# Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

Samuel Hazzard Cross does not associate Volokhi with ancient Romans, but with Vlakhs ("This mention of the Slavs settled among the Vlakhs points to the presence of at least isolated groups of Slavs on the Danube as early as the first and second
centuries A.D., and is a reflex of Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105-
106"). "Vlakhs" is the deprecated spelling for "Vlachs": [1] [2]. 123Steller (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that Cross wrote of the Vlach conquest of Dacia under the Vlach emperor Trajan? Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Vlachs are the descendants of a Romanized population. 123Steller (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
So you say, that Trajan was a Vlach emperor and the Vlachs conquered Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have not made any personal statement about Trajan. 123Steller (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you suggest that Cross's reference to the Roman conquest of Dacia under the Roman Emperor Trajan in connection with the Volokhi shows that he does not associate the Volokhi with the ancient Romans, but with the medieval Vlachs? Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I've read the text again more carefully and I am confused by Cross's interpretation. After all, the text refers to Pannonia or to Dacia? Where were the Volokhi living before being expelled by the Magyars? Because Trajan conquered only Dacia, Pannonia was a Roman province since 20 AD.123Steller (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
According to the Primary Chronicle, the Slavs were the autochthonous population of the Carpathian Basin. The Slavs were conquered by the Romans (=Volokhi) who ruled the territory until the Hungarian conquest (the rulers of the Carolingian Empire styled themselves as Emperors of the Romans). Borsoka (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
March of Pannonia was a frontier march of the Carolingian Empire, but how is that related to Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105-106? Dacia and Pannonia are distinct regions. 123Steller (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. And? What is clear, that Cross identifies the Volokhi with the ancient Romans. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please keep the neutrality regarding the identification of the Volokhi. Also, please read the analysis from here (the chapter Ethnical Criteria in the Gesta Hungarorum and the Russian Primary Chronicle with Special Reference to "Romans" (Romani) and "Blachii" (Vlachi or Voloch)). "The wide range of theories indicates the difficulties involved in identifying the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle, a subject that will continue to spark controversy for a long time to come. It is, in fact, questionable whether an authoritative answer can be found" 123Steller (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "The identification of the Volokhi and Volkhi with the Franks, however, is not accepted by all scholars" treats this as the dominant view. That is a subjective approach. 123Steller (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross translates the expression Volokhi and Volkhi in the original text of the Primary Chronicle as Vlachs. However, the identification of the Volokhi and Volkhi as Vlachs (or Romanians) is highly controversial. A remark by Cross himself suggests that he associates the Volokhi with the Romans under Emperor Trajan (note note 29 on page 235 in Cross' cited translation). Ryszard Grzesik (and other scholars) associates the Volokhi/Volkhi with the Franks (page 31 in Grzesik's cited work). If we want to maintain the neutrality of the text, we should use the original expressions (Volokhi/Volkhi) in the translation based on reliable source. This method also enables readers to understand the reasons of the scholarly debate about the report of the Hungarian conquest in the Russian Primary Chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. I agree. 123Steller (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the bolded terms from the lead sentence? They are not proper names of the event but rather descriptive terms, and thus historians do not stick to any one name. A multitude of other such descriptive terms exist in addition to the three listed in the lead sentence (e.g. Magyar invasion, Magyar migration). As MOS:REDUNDANCY says, "the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." So how about we just state what the article is about right away:

A series of events led to the settlement of the Hungarians in Central Europe at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.
Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Miki Filigranski!
I see you did this edit: "Recent archaeogenetic studies confirmed their Asian origin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin&diff=1101448771&oldid=1100214097
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magyar_tribes&diff=prev&oldid=1101448390
I think this is very simple and not exactly correct, because the situation is more complicated, the old Hungarian tribes were not homogeneousan folks, they had not only Asian origin, they had European-Asian mix, and the European component were more dominant. Even this is the info in your linked source in the pdf link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S0960982222007321/pdf
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
"Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns" 
Huns = European Huns
"Hun period samples implies significant Sarmatian influence on European Huns"
"Aside from the immigrant core groups, we identified that the majority of the individuals from each period were local residents harboring “native European” ancestry."
"Most individuals in the study had local European ancestry"
"main admixture sources of Conq_Asia_Core1 were ancient European populations and ancestors of modern Nganasans (Data S6C). The most likely direct source of the European genomes could be Steppe_MLBA populations, as these distributed European ancestry throughout of the Steppe"
"also cluster together with Anatolian and European farmers" 
The Ugric group and Sarmatians were Europeans
Other studies confirmed this also:
According to these genetic studies, the vast majority of old Hungarians were Europids. Even a lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red and blonde hair:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
Only: 20% is east Eurasian:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/2
DNA Asian Huns:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”
“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 369–371. "Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD... We find that the Huns have increased shared drift with West Eurasians compared to the Xiongnu... Overall, our data show that the Xiongnu confederation was genetically heterogeneous, and that the Huns emerged following minor male-driven East Asian gene flow into the preceding Sakas that they invaded."
Szolad, there is a Necropolis in Hungary at Lake Balaton. Genetics found the same genetic sample from a Bronze Age individual like the royal Hungarian Arpad dynasty has:
https://indo-european.eu/2020/10/longobards-from-scandinavia-and-the-ural-altaic-arpad-lineage
My understanding: Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China. 
https://www.google.com/search?q=tarim+mummies&client=opera&hs=Ocr&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGy-Xlk6P5AhVB8LsIHWcOAkAQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=970&dpr=1
https://www.google.com/search?q=siberian+ice+lady&client=opera&hs=m0W&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcjIjTlKP5AhXWh_0HHXRrBwQQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=970&dpr=1
The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005002/
"The haplogroup composition of the commoner population markedly differs from that of the elite, and, in contrast to the elite, commoners cluster with European populations."
"the Conqueror elite population originated from an admixture of Asian and European groups on the Pontic steppe."
"suggesting that people with local European origin dominated the ConqC population."
"In anthropological studies, 98 men, 82 women, 74 children (inf I–II), and 20 young (juvenile) individuals have been distinguished; thus there is a male surplus of adults. Taxonomic analysis revealed a predominance of Europeans; Mongoloid traits were observed in four individuals."
"265 individuals were determined, of whom 98 belonged to sub-adult and 162 to adult categories. Based on the skulls suitable for taxonomic studies, the series shows European characteristics with the presence of Cromagnoid and Nordoid elements." OrionNimrod (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop spamming one and the same wall of text. You were already explained what the sources say and conclude. You are misunderstanding the studies and edits. Mansi people and related Hungarians cultures lived & were located in Asia and European-Asian border area.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this is not spam. Why would be spam? I suppose this is a talk page where we can talk about this. I suppose if you interested in topic you read the genetic studies in the topic. All related to your edit. Hungarian conquerors, which were a very diverse group had some Asian origin (20%), but the majority component were European origin, so it is incorrect to mention all old Hungarians had Asian origin. Why do you mention only the 20% component and ignore the 80% in that heterogeneous group?  A lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red and blonde hair, which is cleary not Asian origin, why do you ignore them? The Mansi were located south of Ural, which is borderland as you say between Europe and Asia, it is biased to emphasis only the Asian region. I see you grab only the Mansi thing from the studies, and ignore the other compontents. For example the Sarmatian component is quite European origin, or the European Hun component is mostly European origin. Because the studies state European Scythians+Sarmatians+Alans mixed with Asian components who became together Asian Huns, then Huns moved back to Europe around Jesus time, who are mixed with other European Sarmatians and Scythians, so the majority of them had European origin. Anyway they were again in Europe in the first century, if Hungarians had components from European Huns in the 9th century, it means these Huns had already in Europe a long time ago with majority European origin. Your linked study emphasis "Most individuals in the study had local European ancestry", do you see? Also, I listen a lot of video when the authors of the study explain their results (Hungarian genetics, archeologist, staff of the Institute of Hungarian Research who did the study). Could you tell me why do you ignore to mention the majority European origin and emphasis only the Asian component? Why do you emphasis only 20% component in the header, however the page has genetic section, where many detailed mentioned? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Borsoka
The article says the toponyms were loaned "from a Slavic-speaking population". It does not say anything about them being loaned from a Romanian speaking population, as some supporters of the continuity theory maintain. This creates a POV. My edit aims to restore balance. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What does Madgearu write exactly? Is his PoV   widely accepted? Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
"Aşadar, dintre hidronimele din Oltenia, Muntenia şi sudul Moldovei, singurele care au fost transmise fără filieră slavă sunt Motru, Olt şi Buzău (eventual şi Argeş)."
"So, from the hydronyms in Oltenia, Muntenai and Southern Moldavia, the only ones that were transmitted without Slavic mediation are Motru, Olt, and Buzău (maybe Argeş too)"
He also quotes 4 (Romanian) linguists that support a Slavic mediation and 3 that say they were derived directly: C. Poghirc, Gr. Brâncuş and V. Frăţilă, while N. Drăganu and G. Ivănescu are mentioned only in the discussion about river Buzău. From the text and other studies the opinion that some of these toponyms, including ones like Olt which interest us here, are or are not taken directly from Latin or Dacian is not divided in two clear groups, with each scholar having his/hers particularities in establishing the etymologies. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Why do you think that Muntenian, Oltenian and southern Moldavian river names have any relevance in the context of population of the Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Hungarian Conquest? Where does he write that the Hungarians borrowed a Romanian hydronym? Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
" Unii cercetători, bazându-se pe aspectul fonetic al hidronimului, au afirmat că forma Olt ar proveni dintr-una intermediară slavă, Aluto, care, la rândul ei, ar fi fost preluată în limba maghiară ...  S-a arătat însă că nu este necesară existenţa unei forme intermediare slave"
"Some researcher, relying on the phonetic aspects of the hydronym, said that Olt, comes from a Slavic intermediate, Aluto, which would than be taken into Hungarian language... It's been shown that the Slavic intermediate is not necessary." - page 99
The hydronym Olt is given as loaned form from Slavic languages in the article just a phrase earlier than my edit. I could easily bring arguments from other authors that Criș<Körös is in the same situation. In fact:
"We know that the ancient names for rivers have been transmitted from Antiquity to today, so the question is: from who did Slavs, and latter Hungarians, learned them from? The answer is from a sedentary population that lived there, of Romanised Traco-dacian nature, that will in the 8th century become Romanians." M.Sala -From Latin to Romanian, page 27 Aristeus01 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
In the English translation of the same work, Sala writes: "We can only speculate that the Slavs and the Hungarians learned about them [the river names] from the stable population inhabiting that area, i.e., from the former Romanized Thraco-Dacian population, which in the 8th century created the Romanian people." (Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative Romance Context. University, Mississippi. p. 17. ISBN 1-889441-12-0.) We cannot present speculations as facts as per WP:NOR. That Sala himself admits that the names of the rivers "display various important phonetic changes typical of late Thraco-Dacian", indicating that the present forms of the river names could not be explained through Latin mediation. (Actually, this is fully in line with the "migrationist" explanation: the Slavs borrowed the river names from the native population who spoke a native language not Latin, and the Slavs transferred it to Hungarians, Pechengs, Cumans.) Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
"native population", the Carpathian Basin was never empty, and peoples are mixed everywhere like in the Carpathian Basin during the history, which means natives always mixed with others and peoples did not evaporate, it is not a surprising that ancient toponyms always survived in the new various generations. As a Hungarian, in my personal genetic test I have a very significant genetic sample matches and shared genomed with many folks from the Carpathian Basin from all time period. Before Hungary I have genetic sample matches from the Carpathian Basin: Early medieval samples, Avar samples, Frank samples, Gothic samples, Gepid samples, Sarmatian samples, Hun samples, Late Roman period samples, Roman period samples, many Iron Age samples, Iron Age Vekerzug culture, Celtic samples, Pre-Scythian samples, Scythian samples, Bronze Age samples, Bronze Age Maros culture, Copper Age samples, Proto Thracian, Illyrian samples. Which is a good demonstration that all people all mixed in the past to ensure the continuity of ancient names, everybody has 4 grandparents, and after 10 generations (c300 years) everybody has 1024 greatgrandparents. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)