Journal of Eurasian Studies Vol 1,1, Jan-Mar 2009

JOURNALOF
EURASIANSTUDIES
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JournaloftheGborBlintdeSzentkatolnaSociety
Founded:2009.
Internet:www.federatio.org/joes.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________
VolumeI.,Issue1./JanuaryMarch2009
____________________
ISSN18774199
JanuaryMarch2009
JOURNALOFEURASIANSTUDIES
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher
FoundationStichtingMIKESINTERNATIONAL,establishedinTheHague,Holland.
Account:Postbankrek.nr.7528240
Registered:Stichtingenregister:S41158447KamervanKoophandelenFabriekenDenHaag
Distribution
TheperiodicalcanbedownloadedfromthefollowingInternetaddress:
http://www.federatio.org/joes.html
If you wish to subscribe to the email mailing list, you can do it by sending an email to the
followingaddress:
mikes_intsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Thepublisherhasnofinancialsources.Itissupportedbymanyintheformofvoluntarywork
andgifts.Wekindlyappreciateyourgifts.
Address
TheEditorsandthePublishercanbecontactedatthefollowingaddresses:
Email:mikes_int@federatio.org
Postaladdress:P.O.Box10249,2501HE,DenHaag,Holland
Individualauthorsareresponsibleforfactsincludedandviewsexpressedintheirarticles.
_____________________________________
ISSN18774199
MikesInternational,20012009,AllRightsReserved
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CopyrightMikesInternational20012009
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
EDITORIALBOARD
EditorinChief
FARKAS,Flrin
TheHague,Holland
DeputyEditorinChief
OBRUSNSZKY,Borbla
Budapest,Hungary
Editors
ARADI,va
Budapest,Hungary
BRCZI,Szaniszl
Budapest,Hungary
BR,Andrs
Budapest,Hungary
CSORNAI,Katalin
Budapest,Hungary
ERDLYI,Istvn
Gd,Hungary
HORVTH,Izabella
Hangzhou,China
MARCZ,Lszl
Amsterdam,Holland
MARCANTONIO,Angela
Rome,Italy
SECHENBAATAR
Hohhot,China
UCHIRALTU
Hohhot,China
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
DearReader, _____________________________________________________________________________ 5
GborBlintdeSzentkatolna______________________________________________________________ 7
OurAuthors ____________________________________________________________________________ 10
ALIMBAY,Nursan
CommunityasaPrincipleOrganizationalFormofSocialRelationsofNomads __________ 12
,ypca
__ 18
ARADI,va
ABriefIntroductionofaGreatExplorerSirAurelStein,(18621943) ___________________ 26
BRCZI,Szaniszl
AncientEurasianHeritagePreservedinJapanI. ______________________________________ 30
FARKAS,Flrin
WolfTotem ______________________________________________________________________ 41
MARCZ,Lszl
ObjectiontotheForcefulFinnizationoftheAncientHistoryandLanguage
oftheHungarians_________________________________________________________________ 46
MARCANTONIO,Angela
DebateontheStatusoftheUralicTheory:CriticalResponses __________________________ 52
OBRUSNSZKY,Borbla
Tongwancheng,theCityoftheSouthernHuns ________________________________________ 70
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
DEARREADER,
TherootsofthiselectronicperiodicalgobacktoaMikesInternationalSaloneveningonOctober7,2007
in The Hague. Those present at that reunion decided to establish the GBOR BLINT DE SZENTKATOLNA
SOCIETY, within the Mikes International Foundation (established in The Hague in 2001), in order to
facilitateandpromotethefreespiritedresearchofthehistoryofHungarians,originsoftheHungarian
language and related fields. The Society was named after Gbor Blint de Szentkatolna to honor the
great Hungarian linguist and scholar. In the subsequent period many joined this informal network;
scholars who subscribed to our goals. The output of this informal think tank was published in the
columnentitledHungarologiaoftheelectronicperiodicalMikesInternational.
The enthusiastic response we received from our readers and the motivation of the members of this
thinktanknecessitatethelaunchingofanewelectronicperiodical.Withthenameofthisnewperiodical
JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES we intend to indicate both the scope and the depth of our quest.
Eurasiathisamazingsupercontinentisboththebirthplaceofmankindsgreatcivilizationsandthe
witness of great battles and civilization movements across millennia. For most of the time the Eastern
partrepresenteditscenterofgravity.Duringthelast400yearstheWesternpartofthissupercontinent
tilted the power balance towards itself and under its leadership pushed the world into a fully
interconnectedglobalsystem.Sincetheendofthe20thcentury,however,theEasternpartofEurasiais
rebalancing the global power structure. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of China and India, the
resurgence of Russia are the most visible facets of this tectonic shift that makes the history of the 21st
centurysoexcitingandcolorful.Inordertoprovideunderstandingoftrendsandintelligentguidancein
thisnewworldweneedfirstofallaclearunderstandingofourpast.
ThemembersoftheGborBlintdeSzentkatolnaSocietywishtocontributetothisprocessthrough
theJOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES,amongothers.Weintendtocoverallfieldsanddisciplinesthatare
relevanttothisgoal:history,linguistics,politics,philosophy,religion,geostrategy,literature,economics,
etc. The current members of the editorial board as well as our authors by nature reflect our stated
objectives: they are respected individuals of many professions and are scattered over this great
supercontinent,fromLondontoInnerMongolia.Enlargementofthisnetworkisoneofourmajorgoals,
including everybody who subscribes to our goals, irrespective where he or she lives and which
professionmasters.
Weholdthesetruthstobeselfevident,thatallmenareendowedwithcertainunalienablerights,that
among these are freedom of scientific research, the unhindered publication of their findings and the
scrutiny of their theories based solely on academic arguments. That to secure these rights, scientific
bodies are instituted among men, deriving their just moral powers from the consent of the scientific
community,thatwheneveranyformofscientificinstitutionbecomesdestructiveoftheseends,itisthe
right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new scientific institutions, laying their
foundation on such principles and organizing their powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likelytoeffecttheirspiritualfreedom.
Finally,pleaseletmepresentyouthelogoofourquarterlythatwascreatedbySzaniszlBrczi.Its
componentssymbolizethefollowing:SunandMoonareancientsymbolsoftheheavens,andpartsofthe
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ancientChinesecharactermeng,thatisoath,agreement,especiallycovenantofblood.Theouterarcof
symmetricantlersrepresentdisguisesforhorsesinordertoredressthemasdeer,theancientmagicor
holy animal. The archaeological finding, which inspired this drawing, was unearthed in the
Altai Mountains, at the pazyryk kurgan excavations by Sergei Rudenko. In one of the tombs 5 horse
mounts were excavated and some of the horsedisguises were antlers, some others bird disguises for
horses. The inner fight scenario is taken from the Saint Ladislaus legend; in this case a mythic mural
image series painted in some 50 Hungarian churches 600700 years ago. The scenes of the mural
preservedtheold Eurasian mythicfightbetween light and darkness.King Saint Ladislaus ofHungary
lived in the 11th century A.D. The central scene is the wrestling between two heroes, one of the light
(represented by King Ladislaus) and the other the darkness (represented by a Cumanian hero). The
representationsofthisscenecanbefoundalloverinEurasia.ThismuraldetailisfromKakaslomnic,old
rva County in Medieval Hungary. (At present this village is in Slovakia.) All the three drawing
elements represent far interconnections within the cultural heritage of the Eurasian people, from the
PacificOceantotheAtlanticOcean.
FlrinFarkas
EditorinChief
TheHague,March15,2009
P.S. I experience it as rather symbolic that at the time of this periodicals launch I am on a visit in
Istanbul,inthismagnificentandmysticalcityatthejunctionofEuropeandAsia.Physicallythelaunchis
taking place from the St. Sophia Hotel, in the vicinity of Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya) and Sultan Ahmed
Mosque(SultanahmetCamii).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GBORBLINTDESZENTKATOLNA
(18441913)
The great Hungarian linguist, orientalist, Gbor Blint de Szentkatolna was a legendary Hungarian
scholar of the 19th century. He studied theology, oriental languages and law; it is stated that he spoke
about 30 different languages. Thanks to a support of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, he reached
Kalmykia for the first time in order to investigate the Mongolian language. He studied Tatar, Turkic,
Finnish,Russianandotherlanguagesinthefield,andwiththehelpJnosFogarasi,greatlinguistofthat
time, travelled intensively in the northern part of Eastern Eurasia, did fieldwork in presentday
Mongolia, which at that time made part of the Manchurian Empire. He stayed in Urga (nowadays:
Ulaanbaatar)foryears,andhestudiedtheoldliteraturesoftheMongolsandManchus.Itisverylikely
thathewasthefirstEuropeanscholarwhocollectedrunicscriptsinInnerAsia,butunfortunatelythese
collections disappeared. According to some whispers, Hunfalvy, the librarian of the Hungarian
AcademyofScienceshadburnedthem,becauseBlintsworkdidnotfitinhisnewtheoryoforiginof
Hungarians.WhenBlintreturnedtoHungaryinthemid1870s,theHungarianscientistswereheavily
debatingtheoriginsofHungarians.SomeforeignscholarsasHunfalvyorBudenzcreatedanew
theory, which was based on comparative linguistics, but this method alone could not be proved by
scientific evidence: that was why they brought the debate to an end by using force. Those ones, who
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
werenotabletoacceptthenewtheory,orFinnugrianlinguisticrelatives,werechasedfromthescientific
field,andcouldnotgetanyjobinanyinstitute.Blintgotsomefinancialsupportfromhismentors,and
forsometimehetaughtattheUniversityofBudapest.HeevenjoinedBlaSzchenyisAsianexpedition,
andreachedSouthernIndiain1876wherehestudiedtheDravidianlanguage.Whenoneofhismentors
diedandtheGeneralSecretaryoftheHungarianAcademyofSciencesretired,Blintlosthisjobinthat
scientific institute, despite he was the most talented scholar in Hungary. In 1879 he decided to leave
Hungary.
LargepartsofBlintsworkremainedunpublished.Hisextendedmanuscriptswerearchived,partly
in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. From these only two were published in his lifetime in
Hungarian: Ritual book of the Manchus and What do the Japanese Celebrate (Ethnographia).
BlintsnoteswritteninKalmykonthemigrationandhuntingpracticesoftheKalmyksisregardedasa
treasurechestofextraordinaryimportanceforpreConquestHungarianhistory.
Blint recognized thatthe Romanized Xiongnu is a selfdealing creation of Western scholarsand it
incorrectlyandmisleadingrendersthespokenChineseformhunorhunnu.Blintlistedthedatafrom
theancientEuropeansources,whichrefertotheHuns.Confrontingthesewithownobservationsmade
during his fieldwork he concluded that the ancient authors description of the Huns and Mounted
Nomads are generally correct. In his view, the Hun society and culture was shaped in close
neighbourhood with the Chinese in the East. An interference with China and Chinese was of crucial
importance already in the past preB.C. centuries in shaping the Hun way of life and military
organizations. Newer research concluded that the saddle apparently mounted nomad invention
wasknowninEasternChinaalreadyasearlyas220B.C.
ThepersonalfateofthescholarBlintbroughthimindirectconfrontationwithJosephBudenz,who
worked in Budapest in the 18701880s and who became a leading figure of the hypothetic UralAltaic
studies.BudenzwasthefavouriteoftheBudapestUniversityandtheHungarianAcademyofSciences.
Budenzwas abookscientistwholearned languages fromgrammarbooksanddictionaries.Blint was
an enthusiastic and successful fieldworker, for him, the spoken form of the language was primary in
which he beat the office tablet philologists. The Budapest linguistic establishment permitted only one
view: the one represented by Budenz. After a murderous intellectual discussion on the origin of the
Hungarianlanguage,Blintwentintoakindofselfchosenexilefrom1879until1892.
AbroadhespentyearsinOttomanEmpire,studiedamongothersArabiclanguages.Inthe1880she
taught Arabic language at the University of Athens. Jakab Elek and other Hungarian scholars in
HungarydemandedtheMinistryofCulturalofHungaryAustria,tocallbackBlinttoHungary.Finally,
he was appointed Head of the Department of UralAltaic Studies in Kolozsvr (nowadays: Cluj). He
taughtthereuntil1912,whenheretired.
Hediedsuddenlyin1913inTemesvr.
Blints place is a valued one in the gallery of great Transylvanian scholars like S. Gyarmathi,
S. KrsiCsoma, the two Bolyais, Smuel Brassai, who often had more productive scientific life with
intellectualoutput,thansomeinfluentialscholarsinbureaucraticBudapest.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hismainresults:
He was the first European linguists, who proved the identification of Asian Huns with
Europeanones.
HeshowedthelinguisticconnectionsbetweenDravidianlanguageswithCentralAsianones;
inhisviewtheDravidianwastheSanskritofTuranianlanguages.
HewasthefirstMongolistinHungaryandthethirdinEurope.
HisKabardianvocabularyisthebestintheworld.
HetaughtsuchkindoflanguagesatEuropeanUniversitieslikeJapanese,Kabardian,Mongol,
etc.
After Palladiuss work Blint was the first European scholar, who introduced the Secret
HistoryofMongolsin1895.HestudiedthatfromaManchurianversion.Sodidthatwiththe
Geserstory,too.
ForthefirsttimeheintroducedtheManchurianshamanritualstoHungarianscholars.
Hewasthefirst,whoconnectedLevediawiththeMeotisregion,whenhestudiedtheorigins
ofHungarians.
According to his investigation, Kazars were descendant of Huns, they belonged to
HunBulgariangroups,notTurkicones.
HerefusedtheUralAltaictheory,andsupportedtheTuranianone.
Hismainpublicationsare:
1877. Prhuzam a magyar s mongol nyelv tern. (Parallel between the Mongolian and
Hungarianlanguages),Hornyszky,Budapest.
1888. A tamul nyelv a turni nyelvek sanszkritja vagy vane a magyarnak testvre? (Is the
Tamul language the Sanskrit of Turanian languages, or Have the Hungarians Brothers and
Sisters?)In:ErdlyiMzeum.V.ktetI.fzet.3355,215236.
1895. A mongol csszrsg trtnete. (The History of the Mongolian Empire) In: Erdlyi
Mzeum.121128,209218,248259.
1901.Ahonfoglalsrevzija,vagyisahn,szkely,magyar,besenye,kunkrdstisztzsa.
(RevisionoftheHungarianHomelandConquestorclarifyingtheHunnic,Szkler,Hungarian,
PechenegandCumanquestions),Kolozsvr,Magnkiads.
BorblaObrusnszky
_____________________________________________________________________________________
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OURAUTHORS
ALIMBAY,Nursan
Studiedethnography.Hismainareaofresearchisnomadiccultureandnomads.Currentlyhe
isdirectoroftheStateMuseumofKazakhstan,Almaty.
ARADI,va
ShereceivedherM.A.degreeattheEtvsLrndUniversityinthefieldofHungarianand
English language and literature. Following this she stayed in India (Bombay) for 8 years and
studiedHindilanguageandliteratureatBharatiyaVidhyaBhavanfrom19711976.Tookpartin
many international conferences. She taught Hindi and Indian culture, literature in the Asia
Centre of Faculty of Sciences at Pcs University. Visited India several times.She holds a Ph.D.
degreeofHindiliterature.Ms.AradiwasawardedbytheVicePresidentofIndia,in1975at
theFirstInternationalHindiConferenceinNagpurandbythePresidentofIndia,Dr.Shankar
Dayal Sharma in 1992, in Budapest for her services of Hindi, and from the Indian
Gorvernment in New York, in July 2007, at the 8th World Hindi Conference. She published
several articles and one book about the Hungarian ancient history, about the Hephtalites. She
translated short stories and novels from Hindi to Hungarian, and published several articles in
India(inEnglishandinHindi,too.Shewastheandchairmanofthe1stInternationalHungarian
Ancient Conference in 2004, in Budapest, organized by the World Federation of Hungarians.,
andinAugust2008ofthe2ndInternationalHungarianAncientConferencealsoorganizedbythe
World Federation of Hungarians. Her main fields of research are the ancient history of the
HungariansandtheirAsianconnections.
BRCZI,Szaniszl
Physicistastronomer who made a new synthesis of evolution of matter according to the
material hierarchy versus great structure building periods. This model is a part of his Lecture
NoteSeriesBookontheEtvsUniversity.Healsoorganizedaresearchgrouponevolutionof
matter in the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Scince (with Bla
Lukcs).HewrotethefirstbookinHungaryaboutplanetaryscienceFromCrystalstoPlanetary
Bodies (also he was the first candidate of earth sciences in topics planetology). He built with
colleagues on the Etvs university the Hungarian University Surveyor (Hunveyor)
experimental space probe model for teachers training proposes and development of new
constructionsinmeasuringtechnologies.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FARKAS,Flrin
Electricengineer;MBA.ITandmanagementconsultant.LivingintheNetherlandssince1992.
MARCZ,Lszl
Born in 1960 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Receives his degree from the University of
Groningen.Between1984and1990heiswiththeUniversityofGroningenasassistantprofessor.
Between 1990 and 1992 as a Niels Stensen scholar he is with MTI, MTA and CNRS as a guest
researcher.Since1992Mr.MarczislectureroftheEastEuropeanInstituteoftheUniversityof
Amsterdam.Hisareasofresearchcovergeneralsyntax,Hungariangrammar,therelationshipof
HungariansandtheWest.Authorofnumerousscientificpublicationsandbooks.
MARCANTONIO,Angela
SeniorresearcherandlecturerofHistoricalLinguisticsandUralicStudiesattheUniversityof
Rome La Sapienza. She is a founder of the socalled revolutionary school of Finno
Ugric/Uralic studies. The results of her research are controversial, because she challenges the
foundation of the field, that is, the validity of the conventional FinnoUgric/Uralic theory and
related family tree. She is the author of several books and numerous articles (e.g.: The Uralic
Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics, 2002; A trtneti nyelvszet s a magyar nyelv eredete.
Angela Marcantonio vlogatott tanulmnyai (Historical Linguistics and the Origin of Hungarian:
Selected Papers by A. Marcantonio, 2006). Next to this, she is working on the origin and
prehistoryofHungarianinclosecooperationwithcolleaguesfromtheUniversitiesofBudapest
and Amsterdam, and she is also publishing in Hungarian periodicals in the Netherlands like
AmsterdamStudiesandMikesInternational.
OBRUSNSZKY,Borbla
Historian,orientalist.ShecompletedherstudiesattheUniversityEtvsLorndinBudapest
between 1992 and 1997 in history and Mongol civilization. This is followed by a postgradual
study at the Mongol State University, where she is awarded a Ph.D. degree in 1999. Between
2000and2002sheworkedasexternalconsultantoftheAsiaCenterattheUniversityofPcs,and
organized the Mongol programs of the Shambala Tibet Center. During this period she
participatedinseveralexpeditionsinMongoliaandChina.Ms.Obrusnszkyismemberand/or
founder of several Hungarian scientific associations and she is author of numerous books and
articles,andregularlyprovidesanalysesonCentralAsiainthescientificpress.Nexttothatshe
istheeditorinchiefofaneducationaljournal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ALIMBAY,Nursan:
CommunityasaPrincipleOrganizationalFormof
SocialRelationsofNomads
Preliminarynotes
The author of these lines has justified the thesis on nomadic society as of communal type of social
phenomenon in a number of his publications devoted to different aspects of history and ethnography of
nomads in Kazakhstan. 1 Such conclusion directly proceeds from objective logic of public relations in
nomadicambience.Thismakesthemastartingpointinreflectionsaboutthenatureofnomadicsocietyof
Kazakhs,whichcertainlyhasuniversalstrengthofdeterminationforallethnicallyspecific,geographically
(ecologically)andhistoricallyconditionedformofnomadisminEurasia.Nevertheless,astheauthorIwas
notsatisfiedwiththeworkdone.Andfirstofallbecausethesenseofpublic(social)relations(inthecontextof
nomadic and not only nomadic society) as reference notion for studying mechanism of functioning of
nomadism has not been clearly denoted initially. The point of such explication consists in clear
understanding of the fact that chosen cognitive angle of approach fully excludes oldestablished in
historiography(mainlyintherepublicsoftheformerUSSR)strategyproceduretothisissue,inparticular
stable practice of separating, or, to be more exact, artificial isolation of economic aspects of the social
phenomenonasaspecialandpriorityscientifictrendasifitisapanaceaforsolvingpracticallyallaspectsof
nomadology. It is obvious that such vision of the problem is conditioned by still prevailing and lopsided
understandinginpostSovietscienceoftheMarxistscheme:basis>superstructure.Inreality,functioning
ofsocialphenomenon,inourcase,nomadic,ineffectmeansinteractionofallcomponentsofthistypeof
socialrelations.Evidently,itisnotpossibletoignoreunequalroleoftheseorthosestructuralelementsinreal
functioning ofthese relations. However,unequalorpreferentialcharacterofseparatecomponentsofsocial
relations in societycannotaccountforpriorityoriented approach to them. Formed insoviethistoriography
tradition of preferential study of economic issues of nomadism separately from other aspects (e.g.,
culturological, ideological, political, etc.) led to the formation of a isolated trend, still dominating in post
soviet nomadology, i.e. economic determinism of soviet doctrine with its selfcontained and rather
conservativecharacter.Itisclearthatsuchreservedpositiondoesnotallowcarryingoutevenproductive
economicresearches,whichwouldqualifyformodernrequirements.Wewillspeaklateraboutit.
Meanwhile, real meaning and functions of any structural element of public relations (in our case,
nomadic),areamenabletotruescientificreconstructiononlytotheextentinwhicheachoftheseelements
FirstpublishedinELEINKMAGYARSTRTNET.Vol.VIII.,Issue1.(#15),2009,pp.2835.
See Alimbai N. Obschina kak sotsialnyi mekhanizm zhizneobespecheniya v kochevoi etnosisteme // Alimbai N., Mukanov
M.S., Argynbayev Kh. Traditsionnaya kultura zhizneobespecheniya kazakhov. Ocherki teorii i istorii. Almaty, 1998, p. 1061.
Alimbai N. Evraziiskoye kochevnichestvo kak obschinnyi tip sotsialnosti (Vvedeniye v problematiku) // Alimbai N. Ob
iskhodnykh printsipakh izycheniya traditsionnogo kazakhskogo obschestva (kratkii nomadologicheskii diskurs). Trudy
Tsentralnogomuseya.Almaty,2004,Vyp.I.,P.137160(inKazakhlanguage)andothers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
is considered in mutually dependent and conditioned ties with components of these relations. Such
apprehension of social relations as of substance of social structure of nomads makes up the content of
relevantcommonpositionoftheresearcherinthisissue.Thisisthefirstbasiclogicallevelofapproachto
studyingmechanismoffunctioningofnomadisminrealhistoricspaceandtime.
Thesecondessentiallogicallevelofapproachofresearchmeansstudyingoforganizationalformof
social relations of nomads, i.e. the community itself understood as main mechanism of functioning of
nomadicsocialphenomena.Thecommunityisconsideredbothasgeneralizedlevelandasspecifictypeof
socialrelations,andinfunctionalaspectasameansofsocialactivityinnomadicethnoecosystem.
Heuristic possibility of these two levels is consistently implemented, concretized and completed in the
process of realization of the third final logical level of the research. The point of the latter consists in
studyingethnicallycharacteristic,historicallyandecologicallyconditionedorganizationalformsofcommunal
relationsinnomadicambience.Iftwofirstlogicallevelsaretransitional,thelatterisresultingtheprocedure
oforganizationandsubmissionofcorrespondinghistorical(ethnological)material.Certainly,thelimits
betweentheselevelsareintercrossableandhighlytentative.
Nowwewillspeakaboutthenomadiccommunityitself,whichistraditionallyinfocusofinterestsof
several generations of scientists. We should note that the role of the community as a principle life
supportingpublicinstitutioninthelifeofthenomadsandmeaningfulcategoryinthehistoryandtheory
of nomadism is acknowledged by almost all the researches and is posited in all serious works on
nomadism.ThereisalistoftermsmarkingtheexistingnetworkofcategoriesandnotionsofSovietand
postSovietstudyofnomadismsuchaspastureandnomadiccommunity,territorialandneighborly
community, private ownership labor stock raising peasant household, extended (meaning
maximal)andminimalcommunitiesrepresentingcooperationofworkingindividualsonthewhole
production cycle etc. 2 However, these determinations, brought mainly from the sphere of Oriental,
SlavonicorAfrican study,whichhavebeenformed in thetidewayofhistorical materialism traditions,
expressivelycharacterizeoneratherremarkablepeculiarityoftraditionalnomadology,i.e.itsdedication
tostudyingonlyeconomicaspectsoftheissue.Asmentionedabove,thiswayofmaterialpresentationis
aconsequenceofdividingsocialsystemofnomads(andnotonlynomads)intotwoartificialopposing
thresholdsproductiveeconomic,beingconsideredasprimary,basicandsocalledtopside,including
allotheraspects.
Inthetidewayofsuchscientificlogicitwasandisconsideredthatstudyingofproductionandeconomic
issues of the problem allows disclosing naturalist and social nature of nomadism. Thus, economic
deterministic attitude towards not only socalled topside structures but also the nomadic community on
the whole as some secondary, derived formation has been formed in science. Its not accidentally that all
See Vladimirtsov B.Ya. Obschestvennyi stroi mongolov. Mongolskii kochevoi feodalism // Raboty po istorii I etnografii
mongolskikh narodov. M., 2002. P. 295488; Shakhmatov V. F. Kazakhskaya pastbischnokochevaya obschina (Voprosy
obrazovaniya, evolyutsii I razlozheniya). AlmaAta, 1964; Tursunbayev A.B. Kazakhskii aul v trekh revolutsiyakh. AlmaAta,
1967; Tolybekov S.E. Kochevoye obschestvo Kazakhov v XVII nachale XX veka: politicoeconomicheskii analiz. AlmaAta,
1971;MarkovG.E.KochevnikiAzii.StrukturakhozyaistvaIobschestvennoiorganizatsii.M.1976;ObschinavAfrike.Problemy
tipologii. M., 1978; Masanov N.E. Kochevaya tsivilizatsiya kazakhov: osnovy zhiznedeyatelnosti nomadnogo obschestva.
AlmatyMoscow,1995;KurylevV.P.Skot,zemlya,obschinaukochevykhipolukochevykhkazakhov(vtorayapolovinaXIX
nachaloXXveka).SaintPetersburg,1998,andothers.
2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
abovementioned definitions of nomadic community in practice turned out to be nonoperational, i.e.

arbitrary constructions far from historic and ethnographic reality. In other words, rather restricted in its
heuristic possibilities approach of historical materialism failed to explain the nature of nomadic
communityasasocialphenomenon.Obviously,thisiswhymodernstudyofnomadismdoesnotallowto
present systematic structure and functions of nomadic community, basic organizational form of its
functioninginrealhistoricambienceandtime.
Thelogicconsequenceofsuchapproachisthatexistingdeterminationsofthecommunityarebased
only on its empirically fixed external features (collective and corporate nature of associations of direct
producers, solidarity of purpose (first of all productive), availability of territory, local ethnic self
denomination,consciousness,etc.Itisclearthatthesefeaturesbeingexternalmanifestationsofessential
parametersandqualitiesofacommunalorganizationcannotserveascriteriaofsystematicidentification
of the community. In other words, they do not allow explaining the mechanism of autonomous
functioningofthecommunityasasocialphenomenon.
Meanwhile, studying of the nomadic community at the level of newest achievements of social
sciences is a key to solution of nomadism secrets, which is understood both as specific form of self
organization of a human group and optimal social technology andstrategy of use of nature under the
conditions of Central Asian heavy continental climate. Unfortunately many of these secrets have not
been disclosed yet. We are speaking about the necessity of studying the nomadic community as a
dominating mechanism of functioning of nomadic society. This explains topicality and necessity of
studying the communal organization as an original and key aspect of history and theory of Central
Asiannomadism,i.e.,thebasiccategoryofmodernstudyofnomadism.
It should be noted that communal structure is in the first place selfreproducing and selfregulating
system, i.e. the dominating mechanism of permanent reproduction of social phenomenon and
personality ofa communal type. This functional feature is principally importantand methodologically
necessary for elaborating optimal way of theoretical solution of the issue, i.e. ethnosociologic
reconstruction of nomadic community as a basic organizational form of social relations of nomads. In
other words, anidea ofthecommunityasofselfreproducing and selfregulatingsystem,i.e.asystem
withautonomousregimeoffunctioningisabasicandkeyprincipleofformingofmethodologicallytrue
attitude towards the object under research. Thus, typological parameters (structural elements, features,
characteristics, etc.) of the nomadic community should answer the purposes of elaborating such
theoretical construction, which would allow to clearly imagining this social organization as a self
reproducingandselfregulating autonomous system. We are speakingaboutsuchcommunityforming
and community identifying parameters, which would possess system structure forming features. Only
varioustypesandlevelsofsocialrelationsinnomadicambience,thesystemaggregateofwhichmakes
upthecontentofcommunityrelationspossesssuchqualities.Inmyopinion,theideaofthecommunity
asoforganicunityofvarioustypesandlevelsofsocialrelationsofnomadslocalized(butnotlocal)
bysocial,economic,institutional,territorial,ecological,ideologicalandevensocialculturalprinciples
is a reliable criteria of system identification of nomadic community as a selfreproducing and self
regulatingentity,i.e.asocialphenomenon.
For understanding the essence of this determination it is necessary to note that main components
(structuralelements)ofsocialrelationsarenotonlysubjectsbutalsoobjects,itemsandmeansofsocial
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
activity considered in their naturalist multilevel mutually dependable relations. Thus, there are all
grounds to assert that social relations in certain sense act as structure (and as technology) of social
activity.Intheirturn,thelattershouldbeconsideredasfunctionalstateofsocialrelations.
A very important consequence, which allows specifying the structure of communal relations in a
nomadicambience,resultsfromthelogicsofthisconcept.Itconsistsinthefactthatnotonlyindividuals
from the community with their alternate social ties but also all socialsignificant objects, items, means
and norms of human activity, i.e. cattle, territory, local ethnic consciousness and selfdenomination,
various rituals, rites, system of relationship, ethnic stereotypes and moral norms of conduct, folk
traditions and even nomadic paths and routes (understood as the most important elements of
productionprocess),etc.functioningasspecificwaysandmeansandchannelsofrealizationofsocial
relationsarethestructuralelementsofthecommunalrelations.
Itcanreadilybeascertainedthatsuggesteddeterminationofnomadiccommunityinitstwomutually
conditioned aspects structural and functional does not exclude but naturally includes above
mentionedtraditionalcommunalidentifyingfeatures(availabilityofterritory,localethnicconsciousness,
communityofinterests,etc.)asorganiccomponentsofcommunalrelations.
Alongside with this, it should be noted that all levels, types and structural elements of communal
relations are in different correlative and causeandeffect mutually dependent relations. This fact
representsaveryimportantprincipleoftheoreticalreconstructionofcommunalrelations.
Thisallowsmakingprincipallyimportantconclusionaboutthenomadiccommunityasofgeneralized
type(level)ofsocialrelations.
Letusproceedtothecentralissueofthisreport:inwhatorganizationalformdidthisgeneralizedtype
ofsocialtieslocalizedinparametersmentionedabovefunction?Isitorganicfusionofdifferenttypesand
levelsofpublicrelationsintheformofzhuz 3,tribeorclan,i.e.sevengenerationsexogamicstructure?
If we judge by real logic of nomadic society then it is the exogamic type of social formation
synthesizing practically all levels and types of social relations that acts as mechanism of self
reproduction and selfregulation of social phenomenon. It is question of socalled sevengeneration
exogamicstructureunitingpaternalgroupsofrelatives(realandseeming)withinsevengenerationsand
detached from similar structures by exogamic barrier of family and marital relations. Its known
demographic limitation in time and space, territorial localization as well as delimitation from similar
formations by exogamic barrier of family and marital relations received ideological grounding in
principlesandnormsofgenealogictraditionshezhire 4andareconditionedbysocialeconomic,natural,
Zhuzisthenameofpotestaspoliticalassociation(orunion)oftribeswithitsownterritoryandautonomoussystemofself
administration. Kazakhs traditionally were divided into three zhuzs: Big, Middle, Little. Basing on information of Russian
servantsPetrovT.andKunitsynI.abouttheirtriptoKalmyklandin1616aswellasonthematerialsoffamouswritingof
medievalauthorKhafizTanyshSharafNameIShakhitheknownOrientalistYudinV.P.believedthatbythebeginningof
XVII century the dissociation of all three zhuzs has taken place.// Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XVXVIII
vekov.AlmaAta,1969,p.243.
Shezhire (in Arab shadzhara is translated literally as tree) is a specific and the most popular trend in folklore
historiography in traditional ambience of Kazakhs narrating about origin (frequently mythological) of this or that clan (tribe)
and even ethnos. However, such genealogic trend of shezhire is in fact subject to main ideological goal, i.e. regulation of
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ecologicalandinstitutionalfactors.Itisafundamentalprincipleofnotonlyregulatingfamilyandmarital
relationsatthelevelofthewholeethnosbutalsoaspecificwayofselforganizationofnomadicsociety.
Figuratively saying sevengenerations structure represents a genealogic tree in which the main
systemformingandregulatingrolepertainstomixedcognationgroupofagnatetype,asortofancestral
trunk having more close genealogic relation to common ancestor. As a consequence, more close and
intensive tribe relations characterize him. In a complex system of socioculturally, economically and
ecologically conditioned relative and clan relations ancestral trunk realizes common generalized
organizationandmanagementfunction.Thelatterisrealizedintheformofgenealogicsegmentationof
relative and clan relations (practically speaking, genealogically organized social ties) in the social
phenomenononthebasisofdetermininggeneticdistanceofbranchesfromancestraltrunk.Principal
parts of the genealogic tree ancestral trunk; bottom, upper and side branches as a matter of fact
represent main institutionalized knots of regulating various types and levels of public relations. It was
withintheframeworkofthisstructurethatlifeactivityoftheindividual,familyandthecommunityitself
hasbeenreproducedandregulated.
Sevengenerations exogamic form of family and marital relations alongside with patrilineal
genealogicsystemofidentificationandorganizationofrelativeandclanrelationsdetermineexogamic
genealogicprincipleofsegmentationofpublicrelationsandinthiscapacityisthemainwayofterritorial
andspacelocalizationandselforganizationoflifeactivityofethnicgroup.Thus,separationofthenext
circleofrelatives(startingfromeightgeneration,whichbecomesanewancestralnuclearofadetached
patrilinealgenealogic structure) from this patrilineal group and formation on its basis of a new ethnic
groupwithnecessaryterritoryallottedtoitisrealizedparticularlyonthegroundofthisprinciple.
Segmentation of relative and clan relations by means of space and territorial localization and
organization of segmented group virtually means redistribution of human, material and natural
resourcesofthisethnoecosystem.Accordingly,theprincipleofsegmentationrepresentsaratherefficient
andsupraliminalwayofmaintainingandregulatingdynamicequilibriumstateofnomadiccommunity
fromthepointofviewofharmoniccombinationofitsoptimaldemographicdensitywithresourcesofits
habitat. Neither zhuz no tribe can be a real subject of property on certain territory since they are
potestaspolitical(lat.potestasmeanspower,here:archaicortribalpower)entities:tribeisadefinite
quantity of communities, i.e. associative union of definite number of sevengenerations exogamic
structures; zhuz is an association oftribes. Since ties between these ethnosocial entities are lineal they
arerealizedmainlybymeansofpotestaspoliticalandgenealogical,i.e.institutionalmanner.
Social,spaceandeconomicorganizationofaclanterritoryintheformofitsseasonsegmentationon
jailyau, kuzeu, kystau, kokteu, etc. witnessing a thoughtout anthropogenic impact of nomads on
ecologicalenvironmentisrealizedonlyatthelevelofcommunity.
Thismeansofsocial,economicandspaceorganizationoftheterritoryformingalongsidewithspotty
types of knowledge, skills, production methods a specific technology of the economic cycle in the
nomadichabitatalsotestifiestoorganicinvolvementofthecommunityintolocalbiocenosis.
norms,formsandprinciplesofrelativeandclanrelationsofnomads.Suchaneffectiveinstituteofregulatingvariouslevelsand
typesoftraditionalsocialrelationshasfunctionedinthisquality.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
16
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
As for socalled economic aul (which is considered by a number of researches as a minimal

community) it is only an organic part of the community and represents specific seasonal functional
status,orwayofexistingofthelatterincoldtimeoftheyear,accordingtoV.P.Kabo. 5
Itshouldbenotedthatcommunalrelationsactasmainrestrictingmechanismofprivateownership
aspirationsinnomadicambience.Communal,collectiveoriginisafundamentalprincipleoflifeactivity
of nomadic social phenomenon: community acts as a subject of property in the sphere of landowning
andlanduse;abigfamilyisamainownerofthecattle.Ifcommunalwayoflandowningandlanduseis
asocially,ecologicallyandeconomicallyconventionalconditionoflifeactivityofabigfamily(Birata 6)
then the latter, being an organic part of the community acts as socioculturally and economically
organized mechanism of realization of communal relations of property on territory in the form of
relationsofownershipandrelationsofuse 7.Thatiswhyrelationsofuseinnomadichabitatregulatedby
norms and principles of genealogically organized communal relations act as main mechanism of
realization of relations of ownership on land. That is to say that limitation of monopoly and
concentration of property of nomads in social aspect should be explained by limitation of private
ownershiporigininthistypeofsociality.
Thus,nomadicsocietyofKazakhsisanassociationofcommunitiesinwhichabsolutedominationof
communal origin, communal order in the way of life of nomads acts as basic condition and law of
functioningofthissocialsystem.Communityofnomadictypeisnotastadialformationsincethereare
nodiachronicallyandsynchronicallyfixedfeaturesofstadiality.Uniquenessofcommunalorganization
ofnomadsconsistsinthefactthatitfullypreserveditsoriginalstructuralandfunctionalstatus,i.e.life
activity ability up to final disintegration of this type of sociality. Such atemporal functioning of this
dominating form of social organization of nomads is evidently conditioned by the fact that it was the
mainorganizationalformofsocialrelationsandtheonlypossiblewayofselforganizationofnomadic
ethnosanditsexisting.
SeeKaboV.P.Avstraliiskayaobschina//ProshloyeInastoyascheeAvstraliiiOkeanii.M.1979.P.139171.
BirAtaistranslatedfromtheKazakhlanguageliterallyascommonancestor.Itistheselfdenominationofabigfamily
unitingagroupofcloserelativeswithintwoorthreepaternallygenerations.
6
7 On the structure and mechanism of realization of relations of ownership on cattle and land see: Alimbai N. O mekhanizme
realizatsiiotnosheniisobstvennostivkochevomobschestve//Margulanovskiyechteniya.1990.Sbornikmaterialovkonferentsii.
Moscow,1992,p.917.AlimbaiN.Obschinakaksotsialnyimekhanizmzhizneobespecheniyavkochevoietnoecosisteme,p.
3957; Alimbai N. Ob iskhodnykh printsipakh izycheniya traditsionnogo kazakhskogo obschestva (kratkii nomadologicheskii
diskurs).TrudyTsentralnogomuseya.Almaty,2004,Vyp.I.,P.137160(inKazakhlanguage)andothers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
17
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
,ypca:
,
,
1.
.
,
, ()
.
. ,
() ( ,
)
.,

( ) , :
, ,
, ,
. ,
,
: > .
, ,
. ,
. , , ,

.
.,:.//
., .., . .
. , 1998. .1061; . (
) // Urban and Nomadic Societies in Central Asia: History and Challenges. Proceedings of international
Conference. Almaty,2004; . (
) (About the initial Principles of Research of Traditional Kazakh Society (a short nomadic
discourse)//.,2004,.,I..137160(.),.
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________
18
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

(: , , ..)
,
(,)
, . ,

,
.

()
,
.

.
.

, ,
.
,
,
.
,

.,

. ,
,
() . ,
.
,
.,

. ,

, ,
, ,
(: ) ,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
19
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
. 2.

,

( ,
) . ,
(
)
, , , ,
.
,
,
.
,
,,.,
, . .
. ,

. ,
,
.
,

, ( !), ,
. .). , ,
,
. ,
.

,,,
,
.: . . . //
..,2002..295488;..(
, ). , 1964; . . . ,
1967; . . XVII XX : . ,
1971; . . . . ., 1976; .
. ., 1978; . . :
.,1995;..,,(
XIXXX)..,1998,.
2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
20
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

.
.
, . .
.
,
, . .
.

.
,
, . . ,
.
( , , .
.) ,

.
,
.
, . ,
,
,
( ) , , ,
, , ,
,...
,
()
, , ,
.
,
( ) . ,

.
,
. ,

, ,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
21
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
, , ,
, , , ,
,,
(
) . ., ,
.
,

, , ,
(,
, . .)
.,,

.
.
().
:
,

3,,..
?
,
, ,
.
,
()
.
,
,

4 ,
( )
. : , , .
.. . .
1616,
, XVII. //
XVXVIII.,1969,.243.
3
( , )
, (
) (), .
,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
22
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
.
,
.
, ,

,
.
.
,,

.
(,)
.
, , , ,
,
.
,,.

.,,
(,
)

.

, ,
, . ,
,

.
,, :
, . ,
,,,.
,
,..,.
.
.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
23
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

(),(),(
), ( ) . .,
, .
,
, ,
,
.
(
),
,
.., 5.
,
.,,
,:
,
.
, ,
(ip ) 6, ,
,

7.,
,
.
.
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.:..//..,1979..139171.
. ,
.
.:
. // . 1990.
.,1992,.917;.
, .3957; .
(),.139,143,148153(.),.
7
_____________________________________________________________________________________
24
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

.
,,,
,,,
,.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
25
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ARADI,va:
ABriefIntroductionofaGreatExplorerSirAurelStein,(18621943)
ThereisalonelygraveintheoldcemeteryofKabulwherethefamousarcheologistandgeographer
SirAurelSteinrestsforever.Hediedfarfromhismotherlandashiscompatriot,AlexanderCsomadeKrs
whosetombisalsoamongtheHimalayanmountains:intheChristiancemeteryofDarjeeling.Therewas
asimilarityinthesignificanceoftheirlifework,too.
Stein coming from Hungary and Britain, scientifically conquered Central Asia in the first half of the
twentiethcentury.Hehadaqualitywhichislackinginthemodernworldthatofthegreatmanandthe
greatexplorer.
Thepossibilitiesofhistimegavehimtheopportunityforbecomingaperson,whoseworkdepended
onlyonhisownknowledge,skillandeffort,needingnoaids,nogreatfinancialhelp.Hewasoneofthe
greatestexplorersinhistime,onewhofollowedinthefootstepsofMarcoPolo,VascodeGamma,Sven
Hedinandmainlythefootstepsofhiscountryman:theHungarianAlexanderCsomadeKrs.
Aurel Stein was born in Budapest, the capital of Hungary in 1862 from a welltodo middle class
family. He was educated first in the Protestant Gymnasium in Budapest which was one of the best
secondary schools in Hungary at that time. Here he became fascinated with the significant historical
person:AlexandertheGreat.AtthesametimehisattentionturnedtotheEastasaresultofhispersonal
acquaintancewithrminVmbry,anotedHungariantravellerandresearcherofCentralAsia.
After completing his secondary studies in Budapest Stein spent four years at the universities of
Vienna, Leipzig and Tbingen studying Indian and Iranian ancient history. He got his doctorate from
Tbingen and he decided to continue his studies in Britain. He knew that in London and Oxford he
wouldfindoldIranianandIndiantextsandbooksofreference.
From1884hespentfouryearsinBritainstudyingIndianphilosophyandarcheologyunderthegreat
Indologist: Dr. Max Mller. In 1888 he published his first important paper: Zoroastrian Deities on Indo
Scythian Coins, 1 and he called the attention of H. Yule and H. Rawlinson. They helped Stein to get
employment in India. Soon he became the Registar of Punjab University and later the Principal of the
OrientalCollegeinLahore(nowinPakistan);heheldthesepostsforthenextelevenyears.Thoughthese
posts required much work, in thesummer vacations he could go for archeological explorations. In the
firstsummerhewenttoKashmir,andhefellinlovewithitsmountainsandclimate.Hesethiscampat
11,000 feet high at Mohan Marg, where he stayed every summer for years working on his books. It is
interestingtomentionthatanotherfamousHungarianIndologist:ErvinBaktayvisitedhereAurelStein
IndianAntiquary,1888,No.17,pp.8999.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
26
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
in 1930. Baktay wrote of the beauty of Steins camp site and the simple but happy life of the grear
hermit. 2
InIndiahereadtheworksofthefamousChineseBuddhistpilgrim:HsanTsangwhotravelledthere
in the seventh century. On the basis of his book, Stein took a brief tour in the Punjab in 1890 and
discoveredtheremainsofaJaintempleatthesiteofSimhapura.StudyingmoreancientChinesewriters
hisattentionturnedtowardChineseTurkistan.Moreoverthefamousarcheologist:SvenHedinsvisitto
theTarimbasinin1895gaveSteinadecisiontogothereforanexpedition.Butforthisjourneyhehadto
wait.
Hemadesmallertrips:early1898hesetoutintotheSwatValleytothewestoftheIndusRiverandhe
foundruinedBuddhistshrinesandsometracesofRomanandHellenisticart. 3
In1899hespenthisholidaysonanarcheologicaltourintheSouthBihardistricttheancientMagadha
where he identified old caves, roads and stupas with those mentioned by his favourite Chinese
Buddhist pilgrims. 4 This tour was especially important as by this time his scientifical method became
fullydeveloped.
InthemeantimehewaswaitingforthegovernmentapprovalofhisgreatChineseTurkistanjourney
hehadplannedlongago.FinallyinMay1900hegotit,oneyearspecialleaveandagovernmentgrantof
600. He started for Chinese Turkistan and soon reached Khotan where he discovered the sites of
Dandan, Niya and Endere on the basis of Hsan Tsangs ancient guidance. Thesediscoveries were very
importantbecauseitappearedthatthecultureandhistoryofCentralAsiahadsignificantinfluenceon
theIndianandIraniancivilizations.Hecamebackin1902withvaluablefinds,amongthemKharosthi,
Chinese, Sanskrit, Khotanese and Tibetan documents. At that time he wrote his famous publication:
Sandburried Ruins of Khotan (London, T.Fisher Unwin, 1903). He was appointed to Archeological
SurveyorandhecouldusehispositiontomakefurthersurveysinBaluchistanandattheIndoAfghan
border(theoldtimeBactria)inthenexttwoyears.
In1906heobtainedthesupportoftheIndianGovernmentandtheBritishMuseumandsetoutforhis
second and most significant Central Asian journey. At this tour he explored mainly the Swat desert,
reaching through the Lop basin to the borders of China. Near Tunhuang in an oasis he found the most
valuablediscoveryofhisjourney:overfourthousandBuddhistmanuscriptshiddeninthecavesofthe
Thousand Buddhas. In 1907 he returned to Khotan and later he surveyed the Kunlun range but in
SeptembertheweatherbecamesocoldinthemountainsthathehadtoturnbacktoIndia.
Apart from the rich archeological and artistic materials brought by him, Stein discovered a lost
language: the Sogdian (he found in the above mentioned caves nine Sogdian letters of Zoroastrian
contentfromthe4thcenturyA.D.).
After this great journey he went back to Britain in 1908, and he got down to write his monumental
workswithscientificaccuracy.Atthattimehestartedhismostfamouswork:Serindia,DetailedReportof
2
ErvinBaktay:MagyarutazIndiban,1933.SingersWolfner,Budapest,p.69.
DetailedReportofanArcheologicalTourwithBunerFieldForce,Ind.Antiquary,1899,No.28,pp.1428,3346,5864.
NotesonanArcheologicalTourinSouthBiharandHazaribagh,Ind.Antiquary,1901,pp.5463
_____________________________________________________________________________________
27
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Explorations in Central Asia and Westernmost China, Carried out and Described Under ther Orders of H.M.
IndianGovernment,byAurelStein.Hecouldfinishthesebooksonlyin1920inIndia.
Bythistimehebecameamemberofmanyscientificassociations:TheRoyalGeographicalSociety,the
ScottishGeographicalSociety,theHungarianAcademyofSciences,etc.Hewasagreatscholarandthe
manofactioncombined.Hewasadiscovererwithscientificthoroughness.Hewasacombinationofa
geographer,anarcheologistandahistorian,perhapsthelastamongthegreatpolymathsinmoderntime.
In 1911 he returned to India and started to make preparations for his third great Central Asian
journey which lasted from 1913 till 1916 and covered 11,000 miles. He set out from Kashmir, went to
Kashgar, the Pamirs, Kansu, Taklamakan, Dzungaria, Turfan, Persian Baluchistan and the Helmund
basinofSistan.AfterhislongandsuccessfultourhewenttoBritainagainfortwoyearstowriteupthe
materialsoftheexpedition.HeinterruptedhissojourninEnglandtospendthespringsandsummersin
his beloved Kashmirian mountain camp. He stayed mainly in India in the post war years. In 1926 he
went for a shorter tour to the Upper Swat district where he found the site of the mountain fortress of
AornosontheleftbankoftheIndus;theplacewhatwasconqueredbyhisfavouritehero:Alexanderthe
Great.Hewroteabouthisdiscoveryinascientificarticle. 5
In1930hewantedtotravelagaintotheTarimbasinandtomakeanothergreatjourneyforthefourth
time,addingtoitatriptoInnerMongoliabutthepoliticalconditionsandthechangingoftheBritish
Chineserelationshamperedthistour.HewentforsmallerexplorationstotheIndusvalleyandPunjab
where he identified with his skilled eyes the site of Alexanders crossing the Jhelum and of his battle
withtheIndianking:Poros. 6
AtthattimehewantedtocontinuethediscoveryofAlexandersbattlefieldsthereforeheexcavatedat
thePersianGulfcoastwherein1937hediscoveredthesiteofthebattleatArbela. 7Thenin1942hemade
a trip into the territory on the east side of the Indus River and explored a part of Alexanders ancient
route. 8 As he discovered almost all the places where his hero passed by on his great conquering war,
SteinwantedtogotoAfghanistanwherehehopedtofindsomeadditionalsitesofAlexanderssbattles.
His old American friend, Cornelius Engert who was the USA Ambassador in Afghanistan got official
permissionforSteinandinvitedhimtoKabul.SteinarrivedinKabulinOctober1943wherehegotcold
whatsoondeveloped into bronchitis and within five days he died there, at the age of 81. The life ofa
successfulandremarkablescholarcametoanend.
Onecanaskthequestion,whatwasbehindSteinsgreatnessandsuccesses?Firstofallhispersonal
qualities: accuracy, physical strength, technical knowledge (the synthesis and dialectic employment of
topographical,linguistic,historicalandanthropologicalresearches),superbcourageandgreatdevotion
towork.
AlexandersCampaignontheNorthwestFrontier,Geogr.Journ.1927,No.70.pp.417439.
TheSiteofAlexandersPassageoftheHydaspesandtheBattleofPoros,Geogr.Journ.1932,No.8.pp.3146.
NotesonAlexandersCrossingoftheTigrisandtheBattleofArbela,Geogr.Journ.1942,No.100.pp.155164.
OnAlexanderssRouteintoGedrosia,anArcheologicalTourintoLasBela,Geogr.Journ.1943.No.102.pp.193227.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
28
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hewasauniversalscholar,aEuropeannomadastheProbateCourtinLondondeclaredhimwhen
severalcountriesclaimedhislegacy.Forthisreasonhecantbelongtoonlyonenationbuttothewhole
mankind,totheuniversalcivilization.
TheMostImportantWorksofSirAurelStein:
SERINDIA,infivevolumes,morethan1500pages,1920,London.
A Journey of Geographical and Archeological Exploration in Chinese Turkistan, 1902,
SmithonianReport,Vol.I,II.
SunburriedRuinsofKhotan,1908,London.
Ancient Khotan. Detailed Report of Archeological Explorations in Chinese Turkistan and
Khotan,II.Vols.1907,Oxford.
RuinsofDesert,1913,London.
AThirdJourneyofExplorationinCentralAsia19131916;withmaps,1916,London.
HatimsTales:KashmirianStoriesandSongs,1923.London.
AlexandersCampaignontheIndianNortWestFrontier,1927,London.
InnermostAsia.DetailedReportofCentralAsiaandEasternIran,1928,Oxford.
AnArcheologicalTourinWaziristanandNorthernBaluchistan,1929,Calcutta.
AnArcheologicalTourinGedrosia,1930,Calcutta.
AnArcheologicalTourinUpparSwatandAdjacentHillTracts,1930,Calcutta.
AncientRoadtoAsia,1934,Oxford.
AnArcheologicalTourintheAncientPersis,1935.Calcutta.
ArcheologicalReconnaissancesinNorthWestIndiaandSouthEastIran,1937.London.
HetranslatedforthefirsttimetheKashmirianhistorian:KalhanasRajatarangini(TheFlowofKings)
from Sanskrit into English, 1900, London. It gives the ancient history of Kashmir and India and it is a
greathelpfortheresearchers.
BesidetheseworksSteinwrotedifferentarticlestoscientificjournals.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
29
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BRCZI,Szaniszl:
AncientEurasianHeritagePreservedinJapanI.
Shrines,WhiteHorsesandFestivals
Abstract:ShrinesandfestivalsarecentresofculturalheritageinJapanpreservingancienttraditions
as fragments of old life. We visit Izumo Taisha Shrine and Izumo Museum, Kamigamo Jinja Shrine in
Kyoto, and AnaHachimangu Shrine in Tokyo to find some characteristic feautures of these ancient
traditions, markers and witnesses of thousands of years survival. Events in theAoi Festival horseback
archeryandtheautumnceremonialwrestlinginKyotocanbecomparedtotwoepisodesonthemural
seriesoftheSaintLadislausLegendinHungaryandintheCarpathianBasin.Thearchaeologicalrelics
and recent living fossils sketch an Eurasian horizon of the common cultural heritage which was
distributedduringthethousandsofyearsalloverthesupercontinent.
Introduction
Hungarian visitors find wonderful cultural treasuries in Japan. Being an island, the ancient life in
Japan is more continuous than in continental crossroads and Eurasian cultural traditions, once arrived
anddistributed,cansurviveherethousandsofyears.Hungariansstillpreservemanyculturaldisciples,
like as old language, art, dance, music, folk tales and even thinking systems from the far past coming
from their own traditions and from the settling migration peoples (Scythians, Sarmatians, Xiongnu
Huns,Avarian[Heptalite]Huns,OnogurianHuns,Cumanians)comingfromtheEurasianSteppebelt.
Comparable old traditions survived in several centres of Eurasia; therefore they can be compared till
today. Comparative archaeology, comparative ethnography has unexhaustable sources in the Eurasian
architectural, ornamental, musical arts, technologies, religious traditions, and several other fields of
personalandcommunitylife.
Architectureofshrines
IzumoTaishaShrine
IzumoTaisha() ShrineistheoldestShintoshrineinJapan.ItcanbefoundintheNorthWest
seasidepartofJapan,inShimanePrefecture.ThereisatraditioninJapanthatonceuponintimeJapan
wasgoverned fromIzumo.Later the other center oforganization from theNaraKyotoRegionfighted
anddefeatedIzumo,however,thecenterofthereligioustraditionsremainedinIzumo.
Among the tremendous and rich historical and cultural remnants unearthed by the modern
archaeologyinIzumoDistrictthereisonewhichisthemostoutstandinginEurasianrespect.Thisisthe
_____________________________________________________________________________________
30
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
architecture of the Izumo Shrine, an extraordinary masterpiece of the wooden architecture. Even the
name which survived thousands of years can orient us about the origin. The style is called Taisha
zukkuri. Only one other building with such Taisha zukkuri style exists in the Matsue town region:
KamosuJinjaShrine.
AccordingtotheoldestchartersthebuildingofIzumoTaishawasthetallestbuildinginJapan.Itwas
even taller than the well known Todaiji Temple in Nara with height of 45 meters. The characteristic
featureoftheIzumoTaishawasalongstaircasegoinguptotheshrine.Thestaircasewasplacedonthe
rightsideofthefacade,extendingalmost110meterslong,goinguptotheshrine.
As known, the shrines and temples in Japan are renewed time to time. This activity is necessary,
because the woods gradually loss their strength. Restoration means the replacement of some or all
wooden elements, but the old shrine survives as a whole. If a building is old enough the written
chroniclesanddescriptionsareusedintherestoration.
AboutthearchitecturalassemblyoftheIzumoTaishathereareseveraldescriptions,evenfromthe7th
and 9th century A.D. These descriptions show the sketches and layouts of the buildings. The central
Izumo Tasiha building has a plan which shows the 9 columnar bundles, holding the shrine house
building. Each bundle consisted of 3 columns with 1.3 meters diameter. There were architectural
excavations in 2000 in the territory of the Izumo Taisha main building. In April the remnants of a
truncated columnar bundle roots of an ancient building were found. In the same year, October two
otherswerefound,so3ofthe9columnarbundleswitnessedthedescriptionsoftheancientchronicles.
Thediameterofonebundleis3meters.
Architects began to reconstruct the ancient Izumo Shrine main building (Mistsuaki Matsuo, 2004):
Accordingtothelengthsizescaleofthebuilding,a110meterslongstaircaseclimbedthedistancetothe
holybuildingupintheheightof50meters.The1:10ratiomodelofthebuildingwasbuiltandexhibited
in the regular exhibition of the Izumo Museum. If the visitor knows Eurasian architecture of the past
thousands of years, a Mezopotamian zikkurat emerges from his/her memory. This is also triggered by
theTaishazukkuristylename,too(Fig.1.).
Therecentshrineisnotashighastheolderones.However,themainratiosandchronicaldescriptions
stillpreservedtheoriginalcharacterofthebuildingtowhichhistoricalstudiesmayguidethevisitorsto
understandtherootsofthisancientbuilding.IzumoTaishaisatreasureoftheEurasianartandhistory,
anditisworthtostudyitsMezopotamianconnections.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
31
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fig.1.Theancient(left,reconstruction)andtherecentIzumoTaishaShrine.
KamigamoJinja,Kyoto
The Kamigamo Jinja () stands in the Northern suburbs of the ancient Japanese capital,
Kyoto. As written in the guidebook, it had been built in the 7th century A.D. However, it is also
mentioned, that earlier the shrien was in the neighbor mountain. On the top of the Koyama, or
MountainoftheGod,therestandastonealtar.
InKyoto,onthetopoftheGodMountaintherewascelebrationtothegod.However,thistraditionis
a well known in the ancient Eurasia. Even Bible (Old Testament) mentions the sacrifices on the stone
altars on the top of hills. One is famous on the Mount Tabor, at the boundary of the Israelite tribes of
Ishakaar,ZebulonandNaftaali.InthebooksofMosesitistheplaceofsacrificewhichislovedbyGod.
Later Prophet Elijah fights with the priests of Baal also at an altar on the top of the Mount Carmel.
(1Kings18:21)
Even in the Carpathian Basin the old sacrifice sites on altars on the top of the hills were collected
(Dacz, 2000). Their names, bbakvek (Babbastones) refer to ancient cultic places. The stone altar on
_____________________________________________________________________________________
32
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
theKoyama,intheCarpathianBasinandinoldIzraelshowstheancientEurasiantradition,whichalso
survivedasknowledgeinJapan.
Eventsoffestivals
Takatonobaba(Yabusame)
KamigamoJinja,Kyoto
In Kyoto, near to the Kamigamo Jinja shrine, another ancient shrine can be found: the Shimogamo
Jinja () shrine. The traditions of the two shrines are connected, because the same family, the
Genera Gamo built both of them. The Shimogamo shrine is also in the northern parts of Kyoto, but
nearertothecentreofthecity.
OneofthecommonjointfestivalsbetweenKamigamoandShimogamoshrinesistheAoiFestivalin
spring. Aoi Festival greets the spring in 15th May, in every year. The traditions of the Aoi Festival go
backtothe7thcenturyA.D.TheJapaneseEmperordelegatesapersonalrepresentativeeveryyeartothis
festival. This personal representative reads the message of the emperor. Before it, a great number of
traditionally dressed audience processes through the city (sometimes 1500 people). The second part of
the Aoi Festival is: the archery from runing horseback. The name of the horseback archery in Japan:
Takatanobaba (or yabusame). For us a traditional aspect is the color of the horses on which warriors
ride.Oneisonwhitehorse;theotherisonblackhorse.ThispartoftheAoiFestivalcanbeassociatedfor
HungarianvisitorswithoneofthescenesoftheSaintLadislausLegend.
AnaHachimangu,AsakusaJinja,Tokyo,TsurugaokaHachimangu,Kamakura
Thehorsebackarchery(yabusame,)traditionscanbefoundinseveralplacesinandaroundthe
Tokyoarea:inWasedaandAsakusacitiesofTokyo,andinKamakura.TheAnaHachimangu()
Yabusame (Waseda) events are organized on October 10, the Asakusa Yabusame is held in April, the
TsurugaokaHachimangu Yabusame(Kamakura)isheldinSeptember,everyyear.(Hachimangodisthe
protectorofbowsandarrowsintheJapanesePantheon.)Thecolorofthehorsesonwhichwarriorsride,
one is on white horse, the other is on black horse, (and frequently a third person on brown horse) in
theseeventsisalsoconsidered.
The ceremonial archery contains traditional details over the colors of the horses. The warriors use
asymmetric archs. The upper part is longer, the lower part of the arch is shorter in order to no
disturbanceforthehorseandwarriorsittinginthesaddle.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
33
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Wrestling
KamigamoJinja,Kyoto
AttheKamigamoshrineineverySeptemberthereisawrestlingeventforyoungboys.Theeventis
organized at the two sand peaks standing in front of the main Kamigamo Shrine. Wrestling is a
traditionalcontentioninEurasia.OverSuomowrestlinginJapantheMongolianwrestlingcompetitions
arethebestknown.However,thetwotraditionstogether,thatisTakatanobabaandwrestlingtrigger
interesting association for Hungarian visitors in Japan. We can feel we are witnesses of a very old
tradition, surviving in Japan. This is another scene of the the Saint Ladislaus Legend preserved in
Hungary.
Eurasiancomparison:oldmythicepicalstory:TheSaintLadislauslegendinHungary
Morethan50oldchurchmuralsinHungaryandintheCarpathianBasin
InHungarythereisaveryancientmuraltypepaintedinoldchurchesinthemedievalages.Thisis
The Saint Ladislaus Legend. Ladislaus I was king of Hungary in the 11th century A.D. He was a
chivalrous king; he fought in Transylvania against armies of the Pechenegs and Cumans invading
Hungary from the Eurasian steppes. The mural in the churches tells a story which happened several
times,butconnectedthiseventtotheKerlsbattlefield.ThereLadislausobservedthatawarriortriedto
abductaHungariangirl.Theroyalsaintpursuedandovercamethewarriorandliberatedthegirl,asthe
storysaid.
IfwefollowthesequenceoftheimagesintheSaintLadislauslegendmuraltheimportanttonote,
thatthesequenceoftheeventsportrayedisgenerallysimilaralloverthechurchesinmedievalHungary
wehavethefollowingscenes:
Saint Ladislaus riding his horse in the battlefield catches sight of a pagan warrior holding a
Hungariangirlinhissaddle.
SaintLadislausbeginstopursuehim.
InthelastmetresbeforeSaintLadislauscouldreachthepagantostabhim,hecouldnotcartchupto
him
SaintLadislausshoutstothegirl:Catchholdofthepaganathisbeltandjumptothegound!
Thegirldoesso,andthetwowarriors,thekingandthepagan,beginwrestling.
Saint Ladislaus can not subdue him; therefore the girl helps the king. She cuts the pagans Achilles
tendon.
SaintLadislausbeheadsthepaganwiththehelpofthegirl.
InthelastsceneSaintLadislausisrestinginthearmsofthegirl.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
34
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This Saint Ladislaus legend occurs in the medieval churches of Hungary, as archaeologist Gyula
Lszlcollectedthedocuments.Morethan50churchesall aroundtheCarpathianBasinhasthemural
beenpainted,mostofthemduringthereignsofCharlesRobert,hissonLouistheGreat,andSigismund
ofLuxembourg,kingsofHungaryinthe14thandearly15thcenturyA.D.
Several scenes of the Saint Ladislaus legend occur in archaeological finds from all over in the
Northern part of Eurasia. The best known of them is the mirror symmetric HunScythian belt buckle,
which wascollected by Peter the Great, Czar of Russia. (Exhibited in the Hermitage, Saint Petersburg,
Russia.) There the resting scene can be seen. The most frequently occurring scene is the wrestling
withoutarms.Italsooccursthatthehorsesofthetwowarriorsalsofightagainsteachother.Severalbelt
buckles are with this scene from Ordos, China. The wrestling scene also occurs in the silver plate of
Vjatka,Siberia(Fig.2.)andonIraniansilverplates,too.
Fig.2.TwoscenesfromtheSaintLadislauslegend:thepursueandfightonthebackofthehorse(left)andthe
wrestling(right,color).ImagesarefromthechurchofKakaslomnic.
Themythologicalinterpretationof the the Saint Ladislaus legend in a wider, Eurasian respectcame

fromtheendofthe19thcenturyHungary.AtthattimeGzaNagysuggestedthatanancientEurasian
mythisbehindtheChristianizedmuralpainting.Theoldmythisexpressedbythefightbetweenthetwo
heroes representing light and darkness. In the literature the Hungarian ballad of Anna Molnr also is
related to the Saint Ladislaus legend. The White king (Saint Ladislaus) and the Dark king (Cumanian
warrior)arefightingandwrestling.TheWhiteHorseandtheDarkHorsearealsofighting.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
35
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WhiteHorsesintheJapaneseshrine
YamaguchiDaijingu,Yamaguchi
During my 15 years of visits in Japan several new impressions were observed and I gradually
recognizedtheancientEurasianheritageinJapan.Hungarianscouldrecognizeitbecauseoftheirdeep
ancientrootsoftheirlanguage,musicandartcommonwithgreatnumberofEurasianpeople.
Among the cca. 80.000 shrines in Japan a great number of shrines have horses. I recognized horses
firstinYamaguchi.(Brczi,2002).ItwasYamaguchiDaijingu(),wheretwohorses(wooden
sculptures)standneartotheentranceoftheshrine.Laterseveralshrineswithhorseswerefoundthere
duringmy4weeksofvisitatYamaguchiUniversity.BestIrememberthehorseoftheFurukumaJinja.
However, it gradually turned out that the great number of horses in shrines in Yamaguchi can be
devotedtotheOuchifamily.OuchisarrivedfromKogurio(Korea)inthe600yearsA.D.Theyruledin
the city form almost 1000 years (about 40 generations of local Ouchi princeps are found in the
chronicles). Even later I could visit other shrines with white horse at: Miyajima Island (Itzukujima
Shrine), Nikko (Toshogu Shrine), Kyoto (Kamigamo Jinja). The Toshogu () Shrine in Nikko was
built by Tokugawa Ieyasus grandson, the third Tokugawa as shogun, Tokugawa Iemitsu. The
TokugawafamilyalsoruledforlongtimeinallJapanasshogun,formorethan250years.
TherewasatraditionalbeliefinJapanthatthehorsesarethemessengerstothegods.Theywereused
asmessengerswhenpeopleprayedtothegodsforrain.Buttheyaskedgodsalsoforstoppingraining.
Sometimesblackhorsewasdedicatedasmessengerfortherainduringadrought,andthewhitehorse
wasdedicatedtostoptheprolongedperiodofrain.Tilltodaythereisacustomtoofferupvotiveplates
bythepeopleatshrines.OnthevotiveplatesthereisanimageofawhitehorsecalledinJapanese:ema.
(Regularnameofthehorseisuma.)
KashimaJinguShrine
KashimaJingu () shrine gives light to understand depth of this white horse tradition. The
legendmaintainstheoriginofthisshrineinIbarakiPrefecture.Duringthetimeofthefirstemperorof
Japan,EmperorJimmu,builttheshrineaboutinthe7thcenturyB.C.(about2650yearsago).Hededicated
the shrine to TakemikazuchinoOkami, a martial god. However, the shrine was also the place of the
whitedeer,too.ThenamekashimameansDeerIsland.Thetraditiontoholddeersaroundsacredshrines
is also occurs in several places in Japan: I have seen them at Itzukujima Shrine (Miyajima, near
Hiroshima),atNara(KasugaJingu)andIknow,thattheyareinKashimaJinguShrine,too.
For the historians overviewing the Eurasian history at a 10.000 years scale the explanation is the
following.Thefirstmagicanimalwasthedeer.Peoplecoulduseit,andintraditionsofScythians,Huns,
and Hungarians today the magic deer is symbol of the sacred animal, symbol of the Sun, at the same
time.About50006000yearsagothehorsebecamegraduallythemostimportantanimalforthesteppe
people.Wecanfindthem,amongothers,onthestonecolumnsintheEurasianHunScythianSteppe:in
Russia,Kazahstan,MongoliaandChina.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
36
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The substitution of the first ranked magic animal happened gradually and several archaeological
findsoftheHun(Xiongnu)andScythian(sometimescalledHunScythian)artshowthemaskingofthe
horses into deers (see for example at Pazyryk, Rudenko, 1953). Even the new archaeological finds in
China (for example Nalingaotu gold horse masked as deer with birds bill) also witness this
transformationofthehorse,backtotheancientmagicanimal,todeer(Fig.3.).Thisstratificationofthe
oldmagicanimal:deer,andthenewone:horsecanbeobservedintheshrinesofJapan(Brczi,2008).
Thereisalsoalanguagearchaeologicalfind(Czak,2008)fromthecomparisonoftheHungarianand
theChineselanguagesaboutthisreplacingstratification(Brczi,2008).Thisgradualtransformationcan
be followed in the meaning of the Hungarian word for the horse: l (at Szkely language the
pronounciationisl).Likeasthecaseofthemythicanimalitself,theoldernameoftheancientEurasian
Steppe people for deer was lu, which original meaning deer had been preserved in the Chinese
languagetoday.Probableexplanationis,thattheoldestHungarian(alsoHunandXiongnu)wordwaslu
forthedeer,whichgraduallychangedmeaningtotheactuallyusednewanimal,thehorse.Beingin
contact with the preHun (preXiongnu) people for thousands of years China preserved the earlier
meaning.ThischangewasearlierforHungarians(Huns,Xiongnu,Scythians),whousedtheanimaland
happened passively at the ancient Chinese, who learned and took up the all breeding, horse mount,
army and tactic system of battle from the steppe people (Sun Ze, Csornai, 2007, Obrusnszky, 2008).
TakingthesystemsasreadytheywereChineselanguagepreservedvariousmeaningfromvarioustimes.
Suchtransformationoftheoldwordtothenewmeaningisaregulareventinseveralotherlanguages.
The old word gets a new meaning following the new object in the same role (in Greek crystallos once
meantice.)
Fig.3.HorsesmaskedasdeerintheHunScythianart.FromPazyryk,AltaiMountains,Russia(left)
andfromNalingaotu,Ordos,China.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
37
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Eurasianhorizonforthewhitehorse
WhitehorsescandbefoundalloverEurasiafromtheJapaneseIslandsontheEasttotheIrishIsland
ontheWest.TheCelticHorsegoddessEponawaspreservedandintroducedintotheRomanPantheon.
The most important remnant of this is the famous White Horse of Uffington, in middle England.
Archeometricageofitis1400yearsB.C.(3500yearsago,BronzeAge).
In Hungary the chronicles preserved the Blood Agreement ceremony and the Story of the White
Horse during conquerring the Carpathian basin by rpds people in the 9th century A.D. Mongolian,
ChineseandVietnameseshrineswithnameoftheWhiteHorsewerepreservedtilltoday.InLouyang,
the capitol of the Eastern Han Dynasty of China, there was the Beima shrine (White Horse Shrine)
rememberingthemagicanimalwhobringtheholybooksofBuddhismfromIndiatoChina.
Summary
To the enlargement ofthe Eurasian horizons great number of new data is collecting during the last
decades(forexamplefortheXiongnu(Hun)vesselsseerdy,2001).Theyshouldbesummarizedwith
thenewdiscoveriesandcomparisonsofdatafromnewandforlongtimehiddendatacollections(Brczi,
2005)inordertoformDataHorizonsofEurasia.
Although we began only to compare treasuries of Japan traditions, we found some of them going
backtothousandsofyears.Eurasiantraditionssurviveinmanyformsintherecentsocieties;however,
they do not know each other. One of the main programs of the new journal, the Journal of Eurasian
Studiesistoconnecttheselocalknowledgestothehorizontalone.Thisnewdatahorizonis:Eurasia.
Fig.4.EurasianoverviewofthecrowntypesprojectedonamapofEurasiafromItalytoJapan.Twomain
crowntypesappear:onewithtreeoflifecrowns,withcrossedbandcapsembracedbyahorizontalbelt.Crownfrom
Korea(Tokyo,NationalHistoryMuseum),Siberia(Diszegi,1998),Novocerkask,TheHolyCrownofHungary
andtheAvarianTreasureinConques(Csomor,1996)belongtothisgroup.Thesecondtypecrownsareadorned
withabird,andthebeltcrownofaJapanesePrinceps(Tokyo,NationalHistoryMuseum),crownofthesculptured
headofaherofromHsCajdam,Mongolia,theParthiancrownofaprincepsandtheHun(Xiongnu)crownof
Aluchaideng,Chinabelongtothisgroup(Brczi,2008).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
38
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgments
The author expresses his grateful thanks in helping his work in Eurasian data horizons, making
possible travels and visits in Japan, and for discussions about Japanes historcal topics to: Keizo Yanai,
Hideyasu Kojima, Ninagawa Kiyotaka, Ogawa Tohru, Prince Takahito Mikasa Nomiya, Takaki Ryuji,
ShigeyoshiMiono,ImreKubovics,dmKiss,DnesNagy,CsabaDetre,EldBothandArnoldGucsik.
References:
AnaHachimangushrine.Guide.Tokyo,Japan
BrcziSz.(2000):Japn,azeurzsiaiflkelnaporszga.TKTE,Uniconstant,Budapest
BrcziSz.(2002):Yamaguchi.(UnpublishedbookletaboutYamaguchicitydrawings)
BrcziSz.(2008):Hunszktamvszet.(HunScythianArt).TKTE,Budapest
BrcziSz.,TakakiR.(2006):EurasianArtofSculptures.TKTE,Budapest
CsomorL.(1996):felsge,aMagyarSzentKorona.Szkesfehrvr
Csornai K. (2007): Ngy gtjon barbr csillag ragyog. Lszl Gyula Trtnelmi Kulturlis
Egyeslet,Budapest
CzakG.(2008):Beavatsamagyarszjrsba.SimonstrsaKiad,Budapest
Dacz.(2000):Csiksomlytitka.PallasAkadmia,Csikszereda
DiszegiV.(1998):SmnokNyombanSzibriaFldjn.TerebessKiad,Budapest
HolyBible.OldTestament.BookofKings1.
JamadzsiMaszanori(1989):JapnTrtnelemshagyomnyok.Gondolat,Budapest
JankovicsM.(2006):Csillagokkzttfnyessgescsillag.ASzentLszllegendasacsillagos
g.(Starbrightingbetweenstars.TheSaintLadislauslegendandtheheavenlyconstellations.)
MryRatioKiad,Helikon,Budapest
Lszl Gy. (1993): A Szent Lszllegenda kzpkori falkpei. (The medieval murals of the
SaintLadislauslegend.)TjakKorokMzeumokKnyvtra,4.szm,Budapest
The
Ouchis:
Horseriders
Lukcs
B.
(2003):
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/OOUCHI1.htm
on
Princely
Throne?
Madas E., Trk L., Vargyas L. (1980): Athleta Patriae. Tanulmnyok Szent Lszl
trtnethez.(AthleteoftheCountry:StudiesofSaintLadislaus.)SzentIstvnTrsulatKiad,
Budapest(ISBN963360124X)
Mistsuaki Matsuo (2004): The Architecture of Izumo Grand Shrine. 5th International
SymposiumofAsianArchiecture
_____________________________________________________________________________________
39
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
MiyamotoNagajir()(2001):(TheRestorationofPrehistoric
andAncientDwellings.)NihonnoBijutsu420
MuseumofAncientIzumoGuide.(2008):Guide.pp.160.ShimaneMuseumofAncientIzumo,
(ISBN9784948756465)
ObrusnszkyB.(2008):HunokaSelyemton.MassziKiad,Budapest
Rudenko, S. I. (1953): Kultura naseleniia Gornogo Altaia v skifskoe vremia. Moscow and
Leningrad
Szun Ce () (Kr.e. 380316): A hadvisels trvnyei. (). Modern edition, Balassi
Kiad,1995,Budapest
MuseumofAncientIzumoGuide.(ISBN9784948756465)AMzeumkilltsvezetktete.
160oldal.ShimaneMuseumofAncientIzumo,(2008)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
40
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FARKAS,Flrin:WolfTotem
Throughout the centuries there were men who took

firststepsdownnewroadsarmedwithnothingbut
theirownvision.
AynRand
(LngTtng)
WolfTotem
ChangjiangLiteratureandArts
ThePenguinPress,NewYork
PublishingHouse
Translatedby:HowardGoldblatt
ISBN:7535427308
ISBN:9781594201561
In the second half of2006 I spent a few months in China.There I heard for the first timeabout the
bookWolfTotembyJiangRong,whichatthattimealreadyconqueredChina.Mylimitedknowledgeof
Chinesedidnotallowmetoenjoythebookinitsoriginalversion,butIhappilylearnedfromtheXinhua
news agency that the British Penguin Group purchased the English version publication rights of the
book for a record sum of 100,000 US$. 1 The news around the book intrigued me because my Chinese
friendspraiseditverymuch;Iwasalsotoldthatthebookstirredlotofcontroversyinthewholecountry
andIsuspectedthatthiswasnotduetothefactthatthebookwastheChineseversionofTheCallofthe
WildIhadtowaitagood1.5yearsuntilthebookfinallywaspublishedinEnglish.
PaperpresentedataMikesInternationalSzaloneveninginBudapestonAugust3,2008(inHungarian)andataRotaryClub
ScheveningeneveninginTheHagueonDecember8,2008(inDutch).BothversionswerepublishedintheMikesInternational
quarterly:http:www.federatio.org/mikes_per.html
1
EnglishversionsetforTheWolfTotemnovel.Xinhua,20050905.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
41
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The novel was originally published in China in 2004 and within few days it became a national
bestseller.Upuntilnowmorethan20millioncopiesweresold,includingtheillegalones.OnlyMaos
LittleRedBookwassoldin morecopiesbut thebackground ofthat book is rather different. Themovie
version was set to appear for the Summer Olympic Games of 2008 in Beijing. The book has been
serialized on Chinese radio and recast as a childrens book. It was translated into 25 languages, and
brokeallrecordsregardingthecopyrightfeespaidbyforeignpublishers. 2
Next to that the novel won several prizes, the most prestigious being the Man Asian Literary Prize,
which was established by the Man Group plc in London, UK. This prize is an annual award for an
Asiannovel unpublished in EnglishanditsfirstlaureatewasJiangRongwith his novelWolf Totem.
ThedecisionwasmadepubliconNovember10,2007inHongKong. 3
AssoonastheEnglishversionwasreleasedIreaditimmediately.Iwasverymuchimpressedbyits
naturalpower,thedeepcivilizationmessageitcarries,andbytheauthorshonesty.Thisnovelgaveme
instantlytheimpressionthatwearedealingherewithabookthatisnotonlytopicalbutinthesametime
it is timeless and universal. My Chinese friends mentioned me back in 2006 that in their view many
peopleintheWestdonotgetthemessageofthisbook.AtthattimeIfoundtheirconcernverystrange
becausethisbookwassoobviousforme.AfterreadingseveralWesterncriticsIcametotheconclusion
thatmyChinesefriendswereright.ThegreatestmajorityoftheWesterncriticsisabsolutelyunableto
grasp the depth of this book, most probably because it transmits at such frequencies, which are not
receivable by them. This phenomenon is similar to that of the number of musical notes: people in the
EastusemoremusicalnotesthantheirWesterncounterparts
These critics mention that the novel contains long monologues on anthropology, agriculture and
civilization,itdoesnotcontainsex,theprotagonisthaslongandsharpfangs,andtherearenodialogues
(this last comment is absolutely untrue). Some of them take such an extreme position as to brand it
fascist 4,althoughmostpeople,whousethistermalmostdaily,usuallydonothavearealunderstanding
ofthemeaningandcontentofthatword.
Afterthisintroduction,letusfamiliarizewiththeauthor,whosepersonalityissocloselyrelatedtohis
novel.JiangRongisapseudonym;hisrealnameisLJimn.Hewasbornin1946inJiangsu,closeto
Shanghai.DuetohisfathersworkthefamilymovedtoBeijingin1957andtheyoungLJimnbegan
hisstudiesin1967attheCentralAcademyofArts,buthistoryintervenedandhevolunteeredtogoto
InnerMongolia.Sohedidandhelivedandworkedthereamongthenomadsforthefollowing11years.
He took with him two cases full with classical literature (mostly works of Western writers in Chinese
translation) and he deepened in the study of the Mongolian history, culture and tradition. With
increasing interest turned to the mythology surrounding the wolf and this inspired him to learn
everythingpossibleaboutthem;forthispurposeheevenbroughtupanorphanedwolfcub.In1978he
D.Morrison:WolfTotem,FinancialTimes,March14,2008.
(http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto031420082122474006)
2
JiangRongsWolfTotemWinstheInauguralManAsianLiteraryPrize.(http://www.manasianliteraryprize.og)
Authoritative German sinologist looks at contemporary Chinese literature with a different eye, Deutsche Welle, 20061126,
(http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2249278,00.html)
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
42
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
returnedtoBeijingwherehecontinuedhisstudies.In1989,duringtheeventsattheTiananmenSquare,
he played a prominent role for which he is imprisoned for 1.5 years. Until his pensioning in 2006 he
workedintheacademicworld.
(JingRng)
(LJimn)
TheWolfTotemisononehandanautobiographyandontheotherhandaworkofartthatdisplays
his whole personal philosophy and creed. There are only few authors for whom their creation is so
profoundly intertwined with themselves. The idea of the novel was born during his Inner Mongolian
stay,thoughthefirstdraftwasonlyreadyin1997;thefinalversionwasgiventoitspublisheronlyatthe
endof2003.ThestorytakesplaceamongthenomadsofInnerMongoliaduringthetimeoftheCultural
Revolution. The protagonist is a Han Chinese,actually the authorhimself,whoistakingpart together
withthelocalsinherding,hunting,andeverydaylife.Intheendhefallsinlovewiththeancientwayof
lifeoftheMongols.Hecommencestostudytheirhistory,customs,mythology,andduringthisprocess
herealizesthatallwaysleadtothewolf.
The leitmotif of the book is to provide a mirror to the Chinese society, to contrast the
sheepmentality of Hanculture to the wolfmentality of the Mongols; the boundedness of a settled,
agricultural society to the free spirit of the steppe. This main message is so strong that it can be felt
almostoneverypage.ItisnocoincidencethatthisbookstirredsomuchcontroversyinChina,becauseit
forced the Chinese society into soulsearching. The leitmotif is also underlined by the conscious
pseudonym choice: Rong is the common name of those Hunnish people, which lived at the
NorthNorthwest borders of ancient China, and among them the JiangRong name was used for the
Yanditribe.Thispseudonymisadirecthit,anditdefinitelydidnotmisstheattentionoftheintelligent
readers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
43
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Astheauthortoldrecentlyintwointerviews 5,inthebeginningitwasnecessarytouseapseudonym,
becausethiswastheguaranteethatthebookwaspublished.Withindaysittoppedthebestsellinglists
andkeptthatfirstplaceforthreeyears.Atpresentitisstillholdingafifthplace,whichisaremarkable
deed. The numerous cheap, illegal copies guarantee that a forbidding would not produce results. But
that is not likely to happen because the book commands the sympathy of many in the leadership:
managersprintitontheirexpenseanddistributeitamongtheirworkers;itispopularamongtheArmy
leadershipaswell,etc.Theauthoritiescouldidentifytheidentityoftheauthoronlyaftersixmonthsof
publishingbutatthattimethebookwasalreadyonitswayofconqueringtheworld
As I already mentioned, the book points to the main weakness of the Chinese society: to the
sheepmentalityofthemasses.ThereareparallelswiththenovelTheCalltoArmswrittenbyLuXun
inthe1920s.AfamoussceneofthatnoveldescribeshowacrowdofChinesewatchpassivelyasayoung
patriot is led to his execution. Everybody is happy that somebody else is the victim. This is what L
JimncallssheepmentalityandsharplycontrastsitwiththefreespiritoftheMongols.TheMongols,
who are descendants of the Huns, live on the steppe for millennia. The climate and the physical
surroundings shaped the development of their special culture. The steppe is namely that type of
ecosystem,whichalthoughmerciless,bringsoutthebestfrommanandeveryotherlivingcreaturethat
canaccommodatetoit:thegrasslandcontainsthemostextensiveprimitivismandfreedomanywhere
(p.34)AtitstopwefindtheMongolianwolf,whichthelocalpeoplebothreveredandwereafraidof.In
anycasetheylearnedalotfromit:warstrategy,groupspirit.Temjin(GenghisKhan)himselflearned
fromthemthebasicconceptswhenbuildinghisMongolEmpire:warfare,individualism,unlimitedlove
for freedom and group spirit for those who share these characteristics. Because a group that is not
constituted of free individuals is a horde. By no coincidence remarks the author: In world history
nomads have been the only Easterners capable of taking the fight to the Europeans, and the three
peoples that really shook the West to its foundations were the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols.
(pp. 217218) And he justly raises the question: How could a nomadic, uncivilized, backward race of
peoplewithnowritingsystembesuchgreatconquerors?(p.98)
The wolves, by their character and social organization taught the Mongols and other steppe people
not only warfare. A wolf takes care of the pack and the pack takes care of each wolf. They stick
together,whichiswhatmakesthemsuchformidablefoes.Wolvesaremorefamilyorientedthanpeople,
and much more united. (p. 246) They realized that the wolves are the key in maintaining the fragile
ecologicalbalance:theykeepthenumberofrodents(marmots,mice)andotherherbivores(ungulates)at
optimum level. Due to their existence the steppe horses became the best horses in the world, because
theyhadtorunfortheirlives.TheMongolsandothersteppepeoplerecognizedthecentralroleofthe
wolf.Thiswasthereasontheycreatedthewolftotem.QuanrongandHunscreatedthewolftotem.The
wolf totem has a much longer history than Han Confucianism, with greater natural continuity and
vitality. (pp. 376377) And a little bit further: Wolf totem should be considered one of the truly
valuablespiritualheritagesofallhumanity.Thefatalweaknessofthegrasslandraceisitsbackwardness
JiangRong:ThehourofthewolfFeatures,BooksTheIndependent,21March2008.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/books/features/jiangrongthehourofthewolf798697.html).
5
AGlimpseoftheWorld:InterviewwithJiangRong,authorofWolfTotem(AntoanetaBezlovaIPS),June6,2008.
(http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2008/06/06/interview_with_jiang_rong_author_of_wolf_totem/)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
44
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
inwrittenculture.(p.377)Onecouldquotealmostendlesslythoughtslikethese.Theyarebeautifully
interwovenwiththethrillingstory.
Finally,Iwouldliketosummarizeinafewpointswhythisworkisofgreatimportanceandwhatwe
canexpectfromitinthefuture.
First of all, this novel is a brilliant example of the power of the free spirit. One man, even with
extremelylimitedresourceslikeLJimncanhaveagreatimpactontheworld.Therealpowerofthis
book is the fact that it launched a quest for the national identity in China, and this has to reach much
deeperthanthepresentorthenearpast.ThisisvitalnowadaysinChinabecausethatcountryscurrent
economic development is breathtaking and if this type of issues remain unanswered it can hinder the
economic development process itself. This is the Achilles heel of the current Chinese development. A
people,ifsuffersfromidentitycrises,evenifproducesgreateconomicresults,soonerorlaterwillhitthe
wall,becausethesolemoneymakingisnottheultimategoaloflife.
ThebookcanhaveagreatimpactoutsideChina,too.Weholdinourhandsanartisticcreation,which
highlightstheimpotenceofthemajorityofcontemporaryWesternliterature.Thisnovelhasamessage,it
isauthentic,outrightandaboveallitishighlyenjoyable.Nobodycanbranditasintellectualonanism,
likemostofthecontemporaryWesternliterature.Inmyhumbleopinion,thisnoveldeservestheNobel
PrizeinLiterature.BythisIdonotsuggestthatthePrizeitselfwouldgrantanyvaluetothenovel.On
thecontrary:thenovelwouldgivebackthePrizesoriginalprestige,afteracoupleofpoliticalblunders
inrecentyears.
Globallyspeakingthenovelpointstothenecessityintodaysworldtotakeexamplefromthewolf.
Mankindcanonlysolvetheglobalproblemsitfacesifitcanlearnfromthewolfsgroupmentalityand
strongsocialcohesion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
45
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
MARCZ,Lszl:
ObjectiontotheForcefulFinnizationoftheAncientHistory
andLanguageoftheHungarians
Recently *KrolyRdei,ProfessorEmeritusoftheUniversityofVienna,publishedthesecondedition
of his book, entitled strtnetnk krdsei (Questions in Ancient Hungarian History). This book is a
criticismoflinguisticdilettantism.ItwaspublishedbytheBalassiPublishingHouse.Itishardtobelieve
that the first edition, in 1998, was so successful that it necessitated a second edition. This book is
exceptionally dry and boring and it repeatedly churns out the old FinnoUgric theory. It is a very
difficultbooktoread.Inmanyinstances,itoffendsgoodtasteandisfullofviolationsofscientificethics.
Rdei simply brands all those who oppose the FinnoUgric theory, without regard to their position or
ability,asrepresentativesoftheintellectualandpoliticalunderworld.(p.110)
We also doubt that such propagandatype material could be successful in increasing the number of
peoplewhobelieveintheFinnoUgrictheory.gnesandGborKapitny,intheirbook:Magyarorszg
szimblumok,(SymbolsofHungary),Budapest,1999,write,onp.43.that,ofthosequestionedaboutthe
originoftheHungariansin1999,only56.8%believedintheFinnoUgricorigin,downfrom67.9%inthe
1980s.
Rdeisbookcanbecalledstrangeandbizarreforseveralreasons.IntheCommunistEra,theauthor
was appointed to the position of Chair of FinnoUgric Linguistics at the University of Vienna. (His
colleagueswereappointedtothesamepositionattheUniversitiesofGttingenandGroningen).From
this position, Rdei attacked (and is still attacking) all those who proposed a different theory of the
originoftheHungarians.Atthesametime,heopposestheprofessionalandamateurproponentsofthe
research of Hungarian ancient history. He does this with the goal of proving that the only scientific
theoryoftheoriginoftheHungariansistheFinnoUgrictheory!
Itishardtoimaginethat,forexample,StephenHawking,theworldfamousphysicistandprofessor
of spaceresearch, would dispute the research of amateurs who, in recent times, have written fantastic
stories of spaceresearch and filled the libraries with them. Hawking, who is the representative of
scientificresearch,wouldprobablyjustsmileatthem.ButnotRdei,whoactuallyembarksonavicious
campaign against those who are not willing to accept his FinnoUgric dogma, especially against those
whoareunwillingtoacceptthemajorFinnoUgricdogma,whichisthattheHungariansareofFinno
Ugric origin. How dare they oppose the prestigious Academy of Science? How dare they propose a
theorywhichisnottheofficiallyacceptedone?
ThisarticleoriginallyappearedintheHungarianmonthlymagazineKAPUvol.XII.2004.02.
*
strtnetnkkrdseianyelvszetidilettantizmuskritikjabyKrolyRdei.BalassiKiad(Budapest),2003.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
46
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Theseriousintellectualconfusion,reflectedintheirattitude,immediatelyrevealsthattheynolonger
feel that they are firmly established, and even they themselves are not convinced that they are on the
rightpath.Thisiswhyanykindofdifferentopinion,whetheramateurorprofessional,causesthemtobe
very aggressive. With ferocious indignation, they attack the theories of the HungarianSumerian,
HungarianTurkishorHungarianCelticrelationship.
RdeisbookisalsobizarrebecauselinguisticdilettantismwascreatedbyFinnoUgrictheoryitself.
This dogmatic FinnoUgric doctrine was established a long time ago and the practitioners of this
disciplinedeclared thatitwasanirrefutable truth. This is why,according to them, there is no needto
researchfurtherthepossibilityofadifferentoriginoftheHungarianlanguage.However,inrecenttimes,
a tremendous amount of new data have surfaced, which have really created a linguistic explosion,
caused by modern technical advances. Above all, there is the World Wide Web where, by pressing a
button,onecancallupthedictionaryofanylanguageintheworld.
Obviously, for the Hungarian proponents of the FinnoUgric theory, time has stopped. They have
become bogged down in the swamp of the peaceful era of the Kdr goulashcommunism. They have
notbecomeawareoftheverypowerfulopportunitiesofferedbythenewera.Theyregardthedoctrines
ofHunfalvyandBudenzasunchangeableandareunwillingtoconsideranyotherdataormethodsorlet
aloneacceptthem,becausetheymightdisturbthesurfaceofthewatersoftheFinnoUgrictheory.Not
even the soberminded, linguistically uneducated person would find this situation acceptable, because
heknowsthatchangeisinevitable.
AlthoughMr.Rdei,onp.115ofhisbook,quotestheGreekphilosophers:Pantharei(Everything
flows, changes), he does not apply this to the FinnoUgric theory. Since the FinnoUgric dogmas are
unabletoexplainorresolvenumerousquestions,amateurresearchersarelookinginnewdirectionsand
are beginning to research new possibilities. He, who searches, will find! New books are appearing in
largenumbers.Werecognizethattheyoftenofferprovocativedataandunusualtheories.
Amongthewritersofthesebooks,therearemanyamateurs,buttheseamateursarejustasexpertas
was, for example, Jnos Sajnovits, whom the FinnoUgric theorists glorify, who was an absolute
dilettante in the field of linguistics. He was an astronomer who, in 1770, dared to state that the
Hungarian and Lapp languages were identical. He found more than one hundred words which
appeared identical, when comparing letters and sounds. He used the same methods that Rdei (on p.
120)accusestheamateursoftodayofusing.RdeiacceptedfromhisJesuitcolleague,FatherMiksaHell,
thesuggestionthattheHungariansoriginatefromKarjala(KareliainHungarian),whichcanbereadas
thestateofKarjel. Its meaning inHungarian isfrfi, ers karral (man with a strongarm).Sajnovits
supports this suggestion with the surprisingly amateurish statement that on the crest of arms of the
KingofKarjala,canbeseentwoarms,oneholdingasword,theotherholdinganarrow.Thesearethe
forefathersandthegreatscienceofwhichofwhichtheFinnoUgrictheoristsarestillsoproud!
WeshouldmentionAntalReguly,whomtheFinnoUgrictheoristsglorify,who,asastudentofLaw,
went to Finland and there, without any linguistic preparation, traveled to the land of the Voguls and
Ostyaks.JzsefEtvs,in1853,inthecourseofalecture,calledhimarestlesssoul,awanderingtraveler
who,withoutanyinterestinlinguisticsandwithoutknowinganyoftheFinnoUgriclanguages,began
towriteabouttheFinnoUgrictheory.(Cf.toPterDomokos:SzkititlLappniig,1998)(FromScythiato
_____________________________________________________________________________________
47
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Lapland)WhydidtheymakeaheroofReguly,who,accordingtothem,provedtherelationshipbetween
the Hungarian and FinnoUgric languages? Reguly diligently collected Vogul and Ostyak poems and
legends andthiswasanicecollectionbut wasnotrelevant to solving thequestion oftheoriginofthe
Hungarianlanguage.
I was also the object of Mr. Rdeis damning criticism. In 1984, I graduated from the University of
Groningen, with a degree in General Hungarian Linguistics and, in 1989, I defended my doctoral
dissertation on the subject of Hungarian sentence structure. The title of my dissertation was:
Asymmetry in the Hungarian Language. I received an official Degree in Linguistics and worked at
variousAmericanuniversitiesasaguestlecturerandresearcher.Since1992,Ihavebeenaprofessorat
theEasternEuropeanInstituteoftheUniversityofAmsterdam.Asaprofessionallinguist,in1985,Iwas
coauthor of the Nyelvtudomnyi Kzlemnyek (Linguistic Publications, the Scientific Review of
theHungarianAcademyofScience(Volume87).MyresearchwasconductedintheareaofHungarian
postpositional phrases. It appeared on pp. 173187. The other coauthors were Lszl Honti, Tams
Janurik,JnosPusztay,andKrolyRdei.Thelastonewasthecoeditorofthisvolume,alongwithPter
Hajdu.Basedonallofthis,itisverybizarrethat,18yearslater,heplacesmynameandmyworkamong
theamateurs.Therecouldbetwoexplanationsforthis.EitherMr.Rdeisuffersfromamnesiawhich,
at his advanced age is a possibility, or simply he does not like what I wrote about the origin of the
Hungarianlanguageinmybook:TheHungarianRevival(Magyarmegjuls,Nieuwegein,1995),or
in my articles: Finnugor elmlet tarthatatlansga (The Indefensibility of the FinnoUgric Theory)
(Turn, 28/1998/5. 1128), and Mdszertani elmleti irnyelvek a magyar nyelv kutatshoz
(Methodological Theoretical Principles in the Research of the Hungarian Language) (Turn, 29/1999
2000/6;2335.)IntheseworksItookastandagainsttheFinnoUgrictheory.Iwishtonotethatwhenmy
colleagues,KornlBakayandIstvnErdlyi,resignedaseditorsoftheTurnreview,thescientificlevel
ofthisreviewwasnolongersecureand,sincethen,Ihavenotsubmittedanyofmywritingstoit.
It obviously annoys Kroly Rdei that I, a professional linguist, dare to challenge the FinnoUgric
doctrine.Hisbook,whichisunderdiscussion,isanexcellentproofofhowthesescientistswork:They
never debate the subject, but rather just brand the research, with which they disagree, as the work of
amateurs, which should not be taken seriously. According to Mr. Rdei, not even I can advance a
scientificargument.(p.114)So,hedoesnotwishtohaveanythingtodowithmywork.Inthecourseof
manypages,herepeatsoverandovertheoldFinnoUgricclichs.
Naturally,IperfectlyunderstandRdeismethodandwhyhedoesnotwishtodebatemyargument.
ItisbecausemystatementsclearlydisprovetheFinnoUgrictheory.
For example, it is very difficult to isolate the FinnoUgric languages from the other UralAltaic
languages,likeTurkishandSumeriananddrawcomparisonsandvocabularyparallelswithintheFinno
Ugric group. According to the LakRdei FinnoUgric dictionary, the Hungarian word szem (eye)
belongs to the basic vocabulary of the FinnoUgric people. At the same time the word szem has
numerousidenticalformsintheSumerianandUralAltaiclanguages:InSumeriani/see/,Vogulsm/
eye /, Ostyak sem/ eye /, Votyak in/ eye, face/, Zrjn in/ eye, face/, Cseremiss indza/ eye, face/,
literaryMongoliansinjile/toexamine/,Kalmkindzl/toobserve/,Knsyneta/toobserve/,Mordvin
elme/ eye/, Finn silm/ eye/, Estonian silm/eye/, Kalmk tilme/ blink/, Mongolian silibki/ suddenly
_____________________________________________________________________________________
48
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
glance/,Turkishsina/face/,Osmansymarla/singleout/.Thiskindofbasicvocabularycomparisoncan
beexpandedaccordingtopreference.(Cf.Turn,1998:1218)
Itisoftheutmostimportancetonotethattherearenowrittendocumentsintheoriginal,hypothetical
FinnoUgriclanguage.Thus,thereisnodocumentationofthebasicvocabulary,makingitimpossibleto
documentthephoneticlawsorthelaterhypotheticallanguagegroupssuchastheUgor,VolgaFinnetc.
Thereforeitwasnecessarytocreatedozensoftheorieswhichhaveneverbeenproven.Ithasneverbeen
explained why the compoundforming elements of the Finn group of languages are closer to the
theoreticalancientlanguagethanarethecompoundformingelementsoftheHungarianlanguage.The
questionis:WhyisthetheoreticalancientlanguagenotidenticaltoHungarian?
Even the FinnoUgric theorists recognize that the socalled phonetic laws have no natural scientific
characteristics(cf.L.HontiA.GergelyL.Marcz:Magyarfordulat.Magyartudomny,1997/2,241243.),
so what kind of characteristics do those theoretical phonetic laws have? Tendentious, accidental or
conjured up? These questions have never been answered. There may not be any answers. The Finno
Ugrictheorycanbedisputedbutcannotbeproven.
According to Rdei the voiced plosive consonants were not present in the ancient FinnoUgric
languageb,d,g.(p.32).Iaskhowitispossibletoconcludethis,whentherearenowrittendocuments
inthetheoreticalancientlanguage.Ifthisweretrue,thenallrootwordsbeginningwithb,d,andgwould
bemissingfromtheHungarianlanguageandsuchmonosyllabicwordsandtheirderivativesas:
gr,
grbe,grcs,grdl,grnyed,grhes,
bel,
bell,bels,benn,benns,
dar,
dara,darl,darabetc.wouldbemissing.Thisalmostunbelievable.
ItisalsoastrangestipulationthattheshorterHungarianrootwordsdevelopedfromthetheoretical
twosyllable FinnoUgric rootwords, and that they are surely closer to the twosyllable FinnoUgric
rootwords,e.g.theHungarianszem,theequivalentoftheFinnsilm:dividedintosyllablessilmor
silm. This is also surprising because all linguists agree that the FinnoUgric languages are
agglutinative.Thismeansthatsuffixesmaybeaddedtotherootwordsinordertocreatenewwords.If
wefindrootparallels,thentheshorterrootistheearlierformandthelongerrootisthelaterform,i.e.
the derivative. The Hungarian roots are monosyllabic, the Finn equivalents are of two syllables. Then
whywouldtheHungarianrootsbederivativesoftheFinnwords?AllthismeansthattheFinnoUgric
theoristsdidnot take into considerationtheagglutinative character of theHungarian language orthat
our language has monosyllabic rootwords. Is it possible to base the origin of a language on such
confusedomissions?
IntheFinnoUgricstudies,itisoftenstatedwithcertainty,thatthereare5001000Hungarianwords,
whicharederivedfromtheancientFinnoUgriclanguage.(Rdei,p.115)Thisstatementappearstobe
scientificbutisnothingmorethanabluff.Theactualnumberofthesewordsismorelike419.TheFinno
Ugricorigin ofthevocabulary ofthe Hungarian languagecannotbe stated withcertainty, becausethe
socalledancientFinnoUgriclanguageisahypothetical,reconstructedlaboratorymodel.Therealityis
that there are some parallels between the vocabulary of the Hungarian language and the socalled
FinnoUgriclanguages.AccordingtoLszlKlima:Magyarnyelv,1991,thereare212parallelsbetween
_____________________________________________________________________________________
49
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
the Finn and the Hungarian languages which may be considered certain. This number is just half of
Rdeis bluff. Among these parallels, there are some which we find doubtful. For example, the Finn
kota,Hungarianhz,ortheFinn kunta, Hungarian had. We disregardthese cognatesbecause
theyhavenoconnection,eitherphoneticallyorlogically.ThemeaningoftheFinnkotaistentwhich
is not identical to the Hungarian hz, meaning house. If we disregard these doubtful word
connections and take into account not the words, but the rootwords, then the HungarianFinn word
parallels remain well under 212. The CzuczorFogarasi Dictionary lists more than 2000 roots and 80
onesyllableaffixes.Accordingtothisdictionary,theHungarianlanguagehas2080basicwordelements.
TheFinnparallelsdonotamounttoeven10%ofthisnumber!
There is another explanation for the HungarianFinn word parallels, other than the hypothetical
ancient relationship between the two languages, proposed by the FinnoUgric theorists, but the
LinguisticsDepartmentoftheHungarianAcademyofSciencehasneverseriouslyconsideredit.Inthis
question,thedistorteddoublestandardoperatesbecause,whiletheFinnoUgrictheoristsarenotobliged
totrytodisproveanyalternativetheory,otherresearchershavetorefutetheFinnoUgrictheorypointby
point.(Rdeip.120)
Possibleexplanationsofthewordparallels:
There was an ancient HungarianEuropean language, from which those languages, which
show parallels with the Hungarian language, broke away. This explanation indicates that
Hungarians were the ancient populace of the Carpathian Basin. This theory coincides with
theviewoftheAmericanprofessor, Grover Krantz, aboutthegeographical developmentof
the European languages. According to Krantz, Hungarians lived in the Carpathian Basin at
least10,000yearsago,andHungarianistheEuropeanancientlanguage.
There could have existed a large UralAltaic language family, which was formed in the
territoryofEurasia.ThisisthepossibilitymentionedbySajnovitsintheforewordofhisbook:
Demonstratio,buttheFinnoUgrictheoristsnevermentionthispossibility.
The HungarianFinnoUgricTurkish and Sumerian linguistic parallels were created by
territorial proximity of these peoples. The Hungarian scholar Mtys Bl already proposed
this possibility in 1718, in his work: Tanulmnyok a rgi hunszkita irodalomrl (Studies from
AncientHunScythianliterature.)AccordingtoMtysBltherewereseveralethnicgroups
livinginScythia.
TheHungarianFinnwordparallelsaretheresultofaccidentalconsonance,becauseanytwo
languageshavemutualphoneticsimilarities.
The FinnoUgric theorists have never refuted these possibilities and still do not attempt to refute
them, so we can rightly use Rdeis words as a selfcharacterization of the FinnoUgric theory:
monomnis fixa idetl vezrelve s brnd kpeket, lzlmokat kergetve gyrtott elmlet (p.7)
monomaniacal theory, driven by a fixed idea, imaginary pictures and feverish dreams. The Finno
Ugrictheoryatheory,whichattemptstoproveapreconceivedgoal,isaviolationofscientificethics.
(p.59)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
50
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
After so many doctrines leading to a dead end, we consider it justified that Hungarian Linguistic
SciencereturntothetraditionsofourgreatHungarianpredecessorsFerencKresznerics,JzsefEngel,
Jnos Nagy, Pl Csat, Gergely Czuczor and Jnos Fogarasi. These linguists studied the roots as the
centralelementoftheHungarianvocabulary.Thesearelexicalelementswhich,withoutanyaffixes,have
a phonetic and semantic identity. This was the true revolution of the Reform Age of Hungarian
Linguistics,theQuantumleap,which,afterthesuppressionofthe184849HungarianFreedomFight,
Hunfalvi and his colleagues successfully sabotaged. Pl Hunfalvi, already in 1851, in the Akadmia
rtest (Academy Report), denied that the Hungarian language even had root words. With this
statement, not only did he put the research of the Hungarian language on a sidetrack but as Rdeis
bookwitnesses,heleditintoadeadend.
Themainpurposeofthelinguistsofthe21st.centurymustbetobringtolightthetrueinsidestructure
oftheHungarianvocabulary,whosecentralelementistheroot.Mr.Rdeisbiased,onesidedattributeis
thatheregardsthisurgentscientificdutyasalanguagegame.(p.115)Untilwehavecompletedthis
work,wecanscarcelystateanythingdefiniteabouttheoriginsoftheHungarianlanguage.
WhatisalreadysureisthatHungarianancienthistoryandHungarianconsciousnessofselfcannotbe
builtonthelessthan10%HungarianFinnwordparallelsintheHungarianvocabulary.Thosewho,by
every possible means, are propagating the FinnoUgric theory are doing none other than forcefully
finnizingtheHungarianlanguageandculture,justasFlorinMtysstatedin1858.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
51
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
MARCANTONIO,Angela:
DebateontheStatusoftheUralicTheory:CriticalResponses
Introduction
Inthelastfewyearsthedebate 1onthevalidityofthetraditionalFinnoUgric(FU)/Uralic(U)theory
(adebatenevertotallysubsided)hasintensified,duetothepublicationsofmanybooksandarticlesin
Hungary and elsewhere in Europe (including my own publications; see also the recent roundtable
interview,whosemoderatorisSturmL.(2009)).Thesepublications,onewayortheother,challengethe
conventional FU/U model, proposing new models of interpretation. Whatever the rights or wrongs of
thesenew,unconventional(or,assomescholarswouldsay,dilettante)modelsmaybe,oneaspectof
this debate certainly deserves full consideration: the growing awareness that the conventional U
paradigmisunsatisfactoryandmightneedrevisiting.
Inthemeantime,alsoanumberofreviewstomypublications(inparticularmybooksof2002(/2006a
and 2006c)) have been published, heavily criticizing my sceptical views regarding the status of the U
theory, in particular my claim that there is no sufficient evidence to establish the FU/U theory and
related language family. In this article I would like to respond to some of the major criticisms in
question.Forthispurpose,Ihaveherecompiledalistofthemajoritemsofcontroversy,concentrating
on those tenets of the U theory whose validity has been challenged by several scholars, including
myself on the one hand, and reaffirmed (overtly or implicitly) by others scholars, on the other hand.
Aligningnexttooneanothertheviewsofmycriticsandmyownviewsmaybringaboutafaithfuland
factualpictureofthecurrent debate.Finally,before going into thecore ofthedebate, let me pointout
that a theory is a theory (whether in the field of science or humanities), and not an eternal truth.
Therefore any attempt to challenge it, to cast doubts onto its founding principles and procedures is
always a very proficuous and, I would say, necessary exercise, and should always be welcomed,
whatevertheresultsofthedebatemayturnouttobe.
1.TheLanguage=Peoplesequation
1.1.Firstofall,letusdiscusstheissueoftheequation:language=people(/ethnicgroup),equation
thatiscertainlyimplied,orevenopenlyembraced,bytheearlyformulationsofthemethodsofhistorical
linguistics. In my book of 2006 (/2006c) I have insisted on the fact that this equation may not be
necessarilytrueingeneral,andwithregardtotheearlymagyartribesinparticular,theimplicationbeing
that,eveniftheUtheorywerewellfounded(whichisnot,inmyopinion),theearlymagyartribesmay
notnecessarilyderivefromtheassumedprotoUpopulation/ethnicgroup.Prof.Honti(2007:2223)has
deridedthisthoughtofmine,assertingthatilyenbutasgotafinnugristkbizonyosannemlltottak.
1
Thisarticleisashortenedandmodifiedversionofanotherarticleofmine,publishedinHungarian,in2007(seeReferences).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
52
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps Uralists have never openly and formally supported the language = peoples equation;
nevertheless, this belief is deeply embedded in their way of thinking, whether openly stated or not. If
this were not the case, Uralists would not react so badly and reject a priori those recently proposed
models of interpretation for the origin of the U peoples which involve the existence of populations of
nonU origin (these populations would have ended up speaking a U language as a result of the well
known process of language switch). This is what has been basically proposed, among others, by the
Finnish and Estonian scholars (respectively) Wiik (2002) and Knnap (2000). Starting from the
observation that the Samoyeds and the ObUgric peoples are basically mongoloid unlike the FU
peoples of Europe and that the Saami, while being Europoid, still differ from the nearby Finns on
several genetic features, these scholars have hypothesized that the above mentioned peoples switched
their original, nonU language for a U one. Similarly, an entire generation of Hungarian scholars (for
which see Ligeti (1986a & b)) have posed themselves the question of whether the early magyars tribes
wereapopulationofnonUorigin(mostlikelyofTurkicorigin),whohavethenswitchedtheiroriginal
(Asiatic) language for an U language, while still preserving their nomadic / Asiatic way of life. This
alternative model of interpretation of the origin of the Hungarian language and peoples has equally
strongly been criticized and rejected by many Hungarian scholars, although (as is well known) all the
availablesourcesrelatingtotheearlymagyartribesrefertothem,unambiguously,asTurkicpeoples.
Certainly,theseissuesarenotuniquetotheFU/Ustudies.Forexample,asimilarsituationisfound
within the field of IndoEuropean (IE) studies: just because linguists have established an IE theory
/language family (as the result of their own methods of classification of languages), this does not
necessarily mean that there really existed, at some point in time and space, a correspondent IE ethnic
group, a protoIE speech community. Indeed, there is no guarantee that the socalled realistic
interpretationoflanguagefamiliesiscorrectevenifthelanguageclassificationitselfwerecorrect
althoughmanyscholars(linguists,archaeologist,anthropologistsetc.),consciouslyorunconsciously,do
adheretothisinterpretation.Asamatteroffact,adebatesimilartothatoftheoriginofHungarianexists
withinIEstudiestoo.SincetheverybeginningofthecomingintobeingoftheIEtheorytherehavebeen
severalscholarswhohavecalledintoquestionthemainstreamthesisoftheIE(andEuropean)originof
the bearers of the Sanskrit language and culture, claiming that this ancient population and language
originatedinfactinIndia,ratherthanbeingintrusiveinit(seeMarcantonio(ed.2009).Hence,Ireaffirm
myclaimthatthetimehascometorevisittheissueoftheoriginoftheHungarians(aswellasofother
Upeoples),howevermuchtrivialthisissuemayappearatfirst.
1.2.Theissuesdiscussedaboveoffermetheopportunitytopointoutamajorinconsistencyembedded
in the traditional U paradigm. The denomination megeree occurring in the text written by the
emperor Constantine Porphirogenitus is unanimously interpreted as megyer(i), that is, the higher
qualityvowelvariantofmagyar,andthereforeasreferringtotheforefathersofthemodernmagyars.The
textishereconsideredtobeabsolutelyreliable.Incontrast,thistextisconsideredtobeterriblywrong
whenitcomestoacceptthefactthattheEmperorconsidersthese(contemporary)megeree~magyartribes
plainlyandsimplyasTurkictribes(letusremember:thefamouschapters(48),wheretheancestorsof
themodernHungarianwouldbesupposedlymentionedbytheEmperor,dealsexclusivelywithTurkic
tribes, as also evident by its title: On the nation of the Turks). It is certainly true that, if a historical
_____________________________________________________________________________________
53
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
sourceconsiderstheearlymagyartribesasTurkic(/Asiatic)peoples,thisisnotinitselfsufficientproofof
theirTurkicorigin,asBakrNagy 2(2003:52)andothercriticscorrectlyobserve.However,thethesisof
theTurkic/AsiaticoriginofHungarianiscertainlymuchmoreplausiblethanthethesisofitsUorigin,
since thereare other linguistic and extralinguistic elements, other facts that consistently point toward
thisdirection:
1. there are no archaeological, historical and anthropological traces of the assumed U proto
community/ethnicgroup;
2. theHungarianlanguageadmittedlydiffersradicallyfromtheassumedsisterlanguages
(includingtheallegedlyclosestrelatives,VogulandOstyak);
3. the Hungarian language is rich of features of Turkic (and other Asiatic languages ) origin,
whilst, in comparison, the U component is, admittedly, rather weak. On the other hand, the
traditional explanation that these Asiatic features are the effect of borrowing (due to the
intenseandprolongedcontactsoccurredbetweenmagyartribesandAsiatic/nomadictribes)is
an adhoc, circular explanation. In fact, there is no independent, extralinguistic evidence in
favourofthethesisofthelonglastingsymbiosis;
4. there is no satisfactory evidence to support either a U language classification, a U language
family (as discussed below), or an Altaic language classification / family (as recognised in
recentyearbyseveralAltaists,suchasUnger(1990)andGeorg(2006 3));
5. the archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence relating to the Hungarians
consistentlypointtowardaTurkic(Asiatic)originatleastofthesocalledhonfoglalmagyars
(seearecentsummaryofthestateoftheartinSturm(2009)).
Furthermore,Uralistshavealsobeeninconsistentintheirevaluationoftheotherethnonymsreferring
totheearlymagyars.Ihavebeenwidelycriticizedforaddressingtheattentionofthereadertothefact
that many (if not all) early Hungarian tribes ethnonyms (including perhaps magyar itself) are of
undisputedTurkic(and/orAsiaticorigin).Ihavethenarguedthatthisfacttoo,togetherwiththefactors
listedabove,pointstowardtheTurkicoriginofthemagyars.Itistruethatscholarsdisagreewithregard
to the relevance of ethnonyms (and toponyms) in the hard task of assessing the origin of single
populations.Asamatteroffact,thereisnonecessaryconnectionbetweenethnonyms/toponymsand
the peoples that bear them. For example, populations may take on, or be given to, names which are
totallyunrelatedwiththeirorigin,oratleastnamesthatarenottransparentatall.Ontheotherhand,
there is also plenty ofevidence to the contrary in history, that is: a population can be equated with its
ethnonym, as is for example the case of the name frank, which, originally, indicated indeed the
homonymous Germanic, and Germanic language speaking, population (as pointed out by Simoncsics
(2007:103)). Whatever the case, scholars should be consistent when they assess the relevance, or
otherwise,oftheethnonymsandtoponymsinthiscontext.Sincethenamemagyar(traditionallyderived
2Hiszenegykrdsanp,abeszelikzssgelnevezse,egymsikazeredete!.
3
Georg(2006):seminarattheUniversityofCambridge.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
54
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
from*magyarandconnectedwiththeethnonymmanysi),orthenamehungarus(traditionallyconnected
withthenamejugria)areunanimouslytreatedbyUralistsasrelevantevidenceintracingbacktheorigin
of the Hungarians to the Ugric (and therefore the FU) peoples, they cannot then conveniently brush
underthecarpetorminimizetherelevanceoftheTurkicand/orMongolianoriginoftheearlymagyar
tribesethnonyms.
2.HastheUraliclanguagefamilybeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubts?
2.1.Asstatedinthepreviousparagraph,theestablishmentofalanguagefamilyevenoflanguage
family proven beyond doubts may be of little help in the hard task of retrieving the origin of
peoples. Indeed, as is now recognised by many historical linguists (see for example Harrison (2003)),
historicallinguisticswasnevermeanttobe,andisnot,abranchofprehistory.
Bearingthisinmindletusnowengageinthedebateaboutthevalidity,orotherwise,oftheUtheory.
InmyworkIrepeatedlyclaimthattheUclassificationisnotcorrect(particularlyinitsmoretraditional
terms,butalsoinitsvariousrevisionistapproaches).Moreprecisely,IclaimthattheUlanguagefamily
has not been really established, let alone been proven beyond doubt. This claim of mine (the main
thrust of my work), not only has been heavily criticised, but it has also aroused outrage among many
(butnotall)FinnoUgrists.Letusthenseewhatthebasictermsofthecontroversyare.Accordingtothe
traditional methods of historical linguistics a language family is typically considered established, and
proven beyond doubts, if at least major parts of the phonological structure, of the lexicon and the
morphological structure of the assumed protolanguage have been (more or less) satisfactorily and
consistently reconstructed (whatever satisfactorily and consistently may mean). According to my
analyses,therequiredsatisfactoryandconsistentreconstructionshave,simply,notmaterializedwithin
U.Thisisnotbecause ofthelackofskillonbehalfofthescholars involvedinthereconstructions, but
because of the lack of sufficiently old records in the field, not to count the great diversity of the
languages, even at the typological level (despite the several, shared but not uniquely shared
features,suchassuffixes,vowelharmony,postpositions,etc.;seeMarcantonio(2006d)).Forexample,my
book of 2002 (/2006a) dedicates an entire, long, detailed chapter (chapter 4.) to support and justify the
thesis of the lack of a sound, satisfactory reconstruction of the U protolanguage (the U node) at the
phonologicallevel.ItwouldbethereforeveryeasyforanyFinnoUgrist/historicallinguisttorefutethe
data,analysesandargumentationsthereproposed,inthiswayprovingmewrong.However,Icanfind
norelevant,wellstructured,straighttothepointcounterargumentsorcounterevidencetomychapter
4. in any of the reviews, including the review by BakrNagy (2003), Georg (2003), Saarikivi (2004),
Simoncsics (2007) and Veres (2006: 5679). For example, BakrNagy (2003:51) makes the following
statement:
A tny, hogy mindennek ellenre [that is, a chapter thick with data and arguments], a
fejezettel nemlehet, illetlegnemrdemes rszletesebben foglalkozni abbl addik,hogya
szerzmrmrhihetetlenmrtkbenrtiflre,interpretljaelfogodhatatlanulatnyekets
sszefggseket
_____________________________________________________________________________________
55
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In other words, generally scholars have avoided to criticize in detail my basic arguments and data
and have failed to offer alternative, positive evidence in support of U. On the contrary, they have hid
themselves behind the (suspicious) pretext that my interpretation of the data the (supposed) U
correspondencesandregularsoundchangesaresoflawed,sooutoflinewiththereceivedwisdom
thatitisnotevenworthdiscussingthem.IamafraidIamentitledtointerpretthelackofappropriate
andconcretecounterevidenceandcounterargumentstomyclaimsascausedbyatotallydifferentfact:
thefactthattheUnodenotonlyhasnotbeensatisfactorilyandconsistentlyreconstructed,butithasnot
beenreconstructedatallatthephonologicallevel(asIhaveargued).Therefore,theonlychanceleftopen
tocriticismatthisregardisthatofpassingoverthewholeofmyargumentationsinsilence.Certainly,
thereareexceptionstothis,sincetherearescholarsthathaveactuallyattemptedtorefutethearguments
and data put forward in my chapter 4. in somewhat more details. However, these Authors criticisms
typicallyconcentrateonminordataandarguments,ratherthanaddressingwhatIhaveindicatedasthe
fundamentalshortcomingsofthe(assumed)reconstructionofU,i.e.thepervasivelevelofirregularity,
as well as the lack of reconstruction of the Ugric and therefore FU, and, ultimately, of the U node (as
requiredbythestandardfamilytreemodel).Forexample,Aikio(2003:4034)challengesmyviewthat
theunknownandnotspecifiedsegment*/x/(introducedbyJanhunen(1981)toaccountforotherwise
unaccountablecorrespondeces),isanadhocdevise.Furthermore,theAuthor 4dedicatessomepagesto
provemewrongwhenIclaimthatJanhunens(1981)corpusisbasedontoomanysoundlawsandtoo
fewexamples(/itemsofevidence)tosupportthem.Inparticular,Iclaimthatthesoundlawsestablished
by Janhunen to account for the vocalism of a total of 94 (good) correspondences number 56, whilst
Aikioreckonsthatthisnumberisdownto30,atthemost.Whateverthecase,itisselfevidentthatthe
ratio between the number of the sound laws in question (56 or 30) and the number of the etymologies
accountedforbytheselaws(94)isstillunsatisfactory,stillnotgoodenoughtocomplywiththerequired
cumulativeeffecteachsoundlawshoulddisplay.
Thereisneverthelessonecriticismraisedbythesescholarsagainstmyanalysiswhichgoesdownto
theheartoftheissueunderdiscussion.Asisknown,thereareseveral,modernreconstructionsor,to
beprecise,attemptsatreconstructionoftheprotoUralicphonology(touseSammallahtis(1988:
480) words), the most accurate of which are the one proposed by Janhunen (1981) and Sammallahti
(1988)respectively.Asastartingpointofmywholeargumentationagainstthewidelyheldclaimthatthe
phonological structure of protoU has been satisfactorily reconstructed, I use the reconstruction
proposed by Janhunen (1981). This comparative corpus, however much rigorous and based on clearly
statedcriteria,doesnottakeintoaccounttheUgricnode.Inotherwords,despiteitsnomenclature,the
reconstruction in question cannot be regarded as a reconstruction of protoU if one sticks to the
conventionalfamilytreediagram.Infact,thisreconstructionisbasedonthecomparisonoftwobranches
ofUonly:protoSamoyedandprotoFinnoPermian,withjustoccasionalandasystematicreferencesto
theobUgriclanguagesandHungarian.Obviously,thereisareasonforthis,areasonwellspelledoutby
Janhunenonseveraloccasions,and,asfarasIknow,stillvalid,thatis(Janhunen(1998:461)):
Similarly,Georg(2003)providesadetailed,informedcriticismofthedataandargumentsreportedinchapter6.ofthe2002
(/2006a)book,whichdealswiththeissueofthecorrelationsidentifiedbetweenUandTurkic,MongolianandTunguz,butdoes
notcommentonmyfundamentalclaimthattheUnodehasnotbeenreconstructed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
56
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
...astherestillseemtobeconsiderabletaxonomicandreconstructionalproblemstobesolved
fortheeasternbranchesofFinnoUgricasimplifiedbutveryusefulapproximationofprotoUralic
canbeobtainedinthemeantimebycomparingprotoSamoyedicwithprotoBalticFennicas
thesetwobranchesrepresentoppositegeographicalextremesoftheUraliclanguagefamily,
it may be assumed that any diachronic feature shared by protoSamoyedic and protoBaltic
FennicislikelytoderivefromprotoUralic[italicsaremine]
ThischoiceofminetouseJanhunenscorpusasthebasisofmyanalysishasbeencriticizedbyBakr
Nagy(2003:51)asfollows;
Janunhenedolgozataktsgtelenlmellzhetetlenazalapnyelvirekonstrukctiotilleten,br
Marcantonio sehol nem indokolja vlasztst. Ami annl is rthetetlenebb, mert ha egyszer
elmarasztalja Janhunent azrt, mirt csupn a finnpermi s a szamojd alapjn []
reconstrulja az urali alapnyelv szavait, mirt nem vlasztott ms korpuszt? Sammallahti
(1988) pldaul nem mellzi az ugort, jllehet kiindulsa Janhunen, az UEW meg vgkp nem
hagy ki egyetlen gat sem, br reckonstrukcis metodolgija egyebekben eltr az elbb
emltettektl[italicsaremine]
Ifthisweretrue,myclaimregardingthepoorstatusofthereconstructedUphonologywouldlieon
shakygroundsindeed.However,asithappens,Idomotivatemychoice,andonseveraloccasionstoo 5.
In addition, I refer extensively to Sammallahtis reconstructions, suggestions and interpretations
throughoutthewholechapter4.(asanyaccuratereadermayeasilyfindout 6).Actually,thisunjustified
criticism gives me the welcomed opportunity to reiterate and, if necessary, to clarify and emphasise a
fact which is fundamental for the issue under discussion: Sammallathis U / FU reconstruction 7
(considered to be one of the best, if not the best, reconstructions available) is heavily based on the
partial,approximatereconstructionofPUproposedbyJanhunen(1981),whoseweaknessestherefore
itinherits.True,SammallahtidoesattempttoreconstructtheFUnode/branch,whichwasmissingfrom
theU reconstruction proposed by Janhunen 8.However, according tomy analysis theAuthor does not
5 See for example the following statement, made at the beginning of my 2002 book, at p. 11: I shall examine in detail the
reconstructionsofPUandoftherestofthefamilytreeasproposedbyJanhunen(1981)andSammallahti(1979&1988),because
theserepresentcloselyresearchedscientificmodelswithclearcriteriathatareamenabletoquantitativescrutiny.Thisconcept
isthenreiteratedandelaboratedfurtherinthephonologicalchapter.
6Thereaderisaddressedinparticulartothefollowingparagraphsinthe2002book:par.4.4.3.(p.91ff.),titled:Sammallahtis
reconstruction of the ProtoUralic and ProtoFinnoUgric node; par. 4.5.1., titled: The reconstructed ProtoUralic
consonantism, which also includes a tableof reconstructed consonants as proposed by Sammallahti (1988: 482); par. 4.5.2.2.,
titled:FromProtoUralictoProtoFinnoUgricaccordingtoSammallahti(p.118ff.),etc.
7Significantly,theAuthorhimselfrecognisesthatthereisnodifferencebetweentheassumed,andsupposedlydifferent,Unode
andtheassumed,lowerlevel,FUnode.ThesameobservationisfoundinCscs(2008),forwhichseequotebelow.
Janhunen cannot reconstruct the FU node because for this purpose one needs to include also the Ugric branch into the
reconstruction,accordingthetraditionalfamilytreediagramtowhichbothJanhunenandSammallahtiadhere,asclearlystated
inthereportedquote.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
57
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
succeedinhisendeavourandthisisexactlywheremyviewsareatvariancewiththoseofmycritics.In
fact,Sammallahti(1988:486)onlysketchesareconstructionwhich,accordingtohisownwords:
attempts to bridge the gap between the existing reconstructions of ProtoUralic (Janhunen
1981), ProtoObUgric (somewhat modified from Honti 1982) and ProtoFinnoPermic
(Itkonen1954).Thedetailsarefarfromsettled
Therealityisthatthisgapis,simply,unbridgeable,thatis:thereisnowaytotracebacktheabove
mentionedsubbranchestoonesingle,commonsource,theassumedUprotolanguage,duetothewell
known, numerous taxonomical and reconstructional problems. Sammallahti himself observes
(1988:484)thefollowing:
There are no generally accepted reconstructions of ProtoObUgric, ProtoUgric or Proto

FinnoUgric sound structure so far, although the questions of reconstruction have been
toucheduponbymanyscholars
Thisbeingthestateofaffair,therearetwoalternativewaysforward:
1. to openly acknowledge that there is no actual evidence (at the phonological level) in favour
theUtheoryor,ifoneprefersthatthelevelofcounterevidenceismuchhigherthanthe
flimsylevelofevidence(justafewcorrespondences/sharedsoundchanges
2. toignorethisclearlackofsupportingevidenceandkeeptheUtheoryaliveatanycost;inthis
caseatthecostofprojectingahighlyidealizedpictureoftheactualsituation.Thisisindeed
achievedbysketchinganequallyidealizedendreconstructionthroughachainofadhoc,
intermediatereconstructions,whosepurposeisexactlythatofbridgingtheunbridgeable,
offillingthegapsexistingbetweentheidealizedreconstructionsandtheactualdata
In other words, since the very purpose of a reconstruction is to achieve regularity between the
endforms, with many links in a chain of reconstructions, and without the constraints imposed by
checkingthemagainstactualdata,itisnosurprisingifmatchesbetweenthereconstructedformsappear
to be (relatively) regular, and therefore appear to support the assumed model. This is exactly what
Sammallahti does. Thus, for example, Sammallahti (1988: 48790) does reconstruct a wide number of
U/FUstemsandrelatedmeanings,aswellasanumberofprotoUgric(fromprotoFU)stems(1988:
50001), but he does not support these reconstructions with, or check them against real data, actual
words from the actual U languages. On the contrary, reconstructions are mainly based upon, and
compared with, other reconstructions, fact which, despite the best and most honest of the intentions,
doesnotandcannotproveanything.Sammallahti(1988:487)warnsthereaderthatthereflexesofthese
[stems] in the individual FinnoUgric languages are to be found in the appendices of his article.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
58
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
However, the reader who goes and looks for these reflexes, that is, for the actual data, will be
disappointed: he will find that Sammallahti traces back the data available (the actual words from the
languages under discussion) only to their immediate node, without showing how these data and / or
immediatenodes(intermediatenodes within the family tree) do relateto each other and how, inturn,
theycanbetracedbacktothetop,Unode.Inconcrete,thefollowingaretheonlyactualdatabrought
forwardbySammallahtiinsupportofhismodel:
1. At paragraph. 6.1.3.1. (1988: 51316) the Author presents some (supposed) correspondences
between some reconstructed protoUgric forms and actual Hungarian words (to show the
vowelreflexes).However,onlyHungarianwordsarereported,sothatwedontknowhowthe
supposedlycorrespondingwordsfromtheObUgriclanguagesrelatetotheHungarianones
(or to the proposed FU reconstructions), despite the presence of some data from Vogul and
Ostyak (in turn derived just from protoVogul and protoOstyak respectively). Furthermore,
asSammallahtihimselfpointsout,Hungarianvowelsandconsonantsparticipateincomplex
morphophonemic alternations, which make it difficult to trace the development of different
sounds;
2. Atparagraph6.1.3.2.(1988:51520)agoodnumberofHungarianwordsarereported(toshow
the consonantal reflexes), derived from protoUgric through more or less regular changes.
However,onceagain,itisdifficulttoseehowtheseHungarianwordscorrelatetotheveryfew
actualdatareportedfromVogulandOstyak,ortotheassumedFUreconstructions;
3. ThesameholdstrueforthereconstructionoftheFinnoPermicbranch(1988:52034),where,
again,hardlyanyrealdata,realwordsfromtheactuallanguagesarementioned.
Sammallahti himselfsomehowadmitsthat there areserious difficulties here,at leastwithregardto

Hungarian,whenhestatesthat(1988:499):
Although this grouping [Ugric] has been questioned frequently, it will be used in this
presentation.Thisisjustifiedbythefactthatitispossibletobuildunitaryreconstructionsfor
ProtoUgricandProtoObUgric.ThisisdonemostlyonthebasisoftheUgriclanguages:the
HungarianreflexesofthePFUvowelsarenotclear.TherelationshipofHungariantotherestof
theUgriclanguagesisthereforeratherloose[italicsaremine].
2.2.InthisparagraphIwouldliketobrieflyaddresstwofurtherissuesraisedinmybooksof2002and
2006(2006a),thatis:a)theissueofthereconstructedgrammar,orbetter,theabsenceofit,and:b)the
issueofthefoundingfathersoftheFU/Utheory.
With regard to the first issue, I can do nothing but to reaffirm my claim that no convincing, no
satisfactoryreconstructionofUhasbeenachievedatthemorphologicallevel.Itisanundeniablefact
that the reconstructed morphological elements shared by the U languages are a set of very simple
formants,consistingofoneortwoverybasicsounds(typicallyabasicconsonantwithorwithoutabasic
_____________________________________________________________________________________
59
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
vowel,ofthetypel(V),t(V),r(V),m(V),etc.,orjustonevowel).Morphemesofthistypearemuchtoo
short and much too general to be meaningful for the purpose of safely identifying and reconstructing
morphologicalendings,patternsandsystemsintheassumedprotolanguage.Besides,theirdistribution
within the U area does not at all reflect the traditional subdivision in branches, being on the contrary
verymessy.Last,butnotleast,morphemesassimpleandbasicasthesecanbeidentifiedinmanyother
linguisticareastoo,particularlyintheAsiaticarea.Eveniftherewerescholarssatisfiedwiththequantity
andqualityofthereconstructedUmorphemes,therewouldstillremaintheproblemthattoofewoutof
this set of protomorphemes are then actually present in the various U languages. For example, in
Hungarian the morphemes that go back to protoHungarian and from that (arguably) to PU, are only
about 4 or 5, as is widely recognised (see for example Kiss & Pusztai (2003:169170 9)). In essence, the
greatmajorityof(verbalandnominal)morphemes/morphologicalsystemspresentintheUlanguages
cannotbetracedbacktoacommonsource;rather,theyappeartohaveformedrelativelyrecently,and
independently,duringthedevelopmentofthesinglelanguages.AsKorhonen(1996:233)putsit:There
are quite a number of young and therefore transparent case forms derived from postpositional
constructionsintheUlanguages.Thesecaseformsdonotappeartobetheresultofcommonheritage,
or common development, apart from the shared, general process of grammaticalization and
agglutination(orexaptation).
Letusnowaddresstheissueofthefoundingfathers.Myaccountoftheoriginanddevelopmentof
the FU /U theory (including a detailed account of the work by Sajnovics, Gyarmathi, Budenz, Donner
andCastrn),hasbeenfacedwithvarioustypesofcriticism.Forexample,ithasbeenobservedthatitis
notappropriatetoconsiderthewholeoftheUparadigmwrong,justbecausethefoundingfatherswere
not accurate in their analyses, and made mistakes. It goes without saying that these scholars, in their
times, could not available themselves of all those tools, expertise and data that are necessary for a
rigorousassessmentofthelinguisticcorrelations.Inanycaseithasbeenaskedbycriticswhyto
attribute so much relevance to the early, rather intuitive analyses of these Authors when there are
modern,morethansatisfactoryaccountsoftheUtheory?Nottocountthatnomodelofinterpretation,
noparadigmcanbeinvalidatedonthegroundofjustafewmistakesoritemsofcounterevidence(see
forexampleHonti(2006:26)andSimoncsics(2007:1023)).Well,allthesecriticismsarereallymisplaced,
forseveralreasons.First,aswehaveseen,itisnotatalltruethattherearemodern,satisfactoryaccounts
ofprotoU;therefore,itwasvitaltotrytotracebackthehow,whenandwhytheideaofaUfamily
firstcameintobeing.Second,itisnottruethatthereareonlyafew,sporadicandirrelevantmistakesin
theworksofthefoundingfathers(withalltheduerespectfortheirpioneerwork).Actually,theopposite
is true. For example, the careful reader of Gyarmathi (1799) will realize that he does not even have
t ragrl tudjuk tbbkevesebb bizonyossggal, hogy valamilyen formban megvolt az smagyar kor elejn. Ezek: a t
trgyrag;sngyhatrozrag:aznlokatvuszrag;atlokatvuszrag.;az/latvuszrag[];salablatvuszrag.
One could argue, as the Authors do, that the zero () ending of Nominative has also been inherited from U. It is also
importanttoobservethatalltheotherUlanguagesthathaveanendingfortheObjectuseamending,andnotatending,the
latterrepresentingyetanotherinstanceofdivergencebetweenHungariananditssupposedlyrelatedlanguages.Asamatterof
fact,theAuthorsrecognisethatthemarkingoftheObjectinHungarianissomewhatproblematic,andpostulatethattheremust
havebeenatsomepointaswitchofendings:elemcseretrtnt:avisszaszorulalapnyelvi*metatvltottafel,talnmr
az smagyar kor eltt. Obviously, there is no way one can verify this assumption, which is, indeed, a typical example of
circularexplanation.
9
_____________________________________________________________________________________
60
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
enough knowledge to be able to distinguish the singular declension from the plural declension of
Finnish (/Saami) nouns, so that he compares, indiscriminately, plural forms of Finnish / Saami nouns
with singular forms of Hungarian nouns (see Marcantonio 2006b:84). As to Sajnovics, he adopts really
odd criteria (such as swaps of letters) to demonstrate that there are correspondences not only
between Hungarian and Finnish (/Saami), but also between Hungarian and Turkic, as well as
Hungarian and Chinese [sic!]. (See again the detailed account of Sajnovics original work (written in
Latin) in Marcantonio (2006b:5587)). Obviously, these Authors have the great merit of having tried
(amongthefirstscholarstodoso)toindividuatelanguagefamiliesonthebasisofaconcrete,empirical
comparison of real data, derived from the languages under investigation (although wrongly assessed
and assembled), rather than on the basis of biblical accounts. It is however simply not true and
misleadingtostatethattheyhavefoundedtheFUfamilyonthebasisof(mainly)reliableevidenceand
arguments.Inotherwords,Itotallyagreewithmycriticsthatthese(supposed)foundingfathersdida
verygoodjobfortheirtimes,anddonotdeserveanyblame;however,theseriousweaknessesoftheir
works,aswellastheirviewsshouldbefaithfullyreported.
Finally, the issue of the founding fathers offers me the opportunity to reaffirm the correctness of
another claim ofmine,theclaim that there isindeed aprocess ofidealization andminimization ofthe
counter evidence going on within U studies (claim strongly denied by Uralists 10). As a matter of fact,
none of my critics spent a word to comment on the fact (pointed out in my work) that all the above
mentioned, much revered Authors clearly and deeply believed not in the FU / U family as is now
conventionally formulated, but in (one version or the other of) what Budenz calls the wide Altaic
family. This family comprises the FU (Ugric according to Budenz) family as just one of its several
branches. The other branches are: Turkic, Mongolian, and ManchuTunguz (see Marcantonio,
Nummenaho&Salvagni(2001)).
2.3. At this point I would like to reply to those scholars who do not accept my claim of the
nonvalidityoftheUtheory,althoughtheybasicallyacceptthemajorfactunveiledbymyanalysis:the
fact that the gerat majority of the correspondences established among the U languages are of poor
quality and poor quantity. For example, it has been objected to me that the many mismatches and
exceptionsencounteredinthedata,thedifficultiesinestablishingreconstructions,etc.aretheobvious
consequence of the fact that the U family is very old 11. In this case as is known the optimal
amountofevidence(whateveroptimalamountmeans)ideallynecessarytoestablishalanguagefamily
would have been obscured by the long lapse of time. As to the loose relation of Hungarian to its
supposedly closest relatives, the hypothesis has been advanced by Abondolo (1998:6) that Hungarian,
MansiandKhantycanbeconsideredtobethesolesurvivorsofwhatishereseenasthecore,i.e.,the
AnotherexampleofidealizationistheclaimthattheFUandtheUnodeshavebeensatisfactorilyreconstructed,asdiscussed
inpar.2.1.
10
IhavebeencriticisedbyBakrNagy(2003)forreportingthatitisgenerallyassumedthattheUfamilyisabout8000/6000/5000
years old (according to interpretations). In her judgment, nobody would be so unskilled to make such an unfounded claim.
However,Uralistsmakethisclaimallthetime;seeforexampleHonti(2006:23),orthefamilytreediagramatp.254ofCsepregi
(1998ed.),toquoteonlyafewAuthors.Inanycase,asdiscussedinthetext,itisnotonlygenerallyacceptedthattheUfamilyis
veryold,butthisbeliefisinturnusedajustificationofthepoorqualityandquantityoftheconventionalUcorrespondences.
11
_____________________________________________________________________________________
61
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
mostcentralandinnovativeregionoftheUlinguisticarea.Thisinturnmeansthatitisnotsurprising
to witness rapid changes and even upheavals in the phonological and lexical make up of these
languages.Manyscholarsappeartoagreewiththisanalysis,sinceitwouldnicelyjustify,amongother
facts, the stand alone position of Hungarian within the family. Thus, for example, Simoncsics
(2007:105), bearing in mind this statement by Abondolo, states the following whilst criticizing my
scepticismonthevalidityofU:
Mskpp fogalmazva: ha nem lett volna latin rsbelisg, a latin alapnyelv rekonstruckcja
sokkalnehezebbenmennegyafrancia,mintaromn[]alapjn.
These are certainly plausible explanations, in principle. However, the problem is that there is no
independent evidence that the U family is old at the point that the (supposed) optimal degree of
closeness of the (assumed) related languages has been obscured. Equally, there is no independent
evidencethatthecorelanguageshaveundergonemorerapidandradicalchangesthantheperipheral
languages(nottocountthattheconceptofthelateralareasisanotaprovenprinciple;seeMarcantonio
&Nummenaho(2000/2001)).Inotherwords,theseexplanationsareadhoc,andwehavehereatypical
instanceofcirculararguments.Actually,thecomparisonwithLatinandtheromancelanguagesisquite
anappropriateonehere,butinasensedifferentfromthatintendedbySimoncsics(seethequoteabove).
One of the problems faced by the scholars dealing with the Eurasian linguistic area is the lack of
sufficiently old records and the lack of sufficient information external to linguistics (as already
mentioned).Asaconsequence,whateverinterpretationwemightgivetotheavailabledata,aswellasto
theabsenceoftheexpecteddata,correspondences,reflexes,morphologicalpatterns,etc.,itwillalways
remain indeed in the realm of interpretations, or, worse, speculations. And, of course, we cannot
confuse interpretations and speculations with facts. This being the case, I feel entitled to reaffirm the
basic, major thrust of my work at least until new, positive evidence comes up in favour of the
traditionalUtheory.Themajorthrustofmyworkcanbeexactlyformulatedasfollows(asIhavetriedto
pointoutonmanyoccasions,particularlyinmybookof2002):
There is no compelling evidence in favour of the establishment of the U theory /family

(ratherthan:theUtheoryiswrong/theUfamilydoesnotexist).
IthinkitisappropriateatthispointtoquoteHockswords(1993:218):
Considerations like these [that is: similarities, false matches, not sufficiently massive
evidence for relationship, unsuccessful reconstructions, etc.] do not, strictly speaking,
establishthatthelanguagesinquestionarenotrelated,merelythattheirrelationshiphasnot
beensuccessfullydemonstrated(italicsaremine)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
62
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To conclude this discussion about the validity, or otherwise, of the U theory I believe it is worth
quotingthefollowingstatementbyCscs(2008:62):
. az urli /finnugor alapnyelv rekonstrukcija megtrtnt. Termszetesen vannak mg

fehrfoltok,segyelrenemtudunkmarknsklnbsgeketkimutatniazurlisafinnugor
alapnyelv kztt, de rekonstrukcink gy is van olyan megbzhat, mint az indoeurpai
alapnyelv.Azugoralapnyelvrekonstrukcijamgvalbannemkszltel,stapermitleszmtva
a tbbi kzbees (relatv) alapnyelv sem. Ez ktsgtelen hinyossg, aminek ptlst n a
kvetkezveklegfontosabbfeladatnaktartom.(italicsaremine).
Here,thefollowingobjectiontoProf.Cscsstatementcaneasilyberaised:howcanitbestatedthat
the reconstruction of the U/FU protolanguage has been implemented (az urli /finnugor alapnyelv
rekonstrukcijamegtrtnt),ifneitherthereconstructionoftheUgricnode/protolanguage(Azugor
alapnyelv rekonstrukcija mg valban nem kszlt el), nor the reconstruction of the other,
intermediate nodes / protolanguages (with the exception of Permian) have yet been achieved? Of
course,itispossiblethatthismajorhinyossg,thismajorshortcomingoftheconventionalparadigm
maybeovercomeoneday,inwhichcaseIshallbehappytochangemyviewsonthematter.Untilthen,
however,myclaimthattheUtheory,asitstandstoday,isnotwellfoundedshallhavetobeconsidered
correct.
3.BeyondtheUraliclinguisticarea?
3.1.Having(hopefully)clarifiedmyviewsonthestatusoftheUtheory,Icannowclarifymystandon
theother,majorissuewhichIraiseinmywork(particularlyinmybookof2002(/2006a),andwhichhas
attractedequallystrongcriticism:thelongstandingdebateofthecorrelationsobservedbetweentheU
and theAltaiclanguages, and, inparticular, between Hungarian,Turkicand Mongolian 12.Thebulk of
thecriticismcanbesummarisedasfollows.Ontheonehand,Iamveryscepticalaboutthecorrelations
identifiedamongtheUlanguages,bydubbingthegreatmajorityofthemassimilarities,orbyclaiming
that the (few) shared sound changes (within U) are independent, parallel developments. On the other
handIconstantlypointoutthatagoodpartoftheidentifiedUcorrelationsandtheindentifiedUsound
developments are shared with the Altaic languages. This apparently contradictory claim of mine
deserves a satisfactory explanation. BakrNagy expresses what she perceives to be my stand in the
matterasfollows(2003:53):
Mirt van az, hogy egy sor esetben egyes hangvltozsok lehetnek egymstl fggetlenek,
vletlen egyezsek [in the case of the U languages], mskor pedig beszdes pldi az
According to latest research there are correlations also with the language(s) of the Huns; see for example Ucsiraltu /
Obrusnszky (2008). Unfortunately, we do not have direct records of this now extinct language, but only scattered words,
preservedmostlyinChinesedocuments.
12
_____________________________________________________________________________________
63
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
sszetartazsnak (ti. amikor a magyar s a trk, vagy a finnugor s az altji kapcsolatrl

vansz)?Mirtvanaz,hogyegysugyanazonjelensgegyszervalamimellett,msszormeg
valamiellenszl?
If this were really my argument, BakrNagys remarks would be correct indeed. However, I was
actuallytryingtoaddressadifferentand(asfarasIknow)notyetresolvedissue,anissuethatcanbe
introducedthroughametaphor 13:toaffirmthatwithinthevastEurasianareaonecanmakeaclearcut
distinction between the isoglossesthat encompassthe U languages only and those that encompass the
Altaiclanguagesonlyislikedrawingacircleinthewateroftheseaandclaimingthatthewaterwithin
thecircleisUralicwaterandthatoutsidethecircleisAltaicwater.Inotherwords,Iamclaimingthat
thetraditionallyheldviewaccordingtowhichthecorrelationsobservedwithinUareofgeneticnature,
whilst those observed between U and Altaic are only similarities 14 due to borrowing or chance
resemblancesiswrong.ThisisbecausetheconventionalUcorrespondencesarethemselves,mostly,
similarities,whoseorigincouldequallywellbeduetoborrowingorchanceresemblances.Tobemore
precise,Iclaimthefollowing:
BothwithinthetraditionalUareaandtraditionalAltaicarea,aswellasacrossthistraditional
linguistic border, one can individuate some correlations (at any level of language) whose
nature inheritance, borrowing, chance resemblances is difficult to identify. This is
because all these observed correlations are neither sufficiently wide spread, nor sufficiently
consistentorregularandsystematictoallowlinguiststocomeupwithasafeandunanimous
assessment of their nature and relevance. In other words, what one can observe in this
Eurasian area is a messy bundle of several lexical, phonological and grammatical isoglosses,
with, perhaps, just a few correspondences scattered here and there, as claimed by some
scholars(seethequotebySinorbelow).
This is a very simple, and, I believe, faithful picture of the linguistic situation under discussion. I
intendthereforetoreaffirmmystandonthissubject,atleastuntilafullandproperreconstructionofthe
Ugric,FUandthereforeofthetopUnode(aswellasoftheAltaicnode)isachieved.Thus,thegeneral
issueIwasandstillamtryingtoaddressis:
what are the criteria on the basis of which traditional linguists draw a circle around the U
similarities, calling them correspondences and telling them apart from the Altaic
similarities?
Besides,onemustnotforgetthat,asmentioned,somecorrespondenceshavebeenindividuatedalso
acrosstheconventionalborderoftheUandAltaicarea(accordingtoseveralscholarsatleast,expertsin
both the U and the Altaic languages), and this, of course, complicates the picture even further. For
example,onemaycomparethefollowing,inmyopinionparadigmaticquotebySinor(1975:251):
13
ThismetaphorhasbeenfirstproposedbyA.Knnap.
As BakrNagy (2003: 53) puts it: Egy sor esetben megkapjuk mindazokat az adatokat is, amelyeket az altij nyelvek
valamelyikblemltazUEW,mintegyillusztrlondahasonlsg.
14
_____________________________________________________________________________________
64
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ifindithardtobelievethatacorrespondenceasflawlessinformandmeaningasthatexisting
betweentheUralicandTunguzformscouldbecoincidental[...]Iwouldnotliketoexclude
thepossibilitythatthe[...]words[...]aredirectborrowingsfromTunguz[italicsaremine]
This being the case, how can we claim that the U and Tunguz correspondences are direct
borrowing (whose flawlessness is due to the process of sound adaptation, perhaps?), rather than
inheritedwords?Asamatteroffact,sincetheAltaictheorytoohasbynowbeencalledintoquestionby
several scholars, it would be fruitful to reexamine the whole area in an unbiased and fresh way,
bypassingthestraitjacketofthetraditionalUandAltaicfamilytree.Apossiblewayforwardcouldbe
drawingtheisoglossesthatcharacterizetheEurasianlinguisticarea(encompassingU,socalledAltaic
andpossiblyYukagir),withouthoweverexpectingtobeabletoindividuateand/orreconstructtheend
protolanguage(s) and, even, at times, the intermediate protolanguages, since this would be simply
impossible.Infact,whatwehavehereisalinguisticarea,aSprachbundwhere:a)bunchesofisoglosses
crisscrosseachotherinacomplexandmessyway;b)thereisahighlevelofvariationinsoundshape
andmeaningwithinlexicon,morphologyandeventypology;c)theobservedcorrelationsare(mainly)
similarities, whose precise origin in most cases is difficult, if not impossible to ascertain. This fuzzy
interminglingoflanguagesanddialectisindeedwhatonewouldexpectfromanareawhosepopulation
wasmainlynomadic.
Thepictureofalinguisticareawhereitisveryhardtotellapartborrowedfrominheritedelements,or
fromfalsematches isnot arare phenomenonintheworld,quitethecontrary. To referagain totheIE
family,asituationofthissortisfoundintheSouthAsianlinguisticareaasmentionedabove(seefor
exampleMasica(1979)),whereoftenitisimpossibletotracebacktheoriginofthelexicalandstructural
similarities that occur between Sanskrit and the other, nonIE languages of India, mainly Munda and
Dravidianlanguages(foranaccuratediscussionofthesituationseeHock(1993)and(1996)).
3.2.Thediscussioncarriedoutaboveaboutthedifficultyoftellingapartborrowedvsinherited(and
chanceresemblance)elementsgivesmetheopportunitytoreaffirmtheexistenceofaneogrammarian
principlewhichIhavecriticallydiscussedinmybookof2002,andwhosediscussioninturnhasmade
severalscholarsraisetheireyebrows.Intheiropinion,Iwouldhavegrosslymisinterpretedtheprinciple
in question (as well as other principles of historical linguistics). It is the principle according to which
regular correspondences are found (mostly) among inherited words, among cognates, whilst
irregularities and similarities are found (mostly) among borrowed words, including borrowing from a
close dialect. For example, BakrNagy (2003: 56) states that: ilyen nem ltezik, nmileg is kpzett
nyelvtrtnszilyetkomolyansohanemllthatott.However,thisconceptisaliveandquiteactivetoo,
andnotonlywithinUstudies.Forexample,itiswidelyadoptedwithinIEstudiestojustifyotherwise
unjustifiableirregularities.Oneexamplewouldsufficetoillustratethesituation.Sihler(1995:157),while
analyzingaparticularlyirregularsounddevelopmentsfromIEtoGermanicthesoundchange*kw>f,
as found in Germanic *wulfaz wolf recognizes that the sound change in question has defied any
attempt to find a condition under which it could be defined as a regular Germanic development.
This being the case, the Author concludes: The probable explanation is that these forms are dialect
_____________________________________________________________________________________
65
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
borrowingsfromanotherwiseunattesteddialectofGermanic.Althoughneogrammarians(andinthis
caseSihlertoo)focusedtheirattentiontoirregularitiesoccurring(supposedly)acrossdialectsborder,in
theeverydaypracticeofreconstructiontheconcepthasthenbeenextendedtoencompassalsoborrowing
from (supposedly) totally different languages. See also Paul (1960: 723) for an explicit formulation of
thisprinciple.
To conclude this paragraph,Iwouldlike to make one finalreply to a criticismthat hasbeenraised
againbyseveralscholarsandthatisherereportedthroughthewordsbyBakrNagy(2003:71):
Marcantonio hozza meg azt a kvetkeztetst, hogy politikai nyoms nehezedett mind a
magyarokra, mind a finnekre akkor, amikor az altji rokonsg gondolatt a httrbe kellett
szortaniuk.Mamilyenrdekeknyomsarvnyeslazuralisztikn?[italicsaremine]
Itmaywellbetruethattherearenomorepoliticalinfluences,nomoresocial/historicalpressureson
the U studies per se, as it was indeed the case at the time of the Hapsburg Empire first, and the
Communistregimeafterwards.However,thereisstill,aliveandhealthy,onetypeofpressurewhichhas
notbeenliftedatall:themorethannatural,morethancommon,socalledpeerreviewpressure.
4.Conclusion
Hoping to have replied to the main criticisms advanced against my claims and to have defended
them, I would like now to reiterate the main thrust of my research, as summarised in the following
points:
1. TheU/FUtheory,andthereforetheexistenceoftheUlanguagefamily,hasnotbeenproven
beyonddoubt(atleastthusfar).
2. The establishment of any language classification is never 100% safe, because of two main
reasons:a)thedifficultand,Iwouldsay,slipperynatureofthetask;b)theequallyslippery
nature of the criteria and methods of analysis adopted, which were created about 200 years
agoandhaveeversinceremainedbasicallyunchanged(despiteremarkableprogressmadeby
linguistics). Therefore, any attempt at revisiting the very foundations upon which any
languagefamilyisbasedshouldbealwayswelcomed(forexample,seeMarcantonio(2009ed.)
foradebateonthestatusoftheIEtheory).
3. EveniftheUtheoryhadbeenprovenbeyonddoubt,thereisstillnoguaranteeatallthataU
speakingcommunityhadreallyexistedinprehistoricaltimesthereisinfactnocompelling
evidence for adopting the realist interpretation of the linguistic reconstructions (see
Marcantonio2009a).
This being my stand on the matter, I am looking forward to further, fruitful discussions about the
validityvsnonvalidityofthestandardUtheory.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
66
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
References
Abondolo,D.1998.Introduction.InD.Abondolo(ed.),TheUralicLanguages.London/NewYork:
Routledge.143.
Aikio, A. 2003. Review of A. Marcantonio 2002. The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and
Statistics.Word54/3:402413.
BakrNagy,M.2003.ReviewofA.Marcantonio2002.TheUralicLanguageFamily.Facts,Myths
andStatistics.NyelvtudomnyiKzlemnyek100:4663.
Csepregi,M.(ed.)1998.Finnugorkalauz.Budapest:Panorma.
Cscs, S. 2008. Comments to Marcantonios talk. In Czegldi, K. (ed.): Hozzszlsok Angela
Marcantonio 2007. oktber 26i budapesti eladshoz, melynek szvegt folyiratunk elz
szmbankzltk.Eleink7/1:5973.
Georg,S.2003.Rezension:A.Marcantonio:TheUralicLanguageFamily:Facts,MythsandStatistics.
FinnischUgrischeMitteilungen26/27.
Gyarmathi, S. 1799. Affinitas linguae hungaricae cum linguis fennicae originis grammatice
demonstrata.Gttingen[IndianaUniversity,Bloomington;UralaltaicSeries1968/95).
Harrison,S.P.2003.Onthelimitsofthecomparativemethod.InB.D.Joseph&R.D.Janda(eds),
TheHandbookofHistoricalLinguistics.Oxford:Blackwell.213243.
Hock, H. H. 1993. SWALLOW TALES: Chanceand theworld etymology MALIQA swallow,
throat. InK.Beals etal.(eds), Papers from the29th Regional meetingoftheChicagoLinguistic

Society.215238.
Hock,H.H.1996.PrerigvedicconvergenceofIndoAryanandDravidian?Asurveyoftheissues
andcontroversies.InJ.E.M.Houben(ed.),IdeologyandStatusofSanskrit.Leiden:Brill.1758.
Honti, L. 1982. Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der ersten Silbe. In P. Hajd (ed.),
BibliothecaUralica6.Budapest:AkadmiaiKiad.
Honti, L. 2007. Review of A. Marcantonio A trtneti nyelvszet s a magyar nyelv eredete.
AngelaMarcantoniovlogatotttanulmnyai.Budapest:Hunidea.FinnugorVilgXII/1:2227.
Itkonen, E. 1954. Zur Geschichte des Vokalismus der ersten Silbe im Tscheremissischen und in
denpermischenSprachen.FUF31:149345.
Janhunen,J.1981.Uralilaisenkantakielensanastosta.JSFOu77:219274
Janhunen,J.1998.Samoyedic.InD.Abondolo(ed.).TheUraliclanguaguages.London:Routledge.
457479.
Kiss,J.&Pusztai,F.(eds)2005.Magyarnyelvtrtnet.Budapest:OsirisKiad.
Korhonen, M. 1996. Typological and Historical Studies in Language. A memorial Volume
publishedonthe60thanniversaryofhisbirth.T.Salminen(ed.)MSFOu223.Helsinki.
Knnap,A.2000.ContactinducedPerspectivesinUralicLinguistics.Mnchen:LincomEuropa.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
67
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ligeti L. 1986a. Az urli magyar shaza. In L. Ligeti (ed.), A magyarsg strtnete. Akadmiai
Kiad[ReprintSorozata].3670.
Ligeti, L. 1986b. A magyar nyelv trk kapcsolatai a honfoglals eltt s az rpdkorban.
Budapest:AkadmiaiKiad.
Marcantonio,A&Nummenaho,P.2000/2001.Theprincipleoflateralareasandtheparticipial
forms in Khanty and Finnish. In A. Nurk (ed.), Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno
Ugristarum,TartuAcademyofScience.V:346350.
Marcantonio,A.,Nummenaho,P.&Salvagni,M.2001.TheUgricTurkicbattle:acriticalreview.
LinguisticaUralica2:81102.
Marcantonio, A. 2002. The Uralic Language Family. Facts, Myths and Statistics. Transactions of
thePhilologicalSociety.Oxford/Boston:Blackwell.
Marcantonio, A. 2006a. Az urli nyelvcsald. Tnyek, mtoszok s statisztika. Budapest: Magyar
Hz.
Marcantonio, A. 2006b. Sajnovics Jnos szerepe az sszehasonlt nyelvtudomnyban. In
Marcantonio,A.2006c.5587.
Marcantonio, A. 2006c. A trtneti nyelvszet s a magyar nyelv eredete. Angela Marcantonio
vlogatotttanulmnyai.Budapest:HUNideaSzellemiHagyomnyrzMhely.
Marcantonio,A.2006d.TheUraliclanguages.InK.Brown(ed.),TheEncyclopaediaofLanguage
andLinguistics13:2659.Oxford:Elsevier.
Marcantonio,A.2007.Azurlielmletsamagyarnyelveredete:Akrdsjelenlegillsa.Eleink
2/12:3259.
Marcantonio, A. 2009 (ed.). The IndoEuropean Language Family: Questions about its Status.
MonographSeries55of:JournalofIndoEuropeanStudies.
Marcantonio,A.2009a.Introduction.InA.Marcantonio(ed.).I:174.
Masica,C.P.1979.DefiningaLinguisticArea:SouthAsia.ChicagoUniversityPress.
Paul, H. 1960. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
[6thedition].
Saarikivi,J.2004.ReviewofA.Marcantonio2002.TheUralicLanguageFamily:Facts,Mythsand
Statistics.JournalofLinguistics40:187191.
Sammallahti, P. 1979. ber die Laut und Morphemstruktur der uralischen Grundsprache. FUF
43:2266.
Sammallahti,P.1988.Historical phonologyofthe Uraliclanguages. InD. Sinor (ed.). TheUralic
Languages.Leiden:Brill.478554.
Sihler,A.L.1995.NewcomparativegrammarofGreekandLatin.OxfordUniversityPress.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
68
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Simoncsics,P.2007.Azuralistikagrbetkre.ReviewofA.Marcantonio2002/2006a.TheUralic
LanguageFamily:Facts,MythsandStatistics.KorunkXVIII/4:99107.
Sinor, D. 1975. UraloTunguz lexical correspondences. In L. Ligeti (ed.), Researches in Altaic
Languages.BibliothecaOrientalisHungarica20.Budapest:AkadmiaiKiad.245256.
Sturm L. 2009. Magyar, mogyeri, magyari Kerekasztalbeszlgets strtnetnkrl. Kortrs
1:108120.
Ucsiraltu/Obrusnszky,B.2008.Ahunnyelvszavai.Budapest:NapktKiad.
Unger, J. M. 1990. Summary report of the Altaic panel. In P. Baldi (ed.), Linguistic Change and
ReconstructionMethodology.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
Veres,P.2006.Nhnymegjegyzsamagyarnpetnogenezishezskoraietnikaitrtnethez.A
MTAnprajzikutatintzetevknyve(ETHNOLORE)23:561595.
Wiik,K.2002.Eurooppalaistenjuuret.Jyvskyl:Atena.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
69
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBRUSNSZKY,Borbla:
Tongwancheng,theCityoftheSouthernHuns
ABSTRACT
TongwanchengisasignificantarchitecturalheritageoftheSouthernHuns.ItistheonlycityinInner
Asia that was built by the Huns. However, another monument, the Hai Ba Ta or great pagoda in
YinchuancityisalsoconnectedtotheHuns.HelianBobo,founderoftheDaXiaKingdom,constructeda
newcapitalintheheartoftheOrdosregionbeginningin413.Becauseofitsstrategicposition,thecity
becameacommercialandmilitarycenterintheInnerAsianarea:itwasagreatstopalongtheSilkRoad.
ThecitywasinhabiteduntiltheMingdynasty.
Keywords:WhiteCity,Tongwancheng,Huns,InnerAsia,buildingsacrifice.
In2004NationalGeographicOnlineHungaryhaspublishedanarticleonthecapitaloftheSouthern
Huns, Tongwancheng. Previously, we did not have any detailed information about this city, as it was
hardlymentionedintheinternationalhistoricalliterature.Onlyfewmonographsrecordedthenameof
thecity.InthepastfewdecadesonlyahandfulsinologistsEberhard,PulleyblankandBoodberg
havedealtwiththehistoryofSouthernHuns,butwithoutdataconcerningthissignificantcity,despite
ofitsmentioninginChineseChronicleslikeJinshu,Weishu,etc. 1
Variousnameshavebeengiventothecitythroughdifferenthistoricalperiods;ithasbeenknownas
Tongwancheng,andlaterasXiaZhou.SomescholarsdidnotaccepttheideathattheHunshadsurvived
andlivedforcenturiesintheregionwhatispresentdayNorthernandCentralChina,buttheChinese
and some Orientalists proved this with archaeological findings and historical sources. According to
Professor Hou Yongjian, Xian Normal University, the Huns lived in these regions until the 7th or 8th
centuries. Chinese archaeological excavations in Outer or Northern China unearthed large tombs that
contained significant quantities of objects (saddles, horse furniture, potteries, etc.) associated with the
Southern Huns. The territory of these people stretched over much of the land surrounding the
Yellowriver,EasternGansuandQinghai. 2
HouCao,2008.163.
Ma,2005.343.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
70
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SouthernHuns
When the Southern Huns became the vassals of the Handynasty, they established many cities and
capitalsinwhatisnowpresentdayNorthernChina.Aftertheirseparationattheendofthe1stcentury
A.D.,Hunnoblesestablishedindependentstateswithowncenterorordu 3.Onlyattheendofthe3rd
centurydidtheybecomeunitedagain,undertheruleofLiuYuan.Fromthistimeonward,intheareas
aroundtheYellowriver,onlyafewHundynastiessuchastheHan,Zhao,DaXiaandNorthernLiang
arerecorded,knowntoustodaybytheirChineseappellations.Previously,scientiststhoughttheywere
Chinesedynasties,butlaterresearchintohistoricalsourcesrevealedthattheywereindeedHuns.
AmongthesevariousdynastiestheDaXia,whichruledfrom407to431,isespeciallysignificant.This
empirespreadoutoveravastterritoryaroundtheYellowriver,anditscapitalwasforsometimeGao
Ping,whichisknowntodayasGuyuancityintheprovinceofNingxia.HelianBobo,thefounderofthis
lastgreatHundynastylivedontherightbankofYellowriver,wherehebuilta9storeypagoda. 4Itcan
beseeninpresentdayYinchuan,andthisistheoldestBuddhistpagodainChina.Indeed,HelianBobo
planned and constructed many significant architectural sites; Tongwan city in the heart of the Ordos
region represents his most striking contribution. According to Chinese scholars studies its highest
populationratewasbetween82.000and107.000. 5
The great Hun city, Tongwancheng was recorded in Chapter 130 of the Chinese chronicle, Jin shu,
anditwasinhabiteduntiltheMingdynasty.After1423thecitydisappearedfromwrittensourcesuntil
Chineseandforeigntravelersrediscovereditduringthe19thcentury.Atfirst,Chinesescholarsworking
withtheirownsources,believedthatthecitywasthecapitaloftheTanguts,butlatertheyrealizedthatit
was established by the Southern Hun Da Xia dynasty. 6 The real scientific research began only in the
1990s, the site was surveyed twice and scholars from Shaanxi province undertook a great project that
sought to investigate the history and culture of the Southern Huns, with extensive archaeological
research. The professionals found some ruins of towers outside the city walls; it is believed that the
functionofthesestructureswastohelpprotectthekingwhenhewasoutsidethewall.Theylocalized
sites of tombs near these ruined towers, but these remain unexcavated. The most important findings
were the seals of Southern Hun kings and/or officials, which were unearthed near Tongwancheng, in
Yulin, and other locations in the Ordos region and Shaanxi province. One was discovered in Loyang,
whichwasoncepartoftheSouthernHunEmpire. 7Theseitemsaresignificantbecausetheyshowthat
whiletheSouthernHunsusedChinesesigns,thelanguageofsealswasHun.Uchiraltu,InnerMongolian
expertreadtheinscriptionsandreconstructedsomeHunadministrativetitles,thatwererecordedinthe
Chinesechroniclesaswell.
The Chinese chronicles recorded an expression yu tu for the centre of the Hun king, and according to Uchiraltu,
InnerMongolianlinguist,thatreconstructionisorduorpalace.Uchiraltu,1996.4.103.
ThenameofthepagodatodayisHaiBata,whichreferstoHelianBobo.Thissiteissituatedonthenorthernpartofthecity.
HouCao,2008.164.
Kang,2004.16.
Ma,2005.348.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
71
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In researching Tongwancheng, the biggest problem that presents itself is that the Chinese
archaeologistshavesofaronlydonesurveysandnoexcavationshavebeencarriedout.
They believe that a section under the eastern city wall or fortress had previously been erected, but
waslaterruinedentirely. 8So,itmightbetruethatpreviouslyawallorfortresswaserected,butitwas
leveled. Other scholars propose that the surroundings were inhabited by Huns, but there was no city
therebeforethe5thcentury.ThatproposalprovedtheChinesechronicles,whichhavedetailedbuilding
procedure from that period onward. According to the Jin shu, Helian (Liu) Bobo (407425), a direct
descendant of the great Mao tun and Liu Yuan shanyu, and the founder of the Hun Da Xia dynasty,
plannedandbuiltanenormouscapitalbetween413and419. 9Archaeologistscollectedsomeobjectsfrom
locals, but they could not determine the exact date of their production. The most interesting object
discoveredwasabowlwithseeds.Asculptureofahorsewasalsofoundinsidethecity,presentlythis
objectcanbeseenintheXianStelesofForestMuseum.Supplementingtheseobjects,manyvarietiesof
coinswerediscoveredinthecity,illustratingtheimportanceofthecitythroughouttheMiddleAges.We
knowfromZhouthatthewellknownNestoriancrossesofOrdoswerefoundbylocalsinthefirsthalfof
the20thcentury. 10
Our own discoveries of huge broken ceramics, decorations from the interiors of buildings indicate
that the city was occupied and laid to waste in later periods. We know of two major sieges: in 786
Tibetantroopsandin1206Jurchentroopsinvadedthecity.
Thereisanotherproblemthatpresentsitselftointerestedarchaeologists:accordingtoJinshu,when
theconstructionofthecapitalwascomplete,HelianBoboerectedasteleuponwhichhelistedhisdeeds.
Researcherswerehopingtofindthisobjectinthesouthernpartofthecity,wherethechroniclesituates
thatitembutatthetimeofthesurveytheydidnotfindit.Allthattheyfoundwasarobbedtombfrom
Tangperiodwithanothersteleconnectedtoit.SothematterofHelianBobossteleremainsunsolvedto
thisveryday. 11
Descriptionofthecity
Accordingtocartographicaldata,TongwancityissituatedinShaanxiprovince,Jinbiancountyatthe
centralpointoftheOrdosplateau.Ithadbeenastrategicandcommercialcenterforcenturies.Historical
sourcesspeakoftworiversHongLiuandWudingthatflewthroughthisarea,nowadayshowever
onlythelatterremained.InancienttimesitcouldhavebeenafertilelandasHelianBobosaid:Thehill
isbeautiful,infrontofittheplainiswide,andaroundthisthereisalakeofpurewater.Iwanderedso
Deng,2004.10.HerebytheauthorreferstotheShuiJingcommentary.
Jinshurecordedthebuildingprocess.
10
Zhou,2004.5154.
11
Wang,2004.111112.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
72
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
manyplaces,butIhavenotseenacountry,whosebeautycancomparewiththatofthisplace. 12Inside
thecitytherehadbeenabiglake,butatsomepointithaddriedup.Thecitywasimmense,withouter
walls that were 6 km long, 1630 meters wide, and with watchtowers constructed on each of the four
corners.
Sand, soil and water were mixed, yielding a strong building material, which is known as white
earth.Probably,insidethecity,woodwasanotherimportantbuildingmaterial.Wecanobservetraces
of beams on the sides of the palace and some watchtowers. The investigations of the Chinese
archaeologists revealed that the city had been divided into two main parts: an outer segment and an
inner one. Additionally the inner city was further subdivided into western and eastern sections. The
western segment contains remnants of a palace, the houses of officers and other leaders, and various
governmental offices. South of the palace two ruined towers can be found, one of which was a drum
tower,andtheotherabelltower.Togetherthesetowersperformedaveryimportantfunction:providing
informationtothehabitants.TheChanganTowerstoodinthecenterofthewesternsection,guarding
theroadtoChangan,theancientChinesecapital,thatwasoncepartoftheDaXiaKingdom.Theeastern
partwastheindustrialandcommercialcenterandsomehousesremainingoodcondition.Insomeways,
thesehousesdifferedfromthehousesofnobles.Whileanoblehousehadtwoormorerooms,andthe
gardeninfrontofit, thehouseofanordinaryfamilyhadonlytworoomsandusuallyno garden.
Consideringthemorethantenthousandinhabitantsofthecitythereareonlyfewhousesthatremained.
Hence, it is likely that temporary houses such as tents (yurts) or wooden houses existed inside and
outside the city. However, the arrangement of the houses was much the same: like the yurts of the
nomadic people who moved mainly through Mongolia and Tibet, as Hou stated, 13 and the typologies
thatdevelopedinearlycitiesinMongolia,thecentralpointofthesehouseswasthefireplace.Thesmoke
wasledthroughanapertureintheceiling,providingasecureandliveablehomefortheinhabitants.
HuncitiesinInnerAsia
It is very important to emphasize that Tongwancheng was not only a Hun city in Inner Asia.
TongwanchengwasacitythatwasbuiltlateinthehistoryoftheSouthernHunsandhasremainedin
relativelygoodcondition,buttherearealsotracesofothercities.Mongolianarchaeologistscontendthat
amongInnerAsiannomadicpeopletherewerecertaintendenciestowardsurbanliving,andthattheir
wayoflifewasnotassimpleashasoftenbeenreported.Accordingtonewarchaeologicalsurveys,other
cities have been connected to the Hun period (2nd century B.C. 1st century A.D.), and in Mongolia,
tracesofencampmentsdatingbacktotheBronzeandIronAgewerediscovered.Workingthroughoutin
Mongolia, archaeologists excavated four major cities (Terelj, Gua Dob, Bayanbulag and Boroo)
supplementingthe10HuncitiesthatwereidentifiedbyH.Perleeinthe1950s. 14NexttoLakeBaikal,we
12
Jinshu116.
13
Hou,2008.164.
14
Perlee,1961.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
73
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
knowoftwosignificantcommercialandindustrialcities(IvolgaandDerestui).Chinesescientistshave
identifiedthesiteofatleast500cityruinsinInnerMongoliadatingfromdifferentperiods,butwemust
waitfortheexcavationofthesesitesbeforewecanknowwhetherHuncitiesareamongthem.
Chinese scholars state that the ancient center of the Huns was situated in the Yinshan and Ordos
plateau. As we know, the Ordos region was once an important industrial center; that is why pastoral
tribes settled down there. According to Chinese sources, the name of the first Hun capital was
Longcheng. Sources suggest that it was the central residence of the Huns around 60 B.C., when two
brothersHuhanyeandChichiwerefightingforthetitleofshanyu. 15Chineserecordslaterreferto
thecityofGuanglu,formerlyaChinesefortress,asbeingHuhanyescapital. 16
ItistruethatChinesechroniclesarefilledwithreferencestomanyHuncitiesandcapitalsfromthe
period of Southern Hun rule, but most of these cities were of Chinese origin. Unfortunately, from
EuropeanliteratureweonlygetonesentenceofdescriptionpertainingtotheSouthernHunsandtheir
modeofliving:Theywanderfollowinggrassandwater,theyhadnofixed cities.TheotherChinese
sourcespointtoamajordifferencebetweenthewalledcitiesoftheChineseandHuncitiesthatwerenot
surroundedbywalls.However,thisstatement,whichhasbeenattributedtoShiJi,referstothewayof
lifeoftheGobipeople,whoneededtorelocateoftenduetothescarcityofpastureland.Itisknownthat
Mongoliannomadschangedtheirencampmentupto4timesayear;theydidnotdotheirwanderings
withoutgoodreason.Keepingthisinmind,wecanbetterunderstandthevariedmodesofsettlementof
theHuns.
As I mentioned above, the Chinese chronicles recorded many Hun cities. Some of these cities were
able to move from one place to another, as we can see in the history of Urga, the precursor to
modernday Ulaanbaatar. It was first identified in 1654, but settled down only in 1778. Early Hun
capitalssuchasLongchengwerealsomobile,capableofbeingmovedfromplacetoplaceasBatsaihan
maintains.However,thelocationofthefirstHuncapitalremainsstillelusive.
MeaningofWhitecities
AccordingtoChinesescholars,TongwanchengwasknownbyitsHunnameofBaiChengorWhite
City.ThisnameisnotuniqueinthevastgeographyoftheEurasianSteppe;indeedwecanfindmany
capitalsthatareknownasWhitecitystrewnacrossEurasia.
The origin of the name may be connected with the Huns, who are known to have used this
expression.AswecanseefromtheInnerAsiansteppetradition,whiteisconsideredablessedcolor,this
mayindicatethatthesecitieswerebuiltnotonlyforcivilormilitarypurposes,butthattheymayhave
also been regarded as sacred centers. Tongwancheng functioned this way under the Xixia reign
(1113thcentury).
15
Hanshu.HistoryofHuns.SeeUchiraltu,1996.4.113114.
16
Csornai,2007.307.Hanshu8.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
74
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A Russian travelogue, Potanin, who visited the area in the 1870s, also made references to a White
City.HetravelledthroughtheOrdosregionandhewrotethatnearYulintherewasalargecityknown
asChaganBalgasun,theMongoliantermforWhiteCity. 17Thiswasanimportantdocumentationof
thelatehistoryofTongwancity.Nowadays,thenameofthevillagenexttotheruinedcityisBaiCheng
zi, where the Bai cheng means White city and the zi little in Northern Chinese dialects. 18 As we
know, white was a blessed color, and some scholars think the name of the city was connected to this
function. The Huns and their descendants used white horses for sacrifices to Heaven 19, or wore white
clothingforcertainceremonies.Otherscholarsthinkthatcolorsinthecitynamesrefertothecompasses,
becauseaccordingtoInnerAsiantraditionwhiteisequivalenttowest. 20
ThenameofWhitecityoftenoccursinInnerAsiaandEasternEurope,wheretheHunsbroughttheir
special InnerAsian cultural heritage. The western border of the Hun civilization was the
Carpathianbasin,whereAttila,thegreatHunkingestablishedhiscapital.AccordingtoGermansources
this capital was known as Ezilburg (which can be roughly translated as Attilas city) while in
HungarianhistorianchroniclesitisknownastheWhiteCity.
TheGestaHungarorum,anoldHungarianrecord,notessomeinterestingdataconcerningthisWhite
City.rpd,therulingHungarianprinceofthetime,whowashimselfadescendantofAttila,wantedto
find the old capital and make it his own seat of power. When the Hungarians entered the Carpathian
basin,theylookedforKingAttilascapitalinthemountainsaroundtheDanube. 21Whentheyultimately
foundit,theyorganizedagrandfeastonthesite. 22Accordingtohistoricalrecords,Attilascapitalwas
used by the medieval Hungarian kings as their capital for centuries. 23 The medieval Kingdom of
Hungary had four ancient cities of significance, and all of them were in some way White Cities: 24
Gyulafehrvr (Alba Iulia) 25 in the east, Nndorfehrvr (Alba Bulgariae) in the south 26, and
Dnyeszterfehrvr (White City on the Dniester) in the northeastern part of the kingdom 27, and lastly
Tengerfehrvr(Whitecityonthesea). 28
17
Potanin,1875.107.
18
AndorZomborisinformationfromChinesescholars.
The Heavencult is name as Tengricult for Inner Asian people. Also, the Hungarians and Mongolians had white horse
sacrificeinthepast.
19
20
Purev,2002.46.
21
ThatmountainisPilis,whichisclosetoHungaryspresentdaycapital,Budapest.
22
GestaHungarorum,46.In:Gyrffy,1986.171.
23
Kzai,27.In:Gyrffy,1986.189.
AccordingtotheCzuczorFogarasilinguisticdictionary,theHungarianwordfejrshows,thatisasacralname,connecting
withtheHeaven.(feupinHungarian).Buttheysay,thattheHungarianfejr,orwhitecanbecomparedwiththeChinesebei,
orwhite.
24
25
NowadaysitisinTransylvania,Romania.
26
NowadaysitisinSerbia,nearBelgrad.BelgradalsomeansWhitecity.
27
NowadaysitisinUkraine.
28
NowadaysitisinCroatia.ThefirstHungarian-Croatianking,Klmnwasenthronedin1096.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
75
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Inaddition,theancientHuntraditionswerepreservedinthenameofSarkel,theKhazarianfortress,
which has the meaning: White village. Later dynasties used this name as well. For instance, we can
findsomeruinedcitiesinNorthernChina,whichpreservethisname.Moreover,theoldJurchencapital
was Baicheng, and then Khubilai khan had four major capitals, one of them was known as Chagan
khota, or the White city. 29 Later, in the 17th century the famous prince, Tsogtu Tayishi built a city and
nameditChaganBaisin 30,orWhiteHouse.
Thebuildingsacrifice
On the 130th coil of Jin shu there is a story documenting how the wall in the city was made more
resilient: When Helian Bobo designed Tongwan city, he appointed Chigan Ali as the overseer of the
construction. Ali was a very skilful architect, but he was also very cruel. The walls of the city were
designed to withstand great forces. If a hole could be bored through the wall, the builder of the wall
wouldbekilledandhisbodyburiedinsidethewall. 31
Similarly, the Shi Ji chronicle notes Meng Jiang ns story regarding what happened during the
constructionoftheGreatWallatthetimeofQinShiHuangDi. 32Comparablestoriesareknownamong
Mongolians,bothintheOrdosregionaswellasinOuterMongoliaandTibet,anditwasspreadovervia
CaucasusuptotheCarpathianbasin,wecanfindexampleseveninthefolkloreofSouthernEurope.
HumansacrificeisveryimportantintheEasternHungarianfolkloretradition,onethathasinspired
in Hungary much scholarship and yielded many publications in the past hundred years. The most
interestingHungarianballadisKmvesKelemenn,whichplaysoutinthecastleofDvaaswellas
otherlocations. 33Theballadcontainsreferencetothecustomofinstallinghumanremainsintowallsin
order to strengthen the architecture of the castle. The Hungarian version contains the following line:
They caught her and put into the fire. Her fragile ashes were mixed into the lime. That was how the
high castle of Dva was completed. 34 Hungarian ethnographer, Lajos Vargyas compared this ballad
with many similar works from Southern European groups (Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks and
Macedonians) 35andconcludedthattheyallderiveultimatelyfromtheHungarianversion.Vargyasisof
the opinion that the Hungarians brought this practice from the Caucasus, where they had previously
29ChaganKhotawasKhublaikhanscapital.Themeaningoftheword:Whitecity,wherethekhotacanbeHunnameforcity.
Wecanfindkota,ktainCentralAsianandHungarianplacenames.
30
ThatwasthecenterforTsogtutayishiinnowadaysMongolia.(Builtinthe17thcentury.)
31
Jinshu,130.
32
Polonyi,1986.200.
33
Itisanameofthebuilderswife.
34
OrtutayKriza,1976.11.
35
Vargyas,1959.573.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
76
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
lived. Additionally, he argues that the motif is of InnerAsian origin, however, the examples that he
mustersareGeorgianandArmenian,withnosourcesderivingfromfurtherEast. 36
AccordingtothenewdatathathasbeenunearthenedregardingthebuildingprocessesofTongwan
cityandtheGreatWall,wecansaynowthatVargyaswasright,becausethismotifiswidespreadover
InnerAsia,amongtheHunsandtheirdescendants:Turkic,Hungarian,MongolianandTibetanpeople.
ThemotifwhichwasspreadthroughtheEurasiansteppewithotherdocumentationshowsthe
similarculturalheritageoftheHunsthroughouttheEurasiangrassland.
Literature:
Anonymus
1986. Gesta Hungarorum. In: Gyrffy, Gyrgy (ed.) A magyarok eldeirl s a honfoglalsrl.
Gondolat,Budapest.
Barfield,T.J.
1981.TheHsiungnuimperialconfederacy:organisationandforeignpolicy.In:JAS41.4161.
Batsajhan,Z.
2002.Hunnu.MongolianStateUniversity,Ulaanbaatar.
Boldbaatar,J.Lundeedzsancan,D.
1997.Mongolulszintr,erhdzjlthenulamdzslal.Ulaanbaatar.
Clauson,SirGerald
1972. An Etymological Dictionary of PreThirteenth Century Turkish. Claverdon Publishing,
Oxford.
Cosmo,Nicoladi
2005.AncientChinaanditsenemies.CambridgeUniversityPress.NewZealand.
Czuczor,GergelyFogarasi,Jnos
2004.Amagyarnyelvsztra.CDkiads,Arcanumkiad,Budapest.
Csongor,Barnabs
1993. Knai forrsok az zsiai avarokrl. In: Trtnelem s kultra. 9. Orientalisztikai
Munkakzssg,Budapest.
Damba,Altad
2003.Hunnubolodmongol.InnerMongolianScientificPublishing,Hohhot.
36
Vargyas,1959.573.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
77
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Deng,Hui
2004. Tongwan city the Monument of National cultural Exchange and the Testimony of
EnvironmentalChanges.115.In:Tongwanchengyizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian.
Ecsedy,Ildik
1987.Akoraiknaillamkezdetei.AkadmiaiKiad,Budapest.
rdy,Mikls
2001.Ahunlovastemetkezsek.Magyarorszgrt,desHaznkrt,Budapest.
Fogarasi,Jnos
1862.Aszkelynpkltszetrl.In:NyelvtudomnyiKzlemnyek.
Gernet,Jaques
2001.Aknaicivilizcitrtnete.Budapest,OsirisKiad.
Gongor,D.
197078.Halhtovchoon.III.Ulaanbaatar.MongolianAcademyofSciences.
Groom,FrancisHindes
1899.GypsyFolkTales.London,HurstandBlackett.
Gyrffy,Gyrgy(ed)
1986.Amagyarokeldeirlsahonfoglalsrl.SzpirodalmiKiad,Budapest.
Haloun,G.
1926.SeitwannkanntendieChinesendieTokhareroderdieIndogermanenberhaupt?Leipzig.
Hou,Yonjiang(ed)
2004. Tongwancheng yizhi zong he yan jiu. (Tongvancseng romvros tanulmnyozsa,
vizsglata)SangQin,Xian.
Hou,YongjianCaoZhihong
2008. Investigation and Research on the Important Capital Site of Tongwancheng in Eurasian
Grassland Zone. In: A Fordulat. The Hungarians and the Orient II. Conference on Ancestral
History. Section of Archaeology and Written Sources. Hungarian World Association, Budapest,
163172.
Hu,Ji
2004.TheTongwanCityasOneoftheGarrisonPostsontheSilkroadDuringtheSixteenstates
Period the Commentary on the Study along the Soutern Fringle of Ordos. In: Tongwancheng
yizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian,107111.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
78
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hucker,CharlesO.(ed.)
1985.ADictionaryofofficialtitlesinImperialChina.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford.
Hulsewe,A.F.P.
1979.ChinainCentralAsia.TheEarlystage:125BCA.D23.Leiden,E.J.Brill.
Kang,Lanying
2004.TheresearchandinvestigationofTongwancity.In:Tongwanchengyizhizongheyanjiu.
SangQin,Xian,1621.
Ligeti,Lajos
1950. Mots de civilisation de Haute Asie eu transcription chinoise. In: Acta Orientaliae
Hungariae.1.1.14088.
Ligeti,Lajos,(ford.)
1962.SecretHistoryofMongolsinHungarian.Gondolat,Budapest.
Loevwe,MichaelTwitchett,Denis(eds.)
1986. The Cambridge History of China. Chin and Han Empires. Vol. I. Cambridge University
Press,London,NewYork,Melbourne.
Ma,LiQin
2005.Yuanxiongnu,xiongnu.InnerMongolianUniversityPress,Hohhot.
Maspero,Henri
1978.AzkoriKna.(TheancientChina)Gondolat,Budapest.
Mote,F.W
1999.ImperialChina9001800.HarvardUniversityPress.Cambridge,Massachusetts,London.
Nmeth,Gyula(ed.)
1986.Attilashunjai.Budapest,AkadmiaiKiad.
Nmeth,Gyula
1991.Ahonfoglalmagyarsgkialakulsa.AkadmiaKiad,Budapest.
OrtutayKriza(ed)
1976.Amagyarnpballadk.SzpirodalmiKnyvkiad,Budapest.
Polonyi,Pter
1986.Kna.Panormatiknyveksorozat.Budapest.
Potanin,G.N.
1893.TangutskotibetskajaokrainaKitajaiCentralnajaMongolija.Vol.I.Saintpetersburg.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
79
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Pritsak,Omeljan
1954.KulturundSchrachederHunnen.In:FestschriftDmytroChyzhewskiyzum60.Geburstag.
Berlin,Harrasowitz,239249.
Prusek
1971. Chinese statelets and the Northern Barbarian in the Period 1400300 BC. Dordrecht, D.
ReidelPublishingCo.
Purev,Otgoni
2002.Mongolinbgiynsasin.Admon,Ulaannbaatar.
Sinkovics,Balzs
2001. Fehrvr helyneveink. In: Sinkovics, BalzsFelfldi Szabolcs, szerk.: Nomd
npvndorlsokmagyarhonfoglals.MagyarstrtnetiKnyvtr15.BalassiKiad,Budapest,
130138.
Szeg,Ivn
2004.Vilgrksgleszahunokfvrosa?NationalGeographichrlevl.(www.geographic.hu)
Elektronikuskiads.prilis8.13.
Sukhbaatar,G.
1992.Mongolintuuhiyndeejbichig.Irboti.Ulaanbaatar,MongolianAcademyofSciences.
G.Sukhbaatar
1980.Mongolchuudinertniybg.Ulaanbaatar.
Tolstov,Sz.P.
1947.AzsiChorezm.Szikra,Budapest.
Twitchett,Denis(ed.)
1979.TheCambridgeHistoryofChina.SuiandTangChina.Vol.III.CambridgeUniversityPress,
London,NewYork,Melbourne.
Uchiraltu
1996.4.Hunnuyinkeseggeyinsoyolsergugelde.4.In:JournalofInnerMongolianUniversity
Philosophy&SocialSciencesinMongolian.Hohhot,China.101119.
Yamada,Nobuo
1989.TheformationoftheHsiungnunomadicstate.ThecaseofHsiungnu.In:Historicalstudies
ofnomadicpeoplesinNorthAsia.TokyoUniversityPress,Tokyo.295304.
Vargyas,Lajos
1959.KmvesKelemenneredete.Nprajzirtest,573.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
80
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Vargyas,Lajos(ed)
1988.MagyarNprajz.V.Npkltszet.MagyarTudomnyosAkadmia.Budapest.
Vsry,Istvn
1993.ArgiBelszsiatrtnete.Szeged.
Vladimircov,B.J
1934.Obsesztvennijsztojmongolov.Leningrad.
Wang,Gang
2004.ThetextualresearchoftheMapthatrestoredanddistributionoftheAncientTongwancity.
In:Tongwanchengyizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian,199204.
Wang,Zhizhen
2004.TheinvestigationoftheTabletSiteofTheInscriptionforTongwancity.In:Tongwancheng
yizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian,111113.
Watson,B.
1961. Records of the Grand historian of China. Translated from the Shihchi of SsumaChien.
NewYorkLondon,III.
Wen,Cuifang
2003. The historical Chronicle of the Great Xia Kingdom. In: Tongwancheng yizhi zong he yan
jiu.SangQin,Xian,294310.
Zhou,Weizhou
2004. The Textual research on the Newbuilt Castles During Sixteen state Period. In:
Tongwanchengyizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian.9398.
Zhou,Weizhou
2004. The Textual Research on the Crossed Bronze Brand of Yuan Dynasty Unearthened in
Tongwancity.In:Tongwanchengyizhizongheyanjiu.SangQin,Xian,5155.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
81
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
HaiBaoTaTheoldestpagodainChina.Itwas
builtbyHelianBobo,thegreatHunEmperor.
TheRuinofthepalaceinTongwancheng.
Housesofnoblesandofficersintheinnercity.
TowersintheouterpartofTongwancheng.
Theouterdefencesysteminthecity.
HorsesculpturewasfoundintheHuncity.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
82
JanuaryMarch2009
VolumeI.,Issue1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ordinaryhousesinthecity.
Innerpartoftheordinaryhouse.Thecentral
sitewasthefireplace.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
83

Journal of Eurasian Studies Vol 1,1, Jan-Mar 2009

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Eurasian Studies Vol 1,1, Jan-Mar 2009

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JOURNALOF

abovementioned definitions of nomadic community in practice turned out to be nonoperational, i.e.

As for socalled economic aul (which is considered by a number of researches as a minimal

Themythologicalinterpretationof the the Saint Ladislaus legend in a wider, Eurasian respectcame

Throughout the centuries there were men who took

There are no generally accepted reconstructions of ProtoObUgric, ProtoUgric or Proto

Sammallahti himselfsomehowadmitsthat there areserious difficulties here,at leastwithregardto

There is no compelling evidence in favour of the establishment of the U theory /family

. az urli /finnugor alapnyelv rekonstrukcija megtrtnt. Termszetesen vannak mg

sszetartazsnak (ti. amikor a magyar s a trk, vagy a finnugor s az altji kapcsolatrl

throat. InK.Beals etal.(eds), Papers from the29th Regional meetingoftheChicagoLinguistic

S-ar putea să vă placă și