Possible Uyghur origin of the Hungarian Árpád dynasty

[Mr.G]

Most history teachers in Hungary are from the older generation, and they got their training in the Communist system, when the glorification of Hungarian achievements was greatly downplayed and even tabooed. Of course the question is how could this happen, when in any country the school curricula is there to inspire pupils from the positive achievements of their nation. But Hungary was a very unique case, where the Communist establishment feared any raising of patriotism in the people, fearing another '56 Uprising, which officially was considered a counterrevolution, a Nationalist and even Fascistic event. After Hungary won back its democracy, for around 12 years it was governed by the continuation of the Communist regime, the MSzP, who had a pretty similar approach in interpreting Hungarian history, focusing mostly on our defeats rather than victories. In my opinion neither directions should be applied in teaching history, since there is no need for any bias or partisanship, but history has to be taught as it happened, with both the good and the bad.

Thanks for the detailed response my friend.

[Blondie]

Ah, yes, the glorious Battle of Pozsony. One of the most iconic moments in Hungarian history. It's a real shame that they don't teach it in schools.

This is simple not true, we've learned it in the school.

[Blondie]

1. We need to make distinction between the hungarian speaker population and Árpád's magyars, because this both group are not same, they had totally different genetic.

2. Árpád's magyars were homogenous turkic population with turkic names, culture, alphabet etc, they were turkic speakers, obviously they spoked a similar/same language like bulgars or huns. Nomad magyars and huns had same genetic:
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794...is_english.pdf

3. Genetically the hungarian speaker population was slavic (minor uralic) from the eastern european uralic-slavic mixed areas, obviously their migration to Carpathian Basin happened in the 6. century and it connected to the great slavic expansion at this time, a genetic study proves the hungarians, ukrainians and poles had same ancestors and they lived together thousands of years ago:
https://www.nature.com/articles/5200468
https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/honfoglalok-magyarok
By the way the oldest nomad magyar origin myth is also connected to the huns, the Árpáds consider themselves as descedants of Attila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunor_and_Magor

4. Avars were buryats, they were pure mongoloids/mongols, they have nothing to do with origin of hungarians, the newest genetic sources debunked László Gyula's theory about hungarian-avar continuity.

5. The hungarians speaker slavs were the most numerous ethnicity in the Carpathian Basin, the turkic speaker Árpád's magyars were assimilated into this population during the 9-10. century, and later the hungarians speaker locals have named after the conqueror turkic magyars who created the statehood, same happened with bulgars but the local population was slavic speaker there.

6. The turkic Székelys are also descedants of huns, they had the highes haplogroup Q in this region by far, which was hun/turkic paternal marker:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...9.2008.00440.x
The székely's origin myth is also connected to the huns, including Prince Csaba who was the father of székelys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Csaba
Obviously székelys lost their original turkic language between 6-9 century and they changed it to hungarian which was the most common spoked language in the Avar Khaganate and later in the Kingdom of Hungary.

[Dunai]

1. We need to make distinction between the hungarian speaker population and Árpád's magyars, because this both group are not same, they had totally different genetic.

2. Árpád's magyars were homogenous turkic population with turkic names, culture, alphabet etc, they were turkic speakers, obviously they spoked a similar/same language like bulgars or huns. Nomad magyars and huns had same genetic:
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794...is_english.pdf

3. Genetically the hungarian speaker population was slavic (minor uralic) from the eastern european uralic-slavic mixed areas, obviously their migration to Carpathian Basin happened in the 6. century and it connected to the great slavic expansion at this time, a genetic study proves the hungarians, ukrainians and poles had same ancestors and they lived together thousands of years ago:
https://www.nature.com/articles/5200468
https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/honfoglalok-magyarok
By the way the oldest nomad magyar origin myth is also connected to the huns, the Árpáds consider themselves as descedants of Attila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunor_and_Magor

4. Avars were buryats, they were pure mongoloids/mongols, they have nothing to do with origin of hungarians, the newest genetic sources debunked László Gyula's theory about hungarian-avar continuity.

5. The hungarians speaker slavs were the most numerous ethnicity in the Carpathian Basin, the turkic speaker Árpád's magyars were assimilated into this population during the 9-10. century, and later the hungarians speaker locals have named after the conqueror turkic magyars who created the statehood, same happened with bulgars but the local population was slavic speaker there.

6. The turkic Székelys are also descedants of huns, they had the highes haplogroup Q in this region by far, which was hun/turkic paternal marker:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...9.2008.00440.x
The székely's origin myth is also connected to the huns, including Prince Csaba who was the father of székelys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Csaba
Obviously székelys lost their original turkic language between 6-9 century and they changed it to hungarian which was the most common spoked language in the Avar Khaganate and later in the Kingdom of Hungary.

What Hungarian speaking Slavs are you talking about? What does this even mean? If they were Slavs than how on Earth were they Hungarian speakers? A Slav is not a genetic category but a linguistic one, someone who speaks a Slavic language, not remotely connected to Hungarian, which is from the Eastern branch of the Uralic languages. Speakers of Hungarian must have came from the East, together with steppe nomadic migrations. The heimat of the Slavs was much more westwards, in today's Ukraine. There is no Turkic element in the Székely dialect that shows they shifted languages from Turkic to Hungarian. The Székelys were clearly always Hungarian speakers, since their dialect is most related with the Transdanubian Hungarian dialect.

[Kökény]

This is simple not true, we've learned it in the school.

I don't remember learning it at all. They didn't teach us about that. We've learned briefly about the stages of the conquest (Magna Hungária,Levédia, Etelköz) and about the date. That's it. The important battles were never mentioned.

[Blondie]

What Hungarian speaking Slavs are you talking about? What does this even mean? If they were Slavs than how on Earth were they Hungarian speakers? A Slav is not a genetic category but a linguistic one, someone who speaks a Slavic language, not remotely connected to Hungarian, which is from the Eastern branch of the Uralic languages. Speakers of Hungarian must have came from the East, together with steppe nomadic migrations. The heimat of the Slavs was much more westwards, in today's Ukraine. There is no Turkic element in the Székely dialect that shows they shifted languages from Turkic to Hungarian. The Székelys were clearly always Hungarian speakers, since their dialect is most related with the Transdanubian Hungarian dialect.

1. Wrong, slavs have own genetic markers like i2a-din and various types of r1a:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...I2_Y-DNA.shtml
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...A.shtml#Slavic

2. Slavs and uralics mixed with each other a lot, so an uralic speaker population with slavic genetic is very possible. The conquerors were not numerous, that's impossible that 1 million local were assimilated by few tens of thousands people

3. East Europe is also located in East, in the Steppe zone.

4. Székelys speaks hungarian language which is 9,5% turkic

5. There is no transdanubian dialect, eastern and western hungarians speak 100% same language and székelys speaks a different dialect that hungarians from Hungary.

6. I linked many scientific source, pls you also do it.

[Blondie]

I don't remember learning it at all. They didn't teach us about that. We've learned briefly about the stages of the conquest (Magna Hungária,Levédia, Etelköz) and about the date. That's it. The important battles were never mentioned.

We've learned about scythians, huns, avars and the Battle of Pressburg too including Búvár Kund, name of Vértes Mountains, II András and the medieval hungarian crusades in Egypt and Holy Land etc.

[oszkar07]

1. We need to make distinction between the hungarian speaker population and Árpád's magyars, because this both group are not same, they had totally different genetic.

2. Árpád's magyars were homogenous turkic population with turkic names, culture, alphabet etc, they were turkic speakers, obviously they spoked a similar/same language like bulgars or huns. Nomad magyars and huns had same genetic:
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794...is_english.pdf

3. Genetically the hungarian speaker population was slavic (minor uralic) from the eastern european uralic-slavic mixed areas, obviously their migration to Carpathian Basin happened in the 6. century and it connected to the great slavic expansion at this time, a genetic study proves the hungarians, ukrainians and poles had same ancestors and they lived together thousands of years ago:
https://www.nature.com/articles/5200468
https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/honfoglalok-magyarok
By the way the oldest nomad magyar origin myth is also connected to the huns, the Árpáds consider themselves as descedants of Attila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunor_and_Magor

4. Avars were buryats, they were pure mongoloids/mongols, they have nothing to do with origin of hungarians, the newest genetic sources debunked László Gyula's theory about hungarian-avar continuity.

5. The hungarians speaker slavs were the most numerous ethnicity in the Carpathian Basin, the turkic speaker Árpád's magyars were assimilated into this population during the 9-10. century, and later the hungarians speaker locals have named after the conqueror turkic magyars who created the statehood, same happened with bulgars but the local population was slavic speaker there.

6. The turkic Székelys are also descedants of huns, they had the highes haplogroup Q in this region by far, which was hun/turkic paternal marker:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...9.2008.00440.x
The székely's origin myth is also connected to the huns, including Prince Csaba who was the father of székelys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Csaba
Obviously székelys lost their original turkic language between 6-9 century and they changed it to hungarian which was the most common spoked language in the Avar Khaganate and later in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Its written that there were different migration waves of Avar's.
The Gyula Laszlo theory is not necessarily saying that Hungarian speakers were Avars but rather some of the migrations which were described as being Avar migrations were actually Hungarian speakers whom scribes of the time mistook for being Avars.
The main point he makes is that Hungarian speakers entered the region during the Avar period.

[Kökény]

There is no Turkic element in the Székely dialect that shows they shifted languages from Turkic to Hungarian. The Székelys were clearly always Hungarian speakers, since their dialect is most related with the Transdanubian Hungarian dialect.

I find it it hard to believe, that we are just a buch of Hungarians that got transplanted to the east. Then how come, that we have our own ethnogenesis (independent from the Hungarian one), own legendary figure, own symbols that looks quite Turkic?

And we used the Runic alphabet for a strangely long amount of time, even though we were already christians too. All the the discovered scripts written in the 12-17th century are from Transylvania. Not to mention, that the alphabet was called Hunnic, Scythian or Székely alphabet back in those days. I don't think that we preserved it out of boredom.

Well what language did we spoke is an another thing. Our dialect being closest to the Transdanubian one proves nothing to me.

[Dunai]

I find it it hard to believe, that we are just a buch of Hungarians that got transplanted to the east. Then how come, that we have our own ethnogenesis (independent from the Hungarian one), own legendary figure, own symbols that looks quite Turkic?

And we used the Runic alphabet for a strangely long amount of time, even though we were already christians too. All the the discovered scripts written in the 12-17th century are from Transylvania. Not to mention, that the alphabet was called Hunnic, Scythian or Székely alphabet back in those days. I don't think that we preserved it out of boredom.

Well what language did we spoke is an another thing. Our dialect being closest to the Transdanubian one proves nothing to me.

No people give up on their language just like that, without leaving some minimal traces of their former language, that's not realistic one bit, especially when Magyars never practiced forced language assimilation politics before the late 19th century.

"Az erdélyi székely helységnevek és a nyugat-magyarországi helységnevek közötti azonosságok, valamint a ma élő székely és a nyugat-magyarországi lakosság nyelvjárásainak hasonlósága alapján feltételezhető, hogy létezett egy nyugat-kelet irányú tömeges székely vándorlás – erről leszakadt (esetleg a korábbi lakhelyén maradt) népelemek alkothatták a későbbi nyugati székelységet. A tömeges áttelepülés időpontját egyes történészek a 12. század elejére tették. "

The Székelys do indeed have somewhat their own legends and myths, but early chronicle writers also described the Magyars as descendants of Attila, thus I don't see how Székelys are that drastically different from Magyar origin myths. They seem to be the only Hungarian group that preserved this myth until today, but it still doesn't prove that they were Huns, most Medieval chronicles were full of made-up stories, hardly scientifically reliable sources.

The Székely name originates most likely from the Hungarian administrative term Szék (Seat in English), which was a newly territorial organization of Hungarian frontier territories beginning with the 13th century. Those Hungarians living in the 7 Hungarian Széks in Eastern Transylvania (there were also Saxon Széks) most probably started to identify with their administrative name, and hence they became Székely.

About the Old Runic writing, the Rovásírás we don't know anything when it was adopted by the Magyars, from whom, only that it was first mentioned in the 13th century as being used by the Székelys. This doesn't prove that it was exclusive to Székelys, but that it got discontinued on other territories with the adoption of Latin writing, and in their isolation Székelys managed to preserve it.