gla goli tic

8/12/2019 Gla Goli Tic

1/19

99

Pavel Serafimov

HE ORIGINOF HE GLAGOLIIC ALPHABE

AbstractNew acts revealing the phonetic and graphic similarities o 20 Glagolitic letters with 20graphemes rom Linear A script, and 23 Glagolitic letters with 23 graphemes rom LinearB script, and graphic similarities o additional 13 Glagolitic letters with 13 graphemes rom

Linear A, and 9 Glagolitic letters with 9 graphemes rom Linear B, push back the beginningo the creation o Glagolitic alphabet rom 9 thCentury AD to approx. 18thCentury BC. Teresemblance o Glagolitic letters to Venetic symbols o 5thCentury BC and Scytho-Sarmatianrunes o 1st-3rdCentury AD shows the transition between the Linear scripts o 2ndmillenniumBC and the Medieval Slavic alphabet. Evidence is presented that the sacred Slavic script andthe archaic writing system o the Aegean region have their common roots in the Neolithicscript o the Balkans ancient Slavic lands.

Introduction

Tere arent many societies, which have independently developed their own alphabetperfectly suitable for the peculiarities of their speech. Highly developed cultures, i.e. Greeksand Romans, had to adopt their writing systems rom earlier literate traditions.

Putatively, the first Slavic alphabet Glagolitsa is considered to be invented andintroduced in the 9thCentury AD. In act there are many theories about the origin andthe age of the Glagolitic alphabet. I. aylor and V. Jagi claimed that Glagolitic was derivedrom some kind o cursive Greek alphabet rom 9 thCentury AD, while V. Vondrak, R.Nahtigal, F. Fortunatov and others suggested that Cyril took his inspiration rom Orientalscripts: Hebrew, Samaritan and Coptic. Quite different was the opinion of G. ernohvostov,

whose theory was presented posthumously by V. Kiparsky. According to ernohvostovGlagolitic script represents important Christian symbols: the cross in character A(a);the circle - symbol o Gods eternity in characters O, U, M, T, L(o, u, m, t, l);thetriangle symbol o the Holy rinity in character Y(jat) [1] p. 35-36.

Te opinions about the age differ as well. According to J. Dobrovsky, Glagolitic alphabetwas created in 13thCentury AD, i.e. centuries afer the Cyrilic alphabet was already in use.J. Kopitar disagreed and pointed out that the rounded Glagolitic script is older than thestraight Croatian version, afer which Dobrovsky recanted his view [1] p. 33.


2/19

100

FactsAn alphabet is something o complex and none o the scripts o different peoples had

remained unchanged since the time o their creation. Some characters were changed in

orm, others ell out o use, with time new characters were added and some were adoptedfrom other alphabets. Description of this process we find in the work of the Old Bulgarianwriter C. Hrabar O pismenah(About the characters) [2].

Te suggestion that Greek script might have influenced Glagolitic the sacred Slavicscript is tempting, because Cyril, to whom the creation o the Glagolitic alphabet wasattributed was born in Tessalonica, Greece. Tere are also 8 characters o the 9thCenturyAD Greek cursive script, which was introduced gradually in Greece during the 9thC. ADafer the uncial script was used or official documents and correspondence, which showsome resemblance to their Glagolitic counterparts o the same time. Tese are , , , ,

, , , and (delta, gamma, omega, epsilon, rho, omikron, theta and phi).Also ew Hebrew characters: , , , , (a, b, p, r, ) showsome similarity with

their Glagolitic counterparts. Te other oriental scripts do not offer any significant matches.Coptic characters S, q,} (shei, hori, ti) show resemblance with Glagolitic ], H,1(t, h,a) and Samaritan characters , , (, r, m)couldresemble Glagolitic [, R, ](, r,t), (able 2).

Discussion

Te Glagoliticandare undoubtedly of Greek origin. Greek character resemblesthe Glagoliticgbut that does not mean that Slavs took it rom the Greeks. Glagolitic gresembles much more closely a runic character rom Old Great Bulgaria (able. 1). TeGlagolitic (g) differs rom O. Blg. -like character only by its angle towards the base,which could be just a stylistic peculiarity caused by the development. Both, Glagolitic andO. Blg. runic character have equal curls (shoulders twisted equally in shape) while Greekhas only one strong curled shoulder.

Te shape o Greek is like that o the Glagolitic R (r), but the Slavic character isturned up side down and in such a way it resembles much more the ra o the ancient

Linear scripts.Greek looks like a hal o the Glagolitic (d), but again the ancient Linear scripts

offer far better match dwo. If Glagoliticwould be derived from the Greek , why therewould not be simply used the latter?

Greek resembles more Cyrilic othan the Glagolitic O.So rom all the similar characters between Greek and Glagolitic alphabet only the

Glagoliticandcan be accepted with certainty as loaned from the Greek alphabet andtwo characters can hardly be called an inspiration or the whole alphabet.

Lets also not orget that there is a significant difference between Greek cursive script

and Glagolitic. Babi promulgates the fact that Glagolitic is built with capital characters (justlike Linear A and Linear B ) while the cursive Greek alphabet uses lower case characters[1] p. 35.


3/19

101

Tere is another important act, opposing the claim o aylor and Jagi. Te landsbetween Northern Caucasus and the east shores o Black Sea were known as Old GreatBulgaria [4] p. 47-48. In that region, occupied in the past by Scythian, Sarmatian and

Tracian tribes are ound ancient runic characters, resembling Glagolitic characters,

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ( v, g, d, e,, dz, i, l, m, n, s, u, o, t, c, , , , , en, on, jon and iica).

Tese characters are dated to the 1st 3rd Century AD. [5]. I have to admit thatalthough resembling strongly the Glagolitic characters, nothing guarantees that the runiccharacters had the same phonetic value as their Glagolitic counterparts in able 1. InSouthern Bulgaria similar characters were ound on a sword dated to the 1 st-2ndCenturyAD [6] pp. 48-59. (Tis date could deviate considerably from the real age of the runic script,the runes could be much older. o my knowledge the inscribed objects and others ound

in their vicinity were never dated with the help o the C-14 method, but only tentatively.Te conclusions o the scientists were based on the accepted date o the appearance oSarmatians in Bulgarian lands around 1stC. BC. Archaeological finds and historical sourcescontradicting this date were ignored (Sarmatians were called members o the great Geticamily, inhabiting Trace since deep antiquity; same Getae, who were called Slavs in 6thC.AD). Nobody has addressed this serious chronological problem. Old Bulgarian artiactsincluding deer horns with inscriptions are similar to those rom the Old Venetic lands.Bulgarian objects were dated to 7thC. AD, while the Venetic ones are rom 5 thC. BC. Tegap is about 1200 years, but the runes are identical to the Venetic characters. Tis means

that there was cultural connection between Veneti and Old Bulgarians beore the ancientcharacters went out o use in the Venentic script in the 1 stC. BC. Evidence or the culturalconnection is the act that in the earliest sources Bulgarians were called WNRI [7]p.21, which I see as Weneteri Venetic tribe. But Bulgarian scientists interpret WNRIas Hunogunduri ignoring the anthropological research o M. Popov, who showed thatundoubtedly Bulgarians are anthropologically Slavs, not Asian people.

able 1 represents a comparison between Scytho-Sarmatian runes o 1 st 3rdCenturyAD and the Glagolitic characters o 9thCentury AD.

Concerning the suggestion of Chernohostov that Glagolitic characters represents

Christian symbols it appears improbable simply because, as already mentioned, manyo these characters (at least 23) were in use by the Old Bulgarian tribes many centuriesbeore the acceptance o Christianity as state religion by the Old Slavs. Tere is however apossibility that some Glagolitic characters were pre-Christian religious symbols. Te crossand the circle are indisputably ancient solar symbols.

About the suggestion o Vondrak, Nahtigal and Fortunatov that Oriental scripts hadinfluence on the Glagolitic script, it looks acceptable at the first glance, because afer allthere is historical source testiying that Cyril visited the Khazars [1] p.15, who belongedto Judaism at that moment o time.

As already said ew Hebrew characters (a, b, p, r, )show some similarity with theirGlagolitic counterparts. However, i we compare Hebrew - a, - b, ,- p - r, and -

to the Glagolitic1, B, P, R, [(a, b, p, r, )and to the characters o Linear scripts o the


4/19

102

Aegean region we see that the resemblance o Glagolitic characters to those o the LinearA and Linear B is much closer than to the Hebrew characters (able 2).

As mentioned above the other oriental scripts do not offer any significant amount oclose matches. Coptic characters S, q,} (shei, hori, ti) show resemblance with Glagolitic, , (t, h, a)and Samaritan characters , r, m resemble Glagolitic , , (, r, t),(able 2).

Te Linear A and Linear B counterparts o Glagolitic characters ( - nr 30), ( - nr 31), (ON - nr 37), and (JON - nr 38) are in act ligatures o different Linear

characters (the Glagolitic characters , , , (, , ON, JON) themselves areligatures too). Te ligatures were quite common in the Linear A and Linear B inscriptions.Examples can be seen in Fig. 1.

G. s. v. sound value o the Glagolitic characterR Scytho-Sarmatian RunesSlL Slavic Latinic

G. Glagolitic characterSlC Slavic CyrillicL Latin character

* characters 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23 are rom the work o S. Rjabchikov [5], the rest is derived romthe work o I.. anev and M.Minkova [6].

able 1. Comparative table o Glagolitic characters and Scytho-Sarmatian runes


5/19

103

sv sound valueG Glagolitic characterGr Greek cursive characterLA -Linear A character

able 2.Comparison between Glagolitic, Greek, Linear A, Linear B, Hebrew, Coptic and Samaritanalphabet.

SlC Slavic CyrillicSlL Slavic LatinicL-Latin character

LB Linear B characterHeb Hebrew characterCop - Coptic characterSa - Samaritan character

Fig. 1. Ligatures o Linear A characters [8], ables 1, 2, 3.


6/19

104

Summarizing, from able 2 we can notice that while Greek alphabet offers 8 charactersanalogous to Glagolitic, Hebrew 5, Coptic 5 and Samaritan 2, the Linear A has 33 andLinear B has 32 characters which matches in orm with the Glagolitic characters. Tat

shows convincingly which writing systems are most closely related to each other.Te possible answer to the similarities between Glagolitic, Greek, Hebrew, Samaritanand Coptic has to be sought in the deep past o the Balkans, in the 6 th- 4thmillenniumBC when Vina, Valci Dol, Karanovo, Gradenitsa and other related cultures flourished.Te creators o those cultures also spawned the first writing system in the world and thisseems to have influenced the Linear scripts of the Aegean and the Proto-Canaanic alphabet,rom which subsequently evolved Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic. Hebrew influencedSamaritan alphabet and Phoenician was the prototype o the Greek alphabet. In turn theGreek alphabet influenced the Coptic one [9].

Te migrations of people from Old Traco-Scythian lands to Crete, Levant and even Egypt(First Intermediate Period) in 3rdand 2ndmillennium BC is confirmed by the archaeology.Te distribution o peculiar types o pottery (linear/band pottery, corded pottery) and theappearance o new type o burial (with equine sacrifice), new type o house etc. are clearindication o the arrival o new population in Aegean Region, Levant and Northern Egyptduring the Early Bronze Age. J. Best connects those early migrations with the expansiono the Kurgan Culture [10]p. 49-51. Recent genetic research shows that certain geneticmarker (R 1), typical or the creators o the Kurgan Culture is currently ound among theSlavic population. Tis marker is present alsoamong the people in India and Western Asia

(Linear pottery appeared there in the late 3

rd

millennium BC, more than 3000 years aferits appearance in South-Eastern Europe), but is rare in Western Europe [11].It is logical that the migrants, who came from South-Eastern Europe to Aegean region

and Anatolia in 3rdand 2ndmillennium BC would bring with them also their writing systemand in this way would spread the knowledge o the script among many other people, whoin their turn would create their own alphabets, suited better or their own language. Incourse o time the differences between the script brought rom the Balkans and those oother writing systems derived rom it would become bigger and bigger, but neverthelesssome signs would retain certain similarity. For example the Linear B si corresponds in

orm to Glagolitic , Phoenician and Hebrew . Te Linear B racorresponds in ormto Glagolitic r, Phoenician rand Greek r. Te Linear B twe corresponds to Glagolitic t(tvrdo) and Canaanic t. And in turn, the Linear B si, ra, tworesemble very strongly thegraphemes rom the considerably older Vina script.

able 3 presents a comparison between the Neolithic script o the Balkans and theancient writing systems o the Aegean region. Tere we can see that there are 36 matchesbetween NSB (Neolithic Script o the Balkans) and Linear A, and 30 matches betweenNSB and Linear B.

Although there are more than 5 thousand years between the Neolithic script o the

Balkans and the Glagolitic variant o 9th

Century AD, there still can be seen commoneatures between the two systems. Tese matches have also counterparts in the Linearscripts (able 4).


7/19

105

My suggestion is that the ancient writing system of the Balkans was the inspirationalsource of many alphabets and this is confirmed by several other researchers. R. Pei, whoanalysed the Neolithic writing system of the Balkans noticed well that Phoenician alphabetshared 10 characters with the much older Vina script[14] p. 513. It is quite logical to acceptthat the people who have inspired Phoenician alphabet must have come from the Balkans. Inthe recent years increasing number of scientists admitted that Cadmean myth belongs moreproperly to Paleo-Balkan cultures than to the Orient [15] p. 60. Diodorus Siculus, cited byG. Sotirov [16], confirms that Pelasgians were the first, who used the Cadmean letters.

Another scientist, V. Georgiev, who was analysing the Neolithic seal rom Karanovo,

ound out that 8 characters rom this ancient arteact show similarity with 8 characters othe Cretan hieroglyphic script. Georgiev noticed also that 6 characters rom Gradenitsatablet resembled other 6 characters o the earliest Cretan writing system [17] p. 157.

Table 3. Comparison between Neolithicscript o the Balkans and the Linear scriptso the Aegean region

NSB Neolithic script of the Balkans[12,13]LA Linear A characterLB Linear B character.


8/19

106

Because Gradenitsa and Karanovo scripts are significantly older than the earliestCretan script, it can be concluded that the Neolithic cultures of the Balkans have influenced

the ancient Minoan writing.According to V. Georgiev, the cultures o Vina, Karanovo and others related to themwere created by the Tracians and Pelasgians [17] p. 192 and exactly these Tracians andPelasgians were among the creators o the Minoan culture, according to Hrozny[18] pp.219, 220. It should not be orgotten that, according to Herm [19] p. 61, Tracians andPelasgians had become part o the Phoenician ethnos: an amalgam o Sea People andnative population o Canaan.

From archaeological point of view the migration of Traco-Pelasgians into the Aegeanregion (and Asia Minor) can be evidenced by theso called band ceramics, which in Crete

is represented by the polychromatic pottery o Camaros with spiral decorations, showingtransition rom geometrical motives to motives taken rom nature [18] pp. 219, 220.Vessels with such motives are present on Crete rom around 20 th-19thCentury BC but onthe Balkans they were in use as early as 5thmillennium BC [20] (objects 11 and 12).

Tracians and Pelasgians belonged to the same great ethnos. According to the ancienttradition the oldest inhabitants o South-Eastern Europe - Pelasgians were divided into3 main groups: Illyrians (Veneti belonged to this branch) - living rom Epirus up to the river Po, Tracians possessing the lands between Aegean Sea and the Carpathian mountains

and ClassicalPelasgians inhabiting Crete, parts o Asia Minor and continental Greece

[21] pp. 23-24.

able 4.Comparison o Neolithic script o the Balkans,Linear A and Linear B characters and the Glagolitic

characters P, R,[, 1, c,Y, E(P, R, , A, C, , E)

N.S.B. Neolithic script o the BalkansLA Linear A characterLB Linear B character;G. Glagolitic character.


9/19

107

able 5. Comparison o the sound value o the Glagolitic characters and the sound value o LinearA and Linear B characters

GlagoliticLinear ANo. - the sound value [8]

Linear BNo. - the sound value [8]

1 A 29 - A 21 - A2 B 35 - B(?) 62 - B3 V * - # 8 - WA4 G5 D 63 * - DWO6 E 1 - E 1 - E7 36 - Z0 24 - ZO8 DZ 28 - JA 52 - JA9 Z 38 - ZE 16 - ZE10 I 30 - I 45 - I

11 I 37 - KI 15 - KI12 G, J13 K 41 - KU 32 - KU14 L15 M 95 - MA 51 - MA16 N 76 - NE * - NE17 O 52 - O 27 - O18 P 75 - PO 38 - PO19 R 45 - RA 54 - RA20 S 37 - KI 15 - KI.

21 97 A * - WE22 U23 F24 H 43 - U 19 - U25 O 49 - QE 63 - QE26 12 - SE 13 - SE27 C 42 - MI 34 - MI28 SI 41 - SI29 * - #30 * - # 64- AI

31 Y * - I 45 - I, 64- AI32 50 - #, 29 - I 4 - #33 , JA 3 - WI 9 - WI34 JU 36 JO35 EN 5 - # 64 - AI36 JEN * - E 1 - E, 64- AI37 ON 52 - O, 1 - E 27 - O, 1 - E38 JON 36 - ZA, 1 - E 24 - ZA, 1 - E39 IICA 15 - QA 10 - QA40 H

* not numbered character;# sound value not determined(?) disputed sound value64- Chadwicks numeration and sound value


10/19

108

Because in the Late Antiquity the Tracians were equated with the Slavs [4] p. 14,it is quite logical to assume that Pelasgians and Illyrians kin o the Tracians can beconsidered as Slavic branches too.

Having all this in mind I decided to make a detailed comparison o the Glagoliticalphabet with Linear A and Linear B script. When I did it I noticed that 33 charactersrom Linear A script had surprising similarity in orm with 33 characters o the Glagoliticalphabet(able 2). able 5 represents a sound value comparison between Glagolitic, Linear

A and Linear B languages.able 6 and able 7 show more clearly the phonetic and shape similarities betweenGlagolitic and the Linear A, B scripts. able 6 represents Glagolitic characters, which

able 6. Glagolitic characters similar in orm and sound value to Linear Aand Linear B characters

G Glagolitic characterGsv - Glagolitic character sound valueLasv - Linear A character sound value

LA Linear A characterLBsv- Linear B character sound valueLB Linear B character


11/19

109

have similarities in orm and phonetic value to the Linear A and Linear B, while able 7represents Glagolitic characters similar to characters rom Linear A and Linear B in orm,

but differing in phonetic value.Afer discovering that 20 Linear A character and 23 Linear B characters are similarto Glagolitic characters not only in orm, but also in sound value, the comparison wasmade with the Old Bulgarian Runic system. Tere can be seen that all the 13 charactersrom the Pliska rosette (attributed to the Old Bulgarians) are amazingly close in orm to13 characters of Linear A. Linear B offers also 13 matches with the runic script from Pliska(two Bulgarian runes resemble Glagolitic characters , (t and ), (able 8).

Except Pliska rosette there are other Old Bulgarian runes having matches in the LinearScripts, able 9.

Te degree of form and phonetic similarity between Glagolitic and Linear A and B is toohigh to be a coincidence, although there are some phonetic deviations, for example: LinearB JOand Glagolitic JU;Linear B JEand Glagolitic . Tese deviations can be explained

Table 7. Glagolitic characters similar in form toLinear A and Linear B characters, but differing insound value

G Glagolitic characterGsv. Glagolitic character sound valueLAsv Linear A character sound valueLA Linear A characterLBsv Linear B character sound value

LB Linear B character* the character has not determined soundvalue Remark: Glagolitic characters ,,,F,(g, g, l, f, th)do not have any match in the Linearscripts; neither in orm, nor in sound value.


12/19

110

Table 8. Comparison of Pliska runes toLinear scripts o the Aegean region

P runes rom Pliska rosetteLA Linear A characterLB - Linear B character.

able 9. Comparison o the orm oOld Bulgarian runes and Linear scriptso the Aegean Region

BR Old Bulgarian runesLA Linear A charactersLB Linear B characters.


13/19

111

by the huge time gap - aprox. 2500 years between the Linear scripts and Glagolitic of 9thC.AD. No one can expect that the Slavic phonetics o 9thCentury AD would be exactly thesame as the Slavic phonetics o almost three millennia earlier. In such a long time changesoccurred in any language.

Despite the slight (or such big time gap) differences, Glagolitic script shows much

greater resemblance to Linear A and Linear B than the so-called Linear C (also knownas Minoan Cypriotic) to Linear A and Linear B. 20 Linear A characters and 23 Linear Bcharacters are similar to Glagolitic characters in orm and sound value, while Linear Chas only 9 characters similar in orm and sound to Linear A characters the script, romwhich Linear C originated [22] p. 54, Fig. 34 ( c. able 10).

Because Glagolitic, as well as the runic script o the Old Bulgarians and that o theScytho-Sarmatians, show amazing closeness to the ancient writing system o the Aegeanregion the only logical conclusion is that Glagolitic is undoubtedly related to the Linear Aand B, created by the Traco-Pelasgians (Ancient Slavs) in the 2ndmillennium BC, which,

on its turn, was derived rom the much older Neolithic script o the Balkans (able 3,able 4).But although the similarity and the relation o Glagolitic and Old Bulgarian runes

able 10. Comparison o Cyrpiotic ( Linear C) characterswith similar ones (in from and sound value) from Linear Aand Linear C - Cypriotic script rom the Minoan period

Cypr Linear C characterCsv Linear C character sound valueLasv - Linear A character sound valueLA Linear A character.


14/19

112

with the Linear A and B can not be denied, there remains a quite serious problem to beexplored there is not an attested continuation between Linear scripts o Crete (18 th-12thCentury BC), Scytho-Sarmatian runes (1st 2ndCentury AD) and Old Bulgarian runic

system (4

th

-8

th

Century AD). Te gap is more than 1200 years, and in this period are noattested (at least until now) documents, written with (Proto) Glagolitic characters.Tat chronological problem can be explained readily by the nature of the materials on

which the inscriptions were made. In fact the Linear A and Linear B tablets were preservedtill modern times only by pure chance. Tey were made of unbaked clay, and only becausethey were exposed to unintentional flames they were fire-hardened. Tis new conditionallowed them to survive through the ages. Actually the majority of documents written withLinear scripts were not meant to last long, perhaps only one year, or two [22] p. 33.

I the ancient Slavs used also perishable materials (or example wood, bark, and/or

animal hides) it is quite normal that the oldest documents have not survived. Only romthe moment when stones and metal objects were inscribed did literacy become preservedor ages.

According to Chadwick the Linear B characters were to be written with the help obrush and ink (paint) [23] p. 27. Judging by their elegant rounded orm it is not hard torecognise that Glagolitic also was intended to be written with pen or brush on smoothmaterial such as animal hide.

We know about the use of animal hides in the distant past from Herodotus. He testifiesthat in the antiquity goat and sheep hides were used to write on and this material was still

in use (5

th

Century BC) in the non-Greek lands [24] V-59. Te ather o the history didntspeciy which exactly were those non-Greek countries, but we know that the neighbors othe Hellenes were the Tracians, Pelasgians and Macedonians.

Te ancient Slavs (called Tracians in the antiquity according to Simokatta cited bysenov [4] p.16) above the Haemus Mountain were cattle breeders. For such people theanimal hides wouldnt be expensive material. On the contrary they would be the mostpractical and cheap material for writing. But as already mentioned, this material is perishableand nothing has survived. Similar example can be given with the wooden books o theHittites. None o those books has survived the ages, because o its perishable nature [25]

p. 128, while the stone and metal objects inscribed with Hittite hieroglyphs withstood thedestructive influence o rain, sun, wind and even fire.Te temporary endurance o the animal hides didnt trouble our ancestors because

the validity o the documents was short (ew years) and afer this period the documentso administrative character would be destroyed anyway (burned) by the owners (Justlike Mycenaeans did with most o their records [22], p. 33). With the coming o theChristianity the situation changed, the religious texts were regarded as sacred and werecareully preserved.

Another reason for the absence of Glagolitic documents between the 12thCentury BC

and 1st

Century AD could be the insufficient search. At the beginning o the 20th

Centurynobody had suspected that in Bulgarian soil there would be ound 6000 years old objectslike Karanovo seal and Gradenitsa tablet. Neither had anyone thought that on the Bulgarian


15/19

113

territory there would exist examples o Linear scripts. But in the second hal o the 20 thCentury objects inscribed with Linear A [26] and Linear B script [27] p. 3 were ound indifferent places in Bulgaria. In 2006 the archaeologists Ovcharov found a tablet with script

7000 years old [28] p. 15.It is very hard to determine when exactly the proto-Glagolitic writing system was created.Judging by the fact that Glagolitic of 9thCentury AD has the most matches with Linear B, itcan be said that the most ancient orm o Glagolitic script began to emerge around 18-16thCentury BC and was urther developed through the ages by various Slavic tribes.

I around 15th Century BC the Old Slavs rom South-Eastern Europe used proto-Glagolitic characters, they were probably syllabic just like those from Linear A and Linear B.In later times the writing system was developed and the characters, instead of representingsyllables as in the proto-Glagolitic, assumed the value o single sounds. Such a process is

explained very well by Chudinov [29] p. 500.Afer the ascendancy o the Greeks and Romans in the lands between Danube andAegean Sea the ancient script could be maintained only in the territories between Danubeand Caucasus, inhabited by Sarmatians, Scythians and Tracians (Sinti and Meoti lived in1stCentury AD on the eastern shores o the Black Sea).

Te journey of Cyril to the Pontic steppes (dominated in his time by the Khazars) wouldallow him to come in contact with the Glagolitic-like runes and most probably those runesbecome the inspirational source for the Glagolitic. Before that moment Cyril couldnt haveknown about the existence o script resembling Scytho-Sarmatian runes (like the ancient

Aegean Linear scripts), because to the best o our knowledge the Greek scholars o 9

th

Century AD were not aware o the Minoan and Mycenaean writing system.Te reason or Cyril to choose the writing system o the Sarmatians, Scythians and

Northern Tracians was perhaps because their speech was closest to that o the Slavsaround Tessalonica. We know that the Tracian tribes Sinti inhabited Southern Traceand Aegean region in antiquity [30] (VII ragment 36, 45, 45 a), but another branch oSinti occupied the eastern shore o the Black Sea [23]-IV-28, (that region was ruled by theKhazars in the 9thCentury AD). Except the Sinti also Moesians (equated numerous timeswith Old Bulgarians) occupied different territories: Asia Minor, Northern Bulgaria and

Southern Rumania. It is said that Alexander the Great had deeated Moesians and orcedthem to migrate northwards [31] ( Homatian, cited by Zhivkov).Because o its isolation (ar rom Greeks and Romans) the language o these ancient

Slavs (who lived northwards o river Danube) would have remained less contaminated.Te isolation would have allowed them to preserve also the archaic script, which afer along development was well adjusted to the peculiarities o the Slavic speech. Cyril wouldhave needed only to perect this writing system so that it would be useul to all the Slavs.Tanks to his high education and travels in the lands occupied by Slavs, Cyril would havethe acumen, which would allow him to orge a common Slavic script having an ancient

tradition.Present explanation o the origin o the Glagolitic alphabet is quite different rom thatcreated by aylor and his contemporaries, because in the time they finished their research


16/19

114

(aylor 1880, Jagi 1884, Vondrak 1893, Fortunatov 1890) the Aegean scripts werestill not yet systematized and deciphered. Te sound value o the Linear B signs becameknown at the end o the 1950s and beginning o the 1960s. Te 20th Century writers

Nahtigal (1941) and Kiparsky (1964) were not specialized in Aegean scripts and couldnthave known about the orm and sound value similarity between the Linear scripts andGlagolitsa. Te authors, who studied the Glagolitic script were ignorant o many other

very important acts:

1. Tat Scytho-Sarmatian runes of 1st-3rdCentury AD resemble very much the Glagoliticletters [6] p. 48-59. Tat inormation became available in the 21stCentury (2006).

2. Tat in deep antiquity the Greeks considered Scythians and Sarmatians one ethnos[32] II, 2.1-2 and Procopius testifies that Sarmatians were a branch o great amily oTracian Getae [33] III, II, 2-8, who were identified as Slavs (senov [4] p. 14, citing

Simokatta)3. Tat Sarmatians had the same anthropological base as the Old Bulgarians [7] p. 50. andthe same Bulgarians were defined as belonging to the Slavic ethos by anthropologistsin the 1930s [34] p. 170.

4. Tat Scythians were considered as ancient Slavs or centuries by the scientists o thesarist Russia [35] p. 154. (Unortunately afer the October Revolution these workswere suppressed).

5. Tat Traco-Pelasgians had their own script long beore the rojan War (D. Siculus,cited in [16]).

6. Tat Linear scripts of the Aegean region were influenced by the Neolithic script of theBalkans, able 3.7. Tat the Traco-Pelasgians were creators o the Minoan culture [18] p. 219.8. Tat Tracian personal names and theonyms are ound in Linear A and Linear B

inscriptions. [15] p. 17-21, not to orget the ethnonym ENEIJO [36] p. 543.9. Tat the people, who in the deep antiquity migrated to Crete must have come with

large dug-out canoes (similar to those used by the modern Macedonians at lake Prespa)[37] p. 91.

10. Tat in the Neolithic times such dug-out canoes were in use in the territories o the

Venetic people, who inhabited the region between the Alps and the Adriatic sea. [38]p. 79.

11. Tat the Slavic Macedonians are genetically closer to the Cretans than the Greeks [39]12. Tat in the Old Venetic lands (Padua) Glagolitic-like signs existed in 5thCentury BC

as can be seen rom a Venetic inscription PA 28. (Te sign resembles the Glagoliticletter (ivot) [40]. Also signs rom Villa Nova pottery [14] p. 57 resemble Linear Asigns [8], able 3.

And last, but not least the linguistics proves about the ancient Slavic migration. In the

beginning of the 20thCentury, R. J. Conway discovered interesting parallels between Veneticand Eteo-Cretan language[41] p. 125. Hrozny discovered connections between the Cretantoponyms and toponyms from the lands of the Traco-Pelasgians as well [18] p. 219-220.


17/19

115

Not being aware o so many important details, the scientists who studied Glagolitsain the19thand 20thCentury based their claims on insufficient and very limited data, thatis why they ailed to discover the true origin o the Glagolitic alphabet.

ConclusionsTe resemblance of 33 Linear A characters (20 in form and sound, 13 only in form) and

the resemblance of 32 Linear B characters (23 in form and sound and 9 only in form) withcharacters from the Glagolitic script is not just a remarkable coincidence, but one of themany pieces of information, which are confirmations for the presence of the Slavic people inSouth-Eastern Europe in the deep antiquity. Although driven out of their lands, those OldSlavs retained their script and even developed it in the new abodes further in the North(the lands between east shore of Black Sea and Caucasus), away from their adversaries.

Te creation o the Glagolitic alphabet in the Middle Ages was only a rewriting, akind o renaissance. Most probably Cyril choose the runic script o the North Traciantribes because their speech was preserved unspoiled by oreign influences.

Hopeully, urther research will provide us with more data about the real age o theGlagolitic alphabet. Ancient manuscripts, or artiacts inscribed with Glagolitic characterswould show the developing of that peculiar Slavic script. Good hope gives us the discoveryo the so called Copper Book, inscribed with signs rom different ages: Vinca, Linear A,Glagolitsa [42]. Tis peculiar object is with certainty not the only one, which will be found

in the Slavic lands.What we have today isnt little. We have not the whole story, but even the fragments areconvincing testimony or the high level o the culture o our ancestors the Old Slavs.

Acknowledgement

Im very thankul to Pro. Dr. A. Perdih, who guided me through all the difficult moments duringcreating this paper. I wish to express my appreciations to the reviewers for their constructive criticismand good advices. Im also thankul to Emma or her unconditional support, to Iva and Dimiter,who helped me to find important historical sources.

Reerences1. V Babi, Ubenik stare cerkene slovanine, Filozoska akulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Oddelek za

slovenistiko, Ljubljana 2003, pp 33-362. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernorizets_Hrabar - Aug. 20073. H Lunt, Old Church Slavonic grammar, Mouton & Co., Printers, Te Hague, 1996, p. 164. G senov, Praotechestvoto i praezika na Bulgarite,Heliopol, Sofia, 2005, p.p. 47-48 (. ,

, , , 2005)5. S Rjabchikov, Preliminary report on the Proto-Slavonic writing system: http:/www.public.kubsu.

ru/~usr02898/sl27.htm - Aug. 2007

6. I Ivanov. M Minkova (ed. I. Karajotov), Ortografichna analogija mezdu glagolicheskite bukvi isarmatskite runi, po materiali ot mogilata Roshavata Dragana, mestnosta Chatalka, Starozagorsko,Izvestija na muzeite ot Jugoiztochna Bulgaria, Burgas, 2006, p. 48-59


18/19

116

7. G Bakalov, P Delev, A Stamatov, A Fol, Podbrani Izvori za Bulgarskata Istoria, angra, anNakRa,Sofia, 2002, p. 50 ( , , , , , , , , 2002), p.21, p.50

8. Inscriptions in the Minoan LinearScript o Class A(ed. W C Brice, rom the notes o A Evans

and J Myres), Oxord University Press, London, 19619. http://proel.org/alabetos/copto.html - Aug. 200710. S von Reden, J Best, Au der Spur der ersten Griechen, Woher kamen die Mycener?, DuMont

Buchverlag, Kln, 1981, p.p. 49-5111. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypthesis#Genetics12. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/vinca.htm -date o last insight- Oct. 200713. http://www.prehistory.it/fp/winn.htm -date o last insight- Oct. 200714. J avli, M Bor, I omai, Veneti First Builders of European Community, Editiones Veneti, Wien,

1996, p. 51315. K Porozhanov, Obshtestvo i darzhavnost u trakite, Studia Tracica 6, BAN, Sofia, 1996 (K

, , 6, , , 1996)

16. http://www.ziezi.net/sotiroff.html#4 (re.nr.54) - Aug. 200717. V Georgiev, Trakite i tehnija ezik, BAN, Sofia, 1977, p.p. 157-192 ( ,

, , , 1977)18. B Hrozny,Ancient History o Western Asia, India andCrete, Artia, Prague, p.p. 219-22019. G Herm, Die Phenizier,Econ Verlag, Dsseldor, 1974, p. 6120.Muzei I Pametnitsi na Kulturata v Nova Zagora( katalogus), Meditsina i fizkultura, Sofia, 1983

(M , M , , 1983)21. V Duruy, Te World o the Legendary Greece, Leon Amiel Publ.Edition Minerva, Geneve, 1975,

p.p. 23-2422. J Chadwick, Linear B en verwante schrifen,Fibula/Uniboek, Houten 1990, p.p. 33-54

23. J Chadwick, Te Mycenaean world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1976, p. 2724. Herodotus, Histories, Wordsworth Editions Limited, Hertordshire, 1996, V-5925. O R Gourney, Te Hittites, Richard Clay & Company, Ldt Bungay, Suffolk, 1964, p. 12826. http://www.croraina.com/thracia/ovchaorov/index.html -Aug. 200727. A Fol, K Jordanov, K Porozhanov, V Fol,Ancient Trace, Balkan Press, Sofia, 200028. J Dimitrova, Napipvat choveshko zhertvoprinoshenie varhu plocka s pismenost na7000 g., 24

Chasa (Bulgarian newspaper),4 Augustus, 2006, p. 15. ( a, 7000 . 24 , 4 , 2006 . 15)

29. V A udinov, Zagadki Slavjanskoi Pismenosti, VECHE, Moskva, 2002, p. 500 ( , , , , 2002)

30. Strabo, Geography VII, Harvard University Press, London, 1995, r. 36-45a

31. D Homatian, cited by E Zhivkov in: http://www.ziezi.net/sotiroff.html#8 -Aug. 200732. Strabo, Geography II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2000, II, 2.2-133. Procopius, History o the wars, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2000, II-2-534 G senov, Krovatova Bulgaria i pokrastvaneto naBulagrite,Zlaten Luv, Plovdiv, 1998, p. 140 (.

, , , , 1998)35. A L Mongait,Archaeology of USSR, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1961, p. 15436. J Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, p. 54337. R W Hutchinson, Prehistoric Crete, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1962, p. 9138. Steps into the Past Treasures from the archaeological collection of the National Museum of Slovenia.

p. 79.39. A Arnaiz-Villena, K Dimitroski, A Pacho, J Moscoso, E Gmez-Casado, C Silvera-Redondo,

P Varela, M.Blagoevska, V Zdravkovska, J Martn,HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin o the Greeks, issue Antigens 2001, 57, 118127; c.: http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pd


19/19

117

40. http://www.members.tripod.com/adolozavaroni/padua.htm41. R J Conway,Annual o the British School at Athens, year 1902, p. 12542. http://makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2003/sonce/451/ext08.htm

PovzetekIzvor glagolice

Glasovna in oblikovna podobnost 20 glagolskih rk z 20 znaki linearne pisave A (rtne pisave A)in 23 glagolskih rk s 23 znaki linearne pisave B (rtne pisave B), kot tudi oblikovna podobnostdodatnih 13 glagolskih rk s 13 znaki linearne pisave A (rtne pisave A) in 9 glagolskih rk z9 znaki linearne pisave B (rtne pisave B) pomenijo, da je treba prestaviti zaetek ustvarjanjaglagolskih znakov iz 9. stol. po Kr. v priblino 18. stol. pr. Kr. Podobnost glagolskih rk z

venetskimi rkami iz 5. stol. pr. Kr. in s scito-sarmatskimi runami iz 1. do 3. stol. po Kr.nakazuje prehod od rtnih pisav v 2. tisoletju pr. Kr. do srednjeveke slovanske pisave. akocerkvena slovanska pisava kot tudi stare pisave egejskega podroja imajo svoj skupni izvor vneolitski pisavi na Balkanu - v nekdanjih slovanskih podrojih.