|
|
Post by jakab on Jul 29, 2009 3:27:29 GMT 3
Firstly, apologies if this has been or is covered elsewhere... According to my father, in discussions I had with him many years ago, and also based on material that I have found on the Internet in recent years, there is slight debate amongst ethnic Huns in Hungary (which is the smallest ethnic minority there, and has been for many centuries already...), as to whether the Huns who went into western Europe in the 4th & 5th centuries AD, are or were originally of Xiongnu-Huns descent (pertaining to the Han dynasty in the 3rd & 2nd centuries BC), or if perhaps they were by this time more Caucasian in origin (from the Caucuses) rather than of Mongol-type (I emphasize 'TYPE')stock? What do members of SHF think is more probable? Sorry if this is a divisive question.  |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 29, 2009 5:58:52 GMT 3
Xiongnu-Hun continuity is a well discussed topic with no clear consensus. I do think that you'll find much consensus here on the idea that there are no ethnic Huns in Hungary.  |
|
|
|
Post by jakab on Jul 29, 2009 15:01:54 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 29, 2009 18:17:59 GMT 3
Yep, and my family is Cimmerian. What? Don't believe me? Wait until we hit the news!
Sorry for the facetiousness, it is just that you won't find anyone here who takes that claim seriously. If that group wants to live their fantasy lives, more power to them. Where are the Hungarians claiming minority status for being Avars or Carpi even?
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 29, 2009 20:14:45 GMT 3
From the historical point of view what these people claim is just plain nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by jakab on Jul 30, 2009 6:10:33 GMT 3
Plain nonsense? And I thought this was a serious forum about steppes people... The Huns were one of the first, if not the first steppes people to go into Europe and were given Panonia (present day Hungary) by the Romans. Of course there are ethnic Huns in Hungary, as well as Avars and Carpi. If they also want to claim ethnic status, then why don't they? To say that there are no ethnic Huns in Hungary, would be like saying there are no ethnic Mongols in Mongolia, even though there are many others in the Mongolia region (Tatars for instance).
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 30, 2009 8:17:13 GMT 3
This is a serious forum, or at least one that attempts to be. Such seriousness requires a respect for facts and critical thinking. And the facts do not support that group's claim. Why must deference be given to every Tom, D1ck, and Harry who walks off the street with fanciful claims while over 1000 years of historical facts do not support their claim? I liken this to that African tribe who claims they are Jewish. For a long time they lived believing this only amongst themselves. That's great! Then evidence was found (DNA) that seemed to substantiate their claim. Now everyone else paid attention. That's the way seriousness works. No evidence, no cookie.
Magyars are not Huns. The only possibility of a link is that the rulers of Magyars was descended from Huns. The legends that are handed down to us today were ruling class legends. That is not the same as the Magyars themselves. The common people were a conglomeration of Ugric, Iranic, Turkic, Slavic and Nordic/Germanic types.
(Also, the Huns were not the first...)
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 30, 2009 8:19:26 GMT 3
Yeah, we try to be serious. That's why we usually don't welcome wishful thinking unsupported by enough evidence.
It's the consensus of the majority of serious scholars that Huns were Turkic speakers. Also, it's a consensus that Hungarians don't have Hun ancestry except Arpad dynasty that might be of Hun origin.
Furthermore, ancient Huns don't exist any more. If they were ancestors of some modern European people, perhaps those would be Bulgarians or Volga Tatars and Chuvash that are believed to originate from Bulgars that originate from Huns.
In any case, Huns don't exist anymore, they just were ancestors to some modern people. With the same kind of success I can claim, that I'm an Egyptian pharaoh.
Finally, there are no Tatars in modern Mongolia region.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 30, 2009 8:42:38 GMT 3
Sarmathotep!
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 30, 2009 8:48:06 GMT 3
jakab, You might be interested in Pal Liptak's anthropological work on Ancient Hungarians and Avars. I was able to find some summary of the information in it. See steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=board09&action=display&thread=677&page=9#18569And below that... "The late Avar Period shows more hybridization resulting in higher frequencies of Europo-Mongolids". This would presume that the starting population didn't have very much "mongolid" influence. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 30, 2009 15:24:12 GMT 3
Yeah, yeah. Last Intermediate Period, Thirty-Second "Steppan Dynasty," I'm the last legitimate heir... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 31, 2009 3:19:41 GMT 3
Hahaha you people are great ;D ;D Regarding those Magyars who claim to be a separate Hunnic ethnic group, they are just funny. I mean c'mon, we Anatolian Turks probably have more to do with the Huns than they do  |
|
|
|
Post by jakab on Jul 31, 2009 7:27:57 GMT 3
hjernespiser
“Magyars are not Huns. “ I never said they were, I clearly stated 'It is true that Hungary is strictly speaking Magyaro (Magyarország)', which is another way of saying that Magyars were not Huns.
“... is that the rulers of Magyars was descended from Huns...” Rulers of Magyars? Yes - the ruling dynasty before Hungary became a republic. Same thing - why split hairs?
“The legends that are handed down to us today were ruling class legends. That is not the same as the Magyars themselves.” What are you talking about? The ruling class was Magyar. Same thing.
“...conglomeration of Ugric, Iranic, Turkic, Slavic and Nordic/Germanic types” The Magyars possibly have some Turkic connection and maybe Ugaric; I accept this, but not Iranic or Slavic. Where do you get this from?
“(Also, the Huns were not the first...)” I did say 'The Huns were one of the first, if not the first steppes people to go into Europe.' So there is no contradiction here.
sarmat
“It's the consensus of the majority of serious scholars that Huns were Turkic speakers. “ Can you please elaborate on 'Turkic' because strictly speaking, this has meant different things over the centuries. If you mean Turkic as in 'the Turkish region at the time of the Huns into Europe', then this is agreeable - just!. The Huns did not keep written records however (this is generally accepted), so this is not 100% certain, but a strong possibility. Their 'written language' was a form of cuneiform that they used on fashioned sticks (they did not use paper of any kind).
“Also, it's a consensus that Hungarians don't have Hun ancestry except Arpad dynasty that might be of Hun origin.” I accept this, and I never said that Hungarians has Hun ancestry, at least not directly.
“Furthermore, ancient Huns don't exist any more.” Of course ancient Huns do not exist any more, any more than ancient Britons exist any more, but there are still thousands of ethnic Huns in Hungary (Magyarország) - but more on that in a minute or so (there are of course more ethnic Huns outside of Hungary than in it).
“Finally, there are no Tatars in modern Mongolia region.” Modern Mongolia is referred to as Inner-Mongolia. I was refering to Mongolia at the time of Gengis Khan, which included outer Mongolia. At this time, North-Western Mongolia would have encroached on areas where tatars were.
Anyway, back to ethnic Huns in Hungary... All Hun males had their cheeks slashed very soon after birth. Those in Hungary claiming to be ethnic Huns, or linked to ethnic Huns do have distingishing 'shallows' on their cheeks, obviosly not as distinct as they would have been in the 4th & 5th centuries AD, but they do have them, whereas the vast majority of Hungarians do not have this... Moreover, if the last ruling dynsty which was Magyar, did not accept; really did not acept that there were ethnic-Huns in Hungary, then why would they have accepted, made a statue/bust of Attila the Hun? Because they knew, as they still know, that there are thousands of Hungarians that do believe that they have a link to those Huns that went into former Pannonia (of which present-day Hungary is a part of, or was a part of).
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 31, 2009 8:42:28 GMT 3
hjernespiser “Magyars are not Huns. “ I never said they were, I clearly stated 'It is true that Hungary is strictly speaking Magyaro (Magyarország)', which is another way of saying that Magyars were not Huns. True, I recognize that you wrote that, so I was confused by when you implied that "Huns in Hungary" seemed obvious. It isn't obvious at all. Huns that remained were assimilated into the Pannonian population roughly 400 years before Magyars arrived and ceased to be an ethnic identity. Use Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that this group is just a re-creation. To assume that they are actual Huns requires 1000 years of problems to solve. Too complex and therefore unlikely. Because I'm not clear on what you're referring to exactly. The ruling class of *ancient* Magyars was primarily Turkic mixed with Ugric and a little Pamirian (Iranic) thrown in. They were most likely related with the Onoghur-Bulghars/Volga-Bulghars. The Khazars tried to intermix through Leved, but he didn't have any children with his Khazar wife and thus leadership was taken over by Almos and Arpad's clan. When you talk about "became a republic" I'm thinking that you're referring to modern history. Hungary became a kingdom in the year 1000. It only became a republic in the 20th century. The ruling dynasty prior to republic-hood (i.e., the Hapsburgs) was not really Magyar, unless you're meaning the other nobility, which cannot, after 1000 years, be said to be the same Magyar descended from Arpad's clan. Arpad's clan died out, remember? Over that 1000 years, the nobles mixed with Germans, French, Italians, Slovaks, probably even Romanians, etc. Incidentally, both the Magyar steppe confederation and the Magyar kingdom were multi-ethnic. That's the nature of steppe confederations. It (the ruling class of *ancient* Magyars) was primarily of Onoghur-Bulghar/Volga-Bulghar extraction mixed with Ugric Magyar. Not the same thing. Read my post above mentioning Pal Liptak. The physical evidence was right there in the dirt. He's not the only source either. Iranic connection is through relationship with the Alans, Iazyges, possibly others. Did you know that ancient Magyar artwork is post-Sassanian style? |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 31, 2009 9:26:08 GMT 3
“Furthermore, ancient Huns don't exist any more.” Of course ancient Huns do not exist any more, any more than ancient Britons exist any more, but there are still thousands of ethnic Huns in Hungary (Magyarország) - but more on that in a minute or so (there are of course more ethnic Huns outside of Hungary than in it). There are no other Huns known to history than the people that vanished before 10 century AD. Whatever those peope in Hungary call themselves, they are not Huns, as we know them from the Roman, Greek, Iranian, Armenian, Georgian etc. chronicles and that were leaded by Attila. The only time the name "Hun" was used relatively recently is a deragatory nick name for Germans during WWI. But everybody knew that it's just a nick name and nothing else. Anyway, back to ethnic Huns in Hungary... All Hun males had their cheeks slashed very soon after birth. Those in Hungary claiming to be ethnic Huns, or linked to ethnic Huns do have distingishing 'shallows' on their cheeks, obviosly not as distinct as they would have been in the 4th & 5th centuries AD, but they do have them, whereas the vast majority of Hungarians do not have this... Are you suggesting that because Hun males slashed their cheeks their alleged descendants have shallows on their cheeks one thousand years ago? Sorry, but this kind of "prove" violates the known laws of genetics. Moreover, if the last ruling dynsty which was Magyar, did not accept; really did not acept that there were ethnic-Huns in Hungary, then why would they have accepted, made a statue/bust of Attila the Hun? Because they knew, as they still know, that there are thousands of Hungarians that do believe that they have a link to those Huns that went into former Pannonia (of which present-day Hungary is a part of, or was a part of). "Believe" doesn't mean "fact." "Hun origin" legend was invented by the romanitc Medieaval Hungarian chronists in order to create a mythical glorious past for Hungarians. The principle was very easy. Pick up someone great and famous who in a very ancient time lived in a land close to yours (or may be even very far away) and make him your ancestor. Apparently the best candidate for Hungarian ancestors would be "Huns" and so they became. By using the same principle, Poles claimed that they originated from Sarmatians, English from the lost tribes of Israel and Lithuanias... from Julius Ceasars legionaries. May be those people believe that they are direct descendants of Huns, but this believe lacks connection to historical facts and reality. |
|
