Talk:History of Hungary before the Hungarian conquest

[Untitled]

 * Although the Hungarian Tisza and Tordas style of pottery and a small disk found in Transylvania (former Hungary present day Romania) are dated back to 3500-2500 BCE that contained the Sumerian related Szekely Magyar (Hungarian) runic script writing. Many signs show us the possibility of the Magyars beign related to the Sumerians who spoke the language called Emegir.  Their ancient writing systems are 60 percent identical.

http://www.atti.info/runics.htm


 * Of course...Juro 18:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title
The title is horrible. How about simply Pannonian basin before Hungary? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   3 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Yes. I am happy that someone has proposed this...Juro 3 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Good idea. KissL 6 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
 * I Changed the site name the common name of the (Great-Basin) Pannonian basin (Carpathian-basin/HUN;EN). THe hungarian setlers usualy caled hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elder sun (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the title is now unwieldy. Prehistoric Hungary might work (compare with Prehistoric Croatia). Or Pre-Hungarian Hungary? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Land conquest in two waves theory
Where is it?? Why do you think this theory is uninteresting??? --fz22 05:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is controversal, but is still a theory ... please do not remove without a word --fz22 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Juro that this page might not be the right place for it... if his theory saying these were Magyars who came before 890, then it's not "Hungary before the Magyars"... Maybe a briefer mention that some earlier Magyar groups may well have come in with the Avars; but I think Fz22 may have missed the fact that this info originally got moved to Hungarian prehistory (it's still near the bottom at the moment), where all such "alternative" theories about Magyars are more than welcome -- to keep them off this page (that's the whole purpose of that page)!  Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 02:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't expound the theory in details. What's this article, expecially the age of migration section talk about? It describes the peoples and events of the Carphatina basin from the first settlers to the Magyars conquest, covering the goths, alans, huns, gepidis, and other significant cultures. One of these culture is the late-Avar with its griffin-creeper motif. huge difference regarding bury customs, weapons could be distinguished between the early Avars and late Avar culture.

Laszlo Gyula's theory says these were just Magyars ...


 * Thanx Juro ;)

Merge tag
I noticed that the article Hungarian prehistory was tagged for cleanup, and assumed there was another article on the same topic...turns out there is...they should definitely be merged although that would take a bit of effort combining the info in both. I'll offer whatever help I can, but mainly I put it there so both articles' editors would know about the existance of the other. Best, Paul 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the territory of HUNGARY, while the other one is about the MAGYARS. So, if you want to merge something, then "Magyars" with "Hungarian prehistory", but these things have been discussed here somwhere several times. The result was that the originally and still biased article Hungarian prehistory, placed here as propaganda for one theory, will be used as a "dump" for alternative theories. It would be really very difficult to write a correct article on all the Magyars theories, because usually people are just fanatics for one theory, and above all the Finno-Ugric theory is the only generally accepted theory in the world, so the other theories are just "exotic" remarks, whatever their authors are saying. I will remove the tag then.Juro 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The theori of finn-ugor is same teory then ujgur-magyar or etrusk-akkád. These theories started by a smal similarity and after the facts and clues examinations geted conclusions. Same times the conclusion is not published just the theori name. Same famous people say "It is True" same say "It is False". But never ask them "What part of teories fals or what realy true?". I think first of all we put the "fasse qui:" and after the teoetical terms with sources. by the way I just hope "the truoth have getting came from other side". --elder_sun 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Deletion Tag
An anon has just put up a proposed deletion tag. Thios article should not be deleted, as it is a valid subject. There still, even now, seems to be confusion on the subject matter, as well as between this subject matter and that of another article on Hungarian prehistory. On the talk page there some time ago it was suggested that this article be better named "Pannonia before the Magyars" to make clearer what subject this article covers. (ie, this article is NOT about prehistory of the Magyars).

If no one objects by tomorrow, I will remove this deletion tag and move this article to the new title "Pannonia before the Magyars". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this should not be deleted and I also understand the concern. Perhaps "Carpathian Basin before the Magyars" would work since Pannonia tends to refer specifically to the Roman province. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Pannonia works for pre-Roman times too... I still like this better than "Carpathian basin before the Magyars"... Then again, maybe this article covers identical territory with Pannonia and can be merged there... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume the purpose of this article is to give a picture about the area of present day Hungary, before the magyar ethnicity arrived. If it is the case, than Pannonia would be a narrow term, since it covers only part of the modern Hungary. Historicaly the Magyar invasion effected the whole Carphatian basin, hence a broader geographical framework would provide a more comprehensive outlook. On the other hand this would need a conceptual change in the all article. For the present content, the precise title would be "the territory of present-day Pannonian basin before Hungary". The weirdness of this title shows the principal mistake of it(and such articles like Croatia before the Croats.) The early middle age history of central and south Europe hardly can be studied within the frameworks of modern state boarders.kuko 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason for changing anything in this article. It basically describes the prehistory and protohistory of modern-day Hungary like any normal scientific text dealing with the history of any country in the world does. We also have Croatia before the Croats etc. and if some countries do not have such articles yet, they will receive some soon. Juro 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: And by the way based on the IP, the person who added the tag is probably a well-known vandal from Hungary, although I do not understand what insane motivation he has had in this case. Juro 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken... This article is not technically all "prehistory" by the way; since several literate peoples lived in the area before the Magyars, it also includes much "history"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - except for the Romans, which are "history" of course :)). Sorry, mymistake.Juro 23:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 
 * If You like this article or other "Carpatian basin before Hungary"

Because the magyars not not called always Hungaria, they hed other names in other times. I favored "Carpatian basin befor Hungary" befor the Hungary just one country of "magyar" tribes countries. The "Hungarian before Hungary" is an other article. It is the tribes pre-history. -/Eldest man under sun/

The title "Pannonian basin before Hungary" has an ill logic. Chronology is vital in history. A name that signifies a state, can not be used to describe an era before this state came into exictence. Does it make sense to talk about Spain before the Spanish? Or France before the French? No it does not. In these cases, more precise to refere to a geographical name or to use the term "the territory of present-day ....." before the arrival of a new ethnicity or the establisment of a new state. likewise: The Iberian peninsula before the Kingdom of Spain or the territory of present-day France before the Francs. For this article, I suggest the following titles: The carpathian basin before the Magyars, The territory of present-day Pannonian basin before Hungary. kuko 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether you find it logical or not: Not only is it studied within the framework of individual countries, it is even usual that archaelogists of individual countries have different names and classifications for the same finds, cultures etc. And this system (i.e. that each country concentrates on its "own" territory) has proven to be practical, in general. And as for this article, the current name is already the result of a renaming. Juro 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the title "Pannonian basin before Hungary" is concise. A more precise description of the content (ie. history of the territory of present-day Hungary before the arrival of the Magyars) should be in the lead, not in the title. Tankred 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you and Juro have now convinced me on that. So now I second what you just said: Keep the title as is, explain it better in the intro. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think the logic is wrong behind the title. I have found only one examples on Wiki for such a framework (Croatia before the Croats). Since the etnicity "Magyar" and the name of the country "Hungary" are not corresponding in English, this title suggest that the idea of the state is separable from the "Magyars". Therefore if "Hungary" means here, the present-day Hungary than we need to use the present they official English word for the ethnicity. Following this logic the title could be: Hungary before the Hungarians.

"The Prehistory of Hungary" could be one more alternative. In this case the subtitle should specificly mention which Hungary (the present day..) the article deals with. kuko 09:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But as it was pointed out already, this article is not Prehistory. It includes a good deal of History.  I don't see a problem with the current title, it most accurately describes the current scope.  (Besides, a title like "The Prehistory of Hungary" will only cause even more confusion with Hungarian prehistory.)  The current scope is accurately defined by the present title, in both time and space - events that happened in the borders of present day Hungary, up to 892.  It might seem at first like a forced topic, since no one state up to 892 had the same modern borders of Hungary.  But as Juro pointed out, it is significant from an archaeological standpoint, because this is the realm of archaeologists in Hungary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate link?
I believe that the external link to Istvan Kiszely should be put to Hungarian prehistory. It is a bit off-topic in this article. This article describes history of present-day Hungary before the arrival of Magyars. Hungarian prehistory is about Kiszely's claims. Tankred 17:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

why "magyar"?
this is an english language entry. magyar should be hungarian, magyars should be hungarians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.234.49 (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

"magyar" is an expression in english language to indicate ethnicity when opposed to nationality. and, "Hungary before the Hungarians" would sound simply stupid :)

I also agree that in the English language, the use of the word magyar should be discouraged. It is not an English word. The title could be The area of Hungary before the Hungarians to avoid confusion; however I can imagine titles like America before the Americans, which does not sound stupid.

Deleted
This article should probably be deleted. We already have Pannonia, which is not exclusively about the Roman period. What is the argument for having this article, other than as a fork? Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no dispute that the Pannoni (and some other Indo-European people inhabiting the region before Roman contact) were linguistically/ethnically kin to the Illyrians. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So what's next? Macedonia before the Slavs? Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pannonia is a provice of the Roman Empire. "Pannonian basin before the Hungarians" has a much wider scope, including all of Prehistoric Hungary from the Paleolithic to the 9th century. Sheesh. We can discuss moving this to another title, but it is obvious that we need an article with this scope. We already have an article on "Macedonia before the Slavs". You can find it at Macedon. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC) --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it certain that in usage Pannonia is only a Roman province? The Roman province didn't go east of the Danube, but the geographical Pannonia? Hm? Well I don't really give a shit so maybe I shouldn't edit this article if I don't give a shit, but I felt that prehistory and "material outside the confines of Roman Pannonia" could be discussed in Pannonia. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pannonia (disambiguation) says "a Roman province or an historical region in central Europe". Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From the Pannonia article: "Today the term Pannonia is usually used for what is called Transdanubia (Dunántúl) in Hungary, or simply the whole of Hungary." Pannonia can be re-written so that the Roman province is only part of the article. Anyway, y'all think about it. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well until we see the Danubian plain before the Slavs I will still consider this article stupĺd. In my desire to buttfuck male & female Hungarians, I view my edits here---which incite an uproar---as part of the schema and furthermore ultra-scientific. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pannonian basin before the Hungarian. ->
The hungarians are Jazigs, Sarmatas, Matjos, Chuns, etc... Hungary is a country which are started at exact time.

The hungarians very mixture nation, You never find the begins of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.192.195 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pannonian basin before the Hungarian Duchy (~AD894-) Pannonian basin before the Hungarian Kingdoom (AD1001-) The hungarian kingdoom is simply Hungary

Prehistoric Hungary
Who will decide about the new title? My vote is. (+) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.186.235 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How many time need to wait? I think enought one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.164.62 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bronze Age in Pannonia???
Was there no Bronze Age at all in Pannonia? Or did the region go straight from the Stone Age to the Iron Age?

Some alternative theories
Hungarian high school history books shed some light on the subject and (at least those ones I've seen/learnt from/etc.) describe Prof. László's theory as a different - and definitely not "very controversial" - explanation of the events. It is supported by archeological findings (immigrants arriving at the end of the 9th century didn't overrun areas inhabited by those that came 200 years earlier). I suggest that someone - who's more knowledgeable on the subject than myself - should update this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.229.24.226 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pannonia
I think this article is obscure. I thought Balaton Principality was not an independent state it belonged to East Francia, especially, prior to the Hungarian Conquest. I would have liked to know what was the exact power structure, division in the Carpathian Basin at the launch of Hungarian conquest but I did not know that from this article.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Southeast Hungary belonged belonged to Moravia? (When? from to?) If Zwentibold's realm had been at Sava river (Eggers-Moravia) I could have believed that. It is obscure.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/francia2.htm This url can show us how the borders of Pannonia were till 888.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I repaired the content of article.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Article
The article was recently moved from the title "History of Hungary before the Hungarians" to "Territory of present-day Hungary before the Hungarians" without any discussion. Such unilateral moves should avoided. I have tried to undo the move, but I could not do it for some reason. Thus, I have moved the page to "Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest", which is very close to the original one. If this title is not suitable for the majority of editors, then let's discuss a version which would be better. Thanks, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  04:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the new title. It may be better than the old one. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The user is now warned, on no less than two arbitration matters. *facepalm* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On related note, this title is fine as it makes it clear that this article is part of the History of Hungary series. For comparison, Croatia before the Croats was named so between August 2004‎ and February 2008‎, when it was moved to Prehistoric Croatia, and has remained there until the present day, so that's another seemingly valid choice for a name. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This should be at Prehistory of Hungary, and the current Hungarian prehistory - in fact about the Magyar tribes before they arrived in Hungary - should be merged to the tribes or renamed more clearly. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Prehistory" refers to the period ending when the documented history of a territory began. The history of the territory of present-day Hungary is well documented from at least the 1st century AD. "Hungarian prehistory" refers to a much longer period than the Magyar/Hungarian tribes' history: the development of the tribes is a quite "new" phenomenon. I think the best solution is using the terms used by reliable sources and avoid creating our own original terms (I refer, for instance, to Sugár, Peter F.; Hanák, Péter; Frank, Tibor (1994). A History of Hungary. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-20867-X). Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion This article should be called the Prehistory of Hungary and cover the period till classical time. That is Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Dacians, Celts and Illyrians etc. in the present territory of modern Hungary. See Prehistory of France. To avoid confusion, Hungarian prehistory, which is an oxymoron, should become History of the Magyar tribes instead and probably merged with the Magyar tribes. Part of the articles could be split into Hungary in Roman times and Hungary in Early Middle Ages (similar to Romania in the Early Middle Ages). That should bring clarity to all this mess. But someone has to propose all these moves, with the official process. --Codrin.B (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should it be called Prehistory of Hungary when its title clearly refers to a wider timespan? Otherwise, the period when Dacians and Celts lived in the territory of present-day Hungary would not be covered by the term "prehistory" (=the period of undocumented history). Would you refer to a reliable source which substantiates the above claims that "the history of the Hungarian people before c. 895) = "the history of the Magyar tribes"? Please remember that above a reference was made to one reliable source which uses the current title. As far as I can remember creating original terms is far from our task. Borsoka (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Borsoka. The current title is clear, appropriate and comprehensible. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721105203/http://www.historiaantik.hu/index.php?p=reszletek&konyv=11072 to http://www.historiaantik.hu/index.php?p=reszletek&konyv=11072

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting this article
It would make sense to split this article into Prehistoric Hungary (overwrite redirect), Pannonia (Roman province) (merge with existing content) and Medieval Hungary (overwrite redirect). The topics are too different for a single article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be split. However, the medieval history of the territory before and after the Hungarian Conquest should be clearly distinguished. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, because we already have a page about the pre-conquest period ("Hungarian prehistory"). Fakirbakir (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As per discusson here, I propose to make the splitting and/or renaming in order to avoid any ambigous or unprecise or confusive naming. Please make your proposals for a proper name even if the splitting will be agreed or not. I propose instantly "History of the Carpathian Basin before the Hungarian Conquest". Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC))