Ancient migrations of Homo sapiens sapiens
as mirrored in epigraphy and modern genetics

Epigraphy is more than simply the science of writing: the deciphering and interpretation of ancient texts may throw light on forgotten events from the remote past. This publication describes the surprising unison of modern genetics and epigraphy. The ancient Eurasian marker, M173, of Homo sapiens sapiens is shown correspond exactly to the migration “EESSA-exodus” from north India (in about 44 600 B.C.) Similarly, in all probability, the gene flow M170 is identical with “AENEAS”, another important migration, also from India, which took place in about 19 000 B.C. The view is expressed that the interesting distribution of the Eu19 haplotype can be explained by the Sumerian exodus which reached France in the west, populated North-Italy by a particularly important race, the Etruscan, and the Tarim Basin in the east (which might have been at least partly habitable) in the time following the occupation of their homeland around 2000 B.C.

In 2000 O. Semino and sixteen co-workers published a paper in the journal Science entitled “The genetic legacy of Palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: a Y Chromosome Perspective” [1]. Like a number of other scientists before them (see references and notes in the original paper) they derived information on Palaeolithic and Neolithic migrations from studies of 22 binary markers of non-recombining Y chromosomes (NRY) from 1007 blood samples collected in 25 different European and Middle Eastern regions.

The Science publication is an excellent work, but the historical backing of the findings (as for all publications which have dealt with this theme previously) is missing, and there appears to be virtually no hope that the events which occurred in the remote Palaeolithic epoch (in the biblical ‘ADAM, SET and ENOS era, i.e. between c. 44 000 and 36 000 B.C.) can ever be reconstructed or that any relics (with or without written records) will be unearthed in the future to support such conclusions.

Nevertheless, there is still some hope that a faint beam of light may be thrown upon this black hole of human history, primarily by means of archaeological relics, with hieroglyphic and NILW (an abbreviation for “ North Indian Linear Writing “ used by the present author, for about a decade) and later cuneiform texts on them, because these ancient texts are open to interpretation. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to compare the results of epigraphic papers with other of publications such as those of Semino and his co-workers. The reason is simple: for scientists at home in genetics, the field of epigraphy and linguistics seems very remote, and vice versa. From such a comparison, possible errors may hopefully be corrected.

In a number of publications in recent years I have dealt with the most important migration of Homo sapiens sapiens in the remote past [2-6]. I call this “EESSA.HAR”, or “EESSA-exodus”. There is considerable (widely overlooked) evidence of its existence. From a very rich pool, let me mention just a few of these points: the widespread occurrence of the notions “EEG.EESSAR.REED”, “EESSAR.REED”, “SAR.REED” > “SAR.RET” [2,5]; the “negative” imprints of an open palm to be found over the whole world from Japan, over South France to Patagonia. (The most beautiful relics of this kind can be seen on a number of limestone cave walls in Borneo, French Provence: caves Pech Merle, Gargas, Chauvet and, as the newest, in the cave Cosquer near to Marseilles and in the Argentine province Santa Cruz, in South Patagonia).

There is no doubt, the Hungarian word “tenyér” < (…).DEEN.EER (where the missing vowel is EE, or EH) has the meaning: “Edenic MAGAR”; extending the notion by the word “imprint”, leads to “my people is the (fugitive) army from the ‘ABYSS.(E).WER.HUN. HASSA”, where the meaning of “ABYSS” might be selected from the options of Webster’s unabridged Dictionary [7]: “in which anything (or rather “everything”) is lost”; or “hell”, in full agreement with the Greek: [GR] abnssoz = “immeasurable depth”, “hell”.

Also the megalithic buildings belong to this theme, because (EE)M.EEG.HAL.EED.(EE) contains the underlined syllables: EEGAL meaning “the people of EEGEER”. The cyclops (< SSEEG.EEL.LU.BEESS) walls, being important parts of these buildings (provided they had such walls at all) have the meaning: “seat of MAGAR people (from the) HADESS”. (I don’t think, it would be necessary to name the long list of megaliths, each built for the eternity, over the whole world.)

These characteristics can be found everywhere over the (then habitable) territories of Earth. I have identified the nationality of the fugitives (the EEM.HUL people); their language (EEM.EESSAL = EEM.HUL meaning “SSEEG.EEL.I-MAGAR”); the place wherefrom the exodus started in c. 44 600 B.C. (the surroundings of the North-Indian “C” city) and whereto it arrived as concerns both the place and historical time [4]. I have outlined the causes which led to the exodus, i. e. rebellion of the tribe HAN.EG (with the meaning “war”), known among the Hungarian “Landholders”, in 896 A.D., as the tribe “Nyék”. The HAN.EG tribe (who lived near to the confluence of the North-Indian rivers Chenab and Ravi, in their home: HU.DU.HUM, or HAR.HAB.HA) due to reasons unknown attacked and burned up the home of the EEM.HUL people on the left side of the Jamuna river, north to the (present) Indian capital, DEL.HI, in the time of winter solstice

       (HA)G.HA.HAR.HASSU.UN > [MAGY] “Karácsony”, or
       (HA)G.HA.HAR.EESS.(E).DU.HUM.HASS > [ENG] “Christmas”

when the high growing reed covering the marshy tide-land was dry.

The land-name of the attackers : HAR.HAB.HA (> [MAGY] “árpa”) is identical with the [ENG] BARLEY, or Hindi: [HIND] E.HA.HU (= HANU) > JAU, having male gender. From this follows that the word SE, with the same meaning, is also of male gender, in contrast to SEH.HE, in brief: SEE = HAR.I.I.BA (meaning “barley”, too), but this notion should have female gender. These remarks seem to be unnecessary linguistic nuances. Actually, these “nuances” have major influence in epigraphy; they decide whether something is white or black, warm or cold.

. The horrible deed, mentioned, is well known from the Bible; it is the KAIN / ‘ABEL conflict. The biblical story is “codified” by later redactors, attempting to satisfy their ideologies, as KAIN, with the tribe-symbol of “bull” [8], did something else as described there: instead sacrificing his “brother”, ‘ABEL to his god, “he” killed a large percentage of the six tribes of the “cow”, the people EEM.HUL. According to the Sumerian epic “ENKI and NIN.HU.HUR..SSAG” SSEEG.EEL.I soldiers gave then the border ward at the single contact between the two nations of bitter hatred, the bridge over the river Jamuna (somewhere near to MUZAFFAR city). From the (also “edited” and not “fully understood” [9]) Sumerian epic “The creation of the pickax” we know even the name (HANU.UN.EN.HAG.EE >): ‘ANUNNAKI of the attackers (“the house which rebels against the king”, as we learn from the epic!) who used flaming torches to burn up the land of JADEE (= NEEB.EER.[EE.EE] REED.EED), i. e. the “people of GENESIS”.

The military action was more than a “success”: of the “EEM.HUL people (who, I think, might had been participants of the winter-solstice festivities and had neglected their duties at the Jamuna bridge) about 40 000 burned alive to death, or drowned in the deluge followed shortly after the flood of fire, and the others, remainders from the six tribes, c. 320 000 persons became fugitives, who ran away in every direction of the wind, fully losing control over themselves.

About 120 000 persons (about 33 %) selected the western direction under the command of NEE.MARUD (> NIMROD; meaning: “healthy”), because the adored king and warlord, HAR.I.I.BAD, lost his life in the animosities mentioned. After the death of NIMROD (MEENEESS >) MENES inherited the leadership. (The historical time then was a few tens of years after the start of the exodus).

It is interesting that whereas NIMROD had become worthy to get a place in the Sumerian pantheon of gods (and also in the Bible!), MENES had not. (We find NIMROD’s depiction on plate VII., first on the left side, in Kramer’s book [9], already cited).

The migration in western direction went across EER.HAN (= “my MAGAR home”) > IRAN; the marshy tide-land SUMEER (the name is distorted); MEZU.BUD. HAM.I.HA (with the shocking meaning: “army of the Edenic people of MAGAR.I.HA from India”) > MEZOPOTAMIA; HAN.HAD.HUL.EE.HA (= “my Edenic army of MAGAR.I.HA”) > ANATOLIA. Reaching the “Large Green Sea” (the “Mediterranean”) the migration wave split into two streams: one of them turned to north, towards the Balkans (< (HA)BAL.GAN = “I am Edenic MAGAR”) and the other to (North) AFRICA (< HABUR.EEG.HA = “home of war”). This was the genesis of the North-African MAGAR.EEB (meaning: “army from the MAGAR snow-home”) states. (For me it’s very disturbing that the relevant states eliminated two “HA” syllables leading to the meaningless notion: “MAGREB”).

Whereas the EESSA migration wave reached the Mediterranean east coast in the biblical epoch ‘ADAM, the MAGAR.EEB states (including MOROCCO) could be populated only in the SSET age (44 000 – 40 000 B.C.). This is true also for the territory of EESS.BAN.EE.HA (= “EESSU.HUN.HABUR.EEG.HA = “MAGAR snow-home, house of war”) > HISPANIA. The migration got stuck (temporarily) at the Pyrenean mountain range (presumably due to the thick layers of snow covering the mountain passes). The Hungarian name of this mountain range: PIREE.NEE.HUSS = “tüz + nép + MAGAR” = “people of fire, the MAGAR”. (The “Book of Dead” did not [8], however, we, Hungarians, have this name of ours fully forgotten).

The wave moving across the Balkan Peninsula populated great parts of EE.HU.HUR.HU.BA (= “I am Edenic MAGAR [arriving by the] EESSA-exodus from the house of the people: MAGAR.I.HA”; a quite disturbing meaning, especially if we remember the very sad situation that the “Iron Curtain” excluded us from Europe for about 60 years!) > EUROPA (the Hungarian name of Europe) already in the ‘ADAM era, except Provence, Bretagne, ‘Albion (today’s England), Scotland, Sweden and Norway which were reached only in the SSET, whereas Russia, the Mediterranean isles (like MEENOSS [i.e. Crete], LEE.MEEN.OSS > Lemnos etc.) could be populated only c. 4000 years later, in the ENOS era (40 000 – 36 000 B.C.). The same time was necessary to cross the American Continent, down to the “Tierra del Fuego”, i. e. Patagonia [10], as well.

“Beautiful MAGAR.I.A”, or as we know it today: “Sib +er + ia” could be owned still later, in the KEENAN age (36 000 – 32 000 B.C.), because this territory was inaccessible in the previous ages due to thick layers of snow and lasting permafrost. (Thus, the very early [‘ADAM era] appearance of EESSA fugitives in North America [I would like to refer onto the relics of the famous Burrow’s cave [11]] can be explained by migration via China and the unfrozen seacoasts).

The remaining 55 % (about 200 000 peoples) migrated towards China in order to reach (the presumably known) North-America over the (then certainly) dry passage (today the Bering passage), or to the north (Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan) and south, crossing today’s Tamil Nadu and reaching the beautiful isle: SSAR.I.LAN.EEG.HA (= “house of the king of MAGAR’s”) known as “SRI LANKA”.(Here only the underlined word has any meaning in modern Hungarian: “little girl”. As GEERAL (meaning “king”) > [ENG] “girl”, not too much remained from this rank of the remote past!). By applying a special technique (jump from an isle to the other) the fugitives reached Australia, as well.

The Edenic population of Australia are called: HABUR.EE.EEG.EENEESIS > “’ABORIGINES”, who occupied the north-western and northern coastal territories in the (dynastic) EEM.EEN.EEG era (identical to SSET), even though they left North-India already in the (dynastic) EEM.EEN.EESS era (corresponding to the ‘ADAM epoch) which is clearly seen on the underlined word: “GEENEESIS”.

(The Helvetian Rhaeto-Romanic people is known also as “ABORIGINES”).

In 1988 a reporter of the American Natl. Geogr. Magazine interviewed an old member of the (HA)G.HAGU.DJU (= “deadly hate annihilated the MAGAR (people)”) tribe. According to the unwritten traditions of his tribe they are living on the territory of the “KAKADU Natl. Park” since about 41 000 years (!). (Taking the upper limit, 40 000 B.C. of the SSET age, the old man erred only 1000 years [12]).

The volume “Aboriginal Stories” by A. W. Reed [20] published first in 1994 is an excellent collection of myths and legends of the Australian Aboriginals, extended by two word-lists: English-Aboriginal and Aboriginal-English. (Some years ago I was deeply concerned that this ancient MAGAR population will be extinct before a representative selection of aboriginal words from hundreds of dialects in use today among the tribes could have been compiled by authentic Hungarian linguists. Now, I am not afraid any more.)

The Aboriginals cannot deny their origin: the most important spirit of heavens in the happy Dreamtime was BAJAME (< BA + EE.HA.MEE = “MAGAR.I.HA. NEEP HABUR.HAM.EE”, meaning approximately: “people of MAGAR.I.HA in war with HAM.EE”. Please, don’t ask me about HAM.EE; its meaning is horrendous!) These stories and names may fundamentally help in the reconstruction of happenings in the ancient mother-land.

From this short overview it’s clearly seen that the biblical genealogy and dynastic time-determinants (for more details cf. [4]) permit to follow the migration wave both in location and time. Nevertheless, the question can be raised, how reliable these historical dates might be? I have to refer here on to a paper published in the July-September issue of the historical and epigraphic journal “Migration & Diffusion” [21] where I give the readings and translations of a rich selection of archaeological relics unearthed in Asia Minor and Egypt. Here, I have to restrict myself onto publications of previous researchers and the results of modern genetics, but, in this case too, I have to avoid lengthy analyses. Let’s look first at the publications of linguists from the 19. century or even much sooner, dealing with the history of Scythic people.

In the subtitle “Ante-Semitic period” of the publication [13] by H. C. Rawlinson we can read the following sentence: “If we examine the traditions of the Greeks,…we trace everywhere a belief in the existence of a Scythic dominion in Asia, at the dawn of history”. These Scyths were certainly the people of the biblical NIMROD, the ancient inhabitants of (EEDEEN.DEER >) “TIN TIR”, the name of Babylon before 2500 B.C., meaning “Edenic EESSAR”.

Their title, used as a distinctive epithet even by the later Chaldaean kings, written by cuneiform signs: is well readable: NEEBAL.EESSA.HAR.HAN | HU.HAR.HAZA.HAT.TI | HUTEET HUN | EEM.EEN.EESSA.HAR | where NEEBAL (later: NEPAL) is the name of the EESSA-exodus (meaning: “I am from the people of EESSA-exodus, home of war”), HUTEET HUN = “murderous house”, and the underlined detail is the dynastic time-determinant of the ‘ADAM epoch (c. 44 600 B.C.). (The cuneiform text is not older than c. 4000 B.C.)

In the same publication Rawlinson goes further:…”we are authorised to infer that, at some very remote period…a great Scythic population must have overspread Europe, Asia and Africa”, speaking similar languages with common characteristics in the grammar. (About the Georgian [which means: “EEGEE.MAGAR.I.HA” where”EEGEE” is enigmatic, means either “Edenic”, or “it is dying out”] language Rawlinson thought, “it is probably the direct representative of ancient Scythic”. However, the Scyths “beyond the Caucasus”, like the Lapps, the Fins, the Esthonians and the Magyars were not forgotten in the paper, either. I think, it is simply unbelievable!)

The Scythic, actually “EEM.HUL”, dominance (I would use instead EEM.HABEER.EE > [ENG] EMPIRE, with the meaning: “SSEEGEL-MAGAR house”) lasted – according to the chronology of EPIPHANUS – “from the deluge to the reign of (NEEB.HUS.HADEEN.EESSA.HAR >) NEBUCHADNEZZAR”, the last king of Babylon possessing ancient EEM.HUL origin (the historical time is a few years before 539 B.C.) (Although this statement of Epiphanus cannot be accepted at face value, it’s worse that there were a number of “deluges” and we don’t know which one had been meant by Epiphanus. I think, this one was the local deluge in North India in c. 44 600 B.C., but the biblical “tower of Babel” had been built in TIN.TIR in c. a few tens of years before the “Tollmann-deluge” in 7750 B.C. [14], which, by violent storms, earthquake and flood damaged the building seriously in its semi-finished state. It remained so until c. 600 B.C. when (U)N.HABUK.HAD(EE)N. EESSAR restored it, the “ÉTEMENANKI”, in its full grandeur. This was the time when the linguistic divergence took a sharp turn, as “ordered by the Lord”.)

There is another important detail in these writings in need of correction. The Bible, in Gen. 214, is declaring that the “golden age” and “the focus of the EESSA-exodus” was Mesopotamia, contrary to old reminiscences which go back to a place with high mountains in the immediate neighbourhood. The misinterpreted Sumerian table from NIPPUR (No. 29.16.422) supports the views of the Bible and the text’s translator, S. N. Kramer, who did not want to observe the serious contradiction between the text of the NIPPUR tablet and the Sumerian epic “ENKI and NIN HURSAG”, published also in his translation [loc. cit.], which is a true description of the “golden age”, with NIN SIKIL (= “SSEEGEEL woman”) as goddess of DEEL.MU.HUN = “EESSAR.REED.DU.HUN in North India.

Rawlinson’s perceptions are fascinating, because in a later letter presented at the meeting of the Roy. Asiatic Soc. in 1853 (published in [15]) he had seen these historical events “on a larger scale”: “The importance of these views (as summarized previously) and their bearing on the world’s history…cannot be too highly appreciated” was announced by him at this occasion. In other words, his impressions are important not only from the point of view of EEM.HUL (or MAGAR) history, these historical events are also for the “Indo-European” (i.e. “Arian”) nations of prime importance, because their forefathers had left North India by the EESSA-exodus, too.

It was necessary to correct a few errors (e. g. that the persons involved were those of the EEM.HUL race, and not the Scythians who appeared on the scene only c. in the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C.; that the “focus” of the EESSA-exodus was North India and not Mesopotamia and the relevant historical time was in the remote past [in the end of the biblical ‘ADAM era]). Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to study Rawlinson’s (from this point of view) most valuable publication [13], dealing with the theme in merit (and in the possession of a fairly superficial knowledge of Hungarian, but, instead, he could read the cuneiform texts). It’s now worthwhile to inspect how Rawlinson’s views and my epigraphic recognitions are mirrored in the results of modern genetics (I dare say, also without any knowledge in Hungarian and epigraphy).

Contrary to beliefs expressed also in the paper by Semino et al., migrations in the past on larger scale were mainly due to natural disasters and lost wars. Changes of the climate and developments of new technologies were only of secondary importance.

Of the 22 binary markers (“haplotypes”) two, Eu18 and Eu19, constitute about 50 % of the European chromosomes. They belong to a common allele, M45, a lineage of which, characterised as M3, is common in the native Americans, the Indians, and in a few Siberian tribes (like the most north-eastern NEEB.HU > “Nyivh”). According to the studies cited, another lineage, M173, an ancient Eurasian marker, characterises Homo sapiens sapiens who “diffused from east to west about 40 000 to 35 000 years ago”. These migrants are supposed to have been the founders of the Aurignac culture (the meaning of Aurignac is: “house of war and death; people from MAGAR.I.HA [which was annihilated by] the assassins of HABU.UN.HA”).

It is easy to recognise, this migration wave corresponds exactly to the EESSA-exodus which – according to the previous short summary – began in c. 44 600 B.C. and (if the northern territories are also considered) was finished in the ENOS, or even in the KENAN age (Siberia). Thus, even if the authors’ estimates are absolutely unorthodox, they are precise!

Table 1. of the paper cited reveals interesting differences in the percentages of the haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19. While Eu18 decreases from west to east (reaching 88.9 % in Basque), the trend for the haplotype Eu19 is reversed, reaching its maximum in Hungary (60 %). The authors are explaining this observation by complicated drifts triggered by the Würm III. glacial, which, of course, is a possibility, but let me return to it later.

There were only two points I could not agree with in the publication. The first relates how and when the EESSA fugitives reached North America? According to the paper the Aurignac culture appeared almost simultaneously also in Siberia from which some groups migrated to the Americas. In reality, Siberia had been populated only c. 4000-8000 years later, whereas North America (“down” to the state Illinois) was reached (according to archaeological relics found in the Burrow’s cave; loc. cit.) via China and the passable seacoasts already in the ‘ADAM epoch. (This is a clear indication, the American Continent, or at least its northern part, was already known to the fugitives!) In the second question I feel myself absolutely authentic: neither the EESSA-exodus people, nor the present population of Hungary did, or do speak an Uralic language! (According to H. Matsamuto, professor of the University of Osaka, the “Uralic, north-Mongolian” marker [Gm ab3st] is represented in the Hungarian population in 10.3 % on the average [16]. The comparable Eu9 haplotype, in Table 1. of Semino’s paper reaches only 2.2 %. I think so, the presence of the Uralic marker in the Hungarian gene pool is not very fortunate.)

The M170 mutation is most frequent in central Europe and in the lands of the Basques and Sardinians. The authors proposed that this mutation occurred c. 22 000 years ago by a migration from the Middle East and was closely associated with the Gravettian culture. The underlined name corresponds unequivocally to the (EEM.HUL) linguistic structure: GEER.HABEET.TI = GEERU.HUN.HAD.DI, meaning “dead (= GEERU > Cretan: [CR] KIRU) home of HAT.TI” (where HAT.TI is the name of the ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, meaning “six MAGAR (tribes)”).

The name relieves old memories in me from the early nineties when I have spent a few months with a text from Praisos (East Crete), written with Greek letters, not in Greek, but, supposedly, in Eteo-Cretan, in reality EEM.HUL language [17]. The text is (from linguistic point of view a “terrible” one) a historical chronology which can be partitioned into groups, each corresponding to 4000 years. (The origin is 44 000 B.C.) Provided, I am not erring too much in the historical time, in about 19 000 B.C. appears a notion in the text: “TEEMEET.HO.E.HON” = “house of the grave”, followed shortly by HAD.HA.EEN.EH.HASS, meaning “army of ‘AENEAS”. It was an important migration set off (again) by a lost military action (on the side of migrants) in India which transformed their land into a grave. (The close connection of the Gravetti culture with the [ENG] GRAVE (= GEERU.HUN.HA, like the name of the city: KIRUNA in North-Sweden) seems to be non-disputable. In spite of this “AENEAS” was personified and, as far as I know, became forefather of the Latin).