , livbed about 500 ad . came from sölvesborg, elected dane over - king , on the mound in nymölla .. the mound of 1026 ad lost ..well i have been woring on this for ever, the navigation system was from cartago and was in function , quite well, in 4000 bc changed formula 1900 bc .and it works with the runic alfabeth , - mas ou menos your model , - however more conservative probably ... also got a freing working on the kabalah professor sellem whos just giving out a new book ... that and art of course as hes an art professor .. sens me a word if you care gallerieleblanc yahoo .com .

117  Date: 2004-10-29 02:01:00
Anders Malmqvist ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

I said that the there were 53 runes on the stone, not that there was another row equating 53 times something. OK I see your point there I wouldn´'t expect the stone to contain one, two, three, four or five runes and so on... especially since there are 53 or so;-)

116  Date: 2004-10-28 21:41:01
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

I have to admit that it is quite unlikely to get a sum divisible by 53 in two subsequent rows. However, I am still convinced that you get this by pure coincidence when you read like you do in the Istaby case. The real probability also is not as you say. If there had been 53 runes in the runic alphabet (or preferrably significantly more than 53), then the chance of getting a sum divisible by 53 in a random inscription would always have been reasonably close to 1/53. But the fact is that there are not more than 24 numerical gematria values in the runic alphabet, so the probability will vary depending on how many runes that you have in the inscription. For example if you have a runic inscription that consists of only two runes, then the probability of getting a sum that is divisible by 53 will be zero, since you can achieve at most a sum of 48 with two runes. On the other hand, if you have an inscription with say three runes, then the probability for getting a sum that is divisible by 53 will be greater than 1/53, because it will be 2*((1/(24*24))*(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20)*(1/24) = 0.03038..., which is already significantly greater than 1/53. OK, the effect of the number of runes on the probability will not be so great in longer inscriptions, so OK it may be OK to overlook it in the Istaby case. But still the fact that you get two rows (not three like you seem to claim) divisible by 53 does not have so low probability as you indicate. Anyway, I am still fully convinced that it is not correct to read the s runes like A on the Istaby stone (or anywhere else). Especially since the gematria is quite special also when the s runes are read normally with numerical value 15:

The total gematria of the inscription: 539 = 7*77

Row 2: 220 (which is exactly the number of runes in that row multiplied by 10)

Further, the number 19 turns out to be prominent in the inscription:

Row 3: 152 = 19*8

The first 7 runes: 95 = 19*5

The first 17 runes: 190 = 19*10

The first 27 runes: 285 = 19*15

(Do you see the highly remarkable pattern here?)

The first 40 runes: 399 = 19*7*3

The combined gematria of rows 1 and 2 can be written as 19*19 + 26 or 19*20 + 7. 26 as you know is the number of God...

The first 8 runes in row 2: 57 = 19*3

The first 10 runes in row 2: 95 = 19*5

The first seven runes in row 3: 57 = 19*3

The last nine runes in the inscription: 95 = 19*5

115  Date: 2004-10-27 19:19:08
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

BTW the gematria becomes more significant with my reading! The second rune on the backside is a u-rune as I see it.
row 1 159=3*53 [53=40+13]
row 2 212=4*53
backside 136= 17*8
the whole 507=3*13*13
Number of runes 53 (15+22+16)
So we have 53 ocurring three times and the probability for this could be seen as 1 on 53^3 =1 on 148877 since 53 also is the sum of the two symbolic numbers 40 and 13 and the whole is 507=3*13*13 the number 13 also seems to be a part of the symbolism on the stone.

The number 13 is very common on runic inscriptions and one example is the Gallehus horn. As described in Agrells book the number 13 ocurrs there three times in the rune rows and as 3*13 pictures in the most prominent field.

The Vadstena bracteate also have 13 sybolism:
fuTHarkgw: 52=4*13
hnijêbzs: 96=4*24
tbemlNgod: 156=12*13
tuwatuwa: 54= 6*9
Note here that rune number 13 ie p is excluded from the script and replaced by b. This also seems to be significant.
Best wishes

114  Date: 2004-10-27 18:24:06
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

I was just looking at a picture of the Charnay fibula in Sigurd Agrell's book "Senantik mysteriereligion och runmagi" and there it was the j-rune all whole with no gap in it, just as on the Istaby stone(thogh turned around). He makes no mention that that should be anything odd either so I don't think he has manipulated the picture in any way, and therefore there must be an early picture out there with a j-rune with abolutely no gap in it.
What I'm starting to consider therefore is that someone has deliberately manipulated the picture on Arild Hauges site to make a gap in the rune.
To confirm this I'll have to look at the fibula ( might be hard I don't know if it's location at the moment) in reality and also ask around in the scientific community what's going on here. Surely more people than I have discovered this.

113  Date: 2004-10-24 13:41:27
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

You write "In all the three other Blekinge inscriptions there are A-runes which we agree is a form of rune #11". Answer: If you would have written "three other well-known Lister inscriptions" then I could agree, but the fact is that there exist much more than "three other Blekinge inscriptions", and there are not A-runes in all of them, because if you look at the Tjurkö bracteats, then you will see that there are no A runes on them.
You say "On Stentoften there are even two variants - one j- and one A". Answer: The j- and A-runes are more like two different runes than two variants of the same rune, although they have the same numerical value.
You say "So why would there not be A-runes on the Istaby stone then?". Answer: Where "A" has been written on the Stentoften stone the rune "a" has been used instead on the Istaby stone. This is seen by the fact that on Stentoften it says "o-l-A", while on Istaby you have "u-l-a". Therefore "a" has been used instead of "A" on the Istaby stone (and "u" has been used instead of "o"), and there are 5 a runes on the Istaby stone, and I would say that that is "sufficiently" many to be "reasonable".

You write that "it's easy to see that the expressions are identical in these parts although they might have been pronounced slightly different[ly]". Answer: This is not so. You also admit that "there could be other possibilities". Good.

You write "Why would so many vocals (sic) in the Istaby inscription be exluded when we have normal vocals (sic) in all other inscriptions?" Answer: There are not "normal vowels" in all other runic inscriptions. Look for example at the Etelhem fibula which is said to have "mkmrlawrta". I guess you would expect more vowels there as well in order for it to be "normal" in your eyes...

You write: "How dcan You say that the j/A forever in runic history look like two opposing sickles and that there is always a gap in the rune. Do You really think that the A-runes in the Blekinge inscriptions look tlike that?" Answer: I have not said that there is always a gap in the j rune. What I said was that in case the j rune resembles an s, then there need to be a gap in it. Otherwise it would be impossible to distiguish it from an s rune. What I say is that the whole principle of the j rune is that it symbolizes two opposing sickles or moon crescents if you will, and that's how it got its name (Jera), since "Yerach" means "moon" in Hebrew. The j runes in for example the Stentoften inscription that you mention clearly also consist of TWO parts (two curved lines in the Stentoften case). This is not the case with the A rune, because as I said above, the A rune is a different rune although it has the same numerical value as the j rune. The A rune more resembles an ancient Hebrew/Phoenician/Canaanite Aleph... That's the main reason why it is so very difficult to see how a rune shaped like an s, would suddenly be pronounced as an A... Sorry Anders, but you are wrong here.

112  Date: 2004-10-22 18:44:25
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

You are fooling Yourself!
I most often encourage original thinking but here I really think that You should consider Occams razor.

1.In all the three other Blekinge inscriptions there are A-runes which we agree is a form of rune #11. And they are there also in a considerable amount.On Stentoften there are even two variants - one j- and one A- ( even though the j-rune is a litte uncertain). I even think that You see more of them than I do. So why would there not be A-runes on the Istaby stone then? Especially when we have a perfect cadidate, see all below in ealier posts.

2.Also considering that the sequenses
hAriwulaf/hAriwolaf and
,wich is the way all people but You see them, occur on the Istaby and Stentoften stones respectively. Even though there might be different suffixes it's easy to see that the expressions are identical in these parts although they might have been pronounced slightly different with o and u respectively.
At least this is the first and easiest way of interpreting it. Ok there could be other possibilities, but it is not very probable.

3. Why would so many vocals in the Istaby inscription be exluded when we have normal vocals in all other inscriptions? Is it really probable that we would have the sequences nszþsisz, hsþu, fz, hseru, sfat and
hsri with almost no vocals in between the consonants when there are vocals everewhere else, even in the Istaby incsription itself?
I don't think so, I'm sorry. I believe that You are wrong here.

You also write:
" The j rune is said to symbolize two opposing sickles, and an s rune hardly looks like that (unless there is a gap in the middle like in the Charnay futhark)."

How dcan You say that the j/A forever in runic history look like two opposing sickles and that there is always a gap in the rune. Do You really think that the A-runes in the Blekinge inscriptions look tlike that?
Setrekammen? Kragehul( In my and all else's opinion)? Själlandbrakteaterna? Eggjumstenen?
There are also an interesing development of the rune in perhaps somewhat younger stones e.g the Snoldelev stone and the Gimsö stone.
Best wishes

111  Date: 2004-10-22 16:32:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Even if it would have been true that the s runes of the Istaby stone should be read as A, you would not have had the same sequences on Stentoften and Istaby. For example Stentoften says "h-A-r-A w o-l-A f-k" (a close examination of the stone reveals that it says "h-A-r-A" and not "h-A-r-i"), while on Istaby you would have "h-A-r-i w u-l-a f-a" and "h-A-e-r-u w u-l-a f-i-z". What we can learn from this is that sequences that are similar to each other do not need to be, and indeed they are not, always exactly identical. There are different words in expressions that are similar to each other in form. In the Stentoften inscriptions you have for example the words "h-A-þ-u" and "h-A-r-A", while in the Istaby inscription you have the words "h-s-þ-u" and "h-s-e-r-u". These four are all different words although they occur in sentences that look similar to each other in form. So I still cannot see any evidence that s runes should be pronounced as j, and even less evidence that they should be pronounced as A. The j rune is said to symbolize two opposing sickles, and an s rune hardly looks like that (unless there is a gap in the middle like in the Charnay futhark). An s rune on the other hand looks like a flash of lightning, and that's what you see on the Istaby stone (and also for example when you look at the s runes of the Sölvesborg stone).

110  Date: 2004-10-22 02:28:54
Anders Malmqvist ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

BTW Örjan,
Istaby: hAThuwulaf hAeruwulaf

Stentoften: hAThuwolAf hAriwolAf

This says it all to me.
Dont You think the sequences are related? The first example at least?

109  Date: 2004-10-22 02:13:14
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

Perhaps I wasn't correct about the Breza rune, but it is in the same orietation as the others and in a series with charnay, kragehul and Istaby it shows the evolution of the j/A-rune. And there is a very small gap inn the Charnay rune,yes. I'd love to have a look at it in reality though. In any case it has closed in the Kragehul spearshaft inscription.

Regarding the Sölvesborg stone it is damaged in the beginning and at the second row so the certain part that I can read goes:
Amut Aunu Ain
and I see absolutely no reason to doubt that that makes perfectly sense, and it doesn't look odd at all to me

108  Date: 2004-10-20 20:42:22
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

If you look closely at the Charnay futhark for example at, then you will see that what you claim to be identical to an s rune in form is not joined in the middle. It consists of two parts, so it is a j rune both in form and according to its position in the futhark. In the Breza futhark there is also clearly a j rune, see I have seen no evidence at all that any rune looking exactly like an s rune should be pronounced like j, and even less evidence that it should be pronounced like A. Concerning the Kragehul spearshaft I do not find it strange that there are two variants of s runes in the same inscription. This can reflect different kinds of s sounds. Further, on the Sölvesborg stone (located only a few kilometers from the original site of the Istaby stone) there are s runes that look like the s runes on the Istaby stone. I would find it odd if you would read "aAmut AunuAiA..." on the Sölvesborg stone...

107  Date: 2004-10-15 23:14:28
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

A link to the Kragehul spearshaft:

106  Date: 2004-10-15 23:08:48
Anders Malmqvist ( / no homepage) wrote:

Carl-Johan Swärdenheim,
note that the runes that You and Örjan interpet as s-runes on the Istaby stone, most probably are A-runes and not s-runes!

No s-runes look like that, but compare with the j-runes on the Grumpan bracteate, the Brezsa and Charnay futharks and the Kragehul spearshaft. On the Kragehul spearshaft it is especially evident since both s- and j-runes are present and the j-rune looks almost exactly like the A-runes in the Istaby inscripiton.

105  Date: 2004-10-13 19:41:34
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

To Manusaac:

Quote from the preface of Terry Blodgett's dissertation “Phonological Similarities in Germanic and Hebrew”, that was published in 1981 by the Department of Languages at The University of Utah:

”English, Frisian, Dutch, Flemish, High and Low German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, as well as the extinct languages of Gothic, Old Norse, Old Saxon, and others, comprise one of the Indo-European groups of languages commonly called Germanic. On a broader scale, the Germanic branch of languages shares many features in common with the Italic, Greek, Celtic, Slavonic, Indo-Iranian, and other Indo-European language groups. However, linguists have also found linguistic elements in the Germanic languages which are foreign to other Indo-European languages. For instance...approximately one-third of all vocabulary entries in the etymological dictionaries dealing with Germanic languages are of an unknown origin. Likewise, the mystifying phenomena known as the Germanic sound shifts and the incursion of gemination are not to be explained from an Indo-European linguistic perspective. While the causes of these pecularities remain unexplained within the framework of Indo-European linguistics, the purpose of this study is to point out that similar phenomena are to be found in the Semitic languages, and that these similarities parallel most closely the linguistic properties of Hebrew.”

104  Date: 2004-10-13 02:36:21
Manusaac ( / no homepage) wrote:

Are the old germanic languages truly related to
semitic ones?

103  Date: 2004-10-11 01:43:46
Henry Cavendish ( no email / no homepage) wrote:


Your conclusions are wholly absurd. May God forgive you.

Yours sincerely,

H. Cavendish

102  Date: 2004-09-25 19:15:59
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Comment to CJ's writings below:

That the Hebrew alphabet originated in the Middle East, and that agriculture was important in that area as it was and is everywhere else on this planet is nothing that I have to prove. That is a well-known fact to all sane people.
Secondly, I have not proved anything funny concerning insertion of "foreign alphabet" into another language. Usage of different alphabets for the same language can be seen for example in Turkish, which earlier was written with Arabic letters, but which now is written with Latin letters. Another example is Jiddish which can be written with either Hebrew or Latin letters. Serbo-Croatian can be written with either Cyrillic or Latin letters. Thus the language can be THE SAME although the alphabet is different. But CJ has apparently not yet understood that THE SAME Semitic dialect found in early Runic inscriptions in Blekinge and eslewhere can be represented equally well by using the Hebrew script.

CJ then says "Let´s try Orjan Svensson´s theory". But in the end he does not try it (probably because he has insufficient knowledge in Semitic languages). He just says that what he thinks is my "theory" would produce "something very lewd indeed". Would it really? He can try if he wants, but substituting the Latin letters with Hebrew ones in an expression from Hamlet is a quite meaningsless exercise I would say, because the sound values would basically remain the same --- same language, just different alphabet. So CJ's suggested method of trying to get a "lewd" Semitic meaning from a Germanic text is doomed to fail. At most CJ could note that the word "set" is similar to the Hebrew word "SHaTaT", which means "to set, put, place", and that the word "is" is similar to the Hebrew word "YeSH" (= "there is"). (Yes, there are similarities between Hebrew and English, but the similarities are not extremely big.)

Further below, in the earlier posted messages CJ tries the opposite method of trying to get a Germanic meaning from a Semitic text.
For the Semitic Istaby inscription, CJ thus tries to use a method of inserting a foreign "Germanic" language into the inscription. Although this method has been used in the past by several scholars in their failed interpretation attempts, this method is doomed to failure, just like the opposite method suggested by CJ for the Hamlet text.

CJ claims that the sequence "sfatz" in the beginning is related to the Swedish word "ätt" meaning "family", "kin" etc. So what are the runes "sf" doing in the beginning then? CJ has no explanation.

CJ claims that the sequence "hsri" would mean "army" or "warrior", but it does not say "hari" or "hAri", which would somewhat resemble the Swedish word "här" (= "army"), in the inscription. It says "hsri". To interpret the s runes of the Istaby inscription as "a" or "A" is just another trick by those who try to force a Germanic meaning into the text.

CJ claims that "wulafa" means "wolf". But why does it say "wulafa" in one place "wulafz" in a second place and "wulafiz" in the third place? And if it now meant wolf, why does it not say "wulf" or possibly "wulfz"? CJ has no explanation. The truth is that "ula" or "olA" is a word that is present in several Runic inscriptions, and the meaning of it is "strength" or "power" in most cases. In those cases it is the same word as as the Hebrew Aleph-Vav-Lamed. If "ula" corresponds to the Hebrew Ayin-Vav-Lamed then the meaning is instead likely to be "child".

CJ admits that the meaning of "hsþu" is unclear in Germanic. Good.

CJ tries to get the meaning "wrote" from "wursit" in order to make it fit with the sequence "runsz", which he thinks means "runes". However, just because the sequence "run" is found in a text it does not necessarily mean that the meaning "rune" is present in the text. For example, the name Sharon is completely unrelated to the word "rune", although the sequence "ron" can be seen in that name. The same is true for the word "itrun" in the Istaby text.

Concerning the word "rune" it should however be noted that the meaning of it is "secret" both in Germanic languages and in Minoan (which was a Semitic language). Therefore many runic inscriptions have SECRET or hidden words or messages in them. A hidden word of the Istaby inscription can be seen when the 53 runes of it are put in a 6*9 matrix with one empty position:


The name Israel is therefore hidden in the Istaby inscription as indicated above. This is not a mere coincidence, because related hidden words are present in several other old Runic inscriptions as well...
This confirms the Semitic origin and nature of the early runes.

101  Date: 2004-09-24 07:23:21
Carl-Johan Swärdenheim ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

If you would like to summarize the net theory of Orjan Svensson, it would be that he has:

A.) "consistently proven that the Hebrew alphabet has its´ origin in a Middle Eastern agricultural society" and

B.) "that a foreign alphabet inserted into another language yields a very funny result".

Let´s try Orjan Svensson´s theory using another example:

"The time is out of joint, oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right." (From Hamlet)

If you translate this sentence using the Hebrew alphabet, I am confident that it will be understood as something very lewd indeed...

But that doesn´t proove that an Israelitic tribe invaded England in the 16th century without leaving any traces what-so-ever!

/ CJ

100  Date: 2004-09-24 07:08:03
Carl-Johan Swärdenheim ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

The meaning of the Istaby stone is rougly (in Old Germanic): "Thywolf, of Riwolfs kin, wrote after Herewolf these runes."

s-f-a-t z

ätt, ättling


här, krigare

w u-l-a f-a

varg, ulv


oklart? första ledet i ett namn

w u-l-a f-z

varg, ulv


här, krigare

w u-l-a f-i-z

varg, ulv

w u-r s i-t-


r-u-n s-z


99  Date: 2004-09-24 06:54:40
Carl-Johan Swärdenheim ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

My opinion is that the Istaby stone is relatively easy to interpret. The last two words on the stone states clearly: "runes these". It is so basic so you can even compare it to modern English or Swedish. It is quite clearly a Germanic language on the Istaby stone, and not a Semitic one. The typical end "these runes" is also found on many other rune stones in Scandinavia.

r-u-n s-z

runes (Swedish: "runornas")

þ-s-i s-z

this, these, plur gen (Swedish: "dessas")

98  Date: 2004-09-21 09:25:49
Bob ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

I´m always open to a new theory!

But Orjan, if YOU have a new theory, YOU should be very humble about it. The REAL truth will not gain anything, if you hurl yourself like a madman at everyone who is critical to your weird theories. YOU are the one who has something to prove! THEY haven´t! THEY can rely on what is SUPPOSED to be known.

Another disturbing fact is the vast crowd of religious madmen these sites attract. Where are all those religious nutcases coming from?

Normal Christians have a FAITH with origins in the Israelite tribal worship, but that doesn´t mean that we´re RELATED to Jews...

/ Bob

97  Date: 2004-09-01 20:55:48
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Answer to stuart:

The gematria of runes are different from the gematria of Hebrew letters.

The word that with Hebrew letters is written ayin-vau-tau-he (with numerical values 70-6-400-5) can CORRESPOND to the RUNES Odal-Tyr-Ass ("o-t-a"), and these runes have RUNIC gematria values 23-16-3, which yields 23 + 16 + 3 = 42, so both the value 481 and the value 42 can be valid for the same word. 481 is valid when the word is written with Hebrew letters and 42 is valid when the same word is written with runes.

96  Date: 2004-09-01 11:09:11
fede ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Great! really impressive, I loved it so much!

95  Date: 2004-08-24 19:33:38
stuart ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

I was looking at the section below
The Gematria of Tjurkö Bracteate 2

A calculation of the gematria of Tjurkö bracteate 2 yields 23+16+3 = 42 = 7×6. Thus we have again a number that is divisible by seven.

The letters being ayin-vau-tau-he (ie 70-6-400-5)
I find the gematria to be 481, and looking up this word I find "wrong or oppression".

I was wondering if there were a reason for this difference.


94  Date: 2004-08-24 13:22:26
Linda Hingst Braschayko ( / no homepage) wrote:

It is absolutely wonderful to see such proof from across the ocean that our forefathers once wandered the lands. Thank you for your work.

93  Date: 2004-07-16 18:24:20
buddy ( / no homepage) wrote:

loved the site

92  Date: 2004-05-23 20:31:14
Doris Knight ( / no homepage) wrote:

How very interesting. I got to this from Yair Davidy's e-mail.

91  Date: 2004-05-06 14:32:59
Stefan Klatt ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Your interpretation of the inscriptions as Hebrew is not less shaky than the Germanic one. Additionally you had to add runes and can not demonstrate verse patterns as in the usual interpretations. Not really convincing!

90  Date: 2004-03-11 04:19:14
Hernan C. Garcia ( / no homepage) wrote:

I started reading Rabbi davivy lexicum the 10 tribes of Isreal very curious but almost sounds like gnostic but its not. Im a born again believer I welcome hes historical study tracing geniology roots founded in Gen.#10 IT blew my mind totaly. thanks to god triune theres pepole who really care and love what are your concern what this matter is and in whole bible investigator like you opens up understanding jews and gentiles. May the Lord Continue hea good work in you,ame.

89  Date: 2004-01-29 22:59:10
Beverly A. Winquest ( / no homepage) wrote:

Am interested in Swedish info, Grandfather came from Sweden.

88  Date: 2004-01-29 01:15:57
David Mayerhoff, MD ( / no homepage) wrote:

A translation of the runes would be great

87  Date: 2004-01-28 20:40:08
diane verzuu ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Very interesting and mysterious. A true "wonder".

86  Date: 2004-01-28 16:47:14
Earl Carr ( / wrote:

Is it plausable that the Carians could have contributed to this history?

85  Date: 2004-01-09 13:07:26
joel ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Sommarstuga på samm ö

84  Date: 2003-10-31 20:30:36
Pål Svensson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Dette må jeg studere nærmere. Det kan se ut som avstanden mellom land og kulturer var mye mindre enn det skolearkeologien mener. Tror jeg leste et sted at det har blitt funnet innskripsjoner i fjell nær Kongsberg Sølvgruber som er datert til bronsealder og opprinnelse fra Middelhavet.

83  Date: 2003-04-26 18:11:49
thomas ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Madness!! aramic language in sweden,before the viking-age??
t-t-t i don´t think so

82  Date: 2003-04-25 13:08:50
babz ( / no homepage) wrote:

i am interested in making runic crafts. can you help me with this?

81  Date: 2003-03-17 02:01:47
Ernest Purcell ( / no homepage) wrote:

Interesting! Found your Site through Yair Davidiy's Brit-Am site. The Runes are similar to those found elsewhere in Europe, and seems to tie in with the findings by Barry Fell, of earlier Kelto-Iberian sites in the America's.

80  Date: 2003-02-26 05:14:36
Pablo ( / no homepage) wrote:

I need to know more about your investigation.

79  Date: 2003-02-24 19:47:58
Steven Collins ( / wrote:


I went to your website from Yair Davidy's Britam site and checked out your inscriptions. Very interesting. I would suggest making a complete English transliteration readily available for each ancient inscription. I noticed some transliteration links for the individual words in the ancient inscriptions were in English and some were in German.

My new books on the tribes of Israel include support for your thesis that the Phoenicians were in Scandinavia. I cite Thomas Johnston's 1913 book, "Did The Pheonicians Discover America?," which asserted that the Phoenicians were linked to ancient Norway by trade. Another source I cite notes the Phoenicians mined for amber in the Baltic region. It is not hard to see how the Pheonician/Israelite alliance had a major presence in Scandinavian waters for several centuries. The Bible relates in I Kings 9:27 and II Chronicles 9:21 that Israel, Tyre and Sidon merged their navies into one entity, and these peples remained allies until the kigndom of Israel fell).

Steve Collins

78  Date: 2002-12-27 14:25:31
Okan Berk ( / no homepage) wrote:

Very interesting page...
If you look at the pages below

you may find some other knowledge which may be interesting for you as well.

Other important point that I want to menton is that it would be very useful to have some information about Hazar State (Khazar) to understand some part of history of Jewish people in Europe. It would be a great challenge for "true God's chosen people" ideology.......

77  Date: 2002-10-23 02:02:21
Storm ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

"Instead of taking the consequence of the fact that their faith is all-Jewish, they desperately try to twist the truth. They have sold their souls to a Jewish "God" and have serious problems accepting that as the fact it is. Instead of dissociating themselves from this Jewish fable they cling to it with extreme fanatism. They do all they can to convince themselves (and everybody else for that sake) that it is "really" Aryan, and that they are the "true God's chosen people" after all and that the Jews have "stolen" their heritage. It is really just sad, and actually it is not an ideological or religious problem; it is a problem for the medical science. It is a mass-psychosis, a spiritual plague."

76  Date: 2002-10-13 00:24:26
Nagelfar ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

the bible was really the sacred scripture of Thor! it begins by telling us that Thor's beard had the same properties of his wife Sif's hair. just look! taking only the proto-germanic cognates out of indo-european this what you come up with, first let me include the original hebrew that everyone thought it was:

Genesis 1:1 (in hebrew)
Bree'shiyt baaraa' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim w'eet haa'aarets.

Genesis 1:1 (in indo-european)
Bhreus-at bharða, elleuðum, eti hesenaiwum wet haiarerets

(translation of IE)
to his breast was the length of his beard, red-brown it grew. beyond (earthly) harvest was its vital force, to allow the plow to sow.

From the american heritage dictionary of indo-european by calvert watkins:

"bhreus" is related to old english 'breost' old french 'broust', and danish 'bryske'

"at" is related to the germanic and latin source concieved as "the period gone through", latin 'annus'

"bharða" is related to old english 'beard', germanic 'bardaz', and latin 'barba'

"el-leuðum" is from 'el' that is related to german 'gelb' yellow but in older times red-brown. old norse 'elgr' an elk, and old english 'elm' both denoting color. 'leuð' is related to old high german 'liut' to mount up, grow, and latin 'liber'. 'um' is the proper tense suffix

"eti" 'above, beyond', is related to old norse 'iða', a countercurrent and from germanic 'ith' a second time, again.

"(h)esen-" means a harvest or fall, related to old english 'earnian' to serve, gain wages, and germanic 'aznon', to do harvest work.

"-aiw-um" means vital life force, or eternity. from old english 'awiht', old norse 'ei', modern english 'ever', latin 'aeternus'. 'um' is again suffix

"wet" means activity or inspiration, to spiritually arouse. from old english 'wod', modern german 'wut'; from Wotan/Odin.

"(h)ai-" means to give, or allot, related to modern english 'diet'

"-ar(e)-" [the "e" being the turned & reversed kind I have no character for typing.] means to plow, from latin 'arare', and modern english 'arable'

"-ret" means 'up from under', a 'pursuit', and is related to old irish 'toir', and modern english 'rodeo'. the "s" is the proper suffix for connection to previous word.

75  Date: 2002-07-17 04:03:35
Annette Hawkins Balnicky ( / no homepage) wrote:

Interested in tracing my ancestry back to Jewishness.......if possible.

74  Date: 2002-07-10 11:38:47
Sonja Muller ( / wrote:

I am interested in Runes and the different theories and read a lot about it. I have written several books about runes, Numerology and Ogham. Kind regards.

73  Date: 2002-06-02 14:16:19
A Moe ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

"But to speak about someone's hands being "beaten down" in conjunction with this is of course complete rubbish, and has nothing to do with the matter."

It should be perfectly clear what I mean: for the title "World's most ridiculous interpretations of runic inscriptions", Kjell Aartun beats you hands down. Your supposed semitic poems at least contain some sexual references. That doesn't make the existence of a fertility cult likely, even if one did concede that the poems existed at all, but at least it doesn't make it impossible, while Aartuns prudish eupheumisms scream loudly of a writer that fears and abhors the sex act. Don't you agree?

You've obviously put a bit of effort into addressing my points, so maybe I should try to reason with you. Simple politeness and everything...

Here we go. Number one.

I said "If it was cultish, the activities should point upwards to the world of the gods, forewards to the next generation, outwards to the community."
And you answer: "Not necessarily so in all aspects of the cult. Who said that all aspects of the cult were recorded in the relatively short runic texts? "

And my answer to that is: "For crying out loud, you moron! There is only one reason you believe there once was a semitic fertility cult in Blekinge: you believe you have read its cultish poetry, carved in stone. BUT the poems you claim to have translated from the stone carvings don't tell us much of anything about said fertility cult. AND THEN YOU SAY that you never said all aspects of the cult were covered in the short inscriptions. This is when most opponents simply say, okay, he's insane, and give up. After all, your only reason for believing in a semitic fertility cult in Sweden are these inscriptions. So here, you need to show that the inscriptions do, in fact, contain something that is best explained by cultish activity. What do you give me? A weak polemical point; you never said you knew everything about this cult! This is the sort of hot air that comes out of flat-worlders when they're pressed. If some people cease discussing with you, it's because they're rightly fed up with rhetorical tricks like this; don't believe they've all been converted to your faith and want to keep it secret as a matter of pride.

Moving on to:

I said "Really: if you're Swedish, you should be able to guess what the headlines in an Icelandic newspaper mean. And that language is no more archaic than the newest runic insciptions; indeed, there are runic inscriptions in Scandinavia that show more modern linguistic developments than any Icelandic newspaper does."
And at this point, you most rudely interrupt: "Yes, this may be so. However, I am not dealing with the newest runic inscriptions. I am dealing with some of the OLDEST ones, which are very different from the newest."

I was getting to the oldest runic inscriptions, this is called a thread of thought. In this inane insertion, you do not contradict me at all, you only put it in to look clever- AS IF I didn't know we were talking about the oldest runic inscriptions! If this were a verbal exchange, I would at this point grab something heavy and hit you over the head with it, and when you came to, I'd spit in your face, say, fuck off, cunt, and leave. There really isn't anything else to do. It's foolish to act polite towards a rude person, and you, Sir, are a very rude and childish person who interrupts in mid-stream in order to score demagogical points. If that's your attitude, I don't think I'll waste much more time on you.

Well, we go on. You do accept that Icelandic and Swedish are related, so what's your problem with the more ancient forms of the language found on the stones?

I said: "And the runic inscriptions that everyone but you and Aartun see, show the older forms of the language, stopping around the year 200. I don't see where there's anything unacceptable in this theory; I just plain don't see the need to postulate the existence of semitic fertility cults that saw a need to carve pornographic poetry in stone. Always believe the more likely theory."

Your reply: "Yes, do so. Believe in the more likely theory." (That's what I said, wasn't it? What sort of rhetoric is this?!)
"If you think that for example "niuhAborumkA
niuhagestAumkA hAþuwolAfkgAfjA hArAwolAfkmAgeAjusnuhwe
herAmAlAsAkArAgeuwelAdudsAþAetolAbAriutiþ AruA" (Stentoften) sounds like an old form of Icelandic, then you are free to believe so, but I am afraid that you have a severe lack of evidence for backing up such an unfounded belief."

Er, but you don't accept that this is what's written on the stones, do you? So if you have so much trouble accepting that an ancient form of the language seems impenetrable at first, it would be better to postulate an ancient form of Swedish that's more easily recognizeable as Swedish to the non-specialist, rather than to invent a semitic fertility cult that carved the stones. Since it is, after all, much more likely that the ancestors of the modern Swedes lived in Sweden 1500 years ago than that semites did. (Let alone the likelihood of the existence of a semitic fertility cult at a point when the semites were monotheist and very openly hostile to women, sex and all that.)

It seems to me that the word "semitic" covers at least as wide a field as "european". So it seemed strange to me that anyone would claim to be able to read a text simply because he knew 'semitic'. There would be lacunae in the texts, obscure allusions, slangy expressions, forgotten traditions... any translation of this sort of texts should contain lacunae to look authentic, so please, for your own good, insert some. You Swedes are so dialect blind you can't even understand Norwegian, how can you figure out Arabic just because you know Hebrew, or vice versa? The languages are both semitic, but they don't have all that much in common. And you're not capable of comprehending how modern Swedish relates to Ur-Nordic- I guess that means you don't really have the sort of ear one would need to understand every semitic dialect that ever existed. Good day.

72  Date: 2002-05-28 22:16:10
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

"...we are unconvinced that you indeed can see any semitic script at all on the Blekinge stones."
What I claim is that the runes of the Old Futhark seen for example on the oldest runic inscriptions of Blekinge ARE Semitic.
Further, there are also to be found for example on the Björketorp stone other signs, namely Minoan linear A letters and hieroglyphs, which also are Semitic.

"'re not willing to come up with the raw, untranslated semitic texts you supposedly saw, only your own interpretations of them."
False. The runes are covered in great detail here on the web, and I have fully explained also my view of the Minoan signs as well in my book "De blekingska runornas hemligheter".

"If it was cultish, the activities should point upwards to the world of the gods, forewards to the next generation, outwards to the community."
Not necessarily so in all aspects of the cult. Who said that all aspects of the cult were recorded in the relatively short runic texts?

"Aartun's poetry does not have this dimension, it is all about genitalia, and is thus unconvincing as proof of the existence of any ancient fertility cult."
The proofs do not lie in the presence or absence of some particular dimension in the texts. The proofs are linguistic in nature and are also founded in gematria and in comparisons, litteral as well as conceptual, with known ancient Semitic texts from the Middle East. By the way I can inform you that there exist several ancient erotic texts, written in Semitic language, which have been found in the eastern Mediterranean area. Also you should consider the following quote from G. Vorberg: "Erotikken er nøkkelen til forståelsen av den gamle verden og dens kultur". ("Eroticism is the key to the understanding of the old world and its culture.") This statement was made by G. Vorberg after he had studied ancient art extensively.

"However, even on this point, the sheer irrationality of Aartun's pseudoscience has yours beaten hands down: many of Aartun's poems have in fact no sexual content at all; this is provided only in Aartun's interpretations of his own poems."
Wrong again. Take for example Tjurkö Bracteat 1, which I translate as "In life's old age, at the appointed time, then our joy rises thick and high at last." This could very well be interpreted as non-sexual. Maybe this text is only speaking about increased happiness in old age. I can however agree that the sexual content is more expressly clear generally in the Blekinge inscriptions than in the runic inscriptions located in Norway and treated by Aartun. But to speak about someone's hands being "beaten down" in conjunction with this is of course complete rubbish, and has nothing to do with the matter.

"Like Aartun, of course, you do not accept that one can agree that there may be some undocumented link between ancient semitic and indo-european cultures without thus proving every aspect of your interpretations of the texts you say that you see."
False. I allow you to be free to agree on whatever you want.

"Really: if you're Swedish, you should be able to guess what the headlines in an Icelandic newspaper mean. And that language is no more archaic than the newest runic insciptions; indeed, there are runic inscriptions in Scandinavia that show more modern linguistic developments than any Icelandic newspaper does."
Yes, this may be so. However, I am not dealing with the newest runic inscriptions. I am dealing with some of the OLDEST ones, which are very different from the newest.

"And the runic inscriptions that everyone but you and Aartun see, show the older forms of the language, stopping around the year 200. I don't see where there's anything unacceptable in this theory; I just plain don't see the need to postulate the existence of semitic fertility cults that saw a need to carve pornographic poetry in stone. Always believe the more likely theory."
Yes, do so. Believe in the more likely theory.
If you think that for example "niuhAborumkA
niuhagestAumkA hAþuwolAfkgAfjA hArAwolAfkmAgeAjusnuhwe
herAmAlAsAkArAgeuwelAdudsAþAetolAbAriutiþ AruA" (Stentoften) sounds like an old form of Icelandic, then you are free to believe so, but I am afraid that you have a severe lack of evidence for backing up such an unfounded belief.

71  Date: 2002-05-25 15:16:39
A Moe ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

"The emphasis on pudenda etc in the runic texts does not originate from me. Only from the texts themselves (when correctly translated)."

Er, the point some of us have tried to make is that we are unconvinced that you indeed can see any semitic script at all on the Blekinge stones.
One reason; we don't see anything like that.
Another; you're not willing to come up with the raw, untranslated semitic texts you supposedly saw, only your own interpretations of them.
Yet another; these poems show an obsessive emphasis on pudenda; like Kjell Aartun's poetry, they read much more like the products of one lonesome person's troubled mind than the religious poetry of a fertility cult.

-If you're Swedish, you ought to be able to read Norwegian, so pick up a copy of Aartun's "Runer I kulturhistorisk perspektiv" and see for yourself if you can find any real cultish content in the poems.
If it was cultish, the activities should point upwards to the world of the gods, forewards to the next generation, outwards to the community. Aartun's poetry does not have this dimension, it is all about genitalia, and is thus unconvincing as proof of the existence of any ancient fertility cult.

However, even on this point, the sheer irrationality of Aartun's pseudoscience has yours beaten hands down: many of Aartun's poems have in fact no sexual content at all; this is provided only in Aartun's interpretations of his own poems.

Like Aartun, of course, you do not accept that one can agree that there may be some undocumented link between ancient semitic and indo-european cultures without thus proving every aspect of your interpretations of the texts you say that you see.

Really: if you're Swedish, you should be able to guess what the headlines in an Icelandic newspaper mean. And that language is no more archaic than the newest runic insciptions; indeed, there are runic inscriptions in Scandinavia that show more modern linguistic developments than any Icelandic newspaper does.

And the runic inscriptions that everyone but you and Aartun see, show the older forms of the language, stopping around the year 200. I don't see where there's anything unacceptable in this theory; I just plain don't see the need to postulate the existence of semitic fertility cults that saw a need to carve pornographic poetry in stone. Always believe the more likely theory.

70  Date: 2002-04-07 11:36:11
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

S. King claims that "...Futharks nothing have to do with Hebrew and Aramaic". This statement contradicts what Encyclopaedia Americana has to say on the subject. See for example also the following links: and (where it is stated that "Runes could have come directly from Phoenician").
The emphasis on pudenda etc in the runic texts does not originate from me. Only from the texts themselves (when correctly translated).

S. King hävdar att (den äldre) futharken inte har någonting med arameiska eller hebreiska att göra. Detta påstående motsäger vad Encyclopaedia Americana har att säga om ämnet. Se t.ex. även följande länkar: och (där det sägs att runorna mycket väl kan ha uppkommit direkt ur det feniciska alfabetet).
Betoningen på blygden etc. i runtexterna härrör inte från mig, utan endast från texterna själva (när de översätts korrekt).

69  Date: 2002-04-07 09:07:50
Björn J ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Det jag undrar är ju var fick du teorin ifrån? Hur kom du till insikt om detta?

68  Date: 2002-04-06 07:38:09
S. King ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

As an amateur runologist and linguist, I find this very hard to believe, the Scandinavian languages and Futharks nothing have to do with Hebrew and Aramaic. Your work, anyhow, is interesting for the enthusiasm you put on it. As a professional, I have to say that the "obsessive" emphasis you put on "pudenda" and sexual delight, although present in every collectivity, is pathological, as your tergiversation of the meaning of the original inscriptions for they fit with what you want to say. Sorry, I am dissapointed, this is a cultural involution. I knew most of this inscriptions and their Scandinavian meaning before knowing this page. Good Luck.

67  Date: 2002-01-07 00:15:09
Martin Johansson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
(Jonathan Swift)

66  Date: 2001-10-07 22:43:00
A. Moe ( / no homepage) wrote:

We have a lunatic like this in Norway too; he's called Kjell Aartun. Same story with him; sees signs that aren't there, makes boisterous claims, is rude and libellous, yet imagines malicious personal attacks whenever his theories are doubted. Of course he considers his loose theories proven beyond the slightest doubt; that no-one else can see the signs and that even he himself is unable to provide transcriptions of the "semitic" texts his pornographic poetry is supposedly translated from- he's not even the slightest troubled by that.
However, as always, Norway wins. You provide colour photos of the stones and have actually gone and seen them. Our boy dismisses this "direct method"; he works from black-and-white newsprint reproductions, feeling he can see the details clearer there. In his book "Runer i kulturhistorisk perspektiv", all the pictures are ripped off from printed sources, xeroxed, and the supposed "semitic" texts scribbled on in black ink. Compared to that, what you Swedes have come up with here, is nearly rational, scientific and plausible.

65  Date: 2001-09-21 05:32:12
Mark L Cold ( EPIPHANYXXX@AOL.COM / no homepage) wrote:

Thank you for the information. Good Day

64  Date: 2001-08-24 11:58:21
Pär Larson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Jo käre Örjan, nog har du rätt i att en förekomst av minoiska hieroglyfer och lineär-A-skrift på Björketorpsstenen skulle tyckas mig "tämligen svår att förklara", men som tur är så finns där inga sådana tecken: jag har kollat. Jag har även kollat Möjbrostenen, där du "läste" ett antal hittills inte registrerade tecken: de finns inte där heller. (Jag kanske skulle tillägga att jag är en van läsare av skrift på såväl sten, papper, papyrus och pergament, utbildad i paleografi, osv osv.).

Och du har fortfarande inte -- fast du haft över ett år på dig -- erbjudit något translittererat exempel på din Blekingesemitiska (mina semitistvänner väntar med spänning), bara de vanliga vokallösa hebreiska ungefärliga "motsvarigheterna". Är du rädd att någon riktig semitist skall få syn på dem och säga något obehagligt?

Men den här gästboken är ju ändå en ganska underhållande läsning: fast hur du kan fortsätta att känna andras kritik som "angrepp" och inte inse att hela din attityd -- liksom även ditt ordval (där du självsäkert understryker att alla hittills alltid har haft fullkomligt fel) -- är ett långt aggressivare angrepp, som ingen av dina besvarare alls kommer upp till, är mig en gåta. Men jag får väl vara dig tacksam ändå, för det är alltid kul att komma hit...

63  Date: 2001-07-30 08:58:43
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Firstly, answer to John:
As far as I know Aartun's book has not been translated to English yet, but his main works are available in German. There are some people in Scandinavia who are working in the same direction as I have done, and hopefully works in English will be available during the next few years.

Secondly, answer to Andreas Lundin:
Nya landvinningar och upptäckter inom forskning och vetenskap möter ofta motstånd, särskilt om de nya resultaten strider mot sådant som tidigare har tagits för givet. Detta är inget nytt. Det är också ett känt faktum att det är svårare att göra sig av med gamla invanda föreställningar än att lära sig något helt nytt. Av dem som kritiserar de nya rönen om att de äldsta runinskrifterna är skrivna på semitiskt språk, kunde man dock vänta sig lite mer än bara upprepningar av enstaka (felaktiga) tolkningar som tidigare gjorts. Nåväl, Andreas Lundins tolkning av Sölvesborgsstenen verkar ändå skilja sig lite från den tidigare gängse, så lite nytänkande kan man väl ändå tillstå att han kommer med. Men det räcker ingalunda med en germansk tolkning av Sölvesborgsstenen för att på något sätt rucka på sanningen om de äldre runinskrifternas semitiska natur. Skäl: 1. Sölvesborgsstenens inskrift är relativt kort. 2. Stenen är skadad vilket gör att flera runor är relativt otydliga. Pär Larson var alltså lite smartare när han i sina angrepp istället utgick från Stentoftens runinskrift, som är en av de längsta man överhuvudtaget känner till. En annan lång runinskrift av den äldre typen finns t.ex. på den norska Tunestenen, vars runor enligt Aartun kan läsas enligt följande:


Ett annat exempel på en relativt lång runinskrift av den äldre typen finns på den västgötska Nolebystenen (även känd som Fyrungastenen):


Björketorps- och Istabystenarnas inskrifter är inte så korta de heller. (Dessutom finns t.ex. på Björketorpsstenen både minoiska hieroglyfer och linär-A-skrift. Detta torde också vara tämligen svårt att förklara för Andreas Lundin och Pär Larson.) Låter även dessa inskrifter som typiska minnesskrifter (som var vanliga under vikingatiden och den yngre runradens tid)? Nej, istället rör det sig här om typiska semitiska fruktbarhetskultiska inskriptioner. För att få en bild av de äldre runinskrifterna, måste man ta ett helhetsgrepp över en betydande mängd inskriptioner. Det räcker inte att koncentrera sig på en kort runinskrift med flera skadade runor. Först när man har tagit ett helhetsgrepp, och kommit till insikt om de äldre runinskrifternas semitiska natur, först då kan man ge sig i kast med att försöka tolka även Sölvesborgsstenen. Att denna stens runinskrift är av den äldre typen ser man framför allt genom att en m-runa, som inte finns i den yngre runraden, förekommer på stenen. Eftersom alla andra jämförbara runinskrifter har visat sig vara semitiska, följer att även Sölvesborgsstenen har en semitisk runinskrift. Om man sedan tittar noga på stenen och analyserar fotografier, kan man se att några runor med mycket stor sannolikhet har feltolkats tidigare. När dessa runor sedan har korrigerats enligt vad som är mest sannolikt både vad gäller stenens strukturer (helst borde man även mäta stenen med den senaste lasermätningstekniken, och sedan datoranalysera resultatet) och den semitiska grammatiken, kan man se att man erhåller en fruktbarhetskultisk text som i likhet med flera andra blekingska inskiptioner språkligt står nära hebreiska och arameiska.

62  Date: 2001-07-26 14:10:02
Pär Larson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Andreas, se upp: om du understår dig att kritisera Örjans teorier blir han alldeles ifrån sig... ta en titt på våra tidigare meningsutbyten (inlägg 15, 16, 29, 32, 33)!

61  Date: 2001-07-19 18:36:32
Andreas Lundin ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Letade efter lite mer seriösa och ingående hemsidor rörande runinskriptioner med den äldre runraden. När jag hittade denna sida blev jag glad, tydliga bilder på stenarna, tydliga översikter av runorna och och översättning till bokstäverna... Men sedan, längre ner på sidan? En översättning till hebreiska med anspelningar på en fertilitetskult? *skratt, skratt*... Tillåt mig tvivla! Vilken amatörrunolog som helst kan se att språket på stenarna innehåller ord som påminner om nutida nordiska språk. Ta Sölvesborstenen t.ex:

urti wAth ...asmut sunu sin

Som översatt blir ungefär

Vath[i] skrev [till minne av] Åsmund, sin son.

En ganska vanlig typ av runsten: rest till minne av någon. Hur 17 kan man få det till hebreiska? Jag kan inte tro annat än att denna sida är ett stort skämt.


Andreas Lundin


I was looking for serious and investigating homepages about the older rune inscriptions whith the older runes. Imagine my happiness when I found this page with nice pics of the stones, clear images of the runes and the runes tranlated into latin letters. But then... further down on the page? A translation to hebrew, with connections to a fertility cult? *laugh, laugh*... Allow me to express my doubts! Any amateur runologist can see that the language on the stones contains words that in in many ways are the same as present scandinavian languages. The Sölvesborg stone for example:

urti wAth ...asmut sunu sin

which is translated to

Vath[i] wrought [in memory of ] Åsmund, his son.

A general type of rune stone: raised in memory of someone. How the h*ll can those words be translated to hebrew? I cannot believe anything else than that this homepage is one big joke.


Andreas Lundin

60  Date: 2001-07-07 05:03:53
John ( / no homepage) wrote:

Your pages were fascinating to look at and the info was very interesting. HAs the book Runer been translated into English? I'd like to read it. Or have you written any others in English or know of any that develop your theory? Thanks.

59  Date: 2001-01-25 19:18:02
john mc govern ( / wrote:

i was delighted to discover you'r site, a surprise as i was trawling yemen sabaean inscriptions so you were a plesent surprise. this stuff is all over the planet we are documenting it at this site please see it as we have much to share on this proto-semetic deal cheers john j:^)

58  Date: 2001-01-10 01:28:58
tim handshoe ( / no homepage) wrote:

what i have seen here realy makes think of how far we made it in the past before any one else ever thought of travel and the utter shear power of the ancient norsmen there passion there will to find and learn new things there knowledge

57  Date: 2000-12-06 12:06:05
Elizabeth Bluehorse ( / wrote:

When dealing with these stones and the Runic inscriptions, have you felt the life and liveliness that is in the stones? Have you read the scripture in the Apocrypha that refers to Odin as a grandson of Noah?

56  Date: 2000-10-16 11:28:35
Bozidar Uzelac ( / no homepage) wrote:

Very interesting site. It shows a new perspective to the runic research. I found many new information concerning this topic,especially the origin of this old and mysterious alphanet! What can I say,keep up the good work. Best wishes from Serbia,the land of many mysteries...

55  Date: 2000-10-03 15:44:24
Eva Schultz ( / no homepage) wrote:

Fascinating. Tell us more. Thank you for the English so that we here in USA can know what is being found too.

54  Date: 2000-10-03 00:37:41
Sharon ( / no homepage) wrote:

This a great site, Orjan. Thank you for putting it in English too. I've visited many Swedish sites to search my ancestry and I've met some truly wonderful fellow Swedes in the process. Keep up the good work. I'm following Yair's research closely and cherish those Nitzavim-Vayalech readings.

53  Date: 2000-09-26 12:21:57
Anders Malmqvist ( / wrote:

Hej Örjan,
Jag har nu fått lite förnyat intresse för sidan. Kul att den uppdateras.
Speciellt rolig är Gästboken och din diskussion med Per m. fl.vilka uppenbarligen känner sig trampade på¨tårna. De kan ju inte heller anmäla och fälla dig i radionämnden som de gjorde med Tv-serien Sveriges vagga för ett antal år sedan.
Vi ses väl på klassträffen i Karlskona nästa vecka

52  Date: 2000-09-01 20:03:45
Rationalistiska Inkvisitionen ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

"Man känner igen dumheten på att den inte känner igen sig själv."
Curt Goetz

51  Date: 2000-08-20 05:39:44
Judith Vinje ( / no homepage) wrote:

This is astounding! Well designed site and rich with significance! I am Norwegian American journalist, writing about Rus/Norse connections with the "East"...would like to interview you.

50  Date: 2000-08-17 13:09:00
Dejan Kupresanin ( / no homepage) wrote:

I'm studying scandinavian languages and literature, and find the site very interesting, although there are no enough informations, no translations. However, I respect your work.

49  Date: 2000-06-12 07:55:00
Curt Pedersen ( / wrote:

I am presently the President for the Danish club in Tucson AZ USA and is following the Viking flotilla assembling in New Foundland at present. All that has to do with the Viking period is of great interest to pur club. Great site thanks. CP

48  Date: 2000-05-19 05:58:00
Tamer ( / no homepage) wrote:

There are many theories that prove a Runic Connection with Hun/Turkic symbols. The Runic characters found on stones in Central Asia are very similar to Swedish Runic. The eagle "Tugrul"(Phoenix) is very well known in ancient Turkic sky god mythology.

What do you think? Is there a link or perhaps a trade link that mixed the languages. But i find it very interesting that Denmark has a town named Turku. Hakkan in Scandinavian and Hakan in Turkish mean the same. Thor(Tor) is the prefix for the the word Torok, ancient name for Turk(People of Tor?). The burial customs and chiefdoms are also similar. Reindeers were prizes in Turkic culture until the land turned barren.

47  Date: 2000-05-19 05:54:00
Tamer ( / wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I found your website very interesting. I am a Turkish-American living in New Jersey,USA and have an interest in Turkic history. Your site added a very different perspective. Please keep me informed if you have more recent info.

* There is evidence that Turkic words found their way into certain native American tribes. This could be the result of Khazar interaction with the Natives. Perhaps shamanism were spread by Khazars. The main theory was based on Asians fleeing Mongol persecution that mixed with the natives.

Keep up the good work. I think all mankind is related one way or another. But there were a core of nomadic traders that fearlessly travelled around the world. I believe they are the true ancestors of the Turks.

I've attached a site that you may find interesting below.


Tamer Ozaydin

46  Date: 2000-03-29 22:20:00
gary vey ( / wrote:

So where are the translations? Looked at all your links but never once could find an example of the translated text into English phrases. Actually, the symbols resemble Phoenician... where is the "Semitic" reference coming from. Nice photos but info is missing or buried somewhere in site. I couldn't find it if it is there...

45  Date: 2000-03-29 06:05:00
Daniel Smith ( / no homepage) wrote:

The photo's were very nice

44  Date: 2000-03-29 06:03:00
Daniel Smith ( / no homepage) wrote:

The photo's were very nice

43  Date: 2000-03-26 00:24:00
Larry M Justice ( / no homepage) wrote:

Just researching: Old Futhark, Anglon-saxon and other letters forms of the old languages. Interesting site.

42  Date: 2000-03-06 02:33:00
Jory Steven Brooks ( / no homepage) wrote:

Enjoyed your site and need to study it further. Regarding the Hebrew-Semitic connection with Europe, you may be interested in the excellent work of Danish language scholar, Dr. Louis Hjelmslev, in his book, "Language: An Introduction" publushed by the University of Wisconsin in 1970, and also published in Danish. He finds a Semitic influence in the root structure of Indo-European. He says that element-functions provide a "genetic relationship" between Semitic and Indo-European. University of Michigan professor of Semitics, William H. Worrell wrote much the same thing. My studies show that there is also evidence of ancient Hebrew colonization in early Europe. Thanks for your interesting research.

41  Date: 2000-03-04 19:58:00
Kasey Farrel ( / no homepage) wrote:

The obvious and very noticiable seems to get 'spun'
when there is too much emphasis on the result as a
prelude to 'gettin's sh-t done?' First of all-EVERY
and ANY answer may be that 'decipherments' always are in 'flux?' I want to point out a few very important facts to both those who are 'saying these things' and those who
'don't understand what is being said.' The 'HEBREW'
was most certainly the ORIGINAL Aryan of 'record!'
By that we mean, there is only one FAIR WHITE ARYAN
EUROPEAN CAUCASIAN race-and if there are quantities
of UNKNOWN genetic materials within this group-it is neither anything to freak-out over or to worry about-it is just a call to the observant to restore the caste system for awhile-to proscribe the mixing of Aryan with 'Other' & 'Mixed' raced individuals. HOWEVER the presence of 'UNEXPLAINABLE' "UGLY" features IS NOT PREVENTED by the "WITCH-HUNTING"
that prefers the Blonde-Haired & Blued-eyed 'SIGN'
of Aryanness (signal of YOUTH and signet of Heroes"BABES!" ) But even that makeup can have some BAD DNA! What one looks for in CULTURE and CIVILIZATION is the EXPLANATION of ARYAN states
which were outposts-and later fewll into disrepair?
Edom-or Elamites? Where was Moab? And so forth. The
fun here is in that... "The truth will out!" What I am saying here is that there seems to be afoot a
group-effort by 'something' which ALWAYSZ tries to
IMPLY that "THE ALPHABET" was not at once with and for and of the ARYAN, which is a BLASPEMY! There is
NO doubt whatsoever-that NO EPIGARAPHIC EVIDENCE was
'faked' ACROSS THE ENTIRE GLOBE! The 'study' of LORE
did not JUST BEGIN! The A B C of the HEBREWS 'says'
K'LT! This means the Hebrews were identical with the CELTS. And as we know that the "VIK-INGs were the "sons of the Druids" by the 'dotted rune' signs
and we know that the 'Scandahoovians' are ONE with
the "RED-BLOODED American" people...whether they be "SCOTCH-IRISH" or "PENNSYLVANIA-DUTCH"..that is they are ALL one 'FOLK' the ONLY REAL PROBLEM is
why in the world 'something' wants to prove that the 'Hebrews' were ALWAYS BRUNETTE...and BROWN-EYED
(which would be alright if they were fair-skinned etc. but ANOTHER bunch of 'something' wants' them all to be BROWN HAIRED...BUT 'BLUE-EYED' and so forth-AND FINALLY 'something' wants them to be related to "AMERICAN" 'Indians' ( as opposed to Hindus) and it CAN GET CONFUSING...if you are NOT EDUCATED! That's right! There is no more chance that the "PHONECIANS" were 'TURKS" than the MAN IN THE MOON! Look at the BOATS! Only ARTYANS HAVE BOATS! AND of course the 'outlier' places! Where THEY went! The alphabet and the boat moved together across the world. It is no accident that the BIBLE is in English. (Modern NORWEGIAN w/ Hebrew Intonation! 'Invented' by Irish Priests from France?) No real 'jew' was a RED-SKINNED INDIAN from
'Edom?' "Cannaan" Whatever! The main thing is NOT the WORDS...the NAMES...etc. As they are CASUALLY used now-becuase COMMONSENSE tells you that HISTORY must have been 'played around with' in that there is
a '900-year DARK-AGE' in Greek History. A similar
'gap' appears in Europe 1000 years ago? THAT is ONE BIG MEMORY LAPSE! So-it is simple-there is ONLY one 'white' race-and everyone else is 'coloured!'No
problem-everyone can love everyone...but ONLY white
people can invent-and therefore have 'HUMANITARIAN'
reasons to NOT 'inter-marry'...just as had the ANCIENT HEBREWS! This way the 'white people' can make more material objects for the 'colored' people.
The very NOTION that the HEBREW were related to the
IROQOUIS indians-is a BLASPHEMY! ( Unless of course that we mean that just like Daniel Boone and the "SHAWNEE"...they were maybe BOTH... ARYANS?)The
Shawnee living in the Atlantian hideout "Keltucky?"
Love and Peace-and remember the Hebrew COIN script has for 'Alif' (letter 'A')- the shape of Roman 'F'
which is of course the first letter of the RUNIC!
And the Runic 'A' a Roman 'F'!

40  Date: 2000-02-29 15:51:00
Russell Cushman ( / no homepage) wrote:

YES! This is exactly where my research(amateur) has been leading. Are you familiar with the runestones in Oklahoma ?

39  Date: 2000-01-29 22:30:00
J. Mac Overton ( / wrote:

Very interesting--ties in with Lost 10 Tribes studies. Please have more in English.

38  Date: 1999-10-26 23:46:00
Jenny ( / no homepage) wrote:

I don't even bother to get annoyed at all the bull om this page. I can only laugh. Is there anything that even RESEMBLES the truth here??

37  Date: 1999-10-17 03:39:00
Ken Fritjofson Jr. ( KFMJALLBY1@AOL.COM / no homepage) wrote:

My grandfather Axel Heribert Fritjofson was from Solvesborg and born in Mjallby in March of 1890. If you can tell me anything about my grandfather or this area I would love to know about it. We have recently contacted our relatives there so we have a good start. Thank you!

36  Date: 1999-10-06 09:52:00
Henry H. Helene ( / no homepage) wrote:

Being of Swedish decent, and presently working on inscriptions myself(Futhark)I have found this MOST interesting!! Keep up the GOOD work!!!

35  Date: 1999-10-04 09:21:00
Tobias ( / no homepage) wrote:

I've been interested in runes for some time and I found your site fascinating! Definitely one of the better sites I've found on the subject...

34  Date: 1999-09-14 19:52:00
Isaac Mozeson ( / wrote:

dear Orjan: Enjoyed your email. RaNeN (Raish-Nun-Nun-Sofit) means "murmer" in its third definition in the best Hebrew dictionary I know of. You don't need a PHD's song & dance to link ReNa with gossip. Murmer (low speech, 1/2 of GaRoN, throat..source of GROAN) infers secretive and negative speech. PS Yair Davidy is now staying in the Jerusalem apt. where you were my guest. If he doesn't get a solvent roommate soon, he'll be a lost tribesman. Best, Isaac

33  Date: 1999-09-08 16:00:00
Pär Larson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Örjan Svensson anser att om jag ger min tilltro till Santesons tolkning av Stentoftenstenens och samtidigt ser positivt på tidigare forskare som fört fram annorlunda tolkningar av samma text, så faller jag i motsägelse.
Enligt min åsikt löste Santeson ett problem som bland andra Jacobsen och Moltke (som dock löst åtskilliga andra runologiska problem!) gått bet på: om detta automatiskt gör att dessa båda hedervärda danskar kan avfärdas som hundraprocentigt opålitliga (och med dem alla de andra), så vet jag inte hur Örjan Svensson resonerar.
Men nog om detta: någon dialog tycks inte möjlig.

Jag framhärdar dock på den viktigaste punkten av alla: jag och mina vänner KAN stava oss fram i hebreisk kvadratskrift, men vi vill absolut se vad det är för texter Örjan Svensson rekonstruerar! Länkar till några grundord i ordböckerna (jag HAR titta på dem...) räcker definitivt inte, då det är just med lösa hänvisningar av denna typ som åskilliga mysterielösare hankar sig fram. Varje text -- säker, delvis rekonstruerad eller helt hypotetisk -- har en inre logik, byggd på relationerna mellan dess olika komponenter: må därför Örjan Svensson stå för sin övertygelse och ge oss sina rekonstruerade texter med vokaler och allt, och inte fortsätta att gömma sig bakom den vokallösa hebreiska skriften (även rena hebraister translittererar med vokaler när de för rent lingvistiska, komparativa resonemang!). I annat fall förblir det omöjligt att bedöma om syntax och morfologia är sådana att ÖS:s tolkning kan tillmätas någon som helst trovärdighet.
Som det nu ser ut verkar det som han har en hel del att dölja...

32  Date: 1999-09-07 00:57:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Pär Larson räknar i ett inlägg den 27/8 upp en rad runologer som enligt honom kan betecknas som "välrenommerade lingvister", och vad gäller de yngre runinskrifterna kan detta knappast bestridas. De nämnda runologerna vet uppenbarligen vad de talar om när de behandlar vikingatida och medeltida runinskrifter som till övervägande del är skrivna på germanskt språk. När de behandlar de äldre runinskrifterna, de som är skrivna med den äldre futharken, är de emellertid ute på mycket djupt vatten. Jacobsen och Moltke skriver t. ex. angående Stentofteninskriften att "en tilfredsstillende forklaring af n-i-u-h-a er dog ikke givet...; tolkningen af udsagnet som helhed må derfor betragtes som tvivlsom...". De mångtaliga och ofta helt divergerande tolkningsförslag som tidigare har presenterats av germanskt skolade runologer visar att de äldsta runinskrifterna svårligen låter sig förklaras utifrån germanskt språk. Som exempel kan tas Stentoftenstenens två första rader. En del runologer översätter dessa med "Åt Niuha-borna, åt Niuha-gästerna." Andra hävdar att betydelsen är "Nya (gjorde vården) åt sina söner. Nya (gjorde vården) åt hirdmän". Åter andra översätter med "Åt nybyggarna, åt nykomlingarna". Ännu ett översättningsförsök har presterats av Lillemor Santonson: "Med nio bockar, med nio hingstar." Santonsons tolkning betecknas av Pär Larson som "utmärkt". Man kan verkligen undra på vilka grunder han kan fälla ett sådant utlåtande samtidigt som han även verkar ha stor tilltro till Jacobsens och Moltkes helt annorlunda tolkning. Han verkar vara beredd att ta till alla medel, inklusive omtolkning av A-runor som "skiljetecken", för att kunna klamra sig fast vid Santonsons tolkning. Sådana krampaktiga omtolkningsförsök i syfte att försöka få runorna att stämma med den egna förutfattade meningen tyder om något på oseriös forskningsmetodik. Seriös forskning visar emellertid att runorna från början var ett semitiskt skriftsystem. De äldsta runinskrifterna är därför också utan undantag semitiska. Detta har fil. dr Kjell Aartun påvisat, och jag har kunnat bekräfta att även Blekinges äldsta runinskrifter är avfattade på semitiskt språk. Detta behöver emellertid inte nödvändigtvis (vilket Pär Larson tydligtvis är väl införstådd med) betyda att de tolkningar som jag har presenterat är korrekta till 100%. Beträffande några ord finns det nämligen små osäkerheter om den korrekta betydelsen. I det stora hela är det emellertid helt klart vad texterna handlar om och för flertalet ord kan man bestämma betydelsen med stor säkerhet, vilket jag också har gjort i mina redovisningar. Jag har också (vilket Pär Larson inte verkar ha lagt märke till) gjort länkar från flera av de translittererade runorden till motsvarande ord i hebreiska och arameiska ordböcker, så att även den som inte kan läsa hebreisk kvadratskrift, i de flesta fall, kan se hur motsvarande nordvästsemitiska grundord (utan eventuella prefix, suffix och vokalförändringar) uttalas.

31  Date: 1999-09-03 23:54:00
Auerochse ( no email / no homepage) wrote:


30  Date: 1999-08-30 20:18:00
Martin Johansson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Credofil: en person som får positiv njutning av tro och smärta av tvivel. Credofilen samlar övertygelser på samma sätt som kråkan samlar grannlåt till boet, inte för praktisk nytta utan för glansen. Och har han en gång anammat en tro krävs det betydligt mer än bara motbevis för att få honom att överge den.
(L Sprague de Camp)

29  Date: 1999-08-27 18:41:00
Pär Larson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Kommentar till Örjan Svenssons genmäle 18.3.99 till mitt inlägg 16.3.99:
Varför blir ÖS så KOLOSSALT stött när jag återanvänder hans egna ord? Med tanke på hur många idéer av "ett sekels omfattande och högst kvalificerad forskning utförd av välrenommerade lingvister världen över" -- jag använder här ÖS egna ord, men applicerar dem på den seriösa runologin och nordistiken från Bugge och framåt (jag kan som hastigast nämna Antonsen, von Friesen, Jacobsen, Jansson, Krause, Liestøl, Marstrander, Moltke, Olsen och Wessén) -- ÖS raskt och skoningslöst avfärdar ohörda som "fanciful guesses" kan det tyckas komiskt att han sedan blir alldeles till sig i trasorna när någon låter honom känna på hans egen medicin! ÖS avfärdar Lillemor Santesons utmärkta tolkning stödjande sig på en A-runa (som tycks användas som skiljetecken): man undrar hur mycken liknande -- och mycket grövre -- detaljkritik hans egen forskning skulle ge kunna ge upphov till, om han redovisade den ordentligt ...
Min antydan om att uttolka något med hjälp av "baskiska, grekiska, albanska eller georgiska" gällde inte de blekingska inskrifterna -- vilket var och en kan se som läser mitt inlägg ordentligt -- utan syftade på den sorts forskningsmetod ÖS företräder: i hans fall rör det sig inte om etruskiska vs. baskiska/grekiska etc. utan om runfornnordiska vs. semitiska språk, men metoden tycks vara densamma.
ÖS fortsätter sedan att ge mig vatten på min kvarn med frågor som "Är även de egyptiska hieroglyfinskrifternas, den sumeriska kilskriftens och de ugaritiska inskriptionernas mysterier fortfarande helt olösta?" Det finns mysterier och mysterier. När jag talar om många (men inte alla!) privatforskares mani för "mysterier" och "gåtor" rörde det sig om detta: utdöda språk i gamla inskrifter bevarar alltid ett visst antal olösta eller åtminstone delvis oklara punkter. Vi vet t.ex. inte så mycket om fornegyptisk vokalism; åtskilliga punkter i det språk som Linear B-inskrifterna återger är inte helt klara (för att inte tala om Linear A!); vi vet en hel del om etruskiskan, men minst lika mycket återstår att klarlägga; de venetiska inskrifterna ger en stor mängd detaljproblem... Detsamma gäller naturligtvis ugaritiska och sumeriska: om ÖS anser dessa båda språk hundraprocentigt kända skall jag be att få presentera honom för mina semitist- och sumerologvänner på universitetet: han hade i så fall ett hedersdoktorat, ja kanske en lärostol, som i en liten ask... Om en tolkning "simsalabim" (jag använde detta ord, som tycks ha vållat ÖS ytterligare ilska, för att beskrivna en metod som i ett nafs gör det obegripliga helt "begripligt"...) löser samtliga problem, ligger det ALLTID en katt begraven någonstans (t o m Ventris' och Chadwicks lösning av Linear B har inte klarat alla problem, och även hettitiskan har sina olösta punkter). ÖS tillskriver mig "det minst sagt bristfälligt underbyggda påståendet att ".....alla inskrifter alltid är 'gåtor'.....". Vad jag sade -- och som alla kan läsa i min text -- var följande: "gud vet varför alla inskrifter alltid är "gåtor" som bara väntar på sin "lösning", och naturligtvis innehåller en djup nummersymbolik: väldigt bekvämt, då man med nummer kan bevisa allt och alltings motsats". Behöver jag verkligen förklara att frågan var retorisk?
hälsningar (tack i alla fall för de fina fotografierna och kartorna)
Pär Larson

P.S. Med tanke på att det av ÖS rekonstruerade hypotetiska semitiska språket i de blekingska inskrifterna "inte är identiskt med bibliskt språk" så hade det varit korrekt av ÖS om han i stället för vokallös hebreisk skrift använt en translitteration MED VOKALER av den hebreiska texten (god vetenskaplig praxis kräver att man låter läsarna se vad det hela handlar om...), så att vi arma dödliga kunnat se graden av överenstämmelse mellan bibelhebreiska och "blekingesemitiska" och själva bedöma skillnaderna. ÖS anser att en utförlig redovisning av hans metoder "inte ... är nödvändig för att någon annan än [han] ska kunna härleda hur man med stor säkerhet kan komma fram till de resultat som [han] har redovisat": men detta är då rakt inte sant. Dessutom vore det hederligt att för varje inskrift ange åtminstone dess nummer i Jacobsen-Moltkes "Danmarks Runeindskrifter" (och ev. i andra standardverk), så att det blir lätt att se vilka "the previously published so called interpretations" -- samtliga enligt ÖS "nothing else than fanciful guesses, and ... completely false" -- egentligen är, och inte bara ta ÖS:s aggressiva avfärdan som slutord.

28  Date: 1999-08-18 21:35:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

The evidence speaks for itself. Yet Oskar Hagadal labels it as "rubbish". Apparently Oskar Hagadal does not know what he is talking about.

Bevismaterialet talar för sig självt. Ändå betecknar Oskar Hagadal det som "skräp". Oskar Hagadal vet uppenbarligen inte vad han talar om.

27  Date: 1999-07-30 01:14:00
Oskar Hagadal ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

I just gotta say that the information that I've read
on this page gotta be the most stupid garbage I've
read in a long while.. The so called "proofs" u try to show are nothing but rubbish!
I dont know for what reason you are trying to deny and rewrite history, you are probably just another christian fanatic trying to shatter and backtalk the old norse ways.
No respectable scientist agrees with you, you have nothing to back up your theories with!
If you want a discussion try the message board of
I expect to see you there!

26  Date: 1999-07-25 00:30:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Yes, John, the runes of the Elder Futhark are the same as those used by the Nazis as symbols of Nordic
mysticism, and, indeed, this is ironic to say the least.
You also ask if it is possible to distinguish if the inscriptions are Phoenician or early Hebrew. To this I can respond that in my opinion the language resembles early Aramaic and Hebrew more than anything else. Actually there exists a similarly pronounced word in Aramaic or Hebrew for every known word in the old runic inscriptions of Blekinge. Further, the only deity which is mentioned in those inscriptions is El. No specific Phoenician god is mentioned, and the version of the name El is most similar to the version found in Biblical Aramaic. To me this indicates that the most ancient runic inscriptions or Blekinge are Hebrew or Aramaic rather than Phoenician.

25  Date: 1999-06-29 08:05:00
John Merritt, MD ( / no homepage) wrote:

One more comment?
Is this rune alphabet the same one that the Nazi's and Hitler used as symbols of Nortic mysticism? If so, it would be so ironic for the Nazi's to be found using Semitic symbols!!

24  Date: 1999-06-29 08:01:00
John Merritt, MD ( / no homepage) wrote:

Thanks for the information.
Can you all distinguish whether these are Phoenician or early Hebrew?

23  Date: 1999-06-23 15:09:00
Endre Lehoczki ( / wrote:

Nice, well designed page, good contents. Anythig
about runes interests me.

22  Date: 1999-06-07 21:38:00
Tom Fletcher ( / no homepage) wrote:

Good Page, perhaps it would be interesting to combine European and Semitic laws. Moses was given the law by an angel of the Lord who was likened to a "burning bush." Perhaps red hair, the same red hair the Egyptian Rulers are known to have as well as in India. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Messiah was said to be a red haired man.

21  Date: 1999-04-19 23:21:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Glenn Löfblad and Charles H Wallace ask for more information. I can then recommend the following books by Ph.D. Kjell Aartun: "Die minoische Schrift. Sprache und Texte" I-II, Harrassowitz Verlag 1992-97, and "Runer i kulturhistorisk sammenheng". Unfortunately there is not very much of Dr Aartun's studies available in English as yet.
To Annette H. Balnicky: Please check out the forthcoming link-page.

Glenn Löfblad och Charles H Wallace efterlyser mer information. Jag kan då i första hand hänvisa till Fil. Dr Kjell Aartuns böcker "Die minoische Schrift. Sprache und Texte" I-II, Harrassowitz Verlag 1992-97, samt "Runer i kulturhistorisk sammenheng", se följande web-sida:

20  Date: 1999-04-19 19:47:00
glenn löfblad ( / no homepage) wrote:

Den är ju intressant den här teorin. Finns det mer
fakta? I så fall var?


19  Date: 1999-04-18 09:16:00
Annette H. Balnicky ( / no homepage) wrote:

Am I Hebrew? If so, what tribe? My fathe's ancestry is English. My mother's Irish. Hemotologists have told me I have beta thalassemia minora. So that brings my ancestry from somewhere around the Mediterranian Sea. How do I find out more.

18  Date: 1999-04-17 14:02:00
Charles H Wallace ( / no homepage) wrote:

I am interested in the studies suggesting a 2000 BC Semitic origins for the rune alphabet. Where can I find treatments of this theory published in English?

17  Date: 1999-03-18 19:09:00
Sture Andersson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:

Har nu läst din webb-sida. måste säga att jag är imponerad - däremot inte ett dugg överraskad. Du är inte bara bra på mjukvara, Örjan. Runor är väl i högsta grad hard-ware?

- Sture -

16  Date: 1999-03-18 01:52:00
Örjan Svensson ( / wrote:

Kommentar till Pär Larsons inlägg nedan:

Herr Larson påstår att jag kommer med "fanciful guesses". Ett sådant påstående kräver för att kunna tas på allvar en utförlig och väl underbyggd motivering, eller åtminstone en referens till en sådan. Någon sådan motivering har hittills inte kommit till min kännedom, och Pär Larsson har inte heller han delgivit mig någonting i den vägen.
Vidare kommer han med det minst sagt bristfälligt underbyggda påståendet att ".....alla inskrifter alltid är 'gåtor'.....". Är alltså även alla de vikingatida och medeltida runinskrifterna (som tillkom åtskilliga sekler senare än de av mig behandlade blekingska inskriptionerna) fullständiga gåtor?
Är även de egyptiska hieroglyfinskrifternas, den sumeriska kilskriftens och de ugaritiska inskriptionernas mysterier fortfarande helt olösta?
Jag vågar här med åberopande av över ett sekels omfattande och högst kvalificerad forskning utförd av välrenomerade lingvister världen över hävda att Pär Larson har fel.
Tvärtemot vad herr Larson påstår vågar jag vidare hävda att det är omöjligt att t. ex. uttolka Blekinges äldsta runinskriptioner såsom baskiska, grekiska, albanska eller georgiska.
Möjligen kan man försöka med "simsalabim"-metoder.
De metoder som jag har använt mig av i min tydning är dock inte av det slaget. Jag har visserligen ännu inte utförligt redovisat mina metoder, men jag anser å andra sidan inte att en sådan redovisning är nödvändig för att någon annan än jag ska kunna härleda hur man med stor säkerhet kan komma fram till de resultat som jag har redovisat.

Den fruktbarhetskult som jag refererar till kallas av herr Larson för "hypotetisk". Studium av t. ex. fenicisk religion visar dock att den företeelse som jag refererar till har varit högst reell. Man frågar sig om herr Larson någonsin har hört talas om t. ex. Astarte. Även om dyrkandet av Astarte praktiskt taget hade upphört i Mellanöstern, vid tidpunkten för de av mig behandlade runinskrifternas tillblivelse, så motsäger detta naturligtvis inte att en liknande kult vid en tidigare tidpunkt hade spritt sig norrut och i Skandinavien dröjde sig kvar längre fram i tiden än i Mellanöstern. Språket i de blekingska inskriptioner som är en yttring av denna "kult" eller religion är inte identiskt med bibliskt språk, och det har jag inte hävdat, men en mycket nära släktskap föreligger såväl vad gäller grammatik som vokabulär.

Vad gäller Lillemor Santesson, så utgår hon exempelvis från att Stentoftenstenens första två rader lyder "n-i-u-h-A b-o-r-u-m-R, n-i-u-h-a g-e-s-t-u-m-R". Detta är först och främst en felaktig utgångspunkt därför att hon bortser ifrån eller inte har upptäckt att båda raderna slutar med en A-runa. Dessutom finns en A-runa mellan "t" och "u" i rad två. Dessa runor är relativt otydliga men kan icke desto mindre åtminstone delvis ses i särskild belysning och på fotografier som tagits under fördelaktiga ljusförhållanden. Därmed faller Santessons tolkning, och ännu mer orimlig blir den när man tar i beaktande Stentoftenstenens övriga inskription, de övriga besläktade inskriptionerna, och de resultat som av mig har redovisat.

15  Date: 1999-03-16 16:21:00
Pär Larson ( / no homepage) wrote:

Jag har inte för avsikt att vara oförskämd, fast när man har att göra med någon som orubbligt upprepar "All of the previously published so called interpretations of these inscriptions are nothing else than fanciful guesses, and they are completely false" så KAN man väl aldrig anses som oförskämd, vad man än säger till denna person... (jag kommer att tänka på en manlig porrfilmstjärna, som sade "Once I had my own dick in my mouth and actually gave myself head in a movie; nothing and no one can ever slander me again."
Är det inte svårt att så totalt bortse från vad andra (med en viss fackkunskap) sager och tycker och sedan framföra egna minst sagt "fanciful guesses" som den rena SANNINGEN som löser alla problem? Jaja, jag har sett Kjell Aartuns bok: hans tolkning av Linear A är väl den trettionde ungefär som jag läst, och tänka sig, alla är de baserade på Faistosdiskosen.
Runinskrifter, precis som alla andra inskrifter i nu döda språk är aldrig till 100% standardiserade i sitt sätt att återge språkljuden i skrift. Även här i Toskana dyker då och då någon välmenande "forskare" upp för att säga att han nu äntligen "löst" den etruskiska "gåtan" (gud vet varför alla inskrifter alltid är "gåtor" som bara väntar på sin "lösning", och naturligtvis innehåller en djup nummersymbolik: väldigt bekvämt, då man med nummer kan bevisa allt och alltings motsats) och simsalabim, med baskiska, grekiska, hebreiska, albanska, berberspråk, georgiska eller varför inte listermål faller allt perfekt på plats... (jag minns en journalist som ville bevisa att etruskiskan lämnat spår i nuvarande södra Schweiz - vilket i sig inte vore omöjligt - och drog fram som bevis vissa nutida namn på världshus han sett: hans viktigaste argument skulle helt ha förfalligt om någon varit så snäll och lärt honom att nutida rätoromanskt skriftspråk återger sina konsonanter på tyskt vis.)

Varför i herrans namn skulle hebreisktalande personer (men hebreiska som levande språk var stendött vid mitten av första årtusendet e Kr) begett sig till Blekinge och där börjat skriva prosadikter löst relaterade till en hypotetisk "fruktbarhetskult", när såväl hebreer som deras närmare släktingar vid det laget var stenhårda monoteister sedan åtminstone ett millennium?

Alla om vet något om språkutveckling inser att om en hebreisktalande stam anammat en fruktbarhetskult (varifrån?) och begett sig till Skandinavien, skulle deras språk knappast behållit sig bibliskt.

Om man nu skall tolka de blekingska inskrifterna som kultinskrifter, är då inte Lillemor Santessons tolkning av Stentoftenstenen som en blotinskrift betydligt bättre underbyggd ("med nio bockar, med nio hingstar") och både lingvistiskt och historiskt mer försvarbar?

PS: har du märkt att inte en enda runkunnig person skrivit i din gästbok. (Fast de har väl alla fel, förstås, och är förblindade av sin egen tro, kan man tänka: HELT till skillnad från dig och Aartun). Personer - utan tvekan i god tro - som t ex Isaac Mozeson, som glatt fastslår "every human word, in its most ancient root, is Edenic (proto-Semitic or Biblical Hebrew)" kan vara bra som lekkamrater, men knappast som forskarkollegor.

14  Date: 1999-02-19 01:34:00
Carla Kruytbosch ( / no homepage) wrote:

Fabulous hypothesis. You need to publish it in a science journal for all to read! This proves that my ancestor Snorri Sturluson probably did not fib about the middle eastern origin of the Norse kings. (Many scholars believe that Snorri made this story up...)Also, our "turkish origins" is a story that my Icelandic mother often told me and that I never believed!! Bless her soul...

13  Date: 1999-02-13 23:20:00
Göran Vesterlund ( / no homepage) wrote:

Jag bor sedan några år i närheten av Björketorpsstenen, och har tyckt att den verkar mycket gåtfull (är inte alls hemma på runor). Dina resultat är minst sagt överraskande. Ska försöka studera detta lite närmare.

12  Date: 1999-02-06 19:26:00
Dr. Verena Flick ( / no homepage) wrote:

It is the most interesting website I have seen in the last time.Thank you very much for this information. I´m a critic of art, and have a special interest in the history of ornament. And I´m astonished about the similarity of the Cretian, Scythian and Celtic ornaments, although there is a gap of time and space between those peoples. Now in Germany lives an old lady, Else Greulich. Without higher school education, although very intelligent, she learned as a self-taught person the Hebrew language. And she discovered, that Celtic and Scythian names often had a Hebrew sense. And she concluded, that this shows the traces of the lost tribes of Israel. Yet she had never heard of the "British Israel movement" and similar things. For me, it was the solution of the riddle.I knew that Mr.Aartun decoded the Cretian script as a Semitic script. I read his book, and this convinced me. I knew also that the Creto-Mycenean stile was spreaded in the ancient Levante. Therefore it is very possible, that the exodus of those tribes was accompanies by an exodus of ornaments.
Now the Gotes, who brought the runes to Svedia, came frome Crim, where the were neighbours to the Skyths, and partially merged into them. You can see the traces of this in Teutonic Art.
Mrs.Greulich ever was convinced of the Hebrew origin of the runes. Therefore it was a great joy for her to here of the new decoding of the runes.
Now I request you to send me the updates of your website.

11  Date: 1999-01-15 02:05:00
Larry P. Butte ( Degler_@ / no homepage) wrote:

The pictures are very interesting. I'm not too familiar with runes. I believe there some on the kensington stone found here in the U.S. I"ve been to some of the petroglyph sites in california and nevada. So far haven't seen any runes.

10  Date: 1999-01-06 00:54:00
Stefan Blad ( / wrote:

Mycket intressant information som du skickat ut.
Jag fick den genom Root and Branch i Israel.

Har du mer info om de förlorade stammarna i Sverige vore jag mycket tacksam om jag fick del av den.

Stefan Blad

9  Date: 1999-01-05 00:14:00
Howard Rollin ( / wrote:

Very nice web site! I am impressed, but not surprised by your findings and studies. I have addressed the issue of "The Lost Tribes of Israel" in the addendum of my Internet document entitled "Bridging the Judeo-Christian Gap." You can access the document at the web address I provided above. Keep up the good work, and lastly, G-d Bless the land of the late Ra'ul Wallenberg.

8  Date: 1999-01-04 21:33:00
Roslyn Olsen ( / no homepage) wrote:

I will be interested in learning from your lovely page.
I am always interested to learn about the lost tribes of Israel. Being jewish it has always held a particular interest for me. Thanks, Roslyn

7  Date: 1999-01-03 12:33:00
Håkan Nilsson ( no email / no homepage) wrote:


6  Date: 1998-12-29 09:48:00
Vermin-I ( / no homepage) wrote:

Good information...well organized page. It is delightful to see somebody researching such ancient, fascinating stuff.

5  Date: 1998-11-09 20:49:00
Thomas Mark ( / no homepage) wrote:

Intressant att se detta även på nätet, som ett litet komplement till boken, det skall bli intressant att följa hur allt det här kommer att utveckla sig. lycka till i fortsättningen. Thomas.

4  Date: 1998-11-06 00:19:00
Terry Long ( / no homepage) wrote:

Fascinating. Please put me on the list for future updates.

3  Date: 1998-11-01 19:30:00
Dr Luckey ( / wrote:

Thanks for the English. Very interesting, Blessings and Shalom...Jon

2  Date: 1998-10-28 03:26:00
Isaac Mozeson ( / wrote:

This is a well done and immensely significant site. It will go a long way toward supporting the bible's (Genesis 11)thesis and my work (see my web site above) positing that every human word, in its most ancient root, is Edenic (proto-Semitic or Biblical Hebrew). SHaLom (source of SoLeMn, grand SLaM and So LoNg), Isaac

1  Date: 1998-10-24 21:26:00
Ingemar Lönnbom ( / wrote:

Hej Örjan!
Fint att du kommit ut på nätet också. Var i Karlshamn idag och såg att boken finns till salu där.
Får jag länka till din sida från Galatea?