Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Archive 2

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 language, as well as the controversial ideas about the Hungarian language and culture being linked to the Sumerians, Hurrians, Subarians, Medeans, Scythians, Alans, and Huns. While the Finno-Ugric theory is conventionally held to be correct, in terms of language relatedness and the idea that the early Hungarians basically left the Ural mountains around 1000 BC, and separated from other Uralic peoples, it doesn't really reconcile the fact that the conquest era hungarians led by Arpad were "nomadic" horsemen who strongly resembled other horse mounted nomads of the steppes of central asia, in terms of culture, military tactics, religion, clothing, mythological motifs, etc. I have wondered how the Finno-Ugric theory can be reconciled with the Hungarians origin legends such as the "legend of the white stag" and the "legend of the Turul hawk" that employ mythological motifs that are common among Scythian and Sumerian cultures. Consequently, I ask how the "legend of the white stag", which basically says that the Hungarians (Magyars) and the Huns are descended, either dynastically, linguistically, culturally, or ethnically, from mesopotamian monarchs, specifically Sumerian monarchs, can ever be reconciled with the Finno-Ugric theory. Would someone please explain how all these conflicting ideas could be reconciled? 20:12, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Genetics does not determine language. Just look at any multi-ethnic country today. There is good linguistic evidence that the Magyar lived among the Turkic Chuvash for centuries; they may easily have hooked up with the Huns (whoever they were) later on. And of course cultures influence each other. Does the fact that the Japanese listen to jazz and rock mean that the Japanese people speak an Indoeuropean language, or that they migrated to Japan from North America? (Or a Niger-Congo language and from West Africa, for that matter.) The Ugric origin of the Magyar was millennia ago, their Finno-Ugric origin even further back than that. Their culture could easily have been changed, substantially changed, since then. There's no conflict in that.

Also, the whole Sumerian thing seems out of context. As the first literate civilization (so far as we know), the Sumerians had a very strong influence on all of central Eurasia, and beyond. No one would argue that the Jews aren't Semitic just because they have a flood myth like the Sumerians, so why use a similar argument to claim the Magyar aren't Ugric? And people claim royal descent from some illustrious kingdom all the time. There are Ewe, for example, who claim to be the Lost Tribe of Israel, and the Greeks claimed to be Egyptians. Such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt (in the case of the Greeks of course much of their civilization did come Egypt, but, perhaps, not as directly as they would have liked to have believed). kwami 08:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• As soon as you talk about Hungarian prehistory, we are entering he realm of conjecture - most of which does not enjoy broad support in the academic community. In my opinion there is a slight chance that the ancestors Magor and Hunor could indeed correspond to the names Magog and Gomer, as hinted by the Kepes Kronika. The Alans could be connected with the ancient geographic name, Arran, and their leader called Dur in the legend is probably the Tur of other legends (see Turkic peoples. Classical Greek historians mention all-female populations living on the steppes, who would breed with males once a year; and the Hungarian legends also seem to contain dim references to this. There especially seem to be a lot of correspondences with the Sumerian legend of "Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta". The lord of Aratta (north of Sumer) was called Ensuhkeshdanna, and he and Enmerkar (Nimrod?) both competed for the approval of Inanna (possibly = Eneh?) If she was originally the wife of Japheth, she may even have been one of the Sibyls who survived the Deluge, but that is of course all highly speculative. Codex Sinaiticus 13:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Answer to the initial question: Forget about the other theories (do not let people prefering fairy tales before facts influence your judgement), the Finno-Ugric theory is as correct/incorrect as any other origin theory in Europe, i.e. it is correct from the current perspective. Juro 21:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• For me it seems silly and unacceptable the tone and manner under which you treat the hungarians who think that their ancestors and language are of turkic origin. Labeling as nationalist the article in question it is a sign of ignorance; the author of the article is Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN who is a respected hungarian scientist, an anthropologist who happens to share the view that the hungarian people and language are of turkic origin,a view which have been favoured over the time by such renowned and celebrated figures like Kőrösi Csoma Sándor (1784-1842) ,Aurel Stein (1862-1943) , Ármin Vámbéry (1832-1913). Labeling the article nationalist implies the same for the author,because a text does not exist without a writer, the same way you can lable nationalist the before mentioned scientist because they state the turkic origin.

The original article of Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN :
Hungarian Old Country in English:

http://www.biography.ms/Hungarian_Old_Country,_The-:_by_Dr._Istvan_Kiszely.html

The webpage of Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN in hungarian http://istvandr.kiszely.hu Thehun

• Is the "legend of the white stag" truly part of the Hungarian oral cultural tradition, or is it just a propagandistic attempt by the ruling elite to create a glorious ancient past. Because if at the time the Hungarian chronicles (that this legend appears in) were written, that the kingdom of Hungary was clearly Christian in religion, why would they claim their forefather Magor was the son of Nimrod, as Nimrod according to the Bible was in contempt of God and led his followers like wise. 82.92.119.11 5 November 2005 12:34 (UTC)

  Not that it matters much, but for the record: I did not write the above. I stumbled on this while checking what pages linked to my user page. The above signature was forged [1] by 60.234.211.140, presumably as sockpuppetry. Aside from this very edit, I have never edited this page. 82.92.119.11 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• According to the link on the Magyars page (Origins of the Hungarians from the Enciklopédia Humana (with many maps and pictures) ), the white stag legend is said to come from some time in the 1st millenia BC, when the early Magyars lived in close proximity to the Sarmatians, a Scythian related people. Consequently, I think it is possible that the Magyars entered into heavy interaction with the Sarmatians and adopted elements of Sarmatian/Scythian culture. The interaction profoundly affected the Magyars, as they began to see themselves as among the nations of Scythia. I think the legend of the white stag essentially tells the story of the origins of Scythia, as a nation emerging out of Iran, and pays homage to a greatly respected mesopotamian ancestor, and ultimately expresses how the Magyars see themselves, i.e. the very core of their ethnogenesis. Of course this tradition isn't necessarily at odds with what we know about the origins of the Magyars. Although, for a people who have their origins in the vicinity of the Ural mountains, it seems rather inexplicable that they have no mythical traditions that recall this region. Over the ages the extent to which the Magyars were affected by other groups both ethnically and culturally is therefore profound. For the Magyars to hold their Scythian origin so dearly, as well as their Finno-Ugric linguistic kinship, is to express what is most fundamental to their identity. The Question 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

merge tag

I noticed that the article Hungarian prehistory was tagged for cleanup, and assumed there was another article on the same topic...turns out there is...they should definitely be merged although that would take a bit of effort combining the info in both. I'll offer whatever help I can, but mainly I put it there so both articles' editors would know about the existance of the other. Best, Paul 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some people who are serious about NPOV want to keep the articles separate (there is yet a third article on the same topic) so that they don't have to constantly fight the 'Hungarian is Turkic' nationalists. Maybe it would be better to merge them, though it will likely end up in arbitration. kwami 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• They should definitely NOT be merged... And everyone who knows about this article already knows about the other... They are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS, please read them first! Codex Sinaiticus 23:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was thinking of a different article. Yes, this article is about the prehistory of the Magyar people; the other is about the history of Pannonia. The merge tag should be removed. kwami 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, instead of merging, I think this article should be moved. It is not really about the prehistory of the Magyar people; rather, it is a summary of a book, which advocates a non-mainstream hypothesis. Presenting this hypothesis as the account of Magyar prehistory is POV, unprofessional, and unencyclopedic.

Any suggestions on what it should be called? kwami 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Hungarian prehistory: alternative theories" or "Hungarian History (alternative accounts)"... By the way, just in case anyone still hasn't gotten it yet, this article is about the Hungarian people before 890 AD; the other traces the history of Pannonia (later Hungary) before 890 AD. 890 AD is when the two topics "meet up", so to speak; but before that year, they are quite separate topics, because the Hungarians hadn't moved to Hungary yet, they were living somewhere else. Codex Sinaiticus 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My addition of the merge tag may have been mistaken, but the reasoning for it was fairly logical; I refer you to the first line of this article. If Hungarian historical records began with the Magyars' settlement, then by definition, the two articles mean the same thing. As always, enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I'm not an idiot...hugs and kisses to everybody, Paul 04:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I think we can address that pretty easily within Codex's title. Also, that might encourage the inclusion of other hypotheses besides just the current one. Who favors moving this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)"? kwami 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be fine...just as long as there aren't two articles with confusingly similar titles and content. Paul 19:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that going to be a POV fork? -- nyenyec ☎ 19:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" would make this appear less of a pov fork than it already does. There is a consensus of many authors of a need for this separate article. And one more time, IF there is any other article in competition with this one, it is NOT "Hungary before the Magyars", that is a completely different topic; that one refers to the county, not to the people, who were living in a different country. Maybe if that is too confusing to you, you should try renaming that one to "Pannonia before the Magyars"... Codex Sinaiticus 20:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How about also renaming this one "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)"? 66.27.205.12 20:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Paris 1973 (?) Orientalist conference

I heard there was an Orientologist conference in Paris in 1973 (?) where Professor Badiny-Jós took along a copy of the ’Tihanyi Apátság Alapítólevele’, a 10th c. Latin script that contains old Hungarian words and sentences. At the conference 30 Sumerologist experts from around the world read the text and agreed that it was written in two languages. The first text was recognised as Latin and then came something unexpected. The 30 Sumerologist experts who spoke Sumerian but no Hungarian said that the other language was Sumerian and they also gave the exact translation that was the same as it was put down in Hungarian. Does anyone know if this is for real? If the ’Alapítólevél’ was written in Latin and Hungarian, how can 30 Sumerologist experts mistake old Hungarian for Sumerian? The Question 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, this question is old, butfor the reader:

1., Sentences were used to avoid later disputes, because Latin was not widely spoken. (As I remember the sentence was: Fehervaru meneh hodu utu reah - modern 'Fehérvárra menő hadíútra' = On the military road going towards Fehérvár.)

2., Names for villages, places appear as well.

3., None can find similarities between Sumerian and Hungarian. We don't know how to pronounce Sumerian text - it is based on the conventions.

4., This is probably a fake, by some "Sumero-Hungarianist"s, as I call them.

5., Majority of these self-appointed "Sumero-Hungarianist" linguists has very strange workstyles. For example, look at the Sumerian ziggurat. They think in the following way: ziggurat - z igg urat - az ig urat - az ég urát -- and the last is in Hungarian, means "the Lord of the sky". I don't believe in it. (IT IS PROVEN that ziggurat means "to build on a raised area".)

Cserlajos 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New title

What if the title of the article would be "Hungarian Old Country - The Turkish Theory" or something like this calming down both sides trying to keep the subject of Hungarian prehistory on track? István Kiszely proposes a new perspective in the search of the Hungarians' prehistory, not claiming for the exclusive right or truth, highlighting the complexity of the Hungarian nation as ethnical unit (check his page if can understand Hungarian), as Dezső Dümmerth a skilled Hungarian scientist also stated, Hungarian ethinc can't be compared to the European ethnic units like, e.g. Germans, being always more a complex of different ethnics rather than a homogenous unit. If there is no chance to widen scopes or review the facts, everything becomes straight and self-satisfactory, casting everything into simple little boxes, giving no chance to change, that is definitelly not science. I don't think the goal of this article was to sharpen the oppositions, and definitelly not to bring up the nightmare of those extremely dirty Hungarian nationalists, (more dirty than the nationalists - as it is turning out from other talks - of any other nations by definition / concept).

So, what if the title would be changed to "Hungarian Old Country - The Turkish Theory"?

Origin of Magyars as a scientifically established fact: MODERN Population Genetics

All truly MODERN genetic researches carried out in Hungary (not blood groups, not proteins - those are completely obsolete) show the Hungarians to be indistinguishable from other Central Europeans both on the mtDNA and Y-chromosome level. The most characteristic trace of Finno-Ugrian-speaking peoples from the Uralic, Volgaic and Baltic regions, namely, the Y-chromosome haplogroup "N", is nearly absent from Hungary. mtDNA also shows convergence with Central Europe, and there is nothing to suggest it is specially 'linked' to 'Central Asia'(!), since most Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups are widespread (like haplogroups U, H, N, J) and show very few barriers of any kind (linguistic, geographic, etc.). Also, due to the fact that, historically, males tend to be more prone to migration (and this is certainly true of 'Finno-Ugrian' migrations, compare the Finnish mtDNA and Y-chromosome features), it is expected that we would find more traces of paternally inherited genetic features in Hungarians. But if even these are absent, then it makes no sense to closely relate the Hungarian mtDNA to such far-away peoples as Uyghurs. Therefore, it is a scientifically-corroborated fact that, whatever anthropogenetic link to Finno-Ugrians or Siberians there was (such as Y-chromosome haplogroup N), it has been lost in the course of migrations through admixture with populations along the way. These populations merely adopted the Magyar language and culture as their own, while being descended almost exclusively from earlier groups living in the areas settled by the minoritary yet dominant magyar nomads - just as the current population of Hungary is descended primarily from older, non-Hungarian speaking peoples. By the way, this also demonstrates that the endless dispute for who would have 'arrived first' in Transylvannia, Magyars or Romanians, makes no sense in purely anthropological terms. There was merely a shift in language, and very little change, if any, of populations. - Finally, some corrections or additions based on concrete contemporanious data have to be made in this article, for all the above reasons. Stephanos1ko 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, and? Biology is one science, yes. It is a poor tactic to politicize science. You haven't even cited any references. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not using any tactic, I'm just stating a scientifically established fact. What I am trying to say is that romantic nationalistic ideas (by BOTH Romanians and Hungarians) make no sense when actual genetic data is taken into account. If that is the problem... because I see no harm, rather to the contrary: it is great to see that science can overcome old prejudices and replace them with an objective view. We are just humans, not ethnically-closed monads... that was my point, and I stand by it. - Oh, and I also simply mentioned that some data used in the article on 'Hungarian Prehistory' as evidence have been long superseded by modern genetics. That is also obvious to anyone acquainted with anthropogenetics. Here I will quote some references (and I am sorry for not supplying them before.) They may help in the improvement of articles on Magyar history.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10854093&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10857257&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Stephanos1ko 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by politicizing is that you stated some scientific results you found then linked it to an opinion that is designed to get the "romantics" on your heels.  :)

I'm not entirely sure of what your point is in doing this. Genetics is genetics. It isn't cultural anthropology nor is it linguistics nor is it archaeology, which are other sciences that have shown us other views on the origins of Magyars. Nor should it be used to discuss about the politics of Transylvania. While the current modern population of Hungary may be indistinguishable from other Central Europeans genetically, you are ignoring history and archaeology which shows a true invasion of a different type of people into the Carpathian basin. It doesn't really matter if their genetic markers aren't found in the modern population. They left an impact crator and people who have an ethnic identity of Hungarian.

Yes, we are just humans. Genetic forensics is a relatively new science. It is revealing a lot in our understanding of how humans moved around the planet. It is also running out of time as our genetic markers are converging since we are able to move around the planet a lot faster than in the past. No more isolated populations to develop their own unique traits. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My point about Transylvania is that Central European-Balkanic populations are actually very similar regardless of linguitic affinities, and ultranationalists or some such look-alikes throughout the region have no backing on facts. But perhaps my wording was to explicit, yes. The findings speak for themselves, and you if you can disregard my extemporaneous ideological comments and concentrate on facts, please do so. As for the findings of other science fields, trouble is that material culture, as well as language, can move around with very little input of actual populations, and there is nothing specifically 'ethnic' about it. You can say that Hungarians share cultural affinities or have a culture heritage going back to Turks, Avars, Huns - or Chinese, for that matter. That's not the point. But sharing of material culture (the only thing you can assert for sure based on archeology) is not equal and can never be equaled to ethnicity. To say that a different culture is on the move can mean simply that there has been intense trading relations (the Steppes Culture spanning countless different ethnic identities is a perfect example) or that a very tiny yet dominant minority became the new rulers, imposing a foreign culture with no implication as to national ethnicity on a genetic basis (and that is the most obvious scenario for Hungary, search for some other genetic studies and you will see what a overwhelming consensus there is about that)Stephanos1ko 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians are of course a genetically mixed people because of constant intermarriage with other peoples since (and before) they arrived in Hungary. Studies about the genetics of Magyars in the early Middle Ages show important differences with other nations. This difference mostly disappeared in the course of history but Hungarian national identity survived. For example I have German, Slavic and Magyar grandparents but I consider myself Magyar in the ethnic sense. Your attempts to use genetical studies in the debate about Transylvania are politically motivated. I doubt very much that present-day Romanians have more genetical connection with Dacians than present-day Hungarians to the people of Árpád. Zello 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check this recent study which gets to the same conclusions. also makes a study on 10th century samples and makes a nice correlation between social status and prevalence of N haplogroup. the conclusion sustains what stephanos1ko sustains. it's arguable that it's a small sample, but statistics work for small samples too. i think it's not about politics, it's the mere fact that nationalist movements are outdated and we have now also a scientific argument beside the philosophical one in finishing this extremist views of the problem. ethnicity it's a simple social construct, it served it's purpuse during the national states period: as long as you can't get out of that "bubble" you can't have the whole view. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17632797&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum --Anonymous 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also saw an abstract for that study at [2]. The study is published quite recently (just this month). It looks at mtDNA, so maternal lineages. It supports that there are strong differences between the ancient magyar commoners and the ruling class. It also reports that the mtDNA haplogroups of the ancient ruling class are absent in modern populations of Hungarians and Szeklers (and rare worldwide!), which to me makes some sense since those haplogroups (N and X) are wide-umbrella groups for a slew of more modern mtDNA haplogroups. So what? The 10th century Hungarians were a mixed bunch (like most nomadic groups on the move) and no modern Hungarian is descended from a mom of an ancient Hungarian ruler.  :) --Stacey Doljack Borsody 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zello; welcome to the polemics. No references? Well, I have some interesting stuff. It demonstrates the fundamental unity of all Balkanic peoples:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00080.x

Well, I sincerely respect the fact that you are so proud about your Magyar identity, and I think it is a positive fact that you be so, so long as no blind extremism arises from it. Please take no offence. Romanians have no right to claim to be the 'original' people there, rather on the contrary. If you understood that from my previous post, that's not what I meant at all. Hungarians and Romanians are genetic brethren if we take into consideration these sources. No side can claim prevalent rights based on ethnicity. By the way, I have no other motivation than making sure that we use modern scientific knowledge in this debate that is so prone to wild unsubstantiated claims of ethnic and linguistic relationships and far-fetched theories justifying land rights. That's it. Please let's be reasonable. Stephanos1ko 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The obvious weak point in your above arguments, Stephanos1ko, is that even assuming no distortion in the results (such as distortion resulting from not having analysed each single Hungarian [ancestry not being spread equally in the whole population]) you derive conclusions that do not necessarily arise from those results. The results only say, and this has been known for years actually, that most of the Finno-Ugric "genes" are not here TODAY anymore. The usual interpretation in line with contemporary sources, archeology etc. is that the Hungarians who arrived were "replaced" by other groups, especially Slavs and Germans, over the centuries. Or, an even better explanation, would be that the number of Hungarians having arived in the Panonian Plain was even lower than 100 000 (a maximum number derived from comparative analysis of space that average nomads need for life), so that it is no wonder that the original traces disappeared. And it is probable, even according to the then sources, that a part of the 100 000 were other groups, such as the Kasars etc. Also, we do not know for sure, whether the Finno-Ugor all had the same "genes" etc. In sum, this is nothing new. So, I do not see, how this is supposed to resolve or not resolve the Hungaro-Romanian issue. And most importantly, it is by far not only the genes what makes the ethnicity today. Juro 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(First of all, as for the Transylvannian issue, please let us put it aside. I see now that two controversial points at one time are too much for a decent debate!;) I'm sorry. We'd better treat this issue in another topic, if you want.)- That said, back to the important topic at hand: apparently, you have not realised that I actually subscribe to the idea that the 'hungarian' tribes crossing the Carpathian area were few in number, as indeed most geneticists do state after analyzing the implications of their data. In case you do not know, actually it is possible to determine expansion times and possible bottlenecks associated with founder effect and/or massive replacements. The fact that no mainstream study has ever highlighted that possibility, however, speaks against the 'replacement' hypothesis, and seems to strengthen the 'minority tribes' thesis. Also, nobody ever said that Finno-Ugrians "had the same genes". That is a nonexistent claim, and so there is nothing to be opposed to. The hypothesis I mentioned earlier is quite more specific and cautious: a Y-chromosome haplogroup, named N (cf.the Y-Chromosome Consortium Recommendations, 2002), is found throughout the Volgaic, Uralic and Baltic regions and seems to be associated to the spread of Finno-Ugrian-speaking groups (yet not always imposing their LANGUAGES, see the Eastern Siberian case of Inuits and Chukchi with well over 20% of N hg). The expansion estimated for this haplogroup is thought to post-date the last glaciation, and to have started from Northeastern European/Western Siberian glacial refugia. The proportion of this haplogroup varies from more than 70% among Finns to 30% among Maris to 0% among Hungarians studied so far. It is possible, and I would say rather probable, that it will yet be found in other populations within Hungary itself, but surely never on, say, Finnish levels. Stephanos1ko 21:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The links to the studies you provided appear to not mention Y-chromosome haplogroup N (possibly because it was named in 2002 and the studies are from 2000?), nor do they appear to be available to the general public, or at least I couldn't find a way to read them. As I mentioned above, this is still a new field and unfortunately it can only tell us part of the picture. It is like the face on Mars. We could see something but it was fuzzy and looked like a face until a better tool was available to view the area. I think you are reading too much into this. You say it is scientific 'fact' when it is only scientific 'results' from old studies. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what you are basically saying is that there ARE common genetic features (what I called "genes") for all Finno-Ugrians... But if your only point is that the tribes were few in number, what is new about this statement, or in other words what are you trying to say??? I see no special implication. From what you said initially, however, I and others derived that you are claiming that the tribes that arived here in the 9th century were no "true Magyars" anymore, and my reaction was: How can you say this (to put it simply). As for replacements: I deliberately use quotation marks if I use wrong terms just for simplicity. The "replacements", i.e. massive immigration of other ethnicities during Hungary's history and even partial extintion of Magyars, are a historical FACT. Even in the early 19th century, you would hardly find a bigger purely Magyar settlement in present-day Hungary. But you would have to know the details of the history of this quite special region, to know these details. And that is the point made above by the user ...Borsody, genetics alone is useless. Juro 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is such a thing as 'true' magyars anymore than there are 'true' germans... I implied that the magyar-speaking portion of the population actually descenced from 'finno-ugrians' via direct familiar lineage was diluted into magyarized tribes BOTH before AND after reaching Hungary. Now, if you had read carefully the sources I supplied, you would see that Semino et al., 2000, examined also the genetic background of probably one of the groups nearest to ancient hungarians, the Paloc magyars, and found that even they showed little signs of links to other Uralic and Baltic Finno-Ugrian-speakers. ALL those historical informations were taken into account by the authors! Therefore, there is little ground to argue that Finno-Ugrian original genetic features were 'lost' in situ, so to speak. Therefore, it seems that in fact the replacement you mention is not enough to account for the complete extinction of a previously extant genetic background. Finally, I didn't state the N haplogroup is common to all FU peoples. There's no such thing in genetics. But hg N is present in a great proportion of FU-speaking groups and its expansion rates do point, yes, to a LINK between FU migrations and this haplogroup - nothing more. Please take a good look at those studies. They are not so naïve and 'biology-knows-it-all' as you think. Stephanos1ko 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the links, not because I would not find them relevant, but because I certainly do not have the time for this now (it would be necessary to evaluate the authors, the approach etc.) I just reacted to what you have said. I still see no reason from what you are saying above to believe that one single Magyar arriving here in 896 was a "magyarized non-Finno-Ugor" - I believe that this was the case for many of them, but I do not see any reason to believe this from your arguments. Your somehow fail to make the point. And arguments of the type "there is certainly little ground to believe that" are not enough (at least not for me), because nobody knows the exact number (only the minimum numbers) of immigrants to present-day Hungary, e.g. after 1699 or during the Ottoman Period, and nobody knows the exact number of Magyars that arrived here in 896 (and that is a very important if not crucial factor) and nobody knows how many Magyars died during the Ottoman Wars etc. etc.. That's just a sea of questions. Juro 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Magyars and Finno-Ugric people are genetically absolutely different but not only because of mixing up with other people or their low number (which is certainly exagerrated here) but because probably they weren't Finno-Ugric even when they arrived at Hungary. Magyars lived between Turkic people since the beginning of their known history in Bashkiria and later in the Khazar Empire. They certainly became Turkic themselves very early and kept only their language (with a lot of Turkic words). There are a lot of speculation about existing genetical evidences of Turkic origin in present-day population although I haven't found any reliable scientific source on the net. Zello 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there aren't, Zello and Juro. All serious genetic studies using modern techniques (mtDNA and Y-chromosome) that I have seen - and there are many around - find a close relationship between the Hungarians and their neighboring populations (again, if anyone want to discuss it further on technical terms, first of all evaluate the relevant sources!), and absolutely no evidence to 'turkic' links in any way (except, of course, of historical contact). That is only loose speculation based on a few linguistic and cultural traits that do not necessarily have to do with a relationship between the populations. By the way, there is no single 'turkic' groups. Actually, if you look up genetic studies for turkic-speaking populations, you'll see that actually these groups are probably the single most genetically diverse populations among those which are considered to be linguistically akin. From a genetic point of view, there are no 'turkic' groups to be related to. Every haplogroup and genetic marker on earth is present in Central Asia and the Altai... Hungarians today are simply related to their neighbors, I see no way how we could deny this plain, reasonable idea which is so much backed up by every single recent fiding. Every researcher knows they have to deal with historical caveats, that is not in question. If you think my arguments are weak, then try reading theirs. Please go and read the available studies before rushing to opposing conclusions or reactions without even getting to know the criteria being discussed. Only then will we be able to reach some consensus on this issue. Stephanos1ko 10:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, try these articles. They are in public domain. By the way, Stacey,haplogroup N was previously called Tat-C from its haplotype nomenclature. Some of the sources still use this term.

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/18/6/1077.pdf

www.oxfordancestors.com/ papers/mtDNA04%20DNALandscape.pdf

http://mek.oszk.hu/01700/01794/01794.pdf

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2000.00035.x/abs/

http://www.maik.rssi.ru/cgi-bin/search.pl?type=abstract&name=geneng&number=3&year=2&page=309

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n4/40783/40783.web.pdf Stephanos1ko 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Neat articles. Thanks. I think you may still be missing my point. The genetic studies only are showing the trail of markers in the Y-chromosome and the mtDNA. It doesn't show the whole picture and possibly can't with our current knowledge of the DNA code. For example, my son is a descendent of my father even though my son doesn't have my father's Y-chromosome. In my mind at least, I think it is obvious that modern-day Hungarians are descended from the pre-historic populations of the Carpathian basin just as they also are of the Magyars who invaded. Unfortunately we don't have any DNA laying around from an ancient Magyar to compare. As for the numbers of Magyars invading, the number had to be high enough to preserve the language. The Bulgarians today don't speak a Turkic language nor are there any traces of Cuman left in the Kunsag yet there are people who still speak Magyar. Why do you think that is? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We should clarify some points about genetics.. it is impossible for your son not to have the Y-chromosome. this one is passing unchanged from father to son and no shuffling occurs. i can guarantee you 100% that your son has your father's Y-chromosome.. it is basicly the same to the whole lineage, excepting some small random mutations which occur during copy.. and those random mutations which are sent from father to son are the markers to differentiate when the lineage branched. so it's a continuous trail.. also there's no point in making the analysis to the whole population. statistics help (with an error margin, which can be as low as 1%) --Anonymous 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What? My son doesn't have my father's Y, only his father's Y. My son received X and mtDNA from me. I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add, I can understand what prompted you to write. I just noticed this page on "Hungarian prehistory" when you wrote on it and I can agree with you that it is pretty bad. I'm rather confused by the purpose of it being named "Hungarian prehistory" if it is a page about a book. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stacey. Thanks for your attempts at comprehension. But I must tell you that it is a wrong assumption that we need to have a 'big population' in order to impose and spread a language. Renfrew (1988) has collected evidence for what he terms 'elite dominance' in language imposition. It means that a pervadingly dominant ruling class may well impose their language to other populations no matter how small that class is, and without implying any significant admixture with the dominated groups. There are countless examples where there was hardly any need even for a LOCAL ruling class to impose a language, especially in dealing with great empires where learning the upper class' language is a social demand, with sactions resulting to linguisticly resisting populations (you can think for instance about the Hungarian-speaking landlords throughout the Hungarian kingdom and the social consequences of the existence of a recalcitrant Romanian-speaking minority.--oops, just boarded it back, I'm sorry ;)But that's how languages have evolved. The reasons why Bulgarians adopted the Slavic language may reside in the Turkic and Mongolian decentralized administrative system, not particularly in numbers, and mainstream linguistics does not back any necessary direct influence of population numbers to real-life language development. Anyway this, I believe, is a particularly 'peaceful' and quite consolidated issue at stake here. As for genetics, I have read your considerations and will come back to it soon. The point won't be missed, I promise.Stephanos1ko 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather versed in linguistics, thanks. I took enough classes to be dangerous with it, though I haven't kept it up. I'm not seeing how elite dominance can be supported in this case. Which language do you think the pre-Conquest upper class spoke? We don't really know. Some have speculated it to be a Turkic language. Have you noticed the large number of Turkic loanwords related to governance? Pre-Conquest Hungarians also lived under a Turko-Mongolian style decentralized administrative system and this continued for a few hundred years after Conquest so why wouldn't the Bulgarian model apply here too? The conquering Hungarians certainly weren't spreading their semi-nomadic lifestyle to the pre-Conquest population that would have triggered a language change that way. But feel free to use linguistics to fit your own conclusions. Everyone else does. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing: it was not ME who made this up in order to "fit my conclusions", but rather the other way around: I have drawn such conclusions from the hypothesis that best conforms to the findings of a variety of credible sources. Take, for instance, this study: "With the exception of the Hungarians, who acquired their Uralic language through elite dominance by the Magyars during recent times (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), all Uralic-speaking populations tested (Finnish, Estonians, Saami, and Mari) show a high frequency of HG 16[Tat-C](...)some examples of non-IE languages reflect not persistence but recent acquisition through "elite dominance": for example, the Hungarians acquired their Uralic language from the invading Magyars only 1,100 YBP (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), and the Altaic language of the Turks was acquired as a result of the Turkic invasions during the 11th15th centuries (Renfrew 1989). This process of language acquisition by elite dominance is not expected to be accompanied by a high degree of genetic admixture, and, if this is so, populations such as the Hungarians and Turks are unlikely to be separated from surrounding populations by genetic barriers." - ROSSER et al, 2000 - check http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n6/002082/002082.text.html Secondly, the Magyars never tried to establish their 'nomadic' way of life, even because they were soon settled in the Panonnian plains. That is exactly why they became dominant: unlike Huns and Avars, the Magyars managed to establish a strong class of nobles and landowners who exerted control and influence over the conquered populations. Stephanos1ko 10:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm yes, Cavalli-Sforza, well-known linguist. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem argument (therefore with no logical implication), and it isn't that funny!... Cavalli-Sforza has often joined his expertise as a geneticist with that of many linguists and historians(although I don't agree with some other of his interpretations. But if you have any SPECIFIC point against that source, express your reasoning in a clear and scientific way, please.) "The history and geography of human genes" is the book quoted there, and it is perfectly multidisciplinary. That is not in question, I believe. Stephanos1ko 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And did you have any ideas on improving the article on Hungarian prehistory or were you just looking for people to waste time with? I'm sorry I don't have the intention to go out and produce a scientific study on the subject if that is what you meant by "scientific way" (or did you mean logical?). I've already expressed my ideas with reasoning to you above. I (and another poster) also tried to point out that you are drawing simple conclusions for complex topics. If you're looking for scientific debate I suggest you write into any number of scholarly journals. Wikipedia is certainly not a proper forum for such debate. I'll try a third and last time, did you have anything useful to add to the article on Hungarian prehistory? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously have, but wouldn't like to force my way through if I'm in the minority position. That's why I have been debating with you (perhaps too much, but then it's better we solve issues on this very page). I have all the sources to quote, but if you by any chance believe that my eventual additions are a rush to conclusions or any such thing, then I have no willingness to engage in yet another long debate or worse, an edit war. So it's now up to you and those who seem to have any problem with my reasoning. You are free to add anything I have quoted or rather give suggestions as to what I could add from all the topics and sources we have argued about. Stephanos1ko 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I have failed at finding any changes you have suggested for the article in this thread. I wrote above that I found this article after you posted to the talk page on Magyars and am confused by its reference to being a page about a book yet named Hungarian prehistory. So please, make some changes and everyone will see what there is then we can go from there. I think the whole page needs rewriting. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the whole article has to be re-written, and a there's lot of clean-up to be made. I'll see what I can do and then implement it as soon as I have enough time. But first of all, the main tasks ahead include a general 'wikification', in addition to removing biased and overly assertive statements, adding more recent data, toning down the pseudopoetic style, discussing alternative scenarios, etc. E.Cogoy 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, yes, I've changed my username from stephanos1ko to e.cogoy. The guy is the same, though, I assure you ;). E.Cogoy 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What an amazing thread. I am concerned about the sample taken and the possible irrelevance of seeking the Magyar 'type' in the mixed sample. It would be far better science to exclude non-magyar types from the sample and to possibly identify physical traits of classic Magyar physiognomy eg 'high cheekbones' which are characteristic of central asian peoples. I argue that you cannot use a random sample in this case. Htcs 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations P. A. UNDERHILL"*, G. PASSARINO",&, A. A. LIN", P. SHEN#, M. MIRAZO! N LAHR$,%, R. A. FOLEY$, P. J. OEFNER# and L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA" " Department of Genetics, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr., Stanford, CA 94305±5120, USA

1. Stanford DNA Sequencing and Technology Center, 855 California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA

$ Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK % Departamento de Biologia, Inst. de Biociencas, Universidad de Sah o Paulo, Rua do Matah o, Travessa 14, No. 321, 05508±900 Cidade UniversitaU ria, Sah o Paulo, Brasil & Department of Cell Biology, Calabria University, Rende, Italy (Received 24.8.00. Accepted 16.11.00)

File:Genom.jpg

You know what does mean the haplotypes. The in-this-time live magyars have hungarian genoms too.

• The finn - magyar (or other hungarian ugors) time distance is litle. Just 4000 years. But have 2.2% common mark in finns and magyars. that 2,2% (M11) is common with New-guinean too(by P. A. Underhill) It mark least over 70'000 years old. And have other 11,1% (M170) common mark of magyars and finns, it is ca. 22'000 years old. The jungest ~4000 years old (TAT) not common.But the common the root of it haplotypus is the ca. 100 000 years old (M9). So may the most of finns far than 100'000 years from magyars. But least 4000.

Whos is the closest the magyars? Before the genetics it was answered more and more. But we dont belive it.

. I think so it is enought for brotherhood, and same origin.

It easy understand for english speakers:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/290/5494/1155.pdf

A New Proposal

Ok, after much pondering, I've decided to ask you to consider moving the parts of this article that we agree to be more or less uncontroversial to the general article on 'Magyars', which still has plenty of room for more data on Magyar Prehistory and Anthropology. The different interpretations of data sources both cited by the article and on this talk page would then be incorporated into the 'Magyars' article, eliminating or redirecting this one. That would be far better than trying to wikify and improve on it, since most of the info that can be said to be really serious and useful here is also relevant to 'wiki/Magyars', and we would be avoiding a) redundance of topics; and b)mantaining a page that is so hopelessly biased in its core (Kiszely's) and poorly written, as an actual wiki page. If you agree, we could then make a list of what can be 'saved' and subsequently moved. E.Cogoy 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree that this article should be redirected, remember the whole original decided purpose was to funnel off exactly those viewpoints that were not considered welcome in the main Magyar article, specifically to avoid endless infighting. The core of it was Kiszely's writing , but there are still lots of other competing, alternate theories that do crop up and get added from time to time - often enough, they are "sent" over here by the crowd at Magyars. Without this pressure release valve if you will, Magyars will again become a battleground, and the dominant pov there will again eventually crowd out all others and this data would be lost. Nobody at Magyars even really wants to see any of this stuff in "their" article, I can assure you. Yes, you can call it a pov-fork, but in some rare instances they are necessary, and I think this is a classic case of one that is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong support of Codex S. Juro 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Codex S. Zello 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I weakly support the proposal of E.Cogoy. But if there is a general consensus that this article should exist, it obviously needs a lot of work to meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. Moreover, I am not sure whether the actual title is appropriate. The article aims to discuss some controversial theories about the Hungarian prehistory, not the prehistory itself (at least not from the mainstream point of view). Tankred 10:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some people are more worried about reducing wikistress[3] than about factual accuracy, encyclopedic organization and group consensus. And yet <<these>> are supposed to be our priority here. If you believe in POV forks [4], why not try wikinfo[5] instead? Ok,you may complain about the 'Magyars' article, but at least it's relatively well written and sticks to mainstream thought. Maybe if you put the kind of theories that are present in this HPH article in a less grandiose and dogmatic style... just read it with attention, it stops short of cursing opposing 'false' theories; if you tried to refrain from doing that at 'Magyars', then such theories would be more well received as simply diverse views that deserve at least to be discussed. But it serves nobody to try to replace one bias with another. If the consensus of editors at one page article is such and such, I believe we should respect it, not try to avert it with a competing, explicitly POV page. Discuss it, present evidence of your views, try to prove it. Don't try to skew info with unsubstantiated and far-fetched claims portrayed as 'alternative theories' if there's no serious evidence. I've seen other wiki pages dealing with ethnoanthropology succumb to fancy nationalism. In this talk page, I've tried to list some contemporary studies that CAN be taken seriously (see above.) As for Kiszely, the last time I saw terms like 'Turanid' and such pseudoscientific racist talk was in a forum thread started by a self-proclaimed Neonazi. It is also ridiculous to mistake loanwords and language influence with ethnicity, specially in the Hungarian case (again, see our long discussion above). So if this article is to be taken seriously, it will have to be ruthlessly reviewed concerning factual accuracy. But I still think it belongs in wikinfo in its current state, if anything. My proposal still holds. E.Cogoy 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) the battle of one pov to censor and suppress all others and make them totally unavailable and inaccessible never really ends, does it? Yes, the Magyar ancestors were always harmless, peaceful Laplanders who raised reindeer, certainly weren't related to anyone important, and played absolutely NO role in history, until they accidentally showed up one day in a vacuum in Central Europe. This is now the only acceptable truth, and if you dare to suggest something different to this, you're looking for trouble. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

CS, please don't try to make up straw man in order to counter it and bolster your views. Check the data I supplied in the previous topic and you will see what I mean. There's no Lapp left in the story... E.Cogoy 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of facts, speculations and theories which are interesting in themselves. Of course it is far from NPOV and the title is bad but your idea of total deletion is absurd and unacceptable (and yes impractical, because the Magyars article will sooner or later became a battleground). Your "genetical" theory is only one of the several new alternative theories - and certainly not the one with the strongest support. We didn't rewrite the whole history for the sake of the "Turks" and I don't think we should rewrite for two genetical studies. Zello 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's another straw man argument. I didn't say a word yet to defend - on this thread at least - the data (not quite the 'theory', really, and far more than just '2' studies - please read more about it and you'll discover) that I had alluded to. My purpose in this proposal was far from that - it was to safeguard the reliability and organization of Wikipedia. Actually, if I wanted to impose my views, I'd have changed the article long ago in order to reflect them! Instead, I'm trying to discuss it with you. Please notice the difference.

By the way, what I had previously mentioned is no 'alternative' theory (let alone 'mine'); actually, in terms of reliability, verifiability and systematic empirical testing, genetics is far more precise than any artifact-hunting, linguistic cognate-seeking, megalomanic ethnic praise stories, etc. There is no possible comparison. But then, people can always pick the archeological 'discovery' that best pleases their eyes. But again, I wasn't even saying that you should consider genetic studies. Please don't do so, if the majority here don't want to. I will certainly respect the consensus. However, unlike you, I won't open up a new POV fork just to create disruption among readers. Information is a serious business. Encyclopedic information is twofold serious. But nobody cares, it seems. I'm giving up, definitely. E.Cogoy 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to "there's no doubt that genetics..." ... Actually, there is considerable doubt. Unless, of course the people who doubt it don't count -- then I guess you could say there is "no doubt". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, changed it. You bypassed the main point, anyway.E.Cogoy 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one remark to E.Cogay:All three users you are currently discussing here with are more or less semi-experts both in terms of the topic at hand (which is rare in the wikipedia) and in terms of the problems with the Magyars article as a permanent battlefield. So, just try to make this article a balanced article, that's all. We are all happy that the Magyars article has reached at least an acceptable and scientific version. Juro 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Never questioned that, Juro. I acknowledge the hard work of the three of you, never mind our circumstantial disagreements. My earlier trenchant critique was general, not personally pinpointed. And - yes, I'll TRY. E.Cogoy 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I support both E.Cogoy's proposal and Codex S's. This article is confusing and misleading. Are we talking here about Hungarian prehistory or some Hungarian fiction? If a page is needed for funneling POV to, why is it called Hungarian prehistory? We should be calling apples apples and oranges oranges. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check the conclusion of the section above titled "Merge tag", you will see there is already sufficient consensus to rename this page to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" for greater clarity... then an anon suggested that even better would be "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)", and of course he was right, but nobody responded after that and the idea kind of died on the vine... However if you read that section we had gotten to the very same reason you just gave now, so this time, first of all, would there still be consensus like there was 6 months ago to move this to either "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" or, even more accurately, "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)"...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rename the article but I propose "Origin of Magyars (alternative accounts)". Zello 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That being the consensus, whichever name we pick for the article, it probably should be listed here [6] for the time being at least. Now I'd propose a more general and neutral "Magyar Ethnogenesis" as the title because a)the main fork from 'Magyars' deals with this very specific point; and b)perhaps both "Magyar Prehistory-***"(because the article deals marginally with modern Hungary too)and "Origins of Magyars-***", (owing to the vagueness in the word 'Origins') could be interpreted as an apriori assumption of one-to-one identity between ancient and current Magyars, which one too many theories would dispute to some extent. However, in case you consider this just a logical nitpick (I'm aware of that), I'd be more inclined to support Zello's suggestion - but maybe with 'hypotheses' instead of 'accounts'? E.Cogoy 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an article about the Origin of Romanians and even you admitted that present-day Romanians are probably not more Dacians genetically than Magyars are Magyars. But even if I accept that there aren't ANY genetical connection between ancient and present-day Magyars the article would even treat the "Origin of the Magyars". There is an obvious continuity in national identity from the times of Árpád until the present. Zello 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. Seems fair enough. And what about 'hypotheses' for 'accounts'? I'm not sure about this one. E.Cogoy 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasted Time

Versaille and Trianon were an incredible success!!! The Entente wanted to keep middle Europe quiet and non-threatening to their imperialism and now the Americans run the world. Thanks to all for keeping this shit going. Given OUR history (Romanian, Hungarian, Saxon, Svab, etc) we're all fucking related. The Romanians accuse the Hungarians of irredentism but cling to the continuity theory; how irredentist is that??? If that's the case shouldn't the Vatican annex Romania and force everyone to speak Latin and convert to Catholicism? Let's put all the nationalist bullshit aside and concentrate on more important things. This article, and Wikipedia in general, is a waste of both time and energy. The more I read the sicker I get. Pull your heads out of your asses. It's your generation that's going to have to make a difference unless you want morons like Bush to run the world. Start thinking "polyglot"; in the 21st century a completely homogenous "nation" is just a dream/nightmare.

Language does mean nothing but ...

No matter what the language of magyars is, the genes determine racial properties. Like Turks have their characteristic skull type Turanoid brakisephal for caucasoid members though most people of southern kazakstan and kirgiz speaking turkic has mongoliod skulls also their appearence is mongolian (yellow skin small eyes black hair) this shows they are either chinese(in their myths) or mongolian(by historians) they have been assimilated somehow. So does anyone know what the magyar(or people of land of Huns) skull is it maybe turanoid due to avars and some other turkic tribes inhabbited in pannonian steppes but the importance is majority. As today we know that most of the muscovite russians have this type of skull although kiewan and white russians have iranian duplisephal(the only pure slavic nations that don't have turkic genes). The Magyars might take some words although they are very basic words of language it may happen from neighbouring Turkish dont forget that Turkish almost didn't for more than two millenia that a Yakut (in the eastes part of Asia) can understand Balkany Turkish after just a few weeks of hearing. Which proves Turkish is a steady language and not possible to divert to Magyar. And i read that Fin-Ugur speakers are only fishers, thats also wrong soumi are Nomad deerherders living in Yurt like tents similar lifestyle of steppe (semi-)nomad Turks and Mongolians. It seems that the futile Ugric-Turkic war goes on without any real results the best would be new DNA researches cleaning slavic and germanic genes on what is Magyar today... And what is bad in being European, Atilla may not be a Magyar but magyars also have lots of heroes to be proud of...

Merge proposal

This article, with such a general title, must be an overview of all theories. The part which is "based on "The Hungarian Old Country", written in Hungarian by professor István Kiszely" must be moved out into an article with title that clearly says it is a particular theory.

Also, the part from Hungarian people must be incorporated here. Currently hungarian prehistory in wikipedia is in chaos. `'mikka (t) 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

In spite of numerous and degrading assertions to the contrary, the fact is that the ancestors of the Hungarians were never truly "pagans".

What sort of NPOV is that? It's degrading to call the ancient Hungarians "pagans"? xod 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)xod

It is? What were they then? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkish?

Hungarian does share some similar words as Turkish. That is not because the Hungarians are related to the Turkish. It's because the Ottoman Empire invaded Hungary for over 150 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.5.125 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

What about the Habsburg invasion?! Do the Hungarian have lots of German words. NO they don't. The Turkish words are originated from the ancient home, which was close to the Ottomans.

Actually, we do have a lot of German words. 62.77.241.104 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The words not so important.

• Important the soul, the EQUALS around the round table (a kör~oldhun:O GHUR) and the Saint Grail (Sanctis KRAL; oldhun:ZNT GRAL)

The "Matyó"es just one folk of HUN-GHURian folks. The Carpatian Basin was the HUN-GHUR mixer. The words goes to far and came back vith other mean and litle bit other letters. Sometimes may fish out a word travell across the nations, but the most of word becomed internacional (new one:coffe ,old one Water.) . The words can changes between far nation to. But the DNS just today can fly across the sea in a small botle, (without body).

Many Invaders came into Carpatian Basin. And the poor peoples languange, was resisted? Not. But the system of languange, the "magyar" was Agglutinative language and it is still.

The last resist of langunge change was aginst the russian, that before the german that before the turkish thet befor the latin etc etc... The words just markers of cultur contacts, like tomato soup.

Comment on words related to religion

81.182.6.240 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Good day,

it may be worth noting that the words 'lélek', 'imád', 'teremt' are by no chance of Turkic origin, and 'isten' is actually just a compound word. They do not have Turkic counterparts, and never had any.

Linguistic evindence shows that they're related to the Ob-Ugrian and Permic languages, consider the following:

lélek ~ Mansi 'lil', Udmurt 'lul', Estonian 'leil'. Lélek is a derivate from earlier 'lél' meaning breath, steam. -k is a diminutive suffix.

imád- (earlier form: vimád-) ~ Komi 'vomid'ź' (curse, pain)

teremt is a derivate from 'tér' (space, room) ~ Khanty 'tir' (a certain width of the fishing net), 'tir@ng' (deep)

Isten = is(e) (father, ancestor) + -t and -n suffixes (akin to the denominal suffix '-tény' like in 'nős-tény' ) ; ~ Finnish 'isä' (father), Mansi 'āś'

Check MSzFE, TESZ, UEW etc for more detailed description.

Denying these is as harmful as claiming no relationship with the Central Asian Turks , though.

'lél' and 'pál' same mean word, bát 'lél' is breth 'pál' is steaming.

Clarification

• According to excavations of conquest era graves, the ruling layer in early Magyar society had a mixed europoid/mongoloid skull morphology. The middle layer of horse warriors that did the soldiering had predominantly east-Baltic european skull morphology, and the bottom layer had an assortment of various european skull morphologies.
• The name Megyer refers to one clan among seven Magyar clans (excluding the Kabars). Megyer is not a regular variant of Magyar. The ethonym Magyar is not connected to the ethonym Mansi. Instead it is connected to the ethonym Baskir, and both terms have a common origin, as attested by early Persian and Arabic sources.
• The Hungarians earliest known dwelling place roughly corresponds to modern Bashkortostan.
• There is only a finno-ugric linguistic grouping, not a finno-ugric gene or people or culture.
• Proto-ugric has never been reconstructed.

The Question 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The all of Hungurian are not all of magurian it two nation leader, and two nation. Please not mix them.

Sum Ugors

Why not use the original name of proto Sum Ugor tribes as they should be. The name Fenn or Finn is derived from word Phinnoi used by Tacitus in his Germania opus and he meant with Phennoi actually Sam (Saame and Nenetsi) peoples which he never saw. His describtion may be correctly said to end to Amber Coast, ie Southern Baltic region. All other describtions what he added he heard from others.

The Ugor connection with Sum begun to broke c. 2500 BC when the most developed Ugor tribes wandered southward from Perma and Jugra lands on the western slopes of Ural (Ugor?) mountain chain to Southern Ural area (Bashkortostan) c. 2000 - 1000 BC. There they were contacted and in some extend being mixed with proto Turkish nomandic tribes. The birth of Lactose Intoleance dated from this period when Ugor peoples become mixed with pre Turkish nomandic tribes. It spread also to Sum peoples, the first to carry it were Ud-murt and Mordva tribes among Sum peoples. It should be noted that Jugra tribes were clever mine minerals and remnants of many pre historical mines in Urals have been discovered.

Herodotos calls the proto Magyars as Thyssageths who differed from their neighbours Ierkis. Ierkis seems to have been the Jugras c.550 BC living north of the Scythians. Thyssageths were hunters who hunted at the slopes of stony rock (Ural) with their dogs by riding with horses. By the time of Herodotos Thyssageths (Magyars) seems to have lived on the course of the Tshus (Tshusovaja) River in Central Ural area.

One common to all Sum Ugri peoples are their eye colors which are blue, grey or green or variants of these colours, quite rare ones when compared in world basis where brown color is predominating.

When looking the map you find place names similar to Sum Ugor names also in Northern India, Sulawesi, New Guinea and even Savo Island in Solomon Islands. Just for knowledge for those who support these DNA hyphotheses. The linguistical connection between Sum and Ugor tribes is clearly confirmed during period 4500 - 2000 BC. There are enough web pages available to prove this connection for those who suspect this linguistical connection thanks for Hungarian and Finnish Universities.

During the "Great Folkwandering" few Sum Ugor tribes settled to Silesia and Bohemia, mainly some Mordvas and Udmurts, and earlier some Sum Ugor tribes attacked on Markkomanni War to Pannonia. One of these tribes was described by the Roman historians as "Limigantes". They build wooden houses on the upper cource of Tissa River and shouted Marha, Marha when attacked against the Roman Legions. They were allied with the Sarmathians. The Romans managed to win the Limigantes in 359 and the whole tribe returned to the east.

I have read from one Finnish history book of "Erdely tribesmen" which were deported by "Korkea Portti" (Hohen Pforte) to Mameluk ruled Egypt to defend Numibia against the attacks of Arabian tribes.

JN