Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved to Heading Under Its Own Name 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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.   ??? 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-mainstream view on Hungarian history 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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.   ??? 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ======