The origins of Hunnish Runic Writing (3) Principles of deriving the origins of Székely script

 

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 land of Székely script, which carries information about a later state of its historical development and which is misleading. What should be emphasized: the similarity of character forms or the order of characters? Is the geographic-historical preconception concocted in a closed study-room more important than the real connections between facts of writing history?  How can we make use of the data of mythology?

 

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

Preface to the English edition	7.
Preface	9.
History of the scientific views on the origins of Székely runic script	10.
Principles of deriving the origins of Székely script	26.
The development of writing	28.
The shapes of runes and the objects they represent	29.
The mythology, names, and sound values of runes	32.
Rituals and runic script	35.
Types and number of characters	37.
Order of characters	39.
Direction of reading and characters	48.
Syllabic signs	52.
The regular use of syllable and vowel signs	55.
The birth of letter scripts	58.
Comparing of writing systems	61.
The academic historical-geographical preconception	68.
The Turkish connection	70.
What the historical sources say	71.
Székely script of the Huns	73.
The age of the development of Székely character forms	79.
The age of unification of Székely character sets	82.
Hungarian vocabulary connected to writing	87.
Ligatures that survived millennia	92.
Migrations of peoples	97.
Summary	101.
Bibliography	109.

Varga Géza

www.cserepmadar.hu     www.csinyalohaz.hu

Cserépmadár szállás & Csinyálóház imázsvideó