The Eighth Tribe, 1977 (4. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1977-02-01 / 2. szám

Page 6

THE EIGHTH TRIBE

February, 1977

HUNGARIAN

agriculture production halted; Mihály Károlyi’s governance to Béla Kun’s in 1919, America appeals to Romanians to refrain from looting the Hungarians; Trianon signed in 1920; religious observances held, for instance, of St. Stephen’s Day annual celebration; Hungarian religiosity illustrated plus respect for Nature’s yields, such as sustenance received from wheat made into bread—their daily “Staff of Life;” beginning of reconstruction within a several-year period when work becomes activated—industry picks up, forges are opened, machinery is started up, and Hungarian motivation is enkindled; modern machinery and transportation develops; a 1930 exposition shows sturdy cattle, horses and equestrian arts, weaving, sewing, etc.; schools are pictured in Budapest, Kolozsvár, and Temesvár; groups of marching men are shown; preparatory performance of iceskaters for the 1936 lympics; the Danube River frozen over and its subsequent bombing to open it up in the spring; participation in numerous sports such as hunting in the Carpathian Mountain region as well as archery, fencing, swimming, etc. Hungarians win many medals in the 1936 Olympics; stage presentations of operettas, etc.; folk dancing; in 1938, restrictions again recur—borders are closed; Pál Teleki attends conference at Bees (Vienna); Boy scout activities embrace many sports; including flying planes, gliders, etc. Hungarians win first place among European entrants at art exposition; Hungarian soldiers at the Russian front in 1941; devastation occurs in defense of the Carpathian basin area; Budapest bombed during World War II; captured prisoners in procession to Siberia; from 1945 on— The Iron Curtain.

The last portion of the film extends a message to viewers that “Part IV of

This search for Magyar origins, however, is also complicated by the apparent contradiction between Magyar national traditions, as reflected in medieval Hungarian chronicles, on the one hand, and many of the scholarly conclusions of linguists and archeologists, on the other. The Hungarian national chronicles all stress the alleged Scythian-Hunnic- Turkic origins of the Magyar nation, while linguists emphasize their Finno-Ugric, and therefore non-Turkic roots.

Who is right? Is it the chronicles that reflect the millennial oral traditions of the Magyars? Or is it the linguistic scholars, who base their conclusions primarily on linguistic considerations? Or could it be that both of them are right? Perhaps! This certainly is the view of Gyula László, one of Hungary’s most noted living archeologists and protohistorians, who is the proponent of the theory of the “double conquest” of the Carpathian Basin by the Magyars. Professor László perceives the Magyars to be the carriers of both Turkic and Finno-Ugric national traditions. But we shall discuss his views in a separate chapter dealing with his new, intriguing and challenging views on Magyar origins. At this time let us try to answer the above questions by looking briefly at what today’s historians, linguists and archeologists generally hold to be true about Magyar proto-history.

We already know that during the medieval and early modern periods Magyars generally believed that they were the direct descendants of the Scythians and the Huns, both of which were regarded to be Turkic people. (We now know that the Scythians — szittyák in Hungarian — were in fact Iranian speaking peoples. Yet, given the aiea which they controlled, it is very likely that their empire included numerous Turkic speaking peoples.) In the course of the nineteenth century, however, most Hungarian historians and linguists have abandoned this tradition, and declared the Magyars to be the descendants of the so-called Finno-Ugric (Uralic) peoples of Northeastern Europe and of the general area of the Ural Mountains. (Hence, Uralic peoples and languages.)

Outside of those who espouse the highly theoretical and as yet unproven Sumerian origins of the Magyars, with certain modifications most professional scholars still hold the Finno-Ugric theory even today. But there are also those who — along with Gyula László -— can reconcile the above-mentioned conflict between the deeply-rooted Hunnic-Turkic traditions, and the scholarly conclusions based on linguistic considerations. They do this by very sensibly accepting the two-rootedness of the

10

this film will some day be made,” to “be dedicated to justice and freedom,” and for approximately “ten million Hungarians who are at present in slave labor and concentration camps, an appeal is made to the West...” on the former’s behalf.

Personal interview with Lajos Fiiry indicated that he had come to the United States in 1949 and a year later, began work in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., to whom acknowledgment cannot go unreiterated for provision of much worthwhile material for researching of films as well as other resources necessary for the preparation of the aforementioned documentary. Mr. Fiiry also has authored a number of books and traveled to various places over the globe—including much of America, Canada, South America, Australia, etc. ’Though born in Budapest, Hungary, he has resided in the U.S. for the past 27 years, but feels that he belongs to both countries. He has two