|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 29, 2009 21:35:15 GMT 3
Why specifically Huns? I suspect the reason has to do simply with what is said in the native Hungarian histories. I think the chance of it being the Huns is about the same as the chance of it being any of those other groups. There's not really good evidence to say either way. All there is to go on really is the few bits that can be somewhat confirmed from the various histories and what is known about the age of r-Turkic infusion into the Hungarian language and anthropological findings. Please understand, I'm not intending to downplay the silliness of those who trump this connection up for nationalistic purposes. I'm interested in trying to understand exactly your question, why Huns? Is it a ruling clan claim of legitimization on the territory of Hungary or is there some murky legend of ruling clan origin?
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 29, 2009 21:47:02 GMT 3
I wonder if the fact that the Magyars were called a race of Turks and Ungri by various sources are any clue that it was the real Ungri that the Magyars mixed with.
According to the Hunor and Magor legend, Hunor stole a wife from the Alans and founded the Huns while Magor stole a wife from the Bulgars and started the Magyars.
Supposedly Leved had a Khazar wife. The three Kabar tribes that joined the Magyars were supposedly Khazar. I'm sure there's mixing with them too. I think it's unknown if the Khazars spoke an r-Turkic or z-Turkic language.
I'd love to add more on this. It was my goal to provide the details on the legends in the Hungarian mythology thread I had started. But I'm unable to work on that at the moment...
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 30, 2009 20:53:57 GMT 3
Well, maybe the R-Turkic loanwords in Hungarian have something to do with the Oghurs, because we know that the Magyars were in close contact with them, specifically the Onogurs, right? Yes, unfortunately there is very little written stuff left from the Khazars and they are mostly letters written in Hebrew with one of them containing only one Turkic word at the end  We know that the Khazar Dynasty was a descendent of Tong Yabġu Qaġan 統葉護可汗, Western Kök Türük ruler between 618-630, so at least 7th century Khazar rulers spoke Z-Turkic, but we have no clue to talk about which Turkic dialect the common Khazars spoke. The Khazars themselves were probably already there for some time, and it is also possible that they were closely related with the Sabars. If they were not late-comers, it is highly possible that the Khazars spoke R-Turkic. But they might have been Z-speakers as well, who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 30, 2009 21:55:08 GMT 3
Yes, the name Hungary originates directly from "Onogur." In some languages it's even more visible like it's Ungur (Hungarian) in Romanian language.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 1, 2009 1:23:29 GMT 3
Well, the only very far remote connection between Huns and Magyars might have been via the Oġurs, but even if it is real, it surely must have been insignificant.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 1, 2009 2:17:25 GMT 3
A ruling class tends to be an insignificant percentage of a population...  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 1, 2009 13:28:30 GMT 3
Yes, that's true ;D
If someone would claim that the Bulġar dynasty was Attila's descendent, I would be more convinced; however, considering the big time gap between the Huns and Magyars, I tend to be more sceptical about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 2, 2009 0:48:18 GMT 3
Could it be that Székelys have more relation to Huns than the rest of Hungarians?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 2, 2009 12:18:47 GMT 3
Some say so, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 3, 2009 8:48:39 GMT 3
Could it be that Székelys have more relation to Huns than the rest of Hungarians? That's a common claim. I don't know too much about it either. This is what I do know. The Szekelys have folk sayings about a supposed son of Attila named Csaba. Csaba supposedly died in Greece. One of the sayings goes something like wishing to see someone again when Csaba comes back from Greece. Another belief is that Csaba didn't die in Greece but that he went back to Scythia and will return again with an army. It's some sort of salvation belief. The Hungarian dialect of the Szekely is noted to be different and preserve some archaic features, but also there's supposedly no effect from like a linguistic substratum, like what would happen if they adopted Hungarian after speaking some other language and preserved something of their former language. It's different from standard Hungarian but still pretty much Hungarian. Of course considering that there's lots of topological similarities with Uralic and Altaic languages, it can be hard to tell... |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 3, 2009 20:09:16 GMT 3
Could it be that Székelys have more relation to Huns than the rest of Hungarians? That's a common claim. I don't know too much about it either. This is what I do know. The Szekelys have folk sayings about a supposed son of Attila named Csaba. Csaba supposedly died in Greece. One of the sayings goes something like wishing to see someone again when Csaba comes back from Greece. Another belief is that Csaba didn't die in Greece but that he went back to Scythia and will return again with an army. It's some sort of salvation belief. The Hungarian dialect of the Szekely is noted to be different and preserve some archaic features, but also there's supposedly no effect from like a linguistic substratum, like what would happen if they adopted Hungarian after speaking some other language and preserved something of their former language. It's different from standard Hungarian but still pretty much Hungarian. Of course considering that there's lots of topological similarities with Uralic and Altaic languages, it can be hard to tell... AFAIK it's very likely that Szekelys originally actually were not Hungarians. It's claimed that they may either of Hunnic or Avar origin and only later they were assimilated into Magyar culture and adobted Hungarian language. Perhaps, we would have a better idea if we could get more information about Szekely dialect. In case the above claims are true it could have preserved some notable features of ancient Turkic substratum. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 3, 2009 20:40:20 GMT 3
"In case the above claims are true it could have preserved some notable features of ancient Turkic substratum." That's the problem I was trying to describe. The Szekely dialect of Hungarian contains nothing notable of Turkic that Hungarian itself doesn't have. Cf mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/71.html"Thus even if the Székelys once spoke a Turkic tongue, they must have given it up in favour of Hungarian at an early date. The Székely dialect contains no more Bulgaro-Turkish loan-words from before the Hungarian conquest than does standard Hungarian." |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 4, 2009 2:15:53 GMT 3
Thanks, interesting article. It indeed doesn't say that Szekely language has more Turkic elements in it, but it argues based on the historical sources that it's likely that they were orignally Turkic:
"By linking this legend to King St. Stephen's first Transylvanian voivode, 'Zoltán Erdõelvi', one can hypothesise that the Székelys were none other than the Kabars (i.e. Khazars); in the mid-900s, Constantine Porphyrogenetos recorded that the latter spoke not only their mother tongue (Bulgaro-Turkish) but also the (Finno-Ugric) language of the Hungarians. Their stay in Bihar would explain why they had become linguistically assimilated by the time they were led by 'Zoltán Erdõelvi' into Transylvania and settled between the Maros and the Olt. "
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 4, 2009 4:29:02 GMT 3
I want to point out something too with regards to geographical placement of tribes in steppe tradition. I don't recall where I had read this from. Supposedly "outsider" tribes that join a confederation are placed at the outer edges of a steppe empire. The Szekely in Transylvania are supposedly border guards. Kabars, having joined the Magyars, would have been placed at some border position.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 4, 2009 21:11:43 GMT 3
That would make sense indeed.
BTW a remember from reading a very controversial book by a Hungarian Jewish Arthur Koestler, where he was pointing out on some evidence of presence of some Nomadic tribes that practiced Judaism in Central Europe. It might indicate some Kabar connection...
|
|
We know that the Khazar Dynasty was a descendent of Tong Yabġu Qaġan 統葉護可汗, Western Kök Türük ruler between 618-630, so at least 7th century Khazar rulers spoke Z-Turkic, but we have no clue to talk about which Turkic dialect the common Khazars spoke. The Khazars themselves were probably already there for some time, and it is also possible that they were closely related with the Sabars. If they were not late-comers, it is highly possible that the Khazars spoke R-Turkic. But they might have been Z-speakers as well, who knows?
