Part of a series on the
|History of Hungary|
Hungarian prehistory (Hungarian: magyar őstörténet) spans the period of history of the Hungarian people, or Magyars, which started with the separation of the Hungarian language from other Finno-Ugric or Ugric languages around 800 BC, and ended with the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin around 895 AD. Based on the earliest records of the Magyars in Byzantine, Western European and Hungarian chronicles, scholars considered them as the descendants of the ancient Scythians and Huns for centuries. This historiographical tradition only disappeared from mainstream history after the realization of similarities between the Hungarian language and other Uralic languages in the late 18th century. Therefrom linguistics has been the principal source of the study of the Hungarians' ethnogenesis. In addition, chronicles written between the 9th and 15th centuries, the results of archaeological research and folklore analogies have been taken into account when studying the Magyars' early history.
Study of pollen in fossils based on cognate words for certain trees (including larch and elm) in the daughter languages suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Uralic language lived in the wider region of the Ural Mountains. Those lands were inhabited by scattered groups of Neolithic hunter-gatherers in the 4th millenium BC. They spread over vast territories which caused the development of a separate Proto-Finno-Ugric language by the end of the millennium. Linguistic studies and archaeological research evidence that those who spoke this idiom lived in pit-houses and used decorated clay vessels. The expansion of marshlands after around 2600 BC caused new migrations. No scholarly consensus exists on the Urheimat, or original homeland, of the Ugric peoples: they lived either in the region of the Tobol River or along the Kama River and the upper courses of the Volga River around 2000 BC. Nevertheless, they lived in settled communities, cultivated millet, wheat and other corps, and bred animals (especially horses, cattle, and pigs). Loan words connected to animal husbandry from Proto-Iranian show that they had close contacts with their neighbors. Because of the northward expansion of the steppes, the southernmost Ugric groups adopted a nomadic way of life by around 1000 BC.
The separate development of the Hungarian language started around 800 BC, with the withdrawal of the grasslands and the parallel southward migration of the nomadic Ugric groups. For another thousand years, the history of the ancient Magyars remains uncertain: they lived in the steppes, but the location of their Urheimat is subject to scholarly debates. According to a scholarly theory, they initially lived east of the Urals and migrated to "Magna Hungaria" (in the region of the Kama) by 600 AD at the latest. Other scholars say that Magna Hungaria was the Magyars' original homeland from where they moved either to the region of the Don River or towards the Kuban River before the 830s AD. Hundreds of loan words adopted from Chuvash-type Turkic languages prove that the Magyars were closely connected to Turkic peoples. Byzantine and Muslim authors even mentioned them as a Turkic people in the 9th and 10th centuries.
The first historical event recorded certainly in connection with the Magyars was an alliance between them and the Bulgarians in the late 830s. According to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the Magyars lived in Levedia in the vicinity of the Khazar Khaganate in the early 9th century. They supported the Khazars in their wars. They were organized into tribes, each headed by their own "voivodes", or military leaders. After a Pecheneg invasion against Levedia, a group of Magyars crossed the Caucasus Mountains and settled in the lands south of the mountains, but the majority of the people fled to the steppes north of the Black Sea. From their new homeland, which was known as Etelköz, the Magyars controlled the lands between the Lower Danube and the Don River in the 870s. In the same period, two leaders (the kende and the gyula) stood at the head of the confederation of the seven Magyar tribes. The Kabars – a group of rebellious subjects of the Khazars – joined the Magyars in Etelköz. The Magyars regularly invaded the neighboring Slavic tribes, forcing them to pay a tribute and seizing prisoners to be sold to the Byzantines. Taking advantage of the wars between Bulgaria, East Francia, and Moravia, they invaded Central Europe at least four times between 861 and 894. A new Pecheneg invasion compelled the Magyars to leave Etelköz and cross the Carpathian Mountains around 895.
- 1 Sources
- 2 Ethnonyms
- 3 Historiography
- 4 Formation of the Magyar people
- 5 Migrations
- 6 Economy and way of life
- 7 Religion
- 8 See also
- 9 Notes
- 10 Sources
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links
A language shows the circumstances of its own development and its contacts with other idioms. Consequently, the study of the Hungarian language is one of the main sources of the research on the ethnogenesis of the Hungarian people. The analysis of the oldest layers of the Hungarian vocabulary can contribute to the determination of the territory where the Hungarian language emerged. The study of loan words from other languages is instrumantal in determining direct contacts between the ancient speakers of the Hungarian language and other peoples. Loan words also reflect changes in the way of life of the Magyars.
The Ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, who died in 425 BC, wrote of the Iyrcae, a people of equestrian hunters, who lived next to the Thyssagetae. Taking into account their ethnonym and the location of their homeland, Gyula Moravcsik, János Harmatta and other scholars identify the Iyrcae as Hungarians, saying that the "father of history" made the first record of them; this view has never been universally accepted. The 6th-century Byzantine historian, John Malalas, referred to a Hunnic tribal leader, Muageris, who ruled around 527 AD. Based on the similarity between Muageris's name and the Magyar endonym, Moravcsik, Dezső Pais and other historians say that Malalas's report proves the presence of Magyar tribes in the region of the Sea of Azov in the early 6th century AD, but most historians reject their theory.
The Continuation of the Chronicle by Friar George, which was written in the middle of the 10th century, recorded the first historical event – an alliance between the Magyars and the Bulgarians in the late 830s – that can without doubt be connected to the Magyars. The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Wise's Tactics, a book written around 904, contains a detailed description of the Magyars' military strategies and way of life. However, Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus's De administrando imperio ("On Governing the Empire"), which was completed between 948 and 952, preserved most information on the Magyars' early history.
Al-Jayhani, the minister of Nasr II, ruler of the Samanid Empire, collected the reports of merchants who had traveled in the western regions of the Eurasian steppes in the 870s and 880s. Although Al-Jayhani's work was lost, later Muslim scholars – Ibn Rusta, Gardizi, Abu Tahir Marwazi, and Al-Bakri – used his book, preserving important facts about the late 9th-century Magyars. Their works also contain interpolations from later periods.
Among the sources written in Western Europe, the longer version of the Annals of Salzburg, Regino of Prüm's Chronicon, the Annals of Fulda, and Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis ("Retribution") provide contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous information on the history of the Magyars in the 9th century. The legends of Cyril, Methodius and other early Slavic saints also refer to the Magyars dwelling on the Pontic steppes. Information on the 9th-century Magyars preserved in the Russian Primary Chronicle, which was completed in the 1110s, should be "treated with extreme caution", according to historian András Róna-Tas.
The first Hungarian chronicles were written in the late 11th or early 12th century, but their texts were preserved in manuscripts compiled in the 13th-15th centuries. Most extant chronicles show that the earliest works contained no information on the history of the Hungarians before their conversion to Christianity in the 11th century. Even so, the Magyars' pagan past was the principal subject of the Gesta Hungarorum, which is the earliest extant Hungarian chronicle. However, the reliability of this work, which was written by a former royal notary now known as Anonymus, is suspect. Carlile Aylmer Macartney describes it as "the most famous, the most obscure, the most exasperating and most misleading of all the early Hungarian texts" in his monograph of medieval Hungarian historians.
Archaeology has played an important role in the study of the Magyar prehistory since the 1830s. Archaeologists have applied two methods: the so-called "linear method" attempts to determine the route of the migrating Magyars from their original homeland to the Carpathian Basin, while the "retrospective method" tries to discover the antecedents of 10th-century assemblages from the Carpathian Basin in the Eurasian steppes. However, there are only a dozen cemeteries in the steppes that yielded finds which show similarities to assemblages unearthed in the Carpathian Basin. Furthermore, the dating of these cemeteries is controversial.
The Magyars, or Hungarians, were mentioned under various ethnic names in Arabic, Byzantine, Slavic and Western European sources in the 9th and 10th centuries. Arabic scholars referred to them as Magyars, Bashkirs or Turks; Byzantine authors mentioned them as Huns, Ungrs, Turks and Savards; Slavic sources used the ethnonyms Ugr and Peon; and Western Europen authors wrote of Hungrs, Pannons, Avars, Huns, Turks and Agaren. A variant of the Hungarians' self-designation (al-Madjghariyya) was first recorded by Ibn Rusta. According to a scholarly theory, the ethnonym is a composite word. Its supposed first part (magy-) has been connected to several recorded or hypothetical words, including the Mansi's self-designation (māńśi) and a reconstructed Ugric word for man (*mańća). The second part (-er or -ar) may have developed from a reconstructed Finno-Ugrian word for man or boy (*irkä) or from a Turkic word with a similar meaning (eri or iri). Alan W. Ertl writes that the ethnonym was initially the name of a smaller group, the Megyer tribe, but it became a general designation for the entire people, because the Megyer was the most powerful tribe.
The Magyars' best known exonym, Hungarian, was derived from the Onogurs' name, according to most scholars' view. It started spreading in Europe with Slavic mediation. The Hungarians' multiple ethnonyms gave rise to various theories about their history. For instance, the linguist Gyula Németh wrote that the Ungr, Savard, and Turk names reflect that the Magyars had been integrated in various empires of the Eurasian steppes – the tribal confederations of the Onogurs and of the Sabirs, and the Turkic Khaganate – before achieved their independence.
The Annals of St. Bertin describe the Magyars invading East Francia in 862 as enemies "hitherto unknown" to the local population. Likewise, Regino of Prüm wrote that the Magyars had been "unheard of in the previous centuries because they were not named" in the sources. Both remarks evidence that late 9th-century authors had no knowledge of the Magyars' origins.
The Magyar raids reminded the Western European and Byzantine scholars of earlier historians' descriptions of the Scythians or Huns, which gave rise to the identification of the Magyars, or Hungarians, with these peoples. For instance, Leo the Wise listed the Hungarians among the "Scythian nations", and Widukind of Corvey identified them as Avars whom he regarded as the Huns' descendants. The similarity between the Latin ethnonyms Huni and Hungari also strengthened the identification of the two peoples, which became a commonplace in Western Europe in the 11th century. The Chronicon Eberspergense was the first source which clearly stated that the two peoples were the same.
Most historians agree that the so-called "legend of the wondrous hind", which was first recorded by Simon of Kéza in the late 13th century, preserved the Hungarians' own myth of their origins. However, there are scholars (including Macartney) who say that the legend was borrowed from foreign sources. According to this legend, two brothers, Hunor and Magor, were the forefathers of the Huns and Hungarians. They were the sons of one Ménrót by his wife, Eneth. While chasing a hind, they reached as far as the marches of the Sea of Azov where they abducted the wives of one Belar's sons and two daughters of Dula, the prince of the Alans. According to historian Gyula Kristó, Eneth's name derrived from the Hungarian word for hind (ünő), showing that the Magyars regarded this animal as their totemistic ancestor. The four personal names mentioned in the legend, Kristó continues, personify four peoples: the Hungarians (Magor), the Onogurs (Hunor), the Bulgars (Belar) and the Dula kindred of the Alans or Bulgars (Dulo). The hunt for a beast ending with the arrival in a new homeland was a popular legend among the peoples of the Eurasian steppes, including the Huns and the Mansi. The myth that a people was descended from two brothers was also widespread.
After the confusion of tongues the giant [Ménrót] entered the land of Havilah, which is now called Persia, and there he begot two sons, Hunor and Mogor, by his wife Eneth. It was from them that the Huns, or Hungarians, took their origins. ... [A]s Hunor and Mogor were Ménrót's first born, they journeyed separately from their father in tents. Now it happened one day when they had gone out hunting in the Meotis marshes that they encountered a hind in the wilderness. As they went in pursuit of it, it fled before them. Then it disappeared from their sight altogether, and they could not find it no matter how long they searched. But as they were wandering through these marshes, they saw that the land was well suited for grazing cattle. They then returned to their father, and after obtaining his permission they took all their possessions and went to live in the Meotis marshes. ... So they entered the Meotis marshes and remained there for five years without leaving. Then in the sixth year they went out, and when by chance they discovered that the wives and children of the sons of Belar were camped in tents in a lonely place without their menfolk, they carried them off with all their belongings as fast as they could into the Meotis marshes. Two daughters of Dula, prince of the Alans, happened to be among the children who were seized. Hunor took one of them in marriage and Mogor the other, and to these women all the Huns owe their origin.
The earliest Hungarian chronicles adopted the idea that the Huns and Hungarians were closely related. Although Anonymus did not mention the Huns, he referred to Attila the Hun as a ruler "from whose line Prince Álmos", the supreme head of the Magyar tribes, descended. Simon of Kéza was the first Hungarian author who explicitly identified the Huns and the Hungarians in the 1280. He started his chronicle with a book of the history of the Huns, thus presenting the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin as the reoccupation of the lands which they had inherited from their ancestors. The identification of the two peoples remained the basic theory of the origins of the Hungarians for centuries.
Scholarly attempts to prove a relationship between the Finns and the Huns led to the realization of the similarities between the Finnish and Hungarian languages in the early 18th century. The first systematic comparative study of the Hungarian and the Saami languages – János Sajnovics's Demonstratio – was published in 1770. Based on Sajnovics's work, Sámuel Gyarmathi demonstrated the similarities of a larger group of idioms, now known as Uralic languages, in his Affinitas which was published in 1799. However, their theories were only gradually adopted by the majority of Hungarian scholars. For instance, Pál Hunfalvy wrote that Hungarian had an intermediate position between the Finnish and Turkic languages in the 1830s, but later accepted that Hungarian is closely related to the Mansi and Khanty languages.
Hereafter linguistics played a preeminent role in the research of the Magyars' prehistory: historical and archaeological theories have often been determined by the dominant linguistic theories. Mainstream scholars now agree that the Hungarians are not the autochthonous population of the Carpathian Basin. Their ancestors arrived here, through a series of westward migrations across the Eurasian steppes, around 894, centuries after their departure from their original homeland which had been located somewhere in the East. However, modern historians still debate the location of the Magyars' original homeland, their connections with the Turkic peoples and the Khazar Khaganate, their life-style and political organization and the background of their conquest of the Carpathian Basin.
With regard of the connections between the Magyars and the Turkic tribes, archaeologist Gyula László elaborated an alternative theory in the 1960s. According to his theory of the "double Conquest", a large group of people who spoke a Finno-Ugrian language came to the Carpathian Basin in 670, and the Hungarian conquerors of the late 9th century were actually Turks. László's theory has never been widely accepted.
Formation of the Magyar people
Before the separation of the Hungarian language (before c. 800 BC)
Historian Nóra Berend writes that Hungarian prehistory is "a tenuous construct based on linguistics, folklore analogies, archaeology and later written evidence", because there are no certain records of the Magyars before the 9th century and the identification of archaeological cultures with peoples is highly debatable. Accordingly, as historian László Kontler says, "the history of Hungarian origins is the history of a community whose genetic composition and cultural character has been changing, but which has assuredly spoken Hungarian or its predecessor language". Hungarian has traditionally been classified as an Ugric language within the family of Uralic languages, but alternative views also exist. For instance, linguist Tapani Salminen rejects the existence of a Proto-Ugric language, saying that that Hungarian was rather a member of an "areal genetic unit" that also included Permic languages.
Paleolinguistic research suggests that the speakers of the Proto-Uralic language lived in a territory where four trees – larches, silver firs, spruces, and elms – grew together. The study of pollen in fossils shows that these trees could be found on both sides of the Ural Mountains along the rivers Ob, Pechora and Kama in the 4th millennium BC. The lands between the Urals and the Kama were sparsely inhabited in this period. The Neolithic material culture of the wider region of the Urals spread over vast territories both to the west and east from around 3600 BC. Regional variants emerged, showing the appearance of groups of people who had no close contacts with each other.
About 1000 basic words of the Hungarian language (including the names of the seasons and natural phenomena, and the most frequently used verbs) had cognates in other Finno-Ugric languages, suggesting the temporary existence of a Proto-Finno-Ugric language. Climatic changes caused the spread of swamps on both sides of the Urals between around 2600 and 2100 BC, forcing groups of the local inhabitants to leave their homelands. The Finno-Ugric linguistic unity disappeared and new languages emerged around 2000 BC. Whether the groups speaking the language from which Hungarian emerged lived to the east or to the west of the Urals in this period is debated by historians.
Climate changes between around 1300 and 1000 BC caused the northward expansion of the steppes by about 200–300 kilometres (120–190 mi), compelling the southernmost Ugric groups to adopt a nomadic lifestyle. Around 800 BC, the climate again changed with the beginning of a wetter period, forcing the nomadic Ugric groups to start a southward migration, following the grasslands. Their movement separated them from the northern Ugric groups, which gave rise to the development of the language from which modern Hungarian emerged. Some elements of Hungarian folklore, including the concept of the "sky-high tree" that connected the subterranean and the celestial worlds, seem to have been inherited from the period preceding the dispersal of the Finno-Ugric unity, according to historian László Kontler. The melodies of the most common Hungarian funeral songs show similarities to tunes of Khanty epic songs.
Original homeland (c. 800 BC – before 600 AD)
Peoples who spoke Iranian languages (including the Scythians and Sarmatians) dominated the Eurasian steppes between around 800 BC and 350 AD. During this period, all ethnic groups in the steppes were nomads and their material cultures were almost identical, making the certain identification of the ancient Magyars impossible. Accordingly, the location of the Magyars' original homeland is still subject to scholarly debates. Róna-Tas says that the development of the Hungarian language started west of the Urals, in the region of the rivers Kama and Volga. On the other hand, archaeologist István Fodor writes that the Urheimat of the Magyars lay to the east of the mountains. He says that some features of the tumuli erected at Chelyabinsk in the 4th century BC (including the northward orientation of the heads of the deceased and the geometric motifs on the clay vessels put in the graves) are similar to older burials that he attributes to Ugric peoples. Two popular motifs of the art of the 10th-century Magyars (the stag and the eagle) had close analogies in Scythian art.
Early westward migrations (before 600 AD – c. 750 or 830 AD)
If the Magyars' original homeland was situated to the east of the Urals, they must have first moved from Western Siberia to Eastern Europe. There were three or four larger movements of peoples across the steppes in the period between 500 BC and 700 AD. Around 400 BC, the "Prohorovo culture" spread towards the lands now forming Bashkortostan. Although this culture is primarily attributed to the Sarmatians, Magyar groups may have also been involved in this migration, according to Fodor. Between about 350 and 400 AD, the westward migration of the Huns forced many groups of people who dwelled in Western Siberia to depart for Europe. Next, the Avars' attack against the Sabirs in Siberia set in motion a number of peoples in the 460s. Finally, the migration of the Avars towards Europe compelled many nomadic groups to move between around 550 and 600.
The arrival of the Huns put an end to the dominance of Iranian peoples in the Eurasian steppes. Thereafter the Sabirs, Avars, Onoghurs, Khazars and other Turkic peoples dominated the grasslands of Eastern Europe. Both written sources and linguistic research evidence that the Magyars were closely connected to the Turks. The Magyars were "a branch of the Turks" for Gardizi; Leo the Wise and Constantine Porphyrogenitus also called them Turks. About 450 Hungarian words were borrowed from Turkic languages before around 900. The oldest layer of Hungarian folk songs show similarities to Chuvash songs.
In the 1230s, Friar Julian and three other Dominican monks departed for a journey in search for Magna Hungaria, the Magyars' legendary homeland, after they read of a group of Magyars, who had stayed behind there, in a Hungarian chronicle. Friar Julian met a Hungarian-speaking group in the land of the Volga Bulgars "beside the great Etil river" (the Volga or the Kama), suggesting that their meeting took place in the lands that now form Bashkortostan or west of it. At least two concurring theories of the origin of this 13th-century Hungarian-speaking group exist. According to one view, Julian's Magna Hungaria was identical with the Magyars' original homeland. An other scholarly theory propose that the Magyars moved from their Western Siberian Urheimat to Magna Hungaria and stayed there for centuries. If any of these theories is valid, the Magyars whom Friar Julianus met were descended from those who had stayed behind in Magna Hungaria. According to a third theory, the Magyars of Magna Hungaria were descended from a group of Magyars who seceded from the majority of the people and moved to the north along the river Volga.
Abu Zayd al-Balkhi and other 10th-century Muslim authors used the ethnonym Bashkir when referring to the Magyars. According to a scholarly theory, the name of at least one Magyar tribe (Gyarmat) is connected to the name of a Bashkir group (Yurmatï), implying that either a group of Bashkirs joined the Magyars when the latter departed from Magna Hungaria or a group of Magyars moved to Magna Hungaria. The burial customs of the people who used a cemetery at the confluence of the Volga and Kama (near present-day Bolshie Tigany) in the 9th and 10th centuries – the use of death masks and the placing of parts of horses into the graves – had close analogies in 10th-century burial grounds in the Carpathian Basin. Accordingly, archaeologists attributed the cemetery at Bolshie Tigany to Magyars who either stayed behind in Magna Hungaria or moved there from other regions.
Gyula Németh, András Róna-Tas and other scholars write that the Magyars dwelled in the region of the Kuban River to the north of the Caucasus Mountains for centuries. According to these scholars, the Hungarian words of Alanic origin – including asszony ("lady", originally "noble or royal lady") – were borrowed in this region. Scholars supporting the theory also say that the Magyars adopted the Turkic terminology of viticulture – including bor ("wine") and seprő ("dregs") – and the Turkic names of some fruits – for instance, som ("cornel") and szőlő ("grapes") – in the lands north of the Caucasus.
Levedia (c. 750 or 830 – c. 850)
Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote that the Magyars "had of old their dwelling next to Chazaria, in the place called" Levedia. He explained that "a river Chidmas, also called Chingilous" run in this territory, but the identification of the (one or two) rivers is uncertain. Although the emperor associated Levedia with the whole territory dominated by the Magyars, most modern historians agree that he only described a smaller region somewhere along the Don River. The period when the Magyars settled in Levedia is also uncertain: this may happened either before 750 or around 830, according to Fodor and Kristó, respectively.
Porphyrogenitus stated that the Magyars had been named "Sabartoi asphaloi" ("steadfast Savarts") while they stayed in Levedia. Róna-Tas says that this ethnonym is an invented term without any historical credibility. On the other hand, based on the same ethnonym, Károly Czeglédy, Dezső Dümmerth, Victor Spinei and other historians associated the Magyars either with the late 6th-century Sabirs or with the Suvar tribe of the Volga Bulgars.
Okorsis, a Bulgarian military commander, drowned in the Dnieper during a military campaign, according to a memorial stone erected during the reign of Omurtag of Bulgaria who died in 831. Florin Curta says that this inscription may be the "'first clue' to the upheavel on the steppes created by the migration of the Magyars into the lands between the Dnieper and the Danube". In the late 830s, the Bulgarians hired the Magyars, or Ungri, to fight against their Byzantine prisoners who rose up in open rebellion in an attempt to return to Macedonia. The Byzantines routed the Magyars on the banks on the Lower Danube. Rus' envoys who visited Constantinople in 839 could only return to their homeland through the Carolingian Empire because "the route by which they had reached Constantinople had taken them through primitive tribes that were very fierce and savage", according to the Annals of St. Bertin. Curta and Kristó identify those tribes with the Magyars. Ibn Rusta wrote that the Khazars "used to be protected from attack by the Magyars and other neighboring peoples" by a ditch. According to a scholarly theory, Ibn Rusta's report shows that the Khazars erected the fort at Sarkel in the 830s to protect themselves against the Magyars.
The Khazar Khaganate was the dominant power of the steppes between the rivers Dnieper and Volga after around 650. Archaeological finds evidence that the Khagans held sway over a multiethnic empire. The "Saltovo-Mayaki culture", which flourished in the steppes to the west of the Volga between around 750 and 900, had at least seven variants. Porphyroneitus wrote that the Magyars "lived together with the Chazars for three years, and fought in alliance with the Chazars in all their wars", which suggests that the Magyars were subjugated to the Khazar Khagan, according to a scholarly view. According to a concurring theory, the emperor's words do not proove the Magyars' subjugation to the Khazars, but rather the equal position of the two steppe peoples. Although the emperor said that the Magyars' cohabitation with the Khazars lasted only for three years, modern historians tend to propose a longer period (20, 30, 100, 150, 200 or even 300 years). In the Hungarian chronicles, the legend of the wondrous hind seems to have preserved the memory of the Magyars' "close symbiosis, intermarriages, and incipient fusion" with the various ethnic groups – Alans, Bulgars and Onogurs – of the Khaganate.
In Levedia, the Magyars "were seven clans, but they had never had over them a prince either native or foreign, but there were among them 'voivodes'", or chiefs, according to Porphyrogenitus. Although the exact meaning of the term that the emperor used (genea) cannot exactly be determined, scholars have traditionally considered the Magyar "clans", or "tribes", as ethnic and territorial units. In the Hungarian chronicles, references to "seven leading persons" or "seven captains" point at the existence of seven Magyar tribes.
Porphyrogenitus stated that the tribes did not obey to their own voivodes, but they had "a joint agreement to fight together with all earnestness and zeal ... wheresoever war breaks out", suggesting that the tribal chiefs were military leaders. According to Kristó, the emperor's report also shows that the tribal confederation was not a "solid political formation with strong cohesion" in the early 9th century. The Gesta Hungarorum referred to the seven Magyar chiefs as "Hetumoger", or "Seven Magyars". Similar ethnonyms – including Toquz Oghuz ("Nine Oghuzes") and Onogur ("Ten Ogurs") – suggest that the Gesta preserved the name of the confederation of the Magyar tribes.
According to Porphyrogenitus, Levedia was named after Levedi, who was one of the Magyar voivodes. During Levedi's life, the Kangars (a distinct group within the Pechenegs' tribal confederation whom the Khazars had expelled from their homeland) invaded Levedia and forced the Magyars to give up the territory. A Magyar group fled across the Caucasus Mountains as far as Persia. However, the masses departed for the West and settled in a region called Etelköz. Most historians agree that the Magyars' forced exodus from Levedia occurred around 850.
[T]he Pechenegs who were previously called "Kangar" (for this "Kangar" was a name signifiying nobility and valour among them), these, then, stirred up war against the [Khazars] and, being defeated, were forced to quit their own land and to settle in that of the [Magyars]. And when battle was joined between the [Magyars] and the Pechenegs who were at that time called "Kangar", the army of the [Magyars] was defeated and split into two parts. One part went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia, and they to this day are called by the ancient denomination of the [Magyars] "Sabartoi asphaloi"; but the other part, together with their voivode and chief [Levedi], settled in the western regions, in places called [Etelköz] ... .
Etelköz (c. 850 – c. 895)
Constantine Porphyrogenitus identified Etelköz with the lands where the rivers "Barouch", "Koubou", "Troullos", "Broutos" and "Seretos" run. The last three rivers are identical with the Dniester, the Prut and the Siret, but Spinei refuses the traditional identification of the Barouch with the Dnieper and the Koubou with the Southern Bug. Muslim works based on Al-Jayhani's book show that the Magyars' territory was located between two rivers, the tl and the dwb in the 870s. According to modern scholars, tl may refer to the Volga, the Don or the Dnieper; dwb is identical with the Danube. The Gesta Hungarorum wrote that the Magyars lived in "Scythia", or "Dentumoger"; the latter name suggests that they inhabited the eastern regions of the Pontic steppes in the same period, according to Spinei.
According to Porphyrogenitus, shortly after the Magyars settled in Etelköz, the Khazar Khagan sent his envoys to them, demanding that Levedi visit him. In Khazaria, the Khagan proposed that he would appoint Levedi the supreme head of the confederation of the Magyar tribes in exchange for Levedi's acceptance of his suzerainty. Levedi suggested that the office should be offered to an other voivode, Álmos, or the latter's son, Árpád. Upon the Khagan's proposal, the Magyar chiefs proclaimed Árpád their head. According to Kristó and Spinei, Porphyrogenitus's report preserved the memory of the creation of a central office within the federation of the Magyar tribes. Róna-Tas says that the story relates a "change of dynasty" (the fall of Levedi's family and the emergence of the Árpád dynasty). In contrast with Porphyrogenitus's story, the Gesta Hungarorum says that the Magyar chiefs elected Álmos their first supreme prince.
According to Muslim scholars who wrote of the late 9th-century Magyars, the Magyars had two leaders, the kende and the gyula, the latter being their actual ruler. This report implies that the Khagan granted a Khazar title to the head of the federation of the Magyar tribes, because Ibn Fadlan recorded that the third Khazar dignitary was styled kündür in the 920s. Modern historians also say that the Magyars seem to have adopted the Khazar system of "dual kingship" whereby supreme power was divided between a sacred ruler (the kende) and a military leader (the gyula), but this view is not unanimously accepted.
Between the country of the [Pechenegs] and the country of the Iskil, which belongs to the [Volga Bulgars], lies the first of the Magyar frontiers. ... Their chief rides at the head of 20,000 horsemen. He is named kundah, but the one who actually rules them is called jilah. All the Magyars implicitly obey this ruler in wars of offence and defence. ... Their territory is vast, extending to the Black Sea, into which two rivers flow, one larger than the Oxus. Their campsites are located between these two rivers.
The Kabars – a group of Khazars who rebelled against the Khagan – joined the Magyars in Etelköz, according to Porphyrogenitus. This report shows that the Magyars had got rid of the Khagan's suzerainty. The Kabars were organized into three tribes, but a single chieftain commanded them. Porphyrogenitus also wrote that the Kabars "were promoted to be first" tribe, because they showed themselves "the strongest and most valorous" of the tribes. The text evidence that the Kabars formed the Magyars' vanguard, because nomadic peoples always placed the associated tribes in the most vulnerable position.
The local inhabitants of the regions along the left bank of the Dniester fortified their settlements in the second half of the 9th century because of the the Magyars' arrival, according to Curta. Those lands were inhabited by the Slavic tribe of the Tivertsi in the same period, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle. Ibn Rusta writes that the Magyars subjected the neighboring Slavic peoples, imposing "a heavy tribute on them" and treating them as prisoners. The Magyars also "made piratical raids on the Slavs" and sold those whom captured during these raids to the Byzantines in Kerch in the Crimean peninsula. It was also in the steppes near the Crimea that a band of Magyar warriors attacked the future Saint Cyril the Philosopher "howling like wolves and wishing to kill him", according to the saint's legend. However, the saintly man convinced the Magyars to "release him and his entire retinue in peace".
The Magyars made their first recorded military expedition in Central Europe when they plundered East Francia in 862. Róna-Tas and Spinei say that this raid may have been initiated by Rastislav of Moravia who was at war with Louis the German. In 881, the Magyars returned to East Francia and ransacked the region of Vienna, according to the longer version of the Annals of Salzburg. The same source separately mentioned the Cowari, or Kabars, plundering the region of Kulmberg or Kollmitz in the same year, showing that they still preserved their distinct position. In the early 880s, a "king" of the Magyars had an amicable meeting with Methodius, Archbishop of Moravia, who was returning from Constantinople to Moravia, according to Methodius's legend.
When the King of Hungary came to the lands of the Danube, Methodius wished to see him. And though some were assuming and saying: "He will not escape torment," Methodius went to [the king]. And as befits a sovereign, [the king] received [Methodius] with honor, solemnity, and joy. Having conversed with [Methodius] as befits such men to converse, [the king] dismissed [Methodius] with an embrace an many gifts. Kissing him, [the king] said: "O venerable Father, remember me always in your holy prayers."—The Life of Methodius
The Magyars' military tactics were similar to those applied by the Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Mongols and other nomadic peoples. According to Emperor Leo the Wise, long-distance arrow-fire, surprise attack and feigned retreat were the principal components of their warfare. On the other hand, as the contemporaneous Regino of Prüm observed, the Magyars knew "nothing about ... taking besieged cities". Archaeological research confirm Leo the Wise's report of the use of sabres, bows and arrows by the Magyars. However, in contrast with the emperor's report, spears have rarely been found in Magyar warriors' tombs. Bone-reinforced reflex bows were their most important weapons, with which they could shoot at a specific target within 60–70 metres (200–230 ft).
In battle [the Magyars] do not line up as do the [Byzantines] in three divisions, but in several units of irregular size, linking the divisions close to one another although separated by short distances, so that they give the impression of one battle line. Apart from their battle line, they maintain an additional force that they send out to ambush careless adversaries of theirs or hold in reserve to support a hard-pressed section. ... Frequently they tie the extra horses together to the rear, that is, behind their battle line, as protection for it. They make the depth of the files, that is, the rows, of their battle line irregular because they consider it more important that the line should be thick than deep, and they make their front even and dense. They prefer battles fought at long range, ambushes, encircling their adversaries, simulated withdrawals and wheeling about, and scattered formations.
The Hungarian Conquest (c. 895 – 907)
The Magyars returned to Central Europe in July 892 when they invaded Moravia in alliance with Arnulf, king of East Francia. Two years later, they stormed into the March of Pannonia. They "killed men and old women outright, and carried out the young women alone with them like cattle to satisfy their lusts", according to the Annals of Fulda. Although this source does not refer to an alliance between the Magyars and Svatopluk I of Moravia, most historians agree that the Moravian ruler persuaded them to invade East Francia. The Magyars had several opportunities to collect information on their future homeland during their raids in the Carpathian Basin.
The Samanid emir, Isma'il ibn Ahmad, launched an expedition against the Oghuz Turks in 893, forcing them to invade the Pechenegs. Having been expelled from their homeland between the Volga and the Ural, the Pechenegs departed for the west in search for new pastures. The Magyars had in the meantime invaded Bulgaria in alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Wise. Simeon I of Bulgaria sent envoys to the Pechenegs and persuaded them to storm into Etelköz. The unexpected invasion destroyed the unwarded dwelling places of the Magyars, forcing them to leave the Pontic steppes and seek refuge over the Carpathian Mountains.
The Magyars occupied their new homeland in several phases. They initially settled in the lands east of the Danube. They only invaded the March of Pannonia after Arnulf of East Francia died in 899. They annihilated Moravia before 906, and consolidated their control of the Carpathian Basin through their victory over a Bavarian army in the Battle of Brezalauspurc in 907.
Economy and way of life
Most Neolithic settlements were situated on the banks of rivers and lakes in the proposed original homeland of the Uralic peoples, but no houses have been excavated. The local inhabitants primarily used tools made of stone (especially jasper from the southern regions of the Urals), bone and wood, but baked clay vessels decorated with broken or wavy lines were also found. Their economy was based on fishing, hunting and gathering. Paleolithic drawings on rocks in the Urals depict scenes of hunting for reindeer and moose. The basic Hungarian words connected to these activities – háló (net), íj (bow), nyíl (arrow), ideg (bowstring), and mony (ancient word for egg) – are inherited from the Proto-Uralic period.
The Hungarian words for house (ház), dwelling (lak), door (ajtó) and bed (ágy) are of Proto-Finno-Ugric origin. Houses built in the wider region of the Urals in the 3rd millenium BC show regional differences: in the valley of the Sosva River, square pit-houses were dug deep into the ground; along the Kama River, rectangular semi-pit houses were built. The local people were hunter-gatherers. They used egg-shaped baked clay vessels which were decorated with rhombuses, triangles and other geometrical forms. They buried their dead in shallow graves and showered the body with red ochre. They also put objects (tools, jewels made of pierced boar tusks, and small pendants which formed animal heads) into the graves.
Copper objects manufactured in the Caucasus Mountains indicate that the inhabitants of the lands on both sides of the Ural Mountains had trading contacts with faraway territories around 2000 BC. Words from the Proto-Ugric period – ló ("horse"), nyereg ("saddle"), fék ("bridle"), and szekér ("wagon") – show that those who spoke this language rode horses. Animal husbandry spread on both sides of the Urals from around 1500 BC. The bones of domestic animals (cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and horses) made up 90% of all animal bones excavated in many settlements. Loan words from Proto-Iranian suggest that the Ugric-speaking populations adopted animal husbandry from neighboring peoples. For instance, the Hungarian words for cow (tehén) and milk (tej) are of Proto-Iranian origin. Archaeological finds – including seeds (millet, wheat and barley) and tools (sickles, hoes and spade handles) – prove that the local population also cultivated arable lands.
The Magyars' ancestors gave up their settled way of life because of the northward expansion of the steppes during the last centuries of the 2nd millenium BC. Ethnographic studies of modern nomadic populations suggest that cyclic migrations (a year by year movement between their winter and summer camps) featured their way of life, but they also cultivated arable lands around their winter camps. Most historians agree that the Magyars had a mixed nomadic or semi-nomadic economy, characterized by both the raising of cattle and the cultivation of arable lands. Turkic loanwords in the Hungarian language show that the Magyars adopted many practices of animal husbandry and agriculture from the Turkic peoples between the 5th and 9th centuries. For instance, the Hungarian words for pig (disznó), castrated hog (ártány), ox (ökör), barley (árpa), garden (kert), plough (eke), weed (gyom), refuse of grain (ocsú), fallow land (tarló), and sickle (sarló) are of Turkic origin. Most loanwords were borrowed from Bulgar or other Chuvash-type Turkic language, but both the place and the time of the borrowings are uncertain. The Magyars' connections with the people of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture may have contributed to the development of their agriculture, according to Spinei.
Writing of the late 9th-century Magyars, Ibn Rusta noted that they "dwell in tents and move from place to place in search of pasturage", but during the winters they settled along the nearest river where they lived by fishing. He also said that their "land is well watered and harvests abundand", showing that they had arable lands, although it is unclear whether those lands were cultivated by the Magyars themselves or by their prisoners. Taxes collected from the neighboring peoples, slave trade and plundering raids made the Magyars a wealthy people. Gardezi wrote that they were "a handsome people and of good appearance and their clothes are of silk brocade and their weapons are of silver and are encrusted with pearls", proving their growing wealth. However, 9th-century Byzantine and Muslim coins have rarely been found in the Pontic steppes. Buckles, belt mounts and other objects of the so-called "Subotcy horizon" which were unearthed at Caterinovca, Slobozia and other sites along the middle course of the Dniester show similarities with archaeological finds from the 10th-century Carpathian Basin. These objects were carbon dated to the late 9th century. The same archaeological sites also yielded vessels similar to the pottery of the neighboring Slavic territories.
Crafts practised by the Magyars can primarily studied based on archaeological finds from the Carpathian Basin. 10th-century warriors' graves yielding sabres, arrow-heads, spear-heads, stirrups and snaffle bits made of iron show that blacksmiths had a preeminent role in the militarized Magyar society. Engraved or gilded sabres and sabretache plates (often decorated with precious stones), and golden or silver pectoral disks evidence the Magyar gold- and silversmiths' high level skills. Cemeteries in the Carpathian Basin also yielded scraps of canvas made of flax or hemp. The positioning of metal buttons in the graves shows that the Magyars wore cloths that either opened down the front or were fastened at the neck. Ear-rings were the only accessories that the Magyar warriors wore above their belts, because jewellery on their upper body would have hindered them from firing arrows. In contrast with them, women wore head jewellery decorated with leaf-like pendants, ear-rings, decorated pectoral disks, and rings with gem stones.
A man seeking a bride were expected to pay a bride price to her father before the marriage took place, according to Gardizi's description of the late 9th-century Magyas. The Hungarian word for bridegroom – vőlegény from vevő legény ("purchasing lad") – and the expression eladó lány (verbatim, "bride for sale") confirm the reliability of the Muslim author's report. A decree of Stephen I of Hungary that prohibited the abduction of a girl without her parents' consent implies that the pretended abduction of the bride by her future husband was an integral part of the ancient Magyar matrimonial ceremonies.
Modern scholarly theories of the pagan Magyars' religious beliefs and practises are primarily based on reports by biased medieval authors and prohibitions enacted during the reign of Christian kings. Both Christian and Muslim sources recorded that the Magyars worshipped forces of nature. They gave offering to trees, fountains and stones and made sacrifices at wells, as it is evidenced by the prohibition of those practices during the reign of Ladislaus I of Hungary in the late 11th century. In accordance with the custom of the peoples of the Eurasian steppes, the pagan Magyars took oath on dogs which were cut into two to warn the potential oathbrakers of their fate. Simon of Kéza also wrote of the sacrifice of horses. According to the Gesta Hungarorum, the seven Magyar chiefs confirmed their treaty "in pagan manner with their own blood spilled in a single vessel".
Scholars studying the Magyars' religion also take into account ethnographic analogies, folklore, linguistic evidence and archaeological research. Artifacts depicting a bird of prey or a tree of life imply that both symbols were important elements of the pagan religion. Trepanation – the real or symbolic wounding of the cranium – was widely practised by 10th-century Magyars. Gyula László writes that real trepanations (the openning of the skull by a chiesel and the closing of the wound by a sheet of silver) were actually surgical operations, similarly to those Arab physicians had already practised, whereas symbolic trepanations (the marking of the skull with an incised circle) were aimed at the disposal of a protective talisman on the head. A Hungarian word for cunning (agyafúrt) – verbatim "with a drilled brain" – may reflect these ancient practices, according to Róna-Tas.
The Magyars buried their dead, laying the deceased on their backs, with the arms resting along their bodies or upon their pelvis. A deceased warrior's tomb always contained material connected his horse. Most frequently, its skin, together with the skull and the lower legs, were put into its master's grave, but occasionally only the harness was buried together with the warrior, or the skin of the horse was stuffed with hay before the burial. The Magyars rolled the corpses in textiles or mats, and placed silver plates on the eyes and the mouth.
The existence of shamans among the ancient Magyars cannot be proven, although scholarly theories emphasizing the similarities between the táltos of Hungarian folklore and Siberian shamans exist. Many elements of the Hungarian religious vocabulary are of Turkic origin, including boszorkány ("witch"), elbűvöl ("to charm"), and the ancient Hungarian word for holy (igy or egy). Many of these loanwords was even adopted in the Christian vocabulary: búcsú ("indulgence"), bűn (sin), gyón (confess), isten (God), and ördög (devil). According to Gyula László, a Hungarian children's verse that refers to a fife, a drum and a reed violin preserved the memory of a pagan ritual for expelling harmful spirits by raising great noise.
- Principality of Hungary
- Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore
- List of Hungarian rulers
- Magyar tribes
- Hungarian mythology
- Old Hungarian alphabet
- Hunor and Magor
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 92.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 63.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 32.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 33-34, 93-94.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 93-95.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 64.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 109-112.
- Kristó 1996, p. 7.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 45.
- Harmatta 1997, pp. 120, 123.
- Harmatta 1997, pp. 122-123.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 61.
- Kristó 1996, p. 8.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 7-8.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 297-298.
- Kristó 1996, p. 15.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 54.
- Tóth 2005, p. 47.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 53.
- Tóth 1998, p. 10.
- Kristó 1996, p. 103.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 69.
- Zimonyi 2005, p. 88.
- Tóth 2005, p. 49.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 57.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 60-61.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 62.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 489.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 58.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 490.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 59.
- Macartney 1953, p. 59.
- Langó 2005, p. 175.
- Langó 2005, p. 296.
- Türk 2012, pp. 2-3.
- Langó 2005, p. 299.
- Curta 2006, p. 124.
- Spinei 2003, p. 13.
- Kristó 1996, p. 57.
- Gulya 1997, p. 92.
- Gulya 1997, pp. 89, 91.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 303.
- Ertl 2008, p. 358.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 286.
- Kristó 1996, p. 59.
- Engel 2001, p. 10.
- The Annals of St-Bertin (year 862), p. 102
- Kristó 1996, p. 78.
- The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (year 889), p. 202.
- Fodor 1975, p. 37.
- Fodor 1975, p. 38.
- The Taktika of Leo VI (18.41), p. 453.
- Kristó 1996, p. 79.
- Kristó 1996, p. 119.
- Macartney 1953, p. 100.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 328.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 119-120.
- Kristó 1996, p. 120.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 120-121.
- Simon of Kéza: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 1.4-5), pp. 13-17.
- Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 5), p. 17.
- Kristó 1996, p. 81.
- Engel 2001, p. 121.
- Kontler 1999, pp. 100-101.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 37-38.
- Szíj 2005, p. 118.
- Szíj 2005, p. 119.
- Tóth 2005, p. 54.
- Fodor 1975, p. 39.
- Szíj 2005, p. 150.
- Tóth 2005, pp. 77-79.
- Tóth 2005, p. 77.
- Tóth 2005, p. 78.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 62.
- Kontler 1999, p. 34.
- Fodor 1975, p. 49.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 173.
- Molnár 2001, pp. 4-5.
- Salminen, Tapani (2002). "Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies". Лингвистический беспредел: сборник статей к 70-летию А. И. Кузнецовой (Издательство Московского университета): 44–55. Retrieved 22 November 2014.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 93-94.
- Klima 2004, p. 20.
- Fodor 1975, p. 48.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 317.
- Fodor 1975, p. 54.
- Fodor 1975, p. 75.
- Kontler 1999, p. 36.
- Veres 2004, p. 34.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 318.
- Csorba 1997, p. 19.
- Csorba 1997, pp. 23-24.
- Veres 2004, p. 35.
- Kristó 1996, p. 31.
- Kontler 1999, pp. 36-37.
- Kontler 1999, p. 37.
- Csorba 1997, p. 32.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 195.
- Fodor 1975, p. 180.
- Kristó 1996, p. 32.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 319.
- Fodor 1975, p. 201.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 180-181.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 193-194.
- Fodor 1975, p. 202.
- Fodor 1975, p. 203.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 209.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 209-213, 230-231.
- Engel 2001, pp. 9-10.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 105.
- Macartney 1953, pp. 85-86.
- Fodor 1975, p. 197.
- Fodor 1975, p. 198, 201.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 429.
- Tóth 1998, p. 15.
- Kristó 1996, p. 87.
- Kristó 1996, p. 68.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 15-16.
- Kristó 1996, p. 65.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 67-68.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 121, 429.
- Fodor 1975, p. 206.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 122-123.
- Kristó 1996, p. 35.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 323.
- Sinor, Denis (1958). "The outlines of Hungarian prehistory". Cahiers d'histoire mondiale (International Commission for a History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind) 4 (3): 513–540. Retrieved 27 November 2014.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 49-50.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 38), p. 171.
- Fodor 1975, p. 213.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 418.
- Kristó 1996, p. 108.
- Kristó 1996, p. 110.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 87, 132.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 210-211.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 288.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 139-140.
- Spinei 2003, p. 43.
- Curta 2006, pp. 156-157.
- Curta 2006, p. 157.
- The Annals of St-Bertin (year 839), p. 44.
- Curta 2006, p. 123.
- Kristó 1996, p. 86.
- Ibn Rusta on the Magyars, p. 122.
- Brook 2006, p. 31.
- Kristó 1996, p. 16.
- Spinei 2003, p. 40.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 230.
- Kristó 1996, p. 125.
- Spinei 2003, p. 41.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 139-140.
- Kristó 1996, p. 131.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 230, 417.
- Szabados 2011, p. 96.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 72.
- Kristó 1996, p. 116.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 30-31.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 105.
- Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Prologue), p. 3.
- The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle (ch. 27), p. 98.
- Kristó 1996, p. 117.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 40), p. 179.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, pp. 105-106.
- Engel 2001, p. 19.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 340.
- Brook 2006, p. 142.
- Kristó 1996, p. 107.
- Kristó 1996, p. 145.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 42-43.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 144, 147.
- Kristó 1996, p. 144.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 38), pp. 171-173.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 38), p. 175.
- Spinei 2003, p. 44.
- Kristó 1996, p. 156.
- Kristó 1996, p. 157.
- Fodor 1975, p. 248.
- Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (ch. 1), p. 5.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 52-53.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 416.
- Kristó 1996, p. 159.
- Spinei 2003, p. 33.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 164-165.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 417.
- Fodor 1975, p. 250.
- Fodor 1975, p. 236.
- Kristó 1996, p. 136.
- Engel 2001, p. 18.
- Cartledge 2011, p. 55.
- Engel 2001, p. 22.
- Kristó 1996, p. 148.
- Spinei 2003, p. 51.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 152-153.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (ch. 39), p. 175.
- Kristó 1996, p. 153.
- Curta 2006, p. 185.
- Fodor 1975, p. 251.
- The Life of Constantine (ch.8), p. 45.
- Molnár 2001, p. 11.
- Spinei 2003, p. 50.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 331.
- Kristó 1996, p. 150.
- Brook 2006, p. 143.
- László 1996, p. 43.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 175, 219.
- Spinei 2003, p. 36.
- Fodor 1975, p. 261.
- The Life of Methodius (ch.16), p. 125.
- László 1996, p. 127.
- Engel 2001, p. 15.
- Engel 2001, p. 16.
- Fodor 1975, p. 263.
- The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (year 889), p. 205.
- Spinei 2003, p. 19.
- László 1996, pp. 128-129.
- László 1996, p. 129.
- Fodor 1975, p. 299.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 127.
- The Taktika of Leo VI (18.53–56), p. 457.
- Fodor 1975, p. 278.
- Kristó 1996, p. 175.
- The Annals of Fulda (year 894), p. 129.
- Kristó 1996, p. 178.
- Fodor 1975, p. 280.
- Spinei 2003, p. 53.
- Cartledge 2011, pp. 5-6.
- Cartledge 2011, p. 6.
- Molnár 2001, p. 13.
- Curta 2006, p. 188.
- Engel 2001, pp. 12-13.
- Cartledge 2011, p. 8.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 69-70.
- Fodor 1975, p. 61.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 62-65.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 66-71.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 66-69.
- Kontler 1999, pp. 34-36.
- Fodor 1975, p. 78.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 76-77.
- Fodor 1975, p. 80.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 80-81.
- Fodor 1975, p. 81.
- Fodor 1975, p. 92.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 99.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 103-105, 121, 126.
- Fodor 1975, p. 105.
- Fodor 1975, p. 104.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 106, 126.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 182, 184.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 110.
- Kristó 1996, pp. 44, 46.
- Spinei 2003, p. 22.
- Fodor 1975, p. 249.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 261-262.
- László 1996, p. 195.
- Kovács 2005, p. 355.
- Türk 2012, p. 3.
- Spinei 2003, p. 24.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 298-299.
- Fodor 1975, pp. 299-308.
- László 1996, pp. 110-111.
- László 1996, p. 117.
- László 1996, p. 118.
- László 1996, p. 122.
- László 1996, pp. 123-124.
- László 1996, pp. 135-136.
- László 1996, p. 135.
- Csorba 1997, p. 46.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 133.
- Engel 2001, p. 47.
- Spinei 2003, p. 35.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, pp. 132-133.
- László 1996, p. 148.
- László 1996, pp. 147-148.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 366.
- Spinei 2003, p. 37.
- Róna-Tas 1999, p. 368.
- Spinei 2003, pp. 37-39.
- Spinei 2003, p. 39.
- Berend, Urbańczyk & Wiszewski 2013, p. 134.
- László 1996, pp. 140-141.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 364, 366.
- Róna-Tas 1999, pp. 366-367.
- László 1996, pp. 133-134.
- Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited, Translated and Annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy) (2010). In: Rady, Martyn; Veszprémy, László; Bak, János M. (2010); Anonymus and Master Roger; CEU Press; ISBN 978-963-9776-95-1.
- Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (Greek text edited by Gyula Moravcsik, English translation by Romillyi J. H. Jenkins) (1967). Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. ISBN 0-88402-021-5.
- "Ibn Rusta on the Magyars 903-913" (2012). In: Ibn Fadlān: Ibn Fadlān on the Land of Darkness: Arab Travellers in the Far North (Translated with an Introduction by Paul Lunde and Caroline Stone) (2012) ; Penguin Books; ISBN 978-0-140-45507-6.
- Simon of Kéza: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited and translated by László Veszprémy and Frank Schaer with a study by Jenő Szűcs) (1999). CEU Press. ISBN 963-9116-31-9.
- The Annals of Fulda (Ninth-Century Histories, Volume II) (Translated and annotated by Timothy Reuter) (1992). Manchaster University Press. ISBN 0-7190-3458-2.
- The Annals of St-Bertin (Ninth-Century Histories, Volume I) (Translated and annotated by Janet L. Nelson) (1991). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3426-8.
- "The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm (2009). In: History and Politics in Late Carolingian and Ottonian Europe: The Chronicle of Regino of Prüm and Adalbert of Magdeburg (Translated and annotated by Simon MacLean); Manchester University Press; ISBN 978-0-7190-7135-5.
- The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum (Edited by Dezső Dercsényi) (1970). Corvina, Taplinger Publishing. ISBN 0-8008-4015-1.
- The Taktika of Leo VI (Text, translation, and commentary by George T. Dennis) (2010). Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-88402-359-3.
- "The Life of Constantine"; "The Life of Methodius" (1983). In: Kantor, Marvin (1983); Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes; pp. 23-161. University of Michigan; ISBN 0-930042-44-1.
- Berend, Nora; Urbańczyk, Przemysław; Wiszewski, Przemysław (2013). Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78156-5.
- Brook, Kevin Alan (2006). The Jews of Khazaria. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4982-1.
- Cartledge, Bryan (2011). The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary. C. Hurst & Co. ISBN 978-1-84904-112-6.
- Csorba, Csaba (1997). Árpád népe [Árpád's People] (in Hungarian). Kulturtrade. ISBN 963-9069-20-5.
- Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.
- Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. ISBN 1-86064-061-3.
- Ertl, Alan W. (2008). Toward an Understanding of Europe: A Political Economic Précis of Continental Integration. Universal-Publishers. ISBN 9781599429830.
- Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.
- Gulya, János (1997). "A magyarok önelnevezésének eredete [Origin of the self-designation of the Hungarians]". In Kovács, László; Veszprémy, László. Honfoglalás és nyelvészet [The Hungarian Conquest and Linguistics]. Balassi Kiadó. pp. 85–97. ISBN 963-506-108-0.
- Harmatta, János (1997). "A magyarok nevei görög nyelvű forrásokban [The Hungarians' ethnonyms in Greek sources]". In Kovács, László; Veszprémy, László. Honfoglalás és nyelvészet [The Hungarian Conquest and Linguistics]. Balassi Kiadó. pp. 119–140. ISBN 963-506-108-0.
- Klima, László (2004). "The history of research on the ancestral Uralic homeland". In Nanovfszky, György. The Finno-Ugric World. Teleki László Foundation. pp. 15–24. ISBN 963-7081-01-1.
- Kontler, László (1999). Millennium in Central Europe: A History of Hungary. Atlantisz Publishing House. ISBN 963-9165-37-9.
- Kovács, László (2005). "Remarks on the archaeological remains of the 9th-10th century Hungarians". In Mende, Balázs Gusztáv. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: Review: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the Institute of Archaeology of the HAS, 2003-2004. Archaeological Institute of the HAS. pp. 351–368. ISBN 963-7391-87-8.
- Kristó, Gyula (1996). Hungarian History in the Ninth Century. Szegedi Középkorász Muhely. ISBN 963-482-113-8.
- Langó, Péter (2005). "Archaeological research on the conquering Hungarians: a review". In Mende, Balázs Gusztáv. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: Review: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the Institute of Archaeology of the HAS, 2003-2004. Archaeological Institute of the HAS. pp. 175–340. ISBN 963-7391-87-8.
- László, Gyula (1996). The Magyars: Their Life and Civilisation. Corvina. ISBN 963-13-4226-3.
- Macartney, C. A. (1953). The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical & Analytical Guide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-08051-4.
- Molnár, Miklós (2001). A Concise History of Hungary. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66736-4.
- Róna-Tas, András (1999). Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History (Translated by Nicholas Bodoczky). CEU Press. ISBN 978-963-9116-48-1.
- Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). ISBN 973-85894-5-2.
- Szabados, György (2011). Magyar államalapítások a IX-X. században [Foundations of the Hungarian States in the 9th-10th Centuries] (in Hungarian). Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 978-963-08-2083-7.
- Szíj, Enikő (2005). "The past and present of the research on the prehistory of the Hungarians:Historiography". In Mende, Balázs Gusztáv. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: Review: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the Institute of Archaeology of the HAS, 2003-2004. Archaeological Institute of the HAS. pp. 115–156. ISBN 963-7391-87-8.
- Tóth, Sándor László (1998). Levédiától a Kárpát-medencéig [From Levedia to the Carpathian Basin] (in Hungarian). Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-482-175-8.
- Tóth, Sándor László (2005). "The past and present of the research on the prehistory of the Hungarians:Historiography". In Mende, Balázs Gusztáv. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: Review: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the Institute of Archaeology of the HAS, 2003-2004. Archaeological Institute of the HAS. pp. 45–86. ISBN 963-7391-87-8.
- Türk, Attila (Summer 2012). "The new archaeological research design for early Hungarian history". Hungarian Archaeology (www.hungarianarchaeology.hu). Retrieved 9 December 2014.
- Veres, Péter (2004). "The Uralic and Hungarian ancestral homeland: the state of current research". In Nanovfszky, György. The Finno-Ugric World. Teleki László Foundation. pp. 31–36. ISBN 963-7081-01-1.
- Zimonyi, István (2005). "The state of the research on the prehistory of the Hungarians: Historiography (Oriental sources, history of the Steppe)". In Mende, Balázs Gusztáv. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: Review: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the Institute of Archaeology of the HAS, 2003-2004. Archaeological Institute of the HAS. pp. 87–102. ISBN 963-7391-87-8.
- Bowlus, Charles R. (1994). Franks, Moravians and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3276-3.
- Makkai, László (1994). "The Hungarians' prehistory, their conquest of Hungary and their raids to the West to 955". In Sugar, Peter F.; Hanák, Péter; Frank, Tibor. A History of Hungary. Indiana University Press. pp. 8–14. ISBN 0-253-35578-8.
- Hofer, Tamás (Fall 1996). "Ethnography and Hungarian Prehistory (Edited version of a lecture held at the conference "Ethnography and Prehistory," organized by the Hungarian Prehistoric Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on December 5, 1995)". Budapesti Könyvszemle - BUKSZ. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
- Alinei, Mario (2003). "Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian". Retrieved 9 December 2014.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Prehistory of Hungary.|