Author:
Klára Sándor University of Szeged, Hungary
Comenius University (Bratislava), Slovakia

Search for other papers by Klára Sándor in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-1804
Open access

Abstract

This paper discusses variations and changes in the identity-marking function of a writing of Turkic origin, the Székely script, from the thirteenth century to the present day. The script's peculiarity lies in the fact that during its known history, it had only an identity-marking function; no significant knowledge-communicating function can be found in any of its monuments.

Abstract

This paper discusses variations and changes in the identity-marking function of a writing of Turkic origin, the Székely script, from the thirteenth century to the present day. The script's peculiarity lies in the fact that during its known history, it had only an identity-marking function; no significant knowledge-communicating function can be found in any of its monuments.

As is well-known, the monuments of the Hungarian language—besides some Greek-lettered monuments—were written with Latin letters.1 There is, however, an alphabet whose all known monuments are written in Hungarian, which, although we can frequently encounter its signs in Hungary, can only be read and written by an extremely small fraction of native Hungarian speakers and has been from time to time proposed to be included in the Hungaricum list2—and which is essentially unknown to English-language scientific literature.3 As one of my interests in sociohistorical linguistics is this writing, I will summarize some of the results of my research over the last few decades. After briefly summarizing the characteristics of the Székely script, its supposed origins, and its monuments, I will focus on the history of its role as a sign of identity because it is in fact the same as its entire history.

Although many people view writing systems only as a means of recording language and information, it is now commonplace that if a community or individual can choose between several writing systems (or even spellings), such choices are as much acts of identity as the ones they make between languages, language varieties, and style varieties.4 Therefore, the purpose of writing may be to not only record information but also, through this very choice, express identity. Examining the texts of a writing, we usually find examples of both functions at work. Many texts demonstrate that the choice of writing system is not particularly important, the information being the dominant factor in the creation of the written text, but there is no example of a writing system that has essentially only the function to present identity and has no monument in which the content would be important.

One such writing system is the Székely script, which does not have even one relic that reflects any “natural,” everyday function. One could explain this by the fact that no monuments preserving the “everyday” functions of the Székely script survived precisely because such inscriptions were placed on everyday objects and therefore disappeared, unlike those preserved in churches. It remains unknown whether the lack of such monuments is due to the peculiarity and limited knowledge of the script or to the fact that the spaces and objects of everyday life are not as persistent as the church walls—the cause is more likely the limited spread of the script. By the end of the sixteenth century, however, the use of the Székely script must have been clearly rare; if it had not been, it could not have been used as cryptography. In any case, for the authors of the surviving monuments, the content of the written text must have clearly been much less important than the fact that the text was written with Székely letters; that is, the script's communicative function was secondary to the identity-marking function expressed by one's choice of the Székely script as a gesture. This is also valid for today's usage.

Before further discussing the role of the Székely script as an identity marker, its characteristics, origins, and monuments are worth briefly reviewing.

1 Characteristics of the Székely script

The name of the Székely script refers to the fact that the earliest relics of this writing system were found in Székely Land and were produced by members of the ethnic group called the Székelys, who lived in the eastern border region of the Hungarian kingdom.5 The fact that the Székelys had some kind of writing of their own was already recorded at the end of the thirteenth century in the Chronica Hungarorum of Simon de Kéza, the chronicler of King László IV (1272–1290).

The Székelys defended the southern and western borders of the Carpathian Basin in the tenth century and the eastern borders of the Hungarian settlement area in Bihar from the eleventh century, and they were settled further East in the Carpathians, their present habitation area, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Székely Land is the eastern part of Transylvania, with rich cultural traditions (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Historical regions of the Carpathian Basin. Four macro-regions: Transdanubia (VI), Upper Hungary (I, II, V), Transylvania (III), the Great Hungarian Plain (IV). Rácz (2013, 29)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

In 1921, under the terms of the Treaty of Trianon, Transylvania and Partium, the area toward the present Hungarian border, were annexed to Romania, but a Hungarian population remains in these regions. In Partium and most of Transylvania, Hungarians form minorities in most towns, but the Székelys still constitute an almost homogeneous ethnic block (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Hungary before and after the Trianon Treaty, Transylvania, and Székely Land within Transylvania. 1: Hungary after 1921; 2–8: regions that belong today to 2: Slovakia, 3: Ukraine, 4: Romania, 5: Serbia, 6: Croatia, 7: Slovenia, 8: Austria

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

Studies have yet to reach a consensus on their origins.6 The majority of researchers consider them to be a former Turkic-speaking ethnic group who joined the Hungarians before the conquest mainly because historical sources always refer to them the way they usually do to foreigners and because the group's privileges corresponded to that as well. Others believe that they were organized from the Hungarian-speaking population to defend the borders based on the fact that parallels of their dialects are found in the western part of the present-day Hungarian-speaking area—where they used to live.7 This latter view fails to consider that a population that has undergone a language change will naturally adopt the Hungarian dialects of its surroundings. Also, the existence of a script unknown by other parts of the Hungarian population is another argument that favors the theory that the early Székelys had joined Hungarians as an independent ethnic group before the tenth century.

Although this alphabet was also called “Hungarian” in earlier literature and is still called so in lay writings, no evidence exists that the rest of the Hungarian population knew this alphabet before the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of the almost 20,000 Hungarian graves excavated from the tenth and eleventh centuries, writing was found in only one,8 and this was not written with the Székely alphabet but with some other writing. In addition, according to the most likely explanation, it was not written in Hungarian but in some kind of Turkic language.9

The Székely script belongs to the Aramaic script family, and it preserves this in several features—these graphotactic rules can be reconstructed from the early monuments of writing. The letters were written from right to left, and in the early period, short vowels were marked only at the end of a word but not inside them (later, only the e sounds were not written, and finally they were all marked as well). The long consonants were not marked by duplication.

The historical Székely alphabet—the version found in early, medieval, and modern written records (see Figure 3)—consists of 34 graphemes, of which 32 are phonemes and 2 (mb, nt) denote sound combinations. All Hungarian phonemes have their own sign except the long vowels and the closed e [IPA: e] and h, which are marked with the same grapheme. The sound k can be represented by two different graphemes, one originally used in palatal and the other velar context, the latter later used to denote the sound combination ak. The most probable reason why k had two signs is that the adopted alphabet, and even its predecessors, had two different letters for k. The Székely script may have inherited this feature from the Aramaic script.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

The historical Székely alphabet (reconstruction by Sándor 2014)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

The letterforms of the early monuments retain the memory of engraving, scratching, and carving: the shapes were obviously designed to avoid horizontal, circular, or larger circular arches. Therefore, these letterforms are closely reminiscent of the Futhark rune shapes, but this is only a visual similarity as the two writing systems are not related. The Székely letters began to change significantly later in the history of the alphabet because of pen writing, and from the seventeenth century onward, rounded forms appeared in handwriting. However, the influence of writing on paper and the more rounded letters of the Latin alphabet can be seen even in the earliest monuments, and the strict angularity of the Germanic runes is not found with complete consistency in any monument found so far. Similarly to Latin scribes' practice of merging adjacent letters, if possible, the lines of the already written letters can be used to write the next letter, that is, to form ligatures. The old alphabets of the Székely script also show various ligatures, but these are not actually part of the alphabet but rather examples of the possibilities of ligature creation. The texts written in the Székely script were pronunciation-reflecting, which means the spelling did not indicate the morpheme boundaries, unlike the Latin-letter Hungarian orthography, and the syllable and the suffixes were written as actually pronounced.10

The alphabets in use today were created in the twentieth century and include signs that were not part of the historical Székely alphabet, such as letters to distinguish between long and short vowels. The modern graphotactic rules follow the modern Latin alphabet spelling practice except for writing direction: they spell out all sounds and indicate the length of consonants as well as morpheme boundaries.

The Székely script never had to be deciphered in the same sense as, for example, the hieroglyphs or the alphabet of the Eastern Turkic inscriptions found in the Orkhon and Yenisei regions. The phonetic value of the Székely signs has always been known mainly because of the scholarly interest that was already evident from the end of the fifteenth century.

2 Origin of the Székely script11

From the very beginning, scientific research has sought the origin of the Székely script among the Turkic scripts. First, it was linked to the Eastern Turkic alphabet (Nagy 1895; Németh 1934). Later, more and more monuments were found from the former territories of the former Khazars, Danube Bulgars, and Avars.12 These monuments do not use the exact same alphabets but have similar characters. Although they have yet to be deciphered, their inscriptions are likely to be in Turkic dialects/languages.13 The Székely alphabet is not identical to these alphabets, but recent decades have seen the prevailing opinion that a close relation to the Székely alphabet will be observed among them.14 This view does not consider two problematic circumstances. First, the Székely alphabet has more similarities with the geographically more distant Eastern Turkic alphabet than with the Western Turkic alphabets,15 and second, inscriptions in alphabets similar to those previously thought to be Western Turkic have been found in greater numbers in Inner Asia.16

One can resolve both contradictions using Dimitrij Vasil'ev's (2005) theory, which states that Turkic writing variants with ethnic and regional characteristics began to develop from property signs and tribal symbols in the nomadic ancestral homeland around the Altai. During the First Turkic Khaganate (552–603), these variations of the script had not yet been standardized, and the Turkic tribes moving westward have carried over the alphabets that had been developed earlier. During the Second Turkic Khaganate (682–744), the Eastern Turkic script was established under strong Sogdian influence, and was then standardized.17

In the case of the Western Turks, however, no unification took place, and the subtypes of the ancient Turkic alphabet continued to change in interactions with local traditions. This common ground explains the possibility of a closer relation between monuments found farther from each other than between those that are geographically closer. Vasil'ev's theory explains why the Székely alphabet is more similar to the Yenisei group of Eastern Turkic inscriptions: because of their peripheral position, the Yenisei inscriptions may have been more influenced by local conditions and, despite their later date, may have retained more archaism than the Orkhon insciptions at the center of the khaganate.

Research on the question of the origin is complicated by the fact that the earliest known relics of the Székely script date back to the end of the thirteenth century, requiring us to bridge several centuries between the alphabet, which was supposed to have been handed down to the ancestors of the Székelys before the conquest, and the earliest Székely monuments. The reconstruction is aided by the alphabet's internal history and stratification on the one hand and by new discoveries on the other.

The signs of the Székely script show a historical stratification. The alphabet is clearly the result of conscious shaping(s). The signs show traces of graphic unification: as a result, the elements of certain letter groups are visually harmonized: the signs s, g, and l and r, cs, and z fit into a single line (Vásáry 1974; Sándor 1996). The signs j, ö, and u may be relatively late and may have formed with the help of Latin influence; the signs of the palatalized phonemes, with the exception of ly, show traces of the transformation from ligatures to independent graphemes. This transformation must have taken place in the thirteenth century—or somewhat later—because the current alphabet reflects the already established Hungarian sound system in that century: the signs c, gy, ty, v, and zs cannot be earlier than the thirteenth century because of sound history (Sándor 2014).

There may be also evidence that the Székelys have already been using an early version of the Székely script before the thirteenth century. A few years ago, a piece of pottery with four signs was found in Southern Transdanubia. The inscription is clearly fragmentary, part of it missing. Formally, all the signs are identical to those of the Székely script, but because there is no definite reading of them, the phonetic value of the letters remains unknown. The site is a buried iron foundry from the tenth or eleventh century and is close to the areas where the Székelys may have lived at that time.18

3 The monuments of the Székely script19

Today, we know 67 monuments of the Székely script, several of which have survived in more manuscripts. These monuments can be divided into two large groups: the group of inscriptions preserved in churches in Székely Land, and all other monuments—these are copies of inscriptions or were originally written in pen: alphabets, notes, a textbook, a calendar, glosses written in Latin books, secret contents in diaries, poems, and letters. Some surviving manuscripts date from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, but most date from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and are not from Székely Land.

Most of the oldest known monuments of the Székely script have been discovered in churches in Székely Land, most of them in villages near Székelyudvarhely (Odorheiu Secuiesc), the former Székely political center (Figure 4).20 The reason for this geographical distribution remains unknown, but it may have to do with the internal prestige of the Székely community. Today, we know of eighteen church inscriptions, of which the earliest three are dated to the end of the thirteenth century, the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the fourteenth century; three inscriptions from the fifteenth century are known today, while most of the church inscriptions we know were made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Figures 5 and 6). The only inscription that was not found in a church but in the ruins of the castle of Odorheiu Secuiesc also dates from this period.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Places in Székely Land where Székely inscriptions were preserved. Inscriptions: turn of the 13–14th century: 1 Homoródkarácsonyfalva (Crăciunel); 14th century: 2 Vargyas (Vârghiș), 3 Székelydálya (Daia); 15th century: 4 Székelyderzs (Dârjiu), 5 Gelence (Ghelința), 6 Bágy (Bădeni); 16th century: 16 Csíkszentmihály (Mihăileni), 7 Dálnok (Dalnic), 8 Bögöz (Mugeni), 9, 10 Berekesztúr (Bâra); 16–17th century: 11, 12 Berekesztúr (Bâra); 17th century: 13 Homoródkarácsonyfalva (Crăciunel); 14 Rugonfalva (Rugănești), 15 Énlaka (Inlăceni); uncertain dating: 17 Kilyén (Chilieni). Towns on the map: TM: Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureș), G: Gyergyószentmiklós (Gheorgheni), OS: Székelyudvarhely (Odorheiu Secuiesc), MC: Csíkszereda (Miercurea Ciuc), SG: Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfântu Gheorghe), TS: Kézdivásárhely (Târgu Secuiesc)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

Figure 5
Figure 5

(left): The Vargyas inscription (turn of the 12–13th century.) Original picture: E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 176)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

Figure 6
Figure 6

(right): The Énlaka inscription (17th century). Original picture: E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 208)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

Church inscriptions were made using various techniques. The earliest were carved in stone; later, they were drawn in chalk or paint, and many were scratched into plaster in thin lines. Almost all of the inscriptions found in churches have become known in the last few decades, when these churches were reconstructed.

The church inscriptions are extremely similar in content: the inscriptions have a personal name, and besides the Székely letters, there is often a Latin text with a year and possibly a name. The years indicate the year the church was renovated, while the name in Székely script is that of the masters who performed the renovation alongside one or two other words or the name of the priest who served in the church. Some of the church inscriptions have not yet been satisfactorily deciphered.

The church inscriptions in Székely Land confirm that knowledge of Székely letters was passed down from generation to generation through internal transmission. This tradition could have been limited and not independent of some level of education. In the case of the monuments we know today, the inscriptions were either created by priests or by craftsmen doing church work. There is, however, a third group of inscriptions of which little is known: these are short texts, usually with a single name, scratched into plaster.

The authentic traditions of Székely Land have also produced manuscript monuments. A Franciscan monk of Székely origin was the author of a calendar that was probably written shortly after 1450 and was found and copied in 1690 in the observant Franciscan monastery of Szárhegy by Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, an Italian military engineer and scientist who was there to organize the military security of the Transylvanian straits (Figure 7).21

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

The first page of the Bologna calendar. Original picture: E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 423)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

The author of the inscription preserved in a copy of the diary of Hans Dernschwam, the Fuggers' manager in Hungary, was also of Székely origin. The inscription was discovered in 1555 on the wall of the stables of the House of Ambassadors in Istanbul by members of the Hungarian embassy who were staying there. According to the text, the inscription was made in 1515 by Tamás Székely Kedei, a former horseman of the embassy who recorded the ambassadors' misadventures, exceptionally in letters that read from left to right.22

In the middle of the seventeenth century, a person named Farkaslaki Mátyás (Matthias from Farkaslaka) wrote a special ownership inscription in Székely letters in his own book—a kind of curse formula against anyone who might steal the book.23

The first mention of the Székely script, made by non-Székely people, emerged in the fifteenth century from the court of Matthias Corvinus, drawing the attention of the Hungarian scholarship of the time to the letters previously known only in Székely Land. It was at this time that the alphabet later found in Nikolsburg, copied by Philipus de Penczicz, a young Moravian nobleman associated with the court of Matthias, was written on the cover of one of his books and that the king's historian, János Thuróczy, created the topos about the Székely script that later spread in humanist literature: namely, that this script is the heritage of the Huns and that the Székelys carved the letters in wood (Figure 8).

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

The Nikolsburg alphabet (late 15th century). Original picture: E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 291)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

The Székely script was probably never widely used, demonstrated by the fact that we hardly see it on everyday objects from the early times. This also shows that the Székely alphabet was already used as cryptography by István Szamosközy at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries so that unauthorized persons could not read the sensitive notes in his diary.24 Also at this time, in 1598, János Telegdi compiled the first alphabet book with Székely letters (Figure 9). The book was widely copied, many of its manuscripts have survived, and with a few exceptions, all manuscript monuments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have Telegdi's alphabet as their source.25 In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Székely script became popular mainly among Peregrine students but was also used to write poems, name-day greetings, registry entries, and others.26

Figure 9.
Figure 9.

The alphabet in one of the copies of János Telegdi's booklet. Original picture E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 316)

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

4 The identity-marking functions of the Székely script

Throughout the history of Székely writing, the symbolic value of writing and its use has always been different both inside and outside Székely Land—different if used by the Székelys and different if not.

The common feature of the church inscriptions in Székely Land is that they are all “signatures” of some kind; that is, they are expressions of identity. As mentioned above, the inscriptions bear the names of the local priests or the masters working in the church. Many inscriptions of this type exist in the churches of Székely Land, with Latin letters (hic fuit…), and the medieval wall paintings are almost covered with texts, dates, names, and drawings carved and scratched by locals and visitors.27 The use of the Székely alphabet has contributed to this identity performance, showing that the inscription's writer has a special knowledge of the Székely script. Therefore, the function of the church inscriptions with the Székely alphabet was the same as that of the tags of graffiti signatures sprayed with paint today: to prove the author's presence there and to show their group affiliation, their Székely identity.

Also outside Székely Land, this writing played a purely identity-marking role. To fulfill this function, the first step was to reinterpret the Székely signs, which had been specifically associated with the Székelys, as the writing of the entire Hungarian nation.

The history of the script's use outside Székely Land most likely began in the court of Matthias Corvinus (1458–1490). To understand why the cult of the Székely script developed here, it is important to mention that Simon de Kéza, mentioned above, in his chronicle written 200 years earlier, linked the writing he mentioned exclusively to the Székelys and considered the Székelys to be a kind of mixed people. This is significant because in Kézai's natio theory, the “pure” descent of the Hungarians from the Huns played a fundamental role; therefore, it is a pejorative qualification that he considered the Székelys to be an ethnic group who were also descended from the Huns but mixed with the Romanians. He saw the Székely script as proof of this mixed origin. However, the Székely script cannot be taken as evidence of such a mixture; nevertheless, it is clear from Kézai's commentary that he did not think highly of the Székelys at the end of the thirteenth century, nor did other early sources.28

In comparison, it is remarkable how János Thuróczy, one of King Matthias's chroniclers, reworked Kézai's text: he presents the Székelys as the guardians of the Hungarians' purest traditions and writes about the Székely script that the Hungarians inherited it from their ancestors, the Huns. János Thuróczy is surprisingly lenient toward the actions of Attila, who, according to an earlier tradition was the ancestor of the Hungarian kings, and praises not only the Huns' military virtues but also their culture—a main evidence of it, he says, is the writing of the Székelys, inherited from the Huns. Thuróczy changed the text and the vision of the earlier chronicles this way specifically to please his king, who liked to call himself Attila secundus, that is, the second Attila. Thuróczy wrote of the Székely script: “They have not yet forgotten the Scythian letters, nor do they use ink and paper, but carve them on sticks in the manner of runic writing.”29

There are more indications that others at the royal court knew about the Székely alphabet as suggested by a comment from another of Matthias's historians, Antonio Bonfini, which contains partly different information than Thuróczy's text.30 Another mention of the Székely alphabet, which is linked to the court of Matthias, does not merely draw attention to the existence of a separate alphabet but rather focuses on the fact that the Székelys carved their letters into wood. This monument is the oldest known alphabet of the Székely script: the Nikolsburg alphabet. Philipus de Penczicz, who wrote down the alphabet, had direct connections with the court and was certainly well acquainted with the king's confidant, the Moravian Johann Philipus, who founded the printing press in Brno that published Thuróczy's chronicle. From all this, we can safely presume that the cult of the Székely script started to bloom in Matthias's court in connection with the Hun tradition. According to this cult, the Székely alphabet is a remnant of the ancient Hun–Scythian heritage, and the alphabet's antiquity is proven by the fact that it is not written on paper but carved into wood. In this first period, therefore, for Matthias and his ideologically forming courtmen, the Székely script was clear proof of the idea that Hungarians are of Hun origin.31

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this tradition was passed on by several figures of Hungarian humanism. In the eighteenth century it was included in the first scientific descriptions of the Székely alphabet, and until the middle of the nineteenth century, this view was the official scientific opinion. While the view of the Hungarians' Hun origin was then taken from academic discussions, many lay approaches still take this as their starting point.

5 The Székely script as evidence of Hebrew language relation

The works of sixteenth century humanists, by the end of the century, highlighted another function of the Székely script. In accordance with the European thinking of the time, the Hungarian language was believed to be related to Hebrew,32 and evidence of this was the Székely script, which, like the Hebrew script, also proceeded from right to left.

The Székely script was first compared to the Hebrew script by Antal Verancsics in 1551, not primarily to prove the Hebrew–Hungarian linguistic relationship yet but rather based on the similarity of the writing direction since he compared the Székely script not only to the Jewish but also to the Egyptian and Turkic scripts.33 However, by the end of the sixteenth century, the supposed link between the Székely script and the Hebrew alphabet had become firm and general. According to István Szamosközy, the Székelys, “in addition to Latin, used their own letters, or rather alphabetic signs, which had become obsolete among them and had disappeared through forgetfulness. These signs are carved with the point of a knife on squared sticks, as in ancient times in Scythia, when they used to communicate their words to each other. These letters are placed from right to left, according to the practice of the Jews, from which we can recognize their origin.”34 Therefore, this is certainly not just a question of the identity of the writing direction; also, Szamosközy saw the Székely script as a confirmation of the view, prevalent at the time that the Hungarian language was linked to the Hebrew language. Szamosközy even compared the Székelys’ speech to Hebrew, believing that traces of their original language, brought from the East, could still be heard in their speech.35

In 1598, Szamosközy's contemporary János Baranyai Decsi wrote the first longer summary of the Székely script with scientific comments in his preface to János Telegdi's Székely alphabet book.36 Decsi's work emphasized three ideas: the national pride derived from ancestral origins, a sense of oriental ancestry, and a belief in divine election. He derived these ideas from each other, and the Székely script was the proof of all this. He believed that this testified to the Hungarians' former military glory and cultural greatness and that the Hungarian people were ancient and descended from the Scythians of East Asia. The “our letters,” that is, the Székely script, prove that the Scythians had a high culture earlier than the Greeks and that “they were much closer to the people of God, and that the old wisdom was passed from the Hebrews to the Asiatic peoples, and only from them to the Greeks.” The old script preserved among the Székelys is evidence that the Hungarian language and people are related to Hebrew and as such “dear to God.” Decsi provided other proofs of this besides the Székely alphabet: “our pronunciation, our writing and our way of pronouncing words are common to the Hebrews, but we also have a number of words which have almost the same meaning in Hebrew as in our own.” From here, it is only a logical step to the idea, which was also common at the time that the Hungarians are also God's chosen people, from which Decsi finally deduced that the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire must fall to Hungarian weapons.37 Based on all this, János Baranyai Decsi recommended all Hungarians to learn the Székely script, and although not without precedents, he was the first to explicitly incorporate it into the Hungarian sense of identity: “I consider these letters worthy not only to be taught in every school and to be inculcated in children, but also to be learned by all our compatriots, children, old people, men, women, nobles and peasants, in a word: all those who want to be called Hungarian.”38

The idea that the similarity of the Székely and Hebrew scripts is an important proof of the relation between the Hungarian and Hebrew languages was most thoroughly elaborated by Mátyás Bél in his book De vetere litteratura Hunno–Scythica exercitatio (‘Interpretation of the ancient Hun–Scythian script’) in 1718. Bél argued at length that the Székely script shows that the Hungarian language is of oriental origin and is close to the Hebrew language, which best preserves the purity of the pre-Babel language. Bél's views on the Székely script were consistent with his ideas on the origin of the Hungarian language and people: that the Hungarians descended from the Scythians and the Huns, that is, the sons of Noah; that they are related to Japheth, and that, since their Scythian ancestors had not participated in the construction of the Tower of Babel, their language—and that of their Hungarian descendants—was closer to the most ancient and purest language than that of other peoples. Thus, Bél did not simply derive Hungarian from Hebrew but from ancient Hebrew, that is, lingua Adamica (“Adamic language”), and to prove his thesis, he wrote a Hebrew–Hungarian etymological dictionary containing several hundred headwords.39

6 The Székely script as an indicator of literacy

The Székely script also developed another identity marker role in a shorter period. It was popular in the Album Amicorum of the seventeenth to eighteenth century peregrinating students because it was a way of showing their erudition: the entries' authors often tried to write a sentence in every language they knew, and it was a complement to this if they could even boast to each other of their knowledge of the Székely alphabet.

The owner of the first known diary containing the Székely script was István Csulyak of Miskolc, who wrote down two almost identical Székely alphabets in his diary sometime between 1601 and 1638. Csulyak's diary contained two other entries in Székely script, one of which was written by György Csulai (Calvinist bishop of Transylvania from 1650) in 1644. It is a quotation from the New Testament in Hungarian, written in Székely letters: “One thing is necessary.” The quotation is from the Gospel of Luke (10:42) and is found in seventeenth century bibles in the form of “But there is one thing, which is necessary” following the Vizsoly bible.40 This is why it was corrected much later, in 1715, by a pastor named Zsigmond Huszti, also in Székely characters, to the generally known Hungarian text.41

During his studies abroad, István Csulyak's son Gáspár met Pál Veszelin from Kismarja at the University of Franeker and wrote a memorial text on page 297 of his memorial book on February 3, 1654, in Latin and Hungarian, the Hungarian part in Székely letters: “Be thou ever faithful unto death, and to thee will I give the crown of life.” In the same book, another companion of Veszelin, György Csipkés from Komárom, also wrote a Székely inscription dated March 12, 1653, from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Hungarian texts, the Hungarian part written in Székely letters: “the grace of God is enough for me, you measure yourself.”42

Students, at least some of them, remained interested in the Székely alphabet a century later, at least in Nagyenyed. In 1715, István Borbereki copied Telegdi János’ textbook, and there are also alphabets and the Lord's Prayer written with Székely letters from the end of the century written by students of the Nagyenyed college.

László Musnai (1936) is probably right that the students were proud of the antiquity of the writing, treating it as a cultural treasure; its rarity was also obvious, however, and therefore made for excellent cryptography. It is Borbereki's entry that shows that it could have been used for such a purpose because after copying János Telegdi's work, Borbereki wrote some unusual signs that did not belong to the Székely alphabet but were taken from a ciphertext. One manifestation of the students' interest is an entry made on October 15, 1752, by a student from Debrecen, Sámuel Némethi, in the Swiss Petrus Dominicus Rosius à Porta Album Amicorum, who visited several Hungarian colleges: “Through much suffering must we enter the kingdom of God.”43

7 Why did the Székely script not become part of Hungarian national identity?

In the first decades of the nineteenth century, the Székely script had a good opportunity to become a widely accepted symbol of Hungarian identity through the creation of national tradition. This did not happen, however, despite the fact that the humanistic cult of the Székely script was born embedded in the Hun tradition and was closely connected to it all along, and the Hun tradition, after a short transitional period in the nineteenth century, was revitalized. It became part of the ever-expanding public education curriculum and remained a popular literary and artistic subject. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Székely script slowly lost its place in the still attractive Hun tradition, reducing its chances to become an element of the canonized national identity that was developing in the reform era.

There were several reasons for this. The most important is that even though in the eighteenth century several scholars urged the search for Székely written monuments, in the first half of the nineteenth century there were still no monuments that were not just copies, not manuscripts, but real Székely inscriptions preserved in their place—in churches, on rocks, or on wooden sticks. The only longer inscription, formerly in the church of Csíkszentmihály, was lost and known only in a copy by Sámuel Szilágyi, but uncertainties remained even around the manuscript. The first real inscription was found only in 1864 in the church of Énlaka.

Doubts increased because of the emergence of several forgeries—in the words of ethnographer Gyula Sebestyén (1909, 294), the forgers wanted to satisfy a “burning need” because of the lack of monuments, “and this is how some of the mad-minded fans of the Székely script also turned away from the true path.”

The mistakes, forgeries, and the still-missing monuments understandably destroyed the Székely script's credibility. Moreover, the thesis of Hebrew linguistic affinity, which had been closely linked to the Székely script, was also debunked, so the script's intimate relation with Hebrew affinity further increased doubts about the script. It also did not help, at least in the eyes of critical scholarship that the Székely script was included in theories proving the primacy of the Hungarian language and people as the ancestor of all existing scripts. And if this was not enough, in the midnineteenth century, the Huns were slowly being eliminated from the scientific discourse as possible ancestors of the Hungarians. Finally, even those who had no doubts about the existence of the Székely script or the Hun origin of the Székelys began to suspect the script's Hun origin.

When, in 1864, Balázs Orbán finally found the inscription painted on the ceiling of the Unitarian church in Énlaka (see Figure 6) 200 years earlier (Szabó 1864), and shortly afterward Károly Szabó wrote a three-part study that was a milestone in the history of Székely script research (Szabó 1866a, 1866b), it was too late for the Székely script to be included among the elements of national identity favored by historiography.

New fakes emerged from the historicism of the end of the nineteenth century and the romantic historical dreams that grew stronger with the approach of the millennial anniversary of the Hungarian conquest. In 1873, Antal Somogyi, a lawyer and member of the Hungarian Parliament, published a collection of pagan songs titled Old Hungarian Songs. According to Somogyi himself, the songs were written in ancient letters on the blank pages of a book from the sixteenth century, about the history of the Hun–Hungarian ancestors, their gods, and the earth, fire, water, and air. According to the highly respected poet János Arany, there were two problems with these: one was that Somogyi wrote all these “antiquities” himself, and the other was that they were inferior poetry. Despite this, some of these “Hungarian shamanic songs” were placed on a statue of János Fadrusz, one of the most famous Hungarian sculptors of the time, portraying a Hungarian conquering leader, Töhötöm, in 1902, and Székely letters were widely believed to still have been used authentically by some Hungarians. This was not true, of course, but because of significant press coverage, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences set up a committee to investigate whether “runic writing among the people” was really alive. The investigation clearly refuted the claim (Sebestyén 1909).

8 The beginnings of the modern cult

At the beginning of the twentieth century, press controversies surrounding the Székely alphabet further subdued the interest in the Székely alphabet. Between the two wars, however, the Székely alphabet became more widely known than ever through the scout movement. Notably, at that time it was already called “runic script” (rovásírás, ‘carved script’)—this name originally came from the Hungarian ethnographer Gyula Sebestyén, who was the first to call it Magyar (‘Hungarian’) instead of Székely or Hun–Szkíta (‘Hun–Scythian’) (Sebestyén 1909). He argued that this was merely a matter of writing technique; according to him, all writing was originally written on wood. The term was reinterpreted in scouting later on, and the name was increasingly used to emphasize the ancient nature of Hungarian writing.

Knowledge of the “ancient alphabet” was part of scout trials, camp coaches, and sessions; was published in scout journals and booklets and on postcards; and was especially recommended to the younger generation and to the wolf cubs as a cipher and, above all, for the sake of learning about “ancient culture.” The scout troops did not use the same alphabet but slightly different ones—nevertheless, all of them were presented as the heritage of the old Hungarians and therefore clearly as a way to build Hungarian identity.

Even outside the scouts, more and more people believed that knowledge of the “runic script” should be an integral part of Hungarian identity. It was particularly favored by followers of the Turanist44 movements and, in the early 1930s, became a dominant feature in the works of the painter Dezső Mokry–Mészáros. Many of those who later created the newest cult, immediately before the 1989–1990 Hungarian democratic transformation or in the subsequent period, were themselves introduced to “runic writing” at this time—or indirectly through their parents, relatives, or acquaintances a generation or two older—are connected to the runic knowledge they learned in the scouts.

In the communist and socialist decades, the cult went quiet. As a lone swallow, Sándor Forrai, a shorthand teacher and a central figure of the modern cult of the Székely script, published papers on the similarities between the “runic” and shorthand abbreviation systems and the origins of the alphabet as early as 1974, and in 1976 he compiled and in 1985 expanded the material for a traveling exhibition (Forrai 1974, 1985). According to another lay “runic researcher,” Győző Libisch, in the mid 1980s, “runic writing was a hobby of only a few dozen old boys in the whole country, they corresponded with each other in runic, almost everybody knew everybody” (Libisch 2007), and the Old Hungarian Friendship Circle (Ómagyar Baráti Kör)—from 1986 the Old Hungarian Culture Friendship Society (Ómagyar Kultúra Baráti Társaság)—distributed the alphabet and rules of “runic writing” in its own edition.

However, the book and magazine market, which opened up after 1990,45 saw an unprecedented proliferation of lay books and writings on “runic writing.”

From the outset, the relation with national symbols and the choice between conceptions of nationhood were one of the most important fault lines in the reshaping political scene; understandably, the issue of the Székely script also fell victim to this split since as a “Hungarian specificity,” it fit well into the sentimental-romantic conceptions of Hungarianism. This is not to say, of course, that all those involved in the new cult that blossomed in the 1990s had a political agenda or even a political background in promoting and reviving “runic writing.” Instead, in the early days, the pioneers of the dissemination of “runic writing” were driven more by a commitment to modernize the Székely alphabet, write textbooks, and organize workshops and runic writing competitions. Undoubtedly, many of them drifted easily into right-wing politics, where they were welcomed for their sometimes esoteric views, based on emotion rather than reason, and found support more easily—as opposed to the natural resistance of academia.

By then, the structure of Székely writing literature had already changed significantly: the proportions were shifted in favor of works without scientific control. These ranged widely depending on the proportion of any verifiable ideas they contained and the extent to which their authors let their imaginations run wild. However, the big turn in the symbolic interpretation of the Székely script occurred in the first decade of the twenty-first century. With the help of info-communication tools, the Székely script became an “ancient Hungarian treasure” for a wide range of people, and in the current political discourse, according to the narrative of the political forces propagating the cult, it has become one of the most important symbols representing Hungarians' national identity.

9 Trends in the modern cult and the counter-cult46

The contemporary cult of the Székely script is strongest and most diverse in Hungary. Although we continue to see the use of the script in Székely Land today, mainly on place-name signs and on various product labels and shop signs, the new cult seems largely imported from Hungary. The cult is also present in the Hungarian settlements of Slovakia but with a smaller scope and almost exclusively on place-name signs.

One can read about this writing on countless Hungarian websites,47 which express almost exclusively lay views and approach the topic more or less esoterically, and see in the Székely signs proof of the Hungarian people's privileged status, often attributing sacral meaning to the letters. Other sites transform the Latin letters into Székely letters and allow the transformed text to be sent as Christmas cards or saved as pictures. Books converted to Székely letters are also published digitally and on paper, including storybooks, novels by well-known national and foreign authors, and even the New Testament.48 There is a Székely “Scrabble” for advanced learners as well as memory and other board games for beginners. Promotional websites, books, and games target those interested in the Székely alphabet primarily out of a traditionalist dedication to strengthen their commitment to the alphabet and especially to the ideology it symbolizes and to gain as many fans of the alphabet and the ideology as possible. The Székely script can also be a personal means of expressing Hungarian identity as demonstrated by its popularity in tattoo parlors and its occasional use in signing identity cards or driving licenses.

The modern cult is diverse.49 Those who highly value and possibly learn Székely writing form a heterogeneous group, and different subgroups engage in heated debates on several issues and constitute a complex network of relationships.

One divisive factor is the alphabet itself, being the subject of the most intense debates in the first half of 2010. Followers of the modern cult use several different alphabets: they all share a departure from the historical Székely alphabet and even from the alphabet developed by Adorján Magyar in the early twentieth century, which was the first and for a long time the most popular modernized alphabet (Figure 10).50

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

One of Magyar Adorján's Székely alphabet on a contemporary card calendar51

Citation: Acta Linguistica Academica 71, 4; 10.1556/2062.2024.00844

The common feature of the two most typically used modernized alphabets is their creation of separate symbols to indicate long vowels. The main difference between them, besides minimal variations in letterforms, is that one of them has its own letters for q, x, y, and w, which were not present in the historical alphabet. The more moderately modernized alphabets have several variants, the best known of which was developed by Sándor Forrai. It is used in the Forrai Foundation's school competitions and is also mostly used on wooden place-name signs.5152 The more radical alphabet was created by the Rovás Foundation, whose inscriptions can be seen mainly on metal place-name signs on the borders of hundreds of Hungarian settlements. These two groups had been in heated discussions for years in the first half of the 2010s, when the Unicode committee had to decide which version should be the basis for the computer encoding of the Székely alphabet.

Opinions also differ in the lay literature on the origin of the writing. Some believe that it was humankind's first writing system, used as early as 50,000 years ago inside the “Bosnian pyramids” (which are actually natural hills in Bosnia).53 Others believe that the Székely script is the ancestor of all major writing systems in the Middle East, including the Phoenician alphabet and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Some people (like Hosszú 2013) admit that the script is younger and belongs to the Turkic scripts, but they call all Turkic alphabets Rovas (“carving in wood”), that is, with a Hungarian word. This may suggest that Turkic writings containing angular signs are also of Hungarian origin.

The purpose of the contemporary use of the Székely script also varies: it can be used in tradition preservation, business, and political identity building—and various combinations of all these.

Forrai Foundation staff and allied individuals and small circles continue the practice that began in the 1980s. They teach Székely signs to children, sometimes adults, in workshops and summer camps and organize school competitions that more recently included Hungarian ethnic minorities from neighboring countries.54

For other groups, the primary goal is to increase business profits. One can buy a wide variety of consumer goods with Székely lettering: jewelry, T-shirts, and bread and beer labels, there is also soup pasta shaped like Székely letters, and many more. The marketing of these products is mainly motivated by business considerations; the “real Hungarian” identity serves to increase business attraction, and of course, these purchases do not require knowledge of the Székely alphabet.

This use of the Székely script is part of the “prehistoric business,” which sells objects that remind us of the Hungarians' heroic nomadic past that is, the period before the settlement in the Carpathian Basin. The underlying ideology of this business is the interpretation of that period as the Hungarian Golden Age.

This ideology was an integral part of the political ideology of the previously nationalist Hungarian party Jobbik; thus, it is no coincidence that it was the first Hungarian party to include the cultivation of the Székely script on its agenda. The installation of standardized metal place-name signs, seen in many places in Hungary (and even in southern Slovakian towns with Hungarian ethnic minorities), was often initiated by the local Jobbik organization, and party representatives attended their inauguration ceremonies, so these signs are widely interpreted as symbols of Jobbik's presence in the town or village that uses them.

Jobbik has also tabled parliamentary motions to legitimize wills written with Székely letters and to include the Székely script in the official list of Hungaricums. In 2010, Jobbik's signboard movement came to full force under the patronage of MEP Csanád Szegedi and, in 2012, came to a halt when Szegedi left the party. In the political arena, the governing Fidesz party has adopted the symbolic use of “runic writing” albeit with less intensity than Jobbik: some of their mayors support the Forrai Foundation's competitions, and the Institute of Hungarian Research,55 established in 2018, has channeled and funded some of the lay research that had been left out of the academic world. A strong manifestation of the use of the Székely script as a symbol of Hungarian identity is the inscription written with Székely letters around the statue of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the garden of the new prime minister's office (at least according to one news report).56

Besides the cult, it is important to mention that the rejection and disdain of the Székely script—a counter-cult—can also be a factor of identity construction and demonstration. The vast majority of Hungarian people know practically nothing about this writing. When they first saw it on local name boards, they probably associated it with Jobbik as they became familiar with the connection between the boards and the party from newspapers and news portals. Consequently, many left-wing party supporters saw the Székely script as a symbol of Jobbik, and because many of them considered Jobbik to be a far-right party (until 2016–2017), they rejected the Székely script as a nationalist symbol. This counter-cult, as a statement of identity, has since then become detached from this specific connection and has become part of the larger cultural discourse that Hungarians arriving from the East and settling in the West have always had to choose between Asia and Europe, two different and sharply opposing poles: Asia representing barbarism, ignorance, and backwardness and Europe representing civilization, enlightenment, and progress.57

Today, the Székely script fits the sharpening of political polarization and the performance of politically grounded identities because neither of the groups on the left or right political poles is concerned with the historical facts of the script, as both need easily identifiable symbols to create stereotypes to identify the “us” and “them” groups.

10 Summary

The Székely script has functioned as an expression of identity since its earliest known historical period in the thirteenth century. In Székely Land between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries, the script was used to express Székely identity. Its cult outside Székely Land began in the second half of the fifteenth century, probably in Matthias Corvinus's court: from then on, it was considered evidence of Hungarians' Hun origin. This was also the case in scholarly works until the nineteenth century, after which this view was withdrawn into lay literature, where it remained popular. At a time when scholars attempted to present the European languages as closely linked to Hebrew (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries) to prove the exceptionality of their own mother tongue, Hungarian humanists treated the Székely script as a material witness of the Hebrew–Hungarian language kinship. College students used it as a cultural marker and for cryptography. The modern cult of the Székely script emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, when the script appeared as a Hungarian specificity that is, as “runic script.” The scout movement made the letters more widely known in the first half of the twentieth century, and after the communist decades, the first initiators of the new cult also reached back to that period—their own childhood. Today, different groups promoting the cult of the Székely script use modernized alphabets that differ to a lesser extent from one another, and their aims vary from tradition preservation to business to political identity building. The political use of the Székely alphabet in the past decade and a half has led to a rejection of the Székely script as well as its current use as a form of identity expression.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the SZTE IKIKK Digital Society Competence Center. The author serves as the head of the Cultural Heritage and Digital Society Research Group and the Department of Cultural Heritage and Human Information Science at the University of Szeged.

References

  • Barnes, Michael P. 2012. The runes: A handbook. Martlesham: Boydell Press.

  • Bencsi, Zoltán. 1987. Ősi hitünk [Our ancient beliefs]. Toronto: Magyar Church of Canada.

  • Benkő, Loránd. 1990. Adalékok a székelyek korai történetéhez [Additions to the early history of the Székelys]. Új Erdélyi Múzeum 1. 109122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Elek, Klára Sándor and István Vásáry. 2021. A székely írás emlékei [Monuments of the Székely script] = Corpus Monumentorum Alphabeto Siculico Exaratorum. Budapest: ELKH Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Loránd. 1991. Nyelvészeti adalékok a magyarság erdélyi megtelepedéséhez [Linguistic additions to the settlement of Hungarians in Transylvania]. Magyar Múzeum 1. 5261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Loránd. 2001. Észrevételek Erdély déli részeinek korai Árpád-kori történetéhez [Comments on the early Árpád-era history of the southern parts of Transylvania]. Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek 231. 768.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bohannon, John. 2006. Mad about pyramids. Science Magazine 313. 17181720.

  • Bonfini, Antonio. 1995. A magyar történelem tizedei [Decades of the Hungarian history]. Budapest: Balassi.

  • Coulmas, Florian. 2003. Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • C. Vladár, Zsuzsanna. 2013. A szóelemő írásmód elve a korai magyar grammatikákban [The principle of analytic spelling in early Hungarian grammars]. In T. Forgács, M. Németh and B. Sinkovics (eds.) A nyelvtörténeti kutatások újabb eredményei VII [Recent results of research in the history of language]. Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék, Szegedi Tudományegyetem BTK, Szeged. 179192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dienes, István. 1994. Landnahmezeitliche Kerbinschrift aus dem Gräberfeld von Homokmégy-Halom in der Umgebung von Kalocsa. Folia Archaeologica 43. 167180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Entz, Géza. 1952. XV–XVIII. századi bekarcolások falfestményeken [15th–18th-century engravings on wall paintings]. Archaeológiai Értesítő 79. 131132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erdal, Marcel. 2007. The Khazar language. In P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Róna-Tas (eds.) The world of the Khazars: New perspectives (Handbook of Oriental Studies 17). Leiden: Brill. 75108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Flowers, Stephen E. 2021. Revival of the runes: The modern rediscovery and reinvention of the Germanic runes. New York, NY: Inner Traditions.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Forrai, Sándor. 1974. A székely rovásírásos naptár rövidítési rendszere és gyorsírás [The abbreviation system of the Székely runic calendar and the shorthand writing]. Gyorsírók és Gépírók Lapja 24/(1). 1316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Forrai, Sándor. 1985. Küskarácsontól Sülvester estig: Egy botra rótt középkori székely kalendárium és egyéb rovásírásos emlékeink [From Küskarácson to Sülvester evening: A medieval Székely calendar on a stick and other runic monuments]. Budapest: Múzsák.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Golden, Peter B. 1980. Khazar studies, 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

  • Golden, Peter B. 2011. Central Asia in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Harding, Anthony. 2006. The great Bosnian pyramid scheme. British Archaeology 91. https://web.archive.org/web/20070712211737/http://www.britarch.ac.uk:80/ba/ba92/feat3.shtml. (Accessed April 10, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hegedűs, József. 2003. Hiedelem és valóság: Külföldi és hazai nézetek a magyar nyelv rokonságáról [Belief and reality: Foreign and domestic views on the language relationships of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Akadémiai.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hosszú, Gábor, 2013. Heritage of scribes: The relation of Rovas scripts to Eurasian writing systems. Budapest: Rovas Foundation.

  • Juhász, Irén. 1983. Ein Awarenzeitlicher Nadelbehälter mit Kerbschrift aus Szarvas. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35. 373377.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kordé, Zoltán. 1991. A székelykérdés története [The history of the Székely problem]. Székelyudvarhely: Haáz Rezső Múzeum.

  • Kordé, Zoltán (ed.). 2001. A középkori székelység [The medieval Székelys]. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.

  • Kyzlasov, Igor L. 1990. Drevnetjurkskaja runičeskaja pis’mennost’ Evrazii [Eurasian Old Turkic runic inscriptions]. Moscow: Institute of Archeology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kyzlasov, Igor L. 1994. Runičeskije pis’mennosti evrazijskih stepej [Runic inscriptions of the Eurasian steppe]. Moscow: Institute of Archeology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Libisch, Győző. 2007. Forrai Sándor. Turán 10(2).

  • Musnai, László. 1936. Székely rovásírásos emlékek [Some monuments of Székely script]. Magyar Nyelv 32. 229233.

  • Nagy, Géza. 1895. A székely irás eredete [The origins of the Székely script]. Ethnographia 6. 269276.

  • Németh, Gyula. 1934. A magyar rovásírás [The Hungarian runic script]. In J. Melich, Z. Gombocz and Gy. Németh (eds.) A magyar nyelvtudomány kézikönyve II/2 [Handbook of Hungarian linguistics]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémi.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Németh, Gyula. 1945. A székely írás új emléke: A homoródkarácsonyfalvi felirat [A new monument of the Székely script: The Homoródkarácsonyfalva inscription]. Magyar Nyelv 41. 1–5, 1116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rácz, Lajos. 2013. The steppe to Europe: An environmental history of Hungary in the traditional Age. Cambridge: White Horse Press.

  • Róna-Tas, András. 1996. A honfoglaló magyar nép [The conquering Hungarian people]. Budapest: Balassi.

  • Sándor, Klára. 1991. A Bolognai rovásemlék [The Bologna runic monument]. Szeged: Magyar Őstörténeti Kutatócsoport.

  • Sándor, Klára. 1996. A székely írás megíratlan története(i?) [The unwritten histori(es?) of the Székely script]. Erdélyi Múzeum 58. 8393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2014. A székely írás nyomában [Tracing the Székely script]. Budapest: Typotex.

  • Sándor, Klára. 2017. A székely írás reneszánsza [The renaissance of the Székely script]. Budapest: Typotex.

  • Sándor, Klára. 2018. Versions of public history representing group identities: Fight for being the master narrative. In D. E. Morse, Zs. O. Réti and M. Takács (eds.) The (web)sites of memory: Cultural heritage in the digital age. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press, 8289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2021. A török-magyar nyelvi kapcsolatok újraértelmezésének lehetőségei [The possibilities of reinterpreting Turkic-Hungarian language contacts]. In L. Klima and A. Türk (eds.) Parallel stories Interdisciplinary conference on Hungarian Prehistory. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem BTK, Régészettudományi Intézet. 77101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2023a. A székely írás keleti kapcsolatairól [On the eastern connections of Székely writing]. In A. Türk (ed.) Hadak útján [On the road of wars]. Budapest: ELKH BTK–PPKE Régészeti Intézet–Martin Opitz. 3758.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2023b. Székelyből magyar, írásból rovás – a székely írás székely identitást jelző funkciójának visszaszorulása [From Székely to Hungarian, from writing to runic – the decline of the Székely script as a sign of Székely identity]. In N. Bárdi (ed.) Hullóidő: Székely identitásépítés a 19–20. században [Székely identity building int he 19th–20th centuries]. Kolozsvár & Budapest: Kriterion Könyvkiadó, Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont. 928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sebba, Mark. 2009. Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research. Writing Systems Research 1. 3549.

  • Sebestyén, Gyula. 1909. Rovás és rovásírás [Carving and runic scripts]. Budapest: Magyar Néprajzi Társaság.

  • Szabó, Károly. 1864. Az enlakai egyház ős székely betűkkel irt felirata [The inscription of the church of Enlaka written with ancient Székely letters]. Koszorú 2. 522523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szabó, Károly. 1866a. A régi hun-székely irásról [On the old Hun-Székely script]. Budapesti Szemle 5. 14–17, 114–143.

  • Szabó, Károly. 1866b. A régi hun-székely irásról [On the old Hun-Székely script]. Budapesti Szemle 6. 18–20, 106–130, 233–277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szakács, Gábor and Klára Friedrich. 2019. Rovásírásos hagyaték. Demokrata. https://demokrata.hu/magyarorszag/rovasirasos-hagyatek-168579/. (Accessed April 4, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szalay, László. 1856. Verancsics Antal összes munkái I [All works of Antal Verancsics I]. Pest.

  • Szalontai, Csaba and László Károly. 2013. Runiform fragments of the late Avar period from Hungary. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 66. 365396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szűcs Jenő. 1973. Társadalomelmélet, politikai teória és történetszemlélet Kézai Simon Gesta Hungarorumában 1–2. [Social theory, political theory and view of history in Simon de Keza's Gesta Hungarorum 1–2]. Századok 3. 569643. 4. 823–878.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thuróczy, János. 2001. A magyarok krónikája [Chronica Hungarorum]. Budapest: Osiris.

  • Tryjarski, Edward. 2002–2003. Runes and runelike scripts of Eurasian area 1–2. Archivum Ottomanicum 20. 1–80, 21, 590.

  • Tyran, Katharina. 2019. Deutungen kroatischer Schriftkultur: Schreibsysteme als nationale und kulturelle Symbole [Interpretations of Croatian writing culture: Writing systems as national and cultural symbols]. In S. Kempgen and V. S. Tomelleri (eds.) Slavic alphabets and identities. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. 283297.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Unseth, Peter. 2008. The sociolinguistics of script choice: An introduction. International Journal of Sociology of Language 192. 14.

  • Vásáry, István. 1972. Runiform signs on objects of the Avar period (6th–8th cc. A.D.). Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25. 335347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vásáry, István. 1974. A magyar rovásírás: A kutatás története és helyzete [The Hungarian runic script: History and state of research]. Keletkutatás 1974. 159171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vásáry, István. 2021. A székely írás eredetéről és helyéről a magyar művelődéstörténetben [On the origin and place of Székely script in the history of Hungarian culture]. In E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 831836).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vasil’ev, Dmitrij D. 1994. Versuch zur Lösung der Kerbinschrift aus der Umgebung von Kalocsa im Spiegel der eurasischen Parallelen. Folia Archaeologica 43. 181191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vasil’ev, Dmitrij D. 2005. The Eurasian areal aspect of Old Turkic written culture. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 58. 323330.

  • Woodard, Colin. 2009. The mystery of Bosnia’s ancient pyramids. Smithsonian 40(9). http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-mystery-of-bosnias-ancient-pyramids-148990462/?all. (Accessed April 4, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
1

The first Latin-lettered Hungarian language monument (the founding charter of the Tihany Abbey) dates from 1055 and contains Hungarian words and names within a Latin text. The first complete Hungarian language text (Funeral Sermon and Prayer) survives from the first half of the 1190s.

2

As defined in Law 2012/XXX, a “Hungaricum” is a valuable natural environment or physical or intellectual product that is considered characteristic, specific, special, and worthy of protection for Hungarian culture and which is declared a Hungaricum by the Hungaricum Committee.

3

This debt can be laid at the door of Hungarian linguistics: there has simply not yet been a proper scientific summary on this alphabet, which may be partly explained by the fact that after a highly intensive research period in the first half of the 1900s, it was not “fashionable” to examine this alphabet during the communist and socialist era. I myself became acquainted with the Székely script when I was writing my university thesis in 1988 in Turkology. Since then, I have published several studies and four monographs on it (Sándor 1991, 2014, 2017), the last of which is the complete edition of the script's now-known monuments, prepared by the three of us after almost a decade of work (E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry 2021). Without all the knowledge in these partial studies—and in the earlier publications of two of my coauthors—the thematic monographs and the book on the script's monuments, it would not have been possible to write even such a short English language summary with any responsibility. The information on Wikipedia (Old Hungarian Script) and the online database Omniglot, which uses it as a source, is incorrect and reflects the views of lay enthusiasts.

5

In the literature, this Hungarian-speaking group, which has its own identity, used to be referred to by the German form of the name Sekler or the hybrid form of Szekler. More recently, the Hungarian spelling of Székely has been used, which is their self-name.

6

For a detailed summary of the debate on the origins of the Székelys, see Kordé (1991) and Sándor (2014, 151–174).

7

In more detail, L. Benkő (1990, 1991, 2001).

8

Inscribed objects are more common in the Avar graves (Vásáry 1972; Juhász 1983; Szalontai & Károly 2013).

9

On the find, see Dienes (1994) and the decipherment Vasil'ev (1994). Among the preconquest (i.e., before 895 AD) Turkic loanwords of the Hungarian language, there are three—ír ‘write,’ betű ‘letter,’ and szám ‘number’—that suggest that the Hungarians were already familiar with some form of literacy before the conquest. However, this does not necessarily mean that the conquering Hungarians had their own script, as the Hungarian tribes living in Eastern Europe may have encountered several alphabets—Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and probably several scripts of the Western Turkic tribes.

10

The two basic principles of modern Hungarian spelling are the reflection of pronunciation and analyticity, that is, the indication of morphemes. When two sounds meet at morpheme boundaries to produce a phonetic change, the latter rule is stronger. For example, the pronunciation of lát + ja (‘see-s’) [la:tʲ:a], spelled according to the pronunciation spelling would be láttya, but the word stem (lát ‘see’, intransitive 3/Sg.) and the transitive 3/Sg. suffix (-ja) are analytically marked in the present-day spelling látja. Until the middle of the seventeenth century, the two spellings, that is, the phonetic and the analytic/phonemic, alternated also in Latin-letter texts, the first usage being the dominant (C. Vladár 2013, 181).

11

For a summary of the earlier literature on the origins of the Székely script, see Vásáry (2021) and Sándor (2023a). For a detailed explanation of my opinion, which differs from the earlier ones and is briefly summarized here, see Sándor (2023a).

12

The memorials have yet to be deciphered and therefore cannot be linked to a specific language or people, but the place where they were found suggests that most of them were written in some kind of Turkic language. On the monuments, see Kyzlasov (1990, 1994) and Tryjarski (2002–2003).

13

The Kazar Empire, like other nomadic state structures, was multiethnic and multilingual. The mother tongue of the vast majority of ethnic groups belonging to the confederation was Turkic. It remains debatable which Turkic language type the empire's chief language, Khazar, belonged to (see Golden 1980; Golb & Pritsak 1982; Erdal 2007), and the other Turkic languages spoken at the time are difficult to identify according to the modern classification of Turkic languages, but clearly some of them showed signs of the later R-Turkic group or at least part of it (see Sándor 2021).

14

E.g., Róna-Tas (1996, 338).

15

According to Gyula Németh (1934), sixteen, according to István Vásáry (1974), five are certain, eleven are probable matches—the opinion of András Róna-Tas (1996), who argued that only two signs can be identified with certainty, seems to be an unjustified methodological rigor.

16

According to a long-held view in the literature, the Székely script would also have signs borrowed from the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets, but this is highly doubtful. For arguments, see Sándor (2014, 2023a).

17

Both khaganates were located in Inner Asia. For their historical role, see Golden (2011).

18

More details about the find, with a summary of the literature, can be found in Sándor (2023a).

19

For the publication and interpretation of the monuments of the Székely script, with literature and descriptions of the monuments, see E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021).

20

Gyula Németh (1945) noted that most of the church inscriptions are located in the vicinity of Székelyudvarhely (Odorheiu Secuiesc)—this finding has not been fundamentally changed by the monuments that have been found in the meantime.

21

The relic is the longest-surviving monument of Székely writing. For a complete philological documentation, see Sándor (1991); for more details about the possible author, see Sándor (2017).

26

On these types of manuscripts, see Sándor (2014, 271–279).

27

Entz (1952, 131–132).

28

On Kézai's theory of natio, see Szűcs (1973).

30

“They [the Székelys] do not marry foreigners even today, and they are different from other Hungarians. They have Scythian letters, which they do not write on paper, but on short sticks, and express many thoughts with few signs.” Bonfini (1995, 154).

31

On the birth of the cult of the Székely script, see Sándor (2017). No written relics of the Huns have survived, and as far as we know, there has been no sign that they had their own writing.

32

For a thorough discussion of the Hebrew-Hungarian linguistic affinity, see Hegedűs (2003).

33

Verancsics' text published by Szalay (1856, 145–146).

34

Text published by Kordé (2001, 151).

35

Text published by Kordé (2001, 151).

37

From the end of the fourteenth century onward, the Ottoman Empire attacked the Hungarian kingdom with varying intensity. János Hunyadi (the country's governor from 1446 to 1453) and his son King Matthias Corvinus (ruled from 1458 to 1490) successfully resisted the conquest, but in the early sixteenth century, after minor territorial gains in the southern border region, the Hungarian army was decisively defeated in the Battle of Mohács (1526). Afterward, the Ottoman army gradually conquered and occupied the central areas of the country, capturing the capital Buda in 1541, which was only recaptured in 1686, while the Hungarian territories were fully recovered by the end of the 1690s with Habsburg assistance. Therefore, the liberation that Baranyai Decsi hoped for had to wait another full century.

38

Latin edition and Hungarian translation of Decsi's text by Baranyai: E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 40–43).

39

Publication of Bél's dissertation on the Székely script in E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 671–732).

40

The Vizsoly bible (also called the Károli bible) is the first full bible printed in Hungarian in 1590. It was translated by Gáspár Károli and has been used by the Reformed church as a canonical text for centuries. The English translations do not accurately reflect the Hungarian sentences: Egy dolog szükséges and De egy a szükséges dolog.

42

Texts published by E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 496–497, 503–513).

43

Borbereki's copy and Sámuel Némethi's entry in E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 381–392, 613–614).

44

Turanism was the economic and political belief system during the first half of the twentieth century. Initially, it emphasized Hungarians' role as a bridge between East and West, aiming to export Western culture to the East and promote economic expansion. Later on, the movement became more and more politically extreme.

45

After the collapse of socialism, Hungary held its first democratic elections in 1990, paving the way for a free market in publishing.

46

Other previously used writings are also being revitalized and incorporated into contemporary identity constructions. It is known that the German National Socialist Party used the Germanic runes as a symbol (see, e.g., Flowers 2021) that independently of this use there is a new usage of the futhark in Scandinavia (not to mention the frequent use of the magical meaning of runes in fantasy literature, films, digital games, etc.), and that the Slavic identity can be expressed by the Glagolitic signs, among others (Barns 2012; Tyran 2019). The main aim of the present study is to introduce the identity-signifying roles of the Székely script—and the Székely script itself—instead of conducting comparative analyses.

48

Most books converted to Székely script are published in the Hungarian Electronic Library (https://mek.oszk.hu/hu/) and can be found on the search page (https://mek.oszk.hu/hu/search/elfull/) with the search term “rovásírás.” The same search will generate textbooks and practice books as well. For other products such as Scrabble, board games, and clothes, see, e.g., https://szkitabolt.hu/?s=rov%C3%A1s&post_type=product.

49

The network of cult creators, maintainers, and supporters; the values; the stratification of the cult; and the motivations and ideologies of its opponents were investigated through an empirical study that used social anthropological, anthropological, and sociological methods, which lasted for more than three years. The research was conducted under the OTKA grant K 115748. The comments and data on the contemporary cult were taken from this research. For some further data, see Sándor (2023b).

50

Published in 1937; see its reprint in Bencsi (1987).

51

The calendar contains a demand of radical right-wing ideology, calling for the renegotiation and revision of the 104-year-old Trianon Peace Treaty in 2024. The webshop: https://bigbandi.hu/szekely-magyar-rovasiras-kartyanaptar-2024 (accessed April 9, 2024).

54

For more information on the competitions, see the Forrai Foundation website at http://www.rovasirasforrai.hu/Versenyek.htm (accessed April 4, 2024).

55

The official English name of Magyarságkutató Intézet (https://mki.gov.hu/en/, accessed June 10, 2024).

56

Szakács & Friedrich (2019). Also, a picture of the inscription is published here. The inscription can also be seen on another photo in the portfolio of the company that worked on the park landscaping: https://www.parkertech.hu/karmelita-kolostor-2018/ (accessed May 19, 2024).

57

On the political use of cult and counter-cult, see Sándor (2018).

  • Barnes, Michael P. 2012. The runes: A handbook. Martlesham: Boydell Press.

  • Bencsi, Zoltán. 1987. Ősi hitünk [Our ancient beliefs]. Toronto: Magyar Church of Canada.

  • Benkő, Loránd. 1990. Adalékok a székelyek korai történetéhez [Additions to the early history of the Székelys]. Új Erdélyi Múzeum 1. 109122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Elek, Klára Sándor and István Vásáry. 2021. A székely írás emlékei [Monuments of the Székely script] = Corpus Monumentorum Alphabeto Siculico Exaratorum. Budapest: ELKH Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Loránd. 1991. Nyelvészeti adalékok a magyarság erdélyi megtelepedéséhez [Linguistic additions to the settlement of Hungarians in Transylvania]. Magyar Múzeum 1. 5261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benkő, Loránd. 2001. Észrevételek Erdély déli részeinek korai Árpád-kori történetéhez [Comments on the early Árpád-era history of the southern parts of Transylvania]. Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek 231. 768.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bohannon, John. 2006. Mad about pyramids. Science Magazine 313. 17181720.

  • Bonfini, Antonio. 1995. A magyar történelem tizedei [Decades of the Hungarian history]. Budapest: Balassi.

  • Coulmas, Florian. 2003. Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • C. Vladár, Zsuzsanna. 2013. A szóelemő írásmód elve a korai magyar grammatikákban [The principle of analytic spelling in early Hungarian grammars]. In T. Forgács, M. Németh and B. Sinkovics (eds.) A nyelvtörténeti kutatások újabb eredményei VII [Recent results of research in the history of language]. Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék, Szegedi Tudományegyetem BTK, Szeged. 179192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dienes, István. 1994. Landnahmezeitliche Kerbinschrift aus dem Gräberfeld von Homokmégy-Halom in der Umgebung von Kalocsa. Folia Archaeologica 43. 167180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Entz, Géza. 1952. XV–XVIII. századi bekarcolások falfestményeken [15th–18th-century engravings on wall paintings]. Archaeológiai Értesítő 79. 131132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erdal, Marcel. 2007. The Khazar language. In P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and A. Róna-Tas (eds.) The world of the Khazars: New perspectives (Handbook of Oriental Studies 17). Leiden: Brill. 75108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Flowers, Stephen E. 2021. Revival of the runes: The modern rediscovery and reinvention of the Germanic runes. New York, NY: Inner Traditions.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Forrai, Sándor. 1974. A székely rovásírásos naptár rövidítési rendszere és gyorsírás [The abbreviation system of the Székely runic calendar and the shorthand writing]. Gyorsírók és Gépírók Lapja 24/(1). 1316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Forrai, Sándor. 1985. Küskarácsontól Sülvester estig: Egy botra rótt középkori székely kalendárium és egyéb rovásírásos emlékeink [From Küskarácson to Sülvester evening: A medieval Székely calendar on a stick and other runic monuments]. Budapest: Múzsák.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Golden, Peter B. 1980. Khazar studies, 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

  • Golden, Peter B. 2011. Central Asia in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Harding, Anthony. 2006. The great Bosnian pyramid scheme. British Archaeology 91. https://web.archive.org/web/20070712211737/http://www.britarch.ac.uk:80/ba/ba92/feat3.shtml. (Accessed April 10, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hegedűs, József. 2003. Hiedelem és valóság: Külföldi és hazai nézetek a magyar nyelv rokonságáról [Belief and reality: Foreign and domestic views on the language relationships of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Akadémiai.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hosszú, Gábor, 2013. Heritage of scribes: The relation of Rovas scripts to Eurasian writing systems. Budapest: Rovas Foundation.

  • Juhász, Irén. 1983. Ein Awarenzeitlicher Nadelbehälter mit Kerbschrift aus Szarvas. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35. 373377.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kordé, Zoltán. 1991. A székelykérdés története [The history of the Székely problem]. Székelyudvarhely: Haáz Rezső Múzeum.

  • Kordé, Zoltán (ed.). 2001. A középkori székelység [The medieval Székelys]. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.

  • Kyzlasov, Igor L. 1990. Drevnetjurkskaja runičeskaja pis’mennost’ Evrazii [Eurasian Old Turkic runic inscriptions]. Moscow: Institute of Archeology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kyzlasov, Igor L. 1994. Runičeskije pis’mennosti evrazijskih stepej [Runic inscriptions of the Eurasian steppe]. Moscow: Institute of Archeology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Libisch, Győző. 2007. Forrai Sándor. Turán 10(2).

  • Musnai, László. 1936. Székely rovásírásos emlékek [Some monuments of Székely script]. Magyar Nyelv 32. 229233.

  • Nagy, Géza. 1895. A székely irás eredete [The origins of the Székely script]. Ethnographia 6. 269276.

  • Németh, Gyula. 1934. A magyar rovásírás [The Hungarian runic script]. In J. Melich, Z. Gombocz and Gy. Németh (eds.) A magyar nyelvtudomány kézikönyve II/2 [Handbook of Hungarian linguistics]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémi.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Németh, Gyula. 1945. A székely írás új emléke: A homoródkarácsonyfalvi felirat [A new monument of the Székely script: The Homoródkarácsonyfalva inscription]. Magyar Nyelv 41. 1–5, 1116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rácz, Lajos. 2013. The steppe to Europe: An environmental history of Hungary in the traditional Age. Cambridge: White Horse Press.

  • Róna-Tas, András. 1996. A honfoglaló magyar nép [The conquering Hungarian people]. Budapest: Balassi.

  • Sándor, Klára. 1991. A Bolognai rovásemlék [The Bologna runic monument]. Szeged: Magyar Őstörténeti Kutatócsoport.

  • Sándor, Klára. 1996. A székely írás megíratlan története(i?) [The unwritten histori(es?) of the Székely script]. Erdélyi Múzeum 58. 8393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2014. A székely írás nyomában [Tracing the Székely script]. Budapest: Typotex.

  • Sándor, Klára. 2017. A székely írás reneszánsza [The renaissance of the Székely script]. Budapest: Typotex.

  • Sándor, Klára. 2018. Versions of public history representing group identities: Fight for being the master narrative. In D. E. Morse, Zs. O. Réti and M. Takács (eds.) The (web)sites of memory: Cultural heritage in the digital age. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press, 8289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2021. A török-magyar nyelvi kapcsolatok újraértelmezésének lehetőségei [The possibilities of reinterpreting Turkic-Hungarian language contacts]. In L. Klima and A. Türk (eds.) Parallel stories Interdisciplinary conference on Hungarian Prehistory. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem BTK, Régészettudományi Intézet. 77101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2023a. A székely írás keleti kapcsolatairól [On the eastern connections of Székely writing]. In A. Türk (ed.) Hadak útján [On the road of wars]. Budapest: ELKH BTK–PPKE Régészeti Intézet–Martin Opitz. 3758.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sándor, Klára. 2023b. Székelyből magyar, írásból rovás – a székely írás székely identitást jelző funkciójának visszaszorulása [From Székely to Hungarian, from writing to runic – the decline of the Székely script as a sign of Székely identity]. In N. Bárdi (ed.) Hullóidő: Székely identitásépítés a 19–20. században [Székely identity building int he 19th–20th centuries]. Kolozsvár & Budapest: Kriterion Könyvkiadó, Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont. 928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sebba, Mark. 2009. Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research. Writing Systems Research 1. 3549.

  • Sebestyén, Gyula. 1909. Rovás és rovásírás [Carving and runic scripts]. Budapest: Magyar Néprajzi Társaság.

  • Szabó, Károly. 1864. Az enlakai egyház ős székely betűkkel irt felirata [The inscription of the church of Enlaka written with ancient Székely letters]. Koszorú 2. 522523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szabó, Károly. 1866a. A régi hun-székely irásról [On the old Hun-Székely script]. Budapesti Szemle 5. 14–17, 114–143.

  • Szabó, Károly. 1866b. A régi hun-székely irásról [On the old Hun-Székely script]. Budapesti Szemle 6. 18–20, 106–130, 233–277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szakács, Gábor and Klára Friedrich. 2019. Rovásírásos hagyaték. Demokrata. https://demokrata.hu/magyarorszag/rovasirasos-hagyatek-168579/. (Accessed April 4, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szalay, László. 1856. Verancsics Antal összes munkái I [All works of Antal Verancsics I]. Pest.

  • Szalontai, Csaba and László Károly. 2013. Runiform fragments of the late Avar period from Hungary. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 66. 365396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szűcs Jenő. 1973. Társadalomelmélet, politikai teória és történetszemlélet Kézai Simon Gesta Hungarorumában 1–2. [Social theory, political theory and view of history in Simon de Keza's Gesta Hungarorum 1–2]. Századok 3. 569643. 4. 823–878.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thuróczy, János. 2001. A magyarok krónikája [Chronica Hungarorum]. Budapest: Osiris.

  • Tryjarski, Edward. 2002–2003. Runes and runelike scripts of Eurasian area 1–2. Archivum Ottomanicum 20. 1–80, 21, 590.

  • Tyran, Katharina. 2019. Deutungen kroatischer Schriftkultur: Schreibsysteme als nationale und kulturelle Symbole [Interpretations of Croatian writing culture: Writing systems as national and cultural symbols]. In S. Kempgen and V. S. Tomelleri (eds.) Slavic alphabets and identities. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. 283297.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Unseth, Peter. 2008. The sociolinguistics of script choice: An introduction. International Journal of Sociology of Language 192. 14.

  • Vásáry, István. 1972. Runiform signs on objects of the Avar period (6th–8th cc. A.D.). Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25. 335347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vásáry, István. 1974. A magyar rovásírás: A kutatás története és helyzete [The Hungarian runic script: History and state of research]. Keletkutatás 1974. 159171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vásáry, István. 2021. A székely írás eredetéről és helyéről a magyar művelődéstörténetben [On the origin and place of Székely script in the history of Hungarian culture]. In E. Benkő, Sándor & Vásáry (2021, 831836).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vasil’ev, Dmitrij D. 1994. Versuch zur Lösung der Kerbinschrift aus der Umgebung von Kalocsa im Spiegel der eurasischen Parallelen. Folia Archaeologica 43. 181191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vasil’ev, Dmitrij D. 2005. The Eurasian areal aspect of Old Turkic written culture. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 58. 323330.

  • Woodard, Colin. 2009. The mystery of Bosnia’s ancient pyramids. Smithsonian 40(9). http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-mystery-of-bosnias-ancient-pyramids-148990462/?all. (Accessed April 4, 2024.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand

Editors

Editor-in-Chief: András Cser

Editor: György Rákosi

Review Editor: Tamás Halm

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé / Université Paris Diderot
  • Željko Bošković / University of Connecticut
  • Marcel den Dikken / Eötvös Loránd University; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Elly van Gelderen / Arizona State University
  • Anders Holmberg / Newcastle University
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt / University of Cambridge
  • Dániel Z. Kádár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • István Kenesei / University of Szeged; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Anikó Lipták / Leiden University
  • Katalin Mády / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gereon Müller / Leipzig University
  • Csaba Pléh / Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central European University
  • Giampaolo Salvi / Eötvös Loránd University
  • Irina Sekerina / College of Staten Island CUNY
  • Péter Siptár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gregory Stump / University of Kentucky
  • Peter Svenonius / University of Tromsø
  • Anne Tamm / Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
  • Akira Watanabe / University of Tokyo
  • Jeroen van de Weijer / Shenzhen University

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Address: Benczúr u. 33. HU–1068 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 351 0413; (+36 1) 321 4830 ext. 154
Fax: (36 1) 322 9297
E-mail: ala@nytud.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  • Bibliographie Linguistique/Linguistic Bibliography
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • SCOPUS
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • LinguisList

 

2023  
Web of Science  
Journal Impact Factor 0.5
Rank by Impact Factor Q3 (Linguistics)
Journal Citation Indicator 0.37
Scopus  
CiteScore 1.0
CiteScore rank Q1 (Literature and Literary Theory)
SNIP 0.571
Scimago  
SJR index 0.344
SJR Q rank Q1

Acta Linguistica Academica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Effective from  1st Feb 2025:
1200 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2025 Online subsscription: 648 EUR / 712 USD
Print + online subscription: 744 EUR / 820 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Linguistica Academica
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2017 (1951)
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia   
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2559-8201 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1016 (Online)