Talk:Hungarian prehistory

"False theories of"

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV is needed here, but would you go step by step? Don't make huge changes with only a partial explanation in the edit summary and putting three(!) fact tags in one sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"I would prefer to see the various sources for that section properly cited and also cite the mainstream claims that it is pseudoscience" - this sounds like concensus reached about deletion?? Squash Racket (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What to do about this article?

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

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

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

Soooo... I'm trying to modify this article by presenting the different theories of "Hungarian prehistory", but since I don't read much Hungarian [1] and the different claims in the article were not cited, I can't tell what came from Istvan Kiszely and what was Fred Hamori's interpretation. So please excuse me if I cite someone wrong or remove something. I expect you all to correct me. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Blood Groups in Suomi (Finland) and Unkari (Hungary)

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

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

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

Dentumogeria and Levedia

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

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

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

Sources

Honestly, the whole sources section could really be split off into some other article entitled perhaps like Sources for Hungarian prehistory. If any of you are familiar with Rona-Tas' book Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, you'll know that he devotes more than 100 pages for a chapter on sources alone. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. There used to be such a page, but it looks like it was of little value and got merged. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sources_of_early_Hungarian_history&oldid=145330230 --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize it is the holidays and people who may want to comment on my changes haven't had a chance yet, but I really want to see how my improvements bare out. So I jumped the gun and restored Sources of early Hungarian history, moved it to Sources for Hungarian prehistory, then moved the sources section to it. The only thing I'm unsure of is which books listed in the References section should be moved/copied over. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inanna

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

From the article:

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

How about something like:

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

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

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

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

Disputed

I have reinserted the deleted tags from the article. The article clearly needs more citations and I indicated the most urgent places. Exceptional claims need exceptional references, so please do not cite obscure websites, but real peer-reviewed academic works. In addition to missing citations, here are points with doubtful accuracy and neutrality. I hope someone here will be able to fix them:

• I do not know any evidence supporting the article's claim that Onogurs were part of Xiongnu.
• The Hunnic origin of Székely is a medieval myth and should be presented as such.
• The article claims "The place where the Magyars could first be identified as a distinct people was supposedly Central Asia in the end of the 3rd or beginning of 4th century AD." What does the word "supposedly" mean here? Who says so? What is the evidence?
• The presence of Magyars in Central Asia seems to be based on two toponyms distantly resembling the word Magyar. Is this original research or this claim can be supported by published sources?
• Al-Makdisi and al-Biruni could hardly write about Magyars living in Central Asia in the 3rd century because these two gentlemen lived in the 10th and 11th century.
• The "Speculations on mythic origins"section is not appropriate. A modern encyclopedia should not claim than a nation may descend from the Biblical patriarch Japheth or the Sumerian goddess Inanna. The whole section is written in an uncritical way and should be either removed or profoundly revised. Tankred (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Best! - a concerned Sumerian