The Szekler alphabet is given many different names, about which there are many debates which one should be used.
Usually it is given the name „ runic writing”, due to the alphabet being made up of runes. This name however is not proper enough if the Szekler alphabet is being differentiated from other similar alphabets, since runes were also used by other nations including Germans and Turks. Therefore this gives base to many missunderstandings and innacurate hypothesis and studies.
In the past two centuries the name that was most commonly used is the „ Szekler runic alphabet”. This way the alphabet can be uniquely identified.
The name of the „ Sumerian cuneiform” alphabet has similar origins, since it is also made up of the peoples' name who used it and the way the letters were written. The „ Sumerian cuneiform” alphabet only used the „arrowheaded characters”, however there are many different types of the „ Szekler runic alphabet”. The name „ Szekler runic alphabet” was given by scholars during the XIX.th and XX.th century, according to which it was only used by Szeklers. Based on the archeological evidences found in Pécs, Bodrog-Alsóbű and Sopronkőhida and other findings taken into account, this alphabet was not only used by Szeklers, but all the Magyars as a whole. However, referring to it as the „ Szekler runic alphabet” can be accepted, since the Szeklers were the ones who kept the alphabet alive and passed it on from generation to generation for centuries.
Naming the alphabet based on the way it was written, the tally is gratuitous, since this way of „writing” the runes is only one of the many ways it was written. During the XIX.th and XX.th century when the Szekler alphabet was givent its name, scholars only took into consideration the mentioning of runes in ancient Hungarian chronicles, but not metal, ceramic, and bone archeological evidences and other painted findings.
The „Szekler alphabet” is a more proper name given for this type of writing as a whole, since this is not based on any of the ways the letters were actually written during different ages. What could go against this is however the fact that based on the archeological evidences from the stone age, giving the „Szekler” name to the alphabet is anachronistic. Therefore, this can be avoided by simply referring to the findings from the stone age as the „pre-Szekler alphabet”.
Naming the alphabet „ancient Hungarian alphabet” indicates that it was used by all of the Hungarians (Magyars). For foreigners it is also easier to understand, similarly to names such as the „ancient Persian alphabet” or „Elamic scripts”. Based on historical records, this alphabet is never mentioned with a name that includes „Hungarian” in it. The exception that can be made is the IX.th century Constantin legend, which mentions the writing of Magyars and Avars, however it refers to these people as Turks. This evidence is however purposely left out from the Finno-Ugric historians' writings, since it would deny the preconception of finno-ugoric origin of Hungarians. From Contantinus Porphyrogenetus (Constantin the VII.th) who wrote around 950 A.D., we know that the Hungarians were also referred to as Sabir (Savartu Asfalu/ szavartü aszfalü) – therefore based on these earlier times, we could not be talking about „Hungarian writing”. Chronicles written centuries after, only refer to only the Szekler writing. Based on archeological evidences from the stone age, referring to the alphabet as Hungarian could also be anachronistic, however the „pre-Hungarian alphabet from the stone age” could be given.
János Thelegdi in his work titled Rudimenta written in 1589, mentions „Hun letters”. The writing also includes a prologue by János Baranyai Decsi, in which he refers to a „Scythian alphabet”. During those times, these were the so called traditional references to this type of writing. István Benczédi Székely in 1559 mentions the Szekler writing as „writing written in Hunnia”. Antal Verancsics (passed in 1573), Ferenc Otrokócsi Fóris (1693), Mátyás Bél (1718) and Ince Dezsericzky József (1749) all refer to the Szekler alphabet as Hun-Scythian writing. This is the oldest known name used for the alphabet. The rightful usage of „Hun-Scythian writing” can justified by the fact that Scythian and Hun findings can be read and understood with the Szekler alphabet. Therefore the usage of „Hun-Scythian writing” would appealing, however this way it would be harder to differentiate the Hun and Scythian findings from the Szekler ones.
The „Szekler runic alphabet” or the „Szekler alphabet” is the most reasonable name given. First and foremost is beacuse these are the names most commonly known and used. Also the fact that the name given should not have to follow the current academic standpoint and everyone of its approaches about the subject. It is enough, if the given name of the alphabet can uniquely differentiate it.
Under the wider reference of the Szekler alphabet the findings from the stone age and earlier times are also included which can be read with the Szekler runes (just like the findings of latin letters in Australia), and also folk evidences, symbols of reign, and religious artifacts. While refering to the Szekler writings during the different ages, it is important to differentiate them such as „pre stone-age szekler runes”, „Szekler runes and its similarities with Chinese writings” and so on.
The narrower refernce of the Szekler alphabet includes findings after the famous king of the Huns, Attila, and evidences to present times. In case we would really want to indicate that the Szekler alphabet mentioned is the one used after Attila, it is practical to call it the „classical Szekler alphabet”. This so called classical alphabet however can not be seperated and dicussed separately since these writings have a continous unity.
