|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 12, 2010 1:06:12 GMT 3
Dear members, while reading the Vardariotoi thread, a problematic issue came to my mind. I wonder if the Székely Script drives from Turkic Runic, or if it was an independent development. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 12, 2010 1:17:49 GMT 3
What are the arguments for independent development? I thought the only theory we have there is the origin from Turkic runic script.
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 12, 2010 1:51:52 GMT 3
I must also admit - as far I was reading about and remember from the past and now quick check for reference it is mostly possible from Old-Turkic script. I am critical and skeptic to other theories like etruscian ... no ...
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 12, 2010 2:08:59 GMT 3
I am very unsure about this topic. There is even Scythian-Hunnic origin .... I do not know.... Could be if it is not excluding the Old-Turkic... If Old Turkic is originated or affected by from there...
Big mystery - good subject for research - either Old-Turkic scripts either the Secler writing.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 12, 2010 10:52:14 GMT 3
Rona-Tas... Simon Kezai's Latin chronicle is the first to mention the Szekely runiform writing. Kezai claimed that the Szekely were the offspring of the Huns and that after the Conquest they joined the Magyars. However, ... they ... were granted estates in the mountainous borderlands, together with the Vlachs, where mingling with the Vlachs, "it is said they used their (Vlach) letters". Thuroczy writes this about the Szekely: "they have not yet forgotten the Scythian letters: they do not commit these to paper in ink, but deftly incise them on sticks, in the manner of runes." One view claims that the script was invented at the court of Matthias I. Rona-Tas rejects that view but believes it was popular at that court and new characters might have been added at that time. The origin of this script is still vague. Only a few features have been identified about the writing itself. The letter forms were greatly influenced by the fact that they were incised. The writing was read left to right and the vowels were usually only added in if they signified long ones. These latter traits might suggest a connection with the Semitic scripts. Yet the Szekely script has a number of ligatures and contractions which is characteristic of medieval Latin writing. This makes it certain that the Szekely runiform script developed (further) under the influence of Latin writing. We know the script already existed in the 13th century and we have knowledge about its letters, styles and orthography dating from the 15th century. Therefore, we should attempt to reconstruct its major phases of development.
Only two very simple Szekely letters (s and n) make a flawless match with the East Turk runiform writing. Four letters (a, e, o, f) are positively rooted in Greek writing, via Slavic mediation; similarly h and l, to a lesser certainty. It cannot be established which the mediating Slavic alphabet was, because the symbols of a and f would suggest the Cyrillic, while the e and o the Glagolithic script. Owing to the fact thta the Glagolithic writing (after 870) came earlier than Cyrillic (between 893 and 927 at the court of the Bulghar ruler Simeon), it is possible that the letters of the Szekely alphabet in question go back to some mutual period. In any case, the early historical period of Szekely writing, when Greek letters entered the alphabet, cannot be earlier than the late 9th century. The fact that both the symbols denoting f and h were borrowed from another alphabet suggests a language which lacks these consonants altogether. Thus it was not before the language needed these letters that it borrowed them from another language. Both the Slavic and Magyar languages were like that. The 10th century Hraber writes that the Slavs originally used a runiform script, following which they shifted to the mixed usage of Greek and Latin letters. Then came Cyril who invented "Slavic" writing, that is, Glagolithic. Thus, it is probable that the addition of the h and f served Slavic needs. The consonants h and f are secondary in Slavic, and are not part of the initial phonetic range. They can be "age-dated" by observing their relative position in the Glagolithic alphabet: they stand near the very end, side by side. The symbols denoting a, e, and o were probably borrowed because the initial script had a different system for signifying vowels, or its consonants did not resemble the borrowed ones.
It is remarkable that in the Szekely script the symbols of the consonants sh and l, r and z are related. It appears that the symbol of sh is a derivation of the Greek lambda, and the symbol of l is formed by the addition of two diacritical marks to sh; while the symbol of r is simpler, and z is derived from r plus two diacritical marks. The symbol of the Hungarian gy is the letter d plus a diacritical mark. The symbol of the Hungarian letter ny is clearly a combination of the symbols of n and y. These points refer to the internal development of the writing. Reconstructing the internal development of an alphabet enables us to restore the older, simpler alphabet comprising fewer symbols. In any case, the reconstruction reveals that the Szekely runiform writing underwent significant changes between the 10th and the 15th centuries. It first encountered Slavic writing, and then Latin literacy.
It is a well-known fact that a runiform script was employed in the Carpathian Basin in the Late Avar period. Several dozens of samples of it have come down to us, and it has been termed Nagyszentmiklos-Sarvas runiform script after the two locations where the most significant samples were brought to light. We also know that this writing belongs to the family of Eastern European scripts of which more and more specimens are being found in the region of the former Khazar Empire. It may be due to chance that only one Conquest-period object has been unearthed with a short inscription written in this Eastern European writing (from a site at Homokmegy-Halom, Kalocsa).
Nevertheless, we are still lacking two or three links connecting the Szekely runiform script with Late Avar period and other Eastern European scripts. Hopefully, these missing links will be found shortly.
The Hungarian words ír 'to write' and betű 'letter' are of Turkic origin, therefore it would be expected that the Magyars adopted the Turk variant of the Eastern European runiform script. This is supposed to have been supplemented with the letters via Slavic mediation. It is possible that those missing links should be looked for on the notches of bricks of 11th-13th century Hungarian churches. Whether the Arpadian conquerors brought the writing with them, or adopted the script in the Carpathian Basic we do not know; however, it is certain that before the foundation of the state and the adoption of Latin literacy, the Magyars had their own writing.
...
It is certain, however, that the Szekely runiform script was directly related to the Magyars of the Conquest period.
...
This brings us to the problem of the Szekelys. First mention of this group dates back to the 12th century. The descriptions of the battles on the Rivers Olsava (1116) and Lajta (1146) respectively speak of the Szekelys, together with the Pechenegs, as forming the advance guard of the Magyar forces. ... Toponymic data point to the fact that the Szekelys must have served as border guards in the 11th-12th centuries. The Bihar county Szekelys (i.e., Szekelys from Bihar) migrated to their later settlement areas as of the 12th century. They reached the Carpathians by the 13th century. ... Their uniquely autonomous system of széks 'settlements' served to maintain their independence, while the other Szekely posts in West Transdanubia, the Orseg, in Moson, near Bratislava and in Baranya county soon assimilated into the Magyar population. The Szekely's language shows no trace whatsoever of Turkic origins, as has been suggested. Their language preserves old Hungarian characteristics. The only argument in support of their foreign origin is that according to the old nomadic system it was the most recently joined peoples that served as border guards and were sent to the front lines of battle. This, in itself, is simply not convincing enough. It was indeed nomadic practice to get the most recently joined peoples to perform the most dangerous tasks, but one cannot say that those groups who were sent to do risky jobs were always newcomers. The fact that this runiform writing only survived among the Szekelys does not shed much light on their history. The writing known today is almost certainly a Matthias-period transformed version, and the unique historical circumstances must have contributed to the survival of the script after the 15th century and later. Yet the fact that de Keza mentions the special writing of the Szekelys as early as around 1285, suggests that the Szekelys or Szekelyland played an important part in preserving the script. Then in the Notes section is written, "I am not going into the discussion of the problem of the origin of the Szekely. There are no conclusive arguments in favor that the Szekely group would be of non-Hungarian origin."
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 13, 2010 0:58:25 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 13, 2010 14:08:13 GMT 3
Oh thank you very much Sarmat, I just mentioned the independent development idea because I wasn't very sure of this Turkic-origin theory I don't have any idea about the arguements about the origins of this script though (I just read the Turkic theory in Hüseyin Namık Orkun's Eski Türk Yazıtları ["Ancient Turkic Inscriptions"]).
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 13, 2010 19:52:58 GMT 3
Oh thank you very much Sarmat, I just mentioned the independent development idea because I wasn't very sure of this Turkic-origin theory I don't have any idea about the arguements about the origins of this script though (I just read the Turkic theory in Hüseyin Namık Orkun's Eski Türk Yazıtları ["Ancient Turkic Inscriptions"]). I see
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 14, 2010 8:18:34 GMT 3
I think the Turkic origin of this script, even though the 15th century form only has two glyphs that match, is supported by the linguistic evidence of Turkic loanwords related to writing.
But I'm curious about the mention of a Slavic runiform script. "The 10th century Hraber writes that the Slavs originally used a runiform script" Was it native or derived from Vikings? Or was it also Turkic?
I'm going to guess that any arguments in favor of a non-Turkic origin for the Szekely script would be supported by more similarities to any kind of Slavic or even an undiscovered Finno-Ugric writing system than by only two matches to the East Turk writing. My personal opinion though is that the chances are very unlikely that the writing has a non-Turkic origin.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Mar 14, 2010 13:47:19 GMT 3
There was no Slavic runiform script. At least no evidence has been found so far. Chernorizets Hrabar that wrote that passage (that since then became a source of inspiration for different pseudo-historians) never used the word "runes" or "script" he just writes that Slavics didn't have script until the creation of Cyrillic alphabet and had used strokes and incises "to read fortune."
|
|
|
Post by benzin on Mar 18, 2011 19:10:10 GMT 3
I dont know if it was a topic of earlier conversations on this forum, but Im curious whats your opinion of the clay tablets found at Tatárlaka. They are clay tablets with Sumerian signs and with Székely (szekler) runic scripts. The interesting thing is the age of the tablets wich are between 4700 and 7000 years old. Some say its the oldest written thing ever found. As I know clay cant be heated up to "rewrite", so the Sumerian and the Szekler signs had to be written to it the same time. hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A1jl:Tartaria_tablets.png&filetimestamp=20060819222147
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 21, 2011 17:47:21 GMT 3
I would say definitely fake.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 21, 2011 19:59:24 GMT 3
What Sumerian writing? There's some images that are pretty universal to human experience and so claims like this are difficult for me to believe. Why is the word for mom across all human languages so similar?
|
|
|
Post by benzin on Mar 22, 2011 3:29:54 GMT 3
I would say definitely fake. Its definiately not fake, its found in 1961 in Romania. You can read more about the Vinca Tordos culture in english here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinca_cultureOf course these signs could be made by anyone any time, the reason why its connected to Sumerians, is that the early Sumerian writing had the most look-a-like symbols.
|
|
|
Post by laudatortemporisac on Mar 22, 2011 11:44:31 GMT 3
Rona-Tas... Simon Kezai's Latin chronicle is the first to mention the Szekely runiform writing. Kezai claimed that the Szekely were the offspring of the Huns and that after the Conquest they joined the Magyars. However, ... they ... were granted estates in the mountainous borderlands, together with the Vlachs, where mingling with the Vlachs, "it is said they used their (Vlach) letters". Thuroczy writes this about the Szekely: "they have not yet forgotten the Scythian letters: they do not commit these to paper in ink, but deftly incise them on sticks, in the manner of runes." The idea of cohabitation of Szekelys and Vlachs is based on Anonimus's Gesta Hungarorum. This work uses the term 'blak' to a cohabitant people of the Szekely. This term is used to be accepted as a name of Vlachs. But Laszlo Rasonyi suggests an other resolution for the name 'blak'. He rises that this people mentioned in GH should be the same people which is named 'bulak' by Mahmud Kashgari. So personally I think the Szekely-Magyar ruin writing is Turkic origin, and Vlachs appeared in XI century in the Carpathian Basin. I didn't checked, but I read about other correspondences, which aren't mentioned here. For example, the symbol in Turkic rune for letter 'b' is caled balik-fish, while in Székely runes this symbol is for the letter 'h' and is called hal-fish.
|
|