Talk:Hungarian prehistory

Cleanup Needed

There is a lot to do about this article (system, titles etc.)... Juro 17:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Heading Under Its Own Name

I have moved this page to: Hungarian Old Country, The: by Istvan Kiszely as I believe this article might be more helpful under its own name, rather than as a sub-article under the general heading of Hungarian history. The types of information included in this article seem to me to be worthy of having their own unique heading, that includes the name of the source material in the heading. I have also linked the sub-article, Hungary: Pre-History and Early History to this article, as I believe the two articles compliment one another nicely. While the initial translation is certainly understandable, it might be improved a bit by a few grammatical corrections. Scott P. 01:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the following attribution out of the article itself since it's a Wikipedia article rather than a Wikisource text Bryan 06:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attribution: the study of Istvan Kiszely translated by Csaba Hargita with author's permission

Please, look tt:Böyek Macarstan. Some Hungarian names could include mistakes!

--Untifler 22:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non-mainstream view on Hungarian history

Indeed the ideas of István Kiszely are not mainstream. I would rather my name be not mentioned with the anti FinnoUgrian theory, even though there are aspects of their ideas which I dislike and believe to be simplistic and overminimalized. Kiszely's views aren't based on language but on anthropology. Knowing a few common word between Turkish and Hungarian doesnt make one an expert on language differences. There are many problems with the way FinnoUgrian scholars in Hungary have focused all their energy into equating Hungarians with Ob Ugrians, who are unlike Hungarians in race, culture and even the grammar of Hungarian has huge differences. Some say Hungarian grammar is closer to other branches of FinnoUgrian, while vocabulary differences in Ugrian are to a degree, not completely were influenced by a very archaic Altaic dialect. Some of these words are very close to the proto Altaic derived protowords. These indicate the possibility of a very ancient FinnUgor - Turkic common language. Minimum estimates are around 50 common archaic root words between Altaic and FinnoUgrian words. Root words of course can have many derivatives. The eternally raging battle between the FinnoUgrian and Turkic ideas are basically about a linguistic view vs a traditionalist views that emphasized culture not language. This argument is totally fruitless and a waste of time, since the Scythian and Turko-Hunish ideas have not been able to proove much linguistically and the arguments are comparing totally different things.

We must realize therefore that linguistically Hungarian is FinnoUgrian, that it separated from them a very long time ago and since then Hungarians have been evolving and influenced by many other cultures. To understand tradition, we must stop thinking like modern historians. The association with Scythians is not obviously a fairy tale because hungarian does share a lot of common customs with them, as told by Herodotus. This kind of link however doesnt automatically mean a common language, but a shared culture. The idea so widely held today that we know who the Scythians were, is false. Nothing is conclusively prooven about their language. At the same time the Hun language is claimed not to be known, but I think thats a biased view because of the many Turkic names indicate they were Turkic speaking, as some expert Turkologists have also claimed. Similarly when the Huns took over rule, they were but a small minority in a large collection of peoples in an empire. Even the Avar Hun burials in Hungary showed less then 5% to be mongoloid.(Lipták Pál) These were shown to be the rich and elite. At the same time no such mongoloid element was found in early Magyar burials. Thus the majority of the people of the empire were caucasians and not Huns. They were probably influenced by their language but not to any great degree. Words alone are easily shared and thats mostly what we see in the Turkic words in Hungarian. The most heavily used words in Hungarian are still mainly the derivatives of the ancient FinnoUgrian words. Many of these Turkic linguistic influences are relatively recent and can be isolated to the time before the settlement of the Magyars, who were but one branch of the Hungarian people since according to Laszlo Gyula, well known archeologist, most Hungarian place names were already there before they came. Some use this as a claim that Magyars were Turkic. But thats not true. Nor is it true that they came all the way from the urals. Their myth of origin ties them to the sea of azov.

Yet a great emphasis is laid upon the Hun origin of Hungarians, in the Chronicles, which were written by the ruling royal family, symbolized by the Turul Hawk totem, whereas the Hungarian origin talks of the Stagg totem. No this has nothing to do with a recent invention but of the oldest of traditions in Hungary. Similarly the Magyar name isnt even Altaic in origin, and the term Hungarian is a misnomer not invented by Hungarians, but foreighners, who equated any horse-mobile culture to Huns or with the frontier guards of the allied Onogur Turks. These people called horse nomads Scythians, before the Huns, and also ignored all differences between members of these alliances. Similarly the Szekely Hungarians, whose traditions tie them to the Huns and Atilla's roylal house, show no strong link to the Turkic like languages as all our records show they always spoke Hungarian and were there before the Magyars. The common people are rarely mentioned by early Chroniclers, and many labels are quite misleading and often indicate the rulers not the people. FredH

======

I'm not an expert in the field, but after a quick glance at the article, it seems that it describes a view that is not exactly mainstream in Hungarian history.

The parts on linguistics are definitely not.

--nyenyec ☎ 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed it's not mainstream. (I'm Hungarian). Since the middle of the 20th century (probably earlier), it's taught in schools in Hungary that Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language, with Estonian and Finnish in the same category. There seems to be evidence for professional linguists that supports this. I am not a linguist, but I have met Finnish and Turkish people in person. And with the Finnish, we didn't understand a single word of each other. However with the Turkish, we found common words pretty soon. (Altough that's far from "understanding"). However, this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish. So we may have adopted a lot of their words. Well... my point is that there may be academic evidence for the first theory but common sense dictates differently. Especially after you talked to a Turkish person. (Strongly recommended ;) Who knows...

• The remark -this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish- from above is wrong and simplistic,because it is a known fact that hungarians had been in contact with people of turkic origin long before the conquest in 896. And even before the turkish ocupation hungarians had contact with people like petchenegs, cumans,and even settled them down in Hungary. Many hungarians have cuman ancestors. Even the words for denoting mother and father are of turkic origin,anya apa/atya in hungarian ana apa/ata/baba in turkish.Thehun

Yes, yes, yes, but if you keep insisting on bringing that up, how are the historical revisionists ever going to succeed in brainwashing that fact from people's minds? That is why they must keep repeatedly making statements like this is explained by the fact that Hungary was occupied for 150 years by the Ottoman Turkish. ፈቃደ 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you are interested in the words from the time of turkish ocupation in Hungary check out at the

Hungarian Electronic Library: TURKISH LOAN WORDS http://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01911/html/index2.html By the way hungarians fled the area occupied by the turks,which consisted one third of the country, the area depopulated.At the same time the turks,the reformation, the printing arrived in Hungary. At that time hungarians started to use their language in literature. The turkish occupation had little influence on the hungarian language in fact!!! Thehun

Strong POV

Contrary to what is stated in the last section, there is much dispute and uncertainty around this topic. The statement "Although Hungarian prehistory is unambigously proven [...]" is not nearly fitting in an encyclopedia. Similarly, references to "falsifications", the improper use of terms like "our ancestors" etc. need to be replaced or removed.

Much of this article is a more or less accurate, if verbatim, description of one possible opinion in the topic. Needs to be reworked thoroughly. I might have a go at some parts later on, but that's no promise :)

KissL 11:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do that...The article was placed here as propaganda for the one single opinion. We are desperately looking for someone who is an expert for all the alternative theories. Juro 28 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust. The thing is, almost nobody is an expert of all the alternative theories, but at least I'm surely not one. (I have only heard and seen "experts" who were rather strongly for one theory, even if they knew something about the others.) I can only make myself really useful here if I do some research first — the vague memories I recollect would be no good for an encyclopedia article — but when I'll have enough time for that I cannot tell. I'll do my best. KissL 29 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Just put back the POV template that was removed by an anonymous user. Maybe the sections on art, music etc. could be split out and only a summary kept in this one - it would probably speed up the cleanup too.

KissL 28 June 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Not a single opinion

This opinion is clearly not POV, since lots of historicans have this point ov view supported by evidences like antropology, language and culture and others. The pov sign should be removed. Some illustrations could be added to improve readability. AAbdullah 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Puppet?

Or someone joining solely to influence the discussion here. I'm just assuming good faith :)

But unfortunately, the argument "lots of historians have this point of view", in addition to being debatable by itself, does in no way support the claim that this article is not biased. See WP:NPOV. KissL 6 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Ugric vs. Huns

As for the Huns, which were a tribal confederation and not a single people, we really don't know who exactly they were. Chinese sources, which have preserved a few Xiongnü (Hunnic?) poems and songs, show that Turks and Yeniseians were prominant among them, and there were probably Mongols as well. And maybe others that have disappeared from history. I don't know if the Huns make up a substantial portion of Magyar ancestry (which would be interesting, since I have some Magyar ancestry myself), or if the Ugric peoples were part of the Hunnic confederation. However, Ugric people either made up a substantial portion of the invading Magyar population, or else were the ruling elite. This is clear because it is patently obvious that the Magyar language is Ugric. Even a cursory examination will show this. I don't know much Hungarian, but I've picked up both Khanty and Mansi grammars, and can follow the conjugations form by form. People who actually know Hungarian, rather than just bits of it as I do, feel as if they can almost read the other Ugric languages, and can learn them very easily. They're as close to Hungarian as English is to Dutch. Furthermore, the Ugric languages are clearly related to the Finnic languages. This relationship is a little more obscure on the surface, but the connections are both numerous and regular, like the connections between Germanic and Slavic. The Uralic language family is as well supported as Indo-European. In fact, it was worked out before Indo-European, and these two families (along with Austronesian) are the three linguistically best-supported large language families in the world. Whether the Magyar had a substantial portion of Turkic ancestry is plausible, but not known. It is known that they speak a Ugric language, and no amount of hand waving is going to change that. If the Khanty aren't as illustrious as the Turks for the purposes of inventing a national mythology, well, the Angles aren't the most illustrious ancestors for the English either. kwami 22:35, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it embarrassing that this article is even in Wikipedia. I propose that we delete it until someone writes something passable. This information here could be boiled down to an alternate POV, but basically for actual evidence we have: linguistics (the Magyar are Ugric), genetics (ambiguous so far), and archeology (ambiguous now and probably always), history (hard to tell who's who). kwami

I agree, but what do you think will happen then? - all the extremists (who seem to be increasingly attracted by the wikipedia) will destroy the main articles on Magyars and Hungarian History (which they are constantly trying even today). Juro 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Except for the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia (and maybe Serbia), hasn't it been generations since there's been any substantial anti-Hungarian sentiment? Why the extremism? kwami 02:10, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

So much about "maybe Serbia". The situation in Romania and Slovakia is, to my knowledge, much better; people are rarely attacked physically just because they are Hungarian. (Verbal agression is another story, it is "of course" pretty commonplace. There is not a single Hungarian in Romania who isn't called "bozgor" – literally: "one without a homeland" –

• • _Literally_, "bogzor" means "babbler"...... Talk about NPOV...

at least once per year, regardless whether they can show the tombs of their ancestors in the same village or town a few hundred years back. And there was an anti-Hungarian demonstration in Komárno – half of a city divided between Hungary and Slovakia – just a month ago by a Slovak extreme right organization, where some demonstrators reportedly wore Nazi uniforms. Note the Hungarian majority population of Komárno.)

This doesn't in any way justify either the views or the actions of Hungarian extremists, but it does provide an explanation for the uncommonly intense emotions that inevitably make some people extremists. "Why the extremism" is never a good question. Note also that an extremist subgroup of any group will by definition always be overrepresented, so I am not suggesting (nor do I believe) that Romanians or Slovaks, or even Serbs would in general be hostile to Hungarians. In fact, wherever there is a longtime consistent population of more than one ethnicity in a village or town, they tend to respect each other fairly well. KissL 10:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A further note – you have asked, Except for the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia (and maybe Serbia), hasn't it been generations since there's been any substantial anti-Hungarian sentiment? Well, the Hungarians in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia account for 89% of the Hungarians living in the Carpathian Basin but outside Hungary. To put it another way, the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia still account for about half of the Hungarian people (counting every single soul with at least one Hungarian grandparent) living anywhere other than Hungary worldwide. So this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy called overwhelming exception, almost as funny as the first one in that article... KissL 10:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of who controls Wikipedia. If we abandon it to the extremists, then we might as well consign Wikipedia to the dustbin. In the case of other articles, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the articles were locked after a serious discussion of what should be included. Not ideal, but better than nothing. I don't have either the interest or the expertise in this area to fight an edit war and produce an article we can be proud of, but at least we can delete this garbage. Or maybe move it to a 'nationalist views' article, and replace this page with a summary of what I put below. (That's plagiarism, but again, I'm not really the person to do this.) kwami 02:10, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. People with the aim to impose here their extremist opinion have all the time of the world to involve in edit wars and almost never stop. And since there is always some text somewhere supporting their "arguments", they can always say "some scholars say...". I have been involved in (not many but) several edit wars of this type here, which always ended in a "1+1=2,5" compromise (I hope you understand what I mean :-) ), one can usually hardly involve others in the discussion, because others just do not really have an idea of the topic (as opposed e.g. to the Isreal issue), I got "exhausted" for 2 weeks in advance etc. As a result I am even trying to avoid some corrections recently.Juro 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that nonencyclopedic stuff doesn't belong here, I don't think we have such a big problem with this article. It has, quite rightly, a cleanup and a POV tag, already warning enough I think, moreover there are an amazing 3 links to it from the main namespace, with the following context:

Hungarian language:

[...] the language is Finno-Ugric, some scientists say, but according to genetics and anthropology, the Hungarian people show more similarity to others than to the Finns (who are like the Swedes on these criteria): to Germans and Slavs (as some Finno-Ugrists, e.g. I. M. Szabó, say), or to the Turks or other peoples (as other scientists, e.g. I. Kiszely, say; see Hungarian prehistory).

Magyars:

[...] Most scholars dismiss such claims, especially those about Sumerian origins, as mere speculation.

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

And the third one in Great Hungary, which I'll let you check out for yourselves :))

So whoever reads all this and believes it more than the truly mainstream scientific views must have a serious mental problem IMO. KissL 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A few secondary sources:

Our language belongs to the Finno-Ugric languages (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian) and it shows similarities with Turkic, Mongolian, Samoyed and other languages which may all belong together to the hypothetic Ural-Altai group. [Note: this may by a sprachbund; Ural-Altaic is not supported linguistically as a genealogical group.] Separation of the Finnish and Ugor [= Ugric] groups is believed to have happened about 4,000 years ago. Our nearest relatives by language [note the wording: language does not necessarily reflect ancestry] are "Obi Ugorok", the Khanti and Manyshi people (Ostyaks and Votyaks in Russian), who live in Western Siberia at the River Ob and number maybe 6,000 souls today. Perhaps this is the original area of the Ugor group. Probably about 500-600 BC the Proto-Hungarians moved to the south to the steppes, where - according to linguistic evidences - they took over animal breeding from the Chuvash people [who are Turkic], as a high proportion of words specific to agriculture in the Hungarian language are of Chuvash origin.

After living as neighbors of the Chuvash people for over 1,000 years, a part of the Hungarians moved to the south to "Levedia" in approximately 750 AD, while others remained between the River Volga and the Ural Mountains in "Magna Hungaria". In about the years 840-850 AD, the Hungarians were forced to move westwards to "Etelkoz" and they then occupied the Carpathian Basin in 896 AD, living there to this day. Hungarians were found by Father Julian in "Magna Hungaria" in 1236 and 1237 AD, but not any more after the Mongolian-Tartar invasion. A smaller part of Hungarians went to the Caucasus in 850-860 AD and there they were absorbed by other people.

In the 13th century two other eastern people settled in the Great Hungarian Plains, the Kun (Kuman) and Jász (Alan) people. [...]

A part of the Chuvash people is still living at the Volga River and their language is a special [meaning "aberrant"] member of the Turkic group. Another part of them went to the Balkans and they were the ancestors of the [now] Slavish-speaking Bulgarians. It is supposed that the Hungarian-speaking Székely people of Transylvania are also of Chuvash origin. Maybe all of these people - Chuvash, Bulgarian and Székely - are the descendants of the Huns. According to linguistic evidences, Hungarians took over agriculture from the Chuvash people and very probably they got their sheep and guard dogs also from them There was a strong Chuvash influence, for example burial customs, included putting the skull and leg bones of their horses inside the horse's skin beside the man's body. The Székelys have big white (often spotted) flock guarding dogs called "Esztena dog". "Esztena" means "fences on the high summer pasture". On the basis of historical and linguistic evidence and simply also because of the similarity of the words "Chuvash", "Kuvasz" and "Chuvach" it may be supposed that the Kuvasz [a breed of dog] was originally "Chuvash" and, if so, bred by the Hungarians for about 2,500 years. [1]

Also

In Hungarian and in the other two Ugric languages the main Turkic loanwords related to horse riding and vehicles are:

(5) Ug. [= proto-Ugric] *luw3 (luγe) ‘horse’, Mansi low, lo, luw, Khanti loγ, law etc., Hung. ló (dial. lo, lu, lú), accus. lovat;

• Ug. *närk3 ‘saddle’, Mansi näwrä, naγr etc., Khanti nöγər, Hung. nyerëg;

• Ug. *päkka ‘reins’, Mansi behch (17th cent.), Khanti päk etc., Hung. fék;

• Ug. *säk3r3 ‘vehicle’, Khanti liker, ikər, Hung. szekér (UEW s.vv., cf. Róna-Tas 1999, 97).

If IE or Iranian people had been the first horse-riders, as maintained by the traditional theory, we would expect to find a large number of IE or Iranian words also in neighboring areas, instead of this conspicuous series of Turkic loanwords.

Also the presence of very ancient Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, recognized by Hungarian scholars and unrelated to horse-riding, proves the antiquity of the Turkic presence in the European area bordering Asia. [This presumes that the ancestors of the Hungarians lived in the border area, and were not Turkic.] [2]

From a Finnish POV:

Finnish has been known to be genetically related to Hungarian as well as a number of languages in the Volga region in Russia and Western Siberia since the early 19th century. In Finland, as well as in Hungary, language history and language origins have always been acutely relevant to national identity in a way that they are not in, for example, Western Europe during the past fifty years, and layman interest in historical linguistics has always been high. Concurrently, a number of researchers in Finland, particularly during the early part of the 20th century, may well have been partially motivated by national feeling - this is, however, largely irrelevant to the results of their research, which have always been firmly set within (historical) linguistics in general. There are exceptions, such as, for example, Sigurd Wettenhoven-Aspa who in the early 20th century envisioned a glorious Finnish prehistory complete with “Finnish-Egyptian” etymologies - there are fringe figures like him in any country. In Hungary, conversely, nationalist ideologies have been mostly hostile to mainstream historical linguistics for positing a close connection between the Hungarians and the Khanty and Mansi hunters and fishermen of the Ob river in Siberia. Hungarian nationalists (for example, László Marácz, "Hungarian Revival", Nieuwegein 1996) would rather envision prehistorical kinship with the Mongols, the Sumerians, the Uyghur of Western China, and other, more “prestigious” people. [3]

And

The Huns were a large, loose grouping of tribes, who joined together at different points in their migrations. The people whose Magyar language is now spoken in Hungary are often identified with the Huns, but they can't simply be equated. The Magyars (and the Magyar-speaking Székelys, a closely related group that I visited, who settled in Transylvania) were associates of the Huns, but precisely how is disputed. The languages most closely related to Magyar (a language I sweated over at the University of Debrecen in Hungary) are spoken by the Khanty and the Mansi, (formerly known as Ostyaks and Voguls ) who live northeast of the Urals along the Ob River in Siberia. It seems likely the Magyars come from the same region and one would suppose, most likely closely related stock.

Most likely the Huns of Asia met up with the Magyars in the course of their long migration westward.

At any rate, the Huns, according to the U. of Calgary website [4], reached their greatest westward extension by 451 A.D., at which time they were "defeated in Gaul at the Battle of Châlons. . . . The Huns then scattered through Europe and Asia. Some settled in the old Roman provinces of Pannonia and Dacia, and their descendants gave rise to the modern state of Hungary. [This may be the origin of the name "Hungary". However, some Hungarians claim that these were not the direct ancestors of the Hungarian (Magyar) people, who arrived in a later conquest.] Other groups settled in Turkestan and Persia, where they were absorbed by the local populations." [5]

kwami 23:33, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

I was wondering if the name Ugor or Ugric comes from the same word as "Uighur", or is it unrelated? If "Hungary" comes from "Onogur", and all these nomadic peoples originated in a vast region of Central Asia, why are some "authorities" so eager to separate Ugor, Onogur, Uighur, Hungarian, Hun, etc. (I could add a few others as I'm sure you can too) into as many separate and distinct peoples as they possibly can, and insist that they were all unrelated and had nothing to do with one another? There must be some other unseen factors why they want to say this that I am not aware of, because they have gone to such drastic lengths to tell everyone "what to think" about this, but only succeeded in confusing the matter, since noone even knows what they are "supposed to" think anymore. Codex Sinaiticus 00:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The OED give the etymology of Ugrian as from Ugri, the name given by early Russian writers to an Asiatic race dwelling east of the Ural Mountains. Uighur, on the other hand is from East Turkish uighur, [from] ui to follow, fit, agree + -gur adj. suffix. Uighur is related to such forms as Wigur, Oygur, Yugor, etc. Maybe connected, maybe not. But the Uighur clearly speak a Turkic language, and Ugrian (whatever the origin of the label) are clearly not Turkic languages.

As for why they're so eager to separate them, there's a long history of using a certain word for "those people", and anyone who comes from "over there" gets the same appelation. So, even if the names are related, it doesn't follow that the people are. (Think of "Indian" in English!) You want to be able to tell how much of that is justified, and for that you need to identify the possible errors. And no one claims that the Magyar, Huns, and Turks "had nothing to do with each other". We just don't know what they did have to do with each other, and until we do (if we ever do), the responsible thing is to at least refute claims based on nationalism rather than on an objective reading of the evidence. (Such as the ridiculous claims that the Hungarian language is unrelated to Ugrian, just because the author would rather have the mighty Turks for relatives.) Such claims have a truly horrible history, which many people do not want to repeat Just because few of them ever produce the atrocities of Aryanism doesn't mean they're any more respectable academically, and they tend to crop up whenever there's ethnic conflict: Serb and Albanian, Jew and Arab, Hutu and Tutsi, Japanese and Okinawan, Latino and Mayan, Greek and Turk and Armenian (the Azeri are genetically Armenian, for example!), Thai and Khmer, etc. etc. kwami 00:38, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Point taken. But you may be fighting a strawman, because I'm not aware of anyone making the "ridiculous claims that the Hungarian language is unrelated to Ugrian"... Seems to me that's the one thing everyone on all sides agrees on, ie. that Hungarian and Ugrian are related. Codex Sinaiticus 03:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there aren't such people any more - that's reason for hope, anyway. At the height of Hungarian nationalism, some thought it was anti-Hungarian propaganda to link Hungarian to such unimpressive relatives. kwami

What is the truth of Hungarian prehistory?

Could someone please help me out? I have read a lot of material about this subject, ranging from the Finno-Ugric theory of origin with regard to language, as well as the controversial ideas about the Hungarian language and culture being linked to the Sumerians, Hurrians, Subarians, Medeans, Scythians, Alans, and Huns. While the Finno-Ugric theory is conventionally held to be correct, in terms of language relatedness and the idea that the early Hungarians basically left the Ural mountains around 1000 BC, and separated from other Uralic peoples, it doesn't really reconcile the fact that the conquest era hungarians led by Arpad were "nomadic" horsemen who strongly resembled other horse mounted nomads of the steppes of central asia, in terms of culture, military tactics, religion, clothing, mythological motifs, etc. I have wondered how the Finno-Ugric theory can be reconciled with the Hungarians origin legends such as the "legend of the white stag" and the "legend of the Turul hawk" that employ mythological motifs that are common among Scythian and Sumerian cultures. Consequently, I ask how the "legend of the white stag", which basically says that the Hungarians (Magyars) and the Huns are descended, either dynastically, linguistically, culturally, or ethnically, from mesopotamian monarchs, specifically Sumerian monarchs, can ever be reconciled with the Finno-Ugric theory. Would someone please explain how all these conflicting ideas could be reconciled? 20:12, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Genetics does not determine language. Just look at any multi-ethnic country today. There is good linguistic evidence that the Magyar lived among the Turkic Chuvash for centuries; they may easily have hooked up with the Huns (whoever they were) later on. And of course cultures influence each other. Does the fact that the Japanese listen to jazz and rock mean that the Japanese people speak an Indoeuropean language, or that they migrated to Japan from North America? (Or a Niger-Congo language and from West Africa, for that matter.) The Ugric origin of the Magyar was millennia ago, their Finno-Ugric origin even further back than that. Their culture could easily have been changed, substantially changed, since then. There's no conflict in that.

Also, the whole Sumerian thing seems out of context. As the first literate civilization (so far as we know), the Sumerians had a very strong influence on all of central Eurasia, and beyond. No one would argue that the Jews aren't Semitic just because they have a flood myth like the Sumerians, so why use a similar argument to claim the Magyar aren't Ugric? And people claim royal descent from some illustrious kingdom all the time. There are Ewe, for example, who claim to be the Lost Tribe of Israel, and the Greeks claimed to be Egyptians. Such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt (in the case of the Greeks of course much of their civilization did come Egypt, but, perhaps, not as directly as they would have liked to have believed). kwami 08:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• As soon as you talk about Hungarian prehistory, we are entering he realm of conjecture - most of which does not enjoy broad support in the academic community. In my opinion there is a slight chance that the ancestors Magor and Hunor could indeed correspond to the names Magog and Gomer, as hinted by the Kepes Kronika. The Alans could be connected with the ancient geographic name, Arran, and their leader called Dur in the legend is probably the Tur of other legends (see Turkic peoples. Classical Greek historians mention all-female populations living on the steppes, who would breed with males once a year; and the Hungarian legends also seem to contain dim references to this. There especially seem to be a lot of correspondences with the Sumerian legend of "Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta". The lord of Aratta (north of Sumer) was called Ensuhkeshdanna, and he and Enmerkar (Nimrod?) both competed for the approval of Inanna (possibly = Eneh?) If she was originally the wife of Japheth, she may even have been one of the Sibyls who survived the Deluge, but that is of course all highly speculative. Codex Sinaiticus 13:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Answer to the initial question: Forget about the other theories (do not let people prefering fairy tales before facts influence your judgement), the Finno-Ugric theory is as correct/incorrect as any other origin theory in Europe, i.e. it is correct from the current perspective. Juro 21:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• For me it seems silly and unacceptable the tone and manner under which you treat the hungarians who think that their ancestors and language are of turkic origin. Labeling as nationalist the article in question it is a sign of ignorance; the author of the article is Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN who is a respected hungarian scientist, an anthropologist who happens to share the view that the hungarian people and language are of turkic origin,a view which have been favoured over the time by such renowned and celebrated figures like Kőrösi Csoma Sándor (1784-1842) ,Aurel Stein (1862-1943) , Ármin Vámbéry (1832-1913). Labeling the article nationalist implies the same for the author,because a text does not exist without a writer, the same way you can lable nationalist the before mentioned scientist because they state the turkic origin.

The original article of Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN :
Hungarian Old Country in English:

http://www.biography.ms/Hungarian_Old_Country,_The-:_by_Dr._Istvan_Kiszely.html

The webpage of Dr. KISZELY ISTVÁN in hungarian http://istvandr.kiszely.hu Thehun

• Is the "legend of the white stag" truly part of the Hungarian oral cultural tradition, or is it just a propagandistic attempt by the ruling elite to create a glorious ancient past. Because if at the time the Hungarian chronicles (that this legend appears in) were written, that the kingdom of Hungary was clearly Christian in religion, why would they claim their forefather Magor was the son of Nimrod, as Nimrod according to the Bible was in contempt of God and led his followers like wise. 82.92.119.11 5 November 2005 12:34 (UTC)

• According to the link on the Magyars page (Origins of the Hungarians from the Enciklopédia Humana (with many maps and pictures) ), the white stag legend is said to come from some time in the 1st millenia BC, when the early Magyars lived in close proximity to the Sarmatians, a Scythian related people. Consequently, I think it is possible that the Magyars entered into heavy interaction with the Sarmatians and adopted elements of Sarmatian/Scythian culture. The interaction profoundly affected the Magyars, as they began to see themselves as among the nations of Scythia. I think the legend of the white stag essentially tells the story of the origins of Scythia, as a nation emerging out of Iran, and pays homage to a greatly respected mesopotamian ancestor, and ultimately expresses how the Magyars see themselves, i.e. the very core of their ethnogenesis. Of course this tradition isn't necessarily at odds with what we know about the origins of the Magyars. Although, for a people who have their origins in the vicinity of the Ural mountains, it seems rather inexplicable that they have no mythical traditions that recall this region. Over the ages the extent to which the Magyars were affected by other groups both ethnically and culturally is therefore profound. For the Magyars to hold their Scythian origin so dearly, as well as their Finno-Ugric linguistic kinship, is to express what is most fundamental to their identity. The Question 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

merge tag

I noticed that the article Hungarian prehistory was tagged for cleanup, and assumed there was another article on the same topic...turns out there is...they should definitely be merged although that would take a bit of effort combining the info in both. I'll offer whatever help I can, but mainly I put it there so both articles' editors would know about the existance of the other. Best, Paul 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some people who are serious about NPOV want to keep the articles separate (there is yet a third article on the same topic) so that they don't have to constantly fight the 'Hungarian is Turkic' nationalists. Maybe it would be better to merge them, though it will likely end up in arbitration. kwami 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• They should definitely NOT be merged... And everyone who knows about this article already knows about the other... They are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS, please read them first! Codex Sinaiticus 23:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was thinking of a different article. Yes, this article is about the prehistory of the Magyar people; the other is about the history of Pannonia. The merge tag should be removed. kwami 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, instead of merging, I think this article should be moved. It is not really about the prehistory of the Magyar people; rather, it is a summary of a book, which advocates a non-mainstream hypothesis. Presenting this hypothesis as the account of Magyar prehistory is POV, unprofessional, and unencyclopedic.

Any suggestions on what it should be called? kwami 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Hungarian prehistory: alternative theories" or "Hungarian History (alternative accounts)"... By the way, just in case anyone still hasn't gotten it yet, this article is about the Hungarian people before 890 AD; the other traces the history of Pannonia (later Hungary) before 890 AD. 890 AD is when the two topics "meet up", so to speak; but before that year, they are quite separate topics, because the Hungarians hadn't moved to Hungary yet, they were living somewhere else. Codex Sinaiticus 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My addition of the merge tag may have been mistaken, but the reasoning for it was fairly logical; I refer you to the first line of this article. If Hungarian historical records began with the Magyars' settlement, then by definition, the two articles mean the same thing. As always, enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I'm not an idiot...hugs and kisses to everybody, Paul 04:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I think we can address that pretty easily within Codex's title. Also, that might encourage the inclusion of other hypotheses besides just the current one. Who favors moving this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)"? kwami 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be fine...just as long as there aren't two articles with confusingly similar titles and content. Paul 19:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that going to be a POV fork? -- nyenyec ☎ 19:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" would make this appear less of a pov fork than it already does. There is a consensus of many authors of a need for this separate article. And one more time, IF there is any other article in competition with this one, it is NOT "Hungary before the Magyars", that is a completely different topic; that one refers to the county, not to the people, who were living in a different country. Maybe if that is too confusing to you, you should try renaming that one to "Pannonia before the Magyars"... Codex Sinaiticus 20:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How about also renaming this one "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)"? 66.27.205.12 20:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Paris 1973 (?) Orientalist conference

I heard there was an Orientologist conference in Paris in 1973 (?) where Professor Badiny-Jós took along a copy of the ’Tihanyi Apátság Alapítólevele’, a 10th c. Latin script that contains old Hungarian words and sentences. At the conference 30 Sumerologist experts from around the world read the text and agreed that it was written in two languages. The first text was recognised as Latin and then came something unexpected. The 30 Sumerologist experts who spoke Sumerian but no Hungarian said that the other language was Sumerian and they also gave the exact translation that was the same as it was put down in Hungarian. Does anyone know if this is for real? If the ’Alapítólevél’ was written in Latin and Hungarian, how can 30 Sumerologist experts mistake old Hungarian for Sumerian? The Question 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

New title

What if the title of the article would be "Hungarian Old Country - The Turkish Theory" or something like this calming down both sides trying to keep the subject of Hungarian prehistory on track? István Kiszely proposes a new perspective in the search of the Hungarians' prehistory, not claiming for the exclusive right or truth, highlighting the complexity of the Hungarian nation as ethnical unit (check his page if can understand Hungarian), as Dezső Dümmerth a skilled Hungarian scientist also stated, Hungarian ethinc can't be compared to the European ethnic units like, e.g. Germans, being always more a complex of different ethnics rather than a homogenous unit. If there is no chance to widen scopes or review the facts, everything becomes straight and self-satisfactory, casting everything into simple little boxes, giving no chance to change, that is definitelly not science. I don't think the goal of this article was to sharpen the oppositions, and definitelly not to bring up the nightmare of those extremely dirty Hungarian nationalists, (more dirty than the nationalists - as it is turning out from other talks - of any other nations by definition / concept).

So, what if the title would be changed to "Hungarian Old Country - The Turkish Theory"?

Origin of Magyars as a scientifically established fact: MODERN Population Genetics

All truly MODERN genetic researches carried out in Hungary (not blood groups, not proteins - those are completely obsolete) show the Hungarians to be indistinguishable from other Central Europeans both on the mtDNA and Y-chromosome level. The most characteristic trace of Finno-Ugrian-speaking peoples from the Uralic, Volgaic and Baltic regions, namely, the Y-chromosome haplogroup "N", is nearly absent from Hungary. mtDNA also shows convergence with Central Europe, and there is nothing to suggest it is specially 'linked' to 'Central Asia'(!), since most Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups are widespread (like haplogroups U, H, N, J) and show very few barriers of any kind (linguistic, geographic, etc.). Also, due to the fact that, historically, males tend to be more prone to migration (and this is certainly true of 'Finno-Ugrian' migrations, compare the Finnish mtDNA and Y-chromosome features), it is expected that we would find more traces of paternally inherited genetic features in Hungarians. But if even these are absent, then it makes no sense to closely relate the Hungarian mtDNA to such far-away peoples as Uyghurs. Therefore, it is a scientifically-corroborated fact that, whatever anthropogenetic link to Finno-Ugrians or Siberians there was (such as Y-chromosome haplogroup N), it has been lost in the course of migrations through admixture with populations along the way. These populations merely adopted the Magyar language and culture as their own, while being descended almost exclusively from earlier groups living in the areas settled by the minoritary yet dominant magyar nomads - just as the current population of Hungary is descended primarily from older, non-Hungarian speaking peoples. By the way, this also demonstrates that the endless dispute for who would have 'arrived first' in Transylvannia, Magyars or Romanians, makes no sense in purely anthropological terms. There was merely a shift in language, and very little change, if any, of populations. - Finally, some corrections or additions based on concrete contemporanious data have to be made in this article, for all the above reasons. Stephanos1ko 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, and? Biology is one science, yes. It is a poor tactic to politicize science. You haven't even cited any references. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not using any tactic, I'm just stating a scientifically established fact. What I am trying to say is that romantic nationalistic ideas (by BOTH Romanians and Hungarians) make no sense when actual genetic data is taken into account. If that is the problem... because I see no harm, rather to the contrary: it is great to see that science can overcome old prejudices and replace them with an objective view. We are just humans, not ethnically-closed monads... that was my point, and I stand by it. - Oh, and I also simply mentioned that some data used in the article on 'Hungarian Prehistory' as evidence have been long superseded by modern genetics. That is also obvious to anyone acquainted with anthropogenetics. Here I will quote some references (and I am sorry for not supplying them before.) They may help in the improvement of articles on Magyar history.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10854093&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10857257&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Stephanos1ko 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by politicizing is that you stated some scientific results you found then linked it to an opinion that is designed to get the "romantics" on your heels.  :)

I'm not entirely sure of what your point is in doing this. Genetics is genetics. It isn't cultural anthropology nor is it linguistics nor is it archaeology, which are other sciences that have shown us other views on the origins of Magyars. Nor should it be used to discuss about the politics of Transylvania. While the current modern population of Hungary may be indistinguishable from other Central Europeans genetically, you are ignoring history and archaeology which shows a true invasion of a different type of people into the Carpathian basin. It doesn't really matter if their genetic markers aren't found in the modern population. They left an impact crator and people who have an ethnic identity of Hungarian.

Yes, we are just humans. Genetic forensics is a relatively new science. It is revealing a lot in our understanding of how humans moved around the planet. It is also running out of time as our genetic markers are converging since we are able to move around the planet a lot faster than in the past. No more isolated populations to develop their own unique traits. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My point about Transylvania is that Central European-Balkanic populations are actually very similar regardless of linguitic affinities, and ultranationalists or some such look-alikes throughout the region have no backing on facts. But perhaps my wording was to explicit, yes. The findings speak for themselves, and you if you can disregard my extemporaneous ideological comments and concentrate on facts, please do so. As for the findings of other science fields, trouble is that material culture, as well as language, can move around with very little input of actual populations, and there is nothing specifically 'ethnic' about it. You can say that Hungarians share cultural affinities or have a culture heritage going back to Turks, Avars, Huns - or Chinese, for that matter. That's not the point. But sharing of material culture (the only thing you can assert for sure based on archeology) is not equal and can never be equaled to ethnicity. To say that a different culture is on the move can mean simply that there has been intense trading relations (the Steppes Culture spanning countless different ethnic identities is a perfect example) or that a very tiny yet dominant minority became the new rulers, imposing a foreign culture with no implication as to national ethnicity on a genetic basis (and that is the most obvious scenario for Hungary, search for some other genetic studies and you will see what a overwhelming consensus there is about that)Stephanos1ko 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians are of course a genetically mixed people because of constant intermarriage with other peoples since (and before) they arrived in Hungary. Studies about the genetics of Magyars in the early Middle Ages show important differences with other nations. This difference mostly disappeared in the course of history but Hungarian national identity survived. For example I have German, Slavic and Magyar grandparents but I consider myself Magyar in the ethnic sense. Your attempts to use genetical studies in the debate about Transylvania are politically motivated. I doubt very much that present-day Romanians have more genetical connection with Dacians than present-day Hungarians to the people of Árpád. Zello 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zello; welcome to the polemics. No references? Well, I have some interesting stuff. It demonstrates the fundamental unity of all Balkanic peoples:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00080.x

Well, I sincerely respect the fact that you are so proud about your Magyar identity, and I think it is a positive fact that you be so, so long as no blind extremism arises from it. Please take no offence. Romanians have no right to claim to be the 'original' people there, rather on the contrary. If you understood that from my previous post, that's not what I meant at all. Hungarians and Romanians are genetic brethren if we take into consideration these sources. No side can claim prevalent rights based on ethnicity. By the way, I have no other motivation than making sure that we use modern scientific knowledge in this debate that is so prone to wild unsubstantiated claims of ethnic and linguistic relationships and far-fetched theories justifying land rights. That's it. Please let's be reasonable. Stephanos1ko 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The obvious weak point in your above arguments, Stephanos1ko, is that even assuming no distortion in the results (such as distortion resulting from not having analysed each single Hungarian [ancestry not being spread equally in the whole population]) you derive conclusions that do not necessarily arise from those results. The results only say, and this has been known for years actually, that most of the Finno-Ugric "genes" are not here TODAY anymore. The usual interpretation in line with contemporary sources, archeology etc. is that the Hungarians who arrived were "replaced" by other groups, especially Slavs and Germans, over the centuries. Or, an even better explanation, would be that the number of Hungarians having arived in the Panonian Plain was even lower than 100 000 (a maximum number derived from comparative analysis of space that average nomads need for life), so that it is no wonder that the original traces disappeared. And it is probable, even according to the then sources, that a part of the 100 000 were other groups, such as the Kasars etc. Also, we do not know for sure, whether the Finno-Ugor all had the same "genes" etc. In sum, this is nothing new. So, I do not see, how this is supposed to resolve or not resolve the Hungaro-Romanian issue. And most importantly, it is by far not only the genes what makes the ethnicity today. Juro 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(First of all, as for the Transylvannian issue, please let us put it aside. I see now that two controversial points at one time are too much for a decent debate!;) I'm sorry. We'd better treat this issue in another topic, if you want.)- That said, back to the important topic at hand: apparently, you have not realised that I actually subscribe to the idea that the 'hungarian' tribes crossing the Carpathian area were few in number, as indeed most geneticists do state after analyzing the implications of their data. In case you do not know, actually it is possible to determine expansion times and possible bottlenecks associated with founder effect and/or massive replacements. The fact that no mainstream study has ever highlighted that possibility, however, speaks against the 'replacement' hypothesis, and seems to strengthen the 'minority tribes' thesis. Also, nobody ever said that Finno-Ugrians "had the same genes". That is a nonexistent claim, and so there is nothing to be opposed to. The hypothesis I mentioned earlier is quite more specific and cautious: a Y-chromosome haplogroup, named N (cf.the Y-Chromosome Consortium Recommendations, 2002), is found throughout the Volgaic, Uralic and Baltic regions and seems to be associated to the spread of Finno-Ugrian-speaking groups (yet not always imposing their LANGUAGES, see the Eastern Siberian case of Inuits and Chukchi with well over 20% of N hg). The expansion estimated for this haplogroup is thought to post-date the last glaciation, and to have started from Northeastern European/Western Siberian glacial refugia. The proportion of this haplogroup varies from more than 70% among Finns to 30% among Maris to 0% among Hungarians studied so far. It is possible, and I would say rather probable, that it will yet be found in other populations within Hungary itself, but surely never on, say, Finnish levels. Stephanos1ko 21:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The links to the studies you provided appear to not mention Y-chromosome haplogroup N (possibly because it was named in 2002 and the studies are from 2000?), nor do they appear to be available to the general public, or at least I couldn't find a way to read them. As I mentioned above, this is still a new field and unfortunately it can only tell us part of the picture. It is like the face on Mars. We could see something but it was fuzzy and looked like a face until a better tool was available to view the area. I think you are reading too much into this. You say it is scientific 'fact' when it is only scientific 'results' from old studies. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what you are basically saying is that there ARE common genetic features (what I called "genes") for all Finno-Ugrians... But if your only point is that the tribes were few in number, what is new about this statement, or in other words what are you trying to say??? I see no special implication. From what you said initially, however, I and others derived that you are claiming that the tribes that arived here in the 9th century were no "true Magyars" anymore, and my reaction was: How can you say this (to put it simply). As for replacements: I deliberately use quotation marks if I use wrong terms just for simplicity. The "replacements", i.e. massive immigration of other ethnicities during Hungary's history and even partial extintion of Magyars, are a historical FACT. Even in the early 19th century, you would hardly find a bigger purely Magyar settlement in present-day Hungary. But you would have to know the details of the history of this quite special region, to know these details. And that is the point made above by the user ...Borsody, genetics alone is useless. Juro 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is such a thing as 'true' magyars anymore than there are 'true' germans... I implied that the magyar-speaking portion of the population actually descenced from 'finno-ugrians' via direct familiar lineage was diluted into magyarized tribes BOTH before AND after reaching Hungary. Now, if you had read carefully the sources I supplied, you would see that Semino et al., 2000, examined also the genetic background of probably one of the groups nearest to ancient hungarians, the Paloc magyars, and found that even they showed little signs of links to other Uralic and Baltic Finno-Ugrian-speakers. ALL those historical informations were taken into account by the authors! Therefore, there is little ground to argue that Finno-Ugrian original genetic features were 'lost' in situ, so to speak. Therefore, it seems that in fact the replacement you mention is not enough to account for the complete extinction of a previously extant genetic background. Finally, I didn't state the N haplogroup is common to all FU peoples. There's no such thing in genetics. But hg N is present in a great proportion of FU-speaking groups and its expansion rates do point, yes, to a LINK between FU migrations and this haplogroup - nothing more. Please take a good look at those studies. They are not so naïve and 'biology-knows-it-all' as you think. Stephanos1ko 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the links, not because I would not find them relevant, but because I certainly do not have the time for this now (it would be necessary to evaluate the authors, the approach etc.) I just reacted to what you have said. I still see no reason from what you are saying above to believe that one single Magyar arriving here in 896 was a "magyarized non-Finno-Ugor" - I believe that this was the case for many of them, but I do not see any reason to believe this from your arguments. Your somehow fail to make the point. And arguments of the type "there is certainly little ground to believe that" are not enough (at least not for me), because nobody knows the exact number (only the minimum numbers) of immigrants to present-day Hungary, e.g. after 1699 or during the Ottoman Period, and nobody knows the exact number of Magyars that arrived here in 896 (and that is a very important if not crucial factor) and nobody knows how many Magyars died during the Ottoman Wars etc. etc.. That's just a sea of questions. Juro 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Magyars and Finno-Ugric people are genetically absolutely different but not only because of mixing up with other people or their low number (which is certainly exagerrated here) but because probably they weren't Finno-Ugric even when they arrived at Hungary. Magyars lived between Turkic people since the beginning of their known history in Bashkiria and later in the Khazar Empire. They certainly became Turkic themselves very early and kept only their language (with a lot of Turkic words). There are a lot of speculation about existing genetical evidences of Turkic origin in present-day population although I haven't found any reliable scientific source on the net. Zello 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there aren't, Zello and Juro. All serious genetic studies using modern techniques (mtDNA and Y-chromosome) that I have seen - and there are many around - find a close relationship between the Hungarians and their neighboring populations (again, if anyone want to discuss it further on technical terms, first of all evaluate the relevant sources!), and absolutely no evidence to 'turkic' links in any way (except, of course, of historical contact). That is only loose speculation based on a few linguistic and cultural traits that do not necessarily have to do with a relationship between the populations. By the way, there is no single 'turkic' groups. Actually, if you look up genetic studies for turkic-speaking populations, you'll see that actually these groups are probably the single most genetically diverse populations among those which are considered to be linguistically akin. From a genetic point of view, there are no 'turkic' groups to be related to. Every haplogroup and genetic marker on earth is present in Central Asia and the Altai... Hungarians today are simply related to their neighbors, I see no way how we could deny this plain, reasonable idea which is so much backed up by every single recent fiding. Every researcher knows they have to deal with historical caveats, that is not in question. If you think my arguments are weak, then try reading theirs. Please go and read the available studies before rushing to opposing conclusions or reactions without even getting to know the criteria being discussed. Only then will we be able to reach some consensus on this issue. Stephanos1ko 10:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, try these articles. They are in public domain. By the way, Stacey,haplogroup N was previously called Tat-C from its haplotype nomenclature. Some of the sources still use this term.

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/18/6/1077.pdf

www.oxfordancestors.com/ papers/mtDNA04%20DNALandscape.pdf

http://mek.oszk.hu/01700/01794/01794.pdf

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2000.00035.x/abs/

http://www.maik.rssi.ru/cgi-bin/search.pl?type=abstract&name=geneng&number=3&year=2&page=309

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n4/40783/40783.web.pdf Stephanos1ko 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)