Szarvas inscription

The Szarvas inscription refers to the inscription on a bone needle case found near Szarvas in southeastern Hungary and dating from the second half of the 8th century, the "Late Avar" period (700-791).

The name of the script of the Szarvas inscription
The Hungarian archeologist, historian and linguist Gábor Vékony named the script used on the needle case as "Kárpát-medencei rovásírás" ("Carpathian Basin Rovas script"). He often used this term in his book, A székely írás emlékei, kapcsolatai, története, e.g. in the chapter "A kárpát-medencei rovásábécé korabeli feljegyzése" ("The contemporary record of the Carpathian Basin Rovas alphabet").

Vékony analysed the similarities and the differences between the Old Hungarian and the Carpathian Basin scripts on page 154 of his book. On page 232, Vékony wrote: "- Aethicus Ister jelei azonosak az egykori Kárpát-medencei rovásírás jeleivel." ("The symbols of Aethicus Ister are identical to the symbols of the quondam Carpathian Basin script").

Vékony also writes : "E jel a Szarvason azonosított Kárpát-medencei f alig torzult megfelelője..." ("This symbol is identical to the Carpathian Basin 'f' identified in Szarvas". (referring to the bone needle case found in Szarvas)

In page 233, Vékony writes: "Erre utalhat az is, hogy ez a betűalak levezethető egy párthus alep formából. Feltehető tehát ennek a jelnek a megléte a Kárpát-medencei rovásírásban is (a székelybe is innen származhatott)." ("This could imply also that this glyph can be derived from the Parthian Aleph form. Consequently, the existence of this symbol can be supposed in the Carpathian Basin script as well (it could originate from this to the Székely)." Here the 'Szekely' refers to the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas script also known as Old Hungarian script. Vékony's writing suggests a proposal that a Carpathian Basin Rovas script may be one of the ancestors of the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas script.

The meaning of the inscription
Gábor Vékony's transcription was improved by linguist Erzsébet Zelliger. The last character of the fourth row of the inscription was reconstructed by Vékony. The edges of the bone needle case are worn, and the top and bottom edges for part of the characters are not clearly visible.

The following transcription is:
 * 1) image
 * 2) the International Phonetic Alphabet is based on Vékony's original transcription.
 * 3) Hungarian phonetic notation

Superscript segments and those in brackets are reconstructed.

/ynɡʸr {} ⁱsnɛk im ⁱʎ {} βᵃʃᵘ/

/üngür : ⁱsznek im ⁱly : βᵃsᵘ/

Here is an iron [needle] against demon Üngür;

/[t]ⁱɣ tᵉβɛdɣᵉn {} ⁱsᵉn {} tⁱɣ tⁱɣ sᵘr bᵉk βᵒrɣ/

/[t]ⁱɣ tëβᵉdγën : ⁱszën : tⁱɣ tⁱɣ szᵘr bëk βᵒrɣ/

[Needle should be pricked into the demon; needle, needle, stab, poke, sew-[in]!

/fɛʃɛs {} ɛlᵉi sɜl [...]/

/fᵉsᵉsz : ᵉlëi szɜl [...]/

[Who] unstitches [...];

/ʸnɡʸr nᵉ {} adɣᵒn {} [ɜzdɣ] imᵉsd ᵉɣt ɛn {} iʃtɛnɛ[m]/

/üngür në : adɣᵒn : [ɜzdɣ] imëszd ëɣt en : istᵉnᵉ[m]/

Üngür shall not give [curse]; [...], blast him, my God!

In the inscription, the third symbol of the third row (from left) could be considered a descendant of the ideograms in Turkic languages. However, their possible relationship needs further evidence.

Critics and alternative theories
Vékony had read the Szarvas transcription as Hungarian, thus proposing it as evidence that the Hungarian-speaking people had appeared in the region by the 7th century. There are several critics of Vékony's theories and translations, most notably the Hungarian linguist and historian, András Róna-Tas. The debates were summarized by István Riba in 1999 and 2000: "many find themselves unable to accept Vékony's theory".

The key point of the critics has been that in traditional Hungarian scholarship, the existence of the Hungarian-speaking population dates from 896 (when the Magyars took over the Carpathian Basin ), while the Szarvas needle case dates from the 8th century. Consequently, either the Szarvas inscription is not in Hungarian or Hungarians were in the Carpathian Basin much earlier than the late 9th century. Róna-Tas attempted to read the Szarvas relic in Turkic instead of Hungarian, but wrote that his transcription needed further improvement. The issue remains an open question amongst Hungarian scholars.