# What do we really know about the Futhorc? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 8, 2025, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619 "2025-07-08T03:59:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![oldgoon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oldgoon/32/19461_2.png) [@oldgoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldgoon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619/1 "2025-07-08T03:59:41Z")
According to my friend the Futhorc was the original writing system for English. But apparently we don’t have lot of evidence of it being used. But then I find pages mapping out the whole alphabet. I’ll give such an example so you know what what I’m talking about. > **[Adapting the Futhorc](https://goeshard.org/2025/07/06/adapting-the-futhorc/)** > > The Futhorc was the original writing system for English. Theorized to have derived from the Etruscan alphabet, it was widespread across northern Europe until finally being supplanted by the Latin alphabet sometime around the 13th century. It was... How does the writer of this know about all of these runes to tell us how the written language was when we don’t have a lot of information about it. It seems like another one of those cases, like with British pagan gods, where everything we know about them is assumed from nearby regions and by what little extremely biased sources have said about it and the names of places. Yet there are people who seem to prefer pretend when it comes to these subjects. They don’t like admitting we don’t know, so they just make things up. Is that all this stuff is? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619/2 "2025-07-08T04:06:54Z")
Wikipedia lists the progression to Futhorc: Parent systems [Egyptian hieroglyphs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs)[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_runes#cite_note-1) - [Proto-Sinaitic alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_alphabet) - [Phoenician alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet) - [Greek alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet) ([Cumae variant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet)) - [Old Italic alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_alphabet)? - [Elder Futhark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark) - Futhorc There is a lot more information on the Wiki page about it: > **[Anglo-Saxon runes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_runes)** > > Anglo-Saxon runes or Anglo-Frisian runes are runes that were used by the Anglo-Saxons and Medieval Frisians (collectively called Anglo-Frisians) as an alphabet in their native writing system, recording both Old English and Old Frisian (Old English: rūna, ᚱᚢᚾᚪ, "rune"). Today, the characters are known collectively as the futhorc (ᚠᚢᚦᚩᚱᚳ, fuþorc) from the sound values of the first six runes. The futhorc was a development from the older co-Germanic 24-character runic alphabet, known today as Elde... ---
**Author:** ![oldgoon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oldgoon/32/19461_2.png) [@oldgoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldgoon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619/3 "2025-07-08T04:21:59Z")
> Usage and commonality is unclear. From at least five centuries of use, fewer than 200 artifacts bearing futhorc inscriptions have survived. But in everything that I read about this subject, this stands out to me the most. And I wonder if I’m the only one that is skeptical of all of it. It seems like they are saying they have more information that it makes sense that they could possibly have. I understand I’m ignorant about the subject but I want to be able to understand how confidently they are reading the runes and their meaning. Identified, I believe. Interpretted correctly, I doubt. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619/4 "2025-07-08T05:18:32Z")
> [@oldgoon](#): > > But apparently we don’t have lot of evidence of it being used. We have enough to know it _was_ used. I mean, those 200 artefacts aren’t all forgeries. And there’s more there, than there is for Elder Futhark on the continent. Hell, relative to area, there’s _way_ more there than for all Elder Futhark, Scandinavia included. The current interpretations account for regional and temporal variations in the writing, already. But when some artefacts like the Frank’s casket and Cuthbert’s coffin have mixtures of Latin script and runes, it’s not actually that hard to work out. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2025, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-futhorc/1020619/5 "2025-07-08T12:14:21Z")
Also, it’s similar to many other writing systems (including the one we still use). If you see a rune and you’re not sure what it means, but it looks a lot like some letter that you do know, it’s a reasonable guess, at least as a starting point.