Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What is the truth of Hungarian prehistory?

Could someone please help me out? I have read a lot of material about this subject, ranging from the Finno-Ugric theory of origin with regard to

Cleanup Needed

There is a lot to do about this article (system, titles etc.)... Juro 17:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Heading Under Its Own Name

I have moved this page to: Hungarian Old Country, The: by Istvan Kiszely as I believe this article might be more helpful under its own name, rather than as a sub-article under the general heading of Hungarian history. The types of information included in this article seem to me to be worthy of having their own unique heading, that includes the name of the source material in the heading. I have also linked the sub-article, Hungary: Pre-History and Early History to this article, as I believe the two articles compliment one another nicely. While the initial translation is certainly understandable, it might be improved a bit by a few grammatical corrections. Scott P. 01:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the following attribution out of the article itself since it's a Wikipedia article rather than a Wikisource text Bryan 06:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attribution: the study of Istvan Kiszely translated by Csaba Hargita with author's permission

Please, look tt:Böyek Macarstan. Some Hungarian names could include mistakes!

--Untifler 22:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non-mainstream view on Hungarian history

Indeed the ideas of István Kiszely are not mainstream. I would rather my name be not mentioned with the anti FinnoUgrian theory, even though there are aspects of their ideas which I dislike and believe to be simplistic and overminimalized. Kiszely's views aren't based on language but on anthropology. Knowing a few common word between Turkish and Hungarian doesnt make one an expert on language differences. There are many problems with the way FinnoUgrian scholars in Hungary have focused all their energy into equating Hungarians with Ob Ugrians, who are unlike Hungarians in race, culture and even the grammar of Hungarian has huge differences. Some say Hungarian grammar is closer to other branches of FinnoUgrian, while vocabulary differences in Ugrian are to a degree, not completely were influenced by a very archaic Altaic dialect. Some of these words are very close to the proto Altaic derived protowords. These indicate the possibility of a very ancient FinnUgor - Turkic common language. Minimum estimates are around 50 common archaic root words between Altaic and FinnoUgrian words. Root words of course can have many derivatives. The eternally raging battle between the FinnoUgrian and Turkic ideas are basically about a linguistic view vs a traditionalist views that emphasized culture not language. This argument is totally fruitless and a waste of time, since the Scythian and Turko-Hunish ideas have not been able to proove much linguistically and the arguments are comparing totally different things.

We must realize therefore that linguistically Hungarian is FinnoUgrian, that it separated from them a very long time ago and since then Hungarians have been evolving and influenced by many other cultures. To understand tradition, we must stop thinking like modern historians. The association with Scythians is not obviously a fairy tale because hungarian does share a lot of common customs with them, as told by Herodotus. This kind of link however doesnt automatically mean a common language, but a shared culture. The idea so widely held today that we know who the Scythians were, is false. Nothing is conclusively prooven about their language. At the same time the Hun language is claimed not to be known, but I think thats a biased view because of the many Turkic names indicate they were Turkic speaking, as some expert Turkologists have also claimed. Similarly when the Huns took over rule, they were but a small minority in a large collection of peoples in an empire. Even the Avar Hun burials in Hungary showed less then 5% to be mongoloid.(Lipták Pál) These were shown to be the rich and elite. At the same time no such mongoloid element was found in early Magyar burials. Thus the majority of the people of the empire were caucasians and not Huns. They were probably influenced by their language but not to any great degree. Words alone are easily shared and thats mostly what we see in the Turkic words in Hungarian. The most heavily used words in Hungarian are still mainly the derivatives of the ancient FinnoUgrian words. Many of these Turkic linguistic influences are relatively recent and can be isolated to the time before the settlement of the Magyars, who were but one branch of the Hungarian people since according to Laszlo Gyula, well known archeologist, most Hungarian place names were already there before they came. Some use this as a claim that Magyars were Turkic. But thats not true. Nor is it true that they came all the way from the urals. Their myth of origin ties them to the sea of azov.

Yet a great emphasis is laid upon the Hun origin of Hungarians, in the Chronicles, which were written by the ruling royal family, symbolized by the Turul Hawk totem, whereas the Hungarian origin talks of the Stagg totem. No this has nothing to do with a recent invention but of the oldest of traditions in Hungary. Similarly the Magyar name isnt even Altaic in origin, and the term Hungarian is a misnomer not invented by Hungarians, but foreighners, who equated any horse-mobile culture to Huns or with the frontier guards of the allied Onogur Turks. These people called horse nomads Scythians, before the Huns, and also ignored all differences between members of these alliances. Similarly the Szekely Hungarians, whose traditions tie them to the Huns and Atilla's roylal house, show no strong link to the Turkic like languages as all our records show they always spoke Hungarian and were there before the Magyars. The common people are rarely mentioned by early Chroniclers, and many labels are quite misleading and often indicate the rulers not the people. FredH

======

I'm not an expert in the field, but after a quick glance at the article, it seems that it describes a view that is not exactly mainstream in Hungarian history.

The parts on linguistics are definitely not.

--nyenyec ☎ 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed it's not mainstream. (I'm Hungarian). Since the middle of the 20th century (probably earlier), it's taught in schools in Hungary that Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language, with Estonian and Finnish in the same category. There seems to be evidence for professional linguists that supports this. I am not a linguist, but I have met Finnish and Turkish people in person. And with the Finnish, we didn't understand a single word of each other. However with the Turkish, we found common words pretty soon. (Altough that's far from "understanding"). However, this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish. So we may have adopted a lot of their words. Well... my point is that there may be academic evidence for the first theory but common sense dictates differently. Especially after you talked to a Turkish person. (Strongly recommended ;) Who knows...

• The remark -this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish- from above is wrong and simplistic,because it is a known fact that hungarians had been in contact with people of turkic origin long before the conquest in 896. And even before the turkish ocupation hungarians had contact with people like petchenegs, cumans,and even settled them down in Hungary. Many hungarians have cuman ancestors. Even the words for denoting mother and father are of turkic origin,anya apa/atya in hungarian ana apa/ata/baba in turkish.Thehun

Yes, yes, yes, but if you keep insisting on bringing that up, how are the historical revisionists ever going to succeed in brainwashing that fact from people's minds? That is why they must keep repeatedly making statements like this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish. ??? 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you are interested in the words from the time of turkish ocupation in Hungary check out at the

Hungarian Electronic Library: TURKISH LOAN WORDS http://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01911/html/index2.html By the way hungarians fled the area occupied by the turks,which consisted one third of the country, the area depopulated.At the same time the turks,the reformation, the printing arrived in Hungary. At that time hungarians started to use their language in literature. The turkish occupation had little influence on the hungarian language in fact!!! Thehun

Strong POV

Contrary to what is stated in the last section, there is much dispute and uncertainty around this topic. The statement "Although Hungarian prehistory is unambigously proven [...]" is not nearly fitting in an encyclopedia. Similarly, references to "falsifications", the improper use of terms like "our ancestors" etc. need to be replaced or removed.

Much of this article is a more or less accurate, if verbatim, description of one possible opinion in the topic. Needs to be reworked thoroughly. I might have a go at some parts later on, but that's no promise :)

KissL 11:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do that...The article was placed here as propaganda for the one single opinion. We are desperately looking for someone who is an expert for all the alternative theories. Juro 28 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust. The thing is, almost nobody is an expert of all the alternative theories, but at least I'm surely not one. (I have only heard and seen "experts" who were rather strongly for one theory, even if they knew something about the others.) I can only make myself really useful here if I do some research first — the vague memories I recollect would be no good for an encyclopedia article — but when I'll have enough time for that I cannot tell. I'll do my best. KissL 29 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Just put back the POV template that was removed by an anonymous user. Maybe the sections on art, music etc. could be split out and only a summary kept in this one - it would probably speed up the cleanup too.

KissL 28 June 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Not a single opinion

This opinion is clearly not POV, since lots of historicans have this point ov view supported by evidences like antropology, language and culture and others. The pov sign should be removed. Some illustrations could be added to improve readability. AAbdullah 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Puppet?

Or someone joining solely to influence the discussion here. I'm just assuming good faith :)

But unfortunately, the argument "lots of historians have this point of view", in addition to being debatable by itself, does in no way support the claim that this article is not biased. See WP:NPOV. KissL 6 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Ugric vs. Huns

As for the Huns, which were a tribal confederation and not a single people, we really don't know who exactly they were. Chinese sources, which have preserved a few Xiongnü (Hunnic?) poems and songs, show that Turks and Yeniseians were prominant among them, and there were probably Mongols as well. And maybe others that have disappeared from history. I don't know if the Huns make up a substantial portion of Magyar ancestry (which would be interesting, since I have some Magyar ancestry myself), or if the Ugric peoples were part of the Hunnic confederation. However, Ugric people either made up a substantial portion of the invading Magyar population, or else were the ruling elite. This is clear because it is patently obvious that the Magyar language is Ugric. Even a cursory examination will show this. I don't know much Hungarian, but I've picked up both Khanty and Mansi grammars, and can follow the conjugations form by form. People who actually know Hungarian, rather than just bits of it as I do, feel as if they can almost read the other Ugric languages, and can learn them very easily. They're as close to Hungarian as English is to Dutch. Furthermore, the Ugric languages are clearly related to the Finnic languages. This relationship is a little more obscure on the surface, but the connections are both numerous and regular, like the connections between Germanic and Slavic. The Uralic language family is as well supported as Indo-European. In fact, it was worked out before Indo-European, and these two families (along with Austronesian) are the three linguistically best-supported large language families in the world. Whether the Magyar had a substantial portion of Turkic ancestry is plausible, but not known. It is known that they speak a Ugric language, and no amount of hand waving is going to change that. If the Khanty aren't as illustrious as the Turks for the purposes of inventing a national mythology, well, the Angles aren't the most illustrious ancestors for the English either. kwami 22:35, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it embarrassing that this article is even in Wikipedia. I propose that we delete it until someone writes something passable. This information here could be boiled down to an alternate POV, but basically for actual evidence we have: linguistics (the Magyar are Ugric), genetics (ambiguous so far), and archeology (ambiguous now and probably always), history (hard to tell who's who). kwami

I agree, but what do you think will happen then? - all the extremists (who seem to be increasingly attracted by the wikipedia) will destroy the main articles on Magyars and Hungarian History (which they are constantly trying even today). Juro 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Except for the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia (and maybe Serbia), hasn't it been generations since there's been any substantial anti-Hungarian sentiment? Why the extremism? kwami 02:10, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

So much about "maybe Serbia". The situation in Romania and Slovakia is, to my knowledge, much better; people are rarely attacked physically just because they are Hungarian. (Verbal agression is another story, it is "of course" pretty commonplace. There is not a single Hungarian in Romania who isn't called "bozgor" – literally: "one without a homeland" –

• • _Literally_, "bogzor" means "babbler"...... Talk about NPOV...

at least once per year, regardless whether they can show the tombs of their ancestors in the same village or town a few hundred years back. And there was an anti-Hungarian demonstration in Komárno – half of a city divided between Hungary and Slovakia – just a month ago by a Slovak extreme right organization, where some demonstrators reportedly wore Nazi uniforms. Note the Hungarian majority population of Komárno.)

This doesn't in any way justify either the views or the actions of Hungarian extremists, but it does provide an explanation for the uncommonly intense emotions that inevitably make some people extremists. "Why the extremism" is never a good question. Note also that an extremist subgroup of any group will by definition always be overrepresented, so I am not suggesting (nor do I believe) that Romanians or Slovaks, or even Serbs would in general be hostile to Hungarians. In fact, wherever there is a longtime consistent population of more than one ethnicity in a village or town, they tend to respect each other fairly well. KissL 10:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A further note – you have asked, Except for the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia (and maybe Serbia), hasn't it been generations since there's been any substantial anti-Hungarian sentiment? Well, the Hungarians in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia account for 89% of the Hungarians living in the Carpathian Basin but outside Hungary. To put it another way, the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia still account for about half of the Hungarian people (counting every single soul with at least one Hungarian grandparent) living anywhere other than Hungary worldwide. So this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy called overwhelming exception, almost as funny as the first one in that article... KissL 10:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of who controls Wikipedia. If we abandon it to the extremists, then we might as well consign Wikipedia to the dustbin. In the case of other articles, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the articles were locked after a serious discussion of what should be included. Not ideal, but better than nothing. I don't have either the interest or the expertise in this area to fight an edit war and produce an article we can be proud of, but at least we can delete this garbage. Or maybe move it to a 'nationalist views' article, and replace this page with a summary of what I put below. (That's plagiarism, but again, I'm not really the person to do this.) kwami 02:10, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. People with the aim to impose here their extremist opinion have all the time of the world to involve in edit wars and almost never stop. And since there is always some text somewhere supporting their "arguments", they can always say "some scholars say...". I have been involved in (not many but) several edit wars of this type here, which always ended in a "1+1=2,5" compromise (I hope you understand what I mean :-) ), one can usually hardly involve others in the discussion, because others just do not really have an idea of the topic (as opposed e.g. to the Isreal issue), I got "exhausted" for 2 weeks in advance etc. As a result I am even trying to avoid some corrections recently.Juro 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that nonencyclopedic stuff doesn't belong here, I don't think we have such a big problem with this article. It has, quite rightly, a cleanup and a POV tag, already warning enough I think, moreover there are an amazing 3 links to it from the main namespace, with the following context:

Hungarian language:

[...] the language is Finno-Ugric, some scientists say, but according to genetics and anthropology, the Hungarian people show more similarity to others than to the Finns (who are like the Swedes on these criteria): to Germans and Slavs (as some Finno-Ugrists, e.g. I. M. Szabó, say), or to the Turks or other peoples (as other scientists, e.g. I. Kiszely, say; see Hungarian prehistory).

Magyars:

[...] Most scholars dismiss such claims, especially those about Sumerian origins, as mere speculation.

The following section shows the Finno-Ugric theory of the origin of modern Hungarian people. For some other theories see Hungarian prehistory.

And the third one in Great Hungary, which I'll let you check out for yourselves :))

So whoever reads all this and believes it more than the truly mainstream scientific views must have a serious mental problem IMO. KissL 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A few secondary sources:

Our language belongs to the Finno-Ugric languages (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian) and it shows similarities with Turkic, Mongolian, Samoyed and other languages which may all belong together to the hypothetic Ural-Altai group. [Note: this may by a sprachbund; Ural-Altaic is not supported linguistically as a genealogical group.] Separation of the Finnish and Ugor [= Ugric] groups is believed to have happened about 4,000 years ago. Our nearest relatives by language [note the wording: language does not necessarily reflect ancestry] are "Obi Ugorok", the Khanti and Manyshi people (Ostyaks and Votyaks in Russian), who live in Western Siberia at the River Ob and number maybe 6,000 souls today. Perhaps this is the original area of the Ugor group. Probably about 500-600 BC the Proto-Hungarians moved to the south to the steppes, where - according to linguistic evidences - they took over animal breeding from the Chuvash people [who are Turkic], as a high proportion of words specific to agriculture in the Hungarian language are of Chuvash origin.

After living as neighbors of the Chuvash people for over 1,000 years, a part of the Hungarians moved to the south to "Levedia" in approximately 750 AD, while others remained between the River Volga and the Ural Mountains in "Magna Hungaria". In about the years 840-850 AD, the Hungarians were forced to move westwards to "Etelkoz" and they then occupied the Carpathian Basin in 896 AD, living there to this day. Hungarians were found by Father Julian in "Magna Hungaria" in 1236 and 1237 AD, but not any more after the Mongolian-Tartar invasion. A smaller part of Hungarians went to the Caucasus in 850-860 AD and there they were absorbed by other people.

In the 13th century two other eastern people settled in the Great Hungarian Plains, the Kun (Kuman) and Jász (Alan) people. [...]

A part of the Chuvash people is still living at the Volga River and their language is a special [meaning "aberrant"] member of the Turkic group. Another part of them went to the Balkans and they were the ancestors of the [now] Slavish-speaking Bulgarians. It is supposed that the Hungarian-speaking Székely people of Transylvania are also of Chuvash origin. Maybe all of these people - Chuvash, Bulgarian and Székely - are the descendants of the Huns. According to linguistic evidences, Hungarians took over agriculture from the Chuvash people and very probably they got their sheep and guard dogs also from them There was a strong Chuvash influence, for example burial customs, included putting the skull and leg bones of their horses inside the horse's skin beside the man's body. The Székelys have big white (often spotted) flock guarding dogs called "Esztena dog". "Esztena" means "fences on the high summer pasture". On the basis of historical and linguistic evidence and simply also because of the similarity of the words "Chuvash", "Kuvasz" and "Chuvach" it may be supposed that the Kuvasz [a breed of dog] was originally "Chuvash" and, if so, bred by the Hungarians for about 2,500 years. [1]

Also

In Hungarian and in the other two Ugric languages the main Turkic loanwords related to horse riding and vehicles are:

(5) Ug. [= proto-Ugric] *luw3 (lu?e) ‘horse’, Mansi low, lo, luw, Khanti lo?, law etc., Hung. ló (dial. lo, lu, lú), accus. lovat;

• Ug. *närk3 ‘saddle’, Mansi näwrä, na?r etc., Khanti nö??r, Hung. nyerëg;

• Ug. *päkka ‘reins’, Mansi behch (17th cent.), Khanti päk etc., Hung. fék;

• Ug. *säk3r3 ‘vehicle’, Khanti liker, ik?r, Hung. szekér (UEW s.vv., cf. Róna-Tas 1999, 97).

If IE or Iranian people had been the first horse-riders, as maintained by the traditional theory, we would expect to find a large number of IE or Iranian words also in neighboring areas, instead of this conspicuous series of Turkic loanwords.

Also the presence of very ancient Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, recognized by Hungarian scholars and unrelated to horse-riding, proves the antiquity of the Turkic presence in the European area bordering Asia. [This presumes that the ancestors of the Hungarians lived in the border area, and were not Turkic.] [2]

From a Finnish POV:

Finnish has been known to be genetically related to Hungarian as well as a number of languages in the Volga region in Russia and Western Siberia since the early 19th century. In Finland, as well as in Hungary, language history and language origins have always been acutely relevant to national identity in a way that they are not in, for example, Western Europe during the past fifty years, and layman interest in historical linguistics has always been high. Concurrently, a number of researchers in Finland, particularly during the early part of the 20th century, may well have been partially motivated by national feeling - this is, however, largely irrelevant to the results of their research, which have always been firmly set within (historical) linguistics in general. There are exceptions, such as, for example, Sigurd Wettenhoven-Aspa who in the early 20th century envisioned a glorious Finnish prehistory complete with “Finnish-Egyptian” etymologies - there are fringe figures like him in any country. In Hungary, conversely, nationalist ideologies have been mostly hostile to mainstream historical linguistics for positing a close connection between the Hungarians and the Khanty and Mansi hunters and fishermen of the Ob river in Siberia. Hungarian nationalists (for example, László Marácz, "Hungarian Revival", Nieuwegein 1996) would rather envision prehistorical kinship with the Mongols, the Sumerians, the Uyghur of Western China, and other, more “prestigious” people. [3]

And

The Huns were a large, loose grouping of tribes, who joined together at different points in their migrations. The people whose Magyar language is now spoken in Hungary are often identified with the Huns, but they can't simply be equated. The Magyars (and the Magyar-speaking Székelys, a closely related group that I visited, who settled in Transylvania) were associates of the Huns, but precisely how is disputed. The languages most closely related to Magyar (a language I sweated over at the University of Debrecen in Hungary) are spoken by the Khanty and the Mansi, (formerly known as Ostyaks and Voguls ) who live northeast of the Urals along the Ob River in Siberia. It seems likely the Magyars come from the same region and one would suppose, most likely closely related stock.

Most likely the Huns of Asia met up with the Magyars in the course of their long migration westward.

At any rate, the Huns, according to the U. of Calgary website [4], reached their greatest westward extension by 451 A.D., at which time they were "defeated in Gaul at the Battle of Châlons. . . . The Huns then scattered through Europe and Asia. Some settled in the old Roman provinces of Pannonia and Dacia, and their descendants gave rise to the modern state of Hungary. [This may be the origin of the name "Hungary". However, some Hungarians claim that these were not the direct ancestors of the Hungarian (Magyar) people, who arrived in a later conquest.] Other groups settled in Turkestan and Persia, where they were absorbed by the local populations." [5]

kwami 23:33, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

I was wondering if the name Ugor or Ugric comes from the same word as "Uighur", or is it unrelated? If "Hungary" comes from "Onogur", and all these nomadic peoples originated in a vast region of Central Asia, why are some "authorities" so eager to separate Ugor, Onogur, Uighur, Hungarian, Hun, etc. (I could add a few others as I'm sure you can too) into as many separate and distinct peoples as they possibly can, and insist that they were all unrelated and had nothing to do with one another? There must be some other unseen factors why they want to say this that I am not aware of, because they have gone to such drastic lengths to tell everyone "what to think" about this, but only succeeded in confusing the matter, since noone even knows what they are "supposed to" think anymore. Codex Sinaiticus 00:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The OED give the etymology of Ugrian as from Ugri, the name given by early Russian writers to an Asiatic race dwelling east of the Ural Mountains. Uighur, on the other hand is from East Turkish uighur, [from] ui to follow, fit, agree + -gur adj. suffix. Uighur is related to such forms as Wigur, Oygur, Yugor, etc. Maybe connected, maybe not. But the Uighur clearly speak a Turkic language, and Ugrian (whatever the origin of the label) are clearly not Turkic languages.

As for why they're so eager to separate them, there's a long history of using a certain word for "those people", and anyone who comes from "over there" gets the same appelation. So, even if the names are related, it doesn't follow that the people are. (Think of "Indian" in English!) You want to be able to tell how much of that is justified, and for that you need to identify the possible errors. And no one claims that the Magyar, Huns, and Turks "had nothing to do with each other". We just don't know what they did have to do with each other, and until we do (if we ever do), the responsible thing is to at least refute claims based on nationalism rather than on an objective reading of the evidence. (Such as the ridiculous claims that the Hungarian language is unrelated to Ugrian, just because the author would rather have the mighty Turks for relatives.) Such claims have a truly horrible history, which many people do not want to repeat Just because few of them ever produce the atrocities of Aryanism doesn't mean they're any more respectable academically, and they tend to crop up whenever there's ethnic conflict: Serb and Albanian, Jew and Arab, Hutu and Tutsi, Japanese and Okinawan, Latino and Mayan, Greek and Turk and Armenian (the Azeri are genetically Armenian, for example!), Thai and Khmer, etc. etc. kwami 00:38, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Point taken. But you may be fighting a strawman, because I'm not aware of anyone making the "ridiculous claims that the Hungarian language is unrelated to Ugrian"... Seems to me that's the one thing everyone on all sides agrees on, ie. that Hungarian and Ugrian are related. Codex Sinaiticus 03:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there aren't such people any more - that's reason for hope, anyway. At the height of Hungarian nationalism, some thought it was anti-Hungarian propaganda to link Hungarian to such unimpressive relatives. kwami