IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF SUMERIAN AND HUNGARIAN PROVEN ?

The mass of grammatical correspondences between Sumerian and Hungarian, as seen long ago by Oppert and Lenormant, plus the mass of lexical correspondences, established by recent research, show clearly to the unbiased student that there is a relationship. Strong emotional factors, taboos and prejudices, the well-known conservatism of the average scholarly authority militate against accepting the fact. This attitude has its legitimations.

The scholar has to defend the confines of his territory against the uninitiated outsider, the irresponsible lunatic, the unconscientous lay seeker of profit and publicity. Alas, this conservative attitude has also been responsible for chronic hostility towards the really revolutionary ideas. The history of science abounds in shameful examples.

Geniuses, who submitted to scholarly authority their well-documented discoveries, like Boucher de Perthes, discoverer of prehistoric man's artifacts, were publicly ridiculed, even accused of fraud by the great of their day. This also happened to De Sautola, discoverer of the prehistoric cave-paintings. Grotefend, who solved the riddle of the cuneiform script, was unable to get his dissertation published. The Academy of Goettingen, where he presented his thesis, refused to print it. Forty years after the author's death his rejected manuscripts were unearthed and hailed as the turning-point in Assyriology. The scholars of his day have been unwilling to listen and believe. The genius Mendel wrote and spoke in vain during his lifetime. Only after his death did the scholarly world awake to the fact that Mendel has established the long-sought laws of heredity. Schliemann, excavator of Troy, was badly treated and Semmelweiss, who discovered the cause of puerperal fever, was practically hounded to death by his angry colleagues. Semmelweiss long ago had proved his thesis: puerperal fever was caused by infection. He had tangible, absolute proof: in his disinfected hospital wards there was no mortality, while

53

in the next wards the mothers kept dying in droves. Authorities shrugged their shoulders, they had chosen not to accept the facts, though many lives were at stake.

Rejection by current scholarly authority is almost the usual ritual for new truths and certainly not proof against them. As always, there are, in a small number, really fearless scholars, who can perceive the truth and even support it. Their number grows, as time passes. The quality and courage of such scholars decides, how much time must pass before a proven truth becomes accepted truth.

Meanwhile, let us consider the strongest arguments, against accepting Sumerian-Hungarian relationship.

The first one is, that there are still many uncertainties in Sumerian, which make comparisons difficult. This is true. But what is difficult is not impossible. The fact that there were several dialects of Sumerian, does certainly complicate the problem, but this can be taken in stride. We do not have to wait until all uncertainties about these dialects and their phonetic history and correspondences are cleared up. This may take a long time. We should not wait until scholarship is agreed on readings of signs designated by totally different names. We are told now, that the sign AB should be read ES 'house'. ― This may have been so at a certain period of the long Sumerian history, but was it always so? I dare to suggest, that at one time the sign AB may have sounded somewhere as AB, also that both have their Hungarian correspondences. AB corresponds to the Hungarian root ÉP in ÉPIT 'builds'; ÉPÜLET 'building'; while ÉS corresponds to HÁZ 'house'.

May we suggest, that if anywhere in time and space, in any of the Sumerian dialects or artificial ways of speaking, we discover a word, that corresponds obviously to a word either in the archaic or the modern literary Hungarian, or any of its different provincial dialects, we should add our finding to the body of Sumerian-Hungarian correspondences. Words loaned from Accadian should be considered; they are important indexes of history.

If later there are compelling reasons, established by Sumerian research, for striking the word in question from the Sumerian vocabulary, we may drop the correspondence too

54

― but we should not hurry. Posterity will correct our mistakes ― these will not disprove our main thesis.

The most typical objection to comparing Sumerian with Hungarian is, as stated by a noted linguist, "It is very dangerous to compare a dead language of five thousand years ago with a living language, which appeared in writing only five hundred years ago."

To this we may answer that the first coherent Hungarian text known to us was written around 1200 A.D., so it is about 750 years old. (Single words and many names are known from Latin documents of earlier times.) But it may be relevant, that even the earliest texts are perfectly understandable and only slightly removed from modern Hungarian, due to a great conservatism apparent in this branch of humanity. On the other hand, the bulk of Sumerian literature we know, was written down in the second millennium B.C. The distance between their date and that of the first Hungarian document is roughly three times as much as our distance from that famous sermon. There my be difficulties, but no reason to be completely deterred. The professional linguist, even if he is free enough to ingrained prejudices for listening to our arguments, will probably be reluctant to accept the number of phonetic changes which are possible between Sumerian and Hungarian. It is difficult to admit that Sumerian B may have either remained unchanged in the corresponding Hungarian word or changed into P, or V, or F (never into D or T). But here we have to remind the linguist of the stormy history of the Hungarian nation. A thousand years ago, we know they lived in seven "stems" and 108 clans. They probably spoke different dialects. Two distinct languages spoken by the early Hungarians are documented in the Byzantine sources. It is more than probable, that the Sumero-Scythian linguistic heritage was transmitted by different strains. We know that the B - P change has happened already in Sumerian BAAR 'white, bright' appears also as PAAR. It is possible that the group of early Hungarians used the correspondence of this word as VERŐ, while another used it as FEER, FEHÉR. Literary language accepted both with slightly different meanings, FEHÉR meaning "white, fair" and VERŐ meaning "light, sunshine."

While it is recognized that monosyllabic Sumerian may still cause many mistakes and that some correspondences may be

55

fortuitous ― it should be obvious that all the foregoing cannot be mere chance or mere mistake. The percentage of clear correspondences between Sumerian roots and their Hungarian derivatives is far higher than the necessary minimum, five percent of the vocabulary, usually deemed sufficient for examining a relationship of the languages.

The correspondences are clear, not only in those cultural concepts, which may be borrowed, but especially in the basic vocabulary of the two languages. While we need much further research by experts, anyone able to shed ingrained prejudices and form new judgments on basis of new evidence, can already recognize that ancient Sumerian and living Hungarian are related.

* * *

At this point, one might say, that we said enough and now let us relax. Whether we succeeded in convincing the reader, or not, some day truth will prevail. Science proceeds with giant steps and we are on the eve of a breakthrough in linguistic research too. Soon the linguistic elements of the world's languages will be fed into computers and degrees of relationship will be established with mathematical exactitude.

Oppert testated his cruelly assailed theory to be vindicated by a better informed posterity. I could leave my cause to posterity that will use the computers; bless them.

May I refer all those, who are still not willing to accept as fact the relationship of Sumerian and Hungarian, to the great mechanical brains of tomorrow. May I also bid them farewell here.

May I invite those who have the courage to believe now, to read further.

56

CONCLUSION

Thank you dear reader, for having followed me around in the dense forests and dangerous swamps of ancient Scythia, I fondly hope that I did not mislead you. We were, like the legendary hunters of the White Stag, pursuing something shining and beautiful; a historical truth hidden by forces of evil, behind sinister thickets and poisonous vapors. ―

The miraculous Stag was more than a stag and the truth of the Sumerian origin of the Hungarians is more than a truth. It happens to be in the same time a cause too, a just cause, that of giving back to a distressed nation her place under the sun, her right to life; of which she was robbed.

Dear reader, if you belong to the kind of human beings, who still believe in the principles once promulgated by Sir Launcelot of the Lake and his king Arthur, then I appeal to you frankly. I am asking you, to help the Hungarians.

Centuries of calumny have ruined the Hungarian image in the Western world. Several powers were interested, are interested in sucking Hungarian blood, robbing Hungarian goods, using Hungarians for slave-labor. These were and are interested in keeping the Hungarian image such, that you and the likes of you, dear reader, should not be interested in what happens to Hungarians.

To achieve this was a masterpiece. You were first told that Hungarians came from Central Asia ― they are total strangers in Europe, no members of the Indo-European family. Nobody told you, that the Scythian family was related to the Indo-European and that the Hungarians were Scythians.

You were told about the nomad hordes of Hungarians. You were not told, that they were not nomads, but refugees, in quest of a homeland; they did not live in hordes but in strict and efficient organizations.

You were fed in school-books and encyclopedias glowing stories about the "savage and cruel" Hungarians. Nobody told you that Hungarians on horseback were not more savage and cruel, not less bold and adventurous than the contemporary Vikings in their boats.

Did anybody tell you that "savagery" and "barbarism" being

57

reserved in anthropology for the preliterate stages, using these terms for the Magyars of the ninth century is not legitimate? They came to the shores of the Danube with a script of their own.

You will understand me better, if I tell you the story of the fight about the authenticity of the Hungarian runic writing. Pray, abide with me a little longer.

We know that many Scythian peoples were literate, such were the Huns, Avars, Turks. They had scripts of their own, though relatively few monuments and documents survived.

In the Hungarian chronicles and early histories notes keep reappearing about the Scythian writing of the Hungarians. Bonfini, Italian chronicler of the Hungarian king Mathias wrote in the fifteenth century about this script, which is usually carved in wood and expresses much, with a few signs.

With the spreading of Latin letters, the ancient pagan script fell into oblivion. It seems that while it was fairly well known during the sixteenth century, around 1600 it became a rarity. In the following century, several clerics, Catholic and Protestant, wrote down for posterity's information the signs and rules of the ancient writing. They called he writing Scythian, Hunnic or Siculian, because the script survived longest in Transsylvania, home of the Hungarian-speaking Székely or Sicul people. We know from the notes of these clerics, that the script went to left from right, and some vowels could be eliminated. Longer texts were written or carved in bustrophedon.

In the next, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it became fashionable and lucrative to detract everything in Hungarian history, for reasons I have already explained. So the authenticity of those poor good friars and ministers, who left us the ancient alphabets, was flatly denied.

The argument was that since there is no Scythian relationship and since Hungarian is obviously related to the language of the primitive, inarticulate Lapps, Hungarians of ancient times could not have a script of their own. Árpád's people were barbaric nomads. If we conceded the possibility that they had a writing, we would have to regard them as civilized people. This the scholarly guild did not want to admit. So it was decided by the authorities, that early Hungarians could not have had a writing ― period. Every evidence to the contrary was dubbed nonsense or deliberate fraud. The notion was floated,

58

that obviously one of those chauvinistic Protestant ministers abused of his knowledge of Hebrew and constructed a script written backwards, like Hebrew. The others, including the Franciscan friars, were fools, who copied.

In spite of this well established official version, the question of the authenticity of the "rovás-írás", the runic writing was dragged in again and again by believers, who kept finding documents of it, in old bricks, on the ceiling of an old church, even faithful copies among the writings of an Italian officer, who worked in Transsylvania, in the seventeenth century, and was interested in antiquities.

The authorities were not impressed.

One of the believers, Gy. Sebestyén wrote a treatise on the script and mailed a copy to W. Thomson, the famous decipherer of the old Turkish runes. The Danish scholar filed the essay in his library.

It was well known that Hungarian herdsmen still carved their accounts of the animals on sticks of wood. They preserved the old numerals, but did not know the letters.

Around the turn of the century one of the believers found a farmer, who claimed that he learned the letters of the old script from his father. This created a stir.

The best Hungarian sculptor of the period, J. Fadrusz was commissioned by the Hungarian State to create a monument. This he did and the inscriptions were in the signs of the Hungarian runic writing. This angered the academic circles.

A committee of scholars cross-examined the farmer, who admitted that it was not his father, but a school-teacher who taught him the letters; his father knew only the numerals.

The scholarly guild was triumphant: here was a clear case of fraud. That should put an end to the nonsense! Those, who still dared to believe in the authenticity of the script, were savagely attacked in the scholarly publications. Especially vicious was L. Réthy, one of the alumni of the Vienna school.

The sculptor Fadrusz was ordered by the State to take off the monument the inscriptions written in the ridiculed and compromised script. The sculptor lost his mind.

The case of the runic script seemed well buried. But truths have strange ways of reappearing somehow.

A young German scholar, F. Babinger found in the archives of the Fugger family a manuscript from the XVI-th century.

59

It was in 1913 that he discovered the diary of H. Dernschwamm, who described his visit to Istanbul in 1553. At that time Dernschwamm saw an intriguing inscription on the marble wall of the Sultan's stables and copied it exactly.

Babinger, preparing the publication of the manuscript, supposed that the inscription was in old Turkish script, and sent it to the expert, Thomsen.

Thomsen saw at once, that this is not Turkish. He picked up the publication of Sebestyén and compared the signs. The inscription, dated 1515 was in Hungarian.

With the signs of the old runic script only slightly differing from the good cleric's alphabets, a horse-groom, Tamás Székely recorded, that he was there, in a delegation by the King of Hungary to Sultan Selim. He recorded, that they had to wait long before getting the audience.

This message of the bored horse-groom decided the question of the authenticity of the script. It made obvious that simple people, unschooled in Latin letters, had known and used the ancient script. It was impossible to cast upon the German Babinger and the Danish Thomsen any suspicion.

At this point the Hungarian Academy of Sciences capitulated and published the book of Sebestyén, on all the authentic documents of the ancient Hungarian script, known until then.

The tragedy is, that the vindication came too late. Sebestyén's book was published during the years of the first World War. To the best of my knowledge, there are two copies of it in the U.S.A.

The simple fact, that the Hungarians of the ninth century brought along a script of their own, which shows clearly, that they had passed long ago the phases of evolution called savagery or barbarism, became not a matter of common knowledge. Not even the experts know about it. A famous American expert on Oriental writings when I began to tell him about the Hungarian runic script, smiled, amused and tolerantly, as if hearing about little green men from the planet Mars.

What people know, or do not know about their fellow men. influences their emotions and actions.

The bad image which has been given through centuries to a weakened, oppressed Hungary, came with a vengeance to the tables of the peace treaties after the first World War. No country, no nation, irrespective of the degrees of alleged war-

60

guilt or other considerations, was so cruelly torn to pieces, mutilated and marked for extinction by the misinformed dictators of the peace-treaties as the Hungarian.

After the Second World War the performance was repeated. At this moment, small Hungary is abandoned to the Soviet-orbit, in flagrant contrast to the promises of the Atlantic Charter.

Superficial reportings tell the Western reader about people who live quite well in Budapest. These are not the Hungarians. The truth about the Hungarians is, that at this moment they have the lowest birth-rate and the highest suicide rate in the world.

For a short while there was a wave of sympathy in the Western world, after 1956. It passed. Now the old image of Asiatic intruders, savage nomad strangers mentioned in the publications with stereotyped slur-words reappears and helps the Western public to assist in callous, sometimes hostile silence to covert genocide.

This would not be the case, would people know the truth. If the murderously distorted image about the origin, nature and essence of the Hungarians could be replaced with the real thing. This may be a matter of life or death for a valuable member of the human family.

This is why I appeal to you dear reader; do help to spread the truth about Hungary and the Hungarians. So that all their children should not be murdered, while you look the other way.

This is a human cause, as worthy of support as Dr. Schweitzer's hospital in Lambarene.

Or is it a colossal naivety to ask and still hope, after so many tragedies, for human solidarity?

I will risk to be laughed at ― and send out this call, addressed to the young and those who are young in heart. Even today, in these times of non-involvement, I trust that I will reach some of those who build the future of mankind. Build it so, that there should be place left for the remnant of Sumerians and Scythians, for the Hungarian nation.

You, dear reader, are not a poor lone person, who has not the power of doing something. If you are a teacher, a newspaperman or a clubwoman, you are a power. Even if you are a banker or a lumberjack, you are public opinion. Tragedies

61

happened, because you were misinformed. At the next turning point you should be ready with better information about the Hungarians and a plan to right the wrongs. Spread the word and be not surprised if you are assailed, perhaps even by people who call themselves Hungarians. By now you know the score. It is a noble thing to fight for truth, because truth is the great liberator and liberty is the most valuable treasure of humanity. Jefferson believed that we have to stand up, not only for our own, but also for everybody's liberty.

At this date, the tenth anniversary of the Hungarian Freedom Fight, let me dedicate this booklet most reverently to the memory of all those, who in different parts of the world lived, fought and died for justice, truth and freedom.

Houlton, Maine, October 23, 1966.
Ida Bobula.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS, R.
"Developmental Stages in Ancient Mesopotamia", in Steward, Julian et al. Irrigation Civilizations, 1955. Pan American Union.

BARTUCZ, L.
Antropológia és a magyar őstörténet. Ethnographia, 1932.

BÁRCZI, G.
A magyar nyelv életrajza, Budapest, 1963.

BENDEFY, L.
Kumnagyaria ― A Kaukázusi Magyarság Története, Budapest, 1941.

BOBULA, I.
The Great Stag ― a Sumerian Divinity. Yearbook of Ancient and Mediaeval History, University of Buenos Aires, 1953.
Sumerian Affiliations, Washington, 1951.
Sumertan Technology, Washington, 1960, in The Smithsonian Report for 1959.

CHILIDE, V.G.
New Light on the Most Ancient East, (4th ed.) New York, 1953.
What Happened in History, (5th ed.) London, 1950.

DEIMEL A. SJ.
Sumerisches Lexicon, Rom, 1927-37.

DELITZSCH, F.
Kleine Sumerische Sprachlehre für Nichtassyriologen, Leipzig, 1914.

BRAIDWOOD, R.J.
Prehistoric Man. Chicago Natural History Museum, 1964.
The Near East and the Foundations for Civilization, Eugene, Oregon, 1952.

CZEGLÉDY, K. ed.
A magyar őstörténet kérdései, Budapest, 1955.

EHRICH, R.W.
Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, 1965.

FALKENSTEIN, A.
Das Sumerische, Leiden, 1959.

63

GADD, C.
Babylonia, Cambridge, 1965.
The Cities of Babylonia, Cambridge, 1962.
History and monuments of Ur, London, 1929.

GALLUS, A.
Los fundamentos de la Europa Historica. Anales de Arqueologia, Buenos Aires, 1949.

GALLUS, S. et T. HORVÁTH
Un peuple cavalier préscythique en Hongrie, Budapest, 1939.

C.OMBOCZ, Z.
A magyar őshaza és a nemzeti hagyomány. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, Budapest, 1917-27.

GOMBOCZ, Z. és MELICH J.
Lexicn Critico ― Etymologicum Linguae Hungaricae, Budapest, 1914.

GOETZE, A.
Kleinasien, (2nd ed.) München, 1957.

GORDON, C.H.
New Horizons in Old Testament Literature, Ventnor, N.J., 1960.
The Living Past, New York, 1941.

GYÖRFFY, GY.
Krónikáink és a magyar őstörténet, Budapest, 1948.
Tanulmányok a magyar állam eredetéről, Budapest, 1959.

HAJDÚ, P.
A magyarság kialakulásának előzményei, Budapest, 1953.
Finn-ugor népek és nyelvek, Budapest, 1962.

HUSZKA J.
Honfoglaló őseink ornamentikája, Budapest, 1910.

JESTIN, R.
Abrégé de grammaire sumérienne, Paris, 1951.

KOSÁRY, D.
Bevezetés a magyar történelem forrásaiba és irodalmába, Budapest, 1951.

KÖNIG, F.W.
Aelteste Geschichte der Meder und Perser, Leipzig, 1934.

KRAMER, S.N.
The Sumerians, Chicago, 1963.
 

64

KUUN, G. comes
Relationum Hungarorum cum Oriente Historia, Claudiopoli, 1882.

LABAT, R.
Elam, Cambridge, 1963.

LANGDON, S.
Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemdet-Nasr, London, 1928.

LÁSZLÓ, GY.
A honfoglaló magyar nép élete, Budapest, 1944.
Ostörténetünk legkorábbi szakaszai, Budapest, 1961.

LENORMANT, F.
Chaldean Magic, London, 1877.
La langue primitive de la Chaldée et les idiomes touraniens, Paris, 1875.

LEG RAIN, L.
Luristan Bronzes in the University Museum, Philadelphia, 1934.

LENZEN, H.
Die Sumerer, Berlin, 1948.

LIGETI, L. ed.
A magyarság östörténete, Budapest, 1943.

LOZINSKI, P.
The Original Homeland of the Parthians, The Hague, 1959.

MACARTNEY, C.A.
The Magyars in the Ninth Century, Cambridge, 1930.
The Mediaeval Hungarian Historians, Cambridge, 1953.

MALLOW AN, M.E.L. Sir, and C. ROSE
Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah, Iraq, vol. II, pt. I. 1935.

MARCZAH, H. ed.
Enchiridion, Budapest, 1902.

MA RJ ALAKI-KISS, L.
Gondolatok a magyar nép eredetérol, Borsodi Szemle No. 1. and 2. 1956.

MARQUART, J.
Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Leipzig, 1903.

MELLAART, J.
Anatolia, Cambridge, 1964.
 

65

MÉSZÁROS, GY.
Chattiak és Skythák, Szeged, 1938.

MINNS, E. H.
Scythians and Greeks, Cambridge, 1913.

MOLNÁR, E.
A magyarság őstörténete, Budapest, 1953.

MONGAIT, A.L.
Archaeology in the U.S.S.R., Harmondworth, Middlesex, 1961.

MOÓR, E.
A magyar nyelvtörténet őstörténeti vonatkozásai, Magyar Nyelvőr, 1946-48.

MOORTGAT, A.
Die Entstehung der sumerischen Hochkultur, Leipzig, 1945.
Tammuz, Berlin, 1949.

MORAVCSIK, GY.
A magyar történet bizánci forrásai, Budapest, 1934.

NAGY, G.
A szkíták nemzetisége, Budapest, 1S95.
Turánok és Árják, Budapest, Ethnographia, 1902.

NÉMETH, GY.
A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása, Budapest, 1930.
A régi magyar írás eredete, Nyelv tudományi Közlemények, 1917-20.

OKLADNIKOV, A. P.
Ancient Population of Siberia and its Cultures, Cambridge, Mass. 1959.

OPPENHEIMER, M. van.
Tell Halaf, New York, 1933.

OPPERT, J.
Études Sumériennes, Journal Asiatique, 1875.
Le peuple et la langue des Médes, Paris, 1879.

ORBÁN, Á.
Őstörténelmünk, Budapest, 1962. (Manuscript in the Hungarian National Library, Fol. Hung. no. 3108).

PADÁNYI, V.
Dentumagyaria, Buenos Aires, 1956.

66

PALLIS, S.A.
The Antiquity of Iraq, Copenhagen, 1956.

PARROT, A.
Sumer ― the dawn of art, New York, 1961.

PAULER, GY., S. SZILÁGYI et al,
A magyar honfoglalás kútfői, Budapest, 1900.

POSENER, G.; J. BOTTERO and K.M. KENYON
Syria and Palestine, Cambridge, 1965.

POTRATZ, J.A.H.
Die Skythen in Südrussland, Basel, 1963

PIOTROVSKY B.B. et al.
Ourartou, Néapolis des Scythes, Khorezm, Paris, 1954.

PRITCHARD, B.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton. 1950.

ROUX, G.
Ancient Iraq, London, 1964.

SAYCE, A.H.
Babylonians and Assyrians, London, 1900.
The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, Edinburgh, 1903.

SCHAEFFER, C.F.A.
Stratigraphie Camparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, London, 1948.

SCHMIDT, H.
Troja, Mykene, Ungarn ― Archaeologische Paralellen, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. 36, p. 608, 1904.

SCHMÖKEL, H.
Ur, Assur und Babylon, Stuttgart, 1955.

SEBESTYÉN, Gy
A magyar rovásírás hiteles emlékei, Budapest, 1916.

SZABÓ, D.
A magyar nyelvemlékek, Budapest, 1959.

SZABÓ, I.
A magyarság életrajza, Budapest, 1941.
 

67

SZENTPÉTERY, I. ed.
Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, Budapest, 1937-38.

SZINNYEI, J.
A magyarság eredete, nyelve és honfoglaláskori muveltsége, Budapest, 1919.
Magyar nyelvhasonlítás, Budapest, 1927.

TILKE, M.
The costumes of Eastern Europe, Berlin, 1925,

TOLSZTOV, Sz. P.
Az ősi Chorezm, Budapest, 1947.

TORMA, S.v,
Ethnographische Analogien, Jena, 1894.

UNGNAD, A.
Subartu, Leipzig, 1936.

VARGA, ZS.
Ötezer év távlatából ― sumir-ural-altáji ősrokonság, Debrecen, 1942 .

VÁMBÉRY, A.
A magyarság bölcsőjénél, Budapest, 1944, Atheneum.

VLASSA, N.
Chronology of the Neolithic in Transylvania, Dacia, Vol, 1963.

WOOLLEY, L. Sir.
The Art of the Middle East, Baden-Baden, 1961.
The beginnings of Civilization, in vol. I of History of Mankind, New York, 1963.
Excavations at Ur, London, 1954.
The Sumerians, Oxford, 1930.
Ur of the Chaldees, London, 1950.

ZERVOS, Ch.
L'art de la Mésopotamie, Paris, 1935.

ZICHY, I. gr.
A magyarság őstörténete és műveltsége a honfoglalásig, Budapest, 1923.

ZSIRAI, M.
Finnugor rokonságunk, Budapest, 1937.
 

68

Editor's notes:

This document was OCR generated from a scanned copy of what is believed to be a used but genuine print copy of Ida Bobula's book, Origin of the Hungarian Nation, published in Gainesville, Florida in 1966. The source page images contain a number of pencil-marks, underlinings, stains, faded or otherwise illegible characters, as well as obvious printing errors and the printer's substitutions of the upper and lower case letter (short) "I" for (long) "Í" in Hungarian. The OCR software flags all words it does not find in its dictionaries, but leaves the disposition of such words to the user. All such words have been left "as is," except where they contain marks or characters that cannot be converted to text characters and, in the opinion of the editor, the flagged English or Hungarian word is obvious. In such cases, these, English and Hungarian words only, have been corrected, but not if the spelling itself is at issue ― save the "Í" character substitutes.

Formatting changes also include the removal of blank pages, but pages have been split as they appear on the page images and the actual page numbers have been conserved at the bottom of the pages. The font and line spacing have been kept as close as possible to the original but adjusted to render this document more readable when the reader changes font size. Also, various formatting features specific to electronic media have been added, and comparative word lists have been converted to tables to accommodate html format. The OCR software has difficulty with tables, as well as with the multi-language "Bibliography." Consequently, these processes were completed by hand, and are, therefore, prone to human error. The editor apologizes for any mistakes.