Why does the Elder Futhark has that sequence? Who made it and why?
Please Read: Forgot to say something in this video. The Vadstena bracteate is another finding (and the only, aside from the Kylver Stone) that contains the “sequence” of the Elder Futhark. I think the Vadstena bracteate was a forgery. Its story doesn’t convince me because it was supposedly found in 1774 when archaeology didn’t exist yet, and yet it survived until the first half of the 20th century. Old findings such as that, without any proper equipment and treatment, never last that long and are often melted down or lost again, or traded over and over again, or simply disappear, especially metal due to corrosion due to contact with oxygen and without any treatment for over 2 centuries (I speak as an archaeologist and as someone who also deals with the restoration of archaeological metal artefacts). The Vadstena bracteate was stolen from the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities in 1938 and was never found to this day, just 2 decades after the Kylver Stone had been found which contains the “sequence of the Elder Futhark” which was precisely during this time that it was agreed that this was the official “sequence” of the Elder Futhark, but this idea, as said in this video, was only based on this finding alone, and after that there may have been attempts to forge items to prove that that was indeed the sequence, by finding other artefacts . During the early 20th century thousands of forgeries were made by many countries only to prove their claims based on nationalist political ideas. The Kylver Stone and the Vadstena bracteate are the only ones that contain this “sequence”. The Kylver Stone is genuine, but I have my doubts on the Vadstena bracteate. Antiquaries and Museums of Antiquities have always been well known to contain and produce forgeries. The official story is that the Vadstena bracteate was “stolen” but I think it was taken out and destroyed by the Museum itself because it was a forgery. Many experts during the 20s of the 20th century were going to these museums all over Europe to make sure these items were genuine, and I think the Museum knew it was a forgery and got rid of it to avoid shame and dishonesty, which would be a hard blow on their business and on the names of the scientist involved. If there is no artefact to be study there is no proof it was genuine or false.
Why was the Elder Futhark divided into 3 aetts? – I have read countless books and academic works and no one seems to be certain. Of the 24 runes of the so called Elder Futhark, there were probably more runes that have been lost to us (Anglo-Frisian Futhark consisted in 33 runic symbols, for instance), and the number 24 and divided into 3 rows might be an Etrusco-Italic influence, but nothing has been proven yet. The Etruscan alphabet had 26 characters; Archaic Latin had 21 characters, +2 added after the 1st century, adopting the Greek letters Y and Z, making it 23 characters (The Roman Emperor in the 1st century (41 to 54 CE) Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus tried to add 3 characters to the Archaic Latin Alphabet which would have made 24 characters, and this survived for a time, but did not last, and anyway the Germanic peoples only started to use the runes a century later in the 2nd century); Old Italic Alphabet consists in 27 characters. The 24 runes of the Elder Futhark correspond to letters of the Latin alphabet, which seems to have been indeed an Iron Age Italic attempt to create a “Germanic” alphabet. However, their names and meaning (runic characters of the Elder Futhark) are entirely reconstructed based on younger runic systems; we have no record of the names of the runes in the Elder Futhark, nor do we have a record of the meaning of each rune, but it has been deduced through comparison to younger developments, linguistic reconstruction and etymological research.
All of my social media can be found here: [Link]