eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage
cakravartin.com/archives/interview-with-michelangelo-naddeo The following interview is posted courtesy of Michelangelo Naddeo. His website can be visited at www.michelangelo.cn A link to this interview as it appeared in the Hungarian paper Magyar Demokrata is HERE.
Michelangelo Naddeo, Italian researcher, believes that the first civilization in Europe had already appeared in the Neolithic and it belonged to the ancient people living in the Carpathian Basin, the Hungarians. In spite of the fact that you are Italian, you have been studying Hungarian history for decades now. What led you to undertake research on one of the least known countries of Europe?
Although I was born in Italy, I have had doubts since my childhood that all my ancestors were of Italian origin, and that is because of my unusual family name and my features. This is why I decided to try to get to know as many cultures and populations as possible in my life, so that I could understand who really were the ancestors of the Europeans and where I came from. This explains why I started to get interested in Antiquity. I have always been into archaeology and history and I have been always interested in the history of Bronze Age Europe. I always thought that the continent was not uninhabited before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and, as I elaborated on this thought, after some time I was faced to ancient Pannonia and its inhabitants.
The Indo-Europeanists will probably be shocked even by the thought of their common history having been called into question. What led you to this theory, which is very likely to astound the people of our country? In fact, in your next book, which is about to appear, you state nothing less than that we are the most ancient inhabitants of Europe…
In the book “Honfoglalás… the Magyars are back home”, I listed some 50 cultural markers which migrated from Central Europe to Central Asia and came back with the Hungarians at the time of the Honfoglalás.1) I have taken two of those cultural markers (art and religion) and I have further researched them through the study of archaeological artefacts.
I have collected thousands of pictures of archaeological artefacts, which prove that a number of pre-Indo-European designs and sacred symbols originated in and around the Carpathian Basin (Gold Idol Civilization, Calcholithic and Bronze age), spread to Agglutinia (Early bronze age) survived in Pannonia (Mid bronze age), and spread again to Magna Pannonia (late Bronze Age).
<< If The Continuity Theory of Alinei is true than the people called pre-Indo-Europeans by M.Naddeo are in fact Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the people called Hungarians living in Pannonia and Transylvania are in fact Indo-Europeans that mixed later with proto-Hungarians, other Turkish migrations and finnally with the Magyars after +896. All these people are ancestors of present day Hungarians but only a small part are Finno-Ugric proto-Hungarians or Finno-Ugric Magyars. See YDNA distribution, populations from Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have a very similar haplogroup distribution, in Hungary N1C1=Fino-Ugric haplogroup is just 1%. So when M.N. says ‘Hungarians’ he probably refers to populations that lived before +896 in all the Danube basin, and still live today, not to populations speaking Hungarian.>>
Those same designs and sacred symbols also migrated to Pazyryk, Altai, at the beginning of the first millennium BC. Later on, they moved to the Tarim Basin, and finally come back to the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Honfoglalás. In other words, the archaeological Bronze Age artefacts found in the Carpathian Basin are identical or very similar to those found in the Tarim Basin by Marc Aurel Stein and to those excavated in the Carpathian Basin and dated to the time of the Honfoglalás. Furthermore, I myself have taken in Hungary and elsewhere dozens of photos of symbols and designs which were bronze age sacred symbols and which, even having lost their ancient sacred meaning, are still to-day used in the decoration of modern buildings.
Thus, are these symbolic motifs and designs still present in our art?
The same Szent Korona2) contains 18 (eighteen) “pagan” symbols which can be traced from Bronze Age Pannonia, to the Tarim Basin and back to Hungary of the Honfoglalás time.
The Hungarians came back to the Carpathian Basin, at the time of the Honfoglalás, with the same symbolic art and with the same Mother Goddess, that they had represented in Europe, in the Bronze Age as a woman in the delivery position, while giving birth.
The famous so-called “tulips”, which appear elsewhere in Hungary, are the evolution of a Bronze Age design, which was the symbolic representation of the pregnant Isten3) Goddess. The Etruscans depicted “tulips” far before the tulips started being imported in Europe. Analogously, the Etruscan and Armorican (Anjou) representations of the Mother Goddess, when the memory of their sacredness was lost, became lily flowers.
Still today, the Hungarians, the Ainu, the descendants of the Etruscans, and most populations of Central Asia unknowingly use the same representation of the Mother Goddess as a decorative motif. The cultural DNA of the Hungarians kept unchanged along 5 millennia.
This event is also called the Second Entry of the Hungarians into their homeland in the heart of the Carpathian Basin. The First Entry (the conquest) is considered to be when the Huns conquered this area in the 5th century. The Second Entry (hence reconquest) is the entry of the Magyars of Árpád in the end of the 9th century. However, there is serious debate about whether it really was a “conquest”, that is, a military taking-by-force of this territory, since there is solid evidence – archaeological, linguistic and cultural – proving that the people who lived here at the time even of the “First Conquest” were kin to the Huns. (↑)
The Holy Hungarian Crown. (↑)
’God’ in Hungarian, a gender non-specific word. (↑)
What proofs do you have for your theories?
The archaeologists have fractioned the ancient world into thousands of different cultures. A culture differs from another one, in their mind, when it is identical to the other one, but some pottery is different in colour, or size, or shape, or whatever. Two cultures are often considered different cultures, even having the same pottery, simply because they are located at different sides of a political border!
Instead, the criterion I used in my research is the other way round: my research groups different cultures in a single civilization, if they had enough in common. Example: the Ukrainians have done a good job by saying that the Trypillia culture extended from Western Ukraine to Eastern Italy (i.e the territory of the Gold Idol civilization). However, they did a poor job when they gave a name to the “Stanovo culture”. I have been unable to find Stanovo in a map, but I found out that it is some tenths of kilometres from the eastern border of present day Hungary. The most famous finds of this culture are shown at the left (2000 B.C.) and right side of this page (1250 B.C.). [see these images HERE] These finds are identical to other artefacts excavated in the Carpathian Basin. The Stanovo culture is therefore part of the Bronze Age Pannonico Civilization.
If you use my criterion you find out that the pre-Indo-European culture in Europe originated in Central Europe, in the territory of the Gold Idol Civilization, evolved into the Agglutinia civilization, survived in Pannonia, expanded to Magna Pannonia, and was finally replaced in the mid of the 1st millennium B.C. (not earlier than that!) by the culture of the new comers: the Indo-Europeans.
Who were the Indo-Europeans?
The Indo-Europeans are a ghost population. <<I do not agree with that.>> If you ask a geneticist if he knows a single gene that can be associated to the Indo-Europeans, he shall reply that he is unable to give you a dependable answer. If you ask a linguist a definition of “Indo-Europeans”, he shall tell you that the Indo-Europeans are the speakers of an Indo-European “dialect”: in other words, a Chinese living in Hong Kong is an Indo-European. If you ask a historian where did the Indo-Europeans come from, he shall list you some dozens of places in Eurasia that, at a time, have been candidates as Urheimat (places of origin) of the Indo-Europeans. The best definition of “Indo-Europeans” is the one of Francisco Vilar: “nomadic, war faring, shepherds”. The Indo-Europeans did not have a civilization, nor an art, or a religion, or a technology: if they had had one, it would have been easy to trace it to its origin. They only had a language! Indo-Europeanism is the religious rite of studying a sacred language.
The Indo-Europeans may be recognized in Europe by the fact that they brought cremation and that they made the European societies shift from matriarchal to patriarchal, from peace loving to war faring, from democratic to tyrannical, from egalitarianism to slavery, from solidarity to aggressive competition, from protective Mother Goddesses to Father Bosses. At the same time, mid of the first millennium B.C., the European symbolic art became figural, the Pannonico Gods became anthropomorphic, war became permanent. <<In the Continuity Theory the peacefull matriarchal society belonged to Proto-Indo-Europeans, war societies appeared with neolithic farmers. culture-of-peace.info/prehistory-war >>
The Art of the Hungarians became figural and the Goddess of the Hungarians became anthropomorphic only after the Hungarians converted to Christianity. <<Yet the Huns the Avars and the Magyars were as war faring as possible. What Goddess after Christian conversion?>>
After the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, what happened with the ancient culture?
The ancient European civilization was brought, by the Hungarians that had migrated around 1000 B.C. to the Tarim Basin, to a huge area around them, along the northern Silk Road that they mastered. This explains why the cultures of many ancient Asian populations were so similar to the one of the Hungarians: the Ainu, the Koreans, the Parthians, the Kushans, the Avars, the Huns, the Sassanids, the Cumanians, and the Turks had been acculturated by the Hungarians and may have intermingled with them.
<<Maybe similar cultures but for sure quite different. All Central Asia was populated with arian, Indo-European tribes, up to the mongols. Hungarian language is NOT related to the European languages while European languages are related to Indo-European languages. However as opposed as it may seem, the theory of M.N. is based on certain facts that can be used by The Indo-Europeanists even better, the artefacts, the symbols, sustain a link between OldEurope and cultures East up to the Tarim basin. But as these artefacts appeared in Europe BEFORE they appreared in Asia we can deduct that Indo-Europeans were Europeans that migrated to India all across all Central Asia. But as these things happened during thousands of years each step in this long migrations meant differentiations in language, culture, with each step the original blood mixed with local people, original culture mixed with local cultures so we can not speak about one people/culture. Best example for this I say is the conquest of Asia by Alexander, in a single generation a new culture emerged. >>
Did Stein’s expedition reports support your theory?
Márc Aurél Stein found in the Tarim Basin what I was looking for since long. In the book “Honfoglalás… the Magyars are back home”, I described the Kalash as a matriarchal, egalitarian, peace loving, blond-haired population. The Kalash wore conical hats and their religion is still animistic. I supposed that they were Hungarians. <<The Magyars of Arpad were blonde-haired!?>> Not far from where the Kalash live, Marc Aurel Stein found an ancient building, which features that nearly match every motive of the Hungarian folk art and of the ancient Pannonico art. That building was maybe the place where the Kurultay1) was held. The northern Pakistan region, where the Kalash live and where that building was located, is crossed by the Karakorum Highway, which runs along an ancient route of the Silk Road from Kashgar, in the Tarim Basin, to Peshawar. The Hungarians, at the time of the Silk Road, controlled this region and had markets in it, where they exchanged Chinese silk with Indian goods. Stein’s work confirms my formerhypothesis that the Hungarians controlled the Tarim Basin and also the Passes out of it.
Today, the Hungarian history that is taught in schools states that the Hungarian language and culture originated from the Finns, though a group of researchers has been trying to refute this kinship for decades at official forums. In the course of your research, have you dealt with the question of the Finnish-Hungarian relatedness?
The Hungarians reject on emotional, unscientific grounds the Finno-Ugric theory – a linguistic theory! This is probably because they assume that it has been politically used against them. The humanity is grateful to Nobel for having invented the dynamite, but does not consider him responsible for the massacres caused by other people that used dynamite in war. If the Finno-Ugric theory was a bomb, the Hungarians should not hate the bomb, but those who threw it on them. Furthermore, in the scientific community out of Hungary, apart from A. Marcantonio, there are no doubts about the Finno-Ugric theory: some American Universities house Finnish and Hungarian studies in the same department: the department of Central Asian studies!
My opinion is that the Finns are descendants of those Hungarian “adventurers” that, according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C., brought the bronze technologies to Denmark and Scandinavia. Archaeology has found in northern Europe a number of artefacts, dated to the first millennium A.D., which are sometimes identical or, in any case, very similar to Hungarian Bronze Age artefacts. Y chromosomes of the Finns point to a relevant Saami admixture, but the ancient Finns could well have been your blood brothers and they are certainly your cultural brothers.
<<I1 = Mesolithic European PreGermanic Nordic = 28% Finland, 8% Hungary, 1,5% Romania; N1C1 = Mesolithic Eurasian Uralo-Finnic = 58,5% Finland, 1% Hungary, 0% Romania!! The numbers show the confusions – Maybe I1 went north when the ice retracted, than came back, but Finns are mainly N1C1-58,5% and N1C1 is just 1% in Hu and 0% in Ro. Maybe I1 brought Bronze technologies to the North, than learned N1C1 language, the language of the majority in Finnland and came back south with the Magyar migration in +896 to Pannonia.>>
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.
<<In his article here M.N. says that writing came to Summer and to Phenicia from the Danube basin, so it should be clear to him that ‘Hungarians’ migrated to Middle Asia.>>
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.
<<As ‘Hungarians’ and Celts mixed M.N. can not speak of ONE continuity, of one population. R1b = Mesolithic Celtic = 17%/Hu, 22%/Ro, 61% in France. Probably in the Danubian basin as in the basin of any other big river (Nile, Gange) a big culture, population formed in old ages but this population was influenced by Celts and other migrations significantly, by other migrations not so much, with each mix, differentiations appeared. Certain things survived, we can see that in genetics, culture, ethnology but other things changed from one are to another, languages most of all.>>
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.
<<If Decebalus was a ‘Hungarian’ than Mr.M.N has a little problem with the term ‘Hungarian’. The people of Decebalus can not be related to Magyars speaking a different language, the people named ‘Hungarians’ by N.M. are not related with the Magyars of Arpad. Yes maybe the people of Decebalus migrated all across Central Asia, yes the people of Decebalus are ancestors of present day Hungarians to a certain degree, but no, Decebalus did not speak an Uralic-Turkish language. So if we make the difference between the people called by M.N. as Hungarians and the people speaking Uralic-Turkish languages, than his theory is good argument for The Indo-Europeanists, than Mr.M.N. is just using a confusing term ‘Hungarian’ when he refers to ancient people from Old Europe. The Magyars of Arpad occupied Pannonia, probably they found there kin Turkish people, remainents of the Hun and Avar empires, but the main population of Pannonia were people from Old Europe, kin to Decebalus, with significant Celtic influences also, Europeans speaking (Indo)European languages not Uralic-Turkish languges.>>
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. <<i.e. belongs to indo-europeans, prior to roman conquest. Since the roman conquest, the roman empire considered all other people as barbarians. The Catholic Church borned out of the roman empire mentality, continued the cultural genocide for 2000 years, whatever did not came from the Catholic dogma was considered pagan (barbarian), all traces of any culture not under the control of the roman popes was subject of inquisition, good to be burned, in south of France just as well as in all Americas.>>
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… <<I agree with that.>> and it is not even named around the shores of the Aegean Sea, because the Indo-Europeans <<i.e. the Greeks>> 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!). << Yes the finds The finds of the Tisza valley instead are not taken in great consideration in Hungary: these objects do not belong to the Hungarians… <<simply becuase these finds are prior to +896. But otherwise it is a good point, all the Danube basin was logically as any other big river (Nile, Ganges) the birthplace of one big culture.>>
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.
Have you ever got any support for your work?
I have devoted some years of my life to the research I made because I enjoyed doing it and I thought it could be a valuable contribution to the historical research of the origins of the European civilization. I was not expecting any support. I did receive support from many Hungarians, who sent me books, contributed to my work with their knowledge of the Hungarian culture, invoked the protection of Isten on me. I have received no support at all from any Institution of any kind. The Hungarian institutions are not interested in the past of the Hungarians: shamefully they have not even sponsored the Unicoding of the Rovás, a work that is now in the hands of a foreigner, who does not even speak Hungarian, and who is quoting false statements of Gimbutas in order to support his personal opinions. A Country that does not praise its past is a Country that has no future.
What can make us start to quest for our European roots?
Some Hungarians appear to be unaware of the fact that Communism is no longer ruling the Country. Some others believe that they are not Europeans. The truth is that they are “fossil Europeans”, the most ancient people of Europe.
Most of all I am sympathetic with the younger Hungarian generations, who have not been influenced by the ideologies of the last century: they shall bring Hungary back to an important role in Europe.
<<M.N. is doing good research considering symbols across Eurasia but Old History can not be traced now, based only on etnography, it has to be based also on Linguistic studies and Genetic Anthropology. Somehow as he rejects linguistics, maybe he was free to see a big truth, tracing same symbols all over Eurasia, without considering the many languages that can shadow the main links, the main cultural continuity. He can see the reality of Old Europe, which appeared before all other cultures, the links between Old Europe and many Asian cultures, the fact that the Old Europe from the Danube basin produced the oldest culture, spreading writing and civilization to all Europe and Asia. Only that he makes a big confusion naming these people Hungarians, because the term Hungarian is too linked to the language brought to Pannonia by the Arpad group in +896. When he refers to people that genetically and culturally are the ancestors of present day Hungarians maybe he should use another better term.>>
Note: some images have been added to this page after the publication of the interview by Magyar Demokrata. These images can be viewed by downloading a complete version of this interview in pdf format HERE.
MICHELANGELO NADDEO Biography : Michelangelo Naddeo was born in 1943, in Ceccano, not far from Rome. He studied in a “Liceo Classico” high school, where he learned Philosophy, History, Ancient Languages, Arts. He graduated at the University of Rome, as an Electronic Engineer. From 1965 to 1975 he was an officer in the Italian Air Force Air Defence. In 2000 he retired and since then he has been researching. He speaks eight languages, including Latin and Ancient Greek. His main books: “Germanic Runes… a Finnish Alphabet (2006), “Honfoglalás… the Magyars are back home” (2007), “The Ugaritic Abjad… a Rovás alphabet” (2007), “The Ancient Magyar Art and Religion” (being printed).