wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Dec 23, 2008 2:25:44 GMT -5
According this website, Hungarians were in Carpathian basin much before Arpad and Attila, they were already there since 5000 BC. The dominant part of Hungarians are of Near Eastern Iranian orgin. Now look carefully, at that time most people in Asia didnt have asiatic colored skin or eyes nor even middle eastern but something more similar with aryan race as Iran is the place where Aryan people come from. In 5000 BC there were people who settled in present-day Hungary coming from Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia followed by Scythians in 6 BC, Huns in 5 AD, Avars 6 AD, Magyar in 9 AD, Pechenegs in 11 AD and Cumans in 13 AD. All these Turanian people decend from the same Near Eastern Ethno-linguistic group as Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Age settlers of the Carpathian Basin. www.hunmagyar.org/tor/carp.htm
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 4, 2009 19:45:38 GMT -5
^ wbb, how do you explain the high prevalence of the mongolian spot in Hungary?
|
|
|
Post by Dragos Voda on Jan 4, 2009 20:34:36 GMT -5
hunmagyar.org, hmmm, I hope it's not biased.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 5, 2009 4:47:45 GMT -5
hunmagyar.org, hmmm, I hope it's not biased. Sure it is not biased. Exactly like the Romanian sites talking about the dacians who populated the whole world `till North Pole are not biased. But at least we have the decency to not post any crap or breaking discoveries invented on unknown sites.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Jan 5, 2009 7:39:50 GMT -5
novi pazar, hungarians arent Mongols neither even close to it. We originally more Turko-Persian ethno linguistic which is Turanian basically, the dominant part of Hungarians are mostly Iranians with small significient numbers of Turks as well. Then we later assimilated huge numbers of Illyrians, Slavic, German-Nordic, then we assimilated some small amount of Mongol, Huns, Avars, Cumans and also Jassic people. Jassic people are Caucasian Iranian branch which is connected with South Ossetian people, so Jassic is basically Ossetians. If u ask any Hungarians in Hungary, if they are mongols, majority of them would say no, and actually u dont have to ask because u can positively see em that they dont looks mongols at all. Rather Romanians looks a but more asiatic mongols than Hungarians itself, well according to Djuvara, Romanians have assimilated alot of Cumanian people. Hungarians are just about nearly the same as Serbs having Slavic, Iranian, Illyrians heritage.
But in my oppinion, the dominant part of Hungarians are Scythians.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 5, 2009 7:55:20 GMT -5
Oh Mr. Savescu. ;D This guy is really nuts.
|
|
|
Post by szorostalpu1 on Jan 5, 2009 16:19:00 GMT -5
'Sure it is not biased. "But at least we have the decency to not post any crap or breaking discoveries invented on unknown sites." lol...retard, www.hunmagyar.org/tor/carp.htm. Whats biased about the article? Weren't you the one that doesn't give a s**t about who pissed next to what tree 1000 yrs. ago. You're nothing but an envious little s**t who can't stand the fact that people from the near east settled the Carpathian basin thousands of yrs. ago while you so-called indo-europeans vlachs were still swinging in the trees. what decency do you pathetic ,backward, asslicking romanians have?
|
|
|
Post by Dragos Voda on Jan 5, 2009 18:32:50 GMT -5
A theory also well-known (still in dispute) is that the Hungarian language is a descendant of the Sumerian. Some linguists and historians (like Ida Bobula, Ferenc Badiny Jós, dr Tibor Baráth and others) had been working hard for decades and had published many detailed works (e.g. [1], [2]), and, purportedly, also there are some significant archaeological findings in this matter (like the Tartaria tablets). However mainstream linguists reject the Sumerian theory as pseudoscience. Ida Bobula, Ferenc Badiny Jós, dr Tibor Baráth- hmmm, all Hungarian names. There's also no proof that Hungarians are descended from Huns, other than a legend. Many people share the belief that the Székelys, a Hungarian ethnic group living in Romania, are descended from the Huns. However, the link with Hunnish has no linguistic foundation since most scientists consider the Hunnic language as being part of the Turkic language family. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language#Controversy_over_origins
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 5, 2009 19:24:50 GMT -5
Fair enough what you are saying, but to exclude mongolic peoples is rather silly. I remember reading that ancient magyar grave sites in Hungary found mainly mongolic skeletons and you must keep in mind that 25% of new born babies, in hungary, are born with a mongolian spot while the european average is about 5%, East Asians have a prevalence of up to 95%.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 6, 2009 3:29:14 GMT -5
'. You're nothing but an envious little s**t who can't stand the fact that people from the near east settled the Carpathian basin thousands of yrs. ago while you so-called indo-europeans vlachs were still swinging in the trees. Envious ? Why envious on a little pocket size country , whos people seems to prefer to boast their past in order to forget their s**ty present ? The decency of not posting here every fruitcakes and their "available only on this website breakthrough discoveries", even if you personally cream your pants when you read it. I see even RuseBG its familiar with our Savescu
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 6, 2009 3:52:09 GMT -5
Fair enough what you are saying, but to exclude mongolic peoples is rather silly. I remember reading that ancient magyar grave sites in Hungary found mainly mongolic skeletons and you must keep in mind that 25% of new born babies, in hungary, are born with a mongolian spot while the european average is about 5%, East Asians have a prevalence of up to 95%. Do you have any reliable sources for that report of up to 25% Mongolic spot Novi it sounds a bit exagerated to me but if you have a reputable source plse show. The graves you are referring to are not thought to be of the Magyars the first wave of Avar people are considered to be more Mongolic. According to Coons and Bartuc and other research the actual Mongolic element amongst Hungarians was not very high approx 5% the other Turanic elements were physically closer to Azeri Turkics which are more like an Irano Turkic hybrid. As WBB has said Hungarians are racially mixed people but the Mongolic stereotype is not accurate.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 6, 2009 3:58:39 GMT -5
Because the Hungarian language and ethnic origin is so uniquely diferent and without certain origin it has left open much room for various theories. The Sumerian connection is likely to be a long bow but its a fact that there are several old Iranian words in Hungarian language probably a result of early Hungarian and Iranian-Jasz connections and assimilation. A theory also well-known (still in dispute) is that the Hungarian language is a descendant of the Sumerian. Some linguists and historians (like Ida Bobula, Ferenc Badiny Jós, dr Tibor Baráth and others) had been working hard for decades and had published many detailed works (e.g. [1], [2]), and, purportedly, also there are some significant archaeological findings in this matter (like the Tartaria tablets). However mainstream linguists reject the Sumerian theory as pseudoscience. Ida Bobula, Ferenc Badiny Jós, dr Tibor Baráth- hmmm, all Hungarian names. There's also no proof that Hungarians are descended from Huns, other than a legend. Many people share the belief that the Székelys, a Hungarian ethnic group living in Romania, are descended from the Huns. However, the link with Hunnish has no linguistic foundation since most scientists consider the Hunnic language as being part of the Turkic language family. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language#Controversy_over_origins
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Jan 6, 2009 5:49:54 GMT -5
not even 5% oszkar , maybe 2-3% have mongolic element among Hungarians. Hungarians for the most part are fairly aryan looking althought Hungarians are not of aryan decendent. It's quite easier to say that most Turanians are not mongolic looking, except for the Tatars and Uighurs and all those far eastern people. huh of course it's not accurate, Hungarians being mongolic is a small to big exaggeration. This exaggeration is originally said by Romanians, "hungarians are mongol-gypsies", "Hungarians are evil mongol looking people who stole Transylvania from us, we decend from Dacians". hahahahaha ;D Anyway Novi, if u look up on Romanians, u can see Romanians are mongolic looking, even Bassarab of Moldavia was Mongol, Tatar orgin, there was alot of Tatars who came to Romania during their conquest and settled there, there was hardly any Tatars went to Hungary for settlement instead they invaded Hungary but even after they won the battle of Muhi, there still no evidence in any history written by true historians (ahhhmm not fabricators like those xenophobic idiots) that they set up some Tatar settlement in Hungary. Yes small numbers of Tatar stays in Hungary, but they assimilated into Hungarians, so where is this new-born mongolic looking people? it's common sense. Hungarians look mongolic only if they: 1. They decend from Mongols 2. There is a large numbers of Mongols who migrate to Hungary. 3. Mongols marries another Mongols 4. Mongols protect their heritage like mongolic looking. But all those 4 events i stated to u, didnt even happen. Even Sumerians were Iranic people, Sumer and Babylon was Iranian settlement also, there was no Arabs or any other type of Semetic people then, but yes semetic people invaded Babylon and killed many Iranic people, they turn Babylon into Semetic-Assyrian- proto-Hebrew state.
|
|
|
Post by szorostalpu1 on Jan 6, 2009 7:10:47 GMT -5
'Envious ? Why envious on a little pocket size country , whos people seems to prefer to boast their past in order to forget their s**ty present ?" listen to the proud olah speak about how we "boast" about our past and that we have a "s**tty present" when his pathetic artificially enlarged country's 150 yr. history doesn't even fill a page in a history text. And as for the "present".... Anger at EU immigrants explodes after woman's brutal death - Times ...Nov 2, 2007 ... had “replaced Moroccans and Albanians as Italians’ No 1 nightmare. .... Romanian immigrants in Italy as potential criminals or, worst, ... www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2788922.ece ah, the frustration...need I say more lol.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 6, 2009 7:13:36 GMT -5
Oszkar and Wbb l'll find something about mongolian spot and mongoloid skeletons in ancient grave sites tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 7, 2009 15:29:46 GMT -5
I am familiar with many things about Romania ;D This Savescu guy was a subject of discussion may be years ago in the previous forum. And to be fair, I still haven't found a Romanian who agrees with his lunatic theories.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 7, 2009 20:05:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure how credible this maybe as l don't know Hungarian history all that well, but l'm definetly sure a % of east asian peoples (however small or large) contributed to the modern hungarian people. You guys must have heard of Auriel Stein: Anthropology can point to the Hungarian homeland through physiological research. The old country of Hungarians must be sought where people lived, or still live who are physically like Hungarians. The Uyghur cemetery at Astana near the Jungar Gate provides the answer to this, revealed by Aurel Stein between 1913 and 1915, with 1200 more graves discovered by the Uyghurs and Chinese in 1986. The people buried there were physically the same as the Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin. Also demonstrative is the fact that typically Turanian, Pamirian and Taurid genetic elements, that entered the Carpathian Basin with the Hungarians, are common only among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, but occur nowhere else in Europe. Aside from physiology, recent genetic research has provided clues about national origins and kinships. Within the blood group system attributed to Landsteiner, the rate of the typically Hungarian "0" and "B" blood types (31.05% and 17.90%) is off from that of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric nations, but is within the range found among Central Asian Turkic nations. Besides this, there is another blood type among Hungarians, the Diego [A+], present in no other people of Europe. The "Mongolian spot", almost unknown in Europe, has 22.6% occurrence, and Lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme), rare elsewhere, is at 37% among Hungarians, as in Central Asia. The skin splinter system of Hungarians has Central Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high vortices). The Gm-marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occurring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International Mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians. hargita.awardspace.com/genetika/genetien.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 8, 2009 19:22:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure how credible this maybe as l don't know Hungarian history all that well, but l'm definetly sure a % of east asian peoples (however small or large) contributed to the modern hungarian people. You guys must have heard of Auriel Stein: Anthropology can point to the Hungarian homeland through physiological research. The old country of Hungarians must be sought where people lived, or still live who are physically like Hungarians. The Uyghur cemetery at Astana near the Jungar Gate provides the answer to this, revealed by Aurel Stein between 1913 and 1915, with 1200 more graves discovered by the Uyghurs and Chinese in 1986. The people buried there were physically the same as the Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin. Also demonstrative is the fact that typically Turanian, Pamirian and Taurid genetic elements, that entered the Carpathian Basin with the Hungarians, are common only among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, but occur nowhere else in Europe. Aside from physiology, recent genetic research has provided clues about national origins and kinships. Within the blood group system attributed to Landsteiner, the rate of the typically Hungarian "0" and "B" blood types (31.05% and 17.90%) is off from that of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric nations, but is within the range found among Central Asian Turkic nations. Besides this, there is another blood type among Hungarians, the Diego [A+], present in no other people of Europe. The "Mongolian spot", almost unknown in Europe, has 22.6% occurrence, and Lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme), rare elsewhere, is at 37% among Hungarians, as in Central Asia. The skin splinter system of Hungarians has Central Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high vortices). The Gm-marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occurring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International Mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians. hargita.awardspace.com/genetika/genetien.htmlI will research more about Auriel Stein's work to give a more thorough conclusion but I am still suspicious about some of these claims about blood types and Mongol Spot, to me this sounds exaggerated I cant think of any Hungarians I know or have met as having Mongol spot lol. I myself have the A+ blood type but I dont think its correct that this is exclusive to Hungary I have read its actualy a fairly common bloodtype throughout Europe and so is B and O, so these claims sound a bit sus. Its a fact that there were some Turkic tribes that came with the Magyars to Hungary they were mostly Kabars and certainly some Turkic elements assimilated into Hungarian ethnogenesis but I tend to think some theorists presentations of Hung origins have been slightly influenced and exaggerated by Pan Turanian ideaologies/sympathisers and secondly by certain enemies of Hungary that wanted to overly portray Hungarians as simply Asians or Mongols. It is true that when Magyars came to Europe some as the Greeks or Byzantines had reffered to them as tribe of Turks but that didnt mean it was an accurate racial classification but rather more related to Hungarians style of Horseback archery Steppe warfare which was very similiar to many tribes of the Turanian plain and yes there were Turkic tribes and Turkic speaking peoples amongst Hungarians but the fact is Hungarians speak Magyar not Turkic or Turkish.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jan 8, 2009 21:01:40 GMT -5
The ethnic structure of Hungary is extraordinarily complex, and as yet not wholly known. Many small sub-groups, located in various parts of Hungary and elsewhere, claim special descent, not from Arpad and his followers, but from the Avars, the Cumans, and other Turkish invaders. The Szekelers, who are claimed to be the purest of the Magyars, in the sense that they preserve the ancient types most faithfully, are descendants of colonists sent to the Carpathians to ward off the inroads of the Cumans. - These various traditions and individual histories indicate that the formation of the Hungarian people was no simple matter. Almost every race or sub-race in Europe, and many in Asia, have contributed to the Magyar physical amalgam, and an adequate anthropometric study of the Hungarians would be a task of great magnitude. So far such a study has not been made, or at least, has not been published. Contemporary Hungarian anthropologists have concentrated rather upon the prodigious task of untangling the skeletal history of their country, with considerable success, as reviewed in Chapter VII. With this ample background, the analysis of the living material which they have accumulated and are accumulating will be made possible.116 The stature of living Magyars within the present kingdom of Hungary varies but slightly from region to region; local means run from 167 to 168 cm. The same is true of most of the Hungarian districts in Rumania, except for the Transylvanian Magyars, whose mean is 169 cm., and the Szekelers, with 170 cm. Thus the Magyars are taller than either the Ugrians or the Turks of eastern Russia, with a tendency for stature to increase from west to east. The cephalic index mean maintains a brachycephalic level of 84 to 87, with the highest figures in the southeast, in the neighborhood of Szeged and Arad; on the whole, excessive brachycephaly is a South Hungarian phenomenon. The tall Szekelers of the bend of the Carpathians have the low mean, for Magyars, of 81.5. Head sizes of Hungarians are of normal, central European dimensions; the more brachycephalic groups have the larger heads, with length means in the neighborhood of 185 mm., and breadts of approximately 158 mm. They are thus equivalent to most Dinarics and Alpines in this respect. The less brachycephalic groups farther north have lengths of approximately 181—182 mm., and breadths of 152—153 mm.; figures of Neo-Danubian size. The Szekelers, by contrast, have large heads, with length and breadth means of approximately 191 mm. and 156 mm. If they have more Asiatic blood than the other Magyars, it must be Turkish in the sense of the Turkomans and Azerbaijanis.[/b] Small series of Hungarians, taken as a whole, show fully European cranial and facial dimensions. Total face heights of less than 120 mm. are reminiscent of Ugrians as well as of modern Slavs, and are too short for either central Asiatic Turks or Dinarics. The mean bizygomatic diameter of 140 mm. precludes, furthermore, extensive Mongol or Turkish influence. A moderate leptorrhiny, with a mean nasal index of 68, is too high for Dinarics, but adequate for Neo-Danubians, Turks, or Alpines. On the whole, the metrical characters of the Magyars, as revealed by small and perhaps poorly representative samples, indicate Neo-Danubian and Alpine racial elements as the most prevalent, especially the former.The pigment characters, judging from what has been published, are on the brunet side of medium; Over 50 per cent of eyes seem to be dark or predominantly dark, while black and dark brown hair shades reach approximately the same figure. The majority of Magyars have straight nasal profiles; a large minority of 25 per cent are concave, however, and a few of these are flattish in a manner which suggests ultimate Finnic or mongoloid derivation. Nasal convexity is not common, at least in the small series available. According to Bartucz’s analysis, only about 15 per cent of the population of Hungary is Alpine racially, and this element is commonest in the German territories of the southern part of the kingdom. A Neo-Danubian racial type117 is the most numerous single element, which accounts for about 35 per cent of the whole, and is commonest in the northeast, over against Slovakia, and in this section it rises to 60 per cent of the population Dinarics include 20 per cent of the total and are concentrated in the south and especially the southwest, in contact with essentially Dinaric regions in Yugoslavia. Bartucz finds about 20 per cent of the Magyars to show evidence of Asiatic Turkish blood, in the relatively non-mongoloid sense, while about 5 per cent manifest clearly recognizable mongoloid features. These Asiatic elements are not evenly distributed, but are concentrated in the purer Hungarian pastoral population, while the Turkish element is said to be especially visible in the nobility. The 5 per cent which remains after Bartucz’s partitionment must include Nordics and Norics, with the latter also forming part of the Dinaric allotment, as well as a few brunet Mediterraneans. Bartucz’s analysis, based upon long observation as well as upon unpublished materials, is more valid than deductions made from the small series of detailed measurements at our disposal. Hungary fits into the racial boundaries of the countries which surround her, without sharp transitions; at the same time she provides a refuge in central Europe for a minor central Asiatic survival. It is not accurate to say that the pre-Magyar inhabitants of Hungary have completely, or almost completely, absorbed the invaders whose speech is that of the nation, for the Ugric followers of Arpad, who came to these plains in thousands, must have been largely Neo-Danubian in race, as are many of their present-day descendants and successors. carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-11.htm
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Jan 8, 2009 21:52:49 GMT -5
a histroy researched by jew? i thought jews claimed that Romanians, Bulgarian and Hungarians are the last tribe of Israel that migrated to Europe no?
Anyway I dont believe in any research by jews, except for Khazarian jews. it's common sense, nothing anti-semetic about that, but jews are semetic and Magyars are not.
|
|