Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Dumping ground

This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative.

Cutting this into dumping ground. May be able to re-use in the future. Moreschi (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the original, uncut version as a comparison. Quite why any of it was retained I have yet to establish. --

Folantin (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. jp×g 15:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first major scholarly foray into Hungarian prehistory was made by Johann Eberhard Fischer (1697-1771) with his statement (1768), that "the language of

On the basis of these early forays, in 1870 in Budapest the Finno-Ugric theory of ethnogenesis was established with the support of the Academy in Vienna and proclaimed as fact with only linguistic support as evidence^[citation needed]. The biggest proponent of this theory in the 19th century was a Saxon from Szepes, Pal Hunfalvy (Hunsdorfer), making common cause with Joseph Budenz.

Opposing Hunfalvy, for the cause of proving Hungarians' "Turkish" roots, stood

Gyula Laszlo criticized the "Finno-Ugric" concept of prehistory: "If linguistics wouldn't draw the attention of the explorers to the Ob-Ugrians, they would never search for the Hungarians' ancestors' relatives there by themselves... The language separates our human being, and our beliefs bind us..."

Nevertheless, the Hungarian prehistory is unambigously proven, many false theories tried to change, heroize, idealize or mostly degrade this past. Large measure of these history falsifications started from linguistics, but the theories of laymen hurted also a lot. However the language of a nation belongs to it’s ethnic criteria, can change language, even it’s culture can tone, but it’s physiology in the spell of the strict regulations of genetics will remain unchanged.

The most showy mistakes of the Hungarians’ origin befell from the linguistics. Afther the fact, that our ancestors dwelled in the territory where Finno-Ugrian nations live today; taking words from them during their stay placed the origin of the Hungarians to the finnougrian area. The first major unscientific push agains the Hungarian prehistory made by Johann Eberhard Fisher (1697-1771) with his unscientific statement (1768), that „the language of Estonians, Finnish, Lapps, Permis, Vots, Cheremis, Mordvins, Chuvash and Hungarians is common”. All these nations lived „in born wildness and crassness in the near past to his mind”. August Ludwig Schölzer (1735-1809) brought Fischer’s work into notoriety in his work published in 1771 stating, that „but the Hungarians have no own history”. The Hungarian theologist and astronomist Janos Sajnovics after observing passing of Venus before the sun on the island of Vardö wrote a lay linguistic essay about the Finnish-Hungarian-Lapp relationship. Than the jurist Antal Reguly collected folksongs on the land of Voguls. In 1870 AD in Budapest was the Finnougristic established with the support of the Academy in Vienna, where not the linguistic was handled any longer, but the Finnougrian origin was proclaimed. The great Finnougrian warrior of the 19th century was the saxon from Szepes Pal Hunfalvy (Hunsdorfer), who making common cause with Joseph Budenz committed to the Hungarians’ Finnougrian origin. Opposing him stood Ármin Vámbery for the Hungarians’ „Turkish” line, having many Hungarian explorers aside. Vámbéry stressed, that „the base, the core of the Hungarian language and nation is Turkish, and where a bit of Finnougrian sparses can be find are secondary, sojourner elements”. Sadly in the works of both explorers (Hunfalvy and Vambery) – actually adjudged – can be many false elements, dilettant statements find. So in the 19th century builded the Hungarian prehistory based on the false linguistics comparisms with the ideological support of the Monarhcy up. The ideological base was double, the Monarchy could handle a nation being not proud of it’s origin more easy on one hand, the other hand they supposed we are not „presentable” enough stressing our „Eastern” origin. The power supporting finnougrisms endures today and many of it’s representatives (Peter Hajdu, Pal Engel, Janos Pusztay, Antal Bartha, Istvan Fodor, Andras Róna-Tas and many others) scrum by this false theory. The „real” Hungarian prehistory before the 18th century, that derives the Hungarians from Innermost Asia, from the melting pot of the nations takes it’s worthy place these days again. The age of the classic Finnougrian prehistory is over, the modern science is serching for the truth. As Peter Sara (1994) expresses: „About our language, origin of our nation professed false theories must be reconsidered, redrawn, because the decisive majority of the basics of our language can’t be handled as stepson because of a false conception, even if this conception is defended by the mightiest powers and authorities”. Gyula Laszlo conceived of the Finnougrian prehistory like this: „If linguistics wouldn’t draw the attention of the explorers to the Obi-Ugrians, they would never search for our ancestors, relatives there by themselves... The language separates, our human being, and our beliefs bind us...”

Many other false theories appeared in parallel with Finnougrianism. Some part of them don’t count with how different the Hungarians are comparing to all other European nations, but concentrating on the autochton natives proclaim, that „the Hungarians getting the start of any others dwelled in the Carpathian Basin” (Adorján Magyar, Lajos Marjalaki Kiss). Some people assert the „Hungarian origin of the Hungarian language” (Sándor Csőke), to others (József Cserép, Jenő Csicsáky) mind the Hungarians derive „from the culture creating inhabitants of the sank continent”. To the mind of colonel Churchward, László Vámos Tóth (Bátor) and Andor Paposi-Jobb the geographical names all around the world are mostly Hungarians. The idea of the Egyptian origin of the Hungarians in newer phrasing published in the 3 volumes book of Tibor Barath (1973) written: „Most of the Eastern nations, so the Hungarians arrived not from Mesopotamia, but from the closer Egyptian culture era to the lands of Europe”. Geza Kun stood for the Etruscan Hungarian relationship, and to the mind of Ferenc Zajti „the ancien Scythian-Hun nation gave birth to the Hungarians”.

The Sumerian-Hungarian relationship had/have many representatives and followers (+Ida Bobula, +Viktor Padányi, Ferenc Badiny Jós, Kalman Gosztonyi, Sandor Csőke, +Andras Zakar, Mrs. Hary etc.). The origin of this theory explained by Ida Bobula this way: „When in the middle of the 19th century under the debris of Mesopotamia the frist written memories, the tiletable notched cuneiform and hieroglyphic text began to turn up, professionals recognized, that those against the Assyrian-Babylonian texts were written in a non semitic structured language. The language of „artificers of writing”, as in the beginning it was named, proved to be agglitunic structured. The pioneer orientalists, Oppert, Rawlinson, Sayce spoke about ancient Scythian, ancient Turanian language; the genie French scientist Lenormant decidedly propagated, that the language of „artificers of writing”, that he called Akkadian is closest to the Hungarian. This primelanguage will be the common explanatory of the Turanian languages; the same as the Sanskrit in the Indoeuropean family.”