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
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 “
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
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
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