Talk:History of Hungary before the Hungarian conquest

the following is plain fantesy propaganda

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

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

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

title

The title is horrible. How about simply Hungary before the Magyars? --Joy [shallot] 3 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

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

Good idea. KissL 6 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Land conquest in two waves theory

Where is it?? Why do you think this theory is uninteresting??? --fz22 05:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I tend to agree with Juro that this page might not be the right place for it... if his theory saying these were Magyars who came before 890, then it's not "Hungary before the Magyars"... Maybe a briefer mention that some earlier Magyar groups may well have come in with the Avars; but I think Fz22 may have missed the fact that this info originally got moved to Hungarian prehistory (it's still near the bottom at the moment), where all such "alternative" theories about Magyars are more than welcome -- to keep them off this page (that's the whole purpose of that page)! Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 02:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expound the theory in details. What's this article, expecially the age of migration section talk about? It describes the peoples and events of the Carphatina basin from the first settlers to the Magyars conquest, covering the goths, alans, huns, gepidis, and other significant cultures. One of these culture is the late-Avar with its griffin-creeper motif. huge difference regarding bury customs, weapons could be distinguished between the early Avars and late Avar culture.

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

Thanx Juro ;)

Merge tag

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

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

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

New Deletion Tag

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

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

I agree this should not be deleted and I also understand the concern. Perhaps "Carpathian Basin before the Magyars" would work since Pannonia tends to refer specifically to the Roman province. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Pannonia works for pre-Roman times too... I still like this better than "Carpathian basin before the Magyars"... Then again, maybe this article covers identical territory with Pannonia and can be merged there... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

[[{{{Carpatian basin before Turcois}}}]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate link?

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

why "magyar"?

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

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

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