EurasianStudies_0110..

More documents

Recommendations

Info

January-March 2010 JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES Volume II., Issue 1. _____________________________________________________________________________________ which prove unequivocally that the Finno–Ugric theory is a false-scientific creation. For example, an Italian linguist, Professor Angela Marcantonio, has proved that the Ural–Finno–Ugric language-family does not exist, and the method by which it was created was – nicely-said – unscientific. This is only the linguistic side. What does archeology show? After all these facts, it is perhaps not surprising that “Finno–Ugric” archeological findings do not exist. How could there be material relics of a people who have never existed?! On the other hand, numerous relics have come to light from Scythian kurgans, from Hun territories in Ordos and, of course, from the most important centre of Huns–Avars–Magyars: the Carpathian Basin. The style of the objects (jewellery, metal impressions, fibula, decorative saddlery, bows, arrows, swords, etc.) shows an unquestionable relationship, which also supports the Scythian–Hun–(Avar)–Magyar continuity. The Sumerians, Parthians, Hatti, Hiung-nu, Sarmatians, Heftalita, Turks, Subareans, Onogurs and other bow-using people can also be inserted into this chain without any special force. These people are all branches of a huge tree, which is often called the family of “Turanian” people, sharply separated from the other two groups, the families of Arian and Semitic people. A few years ago, another proof came to light from a totally different field, based on the use of the most modern scientific means, using genetic analysis to examine the relationships of Hungarians. The DNS analyses of Béres Judit, a human-geneticist, have thrown light upon the fact that Hungarians do not show any genetic relationship to (Arian-Viking) Finnish people, but they are the closest relatives of Ujgurs, descendants of the Huns, who live in the western part of today’s China. The eastern roots of Hungarians are seen in the way they built their states. The equestrian peoples founded their states by organizing the independent units into bigger and bigger units. The fundamental unit was the extended family, which organized into clans, then tribes, and developed into a strong community, the members of which were free but, at the same time, could be mobilized in pursuit of common goals. Today we might call this a “developed democracy”, but in fact it was not this, but rather a kind of “natural hierarchy”, where the organizing power lay in the value of the individual. In an ideal case, this social system could stand up to outside (often hostile) influences in a unified and flexible way – and then, for the most part, it was proved to be unbeatable. However, on several occasions, it so happened that the smaller units, which were unable to agree, got into inner conflicts, which resulted in dividing, then weakening the whole society. A classic example of this was the inner conflict among the Huns, after the death of Great King Atilla, which soon led to the dissolution of the enormous Hun empire. The ruler stood at the head of the community (his name was different among different peoples: king, great king, tan-hu, kagan, reigning prince). He received his power and worldly destiny from Heaven. The leader – also in an ideal case – was aware of this fact, so he attributed his power not to himself, but to Heaven. This sacral tradition still lives on in Hungarian history, and received its concrete form in the concept of the Holy Crown. The Holy Crown of Hungary is not “a crown”, but “The Crown”, which is the earthly manifestation of the heavenly power mentioned above, in other words the material symbol of the God of the Hungarians. Its major characteristic is that, in the Carpathian Basin, all property, movable and immovable, including every living creature, is the body of the Holy Crown, that is to say, an organic part of it – and therefore inalienable. If we consider how noble this concept is, we can acknowledge that the _____________________________________________________________________________________ © Copyright Mikes International 2001-2010 162
January-March 2010 JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES Volume II., Issue 1. _____________________________________________________________________________________ realization of the concept of the Holy Crown ensures the welfare, security and independence of the population. An additional outcome is that everybody (peasants as well as aristocrats) is the subject of the Holy Crown, and its most humble servant is the king himself. In the ancient social system of Hungarians, everybody was regarded as a “free nobleman”, that is a human being, deserving of respect. An enormous amount of literature exists about the Holy Crown of Hungary but the “official” historiography tries to trivialize its origin and its influence. Tradition, however, holds that the Holy Crown, which is presently guarded in the Hungarian Parliament Building, is a lot older, and was already in the possession of the Avars (who were actually Huns, who came to the Carpathian Basin in the 6 th century). After the Hungarian Home-coming in 895 (which was the umpteenth time that Scythian-Hun people returned to their ancient land), the aim of the regular Hungarian military campaigns was – besides preventing hostile German tribes from unifying, which would have been fatal for us – to repossess the Holy Crown, which was stolen by Charlemagne’s Franks from the Avars. These campaigns were not adventures with the goal of conquering and plundering. For a long time, the West did not understand why the Holy Crown was so important to Hungarians – but once they realized the reason, they often tried to use its amazing power as blackmail. Among other examples, this was how we joined the Roman Catholic Church at the turn of the millennium.The other common cultural heritage of equestrian people, which is at the same time the cultural treasure of the humanity as a whole, is the Runic Script, which is also called the Scythian (“Szittya”), Hun–Magyar or Sekler (“Székely”)–Magyar Runic Script (“rovás”). Some years ago, a Hungarian researcher, Szőke Lajos proved, by the process of experimentation, that the sounds of the Hun–Magyar Runic Script generate energy-lines, which produce 95% of the alphabet of the Runic Script. So our ancestors did not “discover” their alphabet, but with the help of their holy priests (called “táltos”) they recognized the sounds and the connection to the energy produced by them. After these thoughts we should mention my personal reasons for publishing this album. In primary and secondary school, I also learnt the “Finno–Ugric” theory, but even then I felt that something was not quite right. As a student, I could not look behind the scenes but I was bothered by the dichotomy between the writings of our great national poets (Arany János, Petőfi Sándor, Kölcsey Ferenc, Vörösmarty Mihály) and writers (Gárdonyi Géza, Wass Albert), who all wrote unanimously about the Scythian–Hun origin (Bendegúz, Great King Atilla’s father, was also included in our national anthem), and historiography which speaks about the Finno–Ugric origin. Later, as my interest turned towards our ancient and modern history, the reason for this dichotomy became obvious, as I have outlined it above. Kertai Zalán, the painter who drew the graphics of the album, experienced a similar situation and he returned to his ancestors’ culture as he matured as an artist. His “realistic historical” style, based on archeological findings, shows us unequivocally who the Hungarians really are and where they came from. Besides being loyal to material relics, Kertai bravely uses – but does not misuse – artistic freedom, and courageously employs the possibilities offered by creative imagination. Consequently, the graphics are not fantasy-works, the products of an imaginative world, totally bereft of historical reality. At the same time Kertai has broken away from the “accepted” western custom, which tends to describe Hun–Magyar nomadic horsemen as mongoloid, evil little dwarves. Why does he do so? _____________________________________________________________________________________ © Copyright Mikes International 2001-2010 163
Page 1 and 2:
JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES _______
Page 3 and 4:
January-March 2010 JOURNAL OF EURAS
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: January-March 2010 JOURNAL OF EURAS
Page 161: January-March 2010 JOURNAL OF EURAS
show all

EurasianStudies_0110..

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?