EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish

MULTIMEDIA ENG.


MULTIMEDIA ES.


Website News

Even hungarian scientists don't really know the origins of the hungarian language, there are a lots of contradictions and misunderstandings. The commonly accepted theory is, that we came from the east of the ural mountains, during a long exodus, and the language is originated there.
Some people say, the old hungarian writing system is similar to the sumerian. More than 55% of the words of the three languages are identical or very similar. The connection to Sumeria is denied in all but fringe publications. 

This was the official alphabet before the founding of the hungarian state, but then it was abandoned for the western latin alphabet, and all documents written with the old one have been burned.

We know about people, who even tell, that the hungarians came from Sirius, but this everyone can decide it for yourselves: 

Padányi guides out the Sumerians from Mesopotamia after the Kassite rule and forces them for a long wandering. Accordingly the former city dwellers have turned to be herding horses on steppe areas and basically the horse-riding cultures are their descendants. He derives the people of the Altai Mountains also from the Sumerian descendents and guides them in a couple of hypothetical steps as refugees from the Persian conquest into the marshes of Meotis, i.e. to the north from the Caucasus close to the Sea of Azov. From this point the story goes straight according to the story of Hunor and Magor, i.e. according to the Hungarian Chronicles, and the people of Árpád are formed from the people of the Sumerian descendents.

Bobula has another ‘solution’ of this genealogy. First she guides only the Sumerian high priests, the so-called magi on the Hurrian territory then into Persia, where we can meet them as high priest of the Zoroastroism. The magi then turn to be the high priest of the Scythian territory and later as the táltos or shamans, i.e. the high priest of people of Árpád will come into the Carpathian Basin as Hungarian speaking intellectuals.
Imre has another solution. He starts from the conception of Katz. Accordingly both the Hungarians and the Sumerians have originally lived in the recent Afghanistan before the end of the Würm and have separated in the 10th or 11th millennia bp bringing the agriculture and the sheep herding as their common source. The two nations wandered later on partly to Egypt, then to the south forming the Kushite Empire, then again back to Mesopotamia forming the Kassites, leaving behind the Hurrians. The other branch has wandered to the northwest forming the Pelasgians, the ancestors of the Greeks. Later they wandered back to the steppe and formed all the Turkish nations and at the end came back among the Carpathian forming the Hungarian nation and language.

The details could be extended into thousands of pages. These conceptions have only one common sense: the language having the closest relationship to the Sumerian is Hungarian. The second common sense is that these authors try to form a chain of cultural superiority from all of Eurasia showing that the bearer of this cultural superiority has always been connected to Sumer and to the Sumerian people. Their concept can be described in a very short form as the Sumerians, Scythians, Medians, Huns, Avars and Hungarians are all one and the same intellectually high standing people all over Eurasia. The essence of this conception has been compiled by Götz112 that finally all Eurasian cultures are derivatives of the Sumerian and whole Europe can be regarded as descendants of the Sumerian colonialists. I will return to this question in later chapters a couple of times, because neither archeological evidences, neither cultural analysis, nor ethnical background supports these concepts.

It is obvious that both of the two contradicting concepts contain some parts of the truth, but non-of them can be accepted as overwhelming and final truth. Padányi commits besides the real facts and true statements a number of rough errors in his work, which I will show below. These errors do not differ in their bases from those errors that he criticizes – with full right. He has, however, also strong prejudice, like those sources that he criticizes due to their prejudging way of data handling. Götz accepts, that the Hungarian language has some Finno-Ugric connections, he also accept the existence of a former Finno-Ugric nation and its history – as at the end it comes out also from Padányi –, but he denies that the Hungarians were ethnically Finno-Ugric. He and Padányi both put the Hungarians much above the Finno-Ugric nations, the Hungarian culture of their culture and derive the Hungarian culture back to the Sumerian. These Sumerians have left their homeland and were dispersed all over Eurasia. As a supporting set of data Sándor Nagy113 derives the names of the localities, rivers, lakes, water conducts and generally the geographical sites of the Hungarian Kingdom also from supposed to be Sumerian words. E.g. all name of the rivers and lakes are derived from the word bő víz with the literal meaning of plentiful of water. However he leads back the tonality of these words to the most ancient Sumerian forms, which is highly unsure, as the ancient Sumerian languages have been written by pictures and not by logograms. What are his sources? We do not know, as he did not give proper references.
He does not give historical background either, he states only that these words must have come from the Sumerian refugees escaped from Sumer in the time of Hammurabi, i.e. in the second millennia BC who have wandered into the Carpathian Basin.


 

Choose


Log In


Copyright Sumerian Elohim Anunnaki  
Sumerian Elohim Anunnaki Membership is Free.
Human Genesis Progress Generation

Contact Us



Website builderuCoz