Principles of deriving the origins of Székely script
From the outset academic research has excluded from
both the archetypes and the relatives of Székely runic script the Scythian,
Hunnish and Avar script relics and similar symbols used by steppe and Hungarian
rulers and commoners. Declaring this artificially created "lack of
relics" theory of several centuries as an insuperable gap, it deliberately
prevents science from clarifying the early history of Székely script. As if all
script relics classified as Székely in the narrow sense of the word (letter
script) must go hand in hand along a line of thousands of years in order to
justify theories of origin.
Unfortunately, many of the runic relics have been lost
forever and not even archaeology can be expected to find all the missing links.
For defining relations, therefore, a different method must be applied. We must
rely on the information that the known runic relics reveal about their own
origin.
When describing the circumstances of development and
the relationships of Hungarian runic script, all its features should be
compared to the characteristics of the most significant script and symbolic
systems[1].
These features include the quantity and quality of characters: pictorial sign
combinations, symbols, word characters, syllabic characters, letters,
ligatures; number of consonants and vowels; graphic form realizations; the
depicted thing (living beings, objects, ideas) and their cultural background
(myth, rite, economy); the order of characters; the set of sounds and language
depicted by the characters; the systematic use of characters; writing
technology, direction of writing, and any changes in all of these.
Counterparts of the different features of Székely
script occur even in the most distant writing systems. The parallels of
Hungarian national script with different other writing systems show only the
possible location and time of the emergence of similar writing systems. That,
of course, does not preclude the possible existence of an earlier form of
Székely script. To reach correct conclusions, the contradictions between facts
leading in different directions should be answered - also taking into
consideration the laws of script development. We must decide which fact is the
most valuable among contradictory data. We must recognize which fact refers to
the native
Fig. 7
Characters representing fish: both the graphic and phonetic forms of
Sumerian and Székely characters show a genetic relation (Turks borrowed their
character from that tradition), but the Turkish phonetic form results from
translation (Sumerian ha
"fish", Székely "h" (hal-"fish"), Turkish
"b"(balik "fish")
During our research, we will reach a point when some
questions of principle must be answered. What can we regard as writing and at
what point do we have to cut the endless line of preliminary forms: from which
level of development can we talk about the origin of Székely script? Anyway, is writing an invention or a series of
connected, slow changes insignificant in themselves, whose various stages can
hardly be differentiated? Is it possible that we have always been able to write
at the level we needed? Is it possible that it is not the realization of letter
script that has a significant role, as it is generally thought, but the rising
of the need for writing? Is writing the privilege of peoples with statehood and
economy? How can statehood be defined?
The answers for these questions presumes several
centuries long coordinated work of archaeologists, historians, ethnologists,
historians of religion, linguists, mathematicians, information experts and
others. Nevertheless, we will not get to know everything about the origin of
Székely script and the origin of writing in general (the two are nearly
identical), because to a great extent the past is irrevocably lost. On the
other hand, the possible but so far unexplored approaches can provide a lot of
knowledge and that is reason enough to start.
[1] Ranging from Egyptian hieroglyphs and
Obi-Ugrian tamgas to Indian pictographs.
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. |
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése