mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
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 [Asia?]. 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 and 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 [vowels?].
The consonants may be read without really knowing the real Sumerian
language, but it does not expose the nouns [vowels?] 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 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, Ősúr, Magúr, Útúr, Honúr,
Szemúr, Égető Úr, Vörös Szemű 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 Egyszemű (One Eyed), according to the sun's color Vörös Szemű
(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 Égető Úr (Scorching Lord) and Sütő 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-Ős (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.

*

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 (Samuel Kramer Noah, The
Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character, Chicago, 1964). But
Oppert never understood the meaning of Sumer (Szemúr=Occulate Lord)
and Agade (Égető=the Scorching Lord), both of which names are but two
different names of the Sungod, thus the name of the country simple
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, Kő, 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)
_________________________________________________________________

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).