Interview with Michelangelo Naddeo

The constantly recurring starting point of the Hungarian revisionist linguists is the Sumerian-Hungarian linguistic relatedness. What is your opinion about this?

I do believe that the Sumerian language is tied to all the agglutinative languages, and in particular to the Finno-Ugric languages. Simo Parpola of the University of Helsinki, Finland, stated in July 2007, at the 53rd congress of Assyriology in Moscow, that “the entire central core of the Sumerian vocabulary – more than 1700 basic words and morphemes – can be successfully matched with Uralic etyma”.

What is not yet clear to me is whether the Sumerians migrated to Europe or the Hungarians migrated to Mesopotamia:1 what is certain is that the Sumerian Princess Puabi was wearing ear rings and conical and double spiral idols that were popular in Europe since over 2 millennia, at the time of her death.

Back to the involuntary migration of the Hungarians: where and when did the foreign culture emerge and eventually swept off the ancient culture of Europe?

The first clues of a presence of an alien population in Europe is noted by archaeology with the first urn fields in the Balkans, at the beginning of the 3rd millennium B.C., regardless of the fairy tales of the linguists. The urn fields people brought to Europe cremation: they did not believe that life would continue after death. This people were the Indo-European Celts. It took them over 2000 years to catch up with the Hungarian farming and metallurgical technologies: in this time they did not leave in Europe any other sign of their cultural life.

In the beginning, the Celts were culturally assimilated by the Hungarians. Finally, at the beginning of the first millennium B.C., some Hungarian populations started intermingling with the Celts, who, by the middle of the 1st millennium B.C., became the ruling warrior elites of these new mixed societies. Only at this time, middle of the 1st millennium B.C., the first Indo-European cultural markers (i.e.: war faring technologies, figural Art, and anthropomorphic Gods) start showing up in the archaeology of Central Europe, Etruria, and Greece. In fact, artefacts dated to the first half of the 1st millennium B.C., cannot be labelled, but must be attributed to the Hungarians: those artefacts in fact are congruent with the previous millennia of Hungarian Art in Europe. Artefacts whose design differs from the traditional Hungarian design only appear in Europe after the middle of the first millennium B.C.

Moreover, nobody questions now, at last, that Troy was not Indo-European, but the reality is that, in Mycenae also, all the symbols of sacredness were the same as in the rest of Magna Pannonia.

Decebalus commits suicide

The first Indo-Europeans to arrive in the Carpathian Basin from a higher civilization than that of the Hungarians were the Romans. They had to face Decebalus, a Hungarian, who wore a conical hat. Decebalus committed suicide when he failed to defend the freedom of his people – an ancient Hungarian rite.

What can possibly explain the fact that up to the present no researcher has managed to summarise in some way the history of Europe?

Unfortunately the history of Europe has been written by the Indo-Europeans, while the Finns and the Hungarians were disputing the Finno-Ugric theory, and were unable to reconstruct their past. Gimbutas had already said something similar to what I say, but after her death, the Indo-Europeanists have tried to bend her discoveries to their own interests. Unfortunately, Europe does not have yet its own, common archaeological conscience. Whatever is found in Germany belongs to the Germans. What is found in Russia is Russian… What can in no way be labelled Indo-European is forgotten. What has been forgotten, all of it, belongs to the European pre-Indo-European civilization.

Chauvinism makes that the same ancient European Gold Idol civilization is called Trypillia culture in Ukraine, Cucuteni Culture in Romania, Körös/Tisza culture in Hungary, Vinca culture in Yugoslavia… and it is not even named around the shores of the Aegean Sea, because the Indo-Europeans insist saying that they were already there, and that whatever is found there is simply Greek, or proto-Greek, or Pre-Greek… in any case Greek! Furthermore, the Romanians go on excavating Erdely and find tons of bronze artefacts identical to those that the Hungarians find in the Tisza Basin. The Romanians attribute those artefacts to the “Northern Thracians” (another ghost population known only to Romanian scholars!). The finds of the Tisza valley instead are not taken in great consideration in Hungary: these objects do not belong to the Hungarians…

What do you think is behind the fact that we are not courageous enough to believe in our past?

…the Hungarians have been told that they were a barbaric population, which dwelled in Yugria at that time!

The research I have made should have been made by the Hungarian Research Institutions, which “Nature” has already defined of “poor quality”. Other researchers were too busy trying to prove that the Magyars were descendants of a great glorious Empire, be the Turkish Empire, the Hunnish Empire, or the Turanian Empire.

If ever Europe shall be a single Country, and if ever the Finno-Ugrians shall recognize their common past, the history of Ancient Europe shall be written the way I did. So far the history of Europe has been told as a history of the Indo-European Empires. I hope that one day the history of Europe shall be told as the history of the European peoples, who all, all of them, contributed to the European Heritage.

  1. “The unexpected conclusions here are mainly in the area of increased antiquity ascribed to the original Indo-European dispersion itself, and in the longer residence indicated for some of its subdivisions in their present locations. This would include, for example, developing Greek in its present area since 6500 BC., and Celtic in Ireland since 3500 BC. The antiquity of Magyar in Hungary may be equally surprising: I find it to be a Mesolithic speech that predates the Neolithic entry.” (…) “In at least one major instance the commonly assumed direction of migration of population is reversed here. It is usually stated, that the Uralic Magyars moved into Hungary from an eastern source in the 9th century A.D. I find instead that all the other Uralic speakers expanded out of Hungary in the opposite direction, and at a much earlier date.” [From Grover S. Krantz’s work “Geographical Development of European Languages” as quoted by Susan Tomory.]

    According to Krantz the network of dialects of different regions is understandable to  people living in close proximity to one another. This situation changes according to the distances placed between them. He believes that 10,000 years ago Europe and the Near East was one linguistic network. This view coincides with the one held by the Hungarian historian Dr. Tibor Baráth. Source.

    The research of Marjalaki Kis Lajos, Magyar Adorján, Toronyi Etelka, Torma Zsófia, Nagy Sándor, John Dayton, Grover Krantz and others, proves that civilization began in Central Europe and spread south to Mesopotamia and Egypt, not the reverse. The people who migrated to the south and southeast were later forced to abandon their new territories and return to their homeland in the Carpathian Basin. Source and bibliography. []

, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.


  1. Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function ereg() in /storage/content/06/227706/ Stack trace: #0 /storage/content/06/227706/ thematic_commenter_link() #1 /storage/content/06/227706/ cakra_comments(Object(WP_Comment), Array, 1) #2 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker_Comment->start_el('', Object(WP_Comment), 1, Array) #3 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker->display_element(Object(WP_Comment), Array, 1, 0, Array, '') #4 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker_Comment->display_element(Object(WP_Comment), Arra in /storage/content/06/227706/ on line 262