The
academic historical-geographical preconception
The very existence of Hungarian runic script casts
doubt on the widely accepted theory of the northern homeland, and the
controversies about its origin emphasize this doubt. One of these
contradictions is that despite the “victory” of the theory of Ugrian origin in
the war between Ugrian and Turkish linguists in the last century, academic
research insists on Turkish origin, because Székely runic script could not have
developed in the taiga, where there was no literacy at all.
According to the most widespread view, the need for
literacy appears as a state is founded, and the Hungarians also started using
writing when the
As linguistic-based theories set narrow limits in
space and time to ancient Hungarian history and statehood (and to this day the
consideration of similarities beyond those limits is labeled as unscientific),
“scientists” were restricted to choose from the scripts that were used within
these limits. (It was Kornél Bakay who called attention to these irrational
prohibitions, 1997/41). That was how Turkish scripts became highlighted and
until recently Szekely runes had to be derived from Turkish scripts, in
accordance with academic preconceptions. Turkish scripts, however, did not meet
these high expectations (pp 11-15), since Székely script cannot be derived from
them.
Similar writing technology, the small number of
similarities in character shape and the undoubted linguistic, historical and
cultural connections seemed to support this theory of origin, but only if great
differences between Székely and Turkish, and Székely' similarities to other
scripts were swept under the carpet.
Academic research chose Turkish-Glagolitic origin
because it seemed to be in accordance with the preconceptions about primitive Hungarians
who became organized under Turkish influence and were further civilized by
Slavic influence. These false preconceptions always served to support the
claims to cultural superiority by the various occupiers of
But when the
Székely runes were supposedly adopted (in the centuries before the conquest of
the Carpathian basin by the Hungarians), there was not much to be learned from
the Turks, who had an equestrian culture, and a military democracy of tribal
confederations, similar to those of the Hungarians.
Hungarians could remain independent in the sea of
alien equestrian peoples only thanks to a cultural aptitude equal to theirs,
and a long-term ability to form a state. The Hungarians did not became Turkish
(either in language or writing) despite the fact that for three millennia they
lived together with Turks in the steppe, where cultural assimilation was
encouraged but where the special
economic conditions also preserved traditions.[1]
The case of Slavic village communities was different.
Their subsistence agriculture implied a much lower economic and intellectual
standard than the animal husbandry of the Hungarians. In the division of labor
that developed, equestrian nomads preferred to leave the less productive
agriculture to Slavs. They may have adopted some Slavic words referring to
agriculture, but not Slavic script as such
a thing had not existed before the first Slavic states appeared.
The conception that Hungarians borrowed one part of
their alphabet from Turks around 750, the other part from “a Slavic missionary
monk” around 890 is nonsense, because our predecessors could not wait for
centuries to put writing into use. Designing missing character shapes is not so
difficult a task as to require waiting for a monk. Today any schoolchild can
create a useful alphabet in half an hour if he needs one for his secret
correspondence, because he already knows a pattern of writing.
The key to creating a new script is therefore the existence
of a pattern. (This idea helps solve the origin of character systems related to
Székely script.) If you are familiar with the general idea of writing, you can
create a seemingly new writing system based on similar ideas but its own
character forms. That is how character systems and scripts started to multiply in
the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. When looking for the origins of Székely script,
we should concentrate on the parallels of the writing system. At the same time, however, we should give up the vain hope
of finding the transitory scripts. We are not likely to find more than a series
of similar characters sets and theoretically close writing systems.
[1] Steppe conditions mainly facilitated
husbandry of large-bodied animals and - as a result of mobility conferred by
the horse and the camel - long-distance trade (cf.
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