View Poll Results: Oldest layer of Hungarians was Turkic or Ugric? (don't vote if you are not Hungarian)

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Magyars were originally Ugric, Turkic influence came later

    12 85.71%
  • Magyars were originally Turkic, Ugric influence came later

    2 14.29%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: What was the core of the original Magyars ?

  1. #21
    Whip it good oszkar07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Location
    In the Simulation
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Martian From Venus
    Ethnicity
    Hunbritarian
    Ancestry
    TheHuns
    Country
    Austria
    Y-DNA
    I2
    mtDNA
    H1m
    Taxonomy
    Killer
    Politics
    1999
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Philippians 4.13
    Relationship Status
    Married
    Age
    97
    Gender
    Posts
    5,657
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8,632
    Given: 13,521

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    That's an interesting theory. Let's think about what was said and ask some important questions.

    Do you think that someones language being "Ugric" makes someone ethnically Ugric? Are all fluent English speakers Anglo-Saxons if that is their primary vocabulary?
    Do you feel that there is any issue with the language classification when the minority-majority words are of "unknown origin"? Why do you believe that language is the only way needed to settle ancient Hungarian ancestry? The Ugric words simply could have been a form of business core that stuck as the lingua franca, just like English.

    Can you present anything that shows conquering Hungarians as genetically favoring an Ugric core?
    In the sequence of known Hungarian history prior to the Honfoglalas where is there any mention that by your account "Turkic Hungarians" encountered large groups of known Ugric tribe or tribes that might have made the known majority of Hungarian language Ugric.
    In fact most of whats written about the Hungarians prior to the landtaking seems to be the opposite of this ... that Hungarians came from west Siberia near Permia moved gradualy further south where they encountered Iranic and Turkic peoples .
    Then we have heard about there connection with the Khazars, from what we know Khazars were Turkic speakers not Uralic speakers ... so whom are the supposed significant Uralic/Ugric tribe who could have made Hungarians by majority Ugric speakers ? ...from current known Uralic tribes linguists suggest that the languages can be distantly closest to Hungarian are among the khanty - mansi ...and even in this case Hungarian is very different ... but we dont know of any existing Uralic group who is closer.
    The idea that Hungarians were at first Turkic then later had Ugric influence does not seem to be based on any strong basis of evidence and as Blondie stated it seems unlikely that a military strong Turkic people whom are wondering around conquering would transfer their language from Turkic to Ugric as Turkic groups were stronger and more militarily advanced than Ugric groups in those times.
    As for the genetics ... as I said Hungarians when they arrived were already a mixed people ... its today that some people wanna fit some label on them such as Turks ... in that time by their own identity we have no evidence to show they saw themselves as Turks and if they did then why dont Hungarians speak a Turkic language today ... we know they had some significant connections to well known Turkic tribes at time of the landtaking.
    As for the points you made about others labelling them as Turks ... this is not necessarily proof ... as it can be also possible that they were observed when they were in alliance / under suzerainty with the Khazars whom were well known Turkic people at the time hence not unlikely that others assumed Hungarians were also Turkics ... if they at the time were part of Steppic political structures.
    It wouldnt be the first time in history that other peoples scribes mislabelled people.

    Then again according to the "Dual Conquest Theory" ... could be another way to look at it ... which the question as to whether the Conquerors of Arpad were even speaking same language of the Avar -Magyar whom were already present in Karpat Medence when Arpad arrived .
    Last edited by oszkar07; 10-27-2019 at 02:42 PM.
    https://vocaroo.com/111XfdVCLjDL?fbc...XW3C8-DciJTcEs
    Disclaimer:any references to drugs or hookers are made for comedy purposes only.The author cannot be held responsible for any actions of others whom have read his posts. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.We would like to recognise the Huns conquered most of eastern central Europe in 5th century AD and that the Hungarians are the rightful inheritors and first nations people of the Carpathian Basin from their forfather Hun kin

  2. #22
    Veteran Member Blondie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Location
    Ofner Bergland-Budapest
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Barbarian
    Ancestry
    Savages, Hillmen
    Country
    Germany
    Region
    Donau Schwaben
    Taxonomy
    Subnordid
    Gender
    Posts
    17,728
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 15,001
    Given: 9,690

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    As far as language adoption, this happens all the time. This happed with the Rus, the Normans, and more. Also they were not "lower class" because tribal affiliation and steppe culture never had the same rigid aristocratic system that the settled Europeans did.
    Vikings in russia and normans were assimilated into the majority local society, the ugrics were only a little minority compared to turkics who ruled the complete Eurasia, plus don't forget the turkic military domination. It makes no sense that a dominant turkic population adopted a foreign ugric language from a small unsignificant population. This is bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    You also focus on haplogroup G as if that could be the only Turkic one.
    Haplogroup G isn't turkic but native caucasian:



    "The highest genetic diversity within haplogroup G is found in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent, between the Levant and the Caucasus, which is a good indicator of its region of origin. It is thought that early Neolithic farmers expanded from northern Mesopotamia westwards to Anatolia and Europe, eastwards to South Asia, and southwards to the Arabian peninsula and North and East Africa. So far, the only G2a people negative for subclades downstream of P15 or L149.1 were found exclusively in the South Caucasus region."
    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...2a_Y-DNA.shtml


    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    Well, since the Árpád dynasty wasn't Q or N, does that not make them real Hungarians?
    Nobody said that. Nomad magyars were multiethnic peoples with many background: uralic, turkic, iranic, slavic, germanic etc. Árpád's has r1a-z93 which is iranic marker, and proves the scythian-hungarian connections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    You use only Q as valid in order to artificially shrink the pool of possible Turkic haplogroups.
    Yes because it's, i don't consider other haplogroups (which are all results of mixing with others) turkic, just like i don't consider r1a and I1 haplogroups finno-ugric markers just because every finno-ugric people have such haplos because it's not connected to the ancestry of the original population.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Turul Karom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    01-08-2024 @ 05:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Hungarian
    Country
    Hungary
    Gender
    Posts
    1,853
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,351
    Given: 4,487

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oszkar07 View Post
    In the sequence of known Hungarian history prior to the Honfoglalas where is there any mention that by your account "Turkic Hungarians" encountered large groups of known Ugric tribe or tribes that might have made the known majority of Hungarian language Ugric.
    In fact most of whats written about the Hungarians prior to the landtaking seems to be the opposite of this ... that Hungarians came from west Siberia near Permia moved gradualy further south where they encountered Iranic and Turkic peoples .
    Then we have heard about there connection with the Khazars, from what we know Khazars were Turkic speakers not Uralic speakers ... so whom are the supposed significant Uralic/Ugric tribe who could have made Hungarians by majority Ugric speakers ? ...from current known Uralic tribes linguists suggest that the languages can be distantly closest to Hungarian are among the khanty - mansi ...and even in this case Hungarian is very different ... but we dont know of any existing Uralic group who is closer.
    The idea that Hungarians were at first Turkic then later had Ugric influence does not seem to be based on any strong basis of evidence and as Blondie stated it seems unlikely that a military strong Turkic people whom are wondering around conquering would transfer their language from Turkic to Ugric as Turkic groups were stronger and more militarily advanced than Ugric groups in those times.
    As for the genetics ... as I said Hungarians when they arrived were already a mixed people ... its today that some people wanna fit some label on them such as Turks ... in that time by their own identity we have no evidence to show they saw themselves as Turks and if they did then why dont Hungarians speak a Turkic language today ... we know they had some significant connections to well known Turkic tribes at time of the landtaking.
    As for the points you made about others labelling them as Turks ... this is not necessarily proof ... as it can be also possible that they were observed when they were in alliance / under suzerainty with the Khazars whom were well known Turkic people at the time hence not unlikely that others assumed Hungarians were also Turkics ... if they at the time were part of Steppic political structures.
    It wouldnt be the first time in history that other peoples scribes mislabelled people.

    Then again according to the "Dual Conquest Theory" ... could be another way to look at it ... which the question as to whether the Conquerors of Arpad were even speaking same language of the Avar -Magyar whom were already present in Karpat Medence when Arpad arrived .
    I'd genuinely like to comment on these things and I will, but there are a few key questions from your quote of me earlier that remained unanswered. I need to know what you think about spoken language and its relationship to ethnic classification.

    Do you think that someones language being "Ugric" makes someone ethnically Ugric? Are all fluent English speakers Anglo-Saxons if that is their primary vocabulary?
    Do you feel that there is any issue with the language classification when the minority-majority words are of "unknown origin"? Why do you believe that language is the only way needed to settle ancient Hungarian ancestry?

    As far as labeling in the time, Hungarians have been called Turkic for hundreds of years through the period before and after the conquest of the Carpathian basin. It is even in the crown, which was made after settlement, not before.

    Coloman wore the crown which bears his father as "King of the Turks" as well when Hungary was besieged by the first crusade. He was very fluent and is known in Hungarian to be learned and bookish. He would have been able to read the crown, just like all before. This was hundreds of years after the Khazar empire collapsed. There would be no way that the affiliations of allyship would be relevant and Hungary was already an established state. Yet still called "Turk".

    Do you really think that no Hungarian ruler would have corrected them in some way? Don't you think that in all the various chronicles there would have been citations of Hungarian objections to being called Turks?

  4. #24
    Whip it good oszkar07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Location
    In the Simulation
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Martian From Venus
    Ethnicity
    Hunbritarian
    Ancestry
    TheHuns
    Country
    Austria
    Y-DNA
    I2
    mtDNA
    H1m
    Taxonomy
    Killer
    Politics
    1999
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Philippians 4.13
    Relationship Status
    Married
    Age
    97
    Gender
    Posts
    5,657
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8,632
    Given: 13,521

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Do you think that someones language being "Ugric" makes someone ethnically Ugric?
    My reference to the OP concerns the question as to whether people think the original core of the Magyar was Ugric or Turkic.
    Im not saying that I think modern Hungarians are Ugric.
    Modern Hungarians only have minor traces of Ugric or Turkic dna.

    Do you feel that there is any issue with the language classification when the minority-majority words are of "unknown origin"?
    All can be said is that the majority of the words that can be identified are from Ugric... in this matter linguists are the ones qualified to determine how these words can be more likely core language words or not.
    The unknown words are very interesting ... makes one wonder if they came from a now extinct language.
    In relation to Turkic words it can also be stated that Hungarian has also absorbed a lot of Slavic words.

    Why do you believe that language is the only way needed to settle ancient Hungarian ancestry
    I dont ... but I havnt seen a convincing argument that proves the assertion that Magyars were Turkic and then Ugric

    As far as labeling in the time, Hungarians have been called Turkic for hundreds of years through the period before and after the conquest of the Carpathian basin. It is even in the crown, which was made after settlement, not before.
    In old Hungarian writings where do we specifically refer to ourselves as Turks.

    Others labelling does not prove the Turkic assertion ...
    what qualification did those that were labelling have ... were they linguists , ethnographers, ?
    Hungarians were allied with very well known Turkic tribes the Khazars and the Kabars joined the Hungarians, by time of the landtaking some of the Hungarian tribes were Turkic ... "but were all or the majority of the Hungarians Turkic " ?

    Coloman wore the crown which bears his father as "King of the Turks" as well when Hungary was besieged by the first crusade. He was very fluent and is known in Hungarian to be learned and bookish. He would have been able to read the crown, just like all before. This was hundreds of years after the Khazar empire collapsed. There would be no way that the affiliations of allyship would be relevant and Hungary was already an established state. Yet still called "Turk".
    Again where are all the documents where Hungarians are calling themselves Turks.
    What is more important what someone else called us ... or what we called ourselves.

    Do you really think that no Hungarian ruler would have corrected them in some way? Don't you think that in all the various chronicles there would have been citations of Hungarian objections to being called Turks?
    Politics ! in certain time that political alliance was suitable ... time moved on and things changed ...different political alliances etc... now in some ways going back to old allies.... Politics.
    Last edited by oszkar07; 10-29-2019 at 10:15 AM.
    https://vocaroo.com/111XfdVCLjDL?fbc...XW3C8-DciJTcEs
    Disclaimer:any references to drugs or hookers are made for comedy purposes only.The author cannot be held responsible for any actions of others whom have read his posts. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.We would like to recognise the Huns conquered most of eastern central Europe in 5th century AD and that the Hungarians are the rightful inheritors and first nations people of the Carpathian Basin from their forfather Hun kin

  5. #25
    Veteran Member Blondie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Location
    Ofner Bergland-Budapest
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Barbarian
    Ancestry
    Savages, Hillmen
    Country
    Germany
    Region
    Donau Schwaben
    Taxonomy
    Subnordid
    Gender
    Posts
    17,728
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 15,001
    Given: 9,690

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turul Karom View Post
    I'd genuinely like to comment on these things and I will, but there are a few key questions from your quote of me earlier that remained unanswered. I need to know what you think about spoken language and its relationship to ethnic classification.

    Do you think that someones language being "Ugric" makes someone ethnically Ugric? Are all fluent English speakers Anglo-Saxons if that is their primary vocabulary?
    Do you feel that there is any issue with the language classification when the minority-majority words are of "unknown origin"? Why do you believe that language is the only way needed to settle ancient Hungarian ancestry?

    As far as labeling in the time, Hungarians have been called Turkic for hundreds of years through the period before and after the conquest of the Carpathian basin. It is even in the crown, which was made after settlement, not before.

    Coloman wore the crown which bears his father as "King of the Turks" as well when Hungary was besieged by the first crusade. He was very fluent and is known in Hungarian to be learned and bookish. He would have been able to read the crown, just like all before. This was hundreds of years after the Khazar empire collapsed. There would be no way that the affiliations of allyship would be relevant and Hungary was already an established state. Yet still called "Turk".

    Do you really think that no Hungarian ruler would have corrected them in some way? Don't you think that in all the various chronicles there would have been citations of Hungarian objections to being called Turks?
    Hungarians have been called Turkic by peoples who knew nothing about steppe peoples, have never been in the Steppe and who were not scientists. Emperor Constantine VII had never lived in the steppe that's why it's not valid source. But interesting fact that slavs of Kiev described magyars as ugrics not turkics:
    http://www.arpad.btk.mta.hu/lexikon/...enelemrol.html
    and they are more reliable than others because they lived among the steppe nomads. So it's also bullshit that everyone called magyars turkic, nope just some chroniclers others aren't.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    02-23-2022 @ 01:59 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Magyar
    Ancestry
    Historic Hungary/Holy Roman Empire
    Country
    Hungary
    Y-DNA
    R-M417 (8700 ybp)
    mtDNA
    H10-a T16093C (9000 ybp)
    Politics
    Green Left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    2,296
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,864
    Given: 444

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    It is clear as daylight that Proto-Hungarians were Uralic people, since the language itself originates from there. Of course an ethnicity is not strictly language based, but genetics and culture are also important factors. From this point of view the Scythians (Indo-Iranians) and later the Oghurs (West Turkics) have left a major mark on these Proto-Hungarians, changing their lifestyles, culture and even genetics. Overall it's not a very easy answer what is the starting point of the Modern Hungarian people. Many would consider the origin of the language (Uralic), others would rather choose the origin of the culture and genetics (Central Asian). To me the language origin has slightly more primary importance, since today the language is probably the most important identifying factors for our people. But I also consider the cultural and genetic origin of Conquest Era Hungarians a very important factor, and this one is undeniably related with Central Asians rather than with Uralic people. But overall I am kinda fed up with this constant fetishization of either Finno-Ugrics or Turkic people by certain Modern Hungarians, because they just look so much back into the past to feed their identities, while our true modern identity is right here with us, in the Carpathian Basin, in East-Central Europe. Why would I want to solely identify with my long-time ancestors from over a thousand years ago and beyond, while my more recent ancestors are all Central European?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Are Rusyns Magyars?
    By TeutonicBoyars in forum Genetics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2021, 10:15 PM
  2. magyars vs dacians
    By grecoroman in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-10-2019, 01:14 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2018, 12:29 PM
  4. Turanist Magyars
    By Pennywise in forum Magyarország
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 02-07-2017, 08:19 PM
  5. Eastern Magyars
    By Szegedist in forum Magyarország
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2013, 12:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •