Introduction

The Transylvanian Tordos/Turdas culture was proven by C14 method to go back to around 5000-5000 B.C. and showing striking parallels to the Sumerian Uruk-Warka IV- (ca. 3500-3200 B.C.) and Jemdet- Nasr (ca. 3100-2900 B.C.) cultures (von Torma 1894, Vlassa 1963, Badiny 2001, Tóth (2007a). Thus, the official assumption that the Sumerians were already present in Mesopotamia since the 6th millennium B.C. (Edzard 2003) cannot be true, since it is completely out of discussion to assume that a part of Sumerians wandered to Transylvania where they lost their traces still in the 6th millennium B.C. Therefore, it must be assumed (1) that the Sumerians are of Transylvanian origin and must have come to Mesopotamia between ca. 5000 and 3500 B.C., (2) that the Sumerians are thus not autochthonous in Mesopotamia (which was already suggested by Ungnad 1936, p. 7), and (3) that there may be well "Proto-Tigridian" and "Proto-Euphratean" substrates in Mesopotamia as assumed by Salonen (1967) and Bauer (1998) and implicated by the many non- Sumerian place names in Mesopotamia (cf. Edzard 1974, 1977; Frayne 1992), but contradicted for example by Rubio (1999) and Michalowski (2000).

The Transylvanian Proto-Sumerians used a writing that was partly pictorial and partly runic and is preserved on several of the findings of the Tordos archaeological site. Labat and Zakar (1976) proved that this Tordos writing corresponds exactly to the Hungarian rovásírás (runic writing) that was still used by the Székely people in Transylvania until the 18th century (Sebestyén 1915). Moreover, Labat and Zakar (1976) also showed that the Tordos writing was the origin of the cuneiform writing developed by the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, whose pictorial origin was confirmed by Glassner (2003), and later borrowed and changed by the Akkadians and the Ugarits. Tóth (2007a) showed that the Tordos writing is also the origin of the "Northern Etruscan" Alphabets used for example by the Etruscans, the Venetians, the Rhaetians and the Germanics.

Since Tóth (2007a) also proved that the Etruscans, who were early Hungarians (Alinei 2003, Tóth 2007b), must have borrowed their Runic writing from the Rhaetians which gave it to the Germanics which whom they stood in direct geographical contact in Southern Germany, this implicates a very intimate relationship between the Sumerians and the Rhaetians. But the Rhaetians may not only have borrowed their runic writing from the Sumerians, but also many words. Since it was proved in Brunner and Tóth (1987) and in Tóth and Brunner (2008) that the Rhaetians were the closest relatives of the Akkadians, we have good reason to assume that many if not most of the Sumerian borrowings in Akkadian - Lieberman (1977) lists almost 1000 words - are in reality Rhaetic or came at least mediated by the Rhaetians in the languages that originated or still originate from Sumerian, and amongst them - as shown in the 5 volumes of EDH (Tóth 2007) - Hungarian is clearly the most direct successor language of Sumerian.

In "Hungaro-Rhaetica" (Tóth 2007c), I have already shown that Hungarian rejteni "to hide" and Hungarian gede, gida, gödölye "little goat, kid" have cognates in Sumerian and in Rhaetic that exclude change, borrowing and Wanderwörter (migrating words). In "Hungaro-Rhaetica II" that I present here, I continue my research about the intrinsic relationship between Sumerian and Rhaetic showing not only more word-cognates but also grammatical phenomena in 5 little studies. Since we know alread the timeframe when the Pre-Sumerians came to Mesopotamia, a special study is dedicated to the relative chronology of the question when the Sumerians left Mesopotamia and where they migrated first.