Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Samuel Hazzard Cross does not associate Volokhi with ancient Romans, but with Vlakhs ("This mention of the Slavs settled among the Vlakhs points to the presence of at least isolated groups of Slavs on the Danube as early as the first and second centuries A.D., and is a reflex of Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105- 106"). "Vlakhs" is the deprecated spelling for "Vlachs": [1] [2]. 123Steller ( talk) 07:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please keep the neutrality regarding the identification of the Volokhi. Also, please read the analysis from here (the chapter Ethnical Criteria in the Gesta Hungarorum and the Russian Primary Chronicle with Special Reference to "Romans" (Romani) and "Blachii" (Vlachi or Voloch)). "The wide range of theories indicates the difficulties involved in identifying the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle, a subject that will continue to spark controversy for a long time to come. It is, in fact, questionable whether an authoritative answer can be found" 123Steller ( talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Cross translates the expression Volokhi and Volkhi in the original text of the Primary Chronicle as Vlachs. However, the identification of the Volokhi and Volkhi as Vlachs (or Romanians) is highly controversial. A remark by Cross himself suggests that he associates the Volokhi with the Romans under Emperor Trajan (note note 29 on page 235 in Cross' cited translation). Ryszard Grzesik (and other scholars) associates the Volokhi/Volkhi with the Franks (page 31 in Grzesik's cited work). If we want to maintain the neutrality of the text, we should use the original expressions (Volokhi/Volkhi) in the translation based on reliable source. This method also enables readers to understand the reasons of the scholarly debate about the report of the Hungarian conquest in the Russian Primary Chronicle. Borsoka ( talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the bolded terms from the lead sentence? They are not proper names of the event but rather descriptive terms, and thus historians do not stick to any one name. A multitude of other such descriptive terms exist in addition to the three listed in the lead sentence (e.g. Magyar invasion, Magyar migration). As MOS:REDUNDANCY says, "the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." So how about we just state what the article is about right away:
A series of events led to the settlement of the Hungarians in Central Europe at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.
Surtsicna ( talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Miki Filigranski!
I see you did this edit: "Recent archaeogenetic studies confirmed their Asian origin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Magyar_tribes&diff=prev&oldid=1101448390
I think this is very simple and not exactly correct, because the situation is more complicated, the old Hungarian tribes were not homogeneousan folks, they had not only Asian origin, they had European-Asian mix, and the European component were more dominant. Even this is the info in your linked source in the pdf link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S0960982222007321/pdf
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
"Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns"
Huns = European Huns
"Hun period samples implies significant Sarmatian influence on European Huns"
"Aside from the immigrant core groups, we identified that the majority of the individuals from each period were local residents harboring “native European” ancestry."
"Most individuals in the study had local European ancestry"
"main admixture sources of Conq_Asia_Core1 were ancient European populations and ancestors of modern Nganasans (Data S6C). The most likely direct source of the European genomes could be Steppe_MLBA populations, as these distributed European ancestry throughout of the Steppe"
"also cluster together with Anatolian and European farmers"
The Ugric group and Sarmatians were Europeans
Other studies confirmed this also:
According to these genetic studies, the vast majority of old Hungarians were Europids. Even a lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red and blonde hair:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
Only: 20% is east Eurasian:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/2
DNA Asian Huns:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”
“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 369–371. "Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD... We find that the Huns have increased shared drift with West Eurasians compared to the Xiongnu... Overall, our data show that the Xiongnu confederation was genetically heterogeneous, and that the Huns emerged following minor male-driven East Asian gene flow into the preceding Sakas that they invaded."
Szolad, there is a Necropolis in Hungary at Lake Balaton. Genetics found the same genetic sample from a Bronze Age individual like the royal Hungarian Arpad dynasty has:
https://indo-european.eu/2020/10/longobards-from-scandinavia-and-the-ural-altaic-arpad-lineage
My understanding: Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China.
The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005002/
"The haplogroup composition of the commoner population markedly differs from that of the elite, and, in contrast to the elite, commoners cluster with European populations."
"the Conqueror elite population originated from an admixture of Asian and European groups on the Pontic steppe."
"suggesting that people with local European origin dominated the ConqC population."
"In anthropological studies, 98 men, 82 women, 74 children (inf I–II), and 20 young (juvenile) individuals have been distinguished; thus there is a male surplus of adults. Taxonomic analysis revealed a predominance of Europeans; Mongoloid traits were observed in four individuals."
"265 individuals were determined, of whom 98 belonged to sub-adult and 162 to adult categories. Based on the skulls suitable for taxonomic studies, the series shows European characteristics with the presence of Cromagnoid and Nordoid elements." OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka
The article says the toponyms were loaned "from a Slavic-speaking population". It does not say anything about them being loaned from a Romanian speaking population, as some supporters of the continuity theory maintain. This creates a POV. My edit aims to restore balance. Aristeus01 ( talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Samuel Hazzard Cross does not associate Volokhi with ancient Romans, but with Vlakhs ("This mention of the Slavs settled among the Vlakhs points to the presence of at least isolated groups of Slavs on the Danube as early as the first and second centuries A.D., and is a reflex of Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105- 106"). "Vlakhs" is the deprecated spelling for "Vlachs": [1] [2]. 123Steller ( talk) 07:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please keep the neutrality regarding the identification of the Volokhi. Also, please read the analysis from here (the chapter Ethnical Criteria in the Gesta Hungarorum and the Russian Primary Chronicle with Special Reference to "Romans" (Romani) and "Blachii" (Vlachi or Voloch)). "The wide range of theories indicates the difficulties involved in identifying the "Volohs" of the Russian Primary Chronicle, a subject that will continue to spark controversy for a long time to come. It is, in fact, questionable whether an authoritative answer can be found" 123Steller ( talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Cross translates the expression Volokhi and Volkhi in the original text of the Primary Chronicle as Vlachs. However, the identification of the Volokhi and Volkhi as Vlachs (or Romanians) is highly controversial. A remark by Cross himself suggests that he associates the Volokhi with the Romans under Emperor Trajan (note note 29 on page 235 in Cross' cited translation). Ryszard Grzesik (and other scholars) associates the Volokhi/Volkhi with the Franks (page 31 in Grzesik's cited work). If we want to maintain the neutrality of the text, we should use the original expressions (Volokhi/Volkhi) in the translation based on reliable source. This method also enables readers to understand the reasons of the scholarly debate about the report of the Hungarian conquest in the Russian Primary Chronicle. Borsoka ( talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the bolded terms from the lead sentence? They are not proper names of the event but rather descriptive terms, and thus historians do not stick to any one name. A multitude of other such descriptive terms exist in addition to the three listed in the lead sentence (e.g. Magyar invasion, Magyar migration). As MOS:REDUNDANCY says, "the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive." So how about we just state what the article is about right away:
A series of events led to the settlement of the Hungarians in Central Europe at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.
Surtsicna ( talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Miki Filigranski!
I see you did this edit: "Recent archaeogenetic studies confirmed their Asian origin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Magyar_tribes&diff=prev&oldid=1101448390
I think this is very simple and not exactly correct, because the situation is more complicated, the old Hungarian tribes were not homogeneousan folks, they had not only Asian origin, they had European-Asian mix, and the European component were more dominant. Even this is the info in your linked source in the pdf link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S0960982222007321/pdf
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
"Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns"
Huns = European Huns
"Hun period samples implies significant Sarmatian influence on European Huns"
"Aside from the immigrant core groups, we identified that the majority of the individuals from each period were local residents harboring “native European” ancestry."
"Most individuals in the study had local European ancestry"
"main admixture sources of Conq_Asia_Core1 were ancient European populations and ancestors of modern Nganasans (Data S6C). The most likely direct source of the European genomes could be Steppe_MLBA populations, as these distributed European ancestry throughout of the Steppe"
"also cluster together with Anatolian and European farmers"
The Ugric group and Sarmatians were Europeans
Other studies confirmed this also:
According to these genetic studies, the vast majority of old Hungarians were Europids. Even a lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red and blonde hair:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
Only: 20% is east Eurasian:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/figures/2
DNA Asian Huns:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”
“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 369–371. "Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD... We find that the Huns have increased shared drift with West Eurasians compared to the Xiongnu... Overall, our data show that the Xiongnu confederation was genetically heterogeneous, and that the Huns emerged following minor male-driven East Asian gene flow into the preceding Sakas that they invaded."
Szolad, there is a Necropolis in Hungary at Lake Balaton. Genetics found the same genetic sample from a Bronze Age individual like the royal Hungarian Arpad dynasty has:
https://indo-european.eu/2020/10/longobards-from-scandinavia-and-the-ural-altaic-arpad-lineage
My understanding: Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China.
The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005002/
"The haplogroup composition of the commoner population markedly differs from that of the elite, and, in contrast to the elite, commoners cluster with European populations."
"the Conqueror elite population originated from an admixture of Asian and European groups on the Pontic steppe."
"suggesting that people with local European origin dominated the ConqC population."
"In anthropological studies, 98 men, 82 women, 74 children (inf I–II), and 20 young (juvenile) individuals have been distinguished; thus there is a male surplus of adults. Taxonomic analysis revealed a predominance of Europeans; Mongoloid traits were observed in four individuals."
"265 individuals were determined, of whom 98 belonged to sub-adult and 162 to adult categories. Based on the skulls suitable for taxonomic studies, the series shows European characteristics with the presence of Cromagnoid and Nordoid elements." OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Borsoka
The article says the toponyms were loaned "from a Slavic-speaking population". It does not say anything about them being loaned from a Romanian speaking population, as some supporters of the continuity theory maintain. This creates a POV. My edit aims to restore balance. Aristeus01 ( talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)