Hungarians

[Subu'atai]

One thing that has always troubled me, though I never bothered to ask since I did not wish to disrespect one's culture and belief who have never disrespected mine - as a result, Hungarians have been too nice, too respectful, for me to even question their legitimacy as descendants of Huns.

BUT!!! Let me see, Magyar = Uralic, Attila = Altaic. You INVADED the Danube after the Huns were gone, so how can Arpad possibly be related to the Attila?

[Maotun]

Dec 17, 2008 12:12:40 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

One thing that has always troubled me, though I never bothered to ask since I did not wish to disrespect one's culture and belief who have never disrespected mine - as a result, Hungarians have been too nice, too respectful, for me to even question their legitimacy as descendants of Huns.

BUT!!! Let me see, Magyar = Uralic, Attila = Altaic. You INVADED the Danube after the Huns were gone, so how can Arpad possibly be related to the Attila?

It depends on what do you think about where the Huns had gone.

[hjernespiser]

I'm a current believer in the idea that there is no Magyar - Hun continuity, at least not directly. Rather, I see in the story Western European propaganda supported by the State. The idea in Hungarian sources was written down in the 13th century by Simon Kezai in the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum for King Ladislas IV, who's mother was Kun. Simon tells us right in the beginning of this Gesta:

"
I set to bring together in one volume the stories of that nation [Hungary] scattered and spread in various sources through Italy, France, and Germany.
"

If someone wants to take what Kezai wrote about the Huns-Hungarians as truth, why discard what he says in the introduction? He completely ignored the stories of the Hungarians themselves.

The idea of the Hungarians being the Huns came from 10th century West-European Latin and Byzantine chronicles. It is important to note that the earlier Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum written in the 12th century mentions no such theory and neither do writings that are contemporaneous with the Honfoglalas.

To me it is actually very sad. A very rich oral history of the Magyars was virtually wiped out and erased then replaced with propaganda. We only catch a few glimpses of the earlier stories in fairy tales.

[Subu'atai]

So the Huns after Attila went all the way to the Khazar Khanate, then usurped leadership of the Magyars there, then went all the way back to the Danube?

[hjernespiser]

Dec 17, 2008 21:11:33 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

So the Huns after Attila went all the way to the Khazar Khanate, then usurped leadership of the Magyars there, then went all the way back to the Danube?

There actually was some sort of leadership usurpation. The Arpadian story is that the Khazars were going to make a certain Levedias the ruler over all the Magyar tribes but Levedias instead suggested Almos and his son Arpad for the role. Excuse me? Does anyone seriously believe Levedias would give up such a role out of the goodness of his heart?! We only know the Arpadian side of this story. Wonder what Leved would have to say about it...

Probably what really occurred was that Leved, even though he had Khazar support (his wife was supposedly Khazar), didn't have support from a majority of the Magyars tribes. So Almos and Arpad took over, but without support from the Khazars. They then moved a majority of Magyars further west in Etelkuzu while Leved and his smaller group of supporters stayed back east in the mysterious (and probably made up) "Levedia" to be close with their Khazar lords. The whole story stinks of legitimatizing politics.

I think the remnants of the Huns were absorbed by the later peoples, i.e. Avars, Onogurs, Bulgars, and Magyars.

[Subu'atai]

Hmmm, this is thought-provoking indeed. You have any more information in relevance to the actual usurption? Or a link to the story. This could be just what I need to convince my mind to believe

d**n it why wasn't this mentioned before, here I am making theories about the Magyar migration intermixing with the remnants of Attila which is completely far-fetched due to the dispersal of Huns from the danube. And now this?!

*kicks western politics for keeping me blind from this story!*

[Maotun]

The tribe of Magyar was only one of the seven tribes of the Hungarians (Hetumoger, Hétmagyar in Hungarian), that has become the leader tribe after they'd united in a blood covenant, and later tha Kabars joined them.
Dual leadership was among them, with one religional, mystical leader called Kundu and one political, war leader called Dsula. I thing this is the same as the title of the Dulo clan according to O. Pritsak's Proto-Bulgarian King List, descended from Maotun aka Bator.
Dulo, Bator, Tomen are all Hungarian words.
And when Attila's empire collapsed the majority of the Huns migrated back to their kinspeople north of Black Sea. The Hunnic remnanst were the tribes of Sabirs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, called Bulgars and Hunnugors, and the tribe of Magyar was the clan of Attila's descendant Muager, King of Huns. A part of these were subjugated by the Avars, and when the Avar Khaganate collapsed they all were united under the tribe of Magyar (their former name was Sabir), as the western chronicles also say in short: "the Hungars, formerly Avars, who are the remnanst of Huns". And I think the foreign names of Magyars were came from the names of Onogurs and Hunnugors.

[Maotun]

Dec 17, 2008 21:40:48 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

Dec 17, 2008 21:11:33 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

So the Huns after Attila went all the way to the Khazar Khanate, then usurped leadership of the Magyars there, then went all the way back to the Danube?

I think the remnants of the Huns were absorbed by the later peoples, i.e. Avars, Onogurs, Bulgars, and Magyars.

I think also this way. These you mentioned are the Hungarians.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Dec 17, 2008 23:49:39 GMT 3 Maotun said:

The tribe of Magyar was only one of the seven tribes of the Hungarians (Hetumoger, Hétmagyar in Hungarian), that has become the leader tribe after they'd united in a blood covenant, and later tha Kabars joined them.
Dual leadership was among them, with one religional, mystical leader called Kundu and one political, war leader called Dsula. I thing this is the same as the title of the Dulo clan according to O. Pritsak's Proto-Bulgarian King List, descended from Maotun aka Bator.
Dulo, Bator, Tomen are all Hungarian words.
And when Attila's empire collapsed the majority of the Huns migrated back to their kinspeople north of Black Sea. The Hunnic remnanst were the tribes of Sabirs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, called Bulgars and Hunnugors, and the tribe of Magyar was the clan of Attila's descendant Muager, King of Huns. A part of these were subjugated by the Avars, and when the Avar Khaganate collapsed they all were united under the tribe of Magyar (their former name was Sabir), as the western chronicles also say in short: "the Hungars, formerly Avars, who are the remnanst of Huns". And I think the foreign names of Magyars were came from the names of Onogurs and Hunnugors.

Sorry but I won't believe these at all. There is no way to proove these.

It's funny to see Hungarians claiming Hungarian etymologies for the words they borrowed from Turkic ;D ;D

[Maotun]

Dec 18, 2008 2:32:35 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Dec 17, 2008 23:49:39 GMT 3 Maotun said:

The tribe of Magyar was only one of the seven tribes of the Hungarians (Hetumoger, Hétmagyar in Hungarian), that has become the leader tribe after they'd united in a blood covenant, and later tha Kabars joined them.
Dual leadership was among them, with one religional, mystical leader called Kundu and one political, war leader called Dsula. I thing this is the same as the title of the Dulo clan according to O. Pritsak's Proto-Bulgarian King List, descended from Maotun aka Bator.
Dulo, Bator, Tomen are all Hungarian words.
And when Attila's empire collapsed the majority of the Huns migrated back to their kinspeople north of Black Sea. The Hunnic remnanst were the tribes of Sabirs, Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, called Bulgars and Hunnugors, and the tribe of Magyar was the clan of Attila's descendant Muager, King of Huns. A part of these were subjugated by the Avars, and when the Avar Khaganate collapsed they all were united under the tribe of Magyar (their former name was Sabir), as the western chronicles also say in short: "the Hungars, formerly Avars, who are the remnanst of Huns". And I think the foreign names of Magyars were came from the names of Onogurs and Hunnugors.

Sorry but I won't believe these at all. There is no way to proove these.

It's funny to see Hungarians claiming Hungarian etymologies for the words they borrowed from Turkic ;D ;D

Maybe you are right,
but in turn it seems logical and genetically it has already some proofs.

According my theory I'm working on, these words are of Xiongnu origin borrowed by the Turks via Xianbei.

[hjernespiser]

Dec 17, 2008 23:49:39 GMT 3 Maotun said:

they all were united under the tribe of Magyar (their former name was Sabir)

Are you referring to the name "Sabartoi asphaloi" in De Administrando Imperio and the claim that this was a name Magyars were formerly known by? The Sabir identity of Magyars usually derives from this mention in DAI (the only place this story comes from), but I think it is misleading. Why would Magyars use a different name, one that even contains a Greek word, asphales? Even less is known about the Sabirs than the Huns, just a few names that appear Turkic so I find it difficult to say who they were exactly. Janos Harmatta suggested the Sabirs were Saka!

Back to Leved's usurpation...
Here's some lines from DAI. The informants to the Byzantines about Magyars (Turks) were Bulcsu and Termecsu, great-grandsons of Arpad. This is the official line...

"Now, the Pechenegs who were previously called 'Kangar' (for this 'Kangar' was a name signifying nobility and valour among them), these, then, stirred up war against the Chazars and, being defeated, were forced to quit their own land and to settle in that of the Turks. And when battle was joined between the Turks and the Pechenegs who were at that time called 'Kangar', the army of the Turks was defeated and split into two parts. One part went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia, and to this day are called by the ancient denomination of the Turks 'Sabartoi asphaloi'; but the other part, together with their voivode and chief Lebedias, settled in the western region, in places called Atelkouzou, in which places the nation of the Pechenegs now lives. A short while afterwards, the then chagan-prince of Chazaria sent a message to the Turks, requiring that Lebedias, their first voivode, should be sent to him. Lebedias, therefore, came to the chagan of Chazaria and asked the reason why he had sent for him to come to him. The chagan said to him: "We have invited you upon this account, in order that, since you are noble and wise and valorous and first among the Turks, we may appoint you prince of your nation, and you may be obedient to our word and our command." But he, in reply, made answer to the chagan: "Your regard and purpose for me I highly esteem and express to you suitable thanks, but since I am not strong enough for this rule, I cannot obey you; on the other hand, however, there is a voivode other than me, called Almoutzis, and he has a son called Arpad; let one of these, rather, either that Almoutzis or his son Arpad, be made prince, and be obedient to your word." That chagan was pleased at this saying, and gave some of his men to go with him, and sent them to the Turks, and after they had talked the matter over with the Turks, the Turks preferred that Arpad should be prince rather than Almoutzis his father, for he was of superior parts and greatly admired for wisdom and counsel and valour, and capable of this rule; and so they made him prince according to the custom, or 'zakanon', of the Khazars, by lifting him upon a shield. Before this Arpad the Turks had never at any time had any other prince, and so even to this day the prince of Turkey is from his family.
"
In Ch. 13 of "Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages", Rona-Tas deals with questions raised about Leved. I like Rona-Tas because he's a skeptic about these things. "The part which relates Levedi facing up to his incompetence, and recommending Almos or Arpad instead of himself, lacks even the smallest fragment of credibility." Rona-Tas compares this funny explanation of Leved turning down the Khazars for Almos or Arpad with a story from the Secret History of the Mongols. A "supplementary chapter" was inserted into SHM where Ogodei is appointed ruler during Chingis Khan's lifetime and then Ogodei says he fears he might have an inept son so Chingis Khan turns to Tolui and basically appoints Tolui successor after Ogodei. So then after Ogodei dies, the throne is passed to Tolui's son instead of along Ogodei's branch. The story in SHM serves the purpose of legitimizing Tolui's family just as the story in DAI serves the purpose of legitimizing Arpad's rule over Leved's family. What it really looks like is that the Pechenegs attacked the Magyars under Leved's rule, which weakened him, and then Arpad seized power. The Khazars already blessed Leved as the head of the Magyars by giving him a Khazar wife. He wouldn't have needed to go back to them to be told again that he's going to be made prince.

The lines are from the Moravcsik and Jenkins translation. Rona-Tas points out that there is a mistranslation. It should be "One part was settled in the east." and not "went". The Greek literally translates as "towards the borders of Persia" and there is no "went" in there.

[Maotun]

I can't exactly get what you'd like to say, but on the Sabir thing I think the Greek asphaloi is only an epithet, meaning "strong or unbeatable Sabirs", like Menandes and Teophanes wrote "invincible Avars" in the case of Avars. And on the Saka thing, read my last add to the Xiongnu lang topic related to Scythians.

On the other Khazar thing it is only a story I don't know what's this based on. The Hungarians' Kundu had twice the army force than that of the Khazars' Khagan, so it can be a memory of a Byzantine-Khazar political plan or something from the time of Konstantin's father Leo or even earlier.
But as I've written the Lebedias was only a spiritual leader over a part of the tribes, the real power was in the hands of the Dsula of the tribe Magyar. So if it has happened at all, Levedi may has just said this to the Khagan in his own words.

But I think you have a misconception regarding my theory or views. In Hungary there is heavy controversy on the subject of pre-history from the 19th century called "Ugor-Turk" war based on linguistic data of Finn-Ugric theory. Those like Rona-Tas are on the Finn side of it. The others are on the Turk. And they both are endlessly riding their own idea. But I think they are just swishing the air. But in my conception the Finn-Ugric theory is exactly the proof of the Hunnic origin of the Hungarians.

[Subu'atai]

Well I must admit it's amazing how linguistics are taken too seriously in my opinion, it's like saying centuries later I'm Anglo because I speak English. However, it's as good an assumption we can make, and from your theory, you have proven the slight possibility of Arpad being a descendant of Attila, how about the rest of the Magyar people - descendant of the Huns?

[Maotun]

Dec 18, 2008 13:31:18 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

Well I must admit it's amazing how linguistics are taken too seriously in my opinion, it's like saying centuries later I'm Anglo because I speak English. However, it's as good an assumption we can make, and from your theory, you have proven the slight possibility of Arpad being a descendant of Attila, how about the rest of the Magyar people - descendant of the Huns?

Nowadays already mainly not, the current population is very mixed, its only 10-15 percent what preserved that past. So the answer is no and yes. In the middle ages there was a noble class (whose members don't mixed with the common people), what's number equals this so we can say they were Huns, if we consider the proto-Bulgars and the Avars (white Huns) the descendants of the Huns, hence we can say yes too, because according to the most recent and extended genetic research (2000-2008) the old nomad Hungarians of the 9th century who have conquered the country ("the domains of King Attila") were anthropological homogeneous and they were the same as the proto-Bulgars or of common ancestry. This is a new information what was not known before.

As I mentioned earlier:
I am currently translating two articles (besides the Madjars) on this topic:
- Sensational exploration results on the home-conquerer Hungarians
- Anthropological sensation and the Bolgar-Hungarian relations

I will post these then.

[Maotun]

Dec 17, 2008 18:54:02 GMT 3 hjernespiser said:

"
I set to bring together in one volume the stories of that nation [Hungary] scattered and spread in various sources through Italy, France, and Germany.
"

So do you think that all those chronicles lied?

If someone wants to take what Kezai wrote about the Huns-Hungarians as truth, why discard what he says in the introduction? He completely ignored the stories of the Hungarians themselves.

That was Anonymous who wrote that not Kezai.

The idea of the Hungarians being the Huns came from 10th century West-European Latin and Byzantine chronicles.

Whence do you know?

It is important to note that the earlier Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum written in the 12th century mentions no such theory and neither do writings that are contemporaneous with the Honfoglalas.

On the Homeconquering issue you are right, but on the Huns not,
he wrote this: "King Attila, whose descendant was Chief Álmos, Árpád's father".