Print Page | Close Window

Magyar origins

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20249
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 13:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Magyar origins
Posted By: calvo
Subject: Magyar origins
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2007 at 15:45
Hi,
 
I'm new to the forum.
 
From my experience with all the Hungarian people that I've known, I get the impression that their opinions towards their "Magyar" origins are rather diverse, often depending on their political tendencies.
 
a significant percentage of Hungarians tend to identify their ancestors with the "Turkic" peoples of Asia, esp de Uygurs of China; others stress on their Finno-Ugric linguistic afinnities with Siberian peoples such as the Vogul and Ostiak (Khanty Mansi); and another percentage claim that they are 100% European and take it as an insult when you mention to them that they might have some degree of Asian blood.
 
What is the most common idea?
 
Many Hungarians from Rumania claim that they are descended from Huns, avars, or Mongols....
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 10:16
 
I was amazed when my Hungarian friend told me that wolf is a sacred animal, that they avoid calling the direct name, instead use a word "animal with four legs", reminding me Turkic naming of the wolf "boz kurt" instead of "Böre".
 
They also have another sacred animal (forestic), I don't remember well, seems to imply their Uralic ancestral line.
 
 
I was even more startled when he told me "torul" (a kind of eagle) is a sacred bird, which was also the sacred bird for Uyghurs with the almost same name "toghrul".
 
They used a Runic script, most of the letters the same as Orhun script, which was used by Turkic people as early as 7th century.
 
In Sui shu, a tribe Mieju was mentioned around Caspian sea as one of the Tiele tribes (Tura, Turkic).
 
Arabic traveller Ibn Fazlan mentioned that Magyars were Turkic.
 
I remember two Chinese musicians compared the folk songs of Hungarians and Yugur (Seriq Uyghur) to find out extreme similarities.
 
Magyar is a very distinct language group from Finnic in the Uralic family.  the name Uguric derived from Ugur, Ogur, Oghur.  Oghurs are the early branch of Turkic people moved to the west.
 
Interestingly the idea Turan is originated in Hungary.
 
 
 
  


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Herschel
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 13:04

Babar, please link other ancient cultures to the Turks, too. I don't think they get nearly enough praise on this forum. I mean, we all know that the Turks were the first to have sacred animals and the like, and other cultures must have adopted it from the Turks OR they are blood cousins and are basically family.



Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 18:48

Herschel, first of all, don't put words in my mouth. No one is claiming anything of Turkic cultural superiority here. If you have other opinions just write it down, bashing without any basis is also not something that can be praised here.

One of the function of the history is to provide the ties between the different groups, so that to serve for more human harmony. There is nothing wrong to find the historical relations between different groups. Of course it is also a matter of interest.  If you don't give it a sh*t, then don't waste your time.
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 19:16
Originally posted by barbar

 
 
 
Interestingly the whole idea Turan is originated in Hungary.
 
 
 
  
 
Really ?
 
I thought the idea of Turan comes from Shakh-Nama of Firdousi


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 19:43
Originally posted by calvo

 
Many Hungarians from Rumania claim that they are descended from Huns, avars, or Mongols....
 
 
 
There is a distinctive ethnic group of Hungarians in Transilvania called Szekeli. There are different theories of their origins. Some of them name them the direct descendants of Huns, some say they originate from Avars. But definetely not from Mongols.
 
By the time Mongols came in 13th century Hungarian people already had an establised national identity. Mogols also didn't remain in Transilvania.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 09:19
I didn't know the wolf story, but it could be certenly true. The other sacred animal beside the turul was the deer.  ("Hunor" and Magor" came to the Carp. basin while they were hunting a hind(?). ) And the Turul bird made our first prince Álmos with Emese.
 
There are some topics with the same content on AE (but not so many as about scythians:-)
 
Calvo, the most common idea today is the finno-ugric-iranian-turcic origin.:-)


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 13:54
Tar szerénd, whasnt todays Hungary called by the Byzantians as Turchia in the medievals?

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 02:39
Yes.
 
 and: f.e. Ibn Fadlan and Gardhizi wrote thet the hungarians were types of turks, Masudi wrote that north of Byzantium there were living 4 turcic tribes, and one of them were the hungarians. Konst. Perf. thought that the hungarians were "the" turks.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 07:31
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by barbar

 
 
 
Interestingly the whole idea Turan is originated in Hungary.
 
 
 
  
 
Really ?
 
I thought the idea of Turan comes from Shakh-Nama of Firdousi
 
I mean the idea Turan  (based on linguistical Uralo-Altaic famliy) was originated in Hungary. (vambery)
 
The word Turan has longer history.  It's not Ferdawsi who mentioned first. He only collected the legends. However, he mentioned the land of Turan as the land of Turks.  Avesta  refered Tur to the people in the east of Iran who had sun worship.
 
It is not only Iranian sources which mentioned Turan or Tur. In early Chinese sources Turkic tribes were also mentioned as Tiele, which is the trasliteration of Tura.
 
 BTW, I think I have to confirm with my Hungarian friend about the wolf legend, "an animal with the tail" might be what they call in Hungarian.
 
And I'm quite sure another animal is not deer. He showed me the picture of it, and it's a kind of  animal I have never seen.
 
"the curse of Turan" is also another intereting thinking of Hungarians. 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 07:43
F.e. there are several villages and towns in the old, large and in small hungary, wich are showin the origin of the first inhabitants. (f.e. that shows, wich hung., or khasar, or horesmian, alanian tribe got that territory, or wich non nomadic people, f. e. vallons, germans, kiev-russians etc)
Refl. to Barbars post, there are f. e. Túrkeve and Tura:-))
 
Yes, now isthe wolf story clear, but one of the saint animals is surely the deer ("animal with antler" in Hungarian (szarvas) The title of the tale is Mese a csodaszarvasról-The tail of the wonder-deer.
The other animal is maybe the táltos, a sacred (winged) horse. (táltos means in english saman, and it is interesting, that most of the asian samans are calling their drums horse. He carriing the saman to the upper or lower world.
 
Or do you mean the griphon? (like a winged lion with falcon head)


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 08:57
If the most common idea is the iranic-turkic-ugric origin, then it doesn't make any sense.
 
Iranian is indo-european
turkic is altaic
ugric is uralian
 
3 distinct linguistic families.
 
I know that some Hungarians dislike the Ugrian idea for the fact that they don't want to be associated with the "khanti-Mansi" people of Siberia who share with them the closest linguistic affinities, because:
 
1. it places their ancestral homeland in Russia, and the Hungarians are sick of Russian imperialism.
 
2. the Khanti-Mansi and other "Ugric" people appear to be primitive, physically feeble (not necesarily true) hunter-gatherers; while "Turkic" makes them sound more like conquerors on horseback. 
 
Any Hungarians on the forum to answer these questions?


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 10:39
In our national hymn cc. 75% of the words are of ugric origin, but on the south of the Ural (in the antient ugric terr.) was reached by the iranian tribes 4-5 Cent. BC. . By moving south the hungarians got contact with turcic groups since the (?:-) 4-5. century AC..  In these time they (or some tribes of them) were possibly always part of a tribe union (leaded by iranians , turks etc) And they (and their) vocabulary was mixing (was mixed by the ruler) with the other tribes.  (f.e. most of the old hung. dignity names and tribe namesare have turcic origin) 
 
 
An interesting thing about the hantis and manysis: the ugor hunters used until the 19. cent composit bows with non bending siyahs, but this weapon was not made from horn, sinew and wood, but just from two layers of wood, and itt was longer than a common eurasian reflexbow.
Why they used it? Some historians think that they originali lived on the northern steppes, but the russians or an other enemy chased them into the tayga. So they had to adapt to the new environment.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 12:28
Originally posted by barbar

 
I mean the idea Turan  (based on linguistical Uralo-Altaic famliy) was originated in Hungary. (vambery)
 
The word Turan has longer history.  It's not Ferdawsi who mentioned first. He only collected the legends. However, he mentioned the land of Turan as the land of Turks.  Avesta  refered Tur to the people in the east of Iran who had sun worship.
 
 
 
 
I meant the idea of Turan as the world of Nomades (of Barbarians) which is an antipode of the sedentary world of Iran comes from Shakh Nama. Besides, as I know, Turanians of Firdousi were Nomadic SKythians or Saka. Later the geopolitical concept of Turan as a Nomadic Universe remained. However, the inhabitants of Turan were replaced by turkic tribes. That's why later Turan became a synonim of Turkic world. And the idea of great Turan etc. was mainly promoted by Ottoman empire as I know.  


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 12:59
Wiki also supports my interpretation:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 13:17
Some say that the Turkic Bashkirs are supposed to be related to the Magyars. Is there any proof?
They say that the Magyars were Bashkirs who migrated to Europe and retained their Ugric language, while the Bashkirs adopted the Turkic language of their Tartar neighbours.
 
Many speculations..., but little proof.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 17:10
Originally posted by calvo

Some say that the Turkic Bashkirs are supposed to be related to the Magyars. Is there any proof?
They say that the Magyars were Bashkirs who migrated to Europe and retained their Ugric language, while the Bashkirs adopted the Turkic language of their Tartar neighbours.
 
Many speculations..., but little proof.
 
Well, it's actually the most popular theory of the origins of Bashkirs. Magyars still were willing to call Bashkirs as their brothers to move to Hungary in 13th century, but these attempts were not succesful.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Wiki also supports my interpretation:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan
 
No, it doesn't.
 
You said:
 
"Turanians of Firdousi were Nomadic SKythians or Saka."
 
and the wiki says:
 
"The association with Turkic cultures is also primarily based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh - Shahnameh accounts referring to inhabitants of Turan as Turks"
 
  


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 16:01
Originally posted by barbar

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Wiki also supports my interpretation:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan
 
No, it doesn't.
 
You said:
 
"Turanians of Firdousi were Nomadic SKythians or Saka."
 
and the wiki says:
 
"The association with Turkic cultures is also primarily based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh - Shahnameh accounts referring to inhabitants of Turan as Turks"
 
  
 
I was talking that original Turanians in Firdousi's view were Iranian speaking nomades. Later the ihabitants of Turan were replaced by Turks, but the name Turan remained.
 
The origin of the name Turan also doesn't have to do anything with Turks it comes from Tur, the elder son of epical Iranian king Fereydun. Turan in other words is the kingdom of Tur.
 
wiki says this:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan#_note-3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan#_note-3
 
 The identification of the Turanians with the Turks is a late development, possibly made in the early 7th century, the Turks having first come into contact with the Iranians only in the 6th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan#_note-21 - [22]
 
The problem is that, later Turkic nomades, just absorbed large numbers of the ancient inhabitants of Turan i.e. Iranian nomads (Saka) into their new ethnicities and some Turanian epic heroes like for example Afrasiab, who was an Iranian orginially, bacame associated with epic Turkic heroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
 
However, original Turanians were nomadic Iranians according to Firdousi,
 


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 16:45

Please take some time to read Shahname.

Tiele (Dili, Di) tribes were known even BC to the Chinese as such. I hope you don't mean that Chinese got the names of their neighbours from Iranians.
 
Also Turkic and Iranian contact dates back to somes thousands BC, so the wiki is making nonsense there. Steppe people were always interacting between each other.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 17:09
Originally posted by barbar

Please take some time to read Shahname.

Tiele (Dili, Di) tribes were known even BC to the Chinese as such. I hope you don't mean that Chinese got the names of their neighbours from Iranians.
 
Also Turkic and Iranian contact dates back to somes thousands BC, so the wiki is making nonsense there. Steppe people were always interacting between each other.
 
 
 
I read Shahnama. The main epic story line goes around the struggle of different Iranian Shakhs and heroes with Afrasiab, evil king of Turan, who is however of IRANIAN stock (he is also a descendant of Tur). Actually, the link in Wiki about Afrasiab I posted earlier, gives a quite correct reference about his backgound, based on Shakhnama.
 
Did you read Shakh nama? I read it, this is why I know about the origins of the concept of Turan.
 
I would appreciate if you could give any passage in any chapter of Shakh Nama, which says that Turanians are Turks. I believe there are no pieces like that there.
 
Please correct me, with giving the exact piece if I'm wrong.
 
For Firdousi Turanians are hostile civilization, although they are of the same stock and origins with other IRANIAN people. Please check "Tur" again.
 
I don't doubt that Iranian nomades and Chinese interacted with ancient Turks for a long time starting many centuries BC., however the original concept of Turan means IRANIAN nomades, only later it became a synonim for "Turkic/Nomadic world".
 
Word Turan also doesn't have any connections with the word "Turk" they evolved separately, even though they sound a little bit similar.
 
May be Chinese called ancient Turks "Tiele" based on their transcription of the word "Turk", however again Chinese name for Turks and Turan doesn't have anything to do with each other, they evolved separately for designation of different ethnic groups. BTW modern Chinese name for Turks is Tuer or Tuerqizu.
 
Actually, the name Turk, first was recorded only in 6 century AD. While name Tur is very ancient and first appeared in Iranian Avesta written at some time BC.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 02:21
Iran-Land of Aryan
Turan-Land of North in old persian as I know


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 17:16
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
I read Shahnama. The main epic story line goes around the struggle of different Iranian Shakhs and heroes with Afrasiab, evil king of Turan, who is however of IRANIAN stock (he is also a descendant of Tur). Actually, the link in Wiki about Afrasiab I posted earlier, gives a quite correct reference about his backgound, based on Shakhnama.
 
Did you read Shakh nama? I read it, this is why I know about the origins of the concept of Turan.
 
For Firdousi Turanians are hostile civilization, although they are of the same stock and origins with other IRANIAN people. Please check "Tur" again.
 
 
I don't have to qoute Shahname. Ferdawsi wasn't historian. The main source for his masterpiece were the local farming people.  They couldn't know Sak or Sychians. What they knew were Arabs and Turks. For Ferdawsi, the biggest threat for Persians was the Turkic ruling, just as in the legends, the threat from  the east. For Ferdawsi Turks were the Turanians, as confirmed by all the Shahname researchers. 
 
Legends even stated that Noh had three sons, one of them (Japes) had the eldest son named Turk.  Legends can't be the sole basis for our judgment.
 
About Afrasiab, both Qeshqeri and Yusup Has Hajip, refered to be named originally as "Alp Er Tunga", there is a very detailed research work done by Uyghur Abdushukur Muhemmedimin about this topic.  You don't just simply make someone else's as your legendary hero.
 
 
 
I don't doubt that Iranian nomades and Chinese interacted with ancient Turks for a long time starting many centuries BC., however the original concept of Turan means IRANIAN nomades, only later it became a synonim for "Turkic/Nomadic world".
 
When? after Ferdawsi? I have shown that as early as 5th century there were Tiele(Tura) tribes called such.
 
Word Turan also doesn't have any connections with the word "Turk" they evolved separately, even though they sound a little bit similar.
 
 
How are you so sure? Turkut(Tujue) and Tura(Tiele) were both Turkic tribes. 
 
According to Qeshqeri, an and en are added in Turkic to make plural. Such as:
 
Oghul+an: Oghlan
Er+en: Eren
 
Iran and Turan both can be Turkic words.
 
May be Chinese called ancient Turks "Tiele" based on their transcription of the word "Turk", however again Chinese name for Turks and Turan doesn't have anything to do with each other, they evolved separately for designation of different ethnic groups. BTW modern Chinese name for Turks is Tuer or Tuerqizu.
 
No, Chinese clearly differenciated Turk and Tura. Tujue and Tiele. Tujue with 500 households defeated Tiele and annexed more than fifty thousand Tiele, and defeated Rouruan.
 
  
Actually, the name Turk, first was recorded only in 6 century AD. While name Tur is very ancient and first appeared in Iranian Avesta written at some time BC.
 
As I stated, all the Chinese historians agree on the continuity of Di, Dinling, Dili, Tiele tribes. And Di were dated back to before Xia (1700 BC).
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 18:04
Originally posted by barbar

 
I don't have to qoute Shahname. Ferdawsi wasn't historian. The main source for his masterpiece were the local farming people.  They couldn't know Sak or Sychians. What they knew were Arabs and Turks. For Ferdawsi, the biggest threat for Persians was the Turkic ruling, just as in the legends, the threat from  the east. For Ferdawsi Turks were the Turanians, as confirmed by all the Shahname researchers. 
 
 
Sorry, barbar. You advice me to read Shakhnama and even don't know what piece supports your point. I am afraid you simply didn't read it. Firdousi just summarized ancient Iranian epic stories starting from Avesta, and he used earlier records. He never "consulted with farmers"
Firdousi also wrote about Alexander the Great in Shakh nama. I don't think that "local farmers" should have known him as you write
Just read Shakh nama with comments, where all the scholars clearly write that the original concept of Turan means Iranian nomads.
 
And BTW there were still remnants of Saka in the Firdousi time there. Even now there is on Kazakkh clan called Saka, and Kazakhs from this clan are believed to be direct ancestors of Iranian Saka.
 
 
Legends even stated that Noh had three sons, one of them (Japes) had the eldest son named Turk.  Legends can't be the sole basis for our judgment.
 
About Afrasiab, both Qeshqeri and Yusup Has Hajip, refered to be named originally as "Alp Er Tunga", there is a very detailed research work done by Uyghur Abdushukur Muhemmedimin about this topic.  You don't just simply make someone else's as your legendary hero.
 
  
Sorry, I don't agree with that. There is a common trend to make famous heros of the other culturally more developed civilization your own heros.
 
For examle in Medieval times all the european chronists tried to align their roots to Yaphet (the Son of Noh), simply because, it was a conventional wisdom that all the humans originate from them, according to Bible
 
Arabs trace themselves to Biblical (Israeli) Agar, concubine of Abraham.
Lithuanians tried to prove in Medieval times that they originate from Julius Cezar etc. And there are many more examples like that.
 
So Turks, the same took famous and powerful Iranian Afrasiab as their forfather. I believe original Turkic legends have a very different version of their origins, which doesn't have to do anything with Afrasiab.
 
Besides again, Central Asian Turkic nomades just mixed with the former inhabitants which were Iranian nomades. And they also could just borrow the Iranian legen of Afrasiab. So, Afrasiab could in theory be IRANIAN ancestor of later Central Asian Turkic Nomades, given that Saka and Skythians are also their ancestors
 
I don't doubt that Iranian nomades and Chinese interacted with ancient Turks for a long time starting many centuries BC., however the original concept of Turan means IRANIAN nomades, only later it became a synonim for "Turkic/Nomadic world".
 
 
When? after Ferdawsi? I have shown that as early as 5th century there were Tiele(Tura) tribes called such.
 
I don't understand what you mean hear. Before Firdousi and at his time Turan-meant a realm of Nomades originally Iranian ones. Later Turan became a synonim of "Turkic world"
 
 
 
Word Turan also doesn't have any connections with the word "Turk" they evolved separately, even though they sound a little bit similar.
 
 
 
  
[QUOTE]
May be Chinese called ancient Turks "Tiele" based on their transcription of the word "Turk", however again Chinese name for Turks and Turan doesn't have anything to do with each other, they evolved separately for designation of different ethnic groups. BTW modern Chinese name for Turks is Tuer or Tuerqizu.
 
 
No, Chinese clearly differenciated Turk and Tura. Tujue and Tiele. Tujue with 500 households defeated Tiele and annexed more than fifty thousand Tiele, and defeated Rouruan.
 
 
Actually, the name Turk, first was recorded only in 6 century AD. While name Tur is very ancient and first appeared in Iranian Avesta written at some time BC.
 
As I stated, all the Chinese historians agree on the continuity of Di, Dinling, Dili, Tiele tribes. And Di were dated back to before Xia (1700 BC).
 
 
Again what this Di and Dili have to do with Turan. Turan is a kingdom of Tur, ancient Iranian mythical hero this concept first appeared in Shakh nama. Your arguments are not clear here. The similarity in pronouncation of the words doesn't mean that they are the same


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 17:45
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
Firdousi just summarized ancient Iranian epic stories starting from Avesta, and he used earlier records. He never "consulted with farmers"
Firdousi also wrote about Alexander the Great in Shakh nama. I don't think that "local farmers" should have known him as you write.
 
 
Read this Sarmat:
 
The Shahama glorifies the great kings and noblemen of Persia. The two opposing sides, for the most part, are Persians vs. Turanians or Turks. It should be noted that the characters in the Shahama are not fiction. Firdausi had available to him sources on which to draw the characters and events from. These sources were the dahqans [a small land owning farmer class]. These dehqans were the only people who had preserved the old traditions. Since Firdausi himself was from the dehqan class, he did not have to venture far to gather information about the glorious past.
 
http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/shahnama.html - http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/shahnama.html
 
also Aleksander (Iskender Zulqerneyin) was very famous among central Asian people that many legends are dedicated to him. Learn some oral legends of these famers, then you will know that these farmers know almost all the historical features. BTW, there are more than 15 volumms of Uyghur folk legends collected from the farmers. Don't underestimate them.
 
 
  
And BTW there were still remnants of Saka in the Firdousi time there. Even now there is on Kazakkh clan called Saka, and Kazakhs from this clan are believed to be direct ancestors of Iranian Saka.
 
 
But they became part of Turkic people already by the time of Firdawsi. They weren't seperate group anymore. moreover ancient Saka being part of Iranic stock is also disputable.  
 
 
So Turks, the same took famous and powerful Iranian Afrasiab as their forfather. I believe original Turkic legends have a very different version of their origins, which doesn't have to do anything with Afrasiab.
 
Besides again, Central Asian Turkic nomades just mixed with the former inhabitants which were Iranian nomades. And they also could just borrow the Iranian legen of Afrasiab. So, Afrasiab could in theory be IRANIAN ancestor of later Central Asian Turkic Nomades, given that Saka and Skythians are also their ancestors
 
 
Now you are making some sense. It is not that the people are making someone else as their historical hero, instead indeed he was part of their ancestor.  Still there is the question why the name is "Alp er Tunga" both in  Qeshqeri and Yusuf Has hajibs book.
 
 
 
   
When? after Ferdawsi? I have shown that as early as 5th century there were Tiele(Tura) tribes called such.
 
I don't understand what you mean hear. Before Firdousi and at his time Turan-meant a realm of Nomades originally Iranian ones. Later Turan became a synonim of "Turkic world"
 
 
You never defined your "later". I think I have made myself very clear already, several centuries earlier than Firdawsi, Turkic people were known as Tura (tiele).
 
 
 
 
Again what this Di and Dili have to do with Turan. Turan is a kingdom of Tur, ancient Iranian mythical hero this concept first appeared in Shakh nama. Your arguments are not clear here. The similarity in pronouncation of the words doesn't mean that they are the same
 
It is not the similarities. Based on writen history (not legends) the continuity of Di, dili, Dingling, Tiele was out of question. Translitiration was also clear for Chinese linguistics that these people were Tura people, namely Turkic people.
 
  


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:34
Originally posted by calvo

Hi,
 
I'm new to the forum.
 
From my experience with all the Hungarian people that I've known, I get the impression that their opinions towards their "Magyar" origins are rather diverse, often depending on their political tendencies.
 
a significant percentage of Hungarians tend to identify their ancestors with the "Turkic" peoples of Asia, esp de Uygurs of China; others stress on their Finno-Ugric linguistic afinnities with Siberian peoples such as the Vogul and Ostiak (Khanty Mansi); and another percentage claim that they are 100% European and take it as an insult when you mention to them that they might have some degree of Asian blood.
 
What is the most common idea?
 
Many Hungarians from Rumania claim that they are descended from Huns, avars, or Mongols....
 
 
 
Common people in Hungary (Romania, Voivodina etc.) haven't got one opinion, but they accept all of them together, I mean: people believe that Attila was related with Hungary (Hunnic theory), as well as Voguls, Finnes (Finno-Ugric theory) they feel 100% Europeans but they are proud of their Asiatic background.


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 03:44
over

 
The Hungarians migrated in the path seen above. The peoples crossed the Ural mountains from Asia and into Europe.
 
The Hungarian nation traces its history to the Magyars, a pagan Finno-
Ugric tribe that arose in central Russia and spoke a language that evolved into modern Hungarian. Historians dispute the exact location of the early Magyars' original homeland, but it is likely to be an area between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains. In ancient times, the Magyars probably lived as nomadic tent-dwelling hunters and fishers. Some scholars argue that they engaged in agriculture beginning in the second millennium B.C.

Before the fifth century A.D., the Magyars' ancestors gradually migrated southward onto the Russian steppes, where they wandered into the lands near the Volga River bend, at present-day Kazan, as nomadic herders. Later, probably under pressure from hostile tribes to the east, they migrated to the area between the Don and lower Dnepr rivers. There they lived close to, and perhaps were dominated by, the Bulgar-Turks from about the fifth to the seventh century. During this period, the Magyars became a semisedentary people who lived by raising cattle and sheep, planting crops, and fishing. The Bulgar-Turkish influence on the Magyars was significant, especially in agriculture. Most Hungarian words dealing with agriculture and animal husbandry have Turkic roots. By contrast, the etymology of the word Hungary has been traced to a Slavicized form of the Turkic words on ogur, meaning "ten arrows," which may have referred to the number of Magyar tribes.

The Magyars lived on lands controlled by the Khazars (a Turkish people whose realm stretched from the lower Volga and the lower Don rivers to the Caucasus) from about the seventh to the ninth century, when they freed themselves from Khazar rule. The Khazars attempted to reconquer the Magyars both by themselves and with the help of the Pechenegs, another Turkish tribe. This tribe drove the Magyars from their homes westward to lands between the Dnepr and lower Danube rivers in 889. In 895 the Magyars joined Byzantine armies under Emperor Leo VI in a war against the Bulgars. However, the Bulgars emerged victorious. Their allies, the Pechenegs, attacked the weakened Magyars and forced them westward yet again in 895 or 896. This migration took the Magyars over the Carpathian Mountains and into the basin drained by the Danube and Tisza rivers, a region that corresponds roughly to present-day Hungary. Romans, Goths, Huns, Slavs, and other peoples had previously occupied the region, but at the time of the Magyar migration, the land was inhabited only by a sparse population of Slavs, numbering about 200,000.

Tradition holds that the Magyar clan chiefs chose a chieftain named Árpad to lead the migration and that they swore by sipping from a cup of their commingled blood to accept Árpad's male descendants as the Magyars' hereditary chieftains. The Magyars probably knew of the lands in the Carpathian Basin because from 892 to 894 Magyar mercenaries had fought there for King Arnulph of East Francia in a struggle with the duke of Moravia. Estimates are that about 400,000 people made up the exodus, in seven Magyar, one Kabar, and other smaller tribes.

The Carpathian Basin and parts of Transylvania southsouthwest of the basin had been settled for thousands of years before the Magyars' arrival. A rich Bronze Age culture thrived there until horsemen from the steppes destroyed it in the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. Celts later occupied parts of the land, and in the first century A.D. the Romans conquered and divided it between the imperial provinces of Pannonia and Dacia. In the fourth century, the Goths ousted the Romans, and Attila the Hun later made the Carpathian Basin the hub of his short-lived empire. Thereafter, Avars, Bulgars, Germans, and Slavs settled the region. In the late ninth century A.D., only scattered settlements of Slavs occupied the Carpathian Basin. The Magyar forces, light cavalrymen who used Central Asian-style bows, quickly conquered the Slavs, whom they either assimilated or enslaved.

Romanian and Hungarian historians disagree about the ethnicity of Transylvania's population before the Magyars' arrival. The Romanians establish their claims to Transylvania by arguing that their Latin ancestors inhabited Transylvania and survived there through the Dark Ages. The Hungarians, by contrast, maintain that Transylvania was inhabited not by the ancestors of the Romanians but by Slavs and point out that the first mention of the Romanians' ancestors in Hungarian records, which appeared in the thirteenth century, described them as drifting herders.

Hungarians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language - Hungarian : Magyarok) or Magyars are an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group - ethnic group primarily associated with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary - Hungary . There are around 9.97 million Magyars in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary - Hungary (2001). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-HunCens - [1] Magyars have been the main inhabitants of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary - Kingdom of Hungary that existed through most of the second millennium. After the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon - Treaty of Trianon Magyars have become minority inhabitants on the territory of present-day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania - Romania (1,440,000; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_minority_in_Romania - Hungarian minority in Romania ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia - Slovakia (520,500), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia - Serbia (293,000; largely in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina - Vojvodina ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine - Ukraine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia - Russia (170,000), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - Austria (40,583), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia - Croatia (16,500), the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic - Czech Republic (14,600) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia - Slovenia (10,000). Significant groups of people with Magyar ancestry live in various other parts of the world (e.g. 1,400,000 in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States - United States ), but unlike the Magyars living within the former Kingdom of Hungary, only a minority of these preserves the Hungarian language and tradition.

Contents

[ javascript:toggleToc%28%29 - hide ]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Etymology - 1 Etymology
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Ethnic_affiliations_and_origins - 2 Ethnic affiliations and origins
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#East_of_the_Ural_mountains_.28pre-fourth_century_AD.29 - 2.1 East of the Ural mountains (pre-fourth century AD)
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Bashkiria_and_the_Khazar_khaganate_.28fourth_century_to_c.830_AD.29 - 2.2 Bashkiria and the Khazar khaganate (fourth century to c.830 AD)
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Etelk.C3.B6z_.28c.830_to_c.895.29 - 2.3 Etelköz (c.830 to c.895)
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Entering_the_Carpathian_Basin_.28after_895.29 - 2.4 Entering the Carpathian Basin (after 895)
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#History_after_900 - 2.4.1 History after 900
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Later_influences - 3 Later influences
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#Maps_and_images - 4 Maps and images
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#See_also - 5 See also
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#References - 6 References
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#External_links - 7 External links
//

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=1 - edit ] Etymology

The word "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_language - Bulgar-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the Magyars were neighbours (or confederates) of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onoguria - Empire of the Onogurs in the sixth century, whose leading tribal union was called the " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs - Onogurs " (meaning "ten tribes" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Turkic - Old Turkic ).

The "H-" prefix in many languages (Hungarians, Hongrois, Hungarus etc.) is a later addition. It was taken over from the name of the " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns - Huns ", a semi-nomadic tribe that briefly lived in the area of present-day Hungary and, according to legends originating in the medieval period, was the people from which the Magyars arose. The identification of the "Hungarians" with the "Huns" has often occurred in historiography and literature. Even today, Hun names like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila - Attila and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A9ka&action=edit - Réka are popular among Hungarians. This identification began to be disputed in the late nineteenth century, and is still a source of major controversy among scholars who insist that there could be no direct connection between the two.

The word Magyar in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language - Hungarian language refers both to the ethnicity and the language. In English and many other languages, however, "Magyar" is only used to refer to the ethnicity and is most common in certain contexts, for example, when distinguishing ethnic Hungarians (i.e. the Magyars) from the other nationalities living in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary - Kingdom of Hungary .

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=2 - edit ] Ethnic affiliations and origins

The origin of the Hungarians is partly disputed. The most widely accepted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages - Finno-Ugric theory from the late nineteenth century is based primarily on linguistic and ethnographical arguments, while it is criticised by some as relying too much on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics - linguistics . There are also other theories stating that the Magyars are descendants of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia - Scythians , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns - Huns , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars - Avars , and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer - Sumerians . These are primarily based on medieval legends, whose authenticity and scientific reliability is strongly questionable, as well as non-systematic linguistic similarities. Most scholars dismiss these claims as speculation.

The following section presents the Finno-Ugric theory of the origin of modern Hungarian people. For some other theories see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_prehistory - Hungarian prehistory .

Finno-Ugric is a group of related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language - languages , which does not necessarily mean that the peoples speaking those languages are equally related in terms of ethnicity. The same holds true for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages - Indo-European languages .

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=3 - edit ] East of the Ural mountains (pre-fourth century AD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarian_migration.png">Migration%20of%20the%20Magyars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarian_migration.png">
Migration of the Magyars

During the fourth millennium BC, some of the earliest settlements of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages - Finno-Ugric -speaking peoples were situated east of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Mountains - Ural Mountains , where they hunted and fished. From there, the Ugrians, settled in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood-steppe&action=edit - wood-steppe parts of western http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia - Siberia (i.e. to the east of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Mountains - Ural Mountains ) from at least 2000 BC onwards. Their settlements closely resembled those of the north-western http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_Culture - Andronovo Culture . More advanced tribes arriving from the southern steppes taught them how to farm, breed cattle and produce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze - bronze objects. Around 1500 BC, they started to breed horses and horse riding became one of their typical activities.

Due to climatic changes in the early first millennium BC, the northern Ugrian subgroup (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob-Ugrians - Ob-Ugrians ) moved to the lower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob_River - Ob River , while southern Ugrians remained in the south and became http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad - nomadic herdsmen. Since these southern Ugrians became the ancestors of the proto-Magyars, this division marks the beginning of the Magyars as a distinct ethnic group. During the following centuries, the proto-Magyars continued to live in the wood-steppes and steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, strongly influenced by their immediate neighbours, the ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians - Sarmatians .

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=4 - edit ] Bashkiria and the Khazar khaganate (fourth century to c.830 AD)

Main articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugra - Yugra , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Hungaria - Magna Hungaria , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levedia - Levedia

In the fourth and fifth centuries AD, the proto-Magyars moved to the west of the Ural Mountains to the area between the southern Ural Mountains and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_River - Volga River known as Bashkiria ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkortostan - Bashkortostan ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_600ad.jpg">Eastern%20Hemisphere,%20600ad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_600ad.jpg">
Eastern Hemisphere, 600ad.

In the early eighth century, some of the proto-Magyars moved to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River%2C_Russia - Don River to an area between the Volga, Don and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversky_Donets - Seversky Donets rivers called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levedia - Levedia . Meanwhile, the descendants of those proto-Magyars who stayed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkiria - Bashkiria remained there as late as 1241. As a consequence, earlier scholarship considered the Magyars and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs - Bashkirs as two branches of the same nation. The earlier Bashkirs, however, were decimated during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe - Mongol invasion of Europe (thirteenth century) and assimilated into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_people - Turkic peoples .


The proto-Magyars around the Don River were subordinates of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars - Khazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan - khaganate . Their neighbours were the archaeological http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltov_Culture - Saltov Culture , i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars - Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians, descendants of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs - Onogurs ) and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans - Alans , from whom they learned gardening, elements of cattle breeding and of agriculture. The Bulgars and Magyars shared a long-lasting relationship in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria - Khazaria , either by alliance or rivalry. The system of two rulers (later known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kende - kende and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula - gyula ) is also thought to be a major inheritance from the Khazars. Tradition holds that the Magyars were organized in a confederacy of tribes called the Hét Magyar. The tribes of the Hétmagyar were; Jenő, Kér, Keszi, Kürt-Gyarmat, Megyer (Magyar), Nyék, and Tarján. The confederacy was formed as a border defending allies of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria - Khazaria mainly during the reign of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan - Khagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulan_%28Khazar%29 - Bulan and Ovadyah, with the Magyar tribe as ascendant.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=5 - edit ] Etelköz (c.830 to c.895)

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etelk%C3%B6z - Etelköz

Around 830, a civil war broke out in the Khazar khaganate. As a result, three http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar - Kabar tribes out of the Khazars joined the Magyars and they moved to what the Magyars call the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etelk%C3%B6z - Etelköz , i.e. the territory between the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains - Carpathians and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_River - Dnieper River (today's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine - Ukraine ). Around 854, the Magyars had to face a first attack by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs - Pechenegs . (According to other sources, the reason for the departure of the Magyars to Etelköz was the attack of the Pechenegs.) Both the Kabars and earlier the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars - Bulgars may have taught the Magyars their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages - Turkic languages ; according to the Finno-Ugric theory, this is used to account for at least three hundred Turkic words and names still in modern Hungarian. The new neighbours of the Magyars were the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings - Vikings and the eastern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs - Slavs . Archaeological findings suggest that the Magyars entered into intense interaction with both groups. From 862 onwards, the Magyars (already referred to as the Ungri) along with their allies, the Kabars, started a series of looting raids from the Etelköz to the Carpathian Basin–mostly against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks - Eastern Frankish Empire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - Germany ) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moravia - Great Moravia , but also against the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaton_principality - Balaton principality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria - Bulgaria .

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=6 - edit ] Entering the Carpathian Basin (after 895)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arpadfeszty.jpg">Prince%20Árpád%20crossing%20the%20Carpathians.%20A%20detail%20from%20Árpád%20Feszty%20and%20his%20assistants%20vast%20canvas%20%28over%201800 m²%29,%20painted%20to%20celebrate%20the%20one-thousandth%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Magyar%20conquest%20of%20Hungary,%20now%20displayed%20at%20the%20Ópusztaszer%20National%20Memorial%20Site%20in%20Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arpadfeszty.jpg">
Prince http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d - Árpád crossing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains - Carpathians . A detail from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Feszty - Árpád Feszty and his assistants' vast canvas (over 1800  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_metre - ), painted to celebrate the one-thousandth anniversary of the Magyar conquest of Hungary, now displayed at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93pusztaszer - Ópusztaszer National Memorial Site in Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magyarok-Bejovetele-ChroniconPictum.jpg">The%20entry%20of%20the%20Magyars%20into%20the%20Carpathian%20basin,%20from%20the%20Chronicon%20Pictum,%201360.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magyarok-Bejovetele-ChroniconPictum.jpg">
The entry of the Magyars into the Carpathian basin, from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_Pictum - Chronicon Pictum , 1360.

In 895/896, probably under the leadership of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d - Árpád , some Magyars crossed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains - Carpathians and entered the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Basin - Carpathian Basin . The tribe called Magyars (Megyer) was the leading tribe of the Magyar alliance that conquered the center of the basin. At the same time (c.895), due to their involvement in the 894-896 Bulgaro- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire - Byzantine war, Magyars in Etelköz were attacked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria - Bulgaria and then by their old enemies the Pechenegs. It is uncertain whether or not those conflicts were the cause of the Magyar departure from Etelköz.

In the Carpathian Basin, the Magyars initially occupied the Great Moravian territory at the upper/middle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisza - Tisza river, a scarcely populated territory, where, according to Arabian sources, Great Moravia used to send its criminals, and where the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire - Roman Empire had settled the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iazyges - Iazyges centuries earlier. From there, they intensified their looting raids across continental Europe. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/900 - 900 , they moved from the upper Tisza river to Transdanubia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia - Pannonia ), which later became the core of the arising Hungarian state. Their allies, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar - Kabars (probably led by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursan&action=edit - Kursan ), appear to have settled in the region around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_%28county%29 - Bihar .[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources - citation needed ] Upon entering the Carpathian Basin, the Magyars found a mainly Slavic population there.

Remnants of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars - Avars lived in the southwest and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians - Romanians in the east and southeast, although the latter is a matter of controversy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians - Origin of the Romanians ). After the battle of Augsburg (956), the Magyars gradually changed their pastoral way of life to an agricultural one and borrowed hundreds of agricultural Slavic words. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hungary - History of Hungary for a continuation, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_before_the_Magyars - Hungary before the Magyars for the background.

Many of the Magyars, however, remained to the north of the Carpathians after 895/896, as archaeological findings suggest (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland - Polish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przemysl - Przemysl ). They seem to have joined the other Magyars in 900. There is also a consistent Hungarian population in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania - Transylvania that is historically unrelated to the Magyars led by Árpád: the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely - Székelys , 40% of the Hungarian minority in Romania. They are fully acknowledged as Magyars. The Székely people's origin, and in particular the time of their settlement in Transylvania, is a matter of historical controversy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely - Székely for details).

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=7 - edit ] History after 900

The Magyar leader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d - Árpád is believed to have led the Hungarians into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Basin - Carpathian Basin in 896. In 907, the Magyars destroyed a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria - Bavarian army at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressburg - Pressburg and laid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - Germany , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France - France and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy - Italy open to Magyar raids. These raids were fast and devastating. The Magyars defeated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child - Louis the Child 's Imperial Army near http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg - Augsburg in 910. From 917-925, Magyars raided through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basle - Basle , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace - Alsace , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundy - Burgundy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxony - Saxony , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence - Provence . Magyar expansion was checked at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld - Battle of Lechfeld in 955. Although the battle at Lechfeld stopped the Magyar raids against western Europe, the raids on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Peninsula - Balkan Peninsula continued until 970. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-6 - [11] Hungarian settlement in the area was approved by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope - Pope when their leaders accepted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity - Christianity , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary - Stephen I the Saint (Szent István) was crowned King of Hungary in 1001. The century between the Magyars' arrival from the eastern European plains and the consolidation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary - Kingdom of Hungary in 1001 was dominated by pillaging campaigns across Europe, from Dania ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark - Denmark ) to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula - Iberian peninsula ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain - Spain ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-7 - [12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_1025ad.jpg">Eastern%20Hemisphere,%201025ad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_1025ad.jpg">
Eastern Hemisphere, 1025ad.

At this time, the Hungarian nation numbered between 25,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-8 - [13] and 1,000,000 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-9 - [14] . The Slavic population in present-day Hungary were culturally assimilated by the Magyar culture.

The name "Hungarian" has also a wider meaning, as it once referred to all inhabitants of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary - Kingdom of Hungary irrespective of their ethnicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-10 - [15]

The first accurate measurements of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary including ethnic composition were carried out in 1850-51. There is a debate among Magyar and non-Magyar (especially Slovak and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians - Romanian ) historians about the possible changes in the ethnic structure throughout history:

  • Some historians, especially Hungarians, support the theory that the Magyars' percentage in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages - Middle Ages , and began to decrease only at the time of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire - Ottoman conquest, reaching as low as around 39% (or 29% according to historians from outside Hungary) in the end of the eighteenth century. The decline of the Magyars was due to the constant wars, famines and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule. The main zones of war were the territories inhabited by the Magyars, so the death toll among them was much higher than among other nationalities. In the 18th century their percentage declined further because of the influx of new settlers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - Germany , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia - Serbia , and other countries.
  • Others, particularly Slovak and Romanian historians, tend to emphasise the multi-ethnic nature of the Kingdom even in the Middle Ages and argue that the drastic change in the ethnic structure hypothesized by Hungarian historians in fact did not occur. Therefore, the Magyars are supposed to have accounted only for about 30-40% of the Kingdom's population since its establishment. In particular, there is a fierce debate among Magyar and Romanian historians about the ethnic composition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania - Transylvania through the times; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians - Origin of the Romanians .

In the nineteenth century, the percentage of Magyars in the Kingdom of Hungary rose gradually, reaching over 50% by 1900 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization - Magyarization ). Spontaneous assimilation was an important factor, especially between the German and Jewish minorities and the citizens of the bigger towns. On the other hand, about 1,5 million people (of whom about two-thirds were non-Hungarian) left the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary - Kingdom of Hungary between 1890-1910 to escape from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty - poverty . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars#_note-immigrants - [16]

The years 1918 to 1920 were a turning point in the Magyars' history. By the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon - Treaty of Trianon , the Kingdom had been cut into several parts, leaving only a quarter of its original size. One third of the Magyars became minorities in the neighbouring countries. During the remainder of the twentieth century, the Magyar population of Hungary grew from 7,1 million (1920) to around 10,4 million (1980), in spite of losses during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II - Second World War and the wave of emigration after the attempted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_revolution_of_1956 - revolution in 1956 . The number of Hungarians in the neighbouring countries mostly remained the same or slightly decreased, mostly due to assimilation (sometimes forced; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakization - Slovakization and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization - Romanianization ) and emigration to Hungary (in the 1990s, especially from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania - Transylvania and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojvodina - Vojvodina ).

After the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom - "baby boom" of the 1960s , a serious demographic crisis began to develop in Hungary and its neighbours. The Magyar population reached its greatest in 1980, after which it began to decline. This is expected to continue at least until 2050, when the population would number around seven to eight million.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources - citation needed ]

Today, the Magyars represent around 35% of the population of the Carpathian Basin. Their number is around twelve to thirteen million (2006), almost the same as in 1910. While other ethnic groups increased their numbers two, three or even more times during the twentieth century, the Magyar population stagnated. Between 1950 and 2000, the increase in Hungary's population was the third slowest in the world, after Bulgaria and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Kitts_and_Nevis - St. Kitts and Nevis : 8.6% (from 9,338,000 to 10,137,000).

There was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum - referendum in Hungary in December 2004 on whether to grant Hungarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship - citizenship to Magyars living outside Hungary's borders (i.e. without requiring a permanent residence in Hungary). The referendum failed due to the insufficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout - voter turnout .

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_people&action=edit&section=8 - edit ] Later influences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vil%C3%A1gmagyar%C3%93puszta.JPG">An%20embossed%20stone%20in%20the%20Ópusztaszer%20National%20Memorial%20Park%20showing%20a%20worldwide%20Hungarian%20population%20count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vil%C3%A1gmagyar%C3%93puszta.JPG">
An embossed stone in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93pusztaszer - Ópusztaszer National Memorial Park showing a worldwide Hungarian population count.

Besides the various peoples mentioned above, the Magyars assimilated or were influenced by subsequent peoples arriving in the Carpathian Basin. Among these are the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumanians - Cumanians , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs - Pechenegs , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassic - Jazones , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_people - Germans and other Western European settlers in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages - Middle Ages . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians - Romanians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks - Slovaks have lived together and blended with Magyars since early medieval times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples - Turks , who occupied the central part of present-day Hungary from c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1541 - 1541 until c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1699 - 1699 , inevitably exerted an influence, as did the various nations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans - Germans , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks - Slovaks , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs - Serbs , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats - Croats and others) that resettled depopulated territories after their departure. The advanced economic and political conditions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples - Slavs , who had preceded the Magyars' arrival but continued to migrate thereafter, exerted a significant influence; several Hungarian words relating to agriculture, politics, religion and handicrafts were borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages - Slavic languages . Both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary - Jewish and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people - Roma (Gypsy) minorities have been living in Hungary since the Middle Ages.



-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 10:11
Thanks for such a detailed reply!!!
 
The truth is that there are many theories about the origin of Magyars and greatly influenced by the version one subjectively wants to believe in.
 
Regarding the issue of the percentage of "ethnic Magyars" living in the Carpathian basin during the Middle Ages, the figures are greatly manipulated by nationalistic politics.
 
My personal interpretation (which might not be correct) is the following:
 
As in all migration waves, the number of migrants are usually numerically modest compared to the local inhabitants. THe Magyar migration should be no exception.
The number of Magyars arriving from Russia were probably small compared to the indigenous inhabitants of Panonia, be them Latin-Roman, Slavic, or a mixture of the 2. However, when Arpad founded the Hungarian state, many of these indigenous ethnicies became assimilated by Magyars, and thus came to identify themselves as Magyars, although those who held onto their original identities still formed a (varying percentage) way into the modern age.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 03:45
Folks,

The American Chinese James Zhu , an advocate of the fact that Magyars' ancestors are from the Far East Mogher (Malgal) who are originally inhabited in the present-day North East of China.  See his supporting argument details via:

http://www.iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/04/4-02.pdf

When I first time read his book in Chinese two years ago, that was really striking to me.   However,  much of debates have to be continued regarding this "new" idea of the origins of Magyars.

My question is: Do you buy this?


Posted By: mohawk
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 11:07
the Hungarians are Turks, the ancestors of them were the black bulgars, they are onogurs, the organizing clan was the Dulo dynasty, started with Kovrat, Batbayan-Bezmer, Ugek, Almosh etc.
There is a label on the Hungarian crown from 1071, which declare under the small picture of the king, that this is , the Geyza, the first, the king of Turkia.
The name of the country is still today Hungary= Onoguria.
The Onogurs were western type turks like the chuvash, bashkir and others.
The Hugarians changed their Tengrism to christianit, they changed their turkish language to the today spoken mixture, but the hunnic live coals burns in them.


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 15:08
It would be great if the writer could speak hungarian, because many of his arguments (f.e. the surname-compearings) are ...huhh... a little bit ridiculous. It could be a very interesting theory, if it had a stabil grammatical base.
 
Tar Szerénd


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 17:20
Originally posted by mohawk

the Hungarians are Turks, the ancestors of them were the black bulgars, they are onogurs, the organizing clan was the Dulo dynasty, started with Kovrat, Batbayan-Bezmer, Ugek, Almosh etc.
There is a label on the Hungarian crown from 1071, which declare under the small picture of the king, that this is , the Geyza, the first, the king of Turkia.
The name of the country is still today Hungary= Onoguria.
The Onogurs were western type turks like the chuvash, bashkir and others.
The Hugarians changed their Tengrism to christianit, they changed their turkish language to the today spoken mixture, but the hunnic live coals burns in them.
 
Althoug Hungarians indeed have very close connections to Turks, linguistically speaking their language belongs to Finno-Ugrian group.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 17:58
Originally posted by Xianpei

Folks,

The American Chinese James Zhu , an advocate of the fact that Magyars' ancestors are from the Far East Mogher (Malgal) who are originally inhabited in the present-day North East of China.  See his supporting argument details via:

http://www.iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/04/4-02.pdf

When I first time read his book in Chinese two years ago, that was really striking to me.   However,  much of debates have to be continued regarding this "new" idea of the origins of Magyars.

My question is: Do you buy this?
 
 
I basically agree with http://www.allempires.net/member_profile.asp?PF=4442&FID=51 - Tar Szerénd and don't buy it. First of all, the author of the article seems to ignore some important elements related to Hungarian/Magyar history. Firstly, Hungarian connection to Hunns, which is evidenced for example by a huge part of Hungarian folklore related to Hunns and Attila, which proves that Magyars have historic memory much earlier than 7th century, which is according to the author of the article is the time of the alleged migration of tungusic Moghers from North-Eastern China.
 
Secondly there is evidence of proto-Magyar language present in Europe around 6 century AD, which again is earlier than 7 AD
 
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/DETREHUN.htm - http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/DETREHUN.htm
 
Thirdly, author ignores the point that all the similarities between Hungarian and Mongolian, Manzhur and other Tungusian languages can be easily explained by Altaic language theory.
 
Furhter more, the author simply lacks sufficient comparative linguistic training to make conclusions. For example he traces Hungarian surname Kovasc to some Tungusic tribe name, although I can clearly see that the origin of this word is from the Slavic verb "kovat" (to smith, to forge. In Hungarian it's  kovácsol ). Kovasc should be simply "Smith" in Hungarian.



-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Xianpei
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 04:26
Sarmat12,  

You have made some very goods points, I believe.

Nevertheless, can Tar Szerend or you elaborate a little bit on that: Magyars is Finno-Ugric-Iranian- Turkic orgin (posted above by Tar)?
I just do not  know "Iranian" meaning exactly here.    tks!


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 05:39
"Iranian meaning" is very natural.  Most of the ancient nomands of Central Asia and Eastern Europe were Iranian speakers.
 
Their impact actually is felt as far as China. Of course, they didn't just disappear. Iranian nomades like Skythians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. became an important element contributing to the formation of new Turkic, Finno-ugrian and Mongolian speaking Nomadic ethnicities.
 
For example, Turkic Kazakhs still have a clan called "Saka" (the name of Central Asian Skythians).


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:53
Turkic Kazakhs don't have  a clan Saka, that's a mistake of some kind. They have Shaga clan.

In fact, almost all Turkic nations have "Saka" clans - Saka and Sake among  Kyrgyzes, Shakai among Uzbeks, etc. Sakha is a self appelative of Yakuts (Yakut being of course the name Russians called them in the 18 cent).

There is nothing in these numerous Turkic "Saka" that points to any Iranian influence. Moreover, there's no "Saka" among the Iranians and almost any Turkic nation  has a clan or a tribe "Saka" or something real close.

It should be remembered that there is no proof or direct evidence that the Sakas of old spoke any kind of Iranian languages. Or Turkic in this respect. We simply don't have sufficient data to conclude anything with certainty.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 18:44

Yes, we don't have 100% evidence. But we have some proofs which say that Sakas spoke Iranic language and it's most commonly refered as such in scientific literature. More over there are books written in Iranic Saka language in kigdom of Khotan although at a later time then the times of Ancient Skythians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages

Kazakh clan, which I mentioned is very often referred as the direct evidence of Sakas influense on Kazakh in Kazakh history books. Moreover there is enough evidence of cultural continuity between ancient Sakas and modern Kazakhs. Genetic tests showed that Sakas and modern Kazakh in some areas have almost identical genetic pool.
 
About the cultural continuity here is just one example to illustrate my point.
 
This is an ancient Saka figure of women wearing a distinct cone shaped hat (3 BC).
 
 
 
This is the traditional Kazakh bridal hat
 


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 19:18
i didn't found any Qzaq tribe with the name Saka or similar here:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/578/qazaqxc2.jpg


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 19:39

Sarmat similar types of hats are pretty widely used by various Turkic groups but I've yet to see that style among Iranic groups.

There is no evidence that Saka were a mono-ethnic, mono-linguistic group, the reality is there is no 100% proof that they spoke Iranic languages. Also there were peoples from the Altay region among the tribal-confederation, its likely there were Turkic tribes aswell.



-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 20:54
I didn't say they were monoethnic. They very likely included Turkic components as well. However, seems that they were mainly Iranian speakers.
 
Actually, I think this kind of wery lond conic hats is a specific feature of Kazakh national costume as well as an item frequently found in Sakas kurgans in Kazakhstan.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:31
I think we have departed from our original topic which was "Magyar origins," so I openinf a new thread about Pazaryk culture and moving the related posts there.
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22341 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22341


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 07:53
If someone is interested, one of the legends about Holy Ladislaus  (H.L. and the cuman) has the same end like on these golden saka jewelry.
After killing the cuman soldier, he led his head under a tree in the rescued girls lap, while his servant is holding the bridle of the kings horse.
This and the fighting scene is painted in many of the old hung. and szekler temples in the Charpatian basin.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 08:31
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Yes, we don't have 100% evidence. But we have some proofs which say that Sakas spoke Iranic language and it's most commonly refered as such in scientific literature. More over there are books written in Iranic Saka language in kigdom of Khotan although at a later time then the times of Ancient Skythians



That is correct.

And equally correct is a simple fact that Khotanese never refered to themselves as Saka. They used the word hvatana- instead. In fact, there is no "Saka" in Khotanese language. (Or rather languages, there were  two or maybe three distinct dialects, some say languages).

It should be borne in mind that the term Saka was attributed to Khotanese in the 20 century and never attested in any genuine Khotanese texts. They simply never knew this word. Consequently, this is a very late convenience of Iranists, not a historical fact.

Originally posted by Sarmat12


Kazakh clan, which I mentioned is very often referred as the direct evidence of Sakas influense on Kazakh in Kazakh history books. Moreover there is enough evidence of cultural continuity between ancient Sakas and modern Kazakhs. Genetic tests showed that Sakas and modern Kazakh in some areas have almost identical genetic pool.
 


Again, Saka clans - with more or less close phonetics - can be found in almost any Turkic nation, not only Kazakhs. I would rather call it a most common Turkic appelative found from Inner Mongolia (Fuyu Kyrgyz) to Moldova (Gagauz).

The simple conclusion would be that Sakas were Turkic. But we don't have any direct evidence to support that.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 17:22
Originally posted by groovy_merchant



Again, Saka clans - with more or less close phonetics - can be found in almost any Turkic nation, not only Kazakhs. I would rather call it a most common Turkic appelative found from Inner Mongolia (Fuyu Kyrgyz) to Moldova (Gagauz).

The simple conclusion would be that Sakas were Turkic. But we don't have any direct evidence to support that.
 
Yes, but the hypo about the origins of these Sakas clans from originally Irano-Sako-Skythians is also possible IMO.


-------------
ΣαυÏομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2007 at 05:15
Turks, Magyars and Huns:
 
There is crediable evedience that the Magyars are decendents of Huns. The Magyars were originally called Turks.
 
Quotes from the Byzantine Emporer Constantine Porphyrogentitus in the "de Administrando Imperio" a book written for his son on how to govern the empire:
 
"The Turks preferred that Aprad should be prince rather than Almoutzis (Almos) his father....." he goes on describing the nation of the Turks is now in what is Hungary. He continously calls the Magyars, Turks in all his writings. "The Turks... came to great Moravia, expelled the inhabitants and live there to this day" This was written in about 950 ad.
 
He also states that the these Turks (Magyars) used to be called "Sabartoi Asphalio" in older times.
 
In Jordanes History of the Goth's written about 550 ad, he states that:
 
"From this region the Huns, like a fruitful root of bravest races, sprouted into two hordes of people. Some of these are called Altziagiri, others Sabiri; and they have different dwelling places."
 
The question is are the Constatine VII, "Sabartoi Asphalio" the same as Jordanes "Sabiri & Altziagiri"
 


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2007 at 16:20
Originally posted by vibo

Turks, Magyars and Huns:
 
There is crediable evedience that the Magyars are decendents of Huns. The Magyars were originally called Turks.
 
Quotes from the Byzantine Emporer Constantine Porphyrogentitus in the "de Administrando Imperio" a book written for his son on how to govern the empire:
 
"The Turks preferred that Aprad should be prince rather than Almoutzis (Almos) his father....." he goes on describing the nation of the Turks is now in what is Hungary. He continously calls the Magyars, Turks in all his writings. "The Turks... came to great Moravia, expelled the inhabitants and live there to this day" This was written in about 950 ad.
 
He also states that the these Turks (Magyars) used to be called "Sabartoi Asphalio" in older times.
 
In Jordanes History of the Goth's written about 550 ad, he states that:
 
"From this region the Huns, like a fruitful root of bravest races, sprouted into two hordes of people. Some of these are called Altziagiri, others Sabiri; and they have different dwelling places."
 
The question is are the Constatine VII, "Sabartoi Asphalio" the same as Jordanes "Sabiri & Altziagiri"
 


While there is no doubt that the Magyar probably "looked like" the Huns, just as they "looked like" the Avars, Bulgars, and Onogurs, it does not automatically imply that they were their descendants.

The "White Huns" were another phenomenon by the mere fact that they were nomads from Central Asia, yet no evidence links them to the Huns that invaded Europe.
Many scholars, however, did give credit that probably all these groups had some connection, and might have been off-shoots of the Xiongnu, who were a confedaracy of tribes of several ethninities.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com