History of the scientific views on the origins of Székely runic script
Chronicles traditionally mention Hunnish or Scythian
script. It chimes in with the views of János Thelegdi, the scholar, "On Hunnish letters, which are also called
Székely letters in common language", and that of his colleague, János
Baranyai Decsi, who writes about "Scythian
alphabet" in the preface (Thelegdi/1598, 1994/7, 15). Mátyás Bél also
mentions Hunnish-Scythian script in his influential work published in 1718.
Nowadays the terms “Hunnish” and “Scythian” are
considered blanket terms; they are separate from each other and also from
“Hungarian.” The fact that Hunnish and Scythian scripts had existed was
suppressed for a long time though both are known from antique sources and
archaeological finds. Székely runes were simply regarded as figments of imagination
- in spite of indisputable data in various chronicles. Due to these widely
accepted but unjustified preconceptions, the terms Scythian and Hunnish do not
provide sufficient information in our present way of thinking. At best they
refer to steppe origin, and many still doubt that the first Hungarian settlers
in
As late as 1986, Lajos Ligeti still expressed similar
opinions. As he wrote, phonetically the Hungarian word betû (letter) could be a loan word of Turkish origin, but "there is no satisfactory substantive proof
to support this theory; what sort of written texts can we talk about in that
early era?" (Ligeti/1986/262).
To replace the Hunnish and Scythian theories of
origin, present-day researchers have tried to connect Székely script to peoples
which are known to have used writing.
Following tradition, Károly Antal Fischer mentions Hunnish-Hungarian writing in his work
(Fischer/1889).
In 1890, Géza Nagy compared Székely runes with Turkish
signs. He based his research on the slight resemblance of characters.
Superficial as those comparisons may have been, it was useful to make them
before deciphering Turkish script and elaborating the principles of comparison,
but it did not help establish a hypothesis of origin.
Zsófia Thorma recognized the images of four Székely
runic signs -"c", "ny", "t", "zs"- in
the Neolithic pots of Tordos, which she had discovered (in fact the number of
parallel features are over ten, see Fig. 35). Due to lack of interest in
In 1914 Miklós Debreczeni used Hungarian to decipher
the inscription on a 3000 year-old Scythian hatchet decorated with ligatures,
which were interpreted by László Pataky essentially the same way in 1971.
As early as 1915, Gyula Sebestyén formulated some
basic principles that must be taken into consideration when examining the
origin of a writing system. "First
we analyzed the system of the Hungarian runic script, then we tried to find its
place in the world history of writing following the usual method, and we placed
it along the line of general development." Analyzing the system of
Székely script, he pointed out that it was a runic script, and as such "it remained in existence for a long time".
He considers the Turkish and Székely vowel characters as letters of Greek
origin and comes to the conclusion that these two steppe script systems were
not vowel-dropping. This conclusion, however, needs some correction. The fact
that Székely vowels are practically identical with the Greek ones does not lead
to the conclusion that Székely script was originally not vowel-dropping. Vowels
existed in syllabic scripts prior to Greek script, but they were rarely marked
since they were to be indicated by syllable signs. Vowels were indicated only
in special cases, e.g. in syllables with long vowels (as it can be observed in
early Székely texts, too).
So it follows that Székely and Turkish writing
practice, which possessed vowels but dropped them in writing, is rooted in much
earlier times than Greek and Phoenician systems. In accordance with Gyula
Sebestyén' s systemic theory, the reasonable conclusion is that the Greeks may
have borrowed their vowels from Székely script, but it could not have happened
the other way around. Both the Székely practice of vowel-dropping and its set
of vowels are in relationship with syllabic systems (possibly Hurrian?) which
precede the Greeks and Phoenicians.
Gyula Sebestyén tries to back up the theory of
Phoenician-Greek origin with the consonant 'f', which existed in Székely but
was missing from Old Turkish for linguistic reasons. However, the sound 'f'
cannot be found either in Old Greek or in Phoenician. The 'f' character
(precisely: 'ph') which appeared later in classic Greek is different in form
from the Székely 'f' character, a cross in a circle, but in fact it is
identical with the form of the "us" rune (cf. Jensen 1969/443). The
sign of the cross in a circle existed in both Phoenician and Greek, but it
always stood for 't' or 'th' sounds (Fig. 20). These characters are therefore
not suitable for proving the Phoenician-Greek origin of Székely script.
In the spirit of the theory which presumes that the
Székelys were originally using Turkish, Gyula Sebestyén argues that before they
fell under Hungarian influence, Székelys had brought along the knowledge of
Turkish runic script from the East, and thus they may be the inheritors of
Hunnish-Avar traditions. (The hypothesis that Székelys were originally using
Turkish language has no foundation, but the theory of Hunnish-Avar origin has
proven to be right.). In his opinion, the Hungarians acquired runic script from
Western Turkish (the language of Turks around the Azovian area) which had preserved
more antique features of languages around the Mediterranean than the Old
Turkish system of Central Asia (by which he means the age of sign forms).
However, the connection to the Western Turks has not been successfully proven,
and that idea has remained a hypothesis without foundation.
According to János Melich (1925) the runic characters
'e' and 'o' come from Samaritanian.
József Aczél, who identified 3000 word-stems identical
in Hungarian and Greek in his work published in 1926. At the end of his book he also compared Greek
characters with Székely ones. He wrote, "When analyzing the two scripts, sound groups of the same origin have to
be compared ... the character 'g' in Old Greek should not be compared with the
character 'g' in Székely, but the sound group k, g, kh should be compared with
the similar sound group of the other alphabet ... The similarities between
vowel characters are especially remarkable" (Aczél 1926/182). That is,
the Greeks could have adopted the vowels that were generally missing from
Semitic scripts from the ancestor of Székely script or from its relatives.
In 1934, Gyula Németh classified runic script as a
member of the Turkish family of writing on the basis of the mostly presumed
resemblance of sixteen runic characters. He found the origins of the characters
'e' and 'o' in Glagolitic, because he found similar characters in that
language. Glagolitic script, however, was not used in the territories where, in
his belief, the Hungarians lived. That is why he thought, "we should assume" a Slavic monk
working in
The theory of identifying Hunnish and Avar with
Székely was not accepted by contemporary scientists, though chronicles prove
that the Huns and the Avars used Székely runes and were also in contact with
Slavs who used Glagolitic. Therefore, the hypothesis of originating characters
from several different sources forced its creators to deal with some more
insoluble contradictions. It is hardly possible that the Turks, the Greeks, the
Slavs, and the Eastern Hungarians assembled at the same place and, of course,
at the same time to invent Székely script. It is also highly improbable that
our forefathers waited centuries for their character set to gather.
That "gathering" theory would be consistent
if it claimed that the character for 'us’s was obtained from the Hittite, 'ty'
from Chinese, and 'tprus’s from Egyptian, and presuming the visit of a Hittite,
a Chinese and an Egyptian "monk," respectively.
Gyula Németh briefly described Turkish and Hungarian
script but did not mention major differences between their systems and other
issues which question their relationship.
In 1971, he drew attention to similarities to Khazar
characters. By doing so he only proved the unstable foundations of the
Turkish-origin theory, because there are no reliable data about Khazar script
and language. Besides, his method, which was based on a few slight similarities
in shape, led to nowhere.
According to Ernst Doblhofer, the similarity between
Turkish and Székely scripts is "really
so remarkable that none can question it" (Doblhofer 1954, 1962/312,
313). However, he does not follow up this superficial reasoning with thorough
analysis.
On the other hand he found that most Hungarian
characters could not be derived from Turkish, Glagolitic or Greek script, and
"their models have not been found
yet". Even this counter-argument is weak, for even dissimilar
characters can be in relationship. It also reveals a typical preconception.
Namely, he suggests that a rule exists that an external source must be sought,
regardless whether the runes resemble characters in other scripts or not.
"Runes
surely cannot be related to the script of the Hunnish king, Attila, and Hunnish
troops", wrote Doblhofer. This sentence -as we shall see- shows two
things. First, Doblhofer had never compared signs and characters in Hunnish and
Avar archaeological finds with Székely runes. Second, the word "surely", even if uttered by an
internationally known historian of
writing, is not a scientific argument.
Fig. 3 The hieroglyphs representing "man"
are not similar in various scripts.
(Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, Chinese)
According to Dezsõ Csallány "Székely runic script belongs to the Turkish family of writing, as it
has already been proven by many scientists" (1963). He is referring to
Németh's book mentioned above, which by no means can be taken as a reliable
foundation as neither Németh nor others have been able to describe "the
Turkish family of writing" adequately. Therefore, it has remained an
undefined term as to origins, relationships, distribution and other features as
well. Classifying Székely script into the family of Turkish scripts is only an
ill-considered idea without any serious proof.
In his work published in 1974, István Vásáry gave an
excellent summary on the history of researches. About the question of origin,
however he wrote vaguely, "We should
follow Gyula Németh's basic findings and analyze those Turkish runic scripts
which are peripheral compared to Turkish writing and which could have been the
direct source of Hungarian runes. Thus, by the step by step critical and
comparative analysis of each character, we could get closer to the origin of
Székely runic letters ... This method ... requires a good command of different
Turkish and "Turkish-like" runic scripts. ... In most cases alphabets
are compiled by one or more scientists, and they, unlike linguistic facts, are
not the results of organic development. Remember the activity of Cyrill, the
apostle of the Slavs. Likewise, the formation of Székely runic script is due to
the activity of a similar scientist.
Fig. 4 The map of Eden (left) and its symbolic
variations: a painted egg of Gyimesbükk with decorations identical with runes
"j" and "m" (middle), and a Kyrgyz carpet with the
variations of the runes "s", "j", "nt", and
"ak" (right)
Thus,
when we said that Székely runic script is related and connected to Turkish, we
did not mean a direct genetic relationship, but that the creator of this script
took one of the local varieties of Turkish runic script as a basis, altered it
and completed it with new characters. ...it is essential to try to restore the
original letter shapes; unfortunately it is not always successful.
The
evidence we can build on are five letters[1]
which are completely identical (both in sound and form) with Turkish letters of
the Yenisey area, while there are 10-11 more letters which are very likely to
have an equivalent. Note that even if all similarities are accepted without
doubt, these 16 letters amount to less than the half of the characters in
Székely runic script, let alone complex characters called "capita
dictionum" [2].
The above clearly shows that Székely alphabet must have been an independent
system, and not a mechanical adaptation of Turkish runic alphabet[3].
...
Three
characters were borrowed from the Greek alphabet (f, h, l) ... The characters
denoting e and o were adopted from the
Glagolitic alphabet. ...
The
question arises where Székely runic script could have evolved. ... We can think
of the native land in the Carpathian basin. ... however we should not forget
about the growing influence of Latin literacy, which was changing the letters
to more and more cursive[4]
and also caused the insertion of vowels."
(1974/168-176).
If we subtract the required respect for the great
turcologist colleague from István Vásáry's words, the only thing that seems
certain from his thoughts is that Székely script cannot be traced back to any
known Turkish script. The author only hopes that with the analysis of the
unspecified peripheral Turkish or Turkish-like (Khazar?) script characters, we
could get closer to the origin of Székely script. However, it is not more than
wishful thinking, as there is no evidence that could support these hopes.
While in one sentence István Vásáry posits an unknown,
peripheral Turkish runic system as the direct source of Hungarian runic script,
he emphasizes Szekely script’s independence in another. The careful reader is
given the opportunity to choose between the two seemingly opposite theories of
origin or to neglect the Turkish influence. Although the author supports
neither answer with cogent arguments, even the fact of raising the question
deserves attention.
The fact that Slavic script is a scholarly product seems
certain from the sources. However, it does not follow from this fact that
Székely script cannot be "the result of an organic development".
István Vásáry's statement that Székely script, just like Slavic script, was
compiled by one or more scientists has no foundation. On the other hand, its
opposite is verified by the internal linguistic and mythological connections
among Székely runes, which form an
antique type of system (see later).
In 1977 Péter Püspöki Nagy evaluated his predecessors’
work as follows: "About the literature of runic script we can
say that there is enough of it to fill a library room, but none of the authors
have realized that a book which is about a writing system should be written in
the framework of at least sufficient knowledge of the general study and history
of writing. If ... we concentrate only on the scientific studies or the one or
two books of high standard, we cannot be satisfied either. Even these selected
works show the authors’ ignorance of the study of writing (general theory and
history of writing). ...
Those
who prefer to link the Old Turkish script with the Hungarian, even when taking
the greatest academic liberties, could identify only 15-16 tenuous connections
among the 32 characters of Hungarian script. However, actual identity in form
and sound only occurs in the case of five characters, 'e', 'j', 'n', 's', 'sz'.
Thus Hungarian script means a writing system whose 24 to 27 characters are
special and independent formations and which, on the basis of letter components
and other features of writing, is connected to the mainstream of Mediterranean
linear writing culture."
He mentions important differences between Hungarian
and Turkish writing systems. He is referring to ligatures and name initials
found in early texts, which he traces back to the era of Charles the Great as
the earliest. (However, Székely ligatures - as we shall see - did not appear as
a result of the use of Latin script in Frankish times. They inherited a much earlier eastern
tradition.)
At the end he declares that Hungarian script is the
descendant of a script from the age of great migrations (mentioned as Avar by
Cyrill, also called Constantine, in Venice in 872.), which was already used in
the age of Charles the Great and also later in the age of King Mathias - "therefore it was not primarily Hungarian in
all probability".
In his book published in 1983, Sándor Forrai says that
Székely runic writing "has links to
almost every other runic (linear -VG) script".
He presumes that the Hungarians (whom he identifies with the Sabirs, probably
coming from the Southern part of the
According to the study of Géza Ferenczi and István
Ferenczi, published in 1979, "Among
the 37 characters of Hungarian runic script[5],
21 were undoubtedly borrowed from Old Turkish, 3 from Middle-Greek, and 3 from
the Glagolitic alphabet."
In 1997 Géza Ferenczi wrote the following about their
earlier work, "In that book we dealt
with the origin of runic script to the best of our knowledge at that time. So
far it has been impossible to track development from the appearance of the
unknown "first" runic alphabet to the present."
His thoughtful and often justified assessment of the
works of Forrai and Csallány can also be applied to his work. It is unfortunate
that we can only partly accept the results of this well-known writer' s hard
work. Regrettably the results of his otherwise devoted, respectable and
conscious work can be treated only with suspicion and care.
The only conclusion we can
draw from Géza Ferenczi's sentences quoted above is that in the question of
origin even the opposite of our "scientific" authors’ results can be
true. What they called "undoubted" is doubtful, and what they called
"impossible" is possible (cf. Ferenczi/1972/12 and Ferenczi/1997/5,
34).
In 1987 Gábor Vékony ruled out a direct link between
Turkish and Székely scripts. He presumed that Turkish script, which had been
created on the Sogdian model, was connected to the Székely script system
through the Nagyszentmiklós script, which was close to Khazar and Parthian
script. He found the origin of both Parthian and Sogdian script in Aramean.
However, he provided no proof for his theories, and his reasoning could not be
reconstructed from those he did provide.
It is quite clear that he relied on some external similarities of
characters, as usual.
Due to its obvious impossibility, he did not even try
to find in Aramean, which contains only letters (in fact syllable characters),
the origin of ancient word characters such as "us" or
"tprus" (he described the latter as the mark for the Latin word temporus (time) in a 1998 lecture which
was a part of the lecture series about the history of writing organized by the
Nap Fiai [Sons of the Sun] Foundation). Instead, he did not even mention word
characters.
Fig. 5 The letters, ligatures and hieroglyphs of the
"alphabet" of Nikolsburg
He brought up a new and important idea when he
compared the character order of the Nikolsburg alphabet with that of the Khazar
alphabet, which had appeared in Central-Asia. In his opinion the original
source of the Khazar alphabet was not a traditional Aramean (e.g. Hebrew)
alphabet, but a variation of Aramean which cannot be defined more precisely
yet. However, from the Khazar alphabet he referred to the Székely alphabet of
Nikolsburg, which contains more symbols and in some cases shows significant
differences, cannot be derived; we can only see that the two alphabets are
related (Fig. 19).
Thus, Gábor Vékony could have recognized the
insuperable difficulties of deriving the Székely character order from Aramean.
He tried to surmount them by Hungarian linguistics’ typical method: by
presuming a more suitable ancient source. In this way our linguists have
"invented" about half a dozen Chuvash-like languages to be able to
connect to a Turkish language some of those words that cannot be traced back to
standard Turkish or are missing from
He rejects the Glagolitic origin of certain
characters, "We know that
Constantinos, the inventor of Glagolitic script, visited Khazaria in 861. He
invented the first Glagolitic script after that journey. Constantinos must have
met runic script in Khazaria; moreover we also know from his biography that he
was actively interested in any kind of written relics." He presumes
Székely script adopted the characters 'a', 'f' and 'l' from the Cyrillic script
used by Rumanians in
Klára Sándor started studying the origins of Székely
script on the influence of András Róna-Tas. As she wrote, "My aim was to sum up the tasks we must
complete before searching for the alphabet which could have formed the basis of
the earliest variety of Székely runes ... I am leaving out of consideration the
dilettante theories (presuming Sumerian, Japanese, Etruscan relationships)
appearing nowadays in an increasing number" (Sándor/1992/79).
She regards Székely runes as borrowed characters,
though no other data refer to that but Kézai's mysterious sentence (mentioning
Blachs), and she regards the possibility of independent development not even
worthy of consideration. She fails to consider that Székely script contains
syllable and word characters as well, which could not have been borrowed (or
developed) from any foreign "alphabets".
In her essay, it is only the name of the runic script
that appears; the uniqueness of the script is not realized by the author, that is
why her essay cannot be regarded more than a heap of worthless conjectures. For
example, if the transmission of script occurred before the Hungarian conquest
of
It is clear from the study that her research of
academic intentions cannot name the archetype of Székely script, and that the
academic work of some authors hardly mean more than establishing unjustifiable
prohibitions and calling others "dilettante".
András Róna-Tas, who in 1992 wrote an essay on the
etymology of the Hungarian words ír
(write) and betû (letter) titled
"On the Turkish Origin of Hungarian
Literacy", wrote the following in 1996, "The origin of the script is still unclear. From the script itself we
can only tell that the form of the letters were greatly influenced by the facts
that the characters were notched, the writing was running from right to left [6],
vowels were rarely written out, were indicated mostly when marking long vowels.
That shows a relationship with the Semitic family of writing. On the other
hand, the runes have several letter combinations and abbreviations which are
characteristic of mediaeval Latin letter writing, so Székely script must have
developed or improved under the influence of Latin script. ... Only two very
simple characters (sz and n) can be successfully compared with Eastern Turkish
runic script. Four letters (a, e, o, f) were certainly[7],
two were probably borrowed from the Greek alphabet through the medium of the
Slavs." (Róna-Tas 1996/338).
Instead of the Turkish family of writing, some authors
have started to relate Székely script to the Semitic family of writing, but
they still have not been able to determine any known script as its origin. As
suitable principles and data are lacking, they have not even tried to offer
scientific proof. In fact, some features of Székely script show similarities
with the Semitic family of scripts or its predecessors, while other features
show similarities to the Turkish family of script, and yet others to Egyptian,
Chinese, Sumerian, etc. writing systems. When András Róna-Tas selects,
overemphasizes and misinterprets one or two such features while leaves other
features unmentioned, it helps us understand the author's intentions but not
the origin of Székely script.
As far as the influence of mediaeval Latin letter
combinations on Székely is concerned, Székely symbols are characters and also
hieroglyphs at the same time. Therefore it is not the origins of letter
combinations, but that of sign combinations that should be sought. That
phenomenon is characteristic of Chinese writing, which employs a special
montage technique to indicate concepts that otherwise cannot be expressed with
simple signs (e.g. the combination of the signs for "ear" and
"gate" mean "to hear something").
Due to these sign combinations, present-day Chinese
writing contains about 56.000 signs, though early word and syllable scripts
could do with 700-2500 signs. As the Huns and Avars also used the archetype of
Székely script (Figs. 22, 25), and unquestionable connections can be
demonstrated between Székely and Chinese script (Figs. 9, 20, 27, 29, 30), the
possibility of a connection between Hunnish, Avar and Székely ligatures and
Chinese montage technique cannot be excluded. There are enough Eastern examples
(or Hungarian examples of Eastern origin) of sign combinations and hieroglyphs
made up by signs to regard it not as a "Latin influence" but as a
much earlier tradition widespread in the steppe (Figs. 9, 11, 15, 30, 31, 36).
The "Latin influence" presumed but not proven by András Róna-Tas is
only a seemingly useful but actually poor device to explain features of Székely
script which cannot be derived from Aramean.
The essay "On the Origin of Székely Script"
by Péter Simon was published in 1993. It evaluates those theories of writing
system comparisons, which are restricted to comparing only character forms,
"The number of common characters in
two or more scripts is a sure sign of their - closer or more distant -
relationship, but it is only one of possibly several items of evidence, and
relationship does not necessarily mean that one script originated in the other.
When analyzing or comparing scripts, it is essential to examine which trend of
writing development their system represents. Before doing that, the
characteristic features of their systems must be analyzed." Later he
declares, that Old Turkish scripts are somewhere between letter and syllabic
scripts. Their systems are essentially different from that of Székely writing,
(Aramean-Sogd) Pehlevi writing, or of any other letter scripts of Semitic
origin. It is impossible that the complicated Turkish syllable script developed
from letter writing, especially in an era when letter writing had already been
widespread.
Fig. 6 The newer characters of Székely alphabet listed
in the order of the Latin alphabet, with reconstructed character names
Comparing the Székely characters, which are very different
from Northern Semitic scripts, with Tartar, Egyptian, Cretan, Cypriot, Hittite,
Phoenician, Southern Semitic, Greek, Etruscan, Iberian, German scripts, he
argues that Székely script is not likely to belong to the Semitic family of
writing, but developed in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC directly from
hieroglyph scripts used in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean, South of the
Black Sea and the Caucasus and North of the Damascus-Babylon line
(Simon/1993/42-51.).
István Szekeres states his case in the same book as
follows, "Hungarian research on
writing history, just like the international, usually restricts its study of
script relationships to comparing character forms and sound values of two
writing systems. ... Studies explaining the origins of steppe scripts are
confined to repeating earlier statements without verifying them. This is how
such "results" could develop and spread as Old Turkish and also its
relative, Székely runic script had derived from Aramean after all. ... The
formal identity or similarity of characters, however, does not mean much in
itself. In the case of antique writing systems, no more than some statistical
data can be expected from theories which are based only on the formal
similarities of characters and which do not even try to explore what
contemporary concepts meant. ... The reasons for divergence and exceptions are
generally not explored. They do not even try
... to explore other possibilities for explaining the development of
these scripts; they do not use the 'method of linguistic cross matching'[8]
as they do not realize its benefits" (Szekeres/1993/56-59.).
My own summary at that time is identical with my
present views, "The Hungarian
language developed and progressed in an area where the influences of historical
upheavals caused essential changes in the most important writing systems. ...
that is why the Hungarian set of symbols and Székely script are connected to
... Southern geographical regions and early historical eras. In accordance with
these connections, the events of the Ural and Finno-Ugrian era took place
somewhere in the mountains South of the
Elek Benkõ referred to our joint volume mentioned
above as an example of studies "unquestionably
amateur in their conclusions" (Benkõ/1994), but - lacking cogent
arguments - he was not prepared to offer scientific criticisism. However, in
his half-sentence referring to the most important topic of the book, the
question of origin, he considers Székely script "still of unclarified
origin". After the editorial of the magazine Hunnia (“Explosion in the
History of Writing, 1996. 02. 02., p. 53) the author backed down, "As yet we do not have an unambiguous picture
about when and in what conditions this special form of writing developed. A
dominating trend of research agrees that the majority of Székely runes are of
Turkish origin, and the rest are of Greek and Glagolitic ... origin."
(Benkõ/1996). Though he does not reveal which authors belong to the "dominating trend", András Róna-Tas
(1996), Klára Sándor (1996) and Géza Ferenczi (1997) gave up their earlier
views at about that time, and Gábor Vékony, Péter Püspöki Nagy, Péter Simon had
not believed even before that "the
majority of Székely runes are of Turkish origin". If Gyula Németh -
who developed three different theories of ancient history in his life - could
had been still alive, he would certainly have given up the idea of Turkish
origin himself.
The chaos created by the researches inspired by the
academy is characterized by János Ráduly's controversial assessment. He has gained ever-lasting distinction for
discovering new runic relics and in maintaining public interest, but could not
see through "scientific" theories of origin. In his book published in
1995, he wrote, "I have tried to
present arguments of evidence to prove that we have and have always had a runic
writing, which is not Pecheneg, but Hungarian to the core." Some pages later he wrote, "It is well-known that the bulk of the
Székely (Hungarian) alphabet system is ... of Turkish origin."
(Ráduly/1995/5, 19). That was really the public opinion, but that public belief
has no basis in reality, and by the time his book was published even those
"scholars" had abandoned this disbelief, who had started to
popularize it.
Today only the alternative scholars who are called
outsiders, dilettantes and amateurs, can claim a hypothesis (based on a range
of evidence organized into a systematic academic theory) that is also - and it
is essential - confirmed by the chronicles.
That is, the century-long - but leisurely - efforts of
Hungarian "science," which is unable to get rid of its mistaken
historical preconceptions in its search for the origin of our runic script, has
resulted in zero. The greatest achievement of the "Hungarian study of
writing" is the acknowledgment of the fact that Székely script has existed
not only in imagination but also in real life, as the chronicles wrote of it
centuries ago. It could be regarded as a hopeful sign that the latest studies
at least seem to recognize this complete failure. János Ráduly (1998/65) could
agree with Klára Sándor (1996) that regarding Székely (Hungarian) script "every basic question is unclarified".
This opinion clearly reflects the present-day position, situation and
perplexity of academic research. At the same time, the authors indicate that
they still refuse to accept the Hungarian historians’ data referring to the
origin of Székely script and to pay attention to the results of scientists that do not belong
to their circle. They consider the tradition and the latest scientific results
as non-existent, though they can presumably neither understand nor refute them.
"Science" is of course not obliged to refute
the hypotheses of "outsiders." However, in the case of such an
indisputable failure, aristocratic seclusion is not enough to save imaginary
scientific prestige. It only shows that the well-known authors cannot overcome
their own limitations. As long as it remains so, they cannot be expected to
reconsider and complete the outsiders’ answers to the basic questions.
It is exactly the history of writing research that
sets several precedents of great scientific discoveries of "people outside
the guild". Doblhofer, for example, wrote about the birth of one of the
most important research result in the following - simplified - way, "And then comes Grotefend. Not even an
expert! A country schoolmaster, a secondary school teacher. He has no idea
about oriental studies; he is only a dare-devil who makes a bet with his
drunken friends, goes home and deciphers cuneiform writing."
(Doblhofer/1962/106)
The basic problems of classifying Székely script have
already been solved. The chronicles explicitly mention writing of
Hunnish-Scythian origin, whose type Thelegdi defined as letter- and
syllable-script as early as 1598. Syllable scripts using a method similar to
Székely vowel-dropping described by Gyula Németh among others are known to come
from the area where Scythians (whom Gyula Mészáros identifies as the Hattians)
set off.
The question of the Scythian original homeland and
nationality is much debated, and it is not necessary to be deeply involved in
that debate. Still, note that according to Diodorus of Sicily, Scythians "originally ... lived by the river Araxes,
... (then) conquered the mountains up to the
In a study published in 1991 and reprinted in 1993 I
have already refuted the possible counter-argument of "casual
coincidences." In 1993 and in 1996, I have already covered the questions
of using the Székely runes as hieroglyphs, of their Hunnish and Avar
occurrences, of their relationship to our national and regal symbols, and of
our character names forming a Hungarian mythological system. What is needed to either accept or refute the already
clarified foundations of the history of writing is not Grotefend's drunkenness,
but his sharp intellect, untiring industry and honesty.
In the “scientific-political” situation following the
withdrawal of the Soviet Army, two academic trends appeared. First, the theory
of the Semitic origin of Székely script was spread, in the same way as the idea
of Turkish origin had been for a hundred years. Second, underestimating its
significance, some people tried to present the whole question as negligible.
Two typical examples of these trends can be found in
András Róna-Tas's work. He writes the following about the first Hungarian
settlers of
That is why István Nemeskürty wrote that our national
script "was a primitive runic
script, which was unsuitable to express complicated connections"
(1997/13). The well-known author did not reveal what he meant by complicated connections. What is
certain, however, is that in Székely script, as it is a perfect letter-script,
every work that has ever been or will ever be written in Latin letters, can be
published.
[1] In 1996, Róna-Tas András considers
only two letters as surely identifiable (see below)
[2] That is, at most 5 characters among
the 46 characters of the runic alphabet of Nikolsburg, or the 65 characters
described by Thelegdi can be identified with Turkish signs. The author fails to
mention that most of the incompatible characters show similarities with
Sumerian, Egyptian, Chinese or Hittite writing.
[3] There is no evidence for the Greek
and Glagolitic origin of the five characters mentioned. It is not more than an
unproved guess, as similar characters can be found in other alphabets as well,
and it is not clear why the author selected Greek and Glagolitic as
transmitting languages. The mere similarity of a few characters does not give
information about the direction of transmission.
[4] Runic characters became more cursive
not under the influence of Latin writing, but that of giving up runic
technology and changing the materials used for writing -the spreading of the
custom of writing in ink on paper.
[5]To this day the Hungarian “science of
writing” has not been able to add up the number of characters in Székely runic
writing. The syllable and word
characters, which serve as the basis for identifying the links to other writing
systems, are mentioned, but are usually not included in the character sets.
This error influences the theories of origin as well. They also regularly lack the search for the
parallels with Magyar syllable and word
characters.
[6] That is only a general statement, which
is true in the case of most texts that survived, but cannot be stated so
categorically almost as a rule. Writing technologies used thousands of years
ago could have required completely different direction of writing. Line
direction might have changed several times throughout the history of Székely
writing. In accordance with that idea István Szamosközy wrote about a
top-to-bottom writing direction, which Róna-Tas András leaves unmentioned.
[7] In Constantin's legend, who created
Glagolitic writing in 861, Magyar and Avar writings are mentioned as earlier
forms of writing. That is to say that some characters could have been adopted
from Székely writing to Slavic, but it could not have happened vice versa.
Péter Püspöki Nagy is the only author who refers to that well-known fact.
[8] The author means the realization of
linguistic connections through acrophony (c.f. Fig. 2., 7.).
[9] However, according to the Hungarian
edition of Herodotus published in 1989, "The country of the Scythians starts from over the land of the Tauruses ",
and the previous chapter locates the Tauruses in the
Contents
7. | |
9. | |
History of the scientific views on the origins of Székely runic script | 10. |
26. | |
28. | |
29. | |
32. | |
35. | |
37. | |
39. | |
48. | |
52. | |
55. | |
58. | |
61. | |
68. | |
70. | |
71. | |
73. | |
79. | |
82. | |
87. | |
92. | |
97. | |
101. | |
109. |
Csiby Károly: Mikor jelent meg és ki fordította?
VálaszTörlésVarga Géza: 1999-ben jelent meg, a Frankfurti Nemzetközi Könyvkiállításra. Lehetett pályázni előbb a megírására és a fordítására, azután meg a kiállítására. "Természetesen" egyik alkalommal sem nyertem. A könyveimet (mert hárommal indultam) átvették kiállítás céljára, de végül nem állították ki és vissza sem adták. Néha szemét bandához néha szemét eljárás illik. A kötetet a csinos és kedves Légrády Bea fordította. A nem csinos és nem kedves Róna-Tas András meg azt mondta rá, hogy nem jó a fordítás, ám egyetlen példát sem mondott rá. Viszont mindjárt a címlapon hibát találhatott a nevem írásában, mert ott is Varga Géza vagyok és nem Géza varga - de ez nem róható fel a fordítónak, mert én ragaszkodtam hozzá. Ugyanis így szerepel a születési anyakönyvemben.