WAS HUNGARIAN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT EASTERN CULTURES?

by Dr. Tibor Baráth

The state of the current research.

According to current scientific view, two languages flourished in the Ancient East in the millennia BC. It is believed that one originated somewhere north of the Tigris and Euphrates valley, and came to full bloom in Szemúr Sungod's country (Sumer, Sumir) where it became the literary language. It is also believed that it spread from Sumer toward the southern part of the country and later to the east all the way to the Mediterranean. The other language that flourished at this time, the language of the Ancient Egyptians is believed to not only have been the spoken language of the Nile-region but also the language of southwestern Africa. After the Egyptian kingdom was firmly established (1500 BC), it spread toward the great bend of the Euphrates river and Syria. Both languages are believed to be the world's oldest languages. ("The language of the hieroglyphs is perhaps the oldest in the world." - Brodrick M. Morton A, A Concise Dictionary Of Egyptian Archaeology, London, 1922.)

If we examine the exact position of the places where these two languages flourished, we find that they completely match the territories occupied by the two great branches of the Hungarians: the Hun and the Magyar. These two names are frequent in this territory where the Hungar-Magyar people represented the culture-bearing population. This gives rise to three questions:

1. Did a fatal linguistic misunderstanding or misinterpretation occur when deciphering these languages that prevented proper classification of these two languages?

2. Is it possible that these two languages were in fact the same?

3. If they were in fact the same, were they the Magyar language?

Posing these questions is validated by the fact that there is no historical evidence that these ancient eastern languages were called Sumerian or Egyptian by the actual residents of these cultures or the record-keepers of the time. These two names, coined and popularized by the scientists of the 19th c. AD,(1) were used only as geographical markers, but were not used as the names of the people or their languages.

Those texts which we call Sumerian today were written in two different manners: with pictographs and cuneiform writing. The older texts were written with the former method, the younger texts with the latter. Sumerologians have not even touched the pictographs yet; as far as I know none of them have been read. I believe the reason for this is these pictures yield their meaning only in the real Sumerian language, which is the Magyar (Hungarian), and their sound value can be established only according to this language. Consequently if someone does not speak this true "Sumerian" language, that person is unable to decipher them. This remark already lets us get a sense of what follows. All the present views concerning the Sumerian language are based solely upon the cuneiform texts. The cuneiform signs usually mark only the consonants and the reader adds the required nouns. The consonants may be read without really knowing the real Sumerian language, but it does not expose the nouns nor how to break the text into words. And where the Egyptian texts are concerned, they too used simplified pictures drawn close to one another. Later, the simplified version of a type of lettering came into use, hieroglyphs made of these pictures. They too mark only consonants and the vowels have to be added by the reader according to the spirit of the language. The Egyptologists read only the newer, hieroglyphic texts but they are unable to tell for certain what the nature of the accompanying vowels are and how the text should be broken into words. If we add here that the hard and soft consonants were frequently represented with the same sign (T=D, P=B, S=SZ, K=G, R=L) we may form a vague idea of the huge possibility of errors which may be committed while reading or transcribing the Sumerian and Egyptian texts into today's alphabet.

There is no solidly established consensus concerning the use of today's alphabets. Should the English, the French or some other language's alphabet be used? They never thought of the Hungarian. If we base our transliterating onto the English spelling-system, how can they mark the Hungarian GY, TY, LY sounds, which have firmly established spelling system in the Hungarian? Out of this dilemma arises the fact that the same word or name varies and is written in five or six different manners according to the nationality of the translator, as we find in the case of the Muger ruins in the city of Ur, or in the case of the Hungar and Magyar names. One can extract useful material from a translator's work only when one knows the translator's nationality, and knows the phonetics and graphics of his/her language. Things become even more complicated when the English scientist believes he knows the proper pronunciation but he is unable to find in the alphabet of his own language the proper symbol for that perceived sound, so he uses just for this sound, a symbol of the Italian alphabet. What will ensue of such a text if, let's say, a German scientist reads it and transliterates the text according to the German alphabet? There will be such a chaos created that it will take a very brave and strong man to attempt to lift out the true Sumerian and Egyptian words from this hodgepodge and even express an opinion about the nature of these languages. (2)

The foremost prerequisite for attaining the proper sounds, transliteration and understanding of these ancient scripts is to be familiar with the language with which the ancient texts were written and is fully familiar with the rules of pronunciation. This knowledge is as yet lacking and consequently today's researchers do not have the magic key with which to open up the secrets of these languages and their efforts have not led to a satisfying conclusion. In lack of such a key, the non-Hungarian scientist - and I am always talking about them in this book - usually resort to a replacement key. The Mesopotamian Sumerian is approached and translated with the help of the Persian, Assyrian and most of all the Hebrew. The Egyptian is translated with the help of the Coptic and Greek languages. Words transliterated in such a manner from the Sumerian and Egyptian may lack vowels at the most critical points or vowels will appear completely unnecessarily, consonants may become scrambled, and words may be shortened or in running texts the words' beginnings and endings will be uncertain or wrong. In other words, the transcribed text will distort the original to an almost unrecognizable form in both the Sumerian and the Egyptian language. Due to these many-layered mistakes of the transliteration-translation process, all of a sudden a language appears, in fact created by the translators, which does not resemble any known language. So we can truly state it is without any relatives and it is extinct. This opinion has to arise by necessity due to the above. If someone is unfamiliar with the sad background of Sumerology and Egyptology will accept this concoction as true "Sumerian" and "Egyptian".

The uncertain sound-values of these two ancient languages, the incorrect transliteration and the complete distortion of the original characteristics was noted by the orientalists themselves. Waddell reproached the linguists a long time ago, saying that they base the transcriptions of Mesopotamian texts upon the Assyrian language. These scientists, says Waddell, "begin their work laden with false racial and religious theories and did not have a key to the sound-values of personal names, which we inherited with Sumerian signs that had several sound-values. (Lloyd Seton: Foundations in the Dust, Bristol 1955, p.121). The destruction of the Sumerian language took on such proportions that the first translations proved useless and had to be laid aside. (Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, New York 1961 p.22.) Samuel Kramer, an American Sumerologist made this remark, and he himself took extensive liberties in translating the Sumerian texts into English and frequently reads something completely different from what is written. Even with this in mind, he faces problems that are seemingly insurmountable. (Sumerian Mythology pg. 65, 68, 69, 73, 75-77), because very often he only feels the meaning of the words based on the text surrounding it. (S.N.Kramer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History; From the Tablets of Sumer, Indian Hills, 1956) He does not have a key either and his results are so individualistic, that based on his findings he believes the Sumerian language without a family also, a language without a beginning and without a continuation. He even finds the date of its demise around 2000 BC. We do not fare any better - regrettably - concerning the reading of the Egyptian hieroglyphs as even a beginner of Egyptian studies will notice after studying Sir Wallis Budge's works. He himself states that the pronunciation of a great number of words, mostly verbs, cannot be ascertained and the meaning of symbols given by him is only marginal. (Budge, E.A.W. Egyptian Language. Easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics with sign list. London, 1958, p.146 and passim.) The greatest Egyptologist of all times, the French Maspero admits very honestly: "It is our endeavor that we attempt the pronunciation of the Egyptian words but it may lead only to marginal results because we never know with sufficient certainty how they sounded. Our only recourse is that we establish what sound-values some of the words had in Greek times as far as this is possible." (Maspero G.: History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babilonia and Assyria. 6.vol. London, s.d. I, VI) "The general pronunciation of the Egyptian names in our days is not so much Egyptian, but Egyptologian; in other words the pronunciation of these words is according to Egyptologists." (Ceram C.W. A Hettiták Regénye, Hungarian translation by Márton Hegyi Budapest, 1964, p.26) "Needless to add, no one supposes that the result of this compromise is anything but a caricature of the ancient Egyptian tongue, but, the circumstances being as they are, it is the best that can be done." (P.E.Cleator Lost languages, New York, 1961, p. 59) The reader should never forget this fact.

At the same time, we have to realize that in certain instances it is truly very difficult, or even impossible to read the written text well and find its true meaning, even if we do have the knowledge of the rules of this writing and reading and also use the only good key leading there, which is the Hungarian language in establishing the sound values. After all, we are dealing with the spiritual heritage of a world of 4-5000 years ago; the workings of the minds of the people then was completely different from ours. This difficulty can be bridged only if we become thoroughly familiar with the belief system, statesmanship of the ages BC. It is for this reason that when we do translate a text we must sometimes add lengthy explanations to a given sentence. The following examples will clarify this statement.

The Egyptian and Sumerian texts frequently use the following names of their Sungod: Égúr, Székúr, Kerek Úr, Napúr, Õsúr, Magúr, Útúr, Honúr, Szemúr, Égetõ Úr, Vörös Szemû and some at least twenty more expressions. Western scholars who are not familiar with the key-language understand only the Úr suffix of these words which they translate as God. They also believe that as many such words with Úr endings exist, that many gods were worshipped by the ancients. For them there is a God An, God Utu, God Sek and so on. Anyone familiar with the key-language and the ancients' religion will recognize these words as the names of the same Sungod; the ancients stressed one of the Sungod's characteristics and function by a given name. We may compare this practice to the Roman Catholic Church's practice to call God the Father in his creative capacity, the Son is his redemptive function and the Holy Spirit as his sanctifying function. We will fully understand the Sungod's many names if we are familiar with the concepts of the ancients concerning the Sungod. According to them, the sun, this heavenly body is God's visible picture. Since this picture appears round, they name him Kerek Úr (Round Lord). Since the Sun brightens everything and sees everything, like a giant eye another name of his is Szemúr (Occulate Lord). Since his eye is pairless, they call him Egyszemû (One Eyed), according to the sun's color Vörös Szemû (Red Eyed) and since the Sun resides in the sky they also called him Égi Szem or Égszem (Eye of Heavens). When they contemplated its immense heat they called him Égetõ Úr (Scorching Lord) and Sütõ Úr (Shining Lord). They also believed that he is the only Lord in his world so they called him Honúr (Lord of his Home) and Égi Király (King of Heavens). As they saw the apparent motion as he rises in the morning his name then was Ra-Kel (Ra rises), the rising on the eastern borders Kel-Út (The Road of Rising/East) where he sits down onto his chair: Szék-Úr (Lord of the Chair or the Seated/Settled Lord), later on he sits into his chariot and travels the shiny roads of the skies: Útúr (Lord of the Road) and when he finished his daily journey and reaches the west: Nyug-Út (Resting/Western Road) and as he sinks below the horizon: Esút, Este (The Falling/Evening Road, Evening). As we clarify this section of their belief everything becomes clearer and also realize that the ancients whose religion was connected with the Sun were never polytheistic, they only had one God.

We can follow the ancients' footsteps and thinking this far and we can also understand the names they used and we are able to explain it to people who are ignorant of the Hungarian language. Things become complicated when the ancient theologians begin to use word-plays and substitute the names of their God using assonance; then they use a symbol, a picture of something that has no internal relationship with God except an assonance exists and so it becomes useful as a symbol that conveys a sound. The sentences, prayers they create with such symbols appear completely incomprehensible. For example when they want to write God's name as Ég-Úr (Lord of Heaven) they draw a mouse (Egér), Székúr's (The Seated/Settled Lord) name is conveyed by a wagon (szekér), the name Kerek-Úr (Round Lord) is represented by a wagon-wheel (kerék), the Úri-Õs (Ancestral Lord) with a giant (óriás) and so on. How could a person unfamiliar with Hungarian find its way among the symbols: when is it proper to talk about the Lord of Heaven (Égúr) and when the animal (egér) that represents his name here on earth? It is believed for exactly this reason that the Babylonians worshipped a mouse. With the above explanations we realize that they have not worshipped idols in any way just as we are not idol-worshippers when we pray in front of statues in the churches but the essence of what they symbolize; or in Egyptian symbology: for whom the symbol stands. We often find in the late Stone and Bronze Ages a tiny bronze-wagon on the altars. In this case they did not worship the wagon but the meaning this artifact conveyed, one of the names of the Sungod: Székúr or Az-Ég-Ur (The Seated/Settled God or The Lord of Heaven). It is of utmost importance for Hungarians to realize this for these facts are the weightiest series of testimonies concerning the true form of the Sumerian and Egyptian languages. In the case of the wordplay egér - Égúr (mouse - Lord of Heaven), szekér - Székúr (wagon - Seated Lord) it is perfectly clear in the Hungarian language, as it is clear in case of Szemúr when his name is written with the image of a donkey (szamár). But how many names of so called "idols" are lost to us! We become helpless when the tracks are lost. It is better to admit this fact freely and not to use some very individualistic explanation and mislead the reader, or to calumniate the ancients. They never worshipped crocodiles, snakes, frogs and insects; the good historians know that all this is only a figment of imagination just as much as the story of a relativeless Sumerian and Egyptian language.(Egyptian Mythology New York s.d. p.10; Hawkes, Jaquette, Wooley Leonard: Prehistory and the beginning of civilization. New York, 1963 p.717; Maspero G.: History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babilonia and Assyria, 6.vol. London s.d p.III.153)

Since it is so difficult to read the ancient Eastern texts, to transcribe them into today's alphabets and understand them, we are not amazed that only a very few people are willing to tread this very bumpy road. This explains why the study of the near one-hundred-thousand known Sumerian and Egyptian literary texts, which are known to us for 70 or 80 years has hardly progressed (S.N. Kramer Sumerian Mythology New York,1961, VIII). This is the reason that the presently used transcribed texts are unsuitable for linguistic studies and the clarification of the Sumerian and Egyptian languages cannot come about with their help. This situation was already realized by A. Nehring, a German scientist who remarked the following as early as 1936: "Thus far there was no attempt to make use of the grammar, study of sound and structure and the sentences in connection with the problems of the history of the ancients." The person who quoted this sentence in Budapest added the following: "The situation in this respect, as far as I know it has not changed since significantly." (Henning Von Der Osten, Hans: Die Welt der Perser, Stuttgart, 1956).

If one reviews the state of present research it is clear that there is something seriously wrong concerning the two languages that were baptized Sumerian and Egyptian. Even though they are believed without relations and dead, they clearly have a strong affiliation with the present day Hungarian. Considering this the basic accepted tenet of Sumerology and Egyptology is incorrect.

Notes

1. The first examiners of the Mesopotamian language called it a Scythan language. Today they bring it in relationship clearly with the Magyar, Finno-Ugrian or Ural-Altaic languages but still call this language Sumerian. The Sumerian name was coined in 1869 by Oppert, a French linguist and was picked up in the scientific journals of the day. Oppert arrived to this name by reading about the Lord of Sumer and Agade. He proposed that the named Lord was a king and the two other names are names of countries. The former name was extended and became the name of the country and the people (Kramer, Samuel Noah, The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character, Chicago, 1964). But Oppert never understood the meaning of Sumer (Szemúr=Occulate Lord) and Agade (Égetõ=the Scorching Lord), both of which names are but two different names of the Sungod, thus the name of the country simply meant: The Country of the Sungod. This name described every country where the supremacy of the Sungod was honored. The above mentioned names can be substituted by any of the other names of the Sungod or territory marking names, such as Hon, Kõ, Ma, Ta. There existed for example a Napotthon (Home of the Sun), a Szemhon (Home of the Occulate Being), Makor-Ta, Hét-Ta, Ég-Ta, Szem-Ta, etc...(The lands of Makar, Hét, Ég, Szem = these are all names of the same Sungod).

2. In the orthography of names complete confusion reigns throughout the scholarly literature. (Ceram C.W. The Secret of the Hittites, V; New York, 1956.) It is hardly necessary to say that differences of opinion exist among scholars as to the method in which hieroglyphic characters should be transcribed into Roman letters, Budge E. Wallis Egyptian language; Easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics with sign list. London, 1958 - p.32). Since in hieroglyphic writing only the consonants and not the vowels are indicated, our reading of Egyptian names is only a compromise and we do not pretend that our form of transcription renders the names as they were pronounced. (Tutankhamun treasures. Trésors de Toutankhamon. Montreal, 1964 - p. 4)

Short biography

Professor Tibor Baráth was born in Alsólendva Hungary in 1906. He received his Ph.D. in History in Budapest, and continued his postgraduate studies in Vienna, Paris and Montreal. He was professor of history at the University of Kolozsvár, Hungary (1940-45), until the communist takeover of his native country. Prior to his nomination to the teaching post, he was Secretary of the Hungarian Institute in Paris (1932-39) and fulfilled the role of Assistant-Secretary of the International Committee of Historical Sciences at the same time. He moved to Paris with his family in 1945 where he founded a Hungarian newspaper. He left Paris for Montreal, Canada in 1952. Here he continued his research concerning ancient Hungarian history which he began in Kolozsvár. Prof. Baráth was author of over one hundred historical essays and also of several books, the most significant ones being: The Tax-System in Hungary, 1605-1648; History of the Hungarian Historiography, 1867-1935 (in French); A Short History of Hungary; the three-volume Ancient History of the Hungarian Peoples (in Hungarian), and The Early Hungarians (in English).

Sumerian, Hungarian and Mongolian (including Avaric)