В.А.Чудинов

Runica and the Alphabet Writing

V.A. choodeenov

Abstract

The existing of the Slavic syllabic writing is shown. The examples of Runica use, short history of the deciphering and the Runica syllabarium are given. On the ground of Runica-Cyrillic interaction the periods were estimated trough which the change of syllabic writing to alphabet one results. The hypothesis about the etalon quality of this transition process for every change of runica with ethnic alphabet writing was spoken. The coexistence of Runica with glagolica, Greek and Latin writing was shown on some examples. Finally were read some Runica inscriptions on the artifacts from Noricum and Venetian regions, on a coin, armor and a helmet.

The greatest difficulties during decipher an old texts appear with the reason that we don’t know exactly the meanings of their signs and the language of the inscriptions. If an epigraphist knows that in the ground of the text under investigation lies a Slavic language his work can go much more successful. In such cases as a help for him could be the Runica, a syllabic writing with which the ancestors of the Slavs have wrote from the Paleolithic till the XVII century when it finally goes out of use. It is a pity that Runica is now not well-known to the most of the readers. Meanwhile it use already speaks in favor of the Slavic origin of some texts and artifacts. Very often Runica carries some additional and interesting information. On the reason of its broad compatibility with every Slavic alphabet Runica sometimes makes the mixed texts from which, knowing one of the alphabets (in our case knowing Cyrillic), one can determine the meaning of the Runica signs. And vice versa, knowing Runica one can determine the meaning of the unknown Slavic alphabet character.

The aim of this article is to demonstrate the examples of the Runica use together with other kinds of writing, and the offensive on it by alphabet writing. Such demonstration will help us to understand the youthfulness or senility of such alphabets as Etruscan, Raethic, and Venetian and so on.

Examples of Runica. The possibility of the pre-Cyrillic writing (Runica) existence was shown in a lot of epigraphic origins. The first example extracted from the works of the Arabic traveler of the X century Yakub El Nedim was published in 1836 year in Russia by the academician of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences Ch. M. Fraehn¹. Later the attempts were made to read this text with the help of Germanic Runes and of Glagolica. On the drawing one can see the original El Nedim inscription (1) and its reading by F. Magnusen² (2), A. von Siögren ³ (3), S. Gedeonov⁵ (4-5), G. S. Grinevich⁵ (6), M.L. Seryakov⁶ (7) and by me⁷ (8).

Fig. 1. The reading of the El Nedim’s inscription by the different epigraphists

During the process of the new inscriptions publishing have appeared several deciphering directions. In the XIX century Runica was accepted as a variant of Germanic Runes in their Slavic use, but only unacceptable result from this attempt was gained. As leaders of this direction one can assume the Danes Finn Magnusen and worked at that time in Russian service Andreas Sjogren, and as followers one can name two Poles, Tadeusz Wolianski⁸ and Jan Leciejewski⁹. But there was refuse from this direction connected with general criticism of the Normanism (according to this position all the achievements of the Russian state were connected with Norman statesmen and first of all with first Russian prince Rurik who came into Russia somewhere from Scandinavia). Together with true criticism of the Normanism from the patriotic point of view the failure of such readings the archaeologists have explained wrong as so called signs of property which were clear only to its owner, but which have had no common readings at all. Such explanation was suggested in 1871 year by A.A. Kotlyarevsky¹⁰. This explanation was accepted by the archaeologists with enthusiasm because of its possibility to avoid the necessity to read the unknown signs on the found by them archaeological artifacts.

The Russian archaeologist of the beginning of XX century Karl Bolssunovski has made attempt to read the Russian monograms on the coins and the building bricks (so called “the prince’s signs”) as Grecian, but has failed¹¹. In May 1908 the famous Russian archaeologist A.A. Spitsin has made report “About Russes Writing” in which he tried to read the inscriptions of the Mayak medieval town. Later such kind of inscriptions was determined as Khasarian ones, and the type of writing — as Turkian Runic. Although A.A. Spitsin was the head of whole direction the satisfactory results were not achieved. As an exotic example of reading our archaeologist academician B.A. Rybakov has mentioned the not developing direction of the Austrian enthusiast dr. Wankel who tried to read the inscription in Runica found near Smolensk as Phoenician writing. So to the middle of XX century was clear that the Runica is not alphabet writing.

More perspective was the syllabic understanding, first suggested in practice by philologist from Leningrad N.A. Konstantinov¹². To the thought that some Russian inscriptions were the examples of unknown pre-Cyrillic writing and that this writing has the syllabic but no alphabet nature (this writing has great signs repertoire) came in 1947 year E.M. Epstein¹³. This direction was gone on by N.A. Konstantinov who tried to read 7 Near Dnepr Inscriptions but not satisfactory. The investigators N.V. Engovatov¹⁴ and I.M. Figurovski¹⁵ have failed too.

First partly successful deciphers were made by G.S. Grinevitch¹⁶ which from 20 texts could read 3 texts so, that was determined their general sens, but absolutely truely he has read nothing. Being very inspired by the first victory, G.S. Grinevich has paied no attention to the fact that together with Slavic inscriptions he did try to read Germany, Turkey, Hungary-Finn texts as the Slavic ones. Later he has lost the feeling of measure and has decided that all the non deciphered up to now kinds of writing were to be the Slavic ones, as for example the Linear A and the writing of the Phaistos Disc, Etruscan writing, the writing of Harappa and Mohendjo Daro and so on. I suppose that instead of conviction the epigraphists in the reality of his chosen way he rather hurt the confidence to his deciphered texts in the eyes of the true scholars.