The Orkhon Inscriptions (E. Denison Ross, after V. Thomsen, 1930) — an honest review

Verdict up front. The Orkhon Inscriptions is the first English translation (E. Denison Ross, 1930) of the decipherment made by the Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen of two famous 8th-century Central Asian monuments: the memorials to the Turkish princes Kül Tegin (732 CE) and Bilge Kagan (735 CE). They are carved in the Old Turkic runic script — the "Orkhon-Yenisei" alphabet that scholars call runic purely because of its outward resemblance to Germanic runes (angular strokes cut into stone). The value of this source for our project is that it opens a comparative question the esoteric niche almost never addresses honestly: "Turkic runes" and the Germanic Futhark are one nickname on two completely different writing systems, with no genetic relationship between them. Read it if you want to understand, from the primary source, what "Turkic runes" really are and where history ends and modern invention begins. Skip it if you are looking for "ancient Turkic rune divination" — there is none in these texts; they are royal political chronicles, not magic.

Layering. We tag claims: [historical] — attested by inscriptions/philology; [historical, hypothesis] — a reconstruction on which scholars disagree; [20th–21st c. revival] — constructed in modern times; [unproven] — a claimed magical effect never tested. This source is almost entirely [historical]: its worth is that it shows how much of the popular "one ancient Eurasian runic tradition" is guesswork.

What the book is

Formally this is a scholarly translation-article published in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies (London, Vol. V, 1930). Ross rendered into English Thomsen's final Danish version (1922), which itself refined his own first decipherment and French edition, Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (Helsingfors, 1896). So this is a translation of a translation — but it was the one that first opened the contents of the monuments to English readers.

What the inscriptions say. Two "great square monoliths" stand by Lake Kosho-Tsaidam, west of the Orkhon river (northern Mongolia), near the ruins of the Uighur capital Kara-Balgasun and old Karakorum. Three faces of each stone carry long Turkish texts in runic script; the fourth (western) face bears a Chinese inscription of entirely different content. The texts are the voice of the Second Türk Khaganate's power: the kagan addresses his people, lists his campaigns "towards the East, towards the sun's rising… towards the West, towards the sun's setting," warns the Turks against being assimilated by the Chinese, and names the forested Mount Ötüken the place "wherefrom the kingdom is held together." In plain terms: this is a political-historical chronicle and a ruler's testament, not a book of spells.

A short quote conveys the register. The kagan warns that the Chinese give gold and silk in abundance, but their words are "ingratiating" and their riches "enervating": peoples who fall for "their ingratiating talk and enervating riches" go to destruction (I S 5–6 / II N 4–5, tr. Ross). This is statecraft rhetoric, not mysticism.

Why it is called "runic" — and why it still is not runes

This is the knot we came for. The word "runic" was applied to the Turkic script by Thomsen himself: the signs are angular, built from straight and slanted strokes convenient for carving into hard material — like Germanic runes. But the resemblance is typological, not genealogical: almost any script that is cut rather than written in ink ends up looking this way. Here is an honest side-by-side.

The origin deserves a separate word, because this is where sensation gets forced. Mainstream runology and Turkology (starting with Thomsen himself, 1893) derive the Orkhon script from the Aramaic alphabet via Sogdian mediation; the contribution of Turkic clan tamga marks and possible Chinese influence are also debated. There is no single settled picture — this is [historical, hypothesis]. But no serious account derives the Turkic script from Germanic runes or vice versa. The two systems are independent branches of one common idea (alphabetic writing adapted to carving), not links in one "ancient runic tradition."

What here is ancient, and what is a modern invention

The key point: the inscriptions are a [historical] benchmark that reveals the scale of invention in the "one Eurasian runes" idea. Germanic rune magic at least leans on disputed formulas and rune poems; "Turkic rune magic" has not even that — it is a modern build on a pretty word.

Strengths

• The primary source in one step. This is Thomsen's decipherment — the foundation of all Turkic runology — in accessible English. For our comparative track it is a direct doorway to the material, not a retelling of a retelling.
• It shows the function of writing from the text itself. As with Germanic runes (cf. our review of Spurkland), purpose is visible from content: here it is a state chronicle, not magic. The material itself defuses the esoteric myth.
• Public domain. Legally available in full (archive.org) — free to read and quote, unlike modern editions.
• It closes our biggest gap. The comparative, non-Germanic layer is nearly empty in the project; Orkhon is the natural entry point to "Turkic runes" and cross-system questions.

Weaknesses and cautions

• It is a 1930 translation of a translation. Ross rendered Thomsen's Danish; philology has moved on in a century. Modern critical editions (e.g. Talât Tekin, 1968) are more accurate on readings — use Ross as a historical entry point, not the last word.
• Dated terminology and transcription. "Runic," old name forms (Kül-Tegin, Bilgä Kagan), an occasionally archaic style. The content is reliable; vocalizations and details should be checked against newer work.
• Narrow scope. Only Kül Tegin and Bilge Kagan; Ross promised the Tonyukuk inscription separately. The Yenisei monuments, the script as a system, and the decipherment "from within" are outside this article.
• Not popular science. This is an academic text with no "for everyone" introduction; a newcomer needs context (which our comparative overview supplies).

Should you read The Orkhon Inscriptions? Who it is for and who it is not

Yes — if you want to understand, from the primary source, what Old Turkic runic script is, and to gain a firm base against the myth of "one Eurasian runic tradition." It is a cheap (free) and honest entry into comparative runology.

No — if you want a practical guide, "meanings of the Turkic runes," or divination — none of that is here, and the material itself explains why: this is an 8th-century state chronicle. For accurate vocalizations and modern philology take newer editions (Tekin), and keep Ross as a historical anchor.

Practical tip: use Orkhon as a [historical] tuning fork for the comparative question. When you meet "ancient Turkic runes for magic/divination," check: the surviving Turkic runic texts are political chronicles, and the very word "runes" here is a nickname for the shape, not proof of kinship with the Futhark.

Conclusion

The Orkhon Inscriptions is a first-hand doorway into the world of Old Turkic runic writing and a model [historical] source for honest comparison of systems. Its strength is not up-to-date philology (that has aged) but that it puts the comparative question on solid ground: Turkic and Germanic "runes" share a nickname and a carving principle — but not language, era, place, or origin. For a project that holds the "history ↔ esotericism" line, this is a valuable anchor exactly where the esoteric niche likes to invent "one ancient tradition."

Our editorial rating: 4.0 / 5 — high as a primary source and a tool of comparative honesty; the deduction is for the age of the philology, the narrow scope, and the academic dryness, not for quality. (The rating is editorial and honest; we assign it as reviewer, with no inflation.)

FAQ

Are Turkic runes the same as Viking runes?

No. Only the nickname "runes" and the general principle overlap — angular writing convenient for carving. The 8th-century Old Turkic (Orkhon-Yenisei) script and the Germanic Futhark belong to different languages, eras, regions and, by the leading hypotheses, different origins (Turkic from Aramaic via the Sogdian script; Germanic from Mediterranean alphabets). Scholarship recognizes no genetic kinship between the systems.

What are the Orkhon Inscriptions?

Two large stone monuments in the Orkhon river valley (northern Mongolia), raised in honour of the Turkish rulers Kül Tegin (732 CE) and Bilge Kagan (735 CE) of the Second Türk Khaganate. Three sides carry long texts in Old Turkic runic script (royal chronicles, campaigns, admonitions to the people); the fourth bears a Chinese inscription of different content.

Who deciphered the Orkhon script?

The Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen: he announced the decipherment in 1893 and published a French translation in 1896, then refined it in a Danish version of 1922. The English translation of that version was made by E. Denison Ross (1930) — the source reviewed here. V. V. Radlov also made a major contribution.

Did the Turks have rune divination or rune magic?

Not in the surviving corpus. The Orkhon texts are political-historical in content: the ruler addresses his people, lists wars and alliances, warns against assimilation. "Turkic rune divination" and "Turkic rune magic" are modern constructions [20th–21st c. revival] with even less historical basis than Germanic rune magic.

Where did Old Turkic script come from?

The leading account (from Thomsen himself, 1893) derives it from the Aramaic alphabet via the Sogdian (Iranian) script; the contribution of Turkic clan tamga marks and Chinese influence are also debated. This is [historical, hypothesis] territory — there is no single final answer, but the origin is certainly not Germanic.

Where should I start comparing Turkic and Germanic runes?

With honest context. On the Germanic side — The origin of the Futhark and Rune magic from the inscriptions (overview); on divination — Rune divination FAQ. Keep this Ross article as the primary source for the Turkic side; for precise philology add modern editions (Tekin, 1968).

Further

• The Germanic side of the comparison: The origin of the Futhark · Evolution of the runic rows
• History ↔ esotericism: Rune magic from the inscriptions (overview) · Rune divination FAQ
• Academic benchmark for Scandinavia: our review of Spurkland

Publication details

E. Denison Ross. The Orkhon Inscriptions: Being a Translation of Professor Vilhelm Thomsen's Final Danish Rendering. — Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. V, Part 4 (1930), pp. 861–876. Source of the decipherment: Vilhelm Thomsen, Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (Helsingfors, 1896) and Samlede Afhandlinger, Vol. III (Copenhagen, 1922). Public domain. Tier T1 (academic runology / comparative layer). Sources downloaded to _meta/sources/comparative/turkic/ (Ross 1930 EN + Thomsen 1896 FR).