SH Archive Tartarian Language and Alphabet

[Tapioca]

Probably Irish since the Irish were some of the first slaves, right? It's possible some of the gnostic druids were enslaved instead of killed. That would connect to the idea of Jews (yews, yew tree, druids) being enslaved

The Irish were mostly left to die by the English during the potato famine. Interesting connection between the Yews druids and enslavement but nothing seems Jewish to me about the Druids. Can you elaborate?

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth

#1 Illustration looks Egyptian
#2 Druids at Crystal Palace 1911

 

[Janusstark]

Thank you for that history! I remember one of your texts refers to the Muslim Uyghurs maybe as a general term for East Asian Muslims in general? Arabic is an ancient language of many different people and its script is beautiful. In fact so beautiful it can be hidden and blended into decorations. I don't think there are any languages that can do that.

View attachment 32993View attachment 32994View attachment 32995

There is even the fake Arabic used as a holy decoration in Christian art. I cannot find a picture of it now that I am looking!

​

The term "Uyghurs" is, on the contrary, quite specific (in Uyghur: ئۇيغۇر, Uyghur; in Chinese: 维吾尔, Wéiwú'ěr). In the 8th–9th centuries, they established the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840) in Mongolia, before being driven out by the Kyrgyz and migrating to the Tarim Basin (modern Xinjiang). Initially adopting Manichaeism, they profoundly influenced Turco-Mongol culture.

The origin of the endonym traces back to ancient historical and linguistic sources. The word "Uyghur" likely derives from Old Turkic "Uyghur" (𐰇𐰏𐰇𐰼), meaning "alliance" or "federation", referencing a tribal confederation. An alternative theory links it to the verb "uyghur" ("to follow, unite"), evoking a tribal coalition. The name appears in the Orkhon inscriptions (8th century)—Turkic runic texts describing the Göktürk Empire.

 

[Janusstark]

The term "Uyghurs" is, on the contrary, quite specific (in Uyghur: ئۇيغۇر, Uyghur; in Chinese: 维吾尔, Wéiwú'ěr). In the 8th–9th centuries, they established the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840) in Mongolia, before being driven out by the Kyrgyz and migrating to the Tarim Basin (modern Xinjiang). Initially adopting Manichaeism, they profoundly influenced Turco-Mongol culture.

The origin of the endonym traces back to ancient historical and linguistic sources. The word "Uyghur" likely derives from Old Turkic "Uyghur" (𐰇𐰏𐰇𐰼), meaning "alliance" or "federation", referencing a tribal confederation. An alternative theory links it to the verb "uyghur" ("to follow, unite"), evoking a tribal coalition. The name appears in the Orkhon inscriptions (8th century)—Turkic runic texts describing the Göktürk Empire.

At that time, the Uyghurs were a tribal confederation based in Mongolia, later founding the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840). After its collapse (9th century), some Uyghurs migrated to the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang), blending with local populations (Tocharians, Sogdians, etc.). They adopted a sedentary culture, shaping the region through their Old Turkic language and religions (Buddhism, Manichaeism, and later Islam from the 10th century onward).

In the 20th century, the term was repurposed to denote the Turkic-speaking minority of Xinjiang, distinct from other Turkic peoples (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, etc.). Today, Uyghurs identify as a unique ethno-cultural group, with their own Turkic language (Uyghur) and Sunni Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex.

 

[Janusstark]

At that time, the Uyghurs were a tribal confederation based in Mongolia, later founding the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840). After its collapse (9th century), some Uyghurs migrated to the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang), blending with local populations (Tocharians, Sogdians, etc.). They adopted a sedentary culture, shaping the region through their Old Turkic language and religions (Buddhism, Manichaeism, and later Islam from the 10th century onward).

In the 20th century, the term was repurposed to denote the Turkic-speaking minority of Xinjiang, distinct from other Turkic peoples (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, etc.). Today, Uyghurs identify as a unique ethno-cultural group, with their own Turkic language (Uyghur) and Sunni Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex.

The relationship between the Uyghurs and the Qara Khitai (or Kara-Khitans) is a intricate web of history, migrations, and cultural exchange in medieval Central Asia.

1. After the fall of the Liao Dynasty (907–1125) in northern China, a group of Khitans fled westward under Yelü Dashi, founding the Qara Khitai Empire (1124–1218) in Central Asia.
2. Yelü Dashi allied with Turkic tribes (including Uyghurs) to consolidate power. The Qara Khitai ruled over the Tarim Uyghurs (Turfan, Kucha), reducing them to vassalage.
3. Uyghurs served as administrators and soldiers for the Qara Khitai, whose bureaucracy even used the Uyghur script.
4. Culturally, the Qara Khitai—though of Khitai (non-Turkic) origin—adopted Turkic customs under Uyghur influence, upholding their tradition of religious tolerance (Buddhism, Nestorianism, Islam)

 

[Janusstark]

The relationship between the Uyghurs and the Qara Khitai (or Kara-Khitans) is a intricate web of history, migrations, and cultural exchange in medieval Central Asia.

1. After the fall of the Liao Dynasty (907–1125) in northern China, a group of Khitans fled westward under Yelü Dashi, founding the Qara Khitai Empire (1124–1218) in Central Asia.
2. Yelü Dashi allied with Turkic tribes (including Uyghurs) to consolidate power. The Qara Khitai ruled over the Tarim Uyghurs (Turfan, Kucha), reducing them to vassalage.
3. Uyghurs served as administrators and soldiers for the Qara Khitai, whose bureaucracy even used the Uyghur script.
4. Culturally, the Qara Khitai—though of Khitai (non-Turkic) origin—adopted Turkic customs under Uyghur influence, upholding their tradition of religious tolerance (Buddhism, Nestorianism, Islam)

• In 1218, the empire was destroyed by Genghis Khan, who absorbed its territories (and the Uyghurs) into the Mongol Empire.
• The Uyghurs became cultural intermediaries between Mongols, Turks, and Khitans.
• The Uyghur script was adopted by the Mongols (via the Qara Khitai).
• The Khitan legacy survives in the Russian word for China—"Kitai" (Китай)—a nod to their Liao Dynasty.
  

  The relationship between the Uyghurs and the Qara Khitai (or Kara-Khitans) is a intricate web of history, migrations, and cultural exchange in medieval Central Asia.
  
  

  1. After the fall of the Liao Dynasty (907–1125) in northern China, a group of Khitans fled westward under Yelü Dashi, founding the Qara Khitai Empire (1124–1218) in Central Asia.
  2. Yelü Dashi allied with Turkic tribes (including Uyghurs) to consolidate power. The Qara Khitai ruled over the Tarim Uyghurs (Turfan, Kucha), reducing them to vassalage.
  3. Uyghurs served as administrators and soldiers for the Qara Khitai, whose bureaucracy even used the Uyghur script.
  4. Culturally, the Qara Khitai—though of Khitai (non-Turkic) origin—adopted Turkic customs under Uyghur influence, upholding their tradition of religious tolerance (Buddhism, Nestorianism, Islam)

 

[Janusstark]

https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_18_01.pdf

 

[Janusstark]

Greeks used the term "Skhitaï" to name the Scytho-tartyarians dwelling in north Sibiria, next to the Arctic ocean and whose scriptures had been described by : "Skhitaï" like in "Khitaï" (the actual name of China in russian, and name of the ancient Liao empire and of the northern Ta-Han according to the chinese chronicles )

Let us turn our attention to the famous Ta-Han, who are also the Scythians described by ancient Greek authors et by Al Idrissi i (See again the Charta Rogeriana, 1154) under the names Yadjudj wa Madjudj in arabic (Gog and Magog ! The names cannot be more misused in our era as you will see at the end of my argument ):

"I will first briefly outline the starting point and current state of the issue under consideration.
De Guignes, having found in the writings of a Chinese historian of the 5th century AD, named Li-yen, mention of a country called Fou-sang, more than 40,000 li away from China (a distance equivalent to twice that from Isfahan to Beijing), and also finding the route by sea from the coast of Leao-tong (understand Liao Dong from the name of the Liao dynasty, still called the same today) to this country of Fou-sang, he first endeavored to identify several regions indicated as naval stations along the route that had to be traveled. Assessing the Chinese li is always quite tricky because this unit of measurement varied greatly, but on the one hand, the date of the document consulted was well established, which made it possible to take the value of the li at the time specified, and on the other hand, the first part of the route indicated was along the coasts of Korea and Japan, which served as a comparative measure. Once the waters of Japan had been crossed, one encountered the country of the Ouen-chin, or tattooed men, and then the kingdom of Ta-han, located exactly halfway between Leao-tong and Fou-sang. ​

 

[Janusstark]

De Guignes placed the Ouen-chin on the island of Yéso and believed he recognized Ta-han in Kamchatka. He thought that Chinese navigators sailed from there, across the Bering Sea, to the great current that carried their ships in a southeasterly direction and was supposed to take them to the shores of California, where the 40,000 li of the historian Li-yen seemed to be definitively accomplished. Let us say in passing that it seems rather harsh to take this measurement of 40,000 li literally. Chinese books offer many examples of similar estimates, which are in reality only round numbers used to indicate very long distances in an approximate manner. De Guignes gave several very ingenious reasons to support his identification of the country of Ouen-chin with the island of Yéso. As for the kingdom of Ta-han, he admitted that he had initially been inclined to place it on the main Kuril Island, known in his time as the Land of Gama, but that he had been dissuaded from this idea by two powerful considerations, one of which was that various Chinese authors also give details of a land route to Ta-han, which could not be suitable for an island, and the other "that navigators (his contemporaries) had noticed that, on the route from China to California, they usually caught the wind north of Japan and in the Sea of Yesso, from where they sailed eastward; but that at the Strait of Uries, the currents carried them rapidly northward. If Pacific navigation had been better known in De Guignes' time, he would have known that the northern current of the Great Ocean carried ships northeast to the shores of America. As for the need to find a place for Ta-han on the Asian continent and to reconcile the location of Ta-han, which was reached by land, with the Ta-han reached by ships en route to Fou-sang, this created a real difficulty for De Guignes and formed the weak point in his argument. How, indeed, could one reconcile what Ma-touan-lin said about these Ta-han, who had no weapons and never waged war, with the living conditions of a people who had the Chi-oueï, i.e., the warlike and ferocious Tungus barbarians, on their borders?
​

 

[Janusstark]

This observation must have struck Dr. Neumann, who preferred to see the Ta-han on the Aliatska Peninsula, quite rightly in my opinion, especially since this characteristic trait, so different from that of other parts of the world, is also attributed to the Fou-sang in identical terms.
However, the difficulty that had stopped De Guignes remained, namely how to reconcile the location of the Fou-sung in America with the land route mentioned very precisely by Chinese authors, leading to the northeast of present-day Siberia, as Dr. Bretschneider pointed out. This is where the information contained in an early Chinese book, obviously unexplored, comes to our aid.
The following can be read in the work entitled Youen-Kien-loui-han, a vast encyclopedia published by imperial order at the beginning of the dynasty now reigning:
1° "Ta-han of the East. This country lies to the east of that of the Ouen-chin. Its inhabitants have no weapons and never wage war. Their customs resemble those of the Ouen-chin, but their language is different, etc.
2° “Ta-han of the North. This kingdom is located northeast of the land of the Hoe-he (Uyghurs),” that is, northeast of present-day Siberia. “Its inhabitants are robust and tall. They raise many horses and sheep. They came to court in the year 627 and offered sable furs.”

There were therefore two countries called Ta-han: the first, which misled De Guignes, preventing him from extending his views beyond Kamchatka, and the second, which is mentioned in the itinerary of Fou-sang, which cannot be located in Asia, precisely because it was situated to the east of the first.
This minor error does not diminish the credit due to De Guignes for having recognized the real location of Fou-sang, despite this unintentional confusion regarding Ta-han and despite the imperfect geographical knowledge of his time concerning navigation in the northern seas.

​

 

[Janusstark]

This is what an American author, Mr. Leland, recently proclaimed in a book entitled “Fou-sang, or the discovery of America".​

You probably remember Gottlieb Hansel's multilingual map shown somewhere in this blog about the Tartarian language: SH Archive - Tartarian Language and Alphabet whre I wrote : "The characters reproduced on the map (BTW , the title is "Europa poly-glotta, Africa poly-glotta scribendi modos gentium exhibens, Asia poly-glotta linguarum genealogiam, cum lit...." by Gottfried Hensel, Cartographer, and you'll notice that on these maps, California IS CLEARLY AN ISLAND ON ITSELF ! ) under the mention "Characteres scytico-tartarici " (scythico-tartarian characters") are VERY SURPISINGLY the VERY same than tibetan Ume script !!! I say VERY surprisingly, because this region is pretty far from Himalaya and is not one we'd think about the cradle of tibetan language : it's the edge of the arctic seas ! That mean that "tibetan" language (or maybe Zhang Zhung language : see Siegbert Hummel on that : on the Zhang Zhung) was one of the languages in use inside the great tartarian confederation, along with kufic, slavonic, khitan, sanscrit, runic, tangut and mongolic languages and who knows how many others.

Mr. Leland's book is full of very interesting facts and observations on the ethnography of North America, on the resemblance of certain Indians to the Tartars of Upper Asia, on the recently discovered monuments of the Mound Builders, attesting to the existence of a vanished civilization, on several American traditions relating to the West, and finally on the direction of the great currents that must have carried Chinese ships from the seas of Japan to the Aliaska (now called Alaska) Peninsula and from the Aliaska Peninsula to the shores of California or Mexico. It would be inappropriate to summarize arguments that anyone can read and that need to be read in their entirety. Moreover, what I propose to do today is above all to provide precise and new evidence, even more positive than presumptions, however strong they may be. I began by showing that the Ta-han of the East was necessarily further east than the easternmost part of Asia. I will now draw on a respected author from the second century BCE, Tong-fang-so, to demonstrate that it would be impossible to identify the Fou-sang of the ancient Chinese with any country other than America."

 

[Janusstark]

All this together suggests not only the non-violent character of the Ta-Han in general (not barbaric civilization, then : certainly of buddhist or rather bönpo ethos) ; but also the civilizational continuity of the Ta-Han/Scytia/ Skhitaï/Khitaï/Qara Khitaï / Liao (remember that the Liao/Khitans were buddhits or rather bönpos in essence, which was the reason of their departure from dynastic China in the first place) from north and east Asia to … America !


Now :
Sk(h)itaï (Greek) = Khitaï (Central Asia) = Liao (China) = Cathay (Europe)

Chronology of Attestations
1. Classical Antiquity: The Scythians of Tartarus

• Herodotus (5th century BCE): Describes the Scythians (Σκύθαι) north of the Black Sea
• Tartaros in Greek geography: the northern reaches of the known world
• Pliny the Elder: Mentions the Scythae Hyperborei (‘Scythians of Hyperborea’)

2. Middle Ages: The Khitan/Liao Transition
Liao Dynasty (907-1125): Khitan Empire in Manchuria/Mongolia
Al-Idrisi (1154): Yadjudj wa Madjudj (Gog and Magog) located in Northeast Asia
Cathay: Medieval European name for Northern China, derived from Khitay

3. Renaissance and Modern Era
Martino Martini (1655): ‘Leao-tong’ on Jesuit maps
Gottfried Hensel (1741): In Synopsis Universae Philologiae, associates Scythia Hyperborea with North Asian regions
Joseph de Guignes (1761): Makes the connection between the Khitans and regions described in Chinese texts

 

[Janusstark]

How can we reconcile Ma-touan-lin's peaceful Ta-Han (without weapons, without war) with the warlike populations (Chi-oueï, Tongouses) of the northern borders? It should first be noted that the Liao, who had split from the Chinese to preserve their peaceful customs, were Buddhists. Next, it should be noted that in his map ‘Europa polyglotta’, Gottfried Hensel places the Tibetan script, emblematic of Buddhist culture, in the Ta-han, which he calls Hyperborean Scythia, under the heading ‘Scythico-Tartar characters’; Northern Ta-han. In short, there are three Ta-han and not two: those described by De Gignes in the north and east of Asia (Fou-sang/Aliatska) and those who left China as the Liao. It is one and the same story of one and the same non-violent people in an environment of more warlike peoples! In short, there are the Ta Han of the north (Skhitaï), the Ta-Han of the east (Anian) and the Ta-Han of the west (Qara Khitaï)! I claim that the Zhang-Zhung were among them, refugees partly on the Himalayan plateau. In short, Hensel's Hyperborean Scythians and the Khitans/Gya Nag were the same civilisation!

 

[Janusstark]

Notice indeed that the Liao dynasty (遼朝, 907–1125), founded by the Khitans, a people of para-Mongolian origin, ruled over a vast territory stretching from Manchuria to Inner Mongolia, with a Khitan elite and a Chinese-inspired administration. From its foundation, Buddhism was recognised as the state religion alongside traditional shamanism.

- Under the founder, Emperor Taizu (耶律阿保機, 907-926)

He allowed Buddhism to spread among the Chinese and the sedentary Khitans.

His wife, Empress Shulü Ping, protected Buddhist monks.

- Under the following emperors (10th–11th centuries)

Emperors Taizong (r. 927–947) and Shengzong (r. 982–1031) greatly favoured temples.

According to Song chronicles, there were thousands of monasteries and more than 50,000 monks.
Khitan monks were sent to northern China to study the scriptures.
Buddhist canons were translated into the Khitan language, particularly in the Khitan script (da qitan wen).

2. Concrete manifestations
a. Architecture and art

Liao pagodas still remain (e.g. the Yingxian Pagoda [应县木塔], built in 1056, the tallest wooden pagoda in the world).
Buddhist statues in a mixed style (Tang–Khitan) have been found in Liaoning and Hebei.
The Yixian caves and the monasteries of Chifeng display strong Buddhist iconography.

b. Texts and canons

The Liao Tripitaka (遼藏), a compilation of Buddhist texts produced under Emperor Xingzong (1031-1055), is one of the oldest printed canons in Asia.
The Liao also promoted esoteric traditions of Tantric Buddhism, particularly those from Tibet and the kingdom of Khotan.

c. Writing and culture

The Khitan script itself was used for religious inscriptions (steles, sutras).
The Khitans combined Buddhist, Confucian and shamanic rites, but it was Buddhism that dominated the public sphere.

3. Cultural implications


The Buddhist Liao did indeed seek to maintain a form of pacifism and syncretic spirituality, even in a warlike environment.
They considered themselves the guardians of a universal moral order, like Buddhist India or Tibet.
When their empire collapsed in the face of the Jürchen (Jin), some of them fled westward: this was the Qara Khitai dynasty (1124-1218), where Buddhism also persisted, mixed with Muslim influences.

4. The parallel with the Zhang-Zhung and the Tibetans

Link this to the Zhang-Zhung:

• The Bön religion of Zhang-Zhung, which predates Tibetan Buddhism, shares common roots with Tantric Buddhism in the traditions of the steppe and Central Asia.
• The idea of a northern/Hyperborean spiritual civilisation, both shamanic and Buddhist, fits in with this Liao-Zhang-Zhung-Tibetan narrative.
• Hensel's placing of the Tibetan script in Hyperborean Scythia fits well with this vision of a sacred North Asia where ancient spiritual lineages were found and perhaps even originated.
  
  Let's see what about the religions signature of such peoples.

 

[Janusstark]

Bön is not a marginal offshoot of Tibetan Buddhism, but a northern spiritual heritage that predates the spread of Indian Buddhism.
This tradition, present in the traditions of the Khitans-Liao, Zhang-Zhung and ancient Tibetans, shaped the particular form of Tantric Buddhism throughout the inner Far East. The link between the Siberian Altaic world and the Zhang Zhung world has been masterfully demonstrated by Dmitri Ermakov in his study Bō and Bön. In it, he demonstrates that your observation is perfectly accurate:

1. A common origin of the spiritual traditions of the North

Ermakov shows that ancient Bön (Bö) is not simply a local reaction to Indian Buddhism, but rather the continuation of an earlier shamanic religious system rooted in Siberian, Ural-Altaic and Central Asian cultures.
According to him, the word ‘Bö’ itself refers to a northern or Central Asian space, not exclusively Tibetan.
He compares the rituals, symbols and cosmologies of the original Bön with those of Siberian shamanic traditions (Yakuts, Buryats, Tuvans, etc.).

These correspondences concern:

• The worship of the sky and mountain spirits
• The use of ritual drums
• The journeys of the soul
• The division of the cosmos into three worlds (celestial, terrestrial, subterranean)

 

[Janusstark]

All of this existed long before the arrival of Indian Buddhism.

2. Zhang-Zhung as a civilisational relay
According to Ermakov, the kingdom of Zhang-Zhung was the central melting pot of this North Asian tradition.
Its area of influence extended to the Taklamakan, Ladakh, and the foothills of Kunlun.
It served as a cultural bridge between southern Siberia, the eastern Iranian world, and Tibet.
The oldest Bönpo texts (such as the gZer mig or the gShen rab mi bo che) explicitly refer to northern origins (Byang gZhi = ‘Land of the North’). Thus, the heart of primitive Bön is not Indian, but Altaic-Siberian, transmitted through Zhang-Zhung.

 

[Janusstark]

3. The link with the peoples of Northeast Asia: Khitans, Liao, etc.

Ermakov notes that proto-Bön traditions also circulated eastward—to Manchuria, Mongolia, and the northern steppes—in related shamanic forms.
This corresponds to:

• the Khitan celestial cults,
• the use of ritual drums and masks,
• and chthonic deities similar to those of primitive Bön.

These correspondences suggest that the Liao territory was indeed an area of permanence and transformation of the old northern Bön before the arrival of Indian Buddhism.

 

[Janusstark]

4. The shift to ‘Indian’ Buddhism

When Buddhism, originating in India, spread northwards (via Gandhāra, Tarim and the Silk Road), it encountered these local Bön and shamanic traditions.
From the 8th century onwards, under Trisong Detsen, Tibet officially opened up to Indian Buddhism.
But instead of replacing it, Tibetan Buddhism merged with the old Bön/shamanic background, giving rise to a unique tantric system imbued with esotericism and Siberian symbols.
This process of syncretism probably reflects a metamorphosis that had already begun further north, particularly in cultures such as those of the Liao, where the ancient spiritual background was “covered” by Indian Buddhism without being erased. (NOTICE

View attachment 35262

 

[Janusstark]

Ermakov arrives at a key idea :
The ‘North’ — Altai, Siberia, Zhang-Zhung, Liao — represents the ancient heart of Eurasia's spiritual traditions, of which Buddhism was only one phase of reformulation.

Thus:

• Ancient Bön → indigenous North Asian religious form
• Tibetan Bön → adaptation through contact with Indian Buddhism
• Tantric Buddhism → syncretic outcome of a long spiritual cross-fertilisation in Eurasia.

This correction places ancient Bön as the mother source of Eurasian spiritualism: a gnosis from the North, transmitted to the South and reformulated according to local cultures. It reconciles in one fell swoop:

• Arctic-Siberian shamanism,
• Taoist philosophy,
• Tantric Buddhism,
• and Scytho-Khitan myths.

In other words: the Liao, the Zhang-Zhung, the ancient Scythians and the peoples of archaic Bön formed the different branches of the same northern spiritual tree, whose southern branches gave rise to Taoism and tibeto-indian Buddhism.