Hungarians

[Maotun]

Jan 7, 2009 3:17:18 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

"The taxonomic characteristics of the ruling class of Huns are not well known."

As I surmised, we don't know anything about them.

And if the Avars had some Mongoloid ruler group as you wrote, why their language considered Turkic?

Why would that matter? Language and genes are not transmitted in the same way. I suspect you're confusing the use of the anthropological term "Mongoloid" with the Mongol people and language.

I didn't mean that lang or gene thing.

I speculated about the language matter:
if the Avars were Mongs and they descended from a part of the Rouran as one major theory stands, then they have spoken a type of pre-Mongolian language.
And the Avars' language was the same as that of the Huns, so the whole presumed Hunnic language theory would collapse.

And if we put into the picture the thing that the proto-Bulgars were not definitely Turkic, as for ex Pritsak stands, the subject become even more complicated and then we lose all starting points.
***
Irrespectively of the above, I have an interesting assumption in my theory,
the Avars were the unite of the Hunnic speaking partly mongolized Xiongnu subject tribes of Ruoran and the White Huns, who fled west together after the Turks defeated the Rourans and the Hepthals.
And the Hungarian tribe of Jenou, was composed of these Avars' Rouran/Xiongnu remnants who fled east in the 800s after the collapse of their Khaganate.
And the Hungarian Kurt tribe was the descendant of a part of Kurt's kutigur/onogur people.

In your book is there anything on the Hungarian tribes composition issue?

[hjernespiser]

Jan 7, 2009 5:03:39 GMT 3 Maotun said:

I speculated about the language matter:
if the Avars were Mongs and they descended from a part of the Rouran as one major theory stands, then they have spoken a type of pre-Mongolian language.

Unfortunately it can't be said like that. Basically what you're saying is the equivalent to saying that all English kings should be speaking French because we know that they descended from French-speaking Normans. The rules of language change in this regard are not clear. Rulers tend to adopt the language of the people they rule. Another example, Hungarian nobles ruling over Slovaks adopted Slovak and only started relearning Magyar after it became popular to do so. Recall that the Gordon review of Liptak mentions only 16% Mongolid taxonomic characteristics among the Avar ruling class.

[Maotun]

Jan 7, 2009 6:19:10 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

Jan 7, 2009 5:03:39 GMT 3 Maotun said:

I speculated about the language matter:
if the Avars were Mongs and they descended from a part of the Rouran as one major theory stands, then they have spoken a type of pre-Mongolian language.

Unfortunately it can't be said like that. Basically what you're saying is the equivalent to saying that all English kings should be speaking French because we know that they descended from French-speaking Normans. The rules of language change in this regard are not clear. Rulers tend to adopt the language of the people they rule. Another example, Hungarian nobles ruling over Slovaks adopted Slovak and only started relearning Magyar after it became popular to do so. Recall that the Gordon review of Liptak mentions only 16% Mongolid taxonomic characteristics among the Avar ruling class.

I see, but not exactly.
The Ruoran language was a type of Xienpi language.
And if the Avars descended from Rouran as the one major viewpoint stands, the Rouran was defeated in 552, the Avars appeared in Byzant in 558, so in this case we cannot speak about language change.

Recall that the Gordon review of Liptak mentions only 16% Mongolid taxonomic characteristics among the Avar ruling class.

Hence I wrote that among the Avars was a partly Mongolized part, that bears those Mongolid taxonomic characteristics.

But if it was only 16%, what's about the remaining part, is there any hint on them?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

There is no point of reason to except such a theory which claims that the Volga Bulgars were non-Turkic. We have so many written evidences from them (inscriptions from 13th century, Arabic travel reports from 10th century) which evidently prooves the Turkicness of Bulgars.

I must say I am now totally sick of some people claiming the non-Turkicness of Turkic peoples.

[Maotun]

Jan 7, 2009 14:51:52 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

There is no point of reason to except such a theory which claims that the Volga Bulgars were non-Turkic. We have so many written evidences from them (inscriptions from 13th century, Arabic travel reports from 10th century) which evidently prooves the Turkicness of Bulgars.

I must say I am now totally sick of some people claiming the non-Turkicness of Turkic peoples.

I, myself also know these, but there is such theory with the lead of major Ukrainian historian and Turkologist Omeljan Pritsak and some other leading Bulgarian scholars, so I can't exactly measure its accuracy yet.

But anyway, don't be sick of these people or anyone, these are just scientific theories. We must not take this all matter too serious. Objectivity without bias and dispassionate are the first cornerstones of science and research.

But back to the issue:

So you consider the Bulgars as Turkic, but
what about the real Avars, the Varchunites (pseudo-Avars), the Rourans, and Hepthals, according to your viewpoint they were Mongolian, Turkic or maybe other?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Well, it's normal for Bulgarian historians to reject the Turkicness of the historical Bulgars, I can understand the sort of crisis that would cause among themselves ;D ;D As for Pritsak, I am rather surprised, he wasn't that kind of man. But anyway... We have enough evidence to accept the fact that the Bulghars were Turkic, but a different branch.

Just think this way: how would you explain the existence of the Chuvash people and their language?

So you consider the Bulgars as Turkic, but
what about the real Avars, the Varchunites (pseudo-Avars), the Rourans, and Hepthals, according to your viewpoint they were Mongolian, Turkic or maybe other?

Oh well, these are the among the hardest issues in Central Asian and Steppe history to be solved, because of the lack of written evidences. I am personally not an expert on these peoples and I haven't studied them in detail because my main area and period of study is more eastwards. The link between Avars, Ephtalites and Rouran 柔然 had been proposed and thought of before but there is hardly any evidence to either accept or reject these theories, so I also tend to not accept any theories at this time.

But what we know of the Rouran is that they were ruled by Mongols of Serbet (Xianbei 鮮卑) origin. Their folk must have included both Mongols and Turks though, and we know that some of their subjects (such as the Gaoche 高車 or Chile 敕勒, who later became called as Tiele 鐵勒) were Turkic. I am sure they included elements from the Serbets too. As for the Ephtalites, my personal opinion is that they probably were Turkic, but there must be more evidences to proove this.

[hjernespiser]

"In the Avar Period as a whole Liptak gives the following breakdown of minor races: hetero- geneous bracycephalic Europids, 27.2%; nor- doids, 20.8%; cromagnoids, 18.2%; mediter- raneans, 15.4%; Mongolids and Europo- Mongolids, 16%; and archaic Europoids, 3.9%. The Avar Mongolid races are broken down into types: baikal (36%), sinid (Far East- ern), sayanic (low-faced, associated with early Avar nobility), and Central Asian. The author suggests the origin of Avar overlords is the trans- baikal region of south central Asia."

[hjernespiser]

"Conquering Hungarians and Arpadian Age (10th-13th century A.D.). The ancient home- land of the Hungarian horsemen-overlords is suggested to be the Kama-Byelaya region of present day Bashkiria. The overlord physical type is classified as turanid (south siberian Europo-Mongolid), which is connected with the Turkish component of the Hungarian conquest and associated with rich grave goods, horse skull burials, and horse equipment. In addition, there are uralian (Europo-sibirid) and pamirian minor races. The Hungarian common people are very heterogeneous (in terms of including almost every Europid race) and practiced trepanation of the skull. Females in the same cemetery are not always of the same racial com- position. An overwhelming majority of the whole population is Europid (95%) with the following breakdown: nordoid, 31%; mediter- ranean, 28%; cromagnon, 22%; brachycranes, 13%, and other Europids, 1.6%; Mongolids and Europo-Mongolids, 5%. The Hungarian overlord class is made up of 33% turanids, then pamirian, uralian (Europo-Mongolids), nor- doid, and mediterranean. The warrior-serf class and common people are made up of pamirian (specifically in the warrior-serf class), nordoid, and mediterranean groups. The turanid types are often found in separate single graves with horse skulls and rich burial goods. The Hungarians of conquest were probably accom- panied by Alans, Varangians, and Rus peoples."

[hjernespiser]

"I am concerned about the replicability of the method and would prefer to see "taxons" defined by factor analysis. Scores of individuals would cluster along specific morphometric fac-tors, thereby defining the "taxon" or minor race. It would be useful to study the cemetery groups by sex within periods with discriminant analysis to see just how different or overlapping the cemetery populations are in morphometric patterns. This method may produce results similar to those of Liptak's method, but it would make it easier to define taxa, quantitate differ- ence or similarity (distance) between groups, and offer replicability."

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Interesting indeed.

[Subu'atai]

Avars had Sinids amongst them?!?! o.O

[hjernespiser]

And cromagnoids!!! Given y'Edyn's criticism of Liptak's method, I would also like to see the same data sorted by a computer... Liptak's book is somewhat old now. I wonder if someone has arrived at similar conclusions as Liptak using a different analysis method.

[Maotun]

Jan 9, 2009 0:19:11 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

And cromagnoids!!! Given y'Edyn's criticism of Liptak's method, I would also like to see the same data sorted by a computer... Liptak's book is somewhat old now. I wonder if someone has arrived at similar conclusions as Liptak using a different analysis method.

I found something interesting on this type:
from the Early Cultures of Central Asia topic:

Jan 21, 2009 0:34:18 GMT 3 Maotun said:

Jan 20, 2009 22:40:23 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

I don't think Afanasievo was Uralic/Ugric.

I, as like you, didn't think it like that so far, but now, after I've made some research, I do.

It was indeed a great surprise to me too, but look:

from the same source quoted by you:
from the section of Early nomads of Mongolia

"According to physical anthropologists the Afanasievo population was Paleo-European, descending from the Cro-Magnon people of Paleolithic Europe. It appears that the carriers of the Mongolian Afanasievo Culture were the easternmost Europoid tribes which populated Inner Asia at the dawn of the Bronze Age."

and again

"As mentioned previously, the Afanasievo-type populations found in the Altan Sandal and Shatar Chuluu burials at Khangai have Europoid skulls. The people belonged to one of the most eastern and most ancient groups of Europoid tribes to inhabit Inner Asia. They also contrast sharply with the Paleo-Asiatic groups found in the Late Neolithic or Eneolithic complexes of eastern Mongolia.
This leads to the conclusion that cultural and anthropological differences between two groups, one in eastern and the other in western Mongolia, appear to have developed at the onset of the Bronze Age."

From the facts:
Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements.

And recent genetic research also stands that the most ancient Paleo-European people of Eastern Europe were the Uralics.

I was led to the conclusion that
these Paleo-European population descending from the Cro-Magnon people of Paleolithic Europe and most ancient groups of Europoid tribes to inhabit Inner Asia only could be the Uralics.

Or is my chain of deductions wrong?

[Pedrito]

Hello guys,

I am totally new here however I would like to correct big misconceptions of the Verinen Paroni!

Sorry for slight off-topic, but Verinen was READING too much NAZI PROPAGANDA ...

He mentioned that Germanic tribes kicked Slavic people out of Europe (rephrasing), and Czechs are not Slavic (he was pointing we are Germanic

Ad. 1) So for the Czech Republic as I am Czech myself:
The original inhabitants of area of Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak, Germany) were Celtic tribes called Boio from this Bohemia derived its name as Boiohemmum - Roman word for "Land of Boios". After as you know Celtic people sort of kinda dissappeared/resettled, till now we don't have good theory explaining why this happened and were replaced by Germanic tribes of Marcomanns and Quads. These were the ones fighting with late Romans - so called Marcomanns Wars. However as popular misconception in every history, Celtic people were not wiped out or all left, but they just mingled/assimilated with Germanic. After Great Migration the Slavic came into this area and kicked Germanic away. But the Slavic also intermingled with Celtics!!

For the rest of history Czechs were never kicked out of their lands and never were dominated genetically by Germans. In 14th century we invited Germanic mainly Saxons and Bavarians to settle in the borders of Czech Republic (the famous Sudettenland in WW II.). However Slav influence was prevailing and Germans were always minority. However based on the latest research it was found out that Czech has 5% of the Germanic blood and THEN INTERESTINGLY maybe equally the rest is divided into Celtic blood and Slavic. Although in some findings we have around 75% Celtic blood in other it's vice versa. However for us it is already great surprise that we have so much Celtic blood.

But anyway we have still very REMARKABLE SLAVIC features, language, etc. so mistake us with Germans really requires no knowledge.

Ad. 2) Slavic in Germany - well, they were not annihilated by Germans, but mostly unluckily by current Polish and Czechs! In Germany there were around 3 distinct tribes of Slavic influence - Elbe Slavic, Lausitz Serbians (2 tribes - Northern and Southern). However Elbe Slavics were badly beaten by Germans, but the final "touch" was given to them by Czech and Polish kings. More remarkably in the 14th century when the Czech Kingdom situated "almost in Berlin", great part of current Sachsen was part of Czech lands, etc. we directly fought with these poor Slavic people. I must not say that till 16th century they were almost dying out. Polish people did the same, when expanding to west across Oder/Odra river. The last touch to them was a germanization after Bismarck unification of Germany. As of now there is still around 100'000 people of them in Germany and they still speak language which is almost identical to Czech (Northern Serbs) and to Polish (Southern Serbs). However Slavic people once again in the Germany assimilated with Germans.

Sorry for the names of those Slavic tribes was somehow translating them from my language, later I found the right names on wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends

However there is a lot of mistakes as any wikipedia article, it provides the right terminology and also fate of those Western Slavics.

[Pedrito]

Ad. 3) Germanization of Poland - another misconception of German propaganda Actually most of the people in current East Germany posses a great portion of Slavic blood. But back to FAMOUS GERMANIZATION and German Teutonic Knights. Unlikely to the famous beliefs, the Germans incoming into various Slavic lands, were not in majority. There were always minority, as also in case of Steppe Wars, they became the ruling nobility. However during centuries they were assimilated by Slavic people, although they still give the great touch to Slavic people - language, and some cultural things.

So the best example of history - German speaking Prussians were not Germanic tribes (as majority of people thinks) but rather Slavic tribes mingled with old Lithuanian speaking German. Also on the other hand some Germanic tribes speak Slavic now - cultural minorities in Poland or White Russia. Hence the Poland didn't become Germanic, but rather Slavic who were German speaking. However after WW II. Germans lost all of their territories east of Odra and these Prussians became BACK POLISH However significant part of the Eastern Germans still have Polish origin or Slavic origin.

Ad. 4) Ad Avar - well based on the latest discoveries, they were not naturally of the Turkic origin but rather of Iran-European origin. Based on the Pavelic's book, the three waves of Avars distinguish by genetics greatly - the first is Iran-European, second is half and half and last is mostly Turkic. The logical conclusion is intermingling and assimilation with Turkic, that's the true story which happened in the steppes - different nations intermingled (the stronger preservers its cultural language, maybe appearance) and what is left is just appearance and language - the dominant genes prevailed ( and since Mongolic genes are stronger, the proponents of FAMOUS PANTURANIAN theory thinks that the steppe was dominated by TURKIC people).

Ad. 5) Hungarians - based on the research which are available to me, then the Hungarians are a very STRONG mix of everything. We must realize that Hungary was almost for three hundred years (if I am not wrong) part of the Czech kingdom - lot of Czechs and Slovaks move on the land of Hungary, later when Hungary became part of Austria there were lot of Romanians, Jews as well as Saxons and Thuringen settling there. So to really say that Hungary has significant blood of any nation (especially Hun or Turkic) is more a political wish than reality.

Therefore I totally agree with previous posts when they say that the Hungarians arrived accompanied by many nations like Rus, Vikings, Alans, etc. That's totally confirming what I know.