It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Hungarian mystery

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:44 AM
its funny but that study hansy cites for the siberian orgin of hungarians was a study that was thrown out there and rolled around a bit too.

"-----4 archaeologically Hungarian bone samples from the 10th century were studied for this polymorphism. Among the modern individuals, only one Szekler carries the Tat C allele, whereas out of the four skeletal remains, two possess the allele. The latter finding, even allowing for the low sample number, appears to indicate a Siberian lineage of the invading Hungarians, which later has largely disappeared." B. Csányi et al.------

they failed to prove where the 4 bodies grew up and that they were part of the conquest [because lets face it... tat c was hugely prevalent in the carpathian basin well before the hungarians got there what with the previous 600 years of huns and avars running around]

so in short... this is not the study that determines where they were from. ... seems there is as much siberian in them now as there is martian.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by HiAliens

Howdy HiAliens

I use wikipedia as a start, as usually they have a good summary - I've written articles for Wikipedia so I know there is value there!

Ah so you want something more intellectual eh?

This discusses the fallacy of comparing word lists. Basically languages change over time, so if two languages split from a common language thousands of years ago -THEY WOULDN'T be the same.


Conclusions from the link above
It will be seen from the above that the general nature of the main problem with the linguistic aspects of most of these theories/claims is very much the same. The authors, relying largely on ‘common sense’ examination of superficial similarities and knowing little or nothing of historical linguistics itself, are ‘stuck’ in the eighteenth century; they are not even failing to re-invent the ‘wheel’ of careful comparative reconstruction, because they have not seen that this ‘wheel’ is necessary, and because the ‘easy’ method of relying on superficial similarities can readily be applied in such a way as to ‘support’ their nationalistic ideas or their revisionist histories.

Being isolated, private workers or small groups of the like-minded, each with a conviction that they alone are right, they do not talk to each other, and so they do not observe that the same unreliable methods ‘work’ more or less equally well for all of their mutually contradictory claims. (If they do ever talk to each other, the discussion usually descends rapidly into mutual vituperation, as noted in the case of Nyland and Kaya.) One can persuade oneself, using such methods, that any two languages are related; as noted, linguists faced with such ideas have occasionally done just this (e.g., for Mayan and English), as a tour-de-force. Even when linguists do make a supportive contribution, they are mainly those who are themselves on the ‘fringe’ of academic scholarship; if they were not, they would scarcely be involved in such ideas.

But in some areas there is hope! I referred above to the occasional involvement of mainstream linguists in commenting on such views; and I myself have been used by the Saturnists as a consultant! They know very well what my own views are, and they have their own ‘pet’ linguists already; but unlike many amateurs they do seem to have some respect for my expertise and they say they intend to try to take my criticisms on board. Of course, I will not induce them to abandon Saturnism; the linguistic nonsense (for so it is) is only a small part of their system of ideas. But perhaps, with my (to them, novel) criticisms, I will be able to show them why their method of finding linguistic connections around the world is as dangerous as it is; and just maybe, if they fail to defend this method even to their own satisfaction, they may even give it up and rely only on non-linguistic evidence. I have now indeed managed to exert similar influence on Seath, who was already the most moderate of the New Zealand diffusionists.

Where such success is obtained, specialists in other disciplines can then chip away further at the non-linguistic aspects of each case, if so motivated. In the meantime, non-linguists who are inclined to become followers of any of these claims can be given authoritative information which should deter them from accepting the linguistic arguments, specifically, as valid. And at the very least I myself am continuing to learn more about these dark outer regions of the world of linguistics.

1. An earlier and shorter version of this article appeared as ‘Linguistic reconstruction and revisionist accounts of ancient history’ in: The Skeptic (Australia) 20 :2 (2000), pp 42-47.

[edit on 20/2/09 by Hanslune]

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:19 AM
Howdy Hans,
Thanks for the article you posted. There's some interesting information. I definitely think solely comparing word lists could be a mistake. A decent investigator would have to look at historical and archaelogical evidence too. I don't know what your views on the subject are, but I think at some point in mans history there may have been a "golden-age" where people travelled all over the world, and this has been erased from history.

Is there any truth to the "Hungarian Indians" theory? I have no idea, but I am going to do more research on it for fun.

The linguistic debates are interesting, while I can't come down on one side or the other, it appears that linguists are deeply divided as to the true origins and roots of earth's languages. This shows me that there are plenty of mysteries waiting to be discovered. I believe at some point way before 1492 there was an era of trade and interaction between Europe and the Americas.

Any ATS member knows that the mainstream "established" views are riddled with holes and inaccuracies. Despite this, we can't just jump on the first crackpot theory that comes along.

Wikipedia is the best jumping off point for any study. I use it all the time myself. However, when I research subjects that I know something about, such as geopolitics, nutrition and medicine- its articles range from sorely lacking to borderline lies. I can only assume that this poor coverage extends into subjects I don't know about, and so I'm very wary...

[edit on 21-2-2009 by HiAliens]

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by HiAliens

Howdy HA

Any ATS member knows that the mainstream "established" views are riddled with holes and inaccuracies.

Not really, compared to the fringe versions of archaeology they are monolithics scuptures of pure beauty. In reality there are lots of missing pieces and many questions to be answered in what might be called the concensus view. There is no 'established view' . They however are well evidence compared to alternative views.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:35 PM
off topic post removed
edit on 28-10-2010 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by SpookyVince
According to lots of research, the Hungarian language (Magyar) has no root in Latin, Slavic, Persian, Arabic and no other known language. It is simply unique.

Anyone with ideas/infos on this? Some stories (sorry, no links at the moment, I'll post if I find some) claim that the origin of the hungarian people and language is to be sought in a lost UFO that landed on earth ages ago...

Curiously a lot of big scientific minds came out of Hungary: Nikola Tesla, John von Neumann, Edward Teller, Theodore von K�rm�n... Lots of others.

Especially hungarians (if any reading this?)are welcome to comment as they are probably more keen to know any legend/stories/facts that come with this...

Nikola Tesla was not Hungarian:

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла) (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was an inventor and a mechanical and electrical engineer. Tesla was born in the village of Smiljan near the town of Gospić, in Croatia (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). He was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen.

John von Neumann was from a Jewish ethnical background:

The eldest of three brothers, von Neumann was born Neumann János Lajos (in Hungarian the family name comes first) in Budapest, Hungary, to a wealthy non-practicing Jewish family. His father was Neumann Miksa (Max Neumann), a lawyer who worked in a bank. His mother was Kann Margit (Margaret Kann). Von Neumann's ancestors had originally immigrated to Hungary from Russia.

Edward Teller was a Jew, born in Hungary:

Teller was born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary (now Hungary) to a Jewish family.

Theodore von Kármán was another Jew, born in Hungary too:

Von Kármán was born into a Jewish family at Budapest, Austria-Hungary as Kármán Tódor. One of his ancestors was Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel.

As you can see now, Hungarians, as well as Jews are as terrestrial as the rest of us.

Perhaps we could find more Jews among the list of Hungarian noble prize winners, but that would not come as a surprise to me.

I am not Hungarian (and not Jew either), but I live in Hungary, and here Hungarians often claim that even Gene Simmons (bass player from KISS) is Hungarian.

Gene Simmons

Simmons was born in Haifa, Israel, and immigrated to New York City at the age of eight, with his mother Florence Klein—a Jewish Hungarian immigrant. Florence and her brother, Larry Klein, were the only two members of her family to survive the Holocaust. His father, Feri Witz, did not accompany them to the U.S. When Simmons was young, his mother's long absences while working two jobs in order to make ends meet left emotional scars that gave him a strong desire for wealth. After arriving in the U.S., he took the name Eugene Klein (later Gene Klein), Klein being his mother's maiden name. In the late 1960s, he changed his name to Gene Simmons.

Do not let yourself to get confused, Hungarians are really nice people who love a lot their cultural heritage.

The language is strange, and I even heard once that someone claimed it could be linked it to "the mayas" because in Hungarian, the word Hungarian is "Magyar".
Does it make sense to you?, be my guest... :-)

Hungarian language does not belong to the Indo-European Family of languages, Finnish and Estonian are its closest European relatives, but they can not understand each-other.
In Spain for example you can find the Basque Country, they also have a strange language that is unrelated to the Indo-European linguistic Family.

However I doubt there could be an alien origin behind the "Euskera"-speakers either.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM
I had a fencing teacher that was hungarian, he was very hungarian in that old world sort of way .
The man was a master at the saber, several olympic medals and he coached the hungarian national team.
Any way, if he had stayed here longer I would have learned hungarian. I learned a little, but have since forgotten.

Hungarians from equador? not buying it.

The real hungarian mystery is what happend to the tens of TONS of gold , silver and other valubles that the huns extracted from the roman empire as tribute.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:42 AM
Basque is the only non-Indo-European language still spoken in Europe

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:39 AM
Hi there you all,

I'm Hungarian and I can confirm, that Hungarian language somehow does not fit in the European community. In this map you can see that

Hungarian language is not similar to any countries really in Europe. (Centre of Romania is also Hungarian, because before the World Wars, half of Romania was part of Hungary) In the next picture you can see that the roots of the language also shows this:

the closest languages are Finnish and Estonian. But they are a totally different branch of languages (Finno-permian). It is like comparing Russian to French. They are both Indo-european but the first is Slavic the second is Romanic branch. The same way Finnish and Estonian has nothing to do with Hungarian language...

As far as I know from history class the Finno-ugrian tribes came from Mongolia, and at some part (around where western Russia is now) two tribes separated, one went to north (Estonia and then from there to Finland) and one went to the south (Turkey then from there to Hungary).

At the second picture you can see that Altaic and Uralic languages. As far as I know the countries that speak these languages had much in common a long time ago (Mongolia, Turkey, Hungary, Estonia, Finland). But it is still a mistery how did we (Hungarians) really end up in the center of Europe.

One obvious evidence that Hungarian and Finnish tribes were once a single tribe is my family name for example. I didn't even know it until a few years that my family name is Finnish and I don't have any family roots to Finland going back for several hundred years.

And yes I also heard that there are so many connections between the ancient Sumerian language and Hungarian but I don't know how that is possible. From what we know, Hungarian tribes were fundamentally asian, but nowdays we look just like any other european. Normal. That is another mistery.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:45 AM
All i believe is that Greek and Latin are the root for the languages originated in the western world. There might be controversies ,but in the book written by Norman Lewis, he is stating at his etymological facts.


posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:21 AM
Although I was born in Australia both my parents are 100% Hungarian and I still speak a little, but as we speak English for the most part now, I've forgotten a great deal of the language... I still understand it quite well though and would pick it up in no time, were I to go live in Hungary for a couple months.

The funny thing is, right now I happen to be living in Ecuador so when I came across the Hungarian-Ecuador connection, you could say I my interest was 'peeked' -- lol.

Probably just me but I have always felt some sort of connection with south America, I mean, I've been wanting to come here since I was around 10.

Very interesting topic nonetheless. For anyone interested here is a link to the actual site where a more thorough look into the Hungarian-Ecuador connection has been presented.

Magyars and Morics - The Hungarian-Ecuador Connection

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:28 AM
Mongolia and Hungary

According to theories, Hungarians originated from beyond the Ural Mountains, next to Mongolia.

Wiki: Uralic languages

For example, the word for "language" is similar in Finnish (kieli), Estonian (keel) and Mongolian (хэл (hel)).

Long before the Mongols invaded Europe, the Hungarian army used similar tactics as the Mongols.

Wiki: Mongol invasion of Europe

An interesting aspect is that the former tactics of the Hungarian army were similar to those of the Mongols, but had been forgotten by 1241.


The Hungarians stopped using these tactics in the 11th century

Hungarian-Mongolian Cooperation Underway

Mar 11 2010

According to historical theories Hungarians originated from beyond the Ural Mountains, next to current day Mongolia. Former Hungarian Finance Minister and National bank Governor zsigmond Jarai, started his economic career as a banker in Mongolia.

Historically this is also the Mongolian MP’s first foreign visit since his appointment in the end of 2009. “My visit to Hungary is extremely important for the Mongolian people,” he told journalists at the press conference.

Hungary’s nationalist PM calls for reunification of 15-mil Magyars

May 3 2010

Hungary’s new Prime Minister Viktor Orban has always voiced that he will be the premier for an estimated 15 million Hungarians worldwide. This has raised eyebrows in neighboring countries and the European Union (of which Hungary has been a member of since May 1, 2004) as they fear the conservative PM may renew old historical Hungarian territorial claims

Treaty of Trianon

The Treaty of Trianon was the peace treaty concluded in 1920 at the end of World War I by the Allies of World War I, on one side, and Hungary, seen as a successor of Austria-Hungary, on the other. The treaty established the borders of Hungary and regulated its international situation. Hungary was shorn of over 72% of the territory it had previously controlled

Nostradamus' "Great King of terror" supposedly comes from Mongolia, and is described as a re-awakened Genghis Khan. Was he born in July 1999 and will make his presence known some time in the future? This is highly speculative, of course, but fans of Nostradamus might find it interesting.


Btw, Leslie Mándoki from the well-known German band Dschinghis Khan is Hungarian.

Leslie Mandoki - Mother Europe

I hope I didn't go too far off topic here, but it all ties together somehow...

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:19 PM
Check out this excellent new thread:

Is the Hungarian Language Sumerian?

"Hungarian, Sumerian and Mongolian being related languages"...

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by Byrd

Byrd. You said : "Hungarians actually didn't write until they were Christianized. They use an offshoot of the Roman alphabet, as you can see here on Omniglot".

That's simply not true. The Hungarians had a more sophisticated written language called "rovás írás" (score writing or runic writing) which was forcefully abandoned because of political reasons. And your source (omniglot) is not very authentic because it states that the first Hungarian writing is from the 12th century and it was in latin. If the writer would've put a little bit more effort into it, he (or she) would've known that the oldest one was from 1055 (the letter of foundation of the abbey of Tihany by András the 1st) and it was written in (ancient) hungarian. In fact, it's more sophisticated than the majority (if not all, but I don't konw all of them so I might be wrong) of the european alphabets since every sound of the language could be described with one letter wich is clearly a sign of a highly developed writing. And it's several thousand years old.

Also: "Wikipedia and a number of linguistic sites contradict this. They say it's Siberian/Finnish in origin and its closest relatives are Siberian languages. "

That's also not true. I'd like to tell you and everyone else a little bit about the so-called finno-ugric theory. As it is, it's untrue. It was created in the 18th century by linguists who didn't even speak hungarian. Previous to that no Hungarian writing mentioned the finno-ugric origin, ever. Still it is true that the finnish and the hungarian language have a distant connection, but they are not sibiling-languages. The finnish scientists themselves say that the finnish lived at their current place for the last 10000 years at least. But the Hungarians came in only about eleven hundred years ago. So how come? Also recent genetic researches show that they are not relatives (actually the closest people ,geneticly , to the Hungarians are the polish, the ukraine and the croatians, but also only very distantly).

And since this comment has already become very long, I'd like to make a few statements in connection with the Hungarian origins which I can try to explain in detail if required.
Yes, there is a connection between sumerian and hungarian.
No, the Huns are not the same (though they are close relatives).
No, the turkish are not the same (though there are strong connections)
No, the Hungarians are not a slavic people.
Yes, the Hungarians, their culture and their language is "alien" to the rest of the european cultures and languages but not alien to Europe.

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by Byrd

This is not true.The hungarian-sikels have their own ancient alphabet,which is still in folcloric use in parts of Transylvania.The other more fascinating thing is that they just discovered in Bosnia(Europe),a pyramid which is the biggest discovered pyramid in the world.Inside of the pyramid there is a maze of corridors where archeologists found monoliths with ancient hungarian -sikel writing.The pyramids are more than 30.000 years old...Apparently the hugarian people ,language,alphabet are the remains of an ancient civilization,much older then our history books go.I guess is time to rewrite the history of the world...The other interesting thing is for the mainstream media these are not important news...

posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 09:34 PM
i still believe that there is a bigger link between finno-uguric and altaic that often is said. There are just too many similarities to discount this.

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by tomcat ha

Care to explain it in more detail? I'm really curious about those similarities. Especially because I just found out that there was an international genetic research about the european people and it came out that all those coming around the ural (the ugric) have a specific genetic marker and the hungarians don't have this marker at all.

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by toolmaker

HUngarian is being researched as tied closely to what was once Sumeria. It is a very ancient language as well.

this just gives me more reasons to try to understand the concepts portrayed in the ancient Mesopotamian texts
I have a long time ago made a mental note to self about people like Tesla who come from there and have an almost Shamanistic link with the subjects they study
more things that make me go ummm...

posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by Echtelior

just the way the language is. Finnish for example to me looks like turkish but with different words and a bigger tendency to make 1 word sentences. In the end Hungarians are central asiatic in origin. (the original magyar tribes)

About them lacking the marker its likely because the original magyar's got assimilated and thus finding traces of their genes has become hard. Or the Magyar might be more central asian in origin.

posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by tomcat ha

Well, for me at least, finnish doesn't sound anything near to the hungarian language. They have less than 500 words common, which is nothing compared to the vocabulary of the hungarian language (estimated 2.5-3 million words in 8 major dialects). Also the genes say that they were europeans already when they came to europe. So this contradicts the central asian origin theory. And the fact that the old hungarian sources (written, myths, etc.) never considered their coming to the carpathian basin as a gaining a new home, but as a returning. Which is very intresting...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in