2021. április 10., szombat

The origins of Hunnish Runic Writing (14) Comparing writing systems

 

Comparing writing systems

 

When looking for a relationship between writing systems, all features of the scripts in question have to be compared. However, in most cases, there is no opportunity to do this, because the writing systems that are to be compared are only partly known. We have particularly limited information about the scripts of steppe-dwellers, though these scripts are likely to be more closely related to Székely script than the better known ancient systems (e.g. Egyptian, Chinese).

Usually the graphic shape of only a few characters of the scripts we want to decipher or relate are known, and we often have no idea about the type, meaning, name, number and order of characters, or the language recorded by the script, etc. In most cases we can only guess what the generally linear characters could have represented originally, and which pictorial signs they were reduced from.

It follows from this general lack of data that researchers fail to ask the above questions and only concentrate on the given graphic forms. They do not even try to consider the other features.

With few exceptions, similarity of character shapes is the result of some relationship, so researchers are right to concentrate on formal similarities when they try to find relationships between writing systems. However, considering only character shapes makes it more difficult to recognize the structure and relationships of a given script. The same character can be an ideograph symbol, phonetic word sign, syllable sign, or a letter pronounced as one sound (for example see Székely “gy,” Figs. 14, 32). The same letter can stand for different sounds in different times, different languages or in different words (as in Modern English).

Researchers who restrict themselves to the mere comparison of character shapes are not likely to confront the general principles of writing development. They are not forced to understand and apply them to classify according to its type the writing system under study, thus their conclusions can be right only accidentally.

That is why otherwise excellent historians, archaeologists and linguists prove to be completely uninformed when they deal with the history of writing. Their studies usually just reflect the unsupported views of other authors, which they quote in a manner that shows that they do not understand the quotations. Tese dogmatic misconceptions, transmitted unchecked, mislead whole generations.

Two different theories exist on the beginnings of writing. A researcher of writing systems and their relationships can hardly avoid developing a definite opinion about them. According to the first theory, most writing systems originate in one ancient source (therefore Székely script is the relative of all the other writing systems). The other theory claims that the various writing systems are all individual creations, and the formal similarities between them are due to mere chance. When searching the origins of Székely script, we should choose between the two seemingly irreconcilable views. Certainly, the process of development must have been much more complicated than these concise ideas. The real explanation must be somewhere in the middle.

The archaeologist János Makkai analyzed the relationship between some ancient sign systems, and his ideas seem to illustrate well the difficulties and possibilities. All the more so, as the characters he studied, the characters of Tordos and Tepe Yahya - though he fails to mention it - show a lot of similarities in shape with Székely script (Fig. 35).

The relationships between the Tordos, Vinca, and Tatárlaka character sets have engaged the attention of researchers for a long time and have been applied to support totally different theories. There is no doubt that this European symbolic culture is somehow connected to Eastern-Mediterranean areas. However, opinions differ on this question; “the two schools of ancient archaeology cannot give an unequivocal answer to the questions whether the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans were influenced in the 3rd millennium by Near-Eastern culture or they had already been areas with independent civilizations in the 6-5th millennium,” wrote János Makkay (1990/119). The well-known author attributes the development of settlements that created the Tordos, Vinca, and Tatárlaka character systems to metal-prospecting enterprises. The network of long-distance trade and colonies could have spread the first character systems to remote areas as well, where people had not yet reached the level of developed statehood.

János Makkay compares several character systems, but he could neither prove nor disprove genetic relations. Among the European systems he analyzed the Tordos (34 basic types) and Vinca (39 types) characters. He compare-d them with characters of Baluchistan Mehrgar (851 characters, 50 character types, from the middle of the 4th millennium to the middle of the 3rd), Southern-Irani Tepe Yahya (353 characters, 76 types and 20 basic types, 3000-500 BC), Djaffarabad (500-600 characters, 5000-4000 BC), Djowi (22 basic characters, 4700-4200 BC). There are 15 common characters in Djowi and Tepe Yahya and at least 15 common characters in Djowi and Tordos.

Can we seek relationships between these remote character systems, asked János Makkay. In the cases of the above systems, he claimed that the types became standardized and to a certain extent their number became independent from the number of their occurrences. Today only Tordos and Tepe Yahya characters are suitable for type by type comparison and for identifying the regularity - or perhaps the rules - in the observed similarities. Most of them are complex characters, where accidental similarity can be ruled out.

With the mathematician Endre Boros he started to study the question whether there could have been any connection (e.g. common origin) between Tordos and Tepe Yahya characters. Their results show that in all probability these characters were not equally often used in the two places. That is, it is not likely that they had a common origin, which would cause their identical “meaning” (application). On the other hand, their calculations do not rule out the possible common origin of all or a part of the characters. What is more, even the “meaning” and usage of these characters can be of common origin (Makkay/1990/58).

Their mathematical analysis does not help us choose between the theories (common or separate origin of writing systems). Characters with similar shapes do not necessarily mean exactly the same, and even if they did, it would not result in their similar number of occurrences in another writing system. Therefore different number of occurrences cannot be used to disprove common origin.

As it is very difficult, researchers have not even tried to clarify the meanings that the characters in question carried. The question is whether they are symbols denoting several words or sentences or characters in a word or syllable system or perhaps in a letter script. Makkay's definition does not give an answer to that question, “Djowi (and Djaffarabad) characters ... are several steps behind the birth of writing, still they are somehow the early forerunners of writing, as they ... compose a system ... suitable for linguistic representation ... at this early stage, however, there were only conventional signs without any connection or reference to the language itself.” (Makkay/1990/54).

The fact that they were “conventional signs” is also supported by some circumstances, such as the comparable writing systems. Despite the past 5-6000 years, the earliest Sumerian, Egyptian, and the still used Székely script are all characterized by the simultaneous application of different types of characters. Consequently, Tordos and Tepe Yahya are also expected to have mixed character systems. However, we cannot decide whether a certain character is a symbol, hieroglyph or consonant character.

For example, the sign of double cross occurs in Székely, Tordos and Tepe Yahya systems alike. From a mythological point of view, the double cross can be considered to represent the Milky Way (pillar of the world, world axis, tree of the world, triumphal way, etc.). In different writing systems the representations of the Milky Way took on or could take on the additional meanings “God, reign, main road,” etc. through semantic changes.

If the double cross is considered an ideograph symbol, in theory any of the previous meanings can be accepted. In spite of the smaller differences in name and meaning, in that early era the double cross meant approximately the same to all people: the connection between Heaven and Earth. On the other hand, in the actual Tordos and Tepe Yahya applications, meaning could be partly different each time and on each potsherd. These small semantic changes are not known.

If double cross is considered a phonetic character instead of a symbol, we still have to face some problems. It could be a word character, just as well as a syllable sign or a letter. And there could be of course dozens of unknown languages, dialects, and script variations. If we consider only the Székely script and the Hungarian symbolic system as an example, double cross can be pronounced both as ‘gy’ or ‘egy’. If the double cross occurs on a flag, it can mean “king,” “kingdom,” or “Hungarian Kingdom,” but it is not certain that it had always been the same word or word group that expressed the meaning of double-crossed flags. In other words, the double cross on flags was possibly not a phonetic character but a symbol, which was, however, known to be genetically connected to the “gy” rune.

The case of the double cross on Tordos pots could be similar; on one pot it could have been used as a symbol, on the other as a phonetic character, and today we cannot tell which. Therefore we are at a loss as far as specific meaning is concerned, while the essential meaning of the sign is clear.

We can hardly expect exactly the same meaning from graphically identical signs if they were discovered thousands of kilometers apart and there is a difference of hundreds or thousands of year’s in their age. What we can be sure of is that the reason for character similarities is genetic relationship (mainly due to religious symbolism). However, that does not mean that the same graphic form meant exactly the same in the character systems in question, and that it could be the basis of a mathematical calculation.

It is difficult to define that wide semantic range with mathematical calculation. Mathematicians are also hindered by the fact that the Milky Way can be represented by a wide variety of graphic symbols, which do not resemble one another at all. There could be two or more symbols representing the same road to Heaven, and they could even be used interchangeably in a text.

The exactly same meaning of similar characters also contradict the small number of character types (between 20 and 76), which rather assumes a script between word-syllabic and letter scripts. The supposed (small) difference in language and writing system could result in the fact that Tordos and Tepe Yahya double cross represented different words, syllables, or sounds in different areas.

The different remains of Székely script also show that the same sound or sound group can be represented by different characters (Figs. 18, 35), or the same character form can stand for different sounds (Szemerey/1997). As for Székely it is definitely one language and one script. Székely, Turkish and German runes are often very similar in form due to similar writing technology and content. They still very rarely mark the same sound, though there is a lot of evidence for the genetic relationship of these steppe writing systems. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the occurrence rate of the characters must be the same or very similar in Tordos and Tepe Yahya scripts (with unknown languages).

What is more important is that “the conventional characters” refer to a developed script. There are several conditions indicating that Tordos and Tepe Yahya are real scripts. The frequent similarities in character shape indicate a relationship to Székely script (Fig. 35), which uses letters and syllabic signs. The number of character types also suggests phonetic scripts. The linear features of the characters also and indication of this. Clay allows the application of very complicated - either scratched or painted - character forms; still, linear characters have survived on the potsherds. This can be due to the contemporary use of runic and phonetic script, as it is only the tally-stick that is not fit for hundreds of pictorial signs and hieroglyphs, and requires syllabic or letter script. Although Tordos tally-sticks have been destroyed, clay objects preserved the forms of the contemporary runes.

The case of Székely runic script is similar, as no tally-sticks have survived. Still, Székely runic forms have been preserved in the papers of Nikolsburg “alphabet,” while the ornamented pen-and-ink characters of later Székely alphabets were scarcely possible to be carved in wood.

The phonetic feature of the scripts is also indicated by the fact that when I was preparing the table in figure 35, hard as I tried, I could not find nearly as many parallels of Székely vowel characters as that of consonant characters (Fig. 35). That must refer to a vowel-dropping (using vowel characters rarely) syllabic writing system, possibly with some word signs. I think that these character systems are the relatives of Székely script, and used the prototypes or parallels of Székely consonant characters as syllable signs. Otherwise there should be about the same number of similarities with Székely vowel characters as well. However, this idea has to be proved involving a wider character set, more languages and other writing systems.

This does not mean that the symbols preserved on the Tordos and Tepe Yahya potsherds should be called script, with perhaps the exception of Tatárlaka table (a part of the Tordos system). Most Tordos and Tepe Yahya characters are rather the concomitants of a lost runic script. They are an accidentally preserved peripheral subset of a once unified rich character system and have retained only the framework of the original.

It is like drawing conclusions on Székely runic script from the symbolic system of Hungarian pottery motives and painted eggs. These Hungarian popular graphic symbols and the graphic structures they form (world models, graphic montages, and ligatures) can rarely be read as letter script. Although most Hungarian graphic signs have equivalents in the Székely alphabet, they are rather symbolic and only rarely phonetic.

That explains why the analysis by János Makkay and Endre Boros is fruitless. It cannot be expected that the occurrence rate of, for example, the double cross should be equal in Tepe Yahya and in Tordos, as in the first location it may have meant “main road” for example, and in the other perhaps “king,” and may have always been pronounced as the syllable “ku.” Therefore, the authors' study could not rule out the possible common origin of the character systems.

In contrast to the authors' careful but after all anti-diffusionist view, these remote sign systems are evidently in genetic relationship with each other. The high ratio of corresponding character forms proves that (Varga/1993/189). However, clarifying the details of this connection is more difficult than the possibilities this simple mathematical procedure (which necessarily omits mythological, typological, historical and linguistic relationships) allow.

The independence of remote writing systems with similar characters was hardly proven. This is quite natural, as similarity itself is a sign of relationship. Anti-diffusionists argue in vain against this natural-social principle, because it applies to writing systems as well. The characters are similar because most character systems are genetically connected. The nature of this genetic relationship, however, is still open to question.

This characteristic feature of linear writing systems - i.e., that there are similarities among the characters of even the most remote writing systems - disturbs many researchers who accept mistaken theories of ancient history. For example it bothers our academic linguists with historians' ambitions, though they admit that they cannot say anything about the linguistic circumstances of the earliest ages.

Besides Chinese, Sumerian, Egyptian, and Hittite hieroglyphs, Székely characters are similar to Neolithic symbols (Fig. 29), and similar characters can be found among Phoenician, Etruscan, Turkish, etc. alphabets, and among American Indian symbols. These similarities are not insecure hypotheses worked out in a dark study room, but concrete, observable, undeniably existing objective facts.[1] Academic researchers cannot overcome this stubborn fact, so instead of thorough analysis, they declare these studies unscientific (Sándor/1992/79).

That is how the mistaken view that similarity between characters of remote writing systems is due to mere chance become widely accepted. However, those who rely on chance have consistently failed to check mathematically whether such a surprisingly large number of coincidences can be attributed to chance. Our controlling calculations with Tibor Nemetz, senior member of Matematikai Kutatóintézet (Mathematical Research Institute), showed that the coincidences are too numerous to be accidental, consequently, they must be due to a genetic relationship (Varga/1993/205). This genetic relationship can connect writing systems far apart in space and time.

Academic research - in accordance with its preconceptions - has concentrated on Turkish and Slavic scripts as relatives of Székely, while alternative research has preferred one of the ancient scripts from the region between China and Egypt. As almost all writing systems contain some characters similar to Székely runes, researchers have thought to find the origin of Székely in a wide variety of different scripts. They have considered coincidences common to most systems as evidence, but often failed to recognize or neglected some more numerous correspondences in other writing systems. That is, without an appropriate method of comparision of scripts, both academic and alternative researches have been apparently unsystematic.

Researchers have mostly relied on character shape and marked phonemes, following Péter Püspöki Nagy's theory (which is correct in subsystems). It says that we can suspect closer relation if there are significant number of authentic graphic and phonetic coincidences in, for example, two writing systems of the same family. These coincidences must be dominant, and differences can be allowed only where the sound systems of the two languages differ (Püspöki/1984).

This theory can clarify the scripts related to modern Slovakian, which was created from Latin, but fails in the case of ancient scripts. For ancient peoples, characters were religious symbols first, and served only secondarily as representations of sounds. When they created a new script, they gave names to well-known characters in their own language (if it was an ancient type of script transmission). This name determined in the new script what sound a certain character represented. The successor of a phonetic script consisting of  hieroglyphic symbols, once adapted to a different language and writing technology could certainly have contained different graphic and phonetic forms, even though the two scripts were closely related. As most researchers have not recognized this, most studies on the origins of Székely script lack scientific basis.



[1] These data from the history of writing seem to be supported by linguistic connections.

      The  linguist S. A. Starostin has worked out an internationally accepted theory on the Chinese - Northern Caucasian language family. Its homeland was in the Middle East and in the Caucasus; its speakers divided into smaller groups in the 7-8th millennium BC. He told Veres Péter that, although several millennia have passed, one of their common words meaning "writing" can be reconstructed by linguistic methods.


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.


Nincsenek megjegyzések:

Megjegyzés küldése