Magyar News, 1999. szeptember-2000. augusztus (10. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2000-07-01 / 11-12. szám

shoulders of giants, and thus able to share a priviledged view, one that developed slowly over 40 years, hopefully a worthwhile view, a part of the ultimate whole.

THE WITNESS OF BYZANTIUM

In the year 949 A.D. Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus of Byzantium had written an important document for the benefit of his son. He recorded in it up-to-date informations about the history, behaviors and lives of peoples judged critical for the fűmre security and interest of the empire, as Byzantium faced the threshold of the second millenium.

To be sure by the year 949 A.D. Byzantium had been for many decades in ALLIANCE with the Magyars, who repelled important enemies of the Empire. In this government record Constantine had left a testimony of his knowledge of the three tribes of the fierce KABARS, who had formerly been the strength of the mighty KHAZAR empire, but in the near past seceded from it and instead CHOSE to join the MAGYARS and fought many successful wars together with them, while the KABARS were always on the FRONTLINE! Hence the fear of the "Magyars"! Thus, this imperial document contained strategically critical data about the

This sabretache plate (detail) was found in Tiszabezdéd. Notice the similarity with the Cheremis one.

King Géza I depicted on the Holy Crown. On the right side, starting with the 4th line one could read the word TURK1A.

Magyars. C. Macartney, a Cambridge professor of history used THIS document of Constantine when writing his own study, THE MAGYARS OF THE 9TH CENTURY. In it Macartney commended the emperor's data as firsthand, competent and reliable. He concluded that Constantine acquired his informations concerning the Magyars from their own ambassadors themselves. We know that TORMÁS, the great-grandson of Arpad, did visit with Constantine on such a mission. From this document we cite the following:

1. "For some reason the Magyars had been since antiquity and are still being called by others "SABIRS." This name had variant forms, depending on which people used it and when it was used. The most ancient records already had three forms, Subar, Sabar and Subir. (in the Greek we have Sabar-toi, the people from SABARIA, referenced to the ancient SUBAR.TU, the early Akkadian form from the North. ("TU" designating the country, or "LAND".) From the South the earliest Sumerian records wrote SUBIR.KI, in which "KI" is the word for land, or locality.)

2. Constantine also stated that the Magyars in an earlier time (about 50-55 years prior to 949 A. D.) were so assaulted on two occasions by the powerful PETCHENEGS, that their nation, the Magyars, were actually split into two. The one half "went BACK" to the fringe of the Persian Empire, and who "ARE STILL CALLED SABIRS," and to whom the other half of their nation, "the one that settled in the Carpathian basin, continues to send emissaries "back and forth" between those in the South and themselves in their new homeland."

So, we have the revelation about the "odier name of the Magyars: SABIRS." To be sure, the famous historian of the second century A. D., Ptolemy had written about the Sabirs. In the fifth century Priskos, the Byzantine emperor's noted emissary, had also written about them by this name. Records in the sixth century too mentioned the SABIRS. (In 1998 David Christian in liis history of Russia wrote about the

Sabirs, whose "language is related to that of the Mansi/Vogul people", whom most scholars link linguistically to the Magyars.) We found that the "Sabirs," the so called early Magyars, had rubbed shoulders with many peoples on their road in search of an eventual homeland. We know that they were exposed to the Scythians, the Huns and others, of whom they absorbed good portions. Constantine noted that the Magyars were also called TURKS, a large group of losely federated peoples. Then we can phathom why we read in the Greek inscription on the Holy Crown of Hungary, once presumed to be Byzantium's gift to king Geza in the 11 th century, "King of TURK!A"!

However, earlier records show that the SABIR name also appeared in many places of NORTH EAST ASIA, which is no surprise, since antiquity their great number was enough to produce the many waves of emigrants fleeing Mesopotamia as conditions there continued to deteriorate. As they moved in search for a home, their name went ahead of them on a long and varied path. According to a 20th century Russian historian, the entire land-mass EAST of the Urals, was named after them, SIBERIA! We have the written records from the Ostiak people, whom just about every scholar recognized as having had contacts with the Sabirs, credited the Sabirs in great humility and reverence as a "higher class of race... who taught us many valuable things." In many places of Eastern Russia evidence abound, that whatever things were considered ANCIENT, it was called SABIR!

Professor Gelb's testimony is of key value. He discovered the SABIR name in "the earliest Sumerian writings. It is this earliest period which offers the important data and clearly established the explanation of HOW the ancient Magyars and die Sumers were de facto connected, and HOW this connection revealed their harsh but true history.

István Fodor, an earlier proponent of die old "FINNO-UGRIC ONLY" dieoiy, declared finally in mid 1990s, that die "Sumer-Magyar connection can NO LONGER BE DENIED." Bobula would have been pleased by this vindication. Therefore, her efforts were finally credited as one who correcdy saw the direction to the ancient Magyars.

As we proceed toward answering as to HOW this Sumir-Magyar connection came about, we should note, that even though Bobula's bibliography did cite Gelb's HURRIANS AND SUBARIANS, little use of it appeared until recently. In late 1999 Biro published in Budapest his recognition of the Sabir line as the viable explanation. We must also credit Feher, who several decades ago made the couragous statement first, that the Sabirs were Magyars! At the time few paid attention.

(continued)

Page 5