History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedMagyar origins

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Magyar origins
    Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 17:09
Originally posted by barbar

Please take some time to read Shahname.

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


Edited by Sarmat12 - 18-Jun-2007 at 18:27
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Xiongnu Hun View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Xiongnu Hun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 02:21
Iran-Land of Aryan
Turan-Land of North in old persian as I know
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Post Options Post Options   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 17:16
Originally posted by Sarmat12

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

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 18:04
Originally posted by barbar

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


Edited by Sarmat12 - 21-Jun-2007 at 18:11
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Post Options Post Options   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 17:45
Originally posted by Sarmat12

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

Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Location: Andorra
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:34
Originally posted by calvo

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

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
Post Options Post Options   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 03:44
over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

[hide]
//

[edit] Etymology

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

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

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

[edit] Ethnic affiliations and origins

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

The following section presents the Finno-Ugric theory of the origin of modern Hungarian people. For some other theories see Hungarian prehistory.

Finno-Ugric is a group of related languages, which does not necessarily mean that the peoples speaking those languages are equally related in terms of ethnicity. The same holds true for Indo-European languages.

[edit] East of the Ural mountains (pre-fourth century AD)

Migration%20of%20the%20Magyars
Migration of the Magyars

During the fourth millennium BC, some of the earliest settlements of the Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples were situated east of the Ural Mountains, where they hunted and fished. From there, the Ugrians, settled in the wood-steppe parts of western Siberia (i.e. to the east of the Ural Mountains) from at least 2000 BC onwards. Their settlements closely resembled those of the north-western Andronovo Culture. More advanced tribes arriving from the southern steppes taught them how to farm, breed cattle and produce bronze objects. Around 1500 BC, they started to breed horses and horse riding became one of their typical activities.

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

[edit] Bashkiria and the Khazar khaganate (fourth century to c.830 AD)

Main articles: Yugra, Magna Hungaria, and Levedia

In the fourth and fifth centuries AD, the proto-Magyars moved to the west of the Ural Mountains to the area between the southern Ural Mountains and the Volga River known as Bashkiria (Bashkortostan).

Eastern%20Hemisphere,%20600ad.
Eastern Hemisphere, 600ad.

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


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

[edit] Etelköz (c.830 to c.895)

Main article: Etelköz

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

[edit] Entering the Carpathian Basin (after 895)

Prince%20Árpád%20crossing%20the%20Carpathians.%20A%20detail%20from%20Árpád%20Feszty%20and%20his%20assistants%20vast%20canvas%20%28over%201800 m²%29,%20painted%20to%20celebrate%20the%20one-thousandth%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Magyar%20conquest%20of%20Hungary,%20now%20displayed%20at%20the%20Ópusztaszer%20National%20Memorial%20Site%20in%20Hungary.
Prince Árpád crossing the Carpathians. A detail from Árpád Feszty and his assistants' vast canvas (over 1800 ), painted to celebrate the one-thousandth anniversary of the Magyar conquest of Hungary, now displayed at the Ópusztaszer National Memorial Site in Hungary.
The%20entry%20of%20the%20Magyars%20into%20the%20Carpathian%20basin,%20from%20the%20Chronicon%20Pictum,%201360.
The entry of the Magyars into the Carpathian basin, from the Chronicon Pictum, 1360.

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

In the Carpathian Basin, the Magyars initially occupied the Great Moravian territory at the upper/middle Tisza river, a scarcely populated territory, where, according to Arabian sources, Great Moravia used to send its criminals, and where the Roman Empire had settled the Iazyges centuries earlier. From there, they intensified their looting raids across continental Europe. In 900, they moved from the upper Tisza river to Transdanubia (Pannonia), which later became the core of the arising Hungarian state. Their allies, the Kabars (probably led by Kursan), appear to have settled in the region around Bihar.[citation needed] Upon entering the Carpathian Basin, the Magyars found a mainly Slavic population there.

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

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

[edit] History after 900

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

Eastern%20Hemisphere,%201025ad.
Eastern Hemisphere, 1025ad.

At this time, the Hungarian nation numbered between 25,000[13] and 1,000,000 people[14]. The Slavic population in present-day Hungary were culturally assimilated by the Magyar culture.

The name "Hungarian" has also a wider meaning, as it once referred to all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary irrespective of their ethnicity.[15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a referendum in Hungary in December 2004 on whether to grant Hungarian citizenship to Magyars living outside Hungary's borders (i.e. without requiring a permanent residence in Hungary). The referendum failed due to the insufficient voter turnout.

[edit] Later influences

An%20embossed%20stone%20in%20the%20Ópusztaszer%20National%20Memorial%20Park%20showing%20a%20worldwide%20Hungarian%20population%20count.
An embossed stone in the Ópusztaszer National Memorial Park showing a worldwide Hungarian population count.

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

What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 848
Post Options Post Options   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 10:11
Thanks for such a detailed reply!!!
 
The truth is that there are many theories about the origin of Magyars and greatly influenced by the version one subjectively wants to believe in.
 
Regarding the issue of the percentage of "ethnic Magyars" living in the Carpathian basin during the Middle Ages, the figures are greatly manipulated by nationalistic politics.
 
My personal interpretation (which might not be correct) is the following:
 
As in all migration waves, the number of migrants are usually numerically modest compared to the local inhabitants. THe Magyar migration should be no exception.
The number of Magyars arriving from Russia were probably small compared to the indigenous inhabitants of Panonia, be them Latin-Roman, Slavic, or a mixture of the 2. However, when Arpad founded the Hungarian state, many of these indigenous ethnicies became assimilated by Magyars, and thus came to identify themselves as Magyars, although those who held onto their original identities still formed a (varying percentage) way into the modern age.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Xianpei View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 17-Oct-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
Post Options Post Options   Quote Xianpei Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 03:45
Folks,

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

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

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

My question is: Do you buy this?
Back to Top
mohawk View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote mohawk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 11:07
the Hungarians are Turks, the ancestors of them were the black bulgars, they are onogurs, the organizing clan was the Dulo dynasty, started with Kovrat, Batbayan-Bezmer, Ugek, Almosh etc.
There is a label on the Hungarian crown from 1071, which declare under the small picture of the king, that this is , the Geyza, the first, the king of Turkia.
The name of the country is still today Hungary= Onoguria.
The Onogurs were western type turks like the chuvash, bashkir and others.
The Hugarians changed their Tengrism to christianit, they changed their turkish language to the today spoken mixture, but the hunnic live coals burns in them.
Back to Top
Tar Szerénd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 385
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tar Szerénd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 15:08
It would be great if the writer could speak hungarian, because many of his arguments (f.e. the surname-compearings) are ...huhh... a little bit ridiculous. It could be a very interesting theory, if it had a stabil grammatical base.
 
Tar Szerénd
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 17:20
Originally posted by mohawk

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


Edited by Sarmat12 - 29-Oct-2007 at 17:40
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 17:58
Originally posted by Xianpei

Folks,

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

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

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

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



Edited by Sarmat12 - 30-Oct-2007 at 05:43
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Xianpei View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 17-Oct-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
Post Options Post Options   Quote Xianpei Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 04:26
Sarmat12,  

You have made some very goods points, I believe.

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

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 05:39
"Iranian meaning" is very natural.  Most of the ancient nomands of Central Asia and Eastern Europe were Iranian speakers.
 
Their impact actually is felt as far as China. Of course, they didn't just disappear. Iranian nomades like Skythians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. became an important element contributing to the formation of new Turkic, Finno-ugrian and Mongolian speaking Nomadic ethnicities.
 
For example, Turkic Kazakhs still have a clan called "Saka" (the name of Central Asian Skythians).
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
groovy_merchant View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote groovy_merchant Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 12:53
Turkic Kazakhs don't have  a clan Saka, that's a mistake of some kind. They have Shaga clan.

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

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

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

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 18:44

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

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

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


Edited by Sarmat12 - 30-Oct-2007 at 19:01
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 19:18
i didn't found any Qzaq tribe with the name Saka or similar here:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/578/qazaqxc2.jpg
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 19:39

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

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



Edited by Bulldog - 30-Oct-2007 at 19:40
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 20:54
I didn't say they were monoethnic. They very likely included Turkic components as well. However, seems that they were mainly Iranian speakers.
 
Actually, I think this kind of wery lond conic hats is a specific feature of Kazakh national costume as well as an item frequently found in Sakas kurgans in Kazakhstan.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.