View Full Version : Hungarians =/= Slovaks.
I hear people keep repeating wrong stuff how Slovaks and Hungarians are genetically closest pops and almost identical.
Not alt all. Slovaks are notably more Slavic and north-eastern. Hungarians are lot more southern and also more German influenced.
from K36:
Distance to: Slovak
5.08383713 Czech
6.71965029 Polish
6.81083695 Ukrainian
6.90623631 Slovenian
8.42762125 Hungarian
9.33990899 Croatian
11.29375048 Bosnian
12.13241526 Belarusian
13.97904861 Russian
14.97101199 Serb
15.13057170 Austrian
15.49237554 German
17.14647777 Montenegrin
17.57236751 Erzya
18.30587884 Romanian
19.75912447 Latvian
20.26879621 Afrikaner
20.39465371 Bulgarian
20.71233449 Lithuanian
21.15345598 Danish
21.51252426 Moldovan
21.88988351 Norwegian
22.06642019 Flemish
22.06784992 Dutch
22.08432702 Swedish
Distance to: Hungarian
4.16114167 Slovenian
4.40271507 Croatian
6.51865017 Bosnian
7.90129103 Czech
8.42762125 Slovak
8.46597897 Serb
9.20322769 Austrian
10.01316633 Montenegrin
11.31362011 Romanian
12.50153991 German
12.73656547 Ukrainian
13.53080559 Bulgarian
13.86045815 Polish
14.68001022 Moldovan
16.21077728 Afrikaner
16.25195681 Swiss_German
17.34881264 North_Macedonian
17.39319695 Flemish
17.98810440 Walloon
18.91883982 Belarusian
19.54132800 French
19.97495932 Dutch
20.26947952 English
20.43022271 Russian
20.89570051 Danish
. Slovaks are notably more Slavic and north-eastern. Hungarians are lot more southern and also more German influenced.
That was my understanding as well.
How are Czechs and Hungarians in comparison?
That was my understanding as well.
How are Czechs and Hungarians in comparison?
Seems Czechs and lil bit closer to Hungarians than Slovaks are (because Czechs are more western and less Slav) :p But both are similar. Czechs and Slovaks are closest pops to each other.
Distance to: Hungarian_North
2.06995169 Croat_Northwest
2.61688746 Slovene
2.75896720 Croat_Central
2.94684577 Slovak
3.16096504 Hungarian_Alföld
3.22487209 Austrian_Carinthia
3.41253571 Hungarian_Transdanubia+Budapest
3.44132242 Croat_GorskiKotar
4.00027499 Czech
4.16373630 Lemko_Poland
4.86979466 Ukrainian_Carpathians
4.87201190 Croat_Kvarner
5.62699742 German_Lower_Silesia
5.79048357 Croat_Lika
5.81201342 Bosniak_Central
5.97601037 Bosniak_Northeast
5.99805802 Ukrainian_Galicia
6.06694322 Austrian_Styria
6.58800425 Croat_Slavonia
6.77332267 Croat_Istria
6.84258723 Croat_Bosnia
6.94519978 Bosniak_Krajina_East
7.13948878 Romanian_Moldavia_North
7.47293115 Romanian_Ukraine
7.52834643 Ukrainian_Moldova
Even Hungarians from the Northern part of the coutry seem to be closer NW Croats and Slovenes, but they are still closer to Slovaks than other Hungarian regions.
Hungarian_master
08-19-2022, 08:45 PM
Interesting, because the Slovaks lived in one country with the Hungarians for hundreds of years.
Before the dissulution of Czechoslovakia Slovakia never existed, just were part of the historical Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Why the Slovaks further to us? What is the main reason of that?
oszkar07
08-19-2022, 10:03 PM
It is interesting that in 23andme many Hungarians get Poland/Polish regions instead
of Slovenia/Croatia.
The G25 Hungarian result may suggest would be more likely Huns will get Slovenia/Croat in 23andMe but i see lot of Huns getting Poland and Hungary (me included).
Luke35
08-19-2022, 10:20 PM
It is interesting that in 23andme many Hungarians get Poland/Polish regions instead
of Slovenia/Croatia.
The G25 Hungarian result may suggest would be more likely Huns will get Slovenia/Croat in 23andMe but i see lot of Huns getting Poland and Hungary (me included).
I have almost twice as many Polish relative matches as Hungarian matches. It would be interesting to figure out what this phenomenon is?
Scandal
08-19-2022, 10:31 PM
Hungarians and Slovaks are very, very different folks. Even their farts smell different!
It is interesting that in 23andme many Hungarians get Poland/Polish regions instead
of Slovenia/Croatia.
The G25 Hungarian result may suggest would be more likely Huns will get Slovenia/Croat in 23andMe but i see lot of Huns getting Poland and Hungary (me included).
Not necessarily.
Being autosomaly close does not mean these people mixed. I don't know any Hungarian with Slovenian ancestry and it must be really rare.
On the other hand tons of Hungarians have Slovak ancestry.
Hungarians just share similar mix as Slovenes, but that's pretty much it. These two people didn't really interact in history except in fringe region of far eastern Slovenia (Prekmurje).
With Croats there was mixing, but similarity with northern Croats is older than that and comes from similar Pannonian Slav heritage.
Poland is interesting case. I do know Hungarians with some Polish ancestry irl though.
Alenka
08-19-2022, 10:51 PM
It is interesting that in 23andme many Hungarians get Poland/Polish regions instead
of Slovenia/Croatia.
The G25 Hungarian result may suggest would be more likely Huns will get Slovenia/Croat in 23andMe but i see lot of Huns getting Poland and Hungary (me included).
Those regions shouldn't be taken too literally from what I've seen...
I think it's not unusual for Slovenes and North Croats to also get regions in Poland, and even in Russia.
My father got Polish regions, and my mother got Polish and Russian regions.
Despite not having any known ancestry from either.
Most Hungarians are likely a similar case.
oszkar07
08-20-2022, 01:48 AM
Those regions shouldn't be taken too literally from what I've seen...
I think it's not unusual for Slovenes and North Croats to also get regions in Poland, and even in Russia.
My father got Polish regions, and my mother got Polish and Russian regions.
Despite not having any known ancestry from either.
Most Hungarians are likely a similar case.
Maybe,
I seem to get more Slovak,Czech,Polish matches than South Slavic matches.
Not necessarily.
Being autosomaly close does not mean these people mixed. I don't know any Hungarian with Slovenian ancestry and it must be really rare.
On the other hand tons of Hungarians have Slovak ancestry.
Hungarians just share similar mix as Slovenes, but that's pretty much it.
This may explain it.
Alenka
08-20-2022, 03:48 AM
Maybe,
I seem to get more Slovak,Czech,Polish matches than South Slavic matches.
Keep in mind your matches from Slovakia could actually have Hungarian ancestry. Not necessarily the other way around. Because it is Slovakia that has a significant Hungarian minority. On the other hand, Hungary has a rather small Slovak minority, in comparison.
Czech and Polish matches are harder to explain. I'm not aware of any significant historical presence of either community in Hungary. Nor of Hungarians in Czechia or Poland... But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe 23andMe still has some fine-tuning to do when it comes to assigning regions.
:shrug:
Scandal
08-20-2022, 06:35 AM
On the other hand, Hungary has a rather small Slovak minority, in comparison.
It's small today, but in the past it wasn't. Nowadays lots of Slovaks are assimilated/hungarianized or mixed into the general hungarian population. In 1785, Slovaks made up 5% of Hungary's population (population of modern, "small Hungary", not greater Hungary). Today they are not even 0.5%.
Hungarians from Slovakia and Hungarians from Northeast Hungary (Hungarian_North on vahaduo) are half Hungarian half Slovak genetically:
Target: Hungarian_North
Distance: 134.3150% / 1.34315015
52.0 Slovak
48.0 Hungarian
It's because many slovaks/Slavs in that area were assimilated. People from Alföld can be highly Slavic too sometimes.
Florin Radu
08-20-2022, 06:39 AM
Slovaks are the Slavic Romanians. Similar shepherd mountain culture but they much more Slavic admixture.
Keep in mind your matches from Slovakia could actually have Hungarian ancestry. Not necessarily the other way around. Because it is Slovakia that has a significant Hungarian minority. On the other hand, Hungary has a rather small Slovak minority, in comparison.
Czech and Polish matches are harder to explain. I'm not aware of any significant historical presence of either community in Hungary. Nor of Hungarians in Czechia or Poland... But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe 23andMe still has some fine-tuning to do when it comes to assigning regions.
:shrug:
Most Hungarians get Podkarpackie as a likely match with some other random Polish regions. I never really understood why.
Probably yes, 23andme has some fine tuning do. They could perhaps give me just ONE region. Or maybe two. But they dont :confused:
Ive seen results with 50+ regions just in EE category, and some without a single region. Weird.
Alenka
08-20-2022, 07:05 AM
It's small today, but in the past it wasn't. Nowadays lots of Slovaks are assimilated/hungarianized or mixed into the general hungarian population. In 1785, Slovaks made up 5% of Hungary's population (population of modern, "small Hungary", not greater Hungary). Today they are not even 0.5%.
Hungarians from Slovakia and Hungarians from Northeast Hungary (Hungarian_North on vahaduo) are half Hungarian half Slovak genetically:
Target: Hungarian_North
Distance: 134.3150% / 1.34315015
52.0 Slovak
48.0 Hungarian
It's because many slovaks/Slavs in that area were assimilated. People from Alföld can be highly Slavic too sometimes.
I see. In that case the Slovak regions could well be legit in the case of Hungarians.
But it still doesn't quite explain getting the Czech and Polish regions.
They still should improve they methods IMO.
By the way, intriguing thought I had because Hungarians are nowadays autosomally closest to North Croats and Slovenes, and these both don't have any recent Slovak input on a collective level. As the Hungarian ethnos absorbed many Slovaks in the past couple centuries, does this imply Hungarians of the past used to be more south and west shifted compared to North Croats and Slovenes? Slovaks are quite more north and east shifted, so can we extrapolate that Slovak input pulled Hungarians to where they currently are from a somewhat more south and west direction?
Keep in mind your matches from Slovakia could actually have Hungarian ancestry. Not necessarily the other way around. Because it is Slovakia that has a significant Hungarian minority. On the other hand, Hungary has a rather small Slovak minority, in comparison.
Czech and Polish matches are harder to explain. I'm not aware of any significant historical presence of either community in Hungary. Nor of Hungarians in Czechia or Poland... But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe 23andMe still has some fine-tuning to do when it comes to assigning regions.
:shrug:
I can't speak for whole of Hungary, but Polish/Czech family names are not that rare to find in Budapest among ethnic Hungarians. In building where Stears lives for eg., I remember Hungarian who had typical Czech like surname (Franek). But I have to admit this may have actually been Slovak surname tho. Sometimes they are very hard to separate for foreigner.
Polish as well, yeah. Those are easier to identify. Even Stears original surname which is Latin derived peaks in Poland by far and may have come from Poland as well.
My friend who's from Budapest has some recent Polish immigrant ancestry (from early 20th century). Etc.
Scandal
08-20-2022, 07:55 AM
I can't speak for whole of Hungary, but Polish/Czech family names are not that rare to find in Budapest among ethnic Hungarians. In building where Stears lives for eg., I remember Hungarian who had typical Czech like surname (Franek). But I have to admit this may have actually been Slovak surname tho. Sometimes they are very hard to separate for foreigner.
Polish as well, yeah. Those are easier to identify. Even Stears original surname which is Latin derived peaks in Poland by far and may have come from Poland as well.
My friend who's from Budapest has some recent Polish immigrant ancestry (from early 20th century). Etc.
Franek is most common in Slovakia, but it exists in Czechia and Poland too.
As the Hungarian ethnos absorbed many Slovaks in the past couple centuries, does this imply Hungarians of the past used to be more south and west shifted compared to North Croats and Slovenes?
That's really interesting idea. Idk if you noticed but many Hungarians get quite exotic southern Euro trace ancestry on 23andme even.
Kiel and Benji get Cypriot. I saw more than one Hungarian getting trace level Iberian (Spanish/Portuguese/Basque) ancestry.
Never saw Slovenes and Croats getting that. Not saying it doesn't exist but it's rare and for some reason not too strange among Hungarians.
Maybe it has to do with Hungary being centre of Carpathian Basin and attracting people from all over Europe since ancient times to recent history?
Slovenia and (most of ) Croatia are more peripheral so maybe they were less impacted by that.
Hungary also had some odd specifics like Romance speaking Kesethely culture near Balaton Lake surviving deep into medieval.
Don't know for any similar case in central Europe.
Franek is most common in Slovakia, but it exists in Czechia and Poland too.
Thanks, so I guess it's more likely Slovak. :p
That's really interesting idea. Idk if you noticed but many Hungarians get quite exotic southern Euro trace ancestry on 23andme even.
Kiel and Benji get Cypriot. I saw more than one Hungarian getting trace level Iberian (Spanish/Portuguese/Basque) ancestry.
Never saw Slovenes and Croats getting that. Not saying it doesn't exist but it's rare and for some reason not too strange among Hungarians.
Maybe it has to do with Hungary being centre of Carpathian Basin and attracting people from all over Europe since ancient times to recent history?
Slovenia and (most of ) Croatia are more peripheral so maybe they were less impacted by that.
Hungary also had some odd specifics like Romance speaking Kesethely culture near Balaton Lake surviving deep into medieval.
Don't know for any similar case in central Europe.
I have no clue where I got that Cypriot from. It went down from 1.0% to 0.9% with this new update but its still there.
I see. In that case the Slovak regions could well be legit in the case of Hungarians.
But it still doesn't quite explain getting the Czech and Polish regions.
They still should improve they methods IMO.
By the way, intriguing thought I had because Hungarians are nowadays autosomally closest to North Croats and Slovenes, and these both don't have any recent Slovak input on a collective level. As the Hungarian ethnos absorbed many Slovaks in the past couple centuries, does this imply Hungarians of the past used to be more south and west shifted compared to North Croats and Slovenes? Slovaks are quite more north and east shifted, so can we extrapolate that Slovak input pulled Hungarians to where they currently are from a somewhat more south and west direction?
I dont think that 5% Slovak input is enough to do that.
Interesting, because the Slovaks lived in one country with the Hungarians for hundreds of years.
Before the dissulution of Czechoslovakia Slovakia never existed, just were part of the historical Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Why the Slovaks further to us? What is the main reason of that?
They are more purely Slavic and lack similar amount of southern Euro type of ancestry Hungarians have.
Hungarians are more complex mix than Slovaks are. There's Slavic, there's Med/Balkan, there is German and than there is trace level Eurasian as well often.
Slovaks are also not pure Slav, they have Celto-Germanic and Med input too, but less than Hungarians.
I have no clue where I got that Cypriot from. It went down from 1.0% to 0.9% with this new update but its still there.
Yeah, that's really interesting :D
No idea. But for some reason it is not even rare to score for Hungarians. Who knows, maybe Universe would score it too had he tested with 23andme.
He often gets modeled as highly Slavic + Cypriot like, Pajkosbalna too :p
It seems Med in Hungarians is more exotic than Med in Slovenes/Croats. Maybe because it is less of native Balkan type and more of Imperial Roman and other immigrant origin.
Stears southern Euro side is also rather exotic, lot more than mine. He often gets modeled as part Anatolian/Caucasian/Near Eastern in Vahaduo.
Blondie
08-23-2022, 04:06 AM
It's small today, but in the past it wasn't. Nowadays lots of Slovaks are assimilated/hungarianized or mixed into the general hungarian population. In 1785, Slovaks made up 5% of Hungary's population (population of modern, "small Hungary", not greater Hungary). Today they are not even 0.5%.
Hungarians from Slovakia and Hungarians from Northeast Hungary (Hungarian_North on vahaduo) are half Hungarian half Slovak genetically:
Target: Hungarian_North
Distance: 134.3150% / 1.34315015
52.0 Slovak
48.0 Hungarian
It's because many slovaks/Slavs in that area were assimilated. People from Alföld can be highly Slavic too sometimes.
Such areas like present day south Slovakia was always majority hungarian, they are not magyarized slovaks. In fact the magyarization was completely failed among slovaks, romanians. The magyarization policy existed only in the universities and government departments where the hungarian language was mandatory for the minorities, but nobody forced them to speak hungarian in everyday life. They have learned hungarian language in the elementary school as foreign language just like today you learn english but thats all. Among the slovak intellectuals (priesthood) the slovak national identity was significant, just look the old slovak national leaders like Jozef Tiso (although he has hungarian origin) and Andrej Hlinka were all priests. The magyarization existed among some urbanized slovaks but didnt affect the big slovak ethnic areas. The ethnic growing of hungarians cannot be explained by only assimilation/magyarization.
In the dualism the quality of life was steadily increased, and its affected mostly the richer central parts and cities where hungarians lived. It had a major impact on hungarian birthrate. Between 1870-1914, hungarians had the highest birth rate in the Carpathian Basin by far. An average hungarian family had 6-7 or even 8-9 child:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/cb/35/d9cb359708ad6e3499504a44c061f90a.jpg
The Alföld and Transdanubia became overpopulated by hungarians, other areas like Transylvania and Slovakia were still sparsely populated. This ethnic map is based on population density:
https://www.ogyk.hu/uploads/ogyk/tartalom/mo-neprajzi-terkepe-hu.jpg
This very different population density between areas caused an internal migration in the Hungarian Kingdom, tons of hungarian family migrated to Slovakia and Transylvania to live, and tons of serb, slovak, romanian migrated to abroad mostly to United States, Romania, Serbia. The number of immigrants were 2,5 million people, vast majority of them were non hungarian. In 1914, Transylvania was only 53% romanian, Slovakia was only 49% slovak, Vojvodina was only 26% serbian:
https://media.szekelyhon.ro/pictures/infografikak/b_infografika-2019-12-12-trianon-01.jpg
The growth of hungarian population in dualism had not much to do with assimilation, these were natural demographic processes like emigration and birthrate.
oszkar07
08-24-2022, 10:23 AM
It's small today, but in the past it wasn't.
Im sorry to hear that, try using this ,
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/gJEAAOSw1tdhsc-W/s-l1600.jpg
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 12:15 PM
Such areas like present day south Slovakia was always majority hungarian, they are not magyarized slovaks. In fact the magyarization was completely failed among slovaks, romanians. The magyarization policy existed only in the universities and government departments where the hungarian language was mandatory for the minorities, but nobody forced them to speak hungarian in everyday life. They have learned hungarian language in the elementary school as foreign language just like today you learn english but thats all. Among the slovak intellectuals (priesthood) the slovak national identity was significant, just look the old slovak national leaders like Jozef Tiso (although he has hungarian origin) and Andrej Hlinka were all priests. The magyarization existed among some urbanized slovaks but didnt affect the big slovak ethnic areas. The ethnic growing of hungarians cannot be explained by only assimilation/magyarization.
In the dualism the quality of life was steadily increased, and its affected mostly the richer central parts and cities where hungarians lived. It had a major impact on hungarian birthrate. Between 1870-1914, hungarians had the highest birth rate in the Carpathian Basin by far. An average hungarian family had 6-7 or even 8-9 child:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/cb/35/d9cb359708ad6e3499504a44c061f90a.jpg
The Alföld and Transdanubia became overpopulated by hungarians, other areas like Transylvania and Slovakia were still sparsely populated. This ethnic map is based on population density:
https://www.ogyk.hu/uploads/ogyk/tartalom/mo-neprajzi-terkepe-hu.jpg
This very different population density between areas caused an internal migration in the Hungarian Kingdom, tons of hungarian family migrated to Slovakia and Transylvania to live, and tons of serb, slovak, romanian migrated to abroad mostly to United States, Romania, Serbia. The number of immigrants were 2,5 million people, vast majority of them were non hungarian. In 1914, Transylvania was only 53% romanian, Slovakia was only 49% slovak, Vojvodina was only 26% serbian:
https://media.szekelyhon.ro/pictures/infografikak/b_infografika-2019-12-12-trianon-01.jpg
The growth of hungarian population in dualism had not much to do with assimilation, these were natural demographic processes like emigration and birthrate.
Look slavic people in general were the dominate ethnic group in the entire Pannonian basin when Hungarians arrived. The process of Magyarization wasnt just after the 1800s in the Kingdom of Hungary, it started from the beginning. You dont think there was an influx of hungarian into the modern area of slovakia when the Turks conqurered Hungary? Most mixing between slovaks and Hungarians over the centuries did take place in modern day southern slovakia and this is why hungarians from slovakia are half way between mainland hungarians and slovaks. Slovaks who did not live in modern day southern slovak regions lived a very separate life from everyday hungarians and were in villages with an almost 100% slovak majority. My Fathers family tree doesnt have one hunagarian surnmae in it and despite being able to discover quite an extensive family tree on my mothers slovak side with at least 30+ surnames only one is hungarian in origin and who knows if that person even had a legitimate hungarian ancestor or if the name was just given to them by some hungarian administrator.
Even many slovaks think of Hungarians as genetically identical to them, but there is an obvious difference. In many ways I fit better in in hungary as a slav+western mix. Hungarians are noticeably more balkan and germanic in looks than slovaks from what ive seen (on average, obviously there are many hungarians who look very slavic). Pannonian basin was always more ethnically varied than modern day slovakia which a mix of lowland west slavs and highland west slavs and thats its. In my opinion slovakia was settled in 2 ways by the original slavs. One being the initial west slavic stock that populated slovakia, czechia, and Poland and the second by a later wave from the ukraine. This is why R1a-L260 peaks in western slovakia (original west slavic/great moravian ancestry) and is more evenly distributed in eastern and central slovakia where more eastern R1a types are more common (cant remember which study I read this in, but it was somewhere). These slavs originally mixed with the more ancient germanic/celtic peoples and even though there isnt any study done on it Great moravian slavs probably approximated slovaks and czechs genetically to this day. Balkan element in slovakia was probably brought with second ukrainian wave of slavs from western ukraine and was enhanced just a bit by vlachs. Hungarian ethnogenesis is more diverse but has left them at an admixture level close to slovenians, and croatians. Nothing suprising here as geographically there are zero barriers as far as mountains etc between these people, where as slovakia is already far more mountainous, even in western slovakia where hungarian majority ends and slovak majority beginns there are the male karpaty and tribec mountains. Slovaks even in lowlands have some vague connection to the mountains and there has always been genetic mixing between slovaks from lowlands and those from mountains.
Blondie
08-24-2022, 01:10 PM
Look slavic people in general were the dominate ethnic group in the entire Pannonian basin when Hungarians arrived. The process of Magyarization wasnt just after the 1800s in the Kingdom of Hungary, it started from the beginning. You dont think there was an influx of hungarian into the modern area of slovakia when the Turks conqurered Hungary? Most mixing between slovaks and Hungarians over the centuries did take place in modern day southern slovakia and this is why hungarians from slovakia are half way between mainland hungarians and slovaks. Slovaks who did not live in modern day southern slovak regions lived a very separate life from everyday hungarians and were in villages with an almost 100% slovak majority. My Fathers family tree doesnt have one hunagarian surnmae in it and despite being able to discover quite an extensive family tree on my mothers slovak side with at least 30+ surnames only one is hungarian in origin and who knows if that person even had a legitimate hungarian ancestor or if the name was just given to them by some hungarian administrator.
1. According to medieval sources the "hungarus" ethnicity was the dominant ethnic group in the Carpathian Basin when the nomad magyars have arrived in the 9. century. Anonymus, medieval cronicler described the ethnic map of Carpathian Basin very clearly, according to him slavs lived in present day Slovakia, Transdanubia and Slavonia.
2. Nomad magyars and hungarians are not same. The first goup was a turkic speaker nomad elite from Central Asia, the second group is an european population with uralic language. They are different by culturally, racially, genetically. Anonymus said the local hungarus peoples used hungarian topography, but if its not enough, romans also wrote some hungarian word in the Carpathian Basin in 4. century:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fe70bca465051d86e0977855fd383982-pjlq
The hungarian ethnicity called "common folk" was already here in the Carpathian Basin before nomad magyars, thats fact.
3. Magyarization didnt exist before the 19. century because the national identity, language was totally irellevant in the medieval age. The idetity was determined by classes (peasant, noble), religion and feudal lords. Only political nations existed and it was the nobility, the hungarian peasants were not part of hungarian nation before the 19. century. The medieval ""magyarization"" meant that if a slovak peasant deserved the respect of the King (for example heroism in a battle) that the King gived him noble title and he became part of hungarian political nation. These were very rare cases and didnt not effect the ethnic numbers of slovaks and hungarians.
4. Slovak cities had hungarian majority population in general, and slovaks lived in countryside in the villages. Hungarian rural population existed only in South Slovakia.
In 1910:
Pozsony/Bratislava: 40% hungarian, 15% slovak
Kassa/Kosice: 75% hungarian, 15% slovak
Eperjes/Presov: 47% hungarian, 40% slovak
Zsolna/Zilina: 25% hungarian, 54% slovak
Besztercebánya/Banská Bystrica: 50% hungarian, 45% slovak
Nyitra/Nitra: 59% hungarian, 30% slovak
Nagyszombat/Trnava: 53% slovak, 31% hungarian
5. Dont forget my thread what i created some months ago, when i posted slovaks as hungarians and hungarians as slovaks, and nobody recognized the difference. If you see 20 people in the street you will not know that this group is slovak or hungarian until they start to speak. This is my point and genetic does not necessarily determine the looking.
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 02:04 PM
1. According to medieval sources the "hungarus" ethnicity was the dominant ethnic group in the Carpathian Basin when the nomad magyars have arrived in the 9. century. Anonymus, medieval cronicler described the ethnic map of Carpathian Basin very clearly, according to him slavs lived in present day Slovakia, Transdanubia and Slavonia.
2. Nomad magyars and hungarians are not same. The first goup was a turkic speaker nomad elite from Central Asia, the second group is an european population with uralic language. They are different by culturally, racially, genetically. Anonymus said the local hungarus peoples used hungarian topography, but if its not enough, romans also wrote some hungarian word in the Carpathian Basin in 4. century:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fe70bca465051d86e0977855fd383982-pjlq
The hungarian ethnicity called "common folk" was already here in the Carpathian Basin before nomad magyars, thats fact.
3. Magyarization didnt exist before the 19. century because the national identity, language was totally irellevant in the medieval age. The idetity was determined by classes (peasant, noble), religion and feudal lords. Only political nations existed and it was the nobility, the hungarian peasants were not part of hungarian nation before the 19. century. The medieval ""magyarization"" meant that if a slovak peasant deserved the respect of the King (for example heroism in a battle) that the King gived him noble title and he became part of hungarian political nation. These were very rare cases and didnt not effect the ethnic numbers of slovaks and hungarians.
4. Slovak cities had hungarian majority population in general, and slovaks lived in countryside in the villages. Hungarian rural population existed only in South Slovakia.
In 1910:
Pozsony/Bratislava: 40% hungarian, 15% slovak
Kassa/Kosice: 75% hungarian, 15% slovak
Eperjes/Presov: 47% hungarian, 40% slovak
Zsolna/Zilina: 25% hungarian, 54% slovak
Besztercebánya/Banská Bystrica: 50% hungarian, 45% slovak
Nyitra/Nitra: 59% hungarian, 30% slovak
Nagyszombat/Trnava: 53% slovak, 31% hungarian
5. Dont forget my thread what i created some months ago, when i posted slovaks as hungarians and hungarians as slovaks, and nobody recognized the difference. If you see 20 people in the street you will not know that this group is slovak or hungarian until they start to speak. This is my point and genetic does not necessarily determine the looking.
modern hungarians are Maygars and speak Magyar, any evidence of a "hungarian folk" that you are trying to prove is pure nonsense as even the document you sourced is from the fourth century before slavs had entered the area, by the time Maygars even came around Pannonia was heavily slavic. All evidence is in support of this, even hungarian geneticists admited this in their study on the ancient maygar conquerors. Slavic languages to this day echo the pre maygar dialect continuums that existed in Pannonia before the Maygars came. Im not even against hungarians in general and have nothing against their nation, but claims like this are just nuts.
also Im not speaking about a forced maygarization, up until the 1800s it was a natural phenomenon as Hungary had the dominate culture in the area. No one is denying hungarians were present in cities in slovakia, but villages outside of southern slovakia were almost exclusively slovak, this is my point.
Blondie
08-24-2022, 02:20 PM
modern hungarians are Maygars and speak Magyar, any evidence of a "hungarian folk" that you are trying to prove is pure nonsense as even the document you sourced is from the fourth century before slavs had entered the area, by the time Maygars even came around Pannonia was heavily slavic. All evidence is in support of this, even hungarian geneticists admited this in their study on the ancient maygar conquerors. Slavic languages to this day echo the pre maygar dialect continuums that existed in Pannonia before the Maygars came. Im not even against hungarians in general and have nothing against their nation, but claims like this are just nuts.
Presence of hungarian speakers before 9. century is not nonsense, but proved by several medieval sources, like it or not. The topography of complete Carpathian Basin is also mostly hungarian, not slavic.
Dont quote hungarian scientists pls, because they take difference between nomad magyars and common folk. The problem is you think they are same which is nonsense.
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 02:31 PM
Presence of hungarian speakers before 9. century is not nonsense, but proved by several medieval sources, like it or not. The topography of complete Carpathian Basin is also mostly hungarian, not slavic.
Dont quote hungarian scientists pls, because they take difference between nomad magyars and common folk. The problem is you think they are same which is nonsense.
lol you think that the modern hungarian language didnt come from the Maygars in the 9th century even though the language is literally called "Maygar"? This is such ludicrous nonsense. Medieval sources are speaking about the huns in Pannonia who were not the ancestors of modern hungarian, neither genetically nor linguistically. This is nuts.
Blondie
08-24-2022, 02:48 PM
lol you think that the modern hungarian language didnt come from the Maygars in the 9th century even though the language is literally called "Maygar"? This is such ludicrous nonsense. Medieval sources are speaking about the huns in Pannonia who were not the ancestors of modern hungarian, neither genetically nor linguistically. This is nuts.
Greek sources descibed the nomad magyars as turkic speakers, they had turkic names, culture, genetic and everything. The nomad elite and common folk merged into same (this mix is the hungarian ethnicity today), and the common folk identified themselves to magyar state, thats why they call themselves magyar just like their language. Why nonsense? Same happened in Bulgaria, the original bulgarian language was not even slavic, today its slavic.
Nomad magyars and huns had same genetic too:
According to our data half of the conqueror population had Xiongnu origin, corroborating the statement of medieval Hungarian chronicles, which all declare
Hunnic origin of the Hungarians.
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/3794/2/Neparaczki_Thesis_english.pdf
Medieval sources describe hungarian words in Carpathian Basin used by locals, didnt you see the roman source? The Gesta Hungarorum is talking about hungarian speaker "hungarus" ethnicity too. Hungarian history of Carpathian Basin has started in 4. century. These are all facts.
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 03:08 PM
Greek sources descibed the nomad magyars as turkic speakers, they had turkic names, culture, genetic and everything. The nomad elite and common folk merged into same (this mix is the hungarian ethnicity today), and the common folk identified themselves to magyar state, thats why they call themselves magyar just like their language. Why nonsense? Same happened in Bulgaria, the original bulgarian language was not even slavic, today its slavic.
Nomad magyars and huns had same genetic too:
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/3794/2/Neparaczki_Thesis_english.pdf
Medieval sources describe hungarian words in Carpathian Basin used by locals, didnt you see the roman source? The Gesta Hungarorum is talking about hungarian speaker "hungarus" ethnicity too. Hungarian history of Carpathian Basin has started in 4. century. These are all facts.
"Nomad Maygars and Huns had the same genetic too" yet you claimed Maygar genetic was distinctly "Turkic." This would also only further prove my point because according to Hungarian geneticists own studies the local population had slavic/central european genetics compared to the hungarian conquers, which in your case means also different from the supposed Hunnic ancestors speaking Maygar.
The Normans conquered England and had the elites speaking french for 300 years in England while the peasants spoke a germanic language, but some how Saint King Stephan was already speaking the local language and completely lost his original turkic language magically in such a short period of time.
This is such nonsense, who cares whos ancestors were in central europe first, I would have zero problem if Hungarians were there first but they werent its just a fact you dont have to create weird stories to connect yourself to another hated people in europe just so you can feel like you were there first. There are tons of slavic topomyns in the carpathian basin, even your beloved Budapest is most likely of slavic origin. Why does modern hungarian also have almost all of its slavic loan words in areas of speech about agriculture, food, landscapes etc. Its very clear they assimilated the local slavic population.
Blondie
08-24-2022, 04:06 PM
"Nomad Maygars and Huns had the same genetic too" yet you claimed Maygar genetic was distinctly "Turkic." This would also only further prove my point because according to Hungarian geneticists own studies the local population had slavic/central european genetics compared to the hungarian conquers, which in your case means also different from the supposed Hunnic ancestory speaking Maygar.
The Normans conquered England and had the elites speaking french for 300 years in England while the peasants spoke a germanic language, but some how Saint King Stephan was already speaking the local language and completely lost his original turkic language magically in such a short period of time.
This is such nonsense, who cares whos ancestors were in central europe first, I would have zero problem if Hungarians were there first but they werent its just a fact you dont have to create weird stories to connect yourself to another hated people in europe just so you can feel like you were there first. There are tons of slavic topomyns in the carpathian basin, even your beloved Budapest is most likely of slavic origin. Why does modern hungarian also have almost all of its slavic loan words in areas of speech about agriculture, food, landscapes etc. Its very clear they assimilated the local slavic population.
You know the difference between you and me is i posted many sources about it, you just repeat yourself "nonsense, nonsense, nonense". It makes no sense...
I dont care who where here earlier, for example i admit that romanians were earlier in Transylvania (because of their roman ancestors) so what? I dont care the nationalist narrative (like your views) i do care only the historical facts.
Nowadays its a scientific fact that nomad magyars were descedants of huns. I posted genetic source about it. This is the genetic origin map of nomad magyars, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
https://m.blog.hu/ni/nimrodnepe/image/.external/.thumbs/cdc6d454d18cc06a4de8168b8df3193c_d49afe6e3b4eb7cad fe308837303ec67.jpg
You can find the hun-magyar continuity in the oldest hungarian origin myths too (Miraculous hind, Hunor, Magor), hungarians have more hunnic given name than any other nation, and not only old hungarians claimed this ancestry but western europeans also described the hun-magyar continuity. Székelys have the highest % hunnic paternal marker in Europe:
On the other hand, 3.1% of Székelys from Transylvania (who have claimed to be descendants of Attila’s Huns) turned out to be P* (xR1-M173),[116] which virtually means Q-M242. In a related DNA Project of FT-DNA, the frequency of Q-M25 in Székelys (Szeklers) reaches 4.3%.[117][118]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Central-_and_Eastern_Europe
But i already posted roman source about hungarian words what exist in Carpathian Basin at this time.
Its funny that you still deny this hun ancestry because of nationalist "we will be here earlier" reasons. This is not how the science works. Like it or not, nomad magyars were descedants of huns, and their history in Carpathian Basin has started in 4. century, before slavs.
I said many times, and it seems you still dont understand that the turkic speaker magyar nomads and the uralic speaker common folk were not same. They had different language, culture, genetic. This both ethnic group merged into same (around 9-10. century), because the common folk identified themselves to elite and the magyar state, and the common folk was named after magyars. I already said the bulgarian example where the local slavs were named after non slavic bulgars. Its not nonsense but its happened in other countries too. Btw this elite vs common folk difference still existed even in the 18. century among hungarians. I am sure you have never read István Werbőczy's trial book about it. It says only the noble class has right to belong the hungarian nation because they as elite are real descedants of original conquerors, and other hungarians (commoners) were discriminated and were not considered hungarian. This view was changed by Lajos Kossuth in the 19. century who said the elite and commoners are all belong to hungarian nation and this view is the hungarian identity today.
I have never said that modern hungarians are huns, indeed they are central european, but the modern hungarians are descedants of commoners and nomad elite, so present day hungarians are connected to huns in historical way for example identity and very old lineage from the conqueror side.
Budapest has no slavic origin, Buda was the given name of Attile's brother:
According to a legend recorded in chronicles from the Middle Ages, the name "Buda" comes from the name of Bleda (Hungarian: Buda), brother of Hunnic ruler Attila.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda
The original Budapest was always Buda, because it was the royal castle, centre of kingdom, government and everything, Pest was different settlement in the most history.
I dont deny that there are tons of slavic topography in the Carpathian Basin, but most topography is still hungarian.
About agriculture, foods etc... such hungarian words has mostly uralic, old-turkic and iranic origin and just partly slavic:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_sz%C3%B3kincs#Finnugor_eredet%C5%B1_szavak_ a_magyar_nyelvben
Use google translate because i have no time to translate everything.
Benyzero
08-24-2022, 05:28 PM
You know the difference between you and me is i posted many sources about it, you just repeat yourself "nonsense, nonsense, nonense". It makes no sense...
I dont care who where here earlier, for example i admit that romanians were earlier in Transylvania (because of their roman ancestors) so what? I dont care the nationalist narrative (like your views) i do care only the historical facts.
Nowadays its a scientific fact that nomad magyars were descedants of huns. I posted genetic source about it. This is the genetic origin map of nomad magyars, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
https://m.blog.hu/ni/nimrodnepe/image/.external/.thumbs/cdc6d454d18cc06a4de8168b8df3193c_d49afe6e3b4eb7cad fe308837303ec67.jpg
You can find the hun-magyar continuity in the oldest hungarian origin myths too (Miraculous hind, Hunor, Magor), hungarians have more hunnic given name than any other nation, and not only old hungarians claimed this ancestry but western europeans also described the hun-magyar continuity. Székelys have the highest % hunnic paternal marker in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Central-_and_Eastern_Europe
But i already posted roman source about hungarian words what exist in Carpathian Basin at this time.
Its funny that you still deny this hun ancestry because of nationalist "we will be here earlier" reasons. This is not how the science works. Like it or not, nomad magyars were descedants of huns, and their history in Carpathian Basin has started in 4. century, before slavs.
I said many times, and it seems you still dont understand that the turkic speaker magyar nomads and the uralic speaker common folk were not same. They had different language, culture, genetic. This both ethnic group merged into same (around 9-10. century), because the common folk identified themselves to elite and the magyar state, and the common folk was named after magyars. I already said the bulgarian example where the local slavs were named after non slavic bulgars. Its not nonsense but its happened in other countries too. Btw this elite vs common folk difference still existed even in the 18. century among hungarians. I am sure you have never read István Werbőczy's trial book about it. It says only the noble class has right to belong the hungarian nation because they as elite are real descedants of original conquerors, and other hungarians (commoners) were discriminated and were not considered hungarian. This view was changed by Lajos Kossuth in the 19. century who said the elite and commoners are all belong to hungarian nation and this view is the hungarian identity today.
I have never said that modern hungarians are huns, indeed they are central european, but the modern hungarians are descedants of commoners and nomad elite, so present day hungarians are connected to huns in historical way for example identity and very old lineage from the conqueror side.
Budapest has no slavic origin, Buda was the given name of Attile's brother:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda
The original Budapest was always Buda, because it was the royal castle, centre of kingdom, government and everything, Pest was different settlement in the most history.
I dont deny that there are tons of slavic topography in the Carpathian Basin, but most topography is still hungarian.
About agriculture, foods etc... such hungarian words has mostly uralic, old-turkic and iranic origin and just partly slavic:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_sz%C3%B3kincs#Finnugor_eredet%C5%B1_szavak_ a_magyar_nyelvben
Use google translate because i have no time to translate everything.
He just immediately throws shit when he hears hungarian, or as he says maygar
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 08:04 PM
You know the difference between you and me is i posted many sources about it, you just repeat yourself "nonsense, nonsense, nonense". It makes no sense...
I dont care who where here earlier, for example i admit that romanians were earlier in Transylvania (because of their roman ancestors) so what? I dont care the nationalist narrative (like your views) i do care only the historical facts.
Nowadays its a scientific fact that nomad magyars were descedants of huns. I posted genetic source about it. This is the genetic origin map of nomad magyars, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
https://m.blog.hu/ni/nimrodnepe/image/.external/.thumbs/cdc6d454d18cc06a4de8168b8df3193c_d49afe6e3b4eb7cad fe308837303ec67.jpg
You can find the hun-magyar continuity in the oldest hungarian origin myths too (Miraculous hind, Hunor, Magor), hungarians have more hunnic given name than any other nation, and not only old hungarians claimed this ancestry but western europeans also described the hun-magyar continuity. Székelys have the highest % hunnic paternal marker in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Central-_and_Eastern_Europe
But i already posted roman source about hungarian words what exist in Carpathian Basin at this time.
Its funny that you still deny this hun ancestry because of nationalist "we will be here earlier" reasons. This is not how the science works. Like it or not, nomad magyars were descedants of huns, and their history in Carpathian Basin has started in 4. century, before slavs.
I said many times, and it seems you still dont understand that the turkic speaker magyar nomads and the uralic speaker common folk were not same. They had different language, culture, genetic. This both ethnic group merged into same (around 9-10. century), because the common folk identified themselves to elite and the magyar state, and the common folk was named after magyars. I already said the bulgarian example where the local slavs were named after non slavic bulgars. Its not nonsense but its happened in other countries too. Btw this elite vs common folk difference still existed even in the 18. century among hungarians. I am sure you have never read István Werbőczy's trial book about it. It says only the noble class has right to belong the hungarian nation because they as elite are real descedants of original conquerors, and other hungarians (commoners) were discriminated and were not considered hungarian. This view was changed by Lajos Kossuth in the 19. century who said the elite and commoners are all belong to hungarian nation and this view is the hungarian identity today.
I have never said that modern hungarians are huns, indeed they are central european, but the modern hungarians are descedants of commoners and nomad elite, so present day hungarians are connected to huns in historical way for example identity and very old lineage from the conqueror side.
Budapest has no slavic origin, Buda was the given name of Attile's brother:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda
The original Budapest was always Buda, because it was the royal castle, centre of kingdom, government and everything, Pest was different settlement in the most history.
I dont deny that there are tons of slavic topography in the Carpathian Basin, but most topography is still hungarian.
About agriculture, foods etc... such hungarian words has mostly uralic, old-turkic and iranic origin and just partly slavic:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_sz%C3%B3kincs#Finnugor_eredet%C5%B1_szavak_ a_magyar_nyelvben
Use google translate because i have no time to translate everything.
no your sources are not proving the assumptions that you are claiming. It very well may be that the Huns and later Magyars were related peoples and had a lot of cultural and genetic exchange. We all know the Huns were in Pannonia in the 4th cenutry, thats all your source proves, and if they left over some linguistic toponyms in the area this is totally plausible, this doesnt change the fact that they had already disappeared for hundreds of years before the actual founding fathers of modern day Hungary came. Pannonia was ruled by Great Moravia which was a slavic state, the fact that both Huns and Magyars had similar DNA proves my point even further that the majority of people in that area were slavic and or other native central european tribes, this is why those conqueror graves differed so much genetically from the local populace which didnt have central asian or Hunnic type DNA, do you get it? Please tell me how modern hungarians ended up basically being 95-100% of central eurpean stock, much of that being slavic ancestry? You now are admitting that many toponyms in the carpathian basin are slavic in origin. If you look up the etymology of Budapest there are different explenations, not just your medieval legend, and the other explenations are that Buda comes from the slavic nickname for Budimir and as u admitted yourself Pest is most likely of slavic origin, meaning small cave in old slavic. You think Great Moravia was made up? what did the Magyars exactly destroy when they came into the area lol. I dont need to go and cite sources to point out the inconsistencies in your assumptions.
Karol Klačansky
08-24-2022, 08:07 PM
He just immediately throws shit when he hears hungarian, or as he says maygar
nope I just point out the inconsistencies of your very strange nationalistic re-writing of history and making all sorts of assumptions to make sure hungarians are the real native central europeans.
Lucas
08-24-2022, 08:57 PM
Most Hungarians get Podkarpackie as a likely match with some other random Polish regions. I never really understood why.
Probably yes, 23andme has some fine tuning do. They could perhaps give me just ONE region. Or maybe two. But they dont :confused:
Ive seen results with 50+ regions just in EE category, and some without a single region. Weird.
There was probably some Hungarian settlement in southern Poland. For example surname "Węgrzyn" (which is old Polish version of Węgier which means simply Hungarian) is quite popular in Podkarpackie and in general it is on 319 position in surname popularity rank in Poland, so not bad:) In raw numbers it is 11609 people.
https://i.imgur.com/wV1ZWkI.png
Fortnite777
08-24-2022, 09:26 PM
So.... Hungarians = South Slovaks.
There was probably some Hungarian settlement in southern Poland. For example surname "Węgrzyn" (which is old Polish version of Węgier which means simply Hungarian) is quite popular in Podkarpackie and in general it is on 319 position in surname popularity rank in Poland, so not bad:) In raw numbers it is 11609 people.
https://i.imgur.com/wV1ZWkI.png
Thats really interesting. Thanks for the info!
Blondie
08-25-2022, 03:53 AM
no your sources are not proving the assumptions that you are claiming. It very well may be that the Huns and later Magyars were related peoples and had a lot of cultural and genetic exchange. We all know the Huns were in Pannonia in the 4th cenutry, thats all your source proves, and if they left over some linguistic toponyms in the area this is totally plausible, this doesnt change the fact that they had already disappeared for hundreds of years before the actual founding fathers of modern day Hungary came. Pannonia was ruled by Great Moravia which was a slavic state, the fact that both Huns and Magyars had similar DNA proves my point even further that the majority of people in that area were slavic and or other native central european tribes, this is why those conqueror graves differed so much genetically from the local populace which didnt have central asian or Hunnic type DNA, do you get it? Please tell me how modern hungarians ended up basically being 95-100% of central eurpean stock, much of that being slavic ancestry? You now are admitting that many toponyms in the carpathian basin are slavic in origin. If you look up the etymology of Budapest there are different explenations, not just your medieval legend, and the other explenations are that Buda comes from the slavic nickname for Budimir and as u admitted yourself Pest is most likely of slavic origin, meaning small cave in old slavic. You think Great Moravia was made up? what did the Magyars exactly destroy when they came into the area lol. I dont need to go and cite sources to point out the inconsistencies in your assumptions.
My every source proves my claim, you just dont want to accept it. Its also funny that you are arguing about history and you say "i dont need evidence". The history is based on only sources and evidences. If the medieval chroniclers, roman linguistic sources, genetic researchers and others are not enough then i dont know what do you want, but seriously.
Who are slavs? I thinks slavs are those who speak slavic language, but slavic genetic is not enough to be slavic. Thats why present day hungarians are not slavs, although their genetic is mostly slavic. If you say the slavic genetic was dominant in the Carpathian Basin at this time, i can agree with it, but ethnicity is a different thing, because ethnicity is determined by language. Anonymus clearly wrote that there was a big ethnic group in the Carpathian Basin he called them hungarus, who used hungarian words, names and topography. The presence of hugarian language was also confirmed by romans.
Modern hungarians have central euro gnetic because they are mostly descedants of uralic speaker commoners not the conquerors. The turkic speaker conquerors were not much only 20000-40000 people, it was just a military elite who organized the statehood, the army, the nobility etc and later they were assimilated into commoners. Hungarians are descedants of this both group, of course mosty of commers because they were much more.
I have never denied that tons of topography is slavic in the Carpathian Basin, you cant quote me when i denied it. I just said most of topography has hungarian origin here and this is fact. I dont know what do you want with Budapest? Such city didnt exist before the 19. century, if you are talking about hungarian capital, then it was Buda which has hun etymology. Pest was a different settlement, and it has rather greek-roman etymology:
One[60] states that the name derives from Roman times, since there was a local fortress (Contra-Aquincum) called by Ptolemy "Pession" ("Πέσσιον", iii.7.§ 2).[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest
You know this etymology question is interesting thing. Why we should choose a later etymology instead of older? Both city Buda and Pest has older etymology than the slavic version, because romans and huns were here earlier than slavs. Why do you think that the slavic version is the original if we have older etymology? It makes no sense.
What kind of history re-writing are you talking about? The hun-magyar continuity exist since early medieval age, now the science proved it, this is what happened.
oszkar07
08-25-2022, 07:47 AM
originally Posted by Karol Klačansky View Post
no your sources are not proving the assumptions that you are claiming. It very well may be that the Huns and later
That Blondie is also reffering to a long standing dual conquest theory.
The theory has gained more acceptance amongst some modern Hungarian researchers especially since further anthropological studies and dna research seems indicate and confirm that the conquerors were a much smaller group compared to the host population. Given this significant difference between the 2 populations it would seem unlikely that a language transfer from the smaller conqueror group to the much bigger native host population to occur.
You can read more about development this theory below.
I believe it makes many good points and i believe there is a possibilty it could well be a valid reinterpretation of the Hungarian ethnogenesis. Ithink the mainstream ethnogenesis theory is a conundrum , the article below is worth considering in my oppinion.
Reflections on the ‘Dual Conquest’ Theory of Hungarian Origins*
(2010, 2012)
Nándor Dreisziger
Royal Military College of Canada
nandor@kingston.net
For almost a half-century now there has been a heated debate in Hungary as to when
the ancestors of Hungarians arrived in their present homeland. In one camp in this
war of words are the upholders of orthodoxy who claim that the Magyars came to
the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th
century A.D., while their opponents suggest
that these ancestors, or at least most of them, had settled in that part of Europe much
earlier. This latter hypothesis even has a name: the “dual conquest” theory of
Hungarian ethnogenesis. The historiographical school holding these views is named
after Gyula László (1910-1998) and his foremost disciple János Makkay (1933-).
“Dual conquest” refers to László’s first formulation of his ideas, which suggested
that some of the Hungarians’ ancestors entered the Carpathian Basin at the end of
the 9th century, while others had come over two centuries earlier (in late Avar times).
In his old age László revised his ideas and the phrase “dual conquest” acquired a
different meaning.
Since the death of László and the retirement of Makkay from active scholarly
life, the dual conquest theory has fallen on hard times, and some of its detractors
have been ready to declare it obsolete. In this paper I will argue that any such action
would be premature. In fact, the contrary is the case, since in recent years much
evidence has surfaced — mainly as the result of genetic and anthropological
researches — suggesting that the ancestors of the Hungarians, or at least most of
them, had indeed arrived in the Middle Danube Basin centuries, perhaps even many
centuries, before 895.
The first scholar who challenged the traditional view of Hungarian
ethnogenesis in a fundamental way was Armin Vámbéry (1832-1913). Born as
Hermann Wamberger, in his youth Vámbéry learned several languages, later
travelled throughout Central Asia, and still later became a professor of oriental
languages in Budapest. He is best known for his argument that Hungarian was more of an Altaic than a Uralic language — a view that he moderated in his old age, admitting that the Ugric core of the Magyar language was undeniable. Today few people know that Vámbéry held equally unconventional opinions about Hungarian origins. To put it briefly, Vámbéry believed that the Hungarian language developed in Central Europe’s Middle Danube Basin, where the ncestors of the Hungarians had settled in late Roman times or before. A corollary of this theory is that the nomadic tribes that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9 th century were Turkic-speakers who were few in numbers and whose descendants were assimilated
by the autochthonous and by then Hungarian-speaking population (Vámbéry 1914;Dreisziger 2013).
These views were summed up in Vámbéry’s posthumous 1914 book: A
magyarság bölcsőjénél [At the cradle of the Hungarians]. In the decades that
followed, his theory about Hungarian ethnogenesis seems to have been forgotten.
This happened despite the fact that other scholars in Hungary also began questioning the accepted view of Hungarian beginnings. One of these was Lajos Kiss of Marjalak
(1887-1972), a historian and writer of school textbooks. Marjalaki, as he is known to Hungarians, postulated that Hungarians had lived in the Carpathian Basin since time immemorial, and when Prince Árpád and his nomadic warriors conquered their land, they did not even try to resist, as they just exchanged one set of overlords for another — as they had done so many times in the past (Marjalaki 1930, 1956).
Marjalaki’s new theory of the timing of Hungarian settlement in the Carpathian
Basin, just like Vámbéry’s, was ignored by Hungary’s academic establishment —
and her reading public. One wonders if the social and intellectual climate in interwar Hungary had anything to do with this fact. As is well known, for much of the first half of the 20th century, class-consciousness and anti-Semitism were rife in the country — and Vámbéry was Jewish and Marjalaki was the son of a poor peasant.
A few decades after Marjalaki began publishing on the subject of Hungarian
origins, another Hungarian scholar came along who challenged the orthodox theory
of the “Hungarian conquest.” That person was the above-mentioned Gyula László,
an archaeologist, artist and university teacher. His archaeological researches led him to believe that Hungarians began arriving in the Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times, probably in the 670s, with the rest of them coming at the end of the 9th century. His proposition became known as the “dual conquest” [kettős honfoglalás] theory of Hungarian origins (László 1978; Erdélyi 2013). Late in his life, he amended his theory, arguing that most of the ancestors of the Hungarians had settled in the Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times or even earlier, and the nomadic warriors who conquered that part of Europe at the end of the 9th century were predominantly
Turkic-speakers (László 1997). Accordingly, the phrase “dual conquest” acquired a new meaning. In its new incarnation, the theory suggests that in the second half of the first millennium A.D., two important events took place in the Carpathian Basin that determined the course of Hungarian evolution. The first of these was the arrival of the ancestors of the Hungarians, a development that established the demographic basis of the future Magyar nation. The second event was the conquest in 895 of the
Hungarian homeland by a group of nomadic tribes — whose descendants later created a centralized feudal kingdom that still later evolved into the modern nationstate of Hungary.
Unlike Vámbéry and Marjalaki before him, László attained a fair degree of
public recognition in Hungary. In academic circles, however, he found few
supporters. Perhaps the only significant exception was archaeologist János Makkay (1933- ) whose most substantial publication in defence of the dual conquest theory, as formulated by László in his old age, was the monograph A magyarság keltezése
[The dating of Hungarians]. In this work Makkay used evidence produced by
linguists, historians, anthropologists and scholars in other disciplines to support
László’s arguments. Concerning linguistic evidence, Makkay argued that the
Bulgaro-Turkic loan words that exist in the Magyar language were borrowed while Hungarians had lived along with various Bulgar tribes (as well as other Turkic peoples) in the Carpathian Basin in the centuries before 895. In his opinion the same was true of Slavic loan-words in Hungarian: these were acquired by Magyar agriculturalists who had co-habited with Slavic settlers for centuries in the Carpathian Basin long before the end of the 9th century. Makkay pointed out that many words in Hungarian describing organized religion are of Slavic origin. According to him these words entered the Magyar language in the Carpathian Basin as
the result of the interaction of the Hungarians with Christian Slavs over many generations (Makkay 1994: 157-158). Had Hungarians not been living in the Carpathian Basin at that time but only after 895, their exposure to Christianity would have come only around the year 1000 when Hungary’s rulers invited missionaries mainly from the German world to convert the descendants of the nomads who conquered the Carpathian Basin a century earlier. In that case words describing organized religious life in the Hungarian language would have been German and not Slavic. Finally, Makkay turned to the issue of the origins of the Magyar-speaking
populations of Transylvania, and he suggested that some of them, especially the peoples of the region in the heart of the Transylvanian Basin known as mezőség, had probably settled there even before the rest of the Hungarians arrived during the time of Avar rule. Makkay’s evidence for this was the very distinct, archaic dialect of Hungarian spoken in the region (Makkay 1994: 153). Another prominent scholar who endorsed László’s views, or at least the idea that Prince Árpád and his warriors found Hungarian-speakers in the Carpathian Basin when they arrived there, was historian Pál Engel (1938-2001) (Engel 1990: 13).
By the 1970s and 1980s, there were other Hungarian scholars who were
questioning the traditional interpretation of the settlement by Hungarians in their
present homeland. Today, the relevant writings of these people are never mentioned in the works of the defenders of historical orthodoxy, and the reading public of Hungary seems to know nothing about them. The reason for this might be the fact that they published only in academic journals and books — and often in foreign languages. The most highly qualified of these people was the physical anthropologist Pál Lipták (1914-2000) of the University of Szeged. Through the study of the anatomy of the occupants of Conquest-era graves, Lipták came to the conclusion that the majority of the nomadic warriors who conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century were anatomically different from the people who lived there at the
time and — importantly — also from the vast majority of the people who lived there in subsequent centuries. This fact suggested to Lipták that the majority of the conquerors of “895” fame were not Hungarians and that the real ancestors of the Magyars had settled in the Carpathian Basin in several waves, from the early 5th
century on to the end of the 9th century, but especially during Avar times (Lipták
1980: 365-368; 1983: 160-162). Lipták based his observation in part on the research of the Hungarian archaeologist Dezső Simonyi, who in the early 1980s postulated that the ancestors of Hungarians might have started to settle in the Carpathian Basin
in the early 5th century (Simonyi 1981: 71-88).
Less than two decades after the publication of Lipták’s and Simonyi’s major works, another Hungarian critic of the orthodox theory of the “Hungarian conquest” published a monograph. He was Gábor Vékony (1944-2004), who spent most of his career teaching at Eötvös Loránd University. Vékony suggested that the ancestors
of Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin in the second half of the 7
th century, but possibly as early as the 5th; and he went further to argue that the nomadic tribes that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century probably spoke Turkic languages — which they lost when they were assimilated by the masses of Hungarians they found living there (Vékony 2002: 219). Vékony’s book was received with a high degree of scepticism on the part of his fellow academics in Hungary.
Within a few years after the appearance of Vékony’s book, another work
surfaced in Hungary that questioned the traditional interpretation of Hungarian
ethnogenesis. The book was by veteran scholar Péter Király (1918-2015), whose
arguments against the traditional interpretation of the “Hungarian” conquest are based mainly on the study of medieval Central European written sources. After studying the latter for many decades, Király came to the conclusion that the ancestors of the Hungarians probably started to settle in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the
6 th century. Király even cites a pre-895 list of the members of a monastery in what is now eastern France, suggesting that Christian Hungarians from the Carpathian Basin were joining monastic houses in Western Europe long before Prince Árpád and his warriors arrived in the Danube Basin (Király 2006: 156). Király’s book was published by an obscure publishing house and did not seem to have created any waves in academic circles.
In the meantime, members of Hungary’s historical establishment felt that they
had effectively refuted some of László’s arguments and were ready to cast the “dual conquest” theory on the scrapheap of historical writings. At a gathering of Hungarian archaeologists, historians, paleo-linguists and physical anthropologists that was hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in April of 2013, the defenders of historical orthodoxy could feel comfortable. Among the several dozen speakers at the conference, only one brave soul dared to voice doubt about the traditional
explanation of Hungarian settlement in the Carpathian Basin. More will be said
about this person and her views later.
The debate between the defenders of historical orthodoxy and those who
question the idea that Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin only at the end of
the 9th century revolves around many issues, and in this short paper only a few of these can be mentioned. The most important of these is the question of relative numbers: the ratio of the newly-arrived to the autochthonous population. Another issue is the ethnic identity of the conquerors: were they Hungarian-speakers or an ethnic group completely unrelated to Hungarians? And the third critical question is whether a conquest similar to that described by the vast majority of historians in Hungary has ever happened in any other land in Europe in the Middle Ages. In the rest of this essay I will comment on these issues.
1. The question of relative numbers
This question is probably the most crucial issue of the debate at hand. If the nomadic tribes that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century constituted a large multitude of people, and if the local population was small, then it is plausible that it was the conquerors who assimilated the locals. However, if the conquerors were not a large mass and the locals outnumbered them by a considerable margin,
then there can be little doubt that it was the autochthonous population that
assimilated the newcomers.
Not surprisingly the members of the two historiographical schools dealing
with this issue tend to provide numbers that support their respective theories. Exact numbers are difficult to find, since during the Dark Ages there was no record keeping of any kind in the Carpathian Basin. The last censuses taken there were in Roman times, and they indicated that the part of the Basin that was administered by Rome was quite densely populated. Not having any local data as guidance for the 9th century, historians have usually resorted to guessing the size of populations at the time.
Almost all the supporters of the traditional version of the conquest of Hungary have argued that the conquerors numbered many, 300 or even 500 thousand. At the same time, they suggest that the autochthonous population could not have amounted to more than half this number. In contrast to these speculations, László and the other “dissidents” have all argued that the Carpathian Basin’s original population far outnumbered the newcomers. According to László, in some communities the ratio was one hundred to one in favour of the autochthonous population (Laszló 1997).
Historian Vékony, furthermore, had given this “100 to 1” ratio for the entire Carpathian Basin’s two populations: the locals vs. the newly-arrived conquerors (Vékony2002: 219). Vámbéry gave an even lower estimate of the numbers of the conquerors than Vekony did (Vámbéry 1914: 59-65).For estimating the size of the autochthonous population, historians have various methods. By the 14th century, Hungary was a Christian kingdom where the church kept some records on the approximate membership of parishes and dioceses.
From such admittedly haphazard recordkeeping, as well as from the size of
cemeteries, historians can calculate the size of the Carpathian Basin’s population of the times. The growth rate of Christian Europe’s population of in the late medieval period is also known. As a result, the population of the Carpathian Basin five centuries earlier can be estimated — even if only approximately. Such calculations suggest that the size of this population was larger than the supporters of the orthodox theory of the Hungarian conquest would have us believe.
There is still another method of estimating the region’s population in the 10th century. Historians have a fairly good idea of what the population was in various parts of Christian Europe. It is known that the population of the lands that later became France was at least seven million — and that the population of the Italian peninsula was not much smaller. Why would the Carpathian Basin, which was also blessed with a favourable climate and plentiful resources, have a much smaller population? Some defenders of historical orthodoxy have suggested that most of the population of the Carpathian Basin was wiped out by the wars of the Carolingian Age. Professor Teréz Olajos of the Universiy of Szeged, however, argued convincingly that there is no evidence that supports this view, in fact the Avar Age population of the Carpathian Basin survived into the 10th century (Olajos 2001: 50-
56). Our overall conclusion can only be that the pre-conquest population of the
Carpathian Basin must have been far larger than what the supporters of the
traditional theory of the Hungarian conquest suggest.
. The identity of the conquerors who came in 895
If the ancestors of the Hungarians were already living in the Carpathian Basin before 895 as the advocates of the dual conquest theory say, who then were the conquerors?
Anthropological examinations of the skeletal remains of individuals from 10th
century graves, according to Lipták, suggest that the elite of post-conquest society in the Carpathian Basin was to a large degree different anatomically from the other elements of society (Lipták 1983: 161). This suggests that the conquerors, or at least most of them, belonged to a different ethnic group (or groups) than did the Carpathian Basin’s subject population.
In recent years, evidence surfaced that reinforces this conclusion, and it came
from the newly-emerged science of genetics, in particular three genetic studies that had been conducted by the Hungarian geneticist István Raskó and a team of experts.
Raskó’s team studied mitochondrial, Y-chromosomal, and autosomal DNA
extracted from the skeletal remains of men and women — both members of the elite (the conquerors and their immediate descendants) and members of the subject
peoples — and DNA samples taken from present-day Hungarians living in Hungary
and in the Hungarian-populated counties of Transylvania (Tömöry et al.2007;
Csányi et al.2008; Nagy et al.2011).
All three of Raskó’s studies suggested that the conquerors of 895 were
different genetically from both the subject peoples of 10th century Hungary and from the population living in Hungary today. This fact indicates above all that the conquerors were small in numbers and could leave only minimal “genetic footprints” in the post-conquest population of the Carpathian Basin. As István Raskó remarked in a book he wrote about these studies: “the contribution of the conquerors to the
genetic pool of present-day Hungarians [was] insignificant” (Raskó 2010, p. 158;
Dreisziger 2011). Despite this statement, Raskó assumed that the conquerors spoke Hungarian and claimed that the pre-985 population of the Carpathian Basin “adopted [átvette]” the language of the conquerors. This of course is inconceivable: in the
Middle Ages all nomadic warrior tribes who conquered a region populated by settled peoples became assimilated by the local population and not the other way around.
3. Examples of conquests by warrior people in the Middle Ages
The course of European history from the demise of the Roman Empire in the West
to the 12th century is full of examples of nomadic peoples occupying one or another part of Europe. Every time such an occupation occurred, the result was the same: the occupiers were sooner or later assimilated by the local population. We can start with conquests by Germanic-speaking peoples. Soon after the collapse of Roman rule in
Italy, the Ostrogoths occupied most of that land and established a kingdom of their own — and their children started to be Romanized. About the same time, the also German-speaking Burgundians moved into what is eastern France today. In our days nothing remains of their language in that part of France. Also in the 5th century, the Visigoths conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula, and within about half-dozen generations their descendants spoke Spanish. In the 6
th century, the Longobards set
up a kingdom in Italy, and today only the name Lombardy reminds us of their
Germanic language and culture. Still later the Franks, a federation of Germanspeaking tribes, extended their rule over much of what is now France, part of Italy, and much of the rest of Central Europe. Today there is no linguistic trace of them, except in the lands that had been originally populated by German-speakers. Some people say that the conquest of England in the 5th century by the Saxons, Angles,and Jutes was different, that these tribes imposed their West-Germanic language on the people of England, but this is not the case, if we are to believe geneticist and
historian Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University and a few other students of the
British past. According to these scholars the migration of West-Germanic peoples to England had started before Roman times, and by the time the Saxons and the others had invaded, much of the population there spoke an early form of English (Oppenheimer 2007: 477ff; Heather 2010: 12-21; Pryor 2004).
The experience of Scandinavian conquerors was similar. Wherever they
conquered or otherwise acquired lands (Novgorod, Kiev, Sicily, etc.), they became assimilated by the locals. Early in the 10th century, they occupied Northern France and established what became known as the Norman kingdom, and in about halfdozen generations their descendants spoke French. In 1066 these French-speaking Normans occupied England, and in another half-dozen generations their descendants
began speaking English. Much further east, in Eastern Europe’s lower Danube
region, the Turkic-speaking nomads known as Bulgars came as occupiers in the 7th century. They established themselves as the region’s ruling class — and in less than ten generations their descendants spoke Slavic, the language of their subjects. The same must have happened in the Carpathian Basin after the end of the 9th century:
the Turkic-speaking nomadic warriors who occupied the region were assimilated –
in a few, or in some cases several generations – by a more numerous, autochthonous,Hungarian-speaking population. Conclusions and a post-script
In today’s Hungary the vast majority of istorians believe that Hungarians are the
descendants of the nomadic tribes who arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century. The works of Vámbéry, Marjalaki, László, Makkay, Simonyi, Lipták,Engel, Vékony, Király and others are ignored by historians and are forgotten by the public. The evidence for this is the above-mentioned conference on Hungarian protohistory that had been organized by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in April of 2013. At this conference only one speaker expressed doubt about the currently dominant theory of Hungarian arrival in the Carpathian Basin. That scholar was
Erzsébet Fóthi, who is not a historian but a physical anthropologist. In her short
paper given at the conference she did not go into details (Fóthi 2013). Her ideas
about the settlement of Hungarians in their present homeland, more precisely in the Middle Danube Basin of Central Europe, can be found in her other publications.
Fóthi has been studying the anatomical features of people resting in 5th to 11th
century graves of the Carpathian Basin for most of her long career. In regard to the conquerors she came to the conclusion that, judging by their anatomical features,they resembled most the Turkic-speaking Bulgars who had conquered the Lower Danube Valley only a few centuries earlier. They were not the same people, Fóthi argued, but came from the same genetic stock, and their former homeland had been the southern Urals region of today’s Russia (Fóthi 2013). Fóthi and her colleagues
also studied other pre-13th century populations in the Carpathian Basin. Among those whom they examined extensively were the ancestors of the Székelys of the Háromszék district in the southeasternmost part of Transylvania. According to Fóthi the medieval population of the Háromszék region was anatomically the same as the population of the northwesternmost part of the Carpathian Basin had been in earlier
times, long before the end of the 9th century. The Háromszék population also showed remarkable similarity to the people who had lived in the Zala River Basin of the Carpathian Basin’s western part during Avar and Carolingian (Frankish) times. Fóthi admitted that the medieval inhabitants of Háromszék were somewhat different in their anatomical features from other peoples of the pre-Conquest Carpathian Basin,
but they did not constitute a separate ethnic group within the general Hungarian
population of the age (Fóthi et al. 2012: 543-552).
It might be recalled that, according to Vámbéry, the Hungarian language
developed during the centuries before 895 from the blending of Ugric and eastern Turkic linguistic elements, producing the language that the ancestors of the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin had spoken by the end of the 9th century. Fóthi’s conclusions about the anatomical development of the population that at one point occupied the northwesternmost region and later also the southeasternmost districts of the Carpathian Basin are remarkably similar. “The development of this people,”
she argued, “must have taken place” in a region where long before the 12th century there lived a population — the vast majority of whom had long skulls typical of Europeans — together with another people, much smaller in numbers, of Asian origin. The sporadic appearance of Mongoloid anatomical features in the resulting population is explainable by the blending of these two human types throughout the centuries that had preceded the Székelys’ re-settlement (by Hungary’s Árpádian
rulers) in their present (Transylvanian) homeland (Fóthi et al. 2012: 506, 543-552).
According to Vámbéry and Fóthi, then, the development of the Hungarians’
language and the evolution of their physical anatomy paralleled each other and took place in the Carpathian Basin — centuries before the arrival of Prince Árpád and his nomadic tribes.
The conquerors of the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century were
nomadic peoples who were small in numbers and whose descendants were
assimilated by the local population. This fact should not detract from the legacy that Árpád, his warriors, and their descendants bequeathed to the Hungarian nation: the
establishment of a centralized state that soon became one of Central Europe’s
Christian kingdoms — and later turned into the modern nation-state of Hungary.
Notwithstanding the prevalent views of most members of Hungary’s academic
establishment, today it seems apparent that the basic tenets of the theory of the “dual conquest” — as formulated by Gyula László and János Makkay in the 1990s — are still valid.
oszkar07
08-25-2022, 08:00 AM
double
Karol Klačansky
08-25-2022, 08:15 AM
That Blondie is also reffering to a long standing dual conquest theory.
The theory has gained more acceptance amongst some modern Hungarian researchers especially since further anthropological studies and dna research seems indicate and confirm that the conquerors were a much smaller group compared to the host population. Given this significant difference between the 2 populations it would seem unlikely that a language transfer from the smaller conqueror group to the much bigger native host population to occur.
You can read more about development this theory below.
I believe it makes many good points and i believe there is a possibilty it could well be a valid reinterpretation of the Hungarian ethnogenesis. Ithink the mainstream ethnogenesis theory is a conundrum , the article below is worth considering in my oppinion.
Reflections on the ‘Dual Conquest’ Theory of Hungarian Origins*
(2010, 2012)
Nándor Dreisziger
Royal Military College of Canada
nandor@kingston.net
For almost a half-century now there has been a heated debate in Hungary as to when
the ancestors of Hungarians arrived in their present homeland. In one camp in this
war of words are the upholders of orthodoxy who claim that the Magyars came to
the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th
century A.D., while their opponents suggest
that these ancestors, or at least most of them, had settled in that part of Europe much
earlier. This latter hypothesis even has a name: the “dual conquest” theory of
Hungarian ethnogenesis. The historiographical school holding these views is named
after Gyula László (1910-1998) and his foremost disciple János Makkay (1933-).
“Dual conquest” refers to László’s first formulation of his ideas, which suggested
that some of the Hungarians’ ancestors entered the Carpathian Basin at the end of
the 9th century, while others had come over two centuries earlier (in late Avar times).
In his old age László revised his ideas and the phrase “dual conquest” acquired a
different meaning.
Since the death of László and the retirement of Makkay from active scholarly
life, the dual conquest theory has fallen on hard times, and some of its detractors
have been ready to declare it obsolete. In this paper I will argue that any such action
would be premature. In fact, the contrary is the case, since in recent years much
evidence has surfaced — mainly as the result of genetic and anthropological
researches — suggesting that the ancestors of the Hungarians, or at least most of
them, had indeed arrived in the Middle Danube Basin centuries, perhaps even many
centuries, before 895.
The first scholar who challenged the traditional view of Hungarian
ethnogenesis in a fundamental way was Armin Vámbéry (1832-1913). Born as
Hermann Wamberger, in his youth Vámbéry learned several languages, later
travelled throughout Central Asia, and still later became a professor of oriental
languages in Budapest. He is best known for his argument that Hungarian was more
* This essay constitutes an extensively revised and updated summation of the papers I gave at the
annual FUSAC conferences in 2010 and 2012, as well as at the 51st Hungarian Congress of the
Hungarian Association of Cleveland, Ohio, in November of 2011. I want to express my thanks to
the organizers of these conferences for the opportunity to present my unconventional views.
2
of an Altaic than a Uralic language — a view that he moderated in his old age,
admitting that the Ugric core of the Magyar language was undeniable. Today few
people know that Vámbéry held equally unconventional opinions about Hungarian
origins. To put it briefly, Vámbéry believed that the Hungarian language developed
in Central Europe’s Middle Danube Basin, where the ancestors of the Hungarians
had settled in late Roman times or before. A corollary of this theory is that the
nomadic tribes that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9
th century were
Turkic-speakers who were few in numbers and whose descendants were assimilated
by the autochthonous and by then Hungarian-speaking population (Vámbéry 1914;
Dreisziger 2013).
These views were summed up in Vámbéry’s posthumous 1914 book: A
magyarság bölcsőjénél [At the cradle of the Hungarians]. In the decades that
followed, his theory about Hungarian ethnogenesis seems to have been forgotten.
This happened despite the fact that other scholars in Hungary also began questioning
the accepted view of Hungarian beginnings. One of these was Lajos Kiss of Marjalak
(1887-1972), a historian and writer of school textbooks. Marjalaki, as he is known
to Hungarians, postulated that Hungarians had lived in the Carpathian Basin since
time immemorial, and when Prince Árpád and his nomadic warriors conquered their
land, they did not even try to resist, as they just exchanged one set of overlords for
another — as they had done so many times in the past (Marjalaki 1930, 1956).
Marjalaki’s new theory of the timing of Hungarian settlement in the Carpathian
Basin, just like Vámbéry’s, was ignored by Hungary’s academic establishment —
and her reading public. One wonders if the social and intellectual climate in interwar
Hungary had anything to do with this fact. As is well known, for much of the first
half of the 20th century, class-consciousness and anti-Semitism were rife in the
country — and Vámbéry was Jewish and Marjalaki was the son of a poor peasant.
A few decades after Marjalaki began publishing on the subject of Hungarian
origins, another Hungarian scholar came along who challenged the orthodox theory
of the “Hungarian conquest.” That person was the above-mentioned Gyula László,
an archaeologist, artist and university teacher. His archaeological researches led him
to believe that Hungarians began arriving in the Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times,
probably in the 670s, with the rest of them coming at the end of the 9th century. His
proposition became known as the “dual conquest” [kettős honfoglalás] theory of
Hungarian origins (László 1978; Erdélyi 2013). Late in his life, he amended his
theory, arguing that most of the ancestors of the Hungarians had settled in the
Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times or even earlier, and the nomadic warriors who
conquered that part of Europe at the end of the 9th century were predominantly
Turkic-speakers (László 1997). Accordingly, the phrase “dual conquest” acquired a
new meaning. In its new incarnation, the theory suggests that in the second half of
the first millennium A.D., two important events took place in the Carpathian Basin
3
that determined the course of Hungarian evolution. The first of these was the arrival
of the ancestors of the Hungarians, a development that established the demographic
basis of the future Magyar nation. The second event was the conquest in 895 of the
Hungarian homeland by a group of nomadic tribes — whose descendants later
created a centralized feudal kingdom that still later evolved into the modern nationstate of Hungary.
Unlike Vámbéry and Marjalaki before him, László attained a fair degree of
public recognition in Hungary. In academic circles, however, he found few
supporters. Perhaps the only significant exception was archaeologist János Makkay
(1933- ) whose most substantial publication in defence of the dual conquest theory,
as formulated by László in his old age, was the monograph A magyarság keltezése
[The dating of Hungarians]. In this work Makkay used evidence produced by
linguists, historians, anthropologists and scholars in other disciplines to support
László’s arguments. Concerning linguistic evidence, Makkay argued that the
Bulgaro-Turkic loan words that exist in the Magyar language were borrowed while
Hungarians had lived along with various Bulgar tribes (as well as other Turkic
peoples) in the Carpathian Basin in the centuries before 895. In his opinion the same
was true of Slavic loan-words in Hungarian: these were acquired by Magyar
agriculturalists who had co-habited with Slavic settlers for centuries in the
Carpathian Basin long before the end of the 9th century. Makkay pointed out that
many words in Hungarian describing organized religion are of Slavic origin. According to him these words entered the Magyar language in the Carpathian Basin as
the result of the interaction of the Hungarians with Christian Slavs over many
generations (Makkay 1994: 157-158). Had Hungarians not been living in the Carpathian Basin at that time but only after 895, their exposure to Christianity would
have come only around the year 1000 when Hungary’s rulers invited missionaries
mainly from the German world to convert the descendants of the nomads who
conquered the Carpathian Basin a century earlier. In that case words describing
organized religious life in the Hungarian language would have been German and not
Slavic. Finally, Makkay turned to the issue of the origins of the Magyar-speaking
populations of Transylvania, and he suggested that some of them, especially the
peoples of the region in the heart of the Transylvanian Basin known as mezőség, had
probably settled there even before the rest of the Hungarians arrived during the time
of Avar rule. Makkay’s evidence for this was the very distinct, archaic dialect of
Hungarian spoken in the region (Makkay 1994: 153). Another prominent scholar
who endorsed László’s views, or at least the idea that Prince Árpád and his warriors
found Hungarian-speakers in the Carpathian Basin when they arrived there, was
historian Pál Engel (1938-2001) (Engel 1990: 13).
By the 1970s and 1980s, there were other Hungarian scholars who were
questioning the traditional interpretation of the settlement by Hungarians in their
4
present homeland. Today, the relevant writings of these people are never mentioned
in the works of the defenders of historical orthodoxy, and the reading public of
Hungary seems to know nothing about them. The reason for this might be the fact
that they published only in academic journals and books — and often in foreign
languages. The most highly qualified of these people was the physical anthropologist
Pál Lipták (1914-2000) of the University of Szeged. Through the study of the anatomy of the occupants of Conquest-era graves, Lipták came to the conclusion that
the majority of the nomadic warriors who conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end
of the 9th century were anatomically different from the people who lived there at the
time and — importantly — also from the vast majority of the people who lived there
in subsequent centuries. This fact suggested to Lipták that the majority of the
conquerors of “895” fame were not Hungarians and that the real ancestors of the
Magyars had settled in the Carpathian Basin in several waves, from the early 5th
century on to the end of the 9th century, but especially during Avar times (Lipták
1980: 365-368; 1983: 160-162). Lipták based his observation in part on the research
of the Hungarian archaeologist Dezső Simonyi, who in the early 1980s postulated
that the ancestors of Hungarians might have started to settle in the Carpathian Basin
in the early 5th century (Simonyi 1981: 71-88).
Less than two decades after the publication of Lipták’s and Simonyi’s major
works, another Hungarian critic of the orthodox theory of the “Hungarian conquest”
published a monograph. He was Gábor Vékony (1944-2004), who spent most of his
career teaching at Eötvös Loránd University. Vékony suggested that the ancestors
of Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin in the second half of the 7
th century,
but possibly as early as the 5th; and he went further to argue that the nomadic tribes
that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century probably spoke
Turkic languages — which they lost when they were assimilated by the masses of
Hungarians they found living there (Vékony 2002: 219). Vékony’s book was
received with a high degree of scepticism on the part of his fellow academics in
Hungary.
Within a few years after the appearance of Vékony’s book, another work
surfaced in Hungary that questioned the traditional interpretation of Hungarian
ethnogenesis. The book was by veteran scholar Péter Király (1918-2015), whose
arguments against the traditional interpretation of the “Hungarian” conquest are
based mainly on the study of medieval Central European written sources. After
studying the latter for many decades, Király came to the conclusion that the ancestors
of the Hungarians probably started to settle in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the
6
th century. Király even cites a pre-895 list of the members of a monastery in what
is now eastern France, suggesting that Christian Hungarians from the Carpathian
Basin were joining monastic houses in Western Europe long before Prince Árpád
and his warriors arrived in the Danube Basin (Király 2006: 156). Király’s book was
5
published by an obscure publishing house and did not seem to have created any
waves in academic circles.
In the meantime, members of Hungary’s historical establishment felt that they
had effectively refuted some of László’s arguments and were ready to cast the “dual
conquest” theory on the scrapheap of historical writings. At a gathering of Hungarian
archaeologists, historians, paleo-linguists and physical anthropologists that was
hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in April of 2013, the defenders of
historical orthodoxy could feel comfortable. Among the several dozen speakers at
the conference, only one brave soul dared to voice doubt about the traditional
explanation of Hungarian settlement in the Carpathian Basin. More will be said
about this person and her views later.
The debate between the defenders of historical orthodoxy and those who
question the idea that Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin only at the end of
the 9th century revolves around many issues, and in this short paper only a few of
these can be mentioned. The most important of these is the question of relative
numbers: the ratio of the newly-arrived to the autochthonous population. Another
issue is the ethnic identity of the conquerors: were they Hungarian-speakers or an
ethnic group completely unrelated to Hungarians? And the third critical question is
whether a conquest similar to that described by the vast majority of historians in
Hungary has ever happened in any other land in Europe in the Middle Ages. In the
rest of this essay I will comment on these issues.
1. The question of relative numbers
This question is probably the most crucial issue of the debate at hand. If the nomadic
tribes that conquered the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century constituted a
large multitude of people, and if the local population was small, then it is plausible
that it was the conquerors who assimilated the locals. However, if the conquerors
were not a large mass and the locals outnumbered them by a considerable margin,
then there can be little doubt that it was the autochthonous population that
assimilated the newcomers.
Not surprisingly the members of the two historiographical schools dealing
with this issue tend to provide numbers that support their respective theories. Exact
numbers are difficult to find, since during the Dark Ages there was no record keeping
of any kind in the Carpathian Basin. The last censuses taken there were in Roman
times, and they indicated that the part of the Basin that was administered by Rome
was quite densely populated. Not having any local data as guidance for the 9th
century, historians have usually resorted to guessing the size of populations at the
6
time.
Almost all the supporters of the traditional version of the conquest of Hungary
have argued that the conquerors numbered many, 300 or even 500 thousand. At the
same time, they suggest that the autochthonous population could not have amounted
to more than half this number. In contrast to these speculations, László and the other
“dissidents” have all argued that the Carpathian Basin’s original population far outnumbered the newcomers. According to László, in some communities the ratio was
one hundred to one in favour of the autochthonous population (Laszló 1997).
Historian Vékony, furthermore, had given this “100 to 1” ratio for the entire Carpathian Basin’s two populations: the locals vs. the newly-arrived conquerors (Vékony
2002: 219). Vámbéry gave an even lower estimate of the numbers of the conquerors
than Vekony did (Vámbéry 1914: 59-65).
For estimating the size of the autochthonous population, historians have
various methods. By the 14th century, Hungary was a Christian kingdom where the
church kept some records on the approximate membership of parishes and dioceses.
From such admittedly haphazard recordkeeping, as well as from the size of
cemeteries, historians can calculate the size of the Carpathian Basin’s population of
the times. The growth rate of Christian Europe’s population of in the late medieval
period is also known. As a result, the population of the Carpathian Basin five
centuries earlier can be estimated — even if only approximately. Such calculations
suggest that the size of this population was larger than the supporters of the orthodox
theory of the Hungarian conquest would have us believe.
There is still another method of estimating the region’s population in the 10th
century. Historians have a fairly good idea of what the population was in various
parts of Christian Europe. It is known that the population of the lands that later
became France was at least seven million — and that the population of the Italian
peninsula was not much smaller. Why would the Carpathian Basin, which was also
blessed with a favourable climate and plentiful resources, have a much smaller
population? Some defenders of historical orthodoxy have suggested that most of the
population of the Carpathian Basin was wiped out by the wars of the Carolingian
Age. Professor Teréz Olajos of the Universiy of Szeged, however, argued
convincingly that there is no evidence that supports this view, in fact the Avar Age
population of the Carpathian Basin survived into the 10th century (Olajos 2001: 50-
56). Our overall conclusion can only be that the pre-conquest population of the
Carpathian Basin must have been far larger than what the supporters of the
traditional theory of the Hungarian conquest suggest.
7
2. The identity of the conquerors who came in 895
If the ancestors of the Hungarians were already living in the Carpathian Basin before
895 as the advocates of the dual conquest theory say, who then were the conquerors?
Anthropological examinations of the skeletal remains of individuals from 10th
century graves, according to Lipták, suggest that the elite of post-conquest society
in the Carpathian Basin was to a large degree different anatomically from the other
elements of society (Lipták 1983: 161). This suggests that the conquerors, or at least
most of them, belonged to a different ethnic group (or groups) than did the
Carpathian Basin’s subject population.
In recent years, evidence surfaced that reinforces this conclusion, and it came
from the newly-emerged science of genetics, in particular three genetic studies that
had been conducted by the Hungarian geneticist István Raskó and a team of experts.
Raskó’s team studied mitochondrial, Y-chromosomal, and autosomal DNA
extracted from the skeletal remains of men and women — both members of the elite
(the conquerors and their immediate descendants) and members of the subject
peoples — and DNA samples taken from present-day Hungarians living in Hungary
and in the Hungarian-populated counties of Transylvania (Tömöry et al.2007;
Csányi et al.2008; Nagy et al.2011).
All three of Raskó’s studies suggested that the conquerors of 895 were
different genetically from both the subject peoples of 10th century Hungary and from
the population living in Hungary today. This fact indicates above all that the conquerors were small in numbers and could leave only minimal “genetic footprints” in
the post-conquest population of the Carpathian Basin. As István Raskó remarked in
a book he wrote about these studies: “the contribution of the conquerors to the
genetic pool of present-day Hungarians [was] insignificant” (Raskó 2010, p. 158;
Dreisziger 2011). Despite this statement, Raskó assumed that the conquerors spoke
Hungarian and claimed that the pre-985 population of the Carpathian Basin “adopted
[átvette]” the language of the conquerors. This of course is inconceivable: in the
Middle Ages all nomadic warrior tribes who conquered a region populated by settled
peoples became assimilated by the local population and not the other way around.
3. Examples of conquests by warrior people in the Middle Ages
The course of European history from the demise of the Roman Empire in the West
to the 12th century is full of examples of nomadic peoples occupying one or another
part of Europe. Every time such an occupation occurred, the result was the same: the
8
occupiers were sooner or later assimilated by the local population. We can start with
conquests by Germanic-speaking peoples. Soon after the collapse of Roman rule in
Italy, the Ostrogoths occupied most of that land and established a kingdom of their
own — and their children started to be Romanized. About the same time, the also
German-speaking Burgundians moved into what is eastern France today. In our days
nothing remains of their language in that part of France. Also in the 5th century, the
Visigoths conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula, and within about half-dozen
generations their descendants spoke Spanish. In the 6
th century, the Longobards set
up a kingdom in Italy, and today only the name Lombardy reminds us of their
Germanic language and culture. Still later the Franks, a federation of Germanspeaking tribes, extended their rule over much of what is now France, part of Italy,
and much of the rest of Central Europe. Today there is no linguistic trace of them,
except in the lands that had been originally populated by German-speakers. Some
people say that the conquest of England in the 5th century by the Saxons, Angles,
and Jutes was different, that these tribes imposed their West-Germanic language on
the people of England, but this is not the case, if we are to believe geneticist and
historian Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University and a few other students of the
British past. According to these scholars the migration of West-Germanic peoples to
England had started before Roman times, and by the time the Saxons and the others
had invaded, much of the population there spoke an early form of English
(Oppenheimer 2007: 477ff; Heather 2010: 12-21; Pryor 2004).
The experience of Scandinavian conquerors was similar. Wherever they
conquered or otherwise acquired lands (Novgorod, Kiev, Sicily, etc.), they became
assimilated by the locals. Early in the 10th century, they occupied Northern France
and established what became known as the Norman kingdom, and in about halfdozen generations their descendants spoke French. In 1066 these French-speaking
Normans occupied England, and in another half-dozen generations their descendants
began speaking English. Much further east, in Eastern Europe’s lower Danube
region, the Turkic-speaking nomads known as Bulgars came as occupiers in the 7th
century. They established themselves as the region’s ruling class — and in less than
ten generations their descendants spoke Slavic, the language of their subjects. The
same must have happened in the Carpathian Basin after the end of the 9th century:
the Turkic-speaking nomadic warriors who occupied the region were assimilated –
in a few, or in some cases several generations – by a more numerous, autochthonous,
Hungarian-speaking population.
9
4. Conclusions and a post-script
In today’s Hungary the vast majority of historians believe that Hungarians are the
descendants of the nomadic tribes who arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of
the 9
th century. The works of Vámbéry, Marjalaki, László, Makkay, Simonyi, Lipták,
Engel, Vékony, Király and others are ignored by historians and are forgotten by the
public. The evidence for this is the above-mentioned conference on Hungarian protohistory that had been organized by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in April of
2013. At this conference only one speaker expressed doubt about the currently
dominant theory of Hungarian arrival in the Carpathian Basin. That scholar was
Erzsébet Fóthi, who is not a historian but a physical anthropologist. In her short
paper given at the conference she did not go into details (Fóthi 2013). Her ideas
about the settlement of Hungarians in their present homeland, more precisely in the
Middle Danube Basin of Central Europe, can be found in her other publications.
Fóthi has been studying the anatomical features of people resting in 5th to 11th
century graves of the Carpathian Basin for most of her long career. In regard to the
conquerors she came to the conclusion that, judging by their anatomical features,
they resembled most the Turkic-speaking Bulgars who had conquered the Lower
Danube Valley only a few centuries earlier. They were not the same people, Fóthi
argued, but came from the same genetic stock, and their former homeland had been
the southern Urals region of today’s Russia (Fóthi 2013). Fóthi and her colleagues
also studied other pre-13th century populations in the Carpathian Basin. Among those
whom they examined extensively were the ancestors of the Székelys of the
Háromszék district in the southeasternmost part of Transylvania. According to Fóthi
the medieval population of the Háromszék region was anatomically the same as the
population of the northwesternmost part of the Carpathian Basin had been in earlier
times, long before the end of the 9th century. The Háromszék population also showed
remarkable similarity to the people who had lived in the Zala River Basin of the
Carpathian Basin’s western part during Avar and Carolingian (Frankish) times. Fóthi
admitted that the medieval inhabitants of Háromszék were somewhat different in
their anatomical features from other peoples of the pre-Conquest Carpathian Basin,
but they did not constitute a separate ethnic group within the general Hungarian
population of the age (Fóthi et al. 2012: 543-552).
It might be recalled that, according to Vámbéry, the Hungarian language
developed during the centuries before 895 from the blending of Ugric and eastern
Turkic linguistic elements, producing the language that the ancestors of the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin had spoken by the end of the 9th century. Fóthi’s
conclusions about the anatomical development of the population that at one point
occupied the northwesternmost region and later also the southeasternmost districts
10
of the Carpathian Basin are remarkably similar. “The development of this people,”
she argued, “must have taken place” in a region where long before the 12th century
there lived a population — the vast majority of whom had long skulls typical of
Europeans — together with another people, much smaller in numbers, of Asian
origin. The sporadic appearance of Mongoloid anatomical features in the resulting
population is explainable by the blending of these two human types throughout the
centuries that had preceded the Székelys’ re-settlement (by Hungary’s Árpádian
rulers) in their present (Transylvanian) homeland (Fóthi et al. 2012: 506, 543-552).
According to Vámbéry and Fóthi, then, the development of the Hungarians’
language and the evolution of their physical anatomy paralleled each other and took
place in the Carpathian Basin — centuries before the arrival of Prince Árpád and his
nomadic tribes.
The conquerors of the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century were
nomadic peoples who were small in numbers and whose descendants were
assimilated by the local population. This fact should not detract from the legacy that
Árpád, his warriors, and their descendants bequeathed to the Hungarian nation: the
establishment of a centralized state that soon became one of Central Europe’s
Christian kingdoms — and later turned into the modern nation-state of Hungary.
Notwithstanding the prevalent views of most members of Hungary’s academic
establishment, today it seems apparent that the basic tenets of the theory of the “dual
conquest” — as formulated by Gyula László and János Makkay in the 1990s — are
still valid.
thanks for sharing, but idk in what world they would think the smaller ruling group wouldnt be capable of spreading their language on the local populace. This has happened numerous times in history. Just look at the spread of the latin language lol, its extremely common.
There are massive inconsistencies in this theory. First off it assumes Huns and Maygars to be essentially the same people who spoke a similar language. As Blondie admitted these Huns and Maygars had similar genes that were radically different from the local central europeans who were mostly of slavic origin based on genetics. She admits this as well.
So what shes saying is Huns brought Uralic language to the pannonian basin and some how slavs came to the area in the 5th 6th century and despite becoming the dominant culture (Samos empire and great moravia were both slavic states ruling the area) the local slavic people some how lost their language and were assimilated by the Huns who left literally zero genetic impact in the area. Also despite us knowing that the people who came in the 9th century called themselves "Maygyar" called their language "Maygar" just like modern hungarians in reality the uralic commoners spoke hunnic. This is such pure nationalistic nonsense its ridiculous.
Aspirin
08-25-2022, 08:24 AM
There was probably some Hungarian settlement in southern Poland. For example surname "Węgrzyn" (which is old Polish version of Węgier which means simply Hungarian) is quite popular in Podkarpackie and in general it is on 319 position in surname popularity rank in Poland, so not bad:) In raw numbers it is 11609 people.
I doubt this surname mean direct ethnic Hungarian origin. Can mean just a person who have roots from the territory of former Hungarian Kingdom, most probable with Slovak or Rusyn ancestry. In Moldova exist surname "Ungureanu/Ungurean" which is very popular and basically means Hungarian, but don't have an ethnic Hungarian connotation, its means mostly a Romanian person who came in the past in Moldova from Transylvania, which is a former territory of Hungarian Kingdom. And this considering what on territory of former Moldovan Principality lived and still live a visible community of ethnic Hungarians since Middle Ages, but this surname is not connected to them.
Since it was already proven by genetics Hungarian conquerors carried large proto Ugric component, dual conquest theory can be put to bed.
It never made any sense anyway and completely lacked evidence.
Hungarian language came with the conquerors.
Huns, Avars and conquerors were all related (not surprising since all ultimately came from Asia), but only conquerors had proto Ugric component.
Hungarian conquerors were three-way mix of proto Ugrics (Uralics), Huns and Sarmatians.
Hungarian Conquerors
"The Conquerors, who arrived in the Carpathian Basin after the Avars, had distinct genomic background with elevated levels of western Eurasian admixture. They carried very similar genomes to modern Bashkirs and Tatars, in agreement with our previous results from
uniparental markers. Their genomes were shaped by several admixture events, of which the most fundamental was the Mezhovskaya-Nganasan admixture around the late Bronze Age, leading to the formation of a “proto-Ugric” gene pool. This was part of a general
demographic process, when most Steppe_MLBA populations received an eastern Khovsgol related Siberian influx together with a BMAC influx, and ANA related admixture became ubiquitous on the eastern Steppe establishing the Scytho-Siberian gene pool. Consequently
proto-Ugric groups could be part of the early Scytho-Siberian societies of the late Bronze Age-early Iron Age steppe-forest zone in the northern Kazakhstan region, in the proximity of the Mezhovskaya territory.
Our data support linguistic models, which predicted that Conquerors and Mansis had a common early history. Then Mansis migrated northward, probably during the Iron Age, and in isolation they preserved their Bronze-Age genomes. In contrast the Conquerors stayed
at the steppe-forest zone and admixed with Iranian speaking early Sarmatians, also attested by the presence of Iranian loanwords in the Hungarian language. This admixture likely happened when Sarmatians rose to power and started to integrate their neighboring tribes
before they occupied the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
All analysis congruently indicated, that the ancestors of Conquerors further admixed with a group from Mongolia, carrying Han-ANA related ancestry, which could be identified with early European Huns, compelling reconsideration of written historical sources about the
Hun-Hungarian relations. It is to be examined, how this genetic link is related to reports in medieval Hungarian chronicles about the Hun ancestry of the Conqueror elite, which according to the current state of historiography is not sufficiently supported. This admixture
could happen before the Huns arrived to the Volga region and integrated local tribes east of the Urals, including Sarmatians and the ancestors of Conquerors. These data are compatible with a Conqueror homeland around the Ural region, in the vicinity of early Sarmatians, along the migration route of the Huns, as had been surmised from the phylogenetic connections between the Conquerors and individuals of the Kushnarenkovo-Karayakupovo culture in the Trans-Uralic Uyelgi cemetery. Recently a Nganasan-like shared Siberian genetic ancestry was detected in all Uralic-speaking populations, Hungarians being an exception. Our data fills this gap, as Conq_Asia_Core has high Nganasan ancestry, notwithstanding this is negligible in modern Hungarians, partly because of the substantially smaller number of immigrants compared to the local population."
Source is from this year (2022): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.19.476915v1.full.pdf
Karol Klačansky
08-25-2022, 08:39 AM
Since it was already proven by genetics Hungarian conquerors carried large proto Ugric component, dual conquest theory can be put to bed.
It never made any sense anyway and completely lacked evidence.
Hungarian language came with the conquerors.
makes no sense.
makes no sense.
Indeed, somebody would have noticed Uralic language in Carpathian Basin had it arrived before, yet no one did.
Anyway, take a look at latest DNA study of Huns, Avars and conquerors from Hungarian scientists that confirm Uralic/Ugric connection of conquerors.
quote of Dunai referring to this study:
This study also comes to confirm the very high likelihood that Hungarian Conquerors brought the Hungarian language into the Carpathian Basin, unlike what some people have speculated that it wasn't likely, since according to them the conquerors lacked "Uralic" genes and were however Central Asian Turks who only spoke Turkic. Since N Y-DNA was found among Conqueors in great number, close to 40%, the male haplogroup mainly associated with the spread of Uralic people and languages, this makes it even more evident that Hungarian Conquerors came indeed from their Uralic homeland and spoke Hungarian. All these new genetic results seem to corroborate very well the linguistic theory on the origins of the Hungarian language, plus the archeological record which shows clear as daylight parallels between Hungarian Conqueror graves in the Carpathian Basin and the graves of various Uralic archeological cultures.
Karol Klačansky
08-25-2022, 08:52 AM
quote of Dunai referring to this study:
and what is wrong with this? Slavic people came rather late in history to central europe and the balkans. Germans and celts were there much earlier, does this some how depress me that slovaks werent the Ur-people of modern day slovakia. Suprises me how a country like Hungary, with such a large history denies its actual ancestors and gives credit to the Huns, literally the plague of Europe and feels so insecure about its existance it has to create utterly strange narratives. I know not all Hungarians are this way, but it seems like these types arent that uncommon.
oszkar07
08-25-2022, 09:39 AM
thanks for sharing, but idk in what world they would think the smaller ruling group wouldnt be capable of spreading their language on the local populace. This has happened numerous times in history. Just look at the spread of the latin language lol, its extremely common.
There are massive inconsistencies in this theory. First off it assumes Huns and Maygars to be essentially the same people who spoke a similar language. As Blondie admitted these Huns and Maygars had similar genes that were radically different from the local central europeans who were mostly of slavic origin based on genetics. She admits this as well.
So what shes saying is Huns brought Uralic language to the pannonian basin and some how slavs came to the area in the 5th 6th century and despite becoming the dominant culture (Samos empire and great moravia were both slavic states ruling the area) the local slavic people some how lost their language and were assimilated by the Huns who left literally zero genetic impact in the area. Also despite us knowing that the people who came in the 9th century called themselves "Maygyar" called their language "Maygar" just like modern hungarians in reality the uralic commoners spoke hunnic. This is such pure nationalistic nonsense its ridiculous.
What is not being addressed or explained in the mainstream theory is how the
archeological research seems to show that the conquerors were much smaller population that the native population.
If you have read about Hungarian history in first 100 years from time that Arpads people arrive. You will notice that there was ongoing westward raiding parties that went as far as Spain and France. In Switzerland can be seen a plaque from that era that says "God save us from the arrows of the Hungarians". So many of these elite warrior/conquerors were not sitting around the house teaching children to speak Hungarian and that would not have been a priority. Children tend to be raised by their mothers in the early years and tend to learn their mothers toungue. We are talking about a time when their is no kindergartens people are illiterate there are no institutions that teach children of pannonian basin to speak Hungarian. During the Soviet era in my Fathers time in Hungary institutions were teaching Russian and there was expectation for people to learn Russian. Do you know how many Hungarians from that era that can hardly say 2 sentences in Russian. I dont think transfer of language from minority to a majority is an easy thing to achieve and I dont think it is usually what has happened, otherwise Slav speaking Bulgarians should be speaking Bulgarian Turkic.
Since it was already proven by genetics Hungarian conquerors carried large proto Ugric component, dual conquest theory can be put to bed.
They carried Ugric as well as many other components.
Many names of the Conquerors were Turkic.
That they carried Ugric by itself does not necessarily negate a possibility that there was already Hungarian speaking people in Carpathian basin.
quote of Dunai referring to this study:
This study also comes to confirm the very high likelihood that Hungarian Conquerors brought the Hungarian language into the Carpathian Basin, unlike what some people have speculated that it wasn't likely, since according to them the conquerors lacked "Uralic" genes and were however Central Asian Turks who only spoke Turkic. Since N Y-DNA was found among Conqueors in great number, close to 40%, the male haplogroup mainly associated with the spread of Uralic people and languages, this makes it even more evident that Hungarian Conquerors came indeed from their Uralic homeland and spoke Hungarian. All these new genetic results seem to corroborate very well the linguistic theory on the origins of the Hungarian language, plus the archeological record which shows clear as daylight parallels between Hungarian Conqueror graves in the Carpathian Basin and the graves of various Uralic archeological cultures.
just before this study maybe 1 year earlier he posted another study that seemed to suggest significant central asian /Turkic components and in that time Dunai seemed to pronounce himself a new believer in the mostly Turanic Hungarian origins. He seems to take a very sharp and emotive turn when he posts this study.
In any case I dont think any supporters of the dual conquest theory have said that Conquerors lacked Uralic genes, this was not a core argument point.
The above conclusion is Dunais oppinion based on the study , he is a clever guy but I dont account his conclusive oppinion as proof in fact many people here/ Hungarian members included didnt agree with many of his oppinions on many topics, now suddenly if Dunai said it well it must be true.
Suprises me how a country like Hungary, with such a large history denies its actual ancestors and gives credit to the Huns, literally the plague of Europe and feels so insecure about its existance
Im not sure ancestors are denied.
Many Hungarians say there has been much assimilation of Slavic and Germanic people.
But Hungarians also have been accustom to a certain type of historical specifically anti Hungarian rhetoric from what has been at times in the past hostile neighbours.
The anti Hungarian rhetoric is very recognisable it usually aspires to paint Hungarians as "outsiders" "non European invaders" , and the narrative is usually that if it wasnt for the
barbaric Hungarians this land would have still belong to "whatever"/"whoever " ... and in the past this rhetoric has come from Slavs,Germanics,Vlachs etc.
It is recognisable.
Blondie
08-25-2022, 09:48 AM
thanks for sharing, but idk in what world they would think the smaller ruling group wouldnt be capable of spreading their language on the local populace. This has happened numerous times in history. Just look at the spread of the latin language lol, its extremely common.
And extremely common when the ruler elite assimilated by more numerous locals. Happaned in many country, for example in Russia, Bulgaria.
First off it assumes Huns and Maygars to be essentially the same people who spoke a similar language.
I didnt say that.
So what shes saying is Huns brought Uralic language to the pannonian basin
Do you know that huns were not homogeneous but a tribal confederation between various tribes?
were assimilated by the Huns who left literally zero genetic impact in the area.
I posted source about it, it seems you didnt even read that.
Also despite us knowing that the people who came in the 9th century called themselves "Maygyar" called their language "Maygar"
Thats magyar not maygar, and it seems you have no idea about steppe nomads. Everyone had tribal identity, magyar was just the name of megyer tribe, but huns were tribal confederation as i said.
just like modern hungarians in reality the uralic commoners spoke hunnic
I have never said that. The hunnic language was old-turkic, but the various tribes had their own language.
Since it was already proven by genetics Hungarian conquerors carried large proto Ugric component, dual conquest theory can be put to bed.
It never made any sense anyway and completely lacked evidence.
Hungarian language came with the conquerors.
There are evidences, or is this not an evidence?
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
Original roman text that mention hungarian words. The Gesta Hungarorum is not evidence?
Or you posted this:
All analysis congruently indicated, that the ancestors of Conquerors further admixed with a group from Mongolia, carrying Han-ANA related ancestry, which could be identified with early European Huns
Pls explain why do you think its impossible that hungarians as steppe nomads migrated with the original huns in the Carpathian Basin in 4. century?
Blondie
08-25-2022, 09:53 AM
and what is wrong with this? Slavic people came rather late in history to central europe and the balkans. Germans and celts were there much earlier, does this some how depress me that slovaks werent the Ur-people of modern day slovakia. Suprises me how a country like Hungary, with such a large history denies its actual ancestors and gives credit to the Huns, literally the plague of Europe and feels so insecure about its existance it has to create utterly strange narratives. I know not all Hungarians are this way, but it seems like these types arent that uncommon.
So hungarians must deny their ancestry because of huns were "plague of Europe"? :D By this logic you must deny your slavic ancestry because slavic soviets were also plague of Europe. What is this stupid logic? :D The hun-magyar identity is 1500 years old, its not a new thing, if you ask any hungarian, you will heard about it. And not just the identity but the historical sources are also proved that just like the genetic.
Blondie
08-25-2022, 10:13 AM
Who were the original huns? They were most likely oghur turkic speaker east asians who migrated to Europe in the 3-4. century. Huns conquered everyone during their travel, including the proto-hungarian homeland too called Magna Hungaria near Ural. These proto-magyar horse nomads were integrated into hun tribes very quickly and they moved to West along with huns. This is the origin of hun-magyar identity.
Huns integrated tons of other tribe like other uralics for example mordvins also had horse nomad tradition, iranic tribes, ostrogoth horsemen etc, these were the european hun confederation who have foght against romans.
This is simple laughable and unscientific to deny these things.
Itsalso proved fact that conquerors were at least partly turkic speakers and spoked same language as original huns, greeks said that, just like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar
rothaer
08-25-2022, 10:54 AM
(...) Also despite us knowing that the people who came in the 9th century called themselves "Maygyar" called their language "Maygar" (...)
True, a little "detail" that I've heard no plausible explanation for from the dual conquest theory.
This is such pure nationalistic nonsense its ridiculous.
It's a pretty transparent and desperate try to get the ethnic Magyars to predate the Slavs in Pannonia.
If I was a today Hungarian, I'd not connect that much to the 5-10% original Magyar ancestry, but more to the other 90-95% of ancestry. And all "problems" of this suffering of being as late as 895 AD would be solved and no more acrobacy on that topic is needed.
I think, there should also be payed more attention to Ockam's razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
rothaer
08-25-2022, 11:10 AM
(...)
There are evidences, or is this not an evidence?
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
Original roman text that mention hungarian words. The Gesta Hungarorum is not evidence?
Can you elaborate? Who said what, and what words are referred to? (I can not read Latin and also not copy/paste the text from the pic.)
Blondie
08-25-2022, 11:17 AM
True, a little "detail" that I've heard no plausible explanation for from the dual conquest theory.
It's a pretty transparent and desperate try to get the ethnic Magyars to predate the Slavs in Pannonia.
If I was a today Hungarian, I'd not connect that much to the 5-10% original Magyar ancestry, but more to the other 90-95% of ancestry. And all "problems" of this suffering of being as late as 895 AD would be solved and no more acrobacy on that topic is needed.
Okay fortunatelly youre not hungarian, but assimilated selfhater polack according to your genetic. If you want to see hungarians to deny their ancestors just because they were asian 1000 years ago, then i have a bad news for you: Hungary is an unbreakable patriotic country with national pride, unlike yours with rainbow flag. And nobody cares about your opinion or what do slovaks think about it. Dont worry Hungary will be here after another 1000 years, but im not sure about it in the case of New Turkia oh pardon i mean Germany.
Blondie
08-25-2022, 11:24 AM
Can you elaborate? Who said what, and what words are referred to? (I can not read Latin and also not copy/paste the text from the pic.)
I wont argue with you because youre a troll. I remember when you claimed czechs were happy under nazi rule. I added you to my ignore list some months ago, it was a very rare exception that i opened your writing. Leave me alone.
Kökény
08-25-2022, 12:17 PM
Who were the original huns? They were most likely oghur turkic speaker east asians who migrated to Europe in the 3-4. century.
I've always found it interesting that a lot of our Old Turkic words were borrowed from an Oghuric language. A few that comes to my mind:
tükör-mirror
idő-time
dél-noon
szél-wind
gyermek-child
mogyoró-hazelnut
tyúk-hen
rothaer
08-25-2022, 12:28 PM
Okay fortunatelly youre not hungarian, but assimilated selfhater polack according to your genetic. If you want to see hungarians to deny their ancestors just because they were asian 1000 years ago, then i have a bad news for you: Hungary is an unbreakable patriotic country with national pride, unlike yours with rainbow flag. And nobody cares about your opinion or what do slovaks think about it. Dont worry Hungary will be here after another 1000 years, but im not sure about it in the case of New Turkia oh pardon i mean Germany.
I know that you felt offended - as you expressly wrote in another context - and likely you felt even more offended and rejected by other things that I wrote. But this is no reason to break unfactual. We all have to stand different opinions.
rothaer
08-25-2022, 12:35 PM
[Can you elaborate? Who said what, and what words are referred to?]
I wont argue with you because youre a troll. (...)
No excuses. It's not an argument if you do elaborate what you stated, and a lot of readers would like to know.
Hektor12
08-25-2022, 12:42 PM
quote of Dunai referring to this study:
Since N Y-DNA was found among Conqueors in great number, close to 40%, the male haplogroup mainly associated with the spread of Uralic people and languages
With all due respect to the study, N can be found in Xiognu in important amount. Probably its there since the beginning. (Possibly dominating in at least a few tribes.)
https://i.ibb.co/F412M6T/Xiongnu.png
https://i.ibb.co/hCp3xf2/1.png
https://i.ibb.co/W2X1Hny/2.png
https://i.ibb.co/59MS2T3/3.png
https://i.ibb.co/SytsNF8/4.png
https://i.ibb.co/3Mjk6Cp/5.png
https://i.ibb.co/dmxwhtT/6.png
https://i.ibb.co/GHghG4x/7.png
Blondie
08-25-2022, 12:56 PM
Lets summarize this whole story with scientific facts and sources.
1. The original huns were most likely an oghur-turkic speaker nomad ethnicity from East Asia. Such oghur-turkic speakers like chuvash (or khazar, bulgar) is considered by descedants of original hun peoples.
2. These huns migrated to Europe in 375.
3. Huns entered to Europe across the gate of South Ural:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/AD_0375_-_Central_Eastern_Europe_to_Ural_-_DA.png/1280px-AD_0375_-_Central_Eastern_Europe_to_Ural_-_DA.png
4. South Ural was homeland of proto-magyars:
http://www.e-kompetencia.si/egradiva/mad_zgo/01/800.vandorlas.jpg
5. Huns and proto-magyars met and mixed with each other. The genetic researches confirms it as well:
All analysis congruently indicated, that the ancestors of Conquerors further admixed with a group from Mongolia, carrying Han-ANA related ancestry, which could be identified with early European Huns, compelling reconsideration of written historical sources about the Hun-Hungarian relations. It is to be examined, how this genetic link is related to reports in medieval Hungarian chronicles about the Hun ancestry of the Conqueror elite
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.19.476915v1.full.pdf
Another source:
According to our data half of the conqueror population had Xiongnu origin, corroborating the statement of medieval Hungarian chronicles, which all declare Hunnic origin of the Hungarians. The conquerors with Scandinavian-German genetic affinity had most probably Ostrogothic origin, as this group was reported to have been integrated into the European Hun Empire hundreds of years before the conquest. Interestingly this European component also support the Hun affinity of the Hungarian conquerors.
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/3794/2/Neparaczki_Thesis_english.pdf
6. Proto-hungarians were also horse nomads at this time just like huns:
The southernmost Ugric groups adopted a nomadic way of life by around 1000 BC, because of the northward expansion of the steppes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_prehistory
7. The turkic words in the hungarian language are mostly oghur-turkic, which proves that these words are more older, and existed in the hungarian language before the common turkic nomads like cumans or pechenegs migrated to Europe. Its also proves the linguistic relation between proto-hungarians and huns.
The Hungarians are culturally of mixed Ugrian / Turkic heritage, with strong Oghuric-Bulgar and Khazar influences, even though much of the modern-day Hungarian genepool also has strong Slavic, Germanic, and Iranic influences.[17][18][19] Hungarian has many borrowings from Turkic and Oghuric languages:[20] Hung. tenger, Oghur. *tengir, Comm. *tengiz 'sea',[4] Hung. gyűrű, Oghur. *ǰürük, Comm. *yüzük 'ring',[21] and terms of equestrian culture ló 'horse', nyereg 'saddle', fék 'bridle', ostor 'whip'.[22] A number of Hungarian loanwords were borrowed before the 9th century, shown by sz- (< Oğ. *ś-) rather than gy- (< Oğ. *ǰ-), for example Hung. szél, Oghur. *śäl, Chuv. śil, Comm. *yel 'wind', Hung. szűcs 'tailor', Hung. szőlő 'grapes'.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuric_languages
8. So we are in South Ural at 375, and there are both horse nomad ethnic group huns and magyars who were strongly mixed with each other, obviously because huns integrated magyars to themselves what is perfectly logical since they were all horse nomads. And it was the moment when this whole hun-magyar continuity has started because this merged group or tribal alliance as you wish determines who where the european huns from that time. The uralic speaker proto-magyars became dual uralic-turkic speakers, the special uralic-oghur turkic structure of hungarian basic vocabulary also proves it and thats why greeks who have meet with nomad magyar leaders described them turkic speaker, because turkic was such lingua franca in the steppe like english today.
9. These huns reach the Carpathian Basin and they have created a very powerful military state here. Roman source from the hun age described hungarian words:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
"Marha" has dual meaning 1. cattle 2. stupid and we are in the 5. century in Carpathian Basin.
10. Since the magyar ethnicity exist the hun-magyar continuity determine its identity. Árpád claimed that he descedant of Attila (although its unproved but very possible because in the tribal alliance the leaders married each other to make this alliance stronger). In the 9. century Árpád claimed the Carpathian Basin in the name of Attila, they created the hungarian statehood as successor state of Hun Empire as a restoration. In the medieval age the Árpád House has always protected this hun ancestry and legitimization athough it was rather very unsympathetic in Europe because huns had bad reputation.
11. So what happened with huns after the fall of Hun Empire? Indeed most of them migrated back to East Europe and they became chuvash, old bulgar, khazar (oghur turkic speakers) and they created their own smaller kingdoms, but its laughable to claim that every single hun just disappeared from the Carpathian Basin in a moment. We know for example the pannonian romans have survived the centuries or even the romanized dacians too, or according to székely origin myth after the defeat of huns they were hiding in the mountains of Transylvania. Btw székelys have the highest hun paternal origin in Europe:
On the other hand, 3.1% of Székelys from Transylvania (who have claimed to be descendants of Attila’s Huns) turned out to be P* (xR1-M173),[116] which virtually means Q-M242. In a related DNA Project of FT-DNA, the frequency of Q-M25 in Székelys (Szeklers) reaches 4.3%.[117][118]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Central-_and_Eastern_Europe
12. There were oghur turkic tribes too in the 7 magyar tribe, they were kabars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar
These kabars were pure descedants of the original east asian huns.
I am asking that why its so impossible that conquerors have found local hungarian speaker population in the 9. century? This is what Anonymus mention. Why? But seriously.
If the hun-magyar continuity is just fantasy then why do the genetic researches proves the strongly genetic link to huns and mixing with them? Why do székelys have the highest hun paternal origin? Why the hun-magyar continuity determine the hungarian identity since the begining? Why do romans describe hungarian words from the Carpathian Basin in the hun age? Why do almost every single western source describe hungarians as huns? Why do hungarians have oghur turkic words in their basic vocabulary which are much older than 9. century? Why do hungarians had hun given names? These are all just coincidences? Dont make me laugh.
Hektor12
08-25-2022, 01:03 PM
assimilated selfhater polack
Demm i like how hot headed are you. (:
Dear Rothaer, what do you offer to Hungarians is like offering people communism without Marx and Engels. Because they were just 2 men among billions of communists, who would even care about them? Youre literally offering them self-hatred; Because a part of their ancestry is not liked by some other people in Europe.
oszkar07
08-25-2022, 02:30 PM
Our data resolve this paradox by showing that the core population of conquering Hungarians had high Nganasan ancestry. The fact that this is negligible in modern Hungarians is likely due to the substantially smaller number of immigrants compared with the local population.[/B]
The large number of genetic outliers with Hun_Asia_Core ancestry in both Avars and Conquerors testifies that these successive nomadic groups were indeed assembled from overlapping populations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Most of our Avar_Asia_Core individuals represented the early Avar period and half of the “elite” samples belonged to Avar_Asia_Core (Data S1). The other elite samples also contained a high proportion of this ancestry, suggesting that this ancestry could be prevalent among the elite, although also present in common people. The elite preserved very ancient east Asian genomes with well-defined origin, as had been also inferred from Y-Hg data.34,35 Our data are compatible with the Rouran origin of the Avar elite,5 although the single low-coverage Rouran genome41 provided a poor fit in the qpAdm models (Data S8B). However, less than half of the Avar-cline individuals had Avar_Asia_Core ancestry, indicating the diverse origin of the Avar population. Our models indicate that the Avars incorporated groups with Xiongnu/Hun_Asia_Core and Iranian-related ancestries, presumably the remnants of the European Huns and Alans or other Iranian peoples on the Pontic Steppe, as suggested by Kim.39 People with different genetic ancestries were seemingly distinguished, as samples with Hun-related genomes were buried in separate cemeteries.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
(A) Proto-Ugric peoples emerged from the admixture of Mezhovskaya and Nganasan populations in the late Bronze Age.
(B) (1) During the Iron Age Mansis separated and (2) Proto-Conquerors admixed with Early Sarmatians ca 643–431 BCE and (3) with pre-Huns ca 217–315 CE.
(C) By the 5th century, the Xiongnu-derived Hun Empire occupied Eastern Europe, incorporating its population, and the Rouran Khaganate emerged on the former Xiongnu territory.
(D) By the middle 6th century, the Avar Khaganate occupied the territory of the former Hun Empire, incorporating its populations. (4) By the 10th century, [B]Conquerors associated with the remnants of both empires during their migration and within the Carpathian Basin.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
The genomic history of Huns, Avars, and Conquerors revealed in this study is compatible with historical, archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic sources (summarized in Figure 7). Our data show that at least part of the military and social leader strata of both European Huns and Avars likely originated from the area of the former Xiongnu Empire, from present day Mongolia, and both groups can be traced back to early Xiongnu ancestors. Northern Xiongnus were expelled from Mongolia in the second century CE, and during their westward migration, Sarmatians were one of the largest groups they confronted. Sergey Botalov presumed the formation of a Hun-Sarmatian mixed culture in the Ural region before the appearance of Huns in Europe,38 which fits the significant Sarmatian ancestry detected in our Hun samples, although this ancestry had been present in late Xiongnus as well.22 Thus our data are in accordance with the Xiongnu ancestry of European Huns, claimed by several historians.39,40 We also detected Goth- or other Germanic-type genomes25 among our Hun period samples, again consistent with historical sources.39
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
It is notable that the European Y-Hg I2a1a2b1a1a was also specific for the Conqueror group, especially for the elite as also shown before,34 very often accompanied by Asian maternal lineages, indicating that I2a1a2b1a1a could be more typical for the immigrants than to the local population. Additionally, two other Y-Hgs appeared with notable frequencies among the Conquerors: R1a-Z94 was present in 3 elite and 2 commoner individuals, whereas Hg Q was carried by 3 elite individuals, which may be sign of Hun relations, also detected at the genome level. This result is again in line with genome data, as nearly all Conquest period males with R1a-Z94 or Q Hgs carried Hun-related ancestry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
There is a third group of Avar period cemeteries representing immigrants from Asia, but with a different genetic background. In males from MM, Dunavecse-Kovacsos dűlő (DK), Árkus Homokbánya (ARK), and SZRV Y-Hgs R1a-Z94 and Q1a2a1 dominated, which seem typical in European Huns, and were mostly accompanied by Asian maternal lineages. These Avar period people could have represented Hun remnants that joined the Avars but isolated in separate communities. These inferences are perfectly in line with genomic data, as most qpAdm models from these cemeteries indicated the presence of Hun_Asia_Core or Xiongnu ancestries (Data S1C). As mentioned above, Hun ancestry was also present in several other cemeteries, just like Hg R1a-Z94, but in those cemeteries, the population was genetically less uniform.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Many points in the above article seems to suggest a level of Hunnic continuity from European Huns - Avars - Conquerors.
Hence how can we be certain there was also not a linguistic continuity.
These findings do not necessarily negate a Dual Conquest type theory.
Blondie
08-25-2022, 03:01 PM
The large number of genetic outliers with Hun_Asia_Core ancestry in both Avars and Conquerors testifies that these successive nomadic groups were indeed assembled from overlapping populations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
In the history books we started the hungarian history with the Hun Empire -> Avar Empire -> Principality of Hungary -> Hungarian Kingdom
Indeed these peoples were closely related by race, religion, culture, statehood, genetic and in every way. Avars were also descedants of huns, the avar statehood is connecting to hunnic statehood, there is a continuity between these peoples with a minor interruption. Another fact that the magyar conquerors have settled near the avar settlements, thats also not coincidence.
Lucas
08-25-2022, 04:53 PM
I've always found it interesting that a lot of our Old Turkic words were borrowed from an Oghuric language. A few that comes to my mind:
tükör-mirror
idő-time
dél-noon
szél-wind
gyermek-child
mogyoró-hazelnut
tyúk-hen
In Polish we borrowed Gyermek from Hungarian language. But it means helper /squire of the knight:p
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giermek
Kökény
08-25-2022, 05:14 PM
In Polish we borrowed Gyermek from Hungarian language. But it means helper /squire of the knight:p
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giermek
I had no idea. Nice to see some influence on Polish. :cool:
Squire is apród in Hungarian, from apró('tiny').
rothaer
08-25-2022, 09:28 PM
Lets summarize this whole story with scientific facts and sources.
1. The original huns were most likely an oghur-turkic speaker nomad ethnicity from East Asia. Such oghur-turkic speakers like chuvash (or khazar, bulgar) is considered by descedants of original hun peoples.
2. These huns migrated to Europe in 375.
3. Huns entered to Europe across the gate of South Ural:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/AD_0375_-_Central_Eastern_Europe_to_Ural_-_DA.png/1280px-AD_0375_-_Central_Eastern_Europe_to_Ural_-_DA.png
4. South Ural was homeland of proto-magyars:
http://www.e-kompetencia.si/egradiva/mad_zgo/01/800.vandorlas.jpg
5. Huns and proto-magyars met and mixed with each other. The genetic researches confirms it as well:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.19.476915v1.full.pdf
Another source:
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/3794/2/Neparaczki_Thesis_english.pdf
6. Proto-hungarians were also horse nomads at this time just like huns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_prehistory
7. The turkic words in the hungarian language are mostly oghur-turkic, which proves that these words are more older, and existed in the hungarian language before the common turkic nomads like cumans or pechenegs migrated to Europe. Its also proves the linguistic relation between proto-hungarians and huns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuric_languages
8. So we are in South Ural at 375, and there are both horse nomad ethnic group huns and magyars who were strongly mixed with each other, obviously because huns integrated magyars to themselves what is perfectly logical since they were all horse nomads. And it was the moment when this whole hun-magyar continuity has started because this merged group or tribal alliance as you wish determines who where the european huns from that time. The uralic speaker proto-magyars became dual uralic-turkic speakers, the special uralic-oghur turkic structure of hungarian basic vocabulary also proves it and thats why greeks who have meet with nomad magyar leaders described them turkic speaker, because turkic was such lingua franca in the steppe like english today.
9. These huns reach the Carpathian Basin and they have created a very powerful military state here. Roman source from the hun age described hungarian words:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f60b243841cc2f4e406982c01201bf88-pjlq
"Marha" has dual meaning 1. cattle 2. stupid and we are in the 5. century in Carpathian Basin.
10. Since the magyar ethnicity exist the hun-magyar continuity determine its identity. Árpád claimed that he descedant of Attila (although its unproved but very possible because in the tribal alliance the leaders married each other to make this alliance stronger). In the 9. century Árpád claimed the Carpathian Basin in the name of Attila, they created the hungarian statehood as successor state of Hun Empire as a restoration. In the medieval age the Árpád House has always protected this hun ancestry and legitimization athough it was rather very unsympathetic in Europe because huns had bad reputation.
11. So what happened with huns after the fall of Hun Empire? Indeed most of them migrated back to East Europe and they became chuvash, old bulgar, khazar (oghur turkic speakers) and they created their own smaller kingdoms, but its laughable to claim that every single hun just disappeared from the Carpathian Basin in a moment. We know for example the pannonian romans have survived the centuries or even the romanized dacians too, or according to székely origin myth after the defeat of huns they were hiding in the mountains of Transylvania. Btw székelys have the highest hun paternal origin in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242#Central-_and_Eastern_Europe
12. There were oghur turkic tribes too in the 7 magyar tribe, they were kabars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar
These kabars were pure descedants of the original east asian huns.
I am asking that why its so impossible that conquerors have found local hungarian speaker population in the 9. century? This is what Anonymus mention. Why? But seriously.
If the hun-magyar continuity is just fantasy then why do the genetic researches proves the strongly genetic link to huns and mixing with them? Why do székelys have the highest hun paternal origin? Why the hun-magyar continuity determine the hungarian identity since the begining? Why do romans describe hungarian words from the Carpathian Basin in the hun age? Why do almost every single western source describe hungarians as huns? Why do hungarians have oghur turkic words in their basic vocabulary which are much older than 9. century? Why do hungarians had hun given names? These are all just coincidences? Dont make me laugh.
1. - 8.: I actually agree on all.
9.: Not sure if ”these Huns” came to the Carpathian Basin and not such that were not notably mixed in the South Ural proto-Magyar area. Passing there is not enough (Rommel’s war in Libya did not make Libyans notable German genetically) and later local mixtures do not even suggest that the Huns from 375, that came to Pannonia. The Huns ruled all this huge area.
However, can you tell the source of that Roman text? I’d like to read it.
I can not yet assess the context, but ”marha” could be Germanic for horse. In old high German „marha“ means horse, cf. also Marschall coming from „marah-scalc“:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marschall#Geschichtliche_Entwicklung
An East Germanic (-Hunnic) as well as a later Hungarian horse-cattle based economy can easily have extended the meaning of a Germnic loan word „marha“ (directly from Germnics or via Huns?) to cattle in general.
Btw. isn’t also Hungarian „-háza“ derived from Germanic Hus, Haus, cf, Englisch house, in place names equalling German -hausen (wild guess)?
10.: Yes. But such an identity being true (I there follow you and actually do guess yes) for Arpadian Hungarians does not yet mean that it was for 375 AD Huns in Pannonia.
11.: A very good question. It will have been like you say here. After the battle of Nedao in 454 AD we do not hear from any Huns in Pannonia in spite of that we do have a lot of information from there, even regarding small Germanic tribes like Scirians and Heruls.
Nobody states that literally every Hun left Pannonia, but they must have been more irrelevant than even the mentioned small and unimportant Germanic tribes.
12.: Yes. And Arthur Koestler said that one (or two?) Hungarian tribes even were said to observe Jewish laws, so there might have been some Khazars among them as well.
„I am asking that why its so impossible that conquerors have found local hungarian speaker population in the 9. century?“:
It’s not impossible, but it’s also not impossible that there were 500 Iberians. If we state something we should have an indication for that, not just a possibility, and I can not yet see such an indication.
„This is what Anonymus mention. Why? But seriously.“:
I’d try to read it, if I find it.
”If the hun-magyar continuity is just fantasy then why do the genetic researches proves the strongly genetic link to huns and mixing with them? Why do székelys have the highest hun paternal origin? Why the hun-magyar continuity determine the hungarian identity since the begining?
Why do almost every single western source describe hungarians as huns? Why do hungarians have oghur turkic words in their basic vocabulary which are much older than 9. century? Why do hungarians had hun given names?”:
All this can be explained by the incoming Arpadian Hungarians having this partly Hun ancestry and identity.
For explaining this it’s not necessary to assume that Magyar-like (uralic speaking) Huns did ethnically and linguistically survive in Pannonia from 454 AD to 895 AD, which is about 450 years (!) without anyone historically mentioning it.
I have almost twice as many Polish relative matches as Hungarian matches. It would be interesting to figure out what this phenomenon is?
Maybe a simple likelihood considering that the number of Poles is considerably larger.
Jankec
08-25-2022, 10:04 PM
In the history books we started the hungarian history with the Hun Empire -> Avar Empire -> Principality of Hungary -> Hungarian Kingdom
Indeed these peoples were closely related by race, religion, culture, statehood, genetic and in every way. Avars were also descedants of huns, the avar statehood is connecting to hunnic statehood, there is a continuity between these peoples with a minor interruption. Another fact that the magyar conquerors have settled near the avar settlements, thats also not coincidence.
But Huns and Avars are nomadic steppe nations different from Hungarians (as well as Tatars/Mongols later). They had some similarities to Hungarians but they are not Hungarians, they arrived centuries prior and they had already disappeared when Hungarians came in Europe.
rothaer
08-25-2022, 10:14 PM
Demm i like how hot headed are you. (:
:help:
Dear Rothaer, what do you offer to Hungarians is like offering people communism without Marx and Engels. Because they were just 2 men among billions of communists, who would even care about them?
I see what you mean. But as for ancestry no one is more important than another one. To stay with your example, assuming some particular ancestors being Marx and Engles and all others not seems to me a double standard. All ancestors (in the same generation) do have the same weight. My "agenda", if you like, is a strictly factual view. You don't have to like all ancestors to the same extent and also I do have more appreciated and less appreciated ancestry but the importance of them as ancestors is the same.
Youre literally offering them self-hatred; Because a part of their ancestry is not liked by some other people in Europe.
This self-hatred topic seems to be a popular accusation, considering also Blondie's compliments to me, lol. But come on, I'm absolutely not offering any self-hatred. In no way. And also your explanation that "a part of their ancestry is not liked by some other people in Europe" can not support such an assumption. I'm neither influencing the actual proportion of any ancestry, nor the opinion of "some other people in Europe".
But applicable is this:
I'm irritated by the biggest (partly collective) cherrypicking for identification with a particular even pronounced minority ancestry that I've experienced in the world. Completely out of proportion. Elizabeth Warren-like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Ancestry_and_Native_American_rela tions
Dual conquest or not, how big is the ancestry proportion of Conquerer 1 + Conquerer 2 in modern Hungarians? Maybe @Blondie can tell her opinion and I guess that I can even agree on that opinion.
Blondie
08-26-2022, 03:47 AM
But Huns and Avars are nomadic steppe nations different from Hungarians (as well as Tatars/Mongols later). They had some similarities to Hungarians but they are not Hungarians, they arrived centuries prior and they had already disappeared when Hungarians came in Europe.
Okay, so i posted tons of scientific source and your reaction is just that "huns are different from hungarians" and thats all. Nice...
Why were huns different from hungarians?
You mean culture? They had same horse nomadic culture.
You mean race? Both group were eurasian mixed, turanid mostly.
You mean genetic? Genetic of nomad magyars is strongly related to huns.
You mean religion? They had same religion called Tengri.
You mean language? The hun language is unknown, most likely they were oghur-turkic speakers, there were oghur turkic speakers among the 7 magyar tribe for example kabars, greek sources proves that the magyar elite also spoked this language. We dont know it was their native language or they used it as lingua franca but they spoked it.
So what kind of difference?
Do you know how the steppe nomad societies worked? This "hun" "cuman" "tatar" "mongol" "magyar" etc didnt mean an ethnicity, these were tribal alliances. Every steppe nomad had own tribal identity and they were loyal to their own tribes. Before the 9. century magyars were only members of Megyer tribe and nothing else. The 7 magyar tribe was named after the Megyer leader tribe thats why foreigners called them magyars.
When the mongols migrated to Europe only the leader elite was mongolian, but the mongol army was mostly turkic, most of mongol warriors were turkics in the reality. Europeans and others called them mongols because the mongol was the leader tribal power.
The "european hun" name does not mean an ethnicity, but it means a tribal aliance between various tribes like oghur turkics, magyars, sarmatians, alans, ostrogoth horsemen etc, these were the european huns. These peoples mied with each other, Attila's mother was ostrogothic. And the centre of european huns (those ethnicities what i mentioned) was in Carpathian Basin. These are all scientific facts.
Hektor12
08-26-2022, 04:01 PM
Completely out of proportion. Elizabeth Warren-like.
Let me avoid spending any moment of my life to explain a full grown (boomer?) man difference of Warren's 1/360 (Maybe) American ancestry and Hungarian-Hun connection. Thank you.
Dušan
08-26-2022, 08:51 PM
4. Slovak cities had hungarian majority population in general, and slovaks lived in countryside in the villages. Hungarian rural population existed only in South Slovakia.
In 1910:
Pozsony/Bratislava: 40% hungarian, 15% slovak
Kassa/Kosice: 75% hungarian, 15% slovak
Eperjes/Presov: 47% hungarian, 40% slovak
Zsolna/Zilina: 25% hungarian, 54% slovak
Besztercebánya/Banská Bystrica: 50% hungarian, 45% slovak
Nyitra/Nitra: 59% hungarian, 30% slovak
Nagyszombat/Trnava: 53% slovak, 31% hungarian
But not forget that according to census 1910. all Hungarian speaking ethnic Jews were counted as Hungarians.
This is especialy seen in towns where that ethnicity lived.
For example Nitra in Slovakia
The demographics changed dramatically during the 20th century; in 1910, from total population of 16,419: 9,754 were Hungarians, 4,929 Slovaks and 1,636 Germans - Jews are hidden under these nationalities, estimated one quarter of total population (the vast majority of Jews spoke Hungarian and were for census purposes not counted as a separate ethnicity in order to inflate the number of Hungarians) . In 1940, Nitra was home to 4,358 Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitra#Historical
Or Novi Sad in Serbia
According to the 1910 census, the city had 33,590 inhabitants, who most often spoke the following languages: 13,343 (39.72%) Hungarian, 11,594 (34.52%) Serbian, 5,918 (17.62%) in German, 1,453 (4.33%) Slovak
Hungarian speakers include 2,326 Jews who declared that they speak Hungarian.
Excluding Jews from ethnic Hungarians, Serbs get more numerous than Hungarians in census 1910.
rothaer
08-26-2022, 09:00 PM
Let me avoid spending any moment of my life to explain a full grown (boomer?) man difference of Warren's 1/360 (Maybe) American ancestry and Hungarian-Hun connection. Thank you.
You correctly sense that it would be pretty challlenging to explain the difference. :p
Lucas
08-26-2022, 09:38 PM
I could believe in dual migration theory, but IMO proto-Hungarians would migrate with Avars not Huns to make it probable. Gap between Hun empire collapse and Avar empire creation was too long to let me believe in surviving of Hun ethnic coalition fraction nearly 100 years without surviving Hun themselves.
oszkar07
08-26-2022, 10:40 PM
I could believe in dual migration theory, but IMO proto-Hungarians would migrate with Avars not Huns to make it probable. Gap between Hun empire collapse and Avar empire creation was too long to let me believe in surviving of Hun ethnic coalition fraction nearly 100 years without surviving Hun themselves.
One of the proponents of the dual conquest theory the archeologist Gyula Laszlo suggested that the Hungarian speakers did migrate with a second wave of Avars.
Another point is we dont know for certain what language or languages were spoken amongst Avars or the different peoples amongst Avars.
The recent research paper from Sciencedirect mentions that genetic studies on Avars showed there was ethnic diversity amongst them , which may suggest there were other ethnic groups that came with Avars ....
Our data are compatible with the Rouran origin of the Avar elite,5 although the single low-coverage Rouran genome41 provided a poor fit in the qpAdm models (Data S8B). However, less than half of the Avar-cline individuals had Avar_Asia_Core ancestry, indicating the diverse origin of the Avar population. Our models indicate that the Avars incorporated groups with Xiongnu/Hun_Asia_Core and Iranian-related ancestries, presumably the remnants of the European Huns and Alans or other Iranian peoples on the Pontic Steppe, as suggested by Kim.39 People with different genetic ancestries were seemingly distinguished, as samples with Hun-related genomes were
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Years ago I read an article which may have been from Russian researcher and it mentioned the idea of Magyar speakers travelling down with the Bulgars. In that article it mentioned the Hungarian speaker group under a different name Uralic group name may have been Mordvins but the author said they were actually Hungarian speakers. Hypothetically this is interesting idea because the Bulgars were situated in the Ural region and it would not seem unlikely or impossible that they could pick up
Ugric speaking groups that could travel with them.
rothaer
08-26-2022, 11:11 PM
I could believe in dual migration theory, but IMO proto-Hungarians would migrate with Avars not Huns to make it probable. Gap between Hun empire collapse and Avar empire creation was too long to let me believe in surviving of Hun ethnic coalition fraction nearly 100 years without surviving Hun themselves.
Yes, but:
Avars have been genetically proved to have been pretty recent immigrants from East Asia and it's stated that they likely were identical to the Rourans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouran_Khaganate
A direct connection between Avars and Uralics is not visible. Also, after 822 AD the Avars were expressly referred to as a role model for something that disappeared without any trace.
There was just a small and dependent Avar principality left that existed from 805 AD - 825 AD with christianized Avars. Their first leader was named Theodor and their second Abraham.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarisches_F%C3%BCrstentum
(Unfortunately the English Wikipedia is not into this.)
So we do have a lot of information from this period of time, also regarding other conditions in Pannonia like the Slavic Lower Pannonia principality (Fürstentum Moosburg or Plattensee-Fürstentum in German):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_in_Lower_Pannonia#Principality
But nowhere is mentioned anything that could be assumed to have been Ugrics. Note that we are not in search for some hundred guys, but for a notable population that would be capable of Hungarizing other people.
rothaer
08-27-2022, 12:15 AM
One of the proponents of the dual conquest theory the archeologist Gyula Laszlo suggested that the Hungarian speakers did migrate with a second wave of Avars.
Another point is we dont know for certain what language or languages were spoken amongst Avars or the different peoples amongst Avars.
The recent research paper from Sciencedirect mentions that genetic studies on Avars showed there was ethnic diversity amongst them , which may suggest there were other ethnic groups that came with Avars ....
Our data are compatible with the Rouran origin of the Avar elite,5 although the single low-coverage Rouran genome41 provided a poor fit in the qpAdm models (Data S8B). However, less than half of the Avar-cline individuals had Avar_Asia_Core ancestry, indicating the diverse origin of the Avar population. Our models indicate that the Avars incorporated groups with Xiongnu/Hun_Asia_Core and Iranian-related ancestries, presumably the remnants of the European Huns and Alans or other Iranian peoples on the Pontic Steppe, as suggested by Kim.39 People with different genetic ancestries were seemingly distinguished, as samples with Hun-related genomes were
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Years ago I read an article which may have been from Russian researcher and it mentioned the idea of Magyar speakers travelling down with the Bulgars. In that article it mentioned the Hungarian speaker group under a different name Uralic group name may have been Mordvins but the author said they were actually Hungarian speakers. Hypothetically this is interesting idea because the Bulgars were situated in the Ural region and it would not seem unlikely or impossible that they could pick up
Ugric speaking groups that could travel with them.
Bulgars seem to me actually a good candidate to have brought with them whatever folks and also the First Bulgarian Empire was huge.
https://i.imgur.com/5SS4iCS.png
But if it geographically pays off for Hungary, I'm not sure. Though Szekelies could somewhat have fit in the geography.
oszkar07
08-27-2022, 01:18 AM
Bulgars seem to me actually a good candidate to have brought with them whatever folks and also the First Bulgarian Empire was huge.
https://i.imgur.com/5SS4iCS.png
But if it geographically pays off for Hungary, I'm not sure. Though Szekelies could somewhat have fit in the geography.
Yes and considering how huge that Bulgar empire was doesnt it seem strange that Bulgar conquerors coud not impose there Bulgar language on modern day Bulgarians but allegedly Arpads people could impose a different language on inhabitants of Pannonian Basin.
Avars have been genetically proved to have been pretty recent immigrants from East Asia and it's stated that they likely were identical to the Rourans.
Recent genetic study of Avars seems to suggest they were not overall homogenous
and amongst them were people of different origins .......
However, less than half of the Avar-cline individuals had Avar_Asia_Core ancestry, indicating the diverse origin of the Avar population
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Blondie
08-27-2022, 07:28 AM
But not forget that according to census 1910. all Hungarian speaking ethnic Jews were counted as Hungarians.
This is especialy seen in towns where that ethnicity lived.
For example Nitra in Slovakia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitra#Historical
Or Novi Sad in Serbia
According to the 1910 census, the city had 33,590 inhabitants, who most often spoke the following languages: 13,343 (39.72%) Hungarian, 11,594 (34.52%) Serbian, 5,918 (17.62%) in German, 1,453 (4.33%) Slovak
Hungarian speakers include 2,326 Jews who declared that they speak Hungarian.
Excluding Jews from ethnic Hungarians, Serbs get more numerous than Hungarians in census 1910.
This is true what you wrote, but jews considered themselves hungarian thats why the goverment added them to hungarian ethnicity. The jewish assimilation was so significant that tons of hungarian "jew" didnt know their jewish backround during the holocaust, they knew that from the government which searched their background and forced them to wear yellow star. If a jew have hungarian identity i dont see any reason to make difference between them and hungarians, they are hungarians as well.
This is true what you wrote, but jews considered themselves hungarian thats why the goverment added them to hungarian ethnicity. The jewish assimilation was so significant that tons of hungarian "jew" didnt know their jewish backround during the holocaust, they knew that from the government which searched their background and forced them to wear yellow star. If a jew have hungarian identity i dont see any reason to make difference between them and hungarians, they are hungarians as well.
Do you remember when I told you in April/May that I was soo surprised that there are that many Jews in Budapest when I moved here? Almost all my friends who are not 1 or 2 gen “Budapesters” have Jewish heritage (also a lot of them have some Slovak for some reason?).
Blondie
08-27-2022, 11:04 AM
Do you remember when I told you in April/May that I was soo surprised that there are that many Jews in Budapest when I moved here? Almost all my friends who are not 1 or 2 gen “Budapesters” have Jewish heritage (also a lot of them have some Slovak for some reason?).
Yes i also know many hungarian jew in Budapest, they have completely hungarian identity.
Yes i also know many hungarian jew in Budapest, they have completely hungarian identity.
Thats true. Some have a mainly Hungarian but part Jewish identity but most dont really connect with their jewish ancestry.
Varda
08-27-2022, 11:44 AM
Yes i also know many hungarian jew in Budapest, they have completely hungarian identity.
Yugoslavian and Serbian actress Eva Ras is Hungarian Jew from Subotica, there is something typical Hungarian in her look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Ras
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-03.jpg
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-01.jpg
https://medias.unifrance.org/medias/39/94/220711/format_page/media.jpg
https://www.svetplus.com/images/vesti/a/166118868.jpg
Hungarian_master
08-27-2022, 02:06 PM
Yugoslavian and Serbian actress Eva Ras is Hungarian Jew from Subotica, there is something typical Hungarian in her look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Ras
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-03.jpg
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-01.jpg
https://medias.unifrance.org/medias/39/94/220711/format_page/media.jpg
https://www.svetplus.com/images/vesti/a/166118868.jpg
Her ears have clear Jewish vibe.
Jankec
08-27-2022, 03:09 PM
Okay, so i posted tons of scientific source and your reaction is just that "huns are different from hungarians" and thats all. Nice...
Why were huns different from hungarians?
You mean culture? They had same horse nomadic culture.
You mean race? Both group were eurasian mixed, turanid mostly.
You mean genetic? Genetic of nomad magyars is strongly related to huns.
You mean religion? They had same religion called Tengri.
You mean language? The hun language is unknown, most likely they were oghur-turkic speakers, there were oghur turkic speakers among the 7 magyar tribe for example kabars, greek sources proves that the magyar elite also spoked this language. We dont know it was their native language or they used it as lingua franca but they spoked it.
So what kind of difference?
Do you know how the steppe nomad societies worked? This "hun" "cuman" "tatar" "mongol" "magyar" etc didnt mean an ethnicity, these were tribal alliances. Every steppe nomad had own tribal identity and they were loyal to their own tribes. Before the 9. century magyars were only members of Megyer tribe and nothing else. The 7 magyar tribe was named after the Megyer leader tribe thats why foreigners called them magyars.
When the mongols migrated to Europe only the leader elite was mongolian, but the mongol army was mostly turkic, most of mongol warriors were turkics in the reality. Europeans and others called them mongols because the mongol was the leader tribal power.
The "european hun" name does not mean an ethnicity, but it means a tribal aliance between various tribes like oghur turkics, magyars, sarmatians, alans, ostrogoth horsemen etc, these were the european huns. These peoples mied with each other, Attila's mother was ostrogothic. And the centre of european huns (those ethnicities what i mentioned) was in Carpathian Basin. These are all scientific facts.
I don't know if there are any evidences about Hun or Avar presence in Pannonia after their defeat and retreat. We don't know about their settlements, social organization, language, culture erc. in central Europe in later period. There are very few traces, maybe in some toponyms.
rothaer
08-27-2022, 03:21 PM
Thats true. Some have a mainly Hungarian but part Jewish identity but most dont really connect with their jewish ancestry.
I guess this is also due to the noteworthy high assimiliatory ability and willingness of Hungarians.
(Even Hitler was concerned by that and stated (figuratively): We must watch out for the Hungarians. If we don't care for the Germans in Hungary, they will be assimilated within one generation.)
I can imagine this is something with a very long tradition and it may be an important part of the explanation of the "Hungarian ethnogenesis conundrum" (which resembles the Anatolian Turkish one btw.). It's not unparalelled, but I still not fully get how it works. Someone told me that the oddity of the language is no obstacle, but, in contrast, is promoting such an assimilation by generating the feeling to have something in common that is unique.
I guess this is also due to the noteworthy high assimiliatory ability and willingness of Hungarians.
(Even Hitler was concerned by that and stated (figuratively): We must watch out for the Hungarians. If we don't care for the Germans in Hungary, they will be assimilated within one generation.)
I can imagine this is something with a very long tradition and it may be an important part of the explanation of the "Hungarian ethnogenesis conundrum" (which resembles the Anatolian Turkish one btw.). It's not unparalelled, but I still not fully get how it works. Someone told me that the oddity of the language is no obstacle, but, in contrast, is promoting such an assimilation by generating the feeling to have something in common that is unique.
Well Im not sure if the case of Germans in Hungary was similar to the rest of assimilation happening in Hungary.
Germans were assimilated because after 1947-1948 they were afraid that the ones that got to stay would be expelled if they kept their identity completely. In my opinion even that wouldnt have been enough. Its the modern wayof life that assimilated them. People moved out from these little villages to cities for work/university/a better life because there was not much to do there in those small kind of closed communities.
Blondie
08-27-2022, 04:03 PM
Yugoslavian and Serbian actress Eva Ras is Hungarian Jew from Subotica, there is something typical Hungarian in her look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Ras
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-03.jpg
https://gradsubotica.co.rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Eva-Ras-01.jpg
https://medias.unifrance.org/medias/39/94/220711/format_page/media.jpg
https://www.svetplus.com/images/vesti/a/166118868.jpg
Really? She looks east slavic to me.
Blondie
08-27-2022, 04:09 PM
I don't know if there are any evidences about Hun or Avar presence in Pannonia after their defeat and retreat. We don't know about their settlements, social organization, language, culture erc. in central Europe in later period. There are very few traces, maybe in some toponyms.
As i said, european huns were a tribal alliance between various tribes led by oghur turkic elite like Attila and the hun nobles and his tribes. After the death of Attila, the Huns were not gone, they just used their own tribal names to name themselves instead of "hun" title because this tribal alliance was no more. Hun tribes were bulgars, khazars, sabirs, chuvashes, onogurs, and magyars too later.
Blondie
08-27-2022, 04:14 PM
Well Im not sure if the case of Germans in Hungary was similar to the rest of assimilation happening in Hungary.
Germans were assimilated because after 1947-1948 they were afraid that the ones that got to stay would be expelled if they kept their identity completely. In my opinion even that wouldnt have been enough. Its the modern wayof life that assimilated them. People moved out from these little villages to cities for work/university/a better life because there was not much to do there in those small kind of closed communities.
The conquerors vs commoners (so noble vs peasant) divided identity was gone among hungarians in 19. century because of Kossuth's civic hungarian nationalism. At this time anyone can be hungarian who identify himself to hungarian identity. Similar civic nationalism existed in France too. Napoleon was ethnic italian with french identity.
Hektor12
08-27-2022, 04:48 PM
You correctly sense that it would be pretty challlenging to explain the difference. :p
I might be incompetent because im basically a meme/shitposter. But you can always find better debaters in this forum. Let me introduce Mr.Rothaer to you, seemingly he has good knowledge on the topic. (You can even continue in your native tongue)
I guess this is also due to the noteworthy high assimiliatory ability and willingness of Hungarians.
(Even Hitler was concerned by that and stated (figuratively): We must watch out for the Hungarians. If we don't care for the Germans in Hungary, they will be assimilated within one generation.)
I can imagine this is something with a very long tradition and it may be an important part of the explanation of the "Hungarian ethnogenesis conundrum" (which resembles the Anatolian Turkish one btw.). It's not unparalelled, but I still not fully get how it works. Someone told me that the oddity of the language is no obstacle, but, in contrast, is promoting such an assimilation by generating the feeling to have something in common that is unique.
Special thanks to Mr.Rothaer for attempting to rationalize Dear Rothear. If it was only me, i would just post 2 memes and vanish.
https://i.imgur.com/mAnDLpb.jpg
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc433/m1/1/high_res/
Jankec
08-27-2022, 06:48 PM
Well Im not sure if the case of Germans in Hungary was similar to the rest of assimilation happening in Hungary.
Germans were assimilated because after 1947-1948 they were afraid that the ones that got to stay would be expelled if they kept their identity completely. In my opinion even that wouldnt have been enough. Its the modern wayof life that assimilated them. People moved out from these little villages to cities for work/university/a better life because there was not much to do there in those small kind of closed communities.
But a lot of Germans (Donauschwaben and others) were assimilated before WWII and communism. You can notice that when you pay attention to Hungarian surnames and famous people in the Hungarian history. Weckerle was of German descent, bishop Midszenty too, all architects who projected St. Istvan Basilica and Orszaghaz (I forgot their names) etc.
But a lot of Germans (Donauschwaben and others) were assimilated before WWII and communism. You can notice that when you pay attention to Hungarian surnames and famous people in the Hungarian history. Weckerle was of German descent, bishop Midszenty too, all architects who projected St. Istvan Basilica and Orszaghaz (I forgot their names) etc.
Yea thats true.
Mostly Austrians lived in cities and they were assimilated way before the Donauschwaben.
Blondie
08-28-2022, 04:11 PM
Number of germans in Hungarian Kingdom
Lexicon Locorum, 18. century
35% hungarian, 17% romanian, 15% slovak, 11% croat, 10% german, 7% serb, 3% rusyn, 0,8% jewish, 0,8% gypsy, 1% other
In 1910, population census
48,1% hungarian, 14,1% romanian, 9,8% german, 9,4% slovak, 8,8% croat, 5,3% serb, 2,3% rusyn, 2,2% other
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Ethnic_Germans_in_Hungary_and_parts_of_adjacent_Au strian_territories.JPG/1024px-Ethnic_Germans_in_Hungary_and_parts_of_adjacent_Au strian_territories.JPG
Komitat Branau (Baranya)
66% hungarian, 25% german (1857)
50% hungarian, 33% german (1880)
56% hungarian, 32% german (1910)
Komitat Wieselburg (Moson)
35% hungarian, 55% german (1910)
Komitat Ödenburg (Sopron)
47% hungarian, 40,5% german (1910)
Komitat Eisenburg (Vas)
50,5% hungarian, 32% german (1910)
Komitat Tolnau (Tolna)
71% hungarian, 28% german (1910)
Komitat Batsch-Bodrog (Bács-Bodrog)
50% hungarian, 20% german (1857)
37% hungarian, 25,5% german (1880)
44% hungarian, 23% german (1910)
Komitat Torontal (Torontál)
20% hungarian, 26% german (1910)
Komitat Temesch (Temes)
15% hungarian, 33% german (1910)
Komitat Hermannstadt (Szeben)
5,5% hungarian, 28% german (1910)
Komitat Groß-Kokelburg (Nagy-Küküllő)
12,5% hungarian, 42% german
Komitat Kronstadt (Brassó)
29,5% hungarian, 33% german (1880)
30% hungarian, 32% german (1890)
33% hungarian, 31% german (1900)
35% hungarian, 29% german) (1910)
Komitat Zips (Szepes)
3% hungarian, 27,5% german (1890)
11% hungarian, 22% german (1910)
Komitat Pressburg (Pozsony)
42% hungarian, 14% german (1910)
Siebenbürgen (Erdély)
31,6% hungarian, 10,7% german (1910)
URBAN GERMAN POPULATION, UPPER HUNGARY
Pressburg (Pozsony)
7,5% hungarian, 75% german (1850)
8% hungarian, 68% german (1880)
40,5% hungarian, 42% german (1910)
Malatzka (Malacka)
530 hungarian, 631 german (1910)
Kremnitz (Körmoncbánya)
1501 hungarian, 1514 german (1910)
Käsmark (Késmárk)
1314 hungarian, 3242 german (1910)
Preschau (Eperjes)
1963 hungarian, 1889 german (1880)
7976 hungarian, 1404 german (1910)
Bartfeld (Bártfa)
2179 hungarian, 1617 german (1910)
Munkatsch (Munkács)
75% hungarian, 18% german (1910)
Husst (Huszt)
3505 hungarian, 1535 german (1910)
UBRAN GERMAN POPULATION, CENTRAL HUNGARY, SOUTH HUNGARY
Ödenburg (Sopron)
44% hungarian, 51% german (1910)
Eisenstadt (Kismarton)
834 hungarian, 2074 german (1910)
Güssing (Németújvár)
984 hungarian, 1175 german (1910)
Eickau (Ajka)
2179 hungarian, 697 german (1910)
Moor (Mór)
4930 hungarian, 5701 german (1910)
Totiserkolonie (Tatabánya)
5175 hungarian, 1170 german (1910)
Ofen-Pest (Budapest)
19% hungarian, 55,5% german (1715)
22,5% hungarian, 58% german (1737)
22% hungarian, 55% german (1750)
36,5% hungarian, 56,5% german (1850)
55% hungarian, 33% german (1880)
67% hungarian, 27% german (1890)
85% hungarian, 9% german (1910)
Bonnhard (Bonyhád)
720 hungarian, 1790 german (1910)
Fünfkirchen (Pécs)
41628 hungarian, 6356 german (1910)
Sombor (Zombor)
10078 hungarian, 2181 german (1910)
Pantschowa (Pancsova)
3364 hungarian, 7467 german (1910)
Großbetschkerek (Nagybecskerek)
9148 hungarian, 6811 german (1910)
Temeswar (Temesvár)
7745 hungarian, 21121 german (1880)
11100 hungarian, 24973 german (1890)
19162 hungarian, 30892 german (1900)
UBRAN GERMAN POPULATION, TRANSYLVANIA
Steierdorf (Stájerlakina)
5,5% hungarian, 71,5% german (1910)
Hermannstadt (Nagyszeben)
7297 hungarian, 20015 german (1910)
Schäßburg (Segesvár)
2687 hungarian, 5486 german (1910)
Kronstadt (Brassó)
43,5% hungarian, 26,5% german (1910)
Sächsisch-Regen (Szászrégen)
2947 hungarian, 2994 german (1910)
Bistritz (Beszterce)
21% hungarian, 44% german (1910)
Summary: Between 18-20. century the magyarization did not really affect the german ethnicity significantly, but it was more significant among romanians, serbs, slovaks. The assimilation of germans happened mostly in cities, but the big german ethnic areas have remained in countryside. During the WW2 the Volksbund and Third Reich guaranteed the protection of hungarian germans. The reason of german disappearance was 1. deportation after WW2 2. forced assimilation by communists, because being german was not good thing at this time.
Pls explain why do you think its impossible that hungarians as steppe nomads migrated with the original huns in the Carpathian Basin in 4. century?
Because Huns had no Uralic admixture, and neither did Avars.
With all due respect to the study, N can be found in Xiognu in important amount. Probably its there since the beginning. (Possibly dominating in at least a few tribes.)
Sure but that's not really relevant. It's obviously huge minority there and Magyar conquerors had only minor Hunnic admixture. This is game over for dual conquest and Turkic theory enthusiasts.
What science says:
An archaeogenetic study published in scientific journal Current Biology in May 2022 examined "48 from 10th century Conquering Hungarian elite cemeteries, 65 from commoner cemeteries of the Hungarian conquer-early Árpádian Period (10-11th centuries)". According to autosomal analysis, the Hungarian elite core can be modeled as ~50% Mansi-like, ~35% Sarmatian-like, and ~15% Hun/Xiongnu-like, and the Mansi-Sarmatian admixture event is suggested to have taken place in the Southern Ural region at 643–431 BCE, while Mansi-Hun around 217-315 CE. However, most individuals can be modeled as two-way admixtures of "Conq_Asia_Core" and "Eur_Core". The elite males carried, among others, East Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups N1a, D1a, C2a, with Q1a and R1a-Z94 being sign of Hun-related ancestry, "generally accompanied by Asian maternal lineages". Notably, almost exclusively in the elite were present I2-Y3120 subclades, "very often accompanied by Asian maternal lineages, indicating that I2a1a2b1a1a could be more typical for the immigrants than to the local population". The study also showed "that a common 'proto-Ugric' gene pool appeared in the Bronze Age from the admixture of Mezhovskaya and Nganasan people, supporting genetic and linguistic data".[55]
Hungarian language came with conquerors, now it's 100% sure. Yes, Magyars had Hun ancestry but it was minor and they were def. not same people with Huns nor Avars. And they were pred. genetically Ugric/Uralic, not Turkic.
"Notably, almost exclusively in the elite were present I2-Y3120 subclades, "very often accompanied by Asian maternal lineages, indicating that I2a1a2b1a1a could be more typical for the immigrants than to the local population"
Seems Slavic I2-dinaric males assimilated into conqueror elite even before the conquest of Carpathian Basin. This is very interesting.
In any case, Turkic theory is DEAD. Conquerors were half Uralic autosomaly and even more Iranic/Sarmatian than Hunnic (assuming Huns were Turks, which is obviously most likely true).
Tu-du.
Blondie
09-03-2022, 03:04 PM
Because Huns had no Uralic admixture, and neither did Avars.
But genetically hungarians were not 100% uralic, but in fact this component was minority among them, and the hun-magyar mixing is scientific fact, as you also proved.
In addition, we detected shared Hun-related ancestry in numerous Avar and Hungarian conquest period genetic outliers, indicating a genetic link between these successive nomadic groups.
The PCA position of Conq_Asia_Core corresponds to modern Bashkirs and Volga Tatars (Figure 2A), and they cluster together with a wide range of eastern Scythians, western Xiongnus, and Tian Shan Huns,20 which is also supported by ADMIXTURE (Figure 2B).
All analysis consistently indicated that the ancestors of Conquerors further admixed with a group from Mongolia, carrying Han-ANA-related ancestry, which could be identified with ancestors of European Huns.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222007321
Our recent analysis of conquering Hungarian (hence shortened as Conqueror) mitogenomes revealed that the origin of their maternal lineages can be traced back to distant parts of the Eurasian steppe10. One third of the maternal lineages were derived from Central-Inner Asia and their most probable ultimate sources were the Asian Scythians and Asian Huns
Hg Q1a2- M25 is very rare in Europe, where it has highest frequency among Seklers (a Hungarian speaking ethnic group in Transylvania) according to Family Tree DNA database. Ancient samples with Hg Q1a2- M25 are known from the Bronze Age Okunevo and Karasuk cultures, as well as Middle Age Tian Shan Huns and Hunnic-Sarmatians17 implying possible Hunnic origin of this lineage in Europe
Nevertheless the east Eurasian R1a subclade, R1a1a1b2a-Z94 seems to be a common element of the Hun, Avar and Conqueror elite. In contrast to Avars, all three Hun lineages have parallels among the Conquerors
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851379/
pp. 1, 8–9. "[O]ur findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied.... [W]e propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants... [E]ast Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
And there is no turkic theory, i have neved said that proto-magyars were originally turkic or hunnic. I just said huns and magyars mixed with each other and nomad magyars became part of hunnic tribal confederation, this is what the genetic and historical sources proves.
Magyars had Hun ancestry but it was minor and they were def. not same people with Huns nor Avars. And they were pred. genetically Ugric/Uralic, not Turkic.
If magyar nomads have no right to call themselves european huns because their genetic was mostly not original hunnic, then by this logic modern hungarians have no right to call themselves magyars because their genetic is not uralic. It makes no sense, the culture and identity is the most important thing, but they also had genetic link to huns btw.
^^^^it wasn't a minority component among them if they were 50% Mansi-like, which means it was by far dominant autosomal input among the conquerors.
I get what you mean but see no point in overcomplicating things.
As far as I see, you tought Huns of Attila could have brought Hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin and not the later conquerors, but that didn't happen.
Blondie
09-03-2022, 03:48 PM
As far as I see, you tought Huns of Attila could have brought Hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin and not the later conquerors, but that didn't happen.
Yes and thats happened for sure, because the magyar nomad warriors (as part of hunnic tribal confederation) have reached the Carpathian Basin at this time. But it doesnt mean Attila were uralic speaker or original huns were uralic.
European huns were not an homogeneous ethnicity. Its like you would say soviet or ottoman is an ethnicity, no its not, but group of various peoples. The hun elite was most likely turkic speaker but the tribes were multilingual, they spoked turkic, iranic, uralic, germanic languges or maybe even slavic too, every tribe had its own language and obviously the turkic was the lingua franca.
Do you know that romans have noticed slavic words what huns used? For example "strava". Its very possible that there were slavic warriors too among european huns. Just like romans described hungarians words. As i said european huns were multilingual. When they conquered East Europe, they have just gathered every warrior to conquer Roman Empire and these warriors came from these ethnicities who lived East Europe at this time.
Yes and thats happened for sure, because the magyar nomad warriors (as part of hunnic tribal confederation) have reached the Carpathian Basin at this time.
And what evidence do you have for these claims?
Do you know that romans have noticed slavic words what huns used? For example "strava". Its very possible that there were slavic warriors too among european huns
Yeah actually. Very interesting.
Hektor12
09-03-2022, 05:37 PM
I just said huns and magyars mixed with each other and nomad magyars became part of hunnic tribal confederation
Moreover=
Öge/Üge - Dignitary name, according to historian György Györffy. The meaning of it is "wise" and "sage", also "councillor". The word, as 10% words in modern Hungarian, is of Turkic origin. Many Hungarian personal names, and also animal and plant names,[11] are of Turkic origin. Further, the majority of Hungarian tribal names were of Turkic origin,[12] who overall made a significant contribution to Hungarians during their century-long cohabitation.
rothaer
09-03-2022, 08:54 PM
(...)Just like romans described hungarians words. (...)
You keep stating this like a broken record, not caring about the objections.
It's about someone shouting "marha, marha" as a sign of military attack as it is written in that Roman text you quoted. I made the effort to translate it.
And I told that ”marha” could be Germanic for horse. In old high German „marha“ means horse, cf. also Marschall coming from „marah-scalc“:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marschall#Geschichtliche_Entwicklung
An East Germanic (-Hunnic) as well as a later Hungarian horse-cattle based economy can easily have extended the meaning of a Germanic loan word „marha“ (directly from Germnics or via Huns?) to cattle in general in Hungarian.
However, this is no proven Hungarian word (meaning cattle in today's Hungarian as you said) mentioned by Romans in Hunnic times. If you have more examples where you think this is applying to, then feel free to present them.
Blondie
09-04-2022, 01:31 AM
And what evidence do you have for these claims?
I posted roman text which describe hungarian words in the 5. century. And its simple common sense, huns gathered everyone against the mighty Roman Empire, why would they let magyars at home if they had same powerful horse nomadic culture like huns? If you are going to war you would not use your one of the most powerful ally?
But we all know this is not a scientific debate. Its all about "we were here earlier" nationalism nothing else.
aherne
09-04-2022, 05:57 AM
the Hungarian elite core can be modeled as ~50% Mansi-like, ~35% Sarmatian-like, and ~15% Hun/Xiongnu-like
I don't believe in genetic assessments about population ancestries as they frequently bring conflicting and often absurd results, but above seems to correlate with Hungarian phenotypes. I've noticed among Hungarian looking Szekelers (apart of 80-90% that look indistinguishable from Romanians nearby): Uralic (lapp like) followed at distance by Aryan then West Siberian mongoloid (which tends to be closer to Kets or Mansis rather than Turanids). Lapponoid was very likely majority phenotype, which correlates with language... Fenno-Nordid (like in your husband) was second
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.