It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Early Europe history

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:51 PM

by Endre KolozsvᲩ Grandpierre

Is the revision of ?pᤧs conquest necessary?

The question of ?pᤧs "conquest" (henceforth "Conquest") is not as clear, as it appears to be. There are some very serious doubts concerning this theory, which already began in the Middle Ages. MᲫ K᬴i's(1) K鰥s Kr󮩫a (Illuminated Chronicle) states the following:

"So if some codexes contain the statement, that those seven captains came into Pannonia (meaning the seven heads of clans in allegiance with ?pᤩ and Hungary came into existence only through them, then where did ?us, Bor, Aba and the other Hungarian nobility come from, since they all had their origins in Skythia and are not newcomers. The only argument in favor of this theory is one word that was preserved by the common folk: H鴭agyar (Seven Magyars). So if only these seven Magyars (Hungarians) entered the country and we do not count any of their families, wives, sons, daughters and male and female servants, would it have been possible to conquer entire countries? Impossible."

Copyrighted material was chopped out. The full page can be found here:

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Byrd]

posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:53 PM
by Dr. Tibor Barᴨ

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 Szem?ngod'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.)


Edited by Byrd. Please do NOT insert a complete web page into the messages. Quote one part and then link like this]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Byrd]

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:16 PM
It seems you are an teenager,or if you're not,excuse me.You're missing some basics in history and how the science are working.What's wrong with the sumerian language,is too hard,of corse it is.Who's to blame,scientists ,of corse.First of all,beside the great problems (especially at the begining,when were discovered the very first writings) that were encountered by scientists,and solving the main part you are helping here saying that not enough work was done.And to contribute with something ,you are clearing the sumerian language with the help of modern hungarian language,Not talking of Finno-Ugrian (with wich theoretically could be sumerian language in some kind of contact)languages,but of Hungarian!?? You must know how the hungarian people was formed,when,and in wich territories was in different periods of time.The Uralic/Finno-Ugrian branches were starting in Siberia.The fenomenom of diverging their branches,as scientists are stating was a very-long one.Why? Don't know.They are explaining in studyng how words were evolving and transforming.The route of honogury was from Siberia (where they stayed thousends of years),to Kazahstan (where were staying hundreds of years),to Ukraine (where they were staying also hundreds of years),to reach finaly Danubian plain in round 1000 AD.So how's come to be either in Near East in 3000BC?Or they were not at all in those regions mentioned by all historians and were near Sumerian places as you are telling?!?? As a hypothesis,why not? What could sure not happened is to be in 2 places at the same time.In a real world.In a virtual world,yes.I know about one scenario/hypotesis that hungarians are old turanians;in this case some semito-hungarians? Or ariano-hungarians? If by chance somebody are convincing all world people ,how pitty of entire previous work of the real hungarian scientists to find the origins and history of hungarians.At least was convincing.In searching of too many identities,you risk not to have a real,stable one. I do not understand either this:why when talking about entering South-Eastern Europe you are talkink of Carpathian Basin,insted of Panonia plain? It sound more beautiful? Talking of Carpathian Basin you are meaning that the Panonia plain was allready occupied by slavs ? Or you want a larger geographical denomination,wich are extending to Ukraine and Poland ?Another thing wich are depassing my understanding is this:how could you talk about hungarians,old hungarians,as to induce that was an old culturalised civilisation? As one can find with any search-engine,will find in every place or paper of migratory peoples named hordes (probably wandering migratory tribes). One can talk of common (current scientific) denomonation of hungarian ethnicity only of wich emerged with the Panonian state ,i.e. (after settling) some good hundreds years AD? As I know there was up to that time a etherogenic grouping of tribes (as they diverged earlier in Central Asia,one remaining there).I read somwhere also of "old hungarian writing" sugesting that is thousend years old.When was to document myself,the runic writing I found that was born in 300 AD.I wonder myself why are not claiming such connexions the greeks,or albanians wich seem to be the oldest IE people in Europe.Or non-IE basques (wich are in Europe from paleolithic times)? Probably because they know very well who they are,and no need to show any evidences or hypothesis to anybody.To show that they are old, or older then they are,or oldest .What I know and gladly I will explain to you.Somehow the Uralic,Caucasian,Afro-Asian languages were in remote past in contact.To be more explicit,the farthest point is the "out of Africa" momentum.Then was a real one-world-language,named nostratic.Further,as the people took the known routes to Asia,urope and Africa the language was in a continuum processus of diverging and partly mixing,as were doing people.Especially in a kind of decreasing order :1.Caucasus,2.Near-East-Egypt.Mediterranean (the same level as near-East-Egypt) areas were zones of intens mixing ,diverging,meeting again,loops back and forth both of peoples and languages .They cannot be detached one from another (peoples visa languages) .I found an symilar case on another forum in wich a young was telling of (I don't remember wich country) making the same: overlaping not more than 11.000 years in a second (telling of a people with same attested period of arival in Europe as hungarians)....wich are the authors of azilian epigraphy.Hope I'm correct: 1000 AD + 10.000 BC=11.000 years.Maybe kind of in-time-travel,as seen in pictures.Please explain me.or if you found something real and intersting (with primary archeological evidences,the language-related are not serious-solid ones,the last-wanted one),please let me know.As I am a bit introduced in the lingvistic field this is for you and for everybody interested: one can relate any world language to sumerian (or generally to a aglutinative,not modern-evolved language).As for schoolboys explained,(forgive me): You can relate to phonemes (elemenar word parts) as: EN,GI,KU,SU,LA,etc. etc any language wery well.If somebody are wanting,I will show with great pleasure,as long as is real easy and I like it very much.

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:47 PM
Excuse-me,I saw now that professor Simon Barr is the author ?.Then it's your fault to mix exterps from his papers (oudated by current level of the research) with your-own comentaries in such a way one do not understand clearly,and get a clear immage:what is the subject of the discussion,wich can be folowed in first time and constantly,mixing modern people with 5.000 years distant older ones,etc. in such a mesure that all are mixed : a lot of peoples,all places ,in all periods,not explaining how in reality the fact described could happen,only with thin language-related connexions.So sory.

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 02:04 PM
The teory of the Indo-Europe origin is a myth from the 19th century.
I see now some of the letters were replaced by boxes in the artickles above.
try theres alot more there. It is a linguistic study.

We know from our germanic upbringing and traditions and way of living that we are not from India as they are compleatly different. (no, I'm not talking about the christian way, but those that existed even before christianity) Magyar tradition is alot closer and when things like the name of our old letters is Magyar (RUNE) this put alot of weight to its credibility.

Archeology can only prove that people moved around alot all over europe and russia. There are no proof of any Indo-europeans. So this new Magyar-origin of european nations seems interesting and logical. It is in a central part of europe and contries like Germany, Russia, Greece and Italy is not too far from it.
Another artickle;


[edit on 25-3-2005 by Byrd]

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 02:39 PM
As this hints for the existence of a Magyar civilization some 5000 years ago this seems to be the right place for it (Ancient & lost).

Magyar, not Hungarian. Magyar is from the common european faith; Magor the sungod. They also had a moon goddess but I don't remember the name. This is the link to Sumer and Egypt, that also worshipped the sungod.

No, don't go looking for 'Magor' in Summerian or Egyptian scripts. Names in those days was not like today. Names were descriptions in those days. Look for symbols instead like a globe or circle for the sungod.

These links to Magyar cannot be nationalistic but rather 'globalistic' as these things tells us we are all one people.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:38 AM
Wonderfull research. I have been reading about the hungarian ties to Sumer and other ancient city states, this is a Most welcomed post.

Some of the data i have found traces certain root numbers and alphabets to the Phoenicians, which may have spread their language and culture by their trade and shipping routes, circa 5000-2200 BCE. I am still reading about this.

Thank you Ghaele.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:39 PM
Thank you for telling me about all this .. its such a wonderfull time line on the people in my genology. Thank you very much.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 04:49 PM
This really needs to be broken into several messages because it's too complicated to answer everything.

About the languages:
There may be some understanding problems since your first language is not English. Linguists actually do not try to "pronounce" a language. They have sounds that they assign for convenience and modern pronouncability, but we don't actually know how it sounded.

When there are texts (like the Coptic translations of Egyptian text), we only know how the Coptics THOUGHT the words sounded.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:17 PM
I do disagree with the material in the journal you pointed to (I'm not sure which pages you meant, since the URL you gave shows a directory only). In particular, this article has things I disagree with:

In it, Dr. Tibor Baráth writes:

According to current scientific view, two languages flourished in the Ancient East in the millennia BC.

This is not correct. In the area that makes up Egypt, the modern middle East, and India there were hundreds of languages including ancient Greek and Phoenecian and Coptic. There were several different languages that use the cuneiform alphabet of the Sumerians, including the Akkadians. Akkadian was later replaced by Aramaic, sometime in about the 9th century BC:

Here's a good timeline of the peoples of the Middle East:

The Magyars had little contact with this area, but more contact with the Turkish empire, after 2000 BC. By then, the Akkadian and other languages were being replaced by Aramaic.,6177&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&p_item=28868

Note for the rest of us: the following declaration by linguists is a sore point for the Magyrists:
Their languages are Finno-Urgic based and are not related to the Semitic languages spoken in the Middle East.

For a fairly balanced view of what is going on and the various apologist groups, this page is a good summary:

[edit on 25-3-2005 by Byrd]

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Ghaele
As this hints for the existence of a Magyar civilization some 5000 years ago this seems to be the right place for it (Ancient & lost).[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid the archaeology of the region doesn't support this idea.

Magyar, not Hungarian. Magyar is from the common european faith; Magor the sungod.

But not all European cultures worshipped the sun god. Or had sun gods.

They also had a moon goddess but I don't remember the name. This is the link to Sumer and Egypt, that also worshipped the sungod.

No, don't go looking for 'Magor' in Summerian or Egyptian scripts. Names in those days was not like today. Names were descriptions in those days. Look for symbols instead like a globe or circle for the sungod.

These are not good proofs. We have here in American (and in Australia and many other areas of the world) symbols for the sun, and they are all circles. They do not refer to the European/Hungarian/Magyar sun god -- or to the Egyptian sun god, either.

posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:52 AM
Europe was mainly populated by 2 branches
ne in aurignacian 40.000BC from Asia (possible north of Baikal lake) with the equivalent of european Proto-Iberian and Ukrainian craddles,and fromGrawettian,with origin in near-East 20.000BC with the balcanic craddle.Those populations were the hunter-gatherers of paleolithic I am turning back and forth allwai i am coming back especially to the very first word of the written tablet:EGO.This is well-known and one must pay maximum attention.In greek and latin languages is for "I" and in proto-slavic is "his".The second word is TGD as could be TAGADA or TAGDA.In estonian is "now" and in proto-slav is "then".For the fact that at the very begining the text is inclining more toward slavic,I choosed for both Balto-Slavic interpretation.What is strange ,is the fact that when I am using another type of writing or alhabet for reading I hhave for the 2-nd word SGM maybe SAGA-mi (of the SAGGA/SAKKA/ZAKKA people;me is the proto-slavic sufix particle for plural).All clear by this point.But as one is expecting that the rest of the tablet to be also in slavic,surprise! Is all in spanish (in fact Proto-Iberian).If the first quadrant (in the south-right area) is numbered as 1,the raw text reading all tablet counter-clockwise is at a "raw" reading only the signs wich are mainly consonants):1.EGO TGD 2. S PARO L .3.HR 4.QZ (G or R). This could be after completion with some minimal vocals:EGO TAGADA SU PARO LO HARIA CAZARA wich translated is: 1.HIS NOW 2.HIM ALLREADY THE.3.MAKING/DOING 4.TO HUNT As an "hunting permit" : HIS (the owner of the tablet=permit n.n.) ALLREADY give the right of HUNTING. But here some big problems arisen: how 2 words in slavic and the rest in berian??? Who dare to think of "hunting premits/passes around 5.000 BC??? Who were they ??One group people or more ??,of the same race or not?? In the folowing lines you wil find my opinion.

posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 10:27 AM
Not to forget.How I come to this ? After "producing" many deciphering attempted text using many languages:sumerian,sumerian via turanian,sanskrit,euskara etc. ,I thoght If I have many variants wich is the right-one ?.So I checked and re-checked the letters obtained from the signs,and as I said before I had come over and over again to this EGO at the very begining of the text.In the mean-time I was asking myself what kind of text will evolve? Why if one for economical purpose as were used most of them in ancient times.(The majority of scientists are for a pre-writing fase,with simbols used in religious rituals or purposes.).
I am more inclined for an efficient -related script,with real stringent purposes thinking of the necesities related to the hard life than for them to stay hours with the eyes fixed to sky.This variantis making sense. the old paleolithic ld Europe hunters were of Circassian/near East/Asian origin, of proto-Iberian type.The M.Gimbutas kurgan theory is stating that early IE tribes the well known "kurgans" were begining to enter Europe from 4.500BC. What if earlier with500-800 yeras i asked myself? This way all is making clear.The Old Europeans chriss-crossed with the "kurgans" in their hunting raids. There was not easy.Especially as the animals begun reducing in number.(One wolf,bear ,etc need for an growing population from one year to another of some minimum hundreds sq. kilometers,otherwise the sense is to extinction).So the well organised aboriginals made some kind of agreements regarding to hunting.Maybe in exchange to something(part of the prey??.Or they made an partition/agreement for different areas or species.Otherwise all goes wrong. My opinion is that the "kurgans' were not necesarily "wariors' type as thought before,they have good knoledge of agriculture;they were also the carriers of a great culture of arian type (see their names,gods,customs).I am interested of the readers opinions and arguments,pro and contra.Finaly the aboriginals were "pushed' and confined to western Europe,and the new-mixed popultion took control of entire Europe. They expanded from an half-nordic European belt,wich streched not only Europe, Ukraine but took to the Ural mountains areas. Other things that i am realising that could happen is that those "writers' knew more than one language ,or at least have knoledge of words in other foreign languages.The same for rwriting;they knew some other foreign signs for the same sounds,or somebody showed them.They had kind of direct contact with other areas and civilisations ,even to those of sumeria,India


log in