>[*] Of course this is not just paranoia, see sci.lang message [...]
>
>Note especially the sentence "Thus the Hungarians are not a Finnish-type
>people but instead are more likely to be one of the Scythian/Persian/
>Turanian equestrian peoples and settled in the Carpathian Basin from
>Scythia **before the founding of Rome** [emphasis added --mcv].
This is IMHO utterly mild compared with texts by... Hung. "Sumerologists"
(esp. exiled ones; in the 60s-70s); who've even claimed presend day
Hungarian actually being Sumerian (there are Sumerian-Hungarian
grammar books & dictionaries in libraries, of the kind that try to
demonstrate that thesis). According to these daydreamers, there
was a 1st colonization of Hungarians during the Sumerian times (about
4 thousand years ago), and the so-called T&rt&ria tablets (unearthed
in Banat, SW of Romania, in the 60s), are, in their opinion, relics of
that culture (indeed, the pictograms do look like pre-cuneiform
scribblings in Sumeria); then, of course, there was a 2nd colonization:
of the Huns and of the Avars, the Hungarian proper being only the
3rd colonization of the "Carpathian basin region".
(Indeed, the poster of the message is one of the known cyberfans
of such "theories". Yet in this case the... moderate proto-chronism:
a fan of the "Turan" filiation theories; these people can't accept the
Ugrian origin of the core of the Magyars, they are convinced that
Magyars are also brave Altaic sons of the mythical "Tugrul bird".
Well, on the other hand, it's true that the leading tribes of the
Arpadian confederation that moved from Ukraine to present day
Hungary were Turks, chiefly of the Khazar and Onogur (Bulgar) kind;
also of a possible proto(?)-Cuman kind, given that the oldes Hung.
chronicles call 'em not only as such, but some Proto-Hungarian
chieftains really had onomastics features strongly resembling those
of Cumans circa 1-2 centuries later on in the Kievan Rus & Black Sea
area, e.g. the Itobichis, Rusobichis or Burchovichis.)
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
George