Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Archive 3

Magyars first came to Transylvania? (also Gesta Hungarorum)
This is the first time I've ever heard of this and it seems that the only source which is used for this claim is Chronicon Pictum (the Hungarians ironically throw Gesta Hungarorum out the window though it was written over 150 years before Chronicon Pictum). As far as I know both Nestor's Rus Chronicle and Constantine VII's De Administrando Imperio mention that the Hungarians were not able to cross the Transylvania mountains (being defeated militarily) Nestor and Annonymous then state that the Magyars crossed over the Slovakian mountains.


 * Neither Nestor, nor Constantine VII mention this. Constanine mentions that the Magyars were defeated by the Petcheneqs, while Nestor describes that the Magyars defeated the "Volochs" (probably East-Francia) who had occupied the territories of the Slavs.Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nestor does mention how the passes of the mountains were "sealed with sword and fire" and the Magyars could not pass through there. Constantine VII also mentions in Chapter 38 that the Magyars were defeated by "rebels" North of the Danube. Nestor then says the Magyars passed "over the Hungarian mountains", in other words going through Slovakia.Romano-Dacis (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nestor does not mention "the passes of the mountains sealed with sword and fire", and the Magyars were defeated by the Pechenegs according to Chapter 38 of the De administrando imperio, the "Magyar Mountains" were the Carpathians according to Nestor. Nestor also mentioned that the Magyars defeated the "Volochs" (who were probably the people of East Francia). Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the archaeological record doesn't support the notion that the Magyars first passed through Transylvania. The expansion of the Hungarian kingdom again contradicts the theory established here (the gradual conquest of Transylvania, going West-East, lasting over two centuries). At the very least a section should be added showing that there is a scholarly controversy of where the Magyars went first.
 * Contemporary sources mentions that Transylvania was ruled by the head of one of the Magyar tribes around 950. There were several archaeological findings of Magyar warriors from the 10th century.Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the part about the Gesta Hungarorum needs a serious NPOV clean-up. As it stands the Hungarian perspective is the only one that's expressed, and it's quite clear that there is a schoarly controversy over whether the thing is "fantasy". The actual article about the Gesta Hungarorum on wikipedia is much better.Romano-Dacis (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not refrain from it, but deleting all sourced parts of the article is not a solution. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * :: I have edited the section on the Gesta Hungarorum to make it less POV and split the conquest of the carpathian basin into two theories earlier on, which merge into one theory after the Hungarian raids in Italy. Romano-Dacis (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sibiweb.de/geschi/7b-history.htm Also see Peter F. Sugar, A History of Hungary, p. 10-11. Also see http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=fbc521b5-0bcc-4b92-99fd-38e639ea6f59&articleId=9ca43f7b-1206-4fbe-907f-4a128d588951
 * "They claim that the lack of Hungarian artefacts in the valley of the Maros river provides strong evidence that the Magyars did not pass through Transylvania."
 * For further details: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/65.html Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are far more archaeological discoveries in the regions of Slovakia than in Transylvania. The oldest Hungarian artefact in Transylvania also comes from Cluj, which according to my souces suggests the Magyars came from the North-West into Transylvania. This site talks a little about their area of settlement and expansion Eastward.


 * "Other historians propose that had the Magyars first entered Transylvania, they would have remained there."
 * Why? They were escaping from an enemy that had just defeated them, the plateaus in Transylvania could not support their cattle, and the settlements of nomadic people were usually bordered by huge inhabited area. Borsoka (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A better question is why would they then try to maneuver through the Transylvanian high mountains rather than fleeing through the plains?Romano-Dacis (talk)
 * Interestingly, the Pechenegs, the Cumans and the Tatars could invade Transylvania without any difficulties through the several passes of the high mountains. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"False theories of"
I think the status of the Finno-ugric theory is supported by enough people not to be listed under a section "false theories". Perhaps turn it into "disputed theories". Reading that section I get a strong impression that it breaks the NPOV rule. Martijn Faassen 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the finno-ugric theory is the most widely accepted one. This whole article is based on István Kiszelly's work and it is not what the most prominent Hungarian historians think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.98.148 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. This section is full of strong POV statements and it belittles the most accepted theory on Hungarian origins as a "false theory". The paragraphs on the alleged Egyptian or Sumerian origins is pure pseudoscience. If no one objects, I will remove that problematic section. Tankred (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do object because of WP:NPOV, I would prefer to see the various sources for that section properly cited and also cite the mainstream claims that it is pseudoscience. Much that section is actually not based on Kistzelly but on Hamori. All we have to do is cite Hamori's school of thought, and then we can also cite the mainstream view of Hamori's school of thought being "pseudoscience". There is a place for this theory to be at least mentioned (of course not endorsed! just mentioned, per NPOV) somewhere on Wikipedia, and if this isn't it, I can't think of a better place. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be the ideal solution. But the present state (a mainstream theory described as "false" and a fringe theory presented as the truth) is totally unsatisfactory. Could you edit this article in order to make it NPOV? Tankred (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV is needed here, but would you go step by step? Don't make huge changes with only a partial explanation in the edit summary and putting three(!) fact tags in one sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I would prefer to see the various sources for that section properly cited and also cite the mainstream claims that it is pseudoscience" - this sounds like concensus reached about deletion?? Squash Racket (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any of the POV statements I have deleted you want to retain? If there is, we can discuss it here. As far as I am aware, I deleted only the most blatant POV, such as the term "false theories" referring to a mainstream theory. I also put fact tags to the most dubious statements. Sometimes, several very suspicious statements are put into one sentence, so I used more tags in one case. However, I really tried not to overdo it in general. If you think one fact tag per sentence is sufficient, feel free to delete the redundant ones, leaving only the one at the end of a sentence. Tankred (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To end any confusion, your deletion so far does have my consensus, for what it's worth. The statements you deleted are of little value and are obvious POV.  The parts you didn't delete are the ones I would like to see better sourcing for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A little direction needed. Can we remove the totally disputed tag and have everyone here start marking specific parts in the article as either POV or needing citation? That will go a long way to further improving this article. Furthermore, in some ways I feel the 'disputed' tag on an article about historic theories is complete fancy. Who ever heard of "factual accuracy" when it comes to history? "Historical fact" is some sort of oxymoron, especially when we're dealing with poorly documented history such as this. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag is not current and goes back a couple of years I think, to a totally different version of the article. By all means, remove it, it should be gone already! I agree with your other remarks, and commend you for your major role in renovating and improving this article to a reasonable standard! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What to do about this article?
From the introduction, I have the impression that this article discusses one particular theory about Hungarian prehistory. I also have the impression it's actually not the most common one. It therefore seems to me wrong to title this article "Hungarian prehistory". I also don't think an article that argues its own point so strongly ("false theories of"). If this article is to be retained in this shape at all, it seems better to me to name this one "Kiszely István pronounced opinions on Hungarian prehistory". My preference however would be to merge whatever can be salvaged from this article with another one. Martijn Faassen 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You should check out the talk page archives. You're not the first to bring this up.  Some folks claimed this as a type of POV fork to relieve pressure the other Hungarian history pages were getting.  I think the original protagonists might be gone by now though.  In some ways I haven't done anything because I'm too lazy to fix it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite... A general question prompted by a review of the section titles. Should we organize this article based upon chronology and intersperse the different theories at major event "locations"? Right now it breaks down into an overview of the different disciplines being used then ends with a singular conclusion and alternative theories. The discipline review section is useful I think, but the meat of the article should be about Hungarian prehistory. Chronology is iffy though because it isn't settled so maybe a review of the major events could be written. I'm somewhat also of the mind to add a terminology section. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Soooo... I'm trying to modify this article by presenting the different theories of "Hungarian prehistory", but since I don't read much Hungarian and the different claims in the article were not cited, I can't tell what came from Istvan Kiszely and what was Fred Hamori's interpretation.  So please excuse me if I cite someone wrong or remove something.  I expect you all to correct me.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It sure is a far cry from The original incarnation which is barely readable! Keep up the good work, we'll turn this into a wikipedia article yet! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood Groups in Suomi (Finland) and Unkari (Hungary)
Please delete the mention of Finno Ugrians from blood group comparation. Here are the Finnish most common blood grops; A: 44 per cent, O: 31 per cent, B: 17 per cent, AB 8 per cent. Same per centage with distribution with O and B than in Hungary. One remark of blood group "B"; ''The arrival of the Scythians was no feature of of steppe life style. During the successive nomandic invasions, some Slav and other communities in the western steppe, in spite of conflict with the incoming nomands, had continued to farm their lands and raise cattle, sometimes serving in the armies of their nomand rulers, whose tax-gatherers and merchants they supplied with tribute. Common inter-marriage added new strains to the Slav stock both before the Scythian period and later, during the invasions of Avars, Huns, and other Turkic peoples. This may account for the relatively high proportion of people in the "B" blood group (common today in Central Asia and dominant in Mongolia) in the Don and Dinjeper (Dnjeper) basins.''

Could "Etelköz" be connected via Finno-Ugrian language stock to Finnish Cardinal Direction Etelä / Eteläinen = South / Southern?. Etelänmaa = Southern(land). Meaning "Land between southern rivers". Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.127.228 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most probably not, the widely accepted explanation is Etel = water in ancient Hungarian, köz = between; so "land between the rivers", nothing to do with "South" Abdulka (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dentumogeria and Levedia
Dentumogeria and the Dentumogers comes from Anonymous' Gesta Hungarorum. Levedia comes from Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The old version of this article wants to combine Levedia and Dentumogeria, but I think they can't be combined. Levedia is mentioned as being in a specific place. I don't have enough information from Gesta Hungarorum yet (because there isn't a good English translation available of it yet?). Anyone here have more info on Dentumogeria and Levedia? Rona-Tas also makes a case for the point of view that Levedia didn't exist. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Herbert Illig who prooves works under Constantine Porphyrogenitus were delibretaly made fake ? Abdulka (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I think using the word 'proves' is incorrect since all Illig has is a theory which mainstream considers as crazy. Second, I'm not sure what bearing you think that has on this article.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inanna
Either way, it needs fixing. First, we should probably cite where David Rohl identifies Nimrod with Enmerkar. Second, there is a logic jump being made regarding Inanna being equated with Eneth. The question isn't "if she is to be equated" but "how is she to be equated". The way the current paragraph is constructed doesn't communicate the "how" very well. Understand? From the article:"Nimrod the hunter, founder of Erech, is more plausibly identified by David Rohl with Enmerkar, founder of Uruk.

The mother of the twin sons in the Hungarian version is Eneth, Enech or Eneh, who is the wife of either Menrot (Nimrod) or of Japheth. If she is to be equated with the Sumerian goddess Inanna, she may have originally been the wife of both men, and a great many others beside. The Sumerian legends of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" describe vividly how the powerful Inanna, something of a kingmaker in her time, abandoned the king of Aratta, who is called Ensuhkeshdanna, and awarded the kingship of Erech to Enmerkar."

How about something like:"The mother of the twin sons in the Hungarian version is Eneth (also Enech or Eneh). She was the wife of either Menrot (Nimrod) or of Japheth. If Nimrod is identified as Enmerkar, then Eneth could be equated with the Sumerian goddess Inanna. In the Sumerian legend of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Inanna abandons the Lord of Aratta and becomes Enmerkar's queen."

I hope later to expand upon the two lines of thought presented in the written sources regarding Nimrod versus Japheth. Basically whoever first wrote this is trying to accommodate for the differences in a vague manner. In a lot of ways doing that reminds me of how the ancient authors wrote their histories and created the differences to begin with!

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That does sound a little better, but note I did find and add a source (Hargity again) who apparently does identify Eneth with Inanna. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed
I have reinserted the deleted tags from the article. The article clearly needs more citations and I indicated the most urgent places. Exceptional claims need exceptional references, so please do not cite obscure websites, but real peer-reviewed academic works. In addition to missing citations, here are points with doubtful accuracy and neutrality. I hope someone here will be able to fix them:
 * I do not know any evidence supporting the article's claim that Onogurs were part of Xiongnu.
 * The Hunnic origin of Székely is a medieval myth and should be presented as such.
 * The article claims "The place where the Magyars could first be identified as a distinct people was supposedly Central Asia in the end of the 3rd or beginning of 4th century AD." What does the word "supposedly" mean here? Who says so? What is the evidence?
 * The presence of Magyars in Central Asia seems to be based on two toponyms distantly resembling the word Magyar. Is this original research or this claim can be supported by published sources?
 * Al-Makdisi and al-Biruni could hardly write about Magyars living in Central Asia in the 3rd century because these two gentlemen lived in the 10th and 11th century.
 * The "Speculations on mythic origins"section is not appropriate. A modern encyclopedia should not claim than a nation may descend from the Biblical patriarch Japheth or the Sumerian goddess Inanna. The whole section is written in an uncritical way and should be either removed or profoundly revised. Tankred (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will add as many sources as possible, but it seems that you have, even before I start, taken it upon yourself to set the bar impossibly high with a view to suppressing the documentation of these beliefs. Of course if they are beliefs, they are not presented as fact.  But I will not agree to have them brushed under the table even if they actually are false beliefs, because this is historiography, not history.  Labelling the Bible as "mythology", you should hopefully be old enough to realize by now, is an excellent way to start off on a very bad foot by imposing your own point-of-view and pretending that it is "neutral". NPOV policy is very specific about not attacking belief systems that are widely held as sacred by a significant number of people today, such as the Quran, the Bible, and the Bhagavad Gita, for example. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding references to the article. In my previous comment, I stroke those issues that seem to be resolved by your most recent edits. Speaking of which, does the book Selected Hungarian Legends really say that "Emeshe" means "priestess" in the Sumerian language? Unfortunately, I cannot find this book anywhere in the libraries, to which I have access. As to the beliefs, I do not want to deprive anyone of their right to believe in Innana or Japeth. But most reasonable people would perhaps question credibility of an encyclopedic article claiming that a modern nation may in fact trace its ancestors to Innana or Japeth. That is why I am not happy about how the " Speculations on mythic origins" section looks like. Similarly, Kiszely's work in the "Migration" section is presented uncritically despite the fact that it is regarded as controversial in the scientific community. Some criticism from the mainstream science should be included IMO. Anyway, I hope you will keep up the good work you are doing here. Tankred (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are both right. Regarding what Tankred wrote, those problems stem from the original form of the article where the original writers gave a bibliography at the bottom of the page, but didn't match up the claims in the article with those references.  It would be useful if someone with access to those references could provide the proper citations.  Regarding what Til Eulenspiegel wrote, presenting the information as beliefs instead of fact is probably the way to go.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Theories' about Biblical and Sumerian origins for Hungarians should not be mentioned in this article. Not one respected historian believes or propagates these theories. Not a single one. It is ranks alongside the 'science' of Erik von Daniken. The fact that a handful of - let's say - 'creative historians' have fantasized about it doesn't make it worthwhile including it in a HISTORICAL article on Wikipedia. I've also read about theories that claim that Hungarians came from space - surely we can't give every nutty theory a place on here! I would very much ask for the removal of Sumerian and Biblical references. Or at least label them as fantasy/pseudo-scientific/trivia about charlatan mock-historians. Best! - a concerned Sumerian 21:57, 04 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yepp, it's really weird for me, even I'm Hungarian, to read those fairy tales about the Sumerian origins. According to the current political situation, in the last 150-200 years "theories" of the Hungarians' origin were changed almost year-by-year. So let's stay at the Finno-Ugric roots, that seems to be the most likely according to the history and ethnography actual state. Drkazmer 146.110.9.131 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

East of the Urals
This is really ridiculous. The other Urheimat theories have been excluded to benefit of the "east of the Urals" theory. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_prehistory&diff=217919151&oldid=217906365) That has the potential to start an edit war between editors with conflicting academic sources. Are we to take Kristó Gyula over Rona-Tas? Rona-Tas writes that the Ugric groups were primarily in the western Urals with splinter groups possibly to the east and that the Magyars ultimately came from the Volga-Kama region, being primarily in the western and southern parts of the Ugric Urheimat. Rona-Tas is just as respected a source as Kristo Gyula! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get this better cited. Didn't have time to expand and clarify originally. My objection is more to the complete removal.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to additionally point out that this article started out as a POV fork of alternative theories to the Finno-Ugric theory because editors were pushing too hard the FU POV. If you start excluding even accepted alternate academic theories, this article will have no hope of ever becoming good.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that all alternate theories may be mentioned in the article, but we should avoid pushing them. Moreover, I think that proper reference ought to be made to each of the sentences. I suggest that we should avoid that third party readers of articles related to the history of East-Europe would find that this region of the world is exclusively habitated by the descendants of the ancienest and most civilized peoples (proto-Slovaks living in the region for thousand years, Daco-Romans also living in the regions for immemorable times and Hungarians who are indegenous in the Carpathian Basin and descending from the Sumers). Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just also want to thank you for working on the article. There is a lot I intended to do with it, but like always, I get to doing something else and don't have time for it. That is my excuse for why not everything is cited properly. I usually write first and cite later... --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand me because I said "alternate theories" and typically that is a euphemism for "crazy fringe theories". I agree, the article may give prominence to some fringe theories in certain places because that is the origin of the article (check out the earliest version of this article sometime) and that isn't so good because third party readers might get the wrong idea.  This needs to be fixed.  But what got removed was not a fringe theory.  Let me write here the outline and this can probably get added to the article at some point.
 * The "east of the Urals" theory is based upon the supposed loan of Turkic words into the Hungarian language during the Ugric period. The only place this could have happened was in Western Siberia because that is where Turkic languages developed.  Linguists like Andras Rona-Tas disagree with this because the words in question either are of Ugric origin instead of Turkic, or did not actually get borrowed into Hungarian during that time, or have some other disputed problem that isn't likely to be solved.  Instead, there appears a strong Permic influence in Hungarian during this time that doesn't appear in the other Ugric languages.  This suggests a "west of the Urals" location, specifically at the boundary between Permic and Ugric speakers (Volga-Kama region).
 * Also, I think it is important to remember that all of this history is based upon linguistics. So one should be careful to emphasize that aspect of the theory and not misrepresent it as being of a larger scope.  To do so is to push what is considered the Stammbaum theory where language origin is the same as people origin.  Unfortunately there is still a strong streak of that in the Finno-Ugric circles. It is not a theory that adequately reflects reality.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your remarks. It clear. I can also add references to your sentences, but references based on English-language works would be preferred. And I do not have any on this subject. Let's continue improving the article... Thanks! Borsoka (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My Andra Rona-Tas book is an English translation of A honfoglaló magyar nép (1996). It is quite good and I recommend it if you can get a copy. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Uralic, Finno-Ugric and Ugric periods
This needs to be trimmed down. Adding history about the Uralic, Finno-Ugric, and Ugric speakers is outside the scope of the article and should only be done in a limited fashion that enhances some aspect of Hungarian history. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Migrations section
The Don-Kuban area (The Caucasian country) is a seriously considered theory by mainstream scholars so I moved it back into the Migrations section. I moved the legend stuff up near the other legend stuff because it doesn't talk at all about areas where Magyars supposedly settled. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a valid point. Sorry for having deleted it. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Historians
Do we need to name the historians we refer to in the text? For me, it suggest an alternate theory (Magyars from the Universe, and the similar staff). E.g., the existence of Levedia is questioned by other authors, as well. The Don-Kuban region is also supposed to be a place of settlements of the Magyars by other historians. Moreover, I suggest we should avoid mentioning theories that cannot be proved by nature (e.g., the Árpáds wanted to legitimise their rule, therefore they told lies to Constantinos VII; how can this statement be proved?). Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. These are the details of a larger theory, not alternate theories.  These are the latest and greatest discussions that mainstream historians and other scholars are having regarding Magyar history, especially when there is no "set in stone" answer to a problem.  They are certainly not on the level of an alternate theory of origin such as "Magyars come from Sumer".  Also, there is no harm in providing published expert opinions on subject matter.  The quote from Rona-Tas serves to illustrate why doubt is cast upon Levedia.  It is not necessary to provide any proof on whether the opinion reflects the truth or not because the opinion is not being presented as a fact of history.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My only concern is that if we start to cite an opinion, the counter-opinions should also be cited, which would result in an endless article. E.g., Ferenc Makk wrote a long article (Makk, Ferend: A turulmadártól a kettős keresztig; Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1998, Szeged; ISBN 963 482 335 1; pages: 9-44) challenging nearly all the statements Róna-Tas had made. I think, for Wikipedia purposes, the fact that the existence of Levedia has been questioned would be enough. We should not be a "fan" of oppinions; historians will (or will not) decide. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is a valid concern. Let me explain my thinking and I hope to assuage that concern. Someone earlier had merged the stub article on Magna Hungaria into this one.  There were also stub articles on Levedia and Etelkoz so I merged them into this article as well.   The problem is that there isn't much to actually say about these locations outright.  So I figure that going into more depth of what current historians are saying about these places, the sources for them, and the problems with each one that historians are discussing will give a better foundation for third party readers.  When it comes to Hungarian prehistory, this foundation is fundamental I feel.  Take for example the earlier version of this article confusing Dentumogeria with Levedia.  Or the comments I wrote above in the Inanna section on this talk page regarding the confusion between descent from Japheth versus Nimrod and why that comes about.  The main problem is that most of the good scholarly information is written in Hungarian and what a person can find in English tends to be skewed by the fringe theorists (primarily because the English translations of the fringe theories have a strong connection with the people who left Hungary in 1956).  Because of this, it would actually be good to provide information on what all the prevailing arguments and counter arguments are.  That will eventually give enough information to allow the recreation of larger articles on Levedia, Magna Hungaria, etc.  When that occurs, the information here can be slimmed down to "general overview" style again with "see also" links.  Please, I'm interested in what Ferenc Makk has to say on Levedia.  Rona-Tas believes Levedia to be part of Etelkoz, but that didn't get added to the Levedia section.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I understand your point. Let's continue. I was also thinking that the article could be demerged into subarticles. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hanti and Mansi
Please change the name Khanty to its latinized form Hanti in the article, or at least change it in form Hanti (Khanty. The Khanty is the Russian version of their name written with Cyrillic letters. This is the same than calling Finns with Russian word Chuds, Thsuhnas or Tsuhodois. Hanti is their self name. Also version Handa-hui was used. In Tatar language they were called Ostjaks, Russificated to Ostyaks. And English language follows the Russificated version. They lived also along the River Kama (Kemi, Khem, Kymi, Khym), south of Komi-Permjakki Komi-Permyaks, and were the next neighbours of Onugurs, living also along the River Veher which is now known as Russian Belaya. In Russian history they were called Polovoi, later Polovitshi. English version of Russificated version is Polovichs. In Hungarian language Kuns or Kumans, in Finnish Kumaani. Some of these Kun tribes (three?) followed Onogurs / Ongrs (Ungr) to west. Name Madjaar or Magyar had a direct connection with Mansi name which was used by Mansi to Hanti people which were also called Handa-hui. Those Mansis which stayed along Obi River called Hantis Ás-jáh (Obi people). This may be the origin for Tatar Ostjak name. Also some attention should (in my opinion) be paid to the Onogurs presence at Kiev area before they started their last wandering over the Carpathian mountains to Pannonia or Greek Phennonia. The hills located on the west bank of Dinjeper (five different names for the river were in use) were called Ugri hills. It is said that Bulümar Alyp-bi, Attila´s grandfather was buried there with symbols + and U in his stone tamga marking his nobelity among Hunnish tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.185.234 (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on this article
FYI: This article is currently being discussed at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Historiography section
The relevant information in the first paragraph - which is about linguistics rather than historiography - is already available at Finno-Ugric languages under the section "History".

The second paragraph contains the following "information": "On the basis of these early forays, in 1870 in Budapest the Finno-Ugric theory of ethnogenesis was established with the support of the Academy in Vienna and proclaimed as fact with only the barest of linguistic support as evidence. The biggest proponent of this theory in the 19th century was the Saxon from Szepes, Pal Hunfalvy (Hunsdorfer), making common cause with Joseph Budenz." The Finno-Ugric theory has "only the barest of linguistic support as evidence"? Utter drivel. I suspect this was probably the work of some "anti-Finno-Ugrist" trying to prove the F-U theory was some kind of Austro-German plot against the Magyars (note, for example the reference to the "Saxon" Hunfalvy).

The remaining paragraphs are there to push the claims of "anti-Finno-Ugric" proponents.

So this section is alternately superfluous, wrong and tendentious. It's also all completely unsourced. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this was part of an effort to salvage something valuable from this nonsense . While this was arguably commendable, the best thing would have been to burn it with fire and start the whole thing from scratch again. The article should not be a coatrack for "Turanist" POV-pushing. --Folantin (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stating that this information you are deleting / suppressing is "already available" at Finno-Ugric languages is a blatant falsehood that is easily disproven, and you should be above telling such falsehoods. I find the info highly informative and am insulted that busy-bodies such as you should take it on yourself to decide "behind the scenes" that readers like myself should not be allowed to access this historiographic information. What is it about these records that frightens you so much that you don't want anyone to even learn of its existence??? Why do you adopt so patriarchal view towards readers, determining on his behalf what he is and is not allowed to be exposed to??? This is the very attitude that I will ALWAYS resist and oppose, no matter where it rears its ugly head, til the day I die.  That is the purpose of my life, to reesist such attitudes, so you have got a LONG road to hoe here, unless you can succeed in getting me blocked for the sake of your agenda here.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If something is unsourced, try adding tags first instead of removing the text. Wait for a few days and if there are still no sources, you may remove them. Squash Racket (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, there is no policy that says we have to preserve tendentious far-right crap until we get permission from the article's owners. As I've repeatedly made clear, the bona fide information in this section is available at Finno-Ugric languages. --Folantin (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, WP:OWN refers to main contributors of an article. I only did some very minor changes here.
 * Exactly what position does the "tendentious far right c..." (WP:CIV) advance? I read the part and it seems to present a valid dispute. Wording can be changed of course and sources are needed. Squash Racket (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know anything about this subject? --Folantin (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First linking WP:OWN, then asking if I know anything about the subject...
 * This section contains some criticism of the Finno-Ugric theory which IS valid. Wording may be changed and sources should be added (repeating myself), but the immediate removal of the section seems a bit disrespectful towards the real contributors of this article. Squash Racket (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've read the original version of this article in all its cranky, extreme nationalist glory and you've simply preserved selected bits of it in this section (on what basis I do not know). It's quite clear that it's pushing a racist line that the Finno-Ugric theory was a plot by Germans/Austrians to keep down the Hungarians by "denying them their rightful history". Apparently there is "only the barest of linguistic support as evidence" for the Finno-Ugric theory, which is news to me. It also contains such gems as "All these nations lived 'in born wildness and crassness in the near past', to his mind" and "The language separates our human being, and our beliefs bind us" - which means what exactly? --Folantin (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat: I didn't preserve anything. Repeat: wording may be changed. Repeat: sources needed.
 * An alternate theory should be presented as such with all the criticism, see for example the origin of the Finns (second paragraph). The problem with the Finno-Ugric theory is that it's based on linguistic evidence only so it won't provide a full picture regarding the origin of the Hungarians. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat: unsourced, tendentious material should be removed. If you want to keep anything, the burden of proof is on you to reference it properly and make sure it conforms with WP:NPOV on "undue weight". --Folantin (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat: use inline tags (for example ). If an interested editor or an expert shows up in the coming days, these will indicate the problems. Squash Racket (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Start following policy. This article has been tagged for citations since February, 2008. For almost seven months it has clearly stated at the top of the page "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Understand now? --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Click on "challenged" in the sentence cited by you and start reading that link about how inline templates help editors identify the problems. Understand now? Squash Racket (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Folantin, You do not even seem to be trying to appeal to any desire for the principles of neutrality, and presenting everyone's side of the story neutrally to let readers make up their own mind. Rather you are appealing to a desire to prevent one side of the story from being told, and present only one published POV instead of acknowledging there are others. Perhaps the language could be made more neutral, but it should not be swept under the carpet and pretend that the same information is presented in another article when it is not.  Your subjective opinion of what is "bona fide" is obviously colored by your partisan approach to this question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's useless unsourced POV crap around, don't tag it, nuke it. I'm moving the historiography section to Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Dumping ground, a space for potentially useful material that needs to be got rid of now. Moreschi (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, you being judgmental too? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And going quite against the consensus... There's still this attitude that "I am I, and who else is there... anyone who disagrees does not count" from the POV pushers who don't want both sides of the story to be accessible, because they only want one side to be accessible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Indeed, Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to pseudoscience. Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."" --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Split
The article as it stands is immensely long and needs a bit of focus. The section about the Honfoglalás (the conquest of Hungary) should probably be split off to form a new article (assuming one doesn't exist already) since this refers to an historical event rather than "pre-history". --Folantin (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is OK, but the Honfoglalás is the end of the pre-history period of the Hungarian history according to the academic views; therefore, some reference should be reserved in this article. Borsoka (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifying Sources
As I wrote above in Talk:Hungarian_prehistory, the original version of this article had references but no citations. I'd appreciate if someone familiar with these sources could help. Here's the original references list: --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bakay Kornél (1997, 1998): Őstörténetünk régészeti forrásai. I. P. 302; II. P. 336. Miskolci Bölcsész Egyesület. Miskolc.
 * Bakay Kornél (2000): Az Árpádok országa. Kőszeg. P. 512.
 * Encyclopaedia Hungarica (1992, 1994, 1996) I-III. Főszerkesztő: Bagossy László. Hungarian Ethnic Lexicon Foundation. Calgary. P. 778, 786, 888.
 * Kiszely István (1979): Rassengeschichte von Ungarn. In: Schwidetzky, Ilse ed.: Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. R. Oldenburg Verlag. München-Wien. Pp. 1-50.
 * Kiszely István (1992): Honnan jöttünk? Elméletek a magyarság őshazájáról. Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 460.
 * Kiszely István (1996): A magyarság őstörténete. Mit adott a magyarság a világnak. Püski Kiadó, Budapest. I-II. P. 860.
 * Kiszely István (2000, 2002, 2004): A magyarok eredete és ősi kultúrája. Püski Kiadó. Budapest. I-II. P. 1500.
 * Kiszely István (2004): A magyar ember. Püski Kiadó. Budapest. I-II. P. 980.
 * László Gyula (1999): Múltunkról utódainknak. I. A magyar föld és a magyar nép őstörténete. P. 573; II. Magyarok honfoglalása – Árpád népe Pp. 574-1036. Püski Kiadó. Budapest.

I think 4 authors cannot be qualified as most of the historians. Kiszely is a well-known anthropologist who identified a woman's skeleton with Petőfi some years ago.Borsoka (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that true? LOL!  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

These should simply be removed. They were (allegedly) used to source the original version of this article, which was tendentious nonsense. Nobody else has vouched for their reliability, neutrality or scholarly value or verified their relation to the material in this article.--Folantin (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The present article is essentially based on a single Hungarian language source, Kristó (1994). Claims like "The formation of the Hungarian language (between 1000 BC and 500 BC) can be localised to the southern regions of the Ural Mountains" are repeated in Wikipedia's voice without any qualification. I suppose all of the claims in "Emergence from the Ugric speakers" are plausible enough, but the article puts it as if it was in any way certain or established, while it is in fact just erudite speculation. --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that other views should also be incorporated, but we should use reliable sources when referring to them. Some time ago, I read of theories that several tribes were of Turkic, Iranian origin, but I have not found the works that could be cited. However, fringe theories and theories based on speculations should be avoided. Unfortunatelly, in our region, most historians tend to create a "bubbling" history because of the lack of primary sources. I read of a "new" grand prince of the Magyars (Csaba) based on misreading of a photocopy of a newly found Arab source, and also of the Principality of Nitra fighting against the Avars and Moravians based on two entry (even not mentioning the principality) of an early medieval source and one can also read of the 24 Romanian clans living, in the 8th century, on the territory today Romania and fighting against everybody based on an Armenian source mentioning "24 Slavic tribes living in Dacia". I think we should not follow this direction. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one more remark, the "Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History" was edited (and not written) by Kristó, and it is a summary of academic views on the prehistory of the Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Florin Curta (Florida U) provides an excelent and highly critical overview of sources (concerning the early Hungarian Kingdom) in his Transylvania around the year 1000, also available oniline: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/opus.html. I think it should be used.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Conquest Section
The whole section looks like a mess now. "The Carpathian Basin at the time of the Magyar invasion - polities" is simple and succinct. "The Carpathian Basin at the time of the invasion - peoples" has degenerated into a tangential topic on why one group thinks this way and why another group thinks the other way. Let's just list who was possibly where and be done with it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion. For the Romanian-Hungarian section we should simply have a link to the Origin of the Romanians page, rather than trying to deal with it all over again here. The Origin of the Romanians article, though it requires clean-up, at least it is fairly balanced.Romano-Dacis (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Just a remark, the Origin of the Romanians article is clearly biased towards the continuity theory (and it contains plenty of statements from chauvinistic or childish works - e.g., "karácsony", Vajk). Borsoka (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with this. Both arguments are presented fairly well though the article requires clean-up. If anything it is overly biased towards the Hungarian theoryRomano-Dacis (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dual Conquest/Sources validity/Not matching political facts
Where is Gyula Laszlo's "dual conquest" theory? It is disputed theory, but a theory which is not prooven to be false, so should be here.

Why are part of the citations in Cyrillic (as the original was in Latin)?

Why do the article use the Chronicom Pictum and other sources as sometimes valid citations sometimes not valid? So it is valid and we cite from or we read it as a fairy tale?

Also missing: archeological proofs that the Magyars "invaded" and "wedged" on the Slavs. I tell you: there was no significant battle found.

Finally: not mentioning the aftermath. How come the Magyars were driven to Carpathian Basin then they immediately had very powerful army to make a bloodbath on Slavs/Avars and to attack West Europe so all nations were afraid of the Magyars?

For me this is not matching! I kindly ask all to revise your knowledge on this event, and stick to facts. Abdulka (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is Gyula Laszlo's dual conquest theory? Right here: Hungarian_prehistory  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus 7th century?
I'll fix the statement that Herodotus made in the 7th century BC because he lived in the 5th BC. Regards.--Bagratun (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Text
I'll start it on the Talk page. Here's the original text: The events that occurred between the Honfoglalás ("home conquest") and the coronation of St. Stephen (1000/1001 AD) are also included by some historians as part of Hungarian prehistory. The terms "ancient history", and "early history" are also used by different sources to describe this same period of Hungarian history.

Here's the contested text: The events that occurred between the Honfoglalás ("home conquest") and the coronation of St. Stephen (1000/1001 AD) are also included by some historians as part of Hungarian prehistory. The terms "ancient history", and "early history" are also used by different sources to describe this same period of Hungarian history. This (language based) hypothesis is based only on linguistic data, which – as we have already shown above – are very hazy and controversial. The recent human-genetic studies showed a complete different picture with respect to the official language based 'scientific' theory. The genetically closest relatives to the Hungarians are the Ukrainian, the Polish and the Croatian people.

One of the biggest problems I saw was saying, "as we have already shown above". We're not trying to prove any specific view with this article, especially in the introductory paragraphs which are supposed to define what "Hungarian prehistory" is. The article is not about the genetics of people living in the Carpathian basin from before the arrival of the Magyars. It is about Magyar speakers who self-identified as Magyar going back to the Ugric period from whence the ethnonym derived. Perhaps the confusion of the anonymous person getting into a revision war stems from the semantic differences between "Hungarian" and "Magyar" in English as compared with other languages. This is an article about _Magyar_ prehistory. That modern Hungarians are genetically closest to Ukrainians, Polish, and Croatian has absolutely no bearing upon where the ethnic identity came from in prehistory. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, "magyar őstörténet" is a well-defined and understood period of Magyar history as used by scholars in Hungary. Its like "Middle Ages" or "Pre-Columbian". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, although I generally agree with your comments above, I have to disagree with this last point - if you read Hungarian, I suggest the very first sentence of the Wikipédia article Magyar őstörténet. If not, then I'll gladly translate it for you: A magyarok őstörténete még nem teljesen tisztázott. Hungarian Prehistory isn't clearly defined/clarified.


 * The definition is not taken from the Hungarian Wikipedia article. It is well-sourced here.  I suggest that the Hungarian Wikipedia gets updated.  If you need another source, see Rona-Tas A honfoglalo magyar nep 1996 (in English as Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages 1999). --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

split
Doesn't the conquest of the Carpathian Basin deserve its own article? I think there's enough content here to support it. In other words, would anyone be opposed to me splitting this article by taking out most of that section, and leaving a paragraph or two, with a Main link? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an excellent idea. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the ripping.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Principality of Hungary would also deserve an own article.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I see everybody was agreed that this section "Hungarian Conquest" should have to have its own page. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly did. :-) K&oelig;rte F a {ταλκ'' }  04:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sumer
There is literally tons of evidence supporting the Sumerian theory. I'd like to see it addressed more in this article. 71.212.214.163 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, no, there isn't. It would be very amusing to "time travel" a small group of Sumerians to a main square in Budapest, and watch just how fast these fringe-theorists would abandon this particular crazy link for a claim to a dim and very ancient past. Once again: SUMERIAN IS A LANGUAGE ISOLATE. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * Look for reliable sources and construct a NPOV section, and then collaborate with other editors to build a consensus view on the matter. Or are your plans just to periodically show up to inject criticisms on talk pages of contentious subjects without actually doing anything useful to them, as your contribs seem to suggest?  He  iro 06:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Sumer theory should not be mentioned here. There is no reliable source supporting it. Borsoka (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

terrible sentence
Despite of language based theories, the genetical ancestors of present-day Hungarian population arrived in Carpathian basin around 40,000 years ago.

What does this mean? I would rewrite it but it seems like this article it's so controversial that someone else may shortly delete it altogether (perhaps: Although linguistic theories hold otherwise, the genetic ancestors of Hungary's present-day population first arrived in the Carpathian basin around 40,000 years ago.)Historian932 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I support deleting it, for several reasons. First, it's a grammatically terrible sentence. Second, it doesn't at all connect to the topic "Hungarian Prehistory" as defined above. Third, the two sources supporting the sentence are just nonsense. Emika22 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur on this bad sentence. If the intention is to explain one of the contradictory schools of thought, it should explain what it is neutrally, not appear to endorse it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence is an awful translation, however the source is from the Hungarian historical magazine and this is a significant and reliable paper. The source states in Hungarian:
 * 1. A magyar nép ősei a napjainktól számított 40-35 ezer évvel ezelőtt Európában elsőnek megjelent europoid őstelepesek között voltak.
 * Translation: The ancestors of Hungarians were among those Europid settlers who first appeared in Europe about 40-35,000 years ago.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think it should be removed. Or at least removed from the heading of the article. The introduction to the article very clearly says that Hungarian prehistory is a period between 1000–500 BC and 895 or 1000 AD. So this has little to do with the subject Emika22 (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. The source does not state that the Hungarians were in the Carpathian Basin 35,000 years ago. It only states that genetic researches showed up the Hungarian population has high ratios about an old Europid marker, however it does not tell that how this marker got into the Hungarian population or where it is derived from.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tribe Name Occurances Map
I have some issues too with the map. Its place, perhaps even its presence, in the article gives the appearance of places where the incoming Magyar tribes had settled. But the first thought that pops into my head is how the distribution seems totally unlike the way tribal people actually live. Why does it appear that members of the same tribe were all living very far away from each other? This leads me to my next thought: it is a map of modern placenames only. At best it tells us about Hungarian village naming practices for over 1000 years. At worst it tells us nothing about actual Hungarian prehistory. I recommend removing the map until such a time as to when its usefulness to this article can be ascertained. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the map (for first sight) is correct in this aspect. Tribe names belong to the earliest layer of Hungarian place names: most of them were recorded in the earliest documents referring to toponyms. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The map is not neutral and is only Hungarian point of view WP:NPOV. Pannonian Basin before Hungarian with Magyar names WP:PLACE. Where in the map are calendar years? In map are rare Avar settlements, but where are Slavic settlements? Slavs are only in area under Tatra Mountains. Ridiculously :-D (north area of map Red area: Slavs of Nitrian Principality (area inhabited by Slavic people with main connection to the Nitra or sphere of influence), Red area with diagonals: the core of principality, Purple border line: Northern borders of Avar Khaganate until 780, Brown - yellow lines: roads, Circle: Slavic tribes (period before the Principality of Nitra), Big pink point: slavic cultural centrum, fortress, Small red point: slavic settlement, Purple cross: still standing buildings identified as Great Moravian, Green corss: churches builded between 820 - 900, Underlined name: historical name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is from modern place names only. And it is not about the SLAVS. This is about names of settlements originate from the Hungarian tribal names. The map does not want to demonstrate the proper ethnic situation.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that reference to Slavic peoples should be deleted from the map, because it may be misleading. For example, Visegrád, Zemplén, Csongrád are clearly of Slavic origin, and they are not presented in the map. If the map would only represent the tribe names and supposed tribe names, I think no one could challange it. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "This is about names of settlements originate from the Hungarian tribal names." So why are Avar settlements and Magyar names of rivers in the map? --Omen1229 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not Avar settlements. They are settlements named after Avars. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Hungarian names of rivers? Why is it an issue? Borsoka (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? They are settlements named after Avars in map about occurrences of Hungarian tribe names :-D I do not understand what are Vág, Nyitra, Árva, Garam, Dudvág, Zsitva... I know only Váh, Nitra, Orava, Hron, Dudváh, Žitava... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-edited the map as it was recommended. There are only Hungarians and Kabars. Slavic peoples, Avars are deleted. The name of the rivers is not subject to this theme. I think it is not problem. The original author of the map is Hungarian and this is the cause for the usage of Hungarian expressions. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Additionally, This momentum ( Hungarian tribes in the 9-10th centuries) is part of the Hungarian history, Hungarians have a right to use Hungarian names for the Rivers in the Carpathian Basin (in this case) because in the 10th century this territory was mostly Hungarian it belonged to Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the present form of the map correctly represents its subject. As to Hungarian hydronyms, taking into account the subject of the map, it seems logical to use their Hungarian form. Even if it can be debated whether in the 10th century territories of the Northern Carpathian belonged to the "Principality of Hungary". Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Borsoka, you reiterated my point: "They are not Avar settlements. They are settlements named after Avars.". The map appears to tell us the names of settlements named after Hungarian tribes, not Hungarian tribal settlements. This article does not need a map that shows settlements named after Hungarian tribes because it gives the incorrect impression that such settlements are where those Hungarian tribes from Hungarian prehistory lived, especially when placed in the context of the "Consequences" section. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the map makes proper consequences. The modern settlement names originated from Medieval times and it can prove that where the tribes were supposedly settled. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I have read the Hungarian wiki (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_törzsek) and there was an interesting statement: ("Vagyis egy törzs szállásterületét inkább úgy lehet megtalálni, ha azt keressük, mely megyékben nem fordul elő a neve."/ we can find the territory of the tribe if we search for counties where the name of the tribe does not occur.). So the map try to demonstrate that (and nothing else)where was the presumably Hungarian ethnic 'block' in the 10th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to have a map that shows where the Hungarian tribes were supposedly settled after the Conquest, but it isn't clear as to how this map proves shows that. I mentioned above how the tribe names appear scattered all over with little regard for how tribal societies actually live.  There's Megyer in Transylvania, Megyer in Slovakia, Megyer on your way to Sopron, etc..  Compare with, for example, in Tuva, where many people use their tribe name as their family name and predictably people of the same tribe are mostly found in the same area together where their tribe had settled.  Tumats are in western Tuvan and hardly any, if at all, are found in eastern Tuva.  If the point of adding the map is to show where Magyars had settled and not where individual Magyar tribes had settled, then the caption should be changed.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As Fakirbakir mentioned above, this is the point. According to a quite logical theory, the area settled by a specific tribe can be searched in the regions where place names referring to this specific tribe are NOT found. The map does NOT presents (and does not claim to present) the areas where each tribes settled, but it presents the area where people most probably descending from a specific tribe found their abode among other peoples (Slavs, Avars, members of other Hungarian tribes). Nevertheless, these place names are examples of the most ancient Hungarian toponyms. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, It only wants to show us where the Hungarian people 'presumably' lived among other peoples. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that the map does not make the claim of where the tribes settled. This idea is inferred from the placement of the map in the article and the lack of explanation in the caption.  Let's change the caption to better reflect the purpose behind adding the map to the article.  For example, "The appearance of Hungarian tribe names in settlement names ...": "... suggests where arriving Hungarians lived amongst other peoples.", "... is thought to help in reconstructing where arriving tribes settled.", "... etc.". "It is thought that settlements named after Hungarian tribes indicate a location where referenced tribe lived amongst other peoples." --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians before 9th century
Here is an interesting source. (In Hungarian) According to this there are reliable sources about Magyars in the Carpathian Basin before 9th century, For example: Fakirbakir (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ungari, Ungri, Hungri, Hungari names, at the age of Merovingians and at the age of Carolingians (in volumes of Monumenta Germaniae Historica)
 * 561/562 Avares, id est Ungari Pannonii or Avares qui est Hunni, sive Ungari (in Gottfried Von Viterbo "Pantheon" 7th century)
 * 590 Civitas ab Ungaris destructa (record of bishop of Aemona(Ljubjana))
 * 8-10 th centuries, 60 Hungarian surnames(Ungarus, Hungarius, Onger, Wanger) (mainly in German registers of monasteries)

Split tags
I am working through the backlog of split tags. Tonight, I removed the June 2011 split tag to make things look a bit better. When I work through to September, I intend to carry out those splits unless there is an objection. I think it is a no brainer that they need to be split offOp47 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)