Priscus at the court of Attila the Huns

[Onur]

I'm actually saying it's since the Mesolithic period, so about 10.000 years. You wouldn't understand why, since I already tested you on some of the key points you would need to know to understand it. You can however change that if you start with reading these in order:

http://www.continuitas.org

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com

http://www.proto-english.org

I`ve read few articles in these web sites. I already heard some of these theories b4 but the difference between me and you is;
You accept those claims as the truth and you reflect it in this way in your messages. You gotta know that there is no way to prove any of these claims and unless that happens, you gotta indicate that what you write here is just a theory.

For example, in one of the websites here (http://www.continuitas.org), there are articles of Mario Alinei. He is an Italian and known as one of the biggest linguists in the world and he is actually the one who invented your theory of Paleolithic Continuity.

BUT, he got some theories like Etruscan language was nothing more than a mix of Hungarian and Turkic and Etruscan script (later known as Latin) is similar with Turkic runic alphabet. He even says that Etruscans was being called by Egyptians and Greeks as "Turks". Do you accept this theory too?

I had this in my bookmarks;

Etrusco: Una Forma Arcaica di Ungherese (Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian)
In his new book Mario Alinei aims to prove the family relationship between Etruscan and Hungarian, on the basis of a "theory of continuity" developed during his studies on the origins of European languages. His conclusions are rooted in the extraordinary resemblance of Etruscan and ancient Magyar magistrature names and other, numerous similarities - concerning typologies, lexicon and historical grammar - between the two languages. Thanks to these analogies, the author confirms many Etruscology findings, improves the translation of previously translated texts, and translates formerly untranslatable "talking" texts or only partially translated "bilingual" texts. The final part of the volume is devoted to a review of findings of studies of Etruscan prehistory and the presentation of a new hypothesis relating to the hotly debated issue of when ancient Magyars "conquered" Hungary.

Etruscan words such as mi (I), eca/ita (this), maθ (honey), tin (day) and tur (give) have long persuaded many scholars that Etruscan is a Eurasiatic language, perhaps even an Anatolian language (Bomhard) that split from a common Indo-European stem at a very early stage. The precise nature of its affiliations nevertheless remain obscure. In what is probably the most interesting account of recent years, the Italian dialectologist, Mario Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of Hungarian with extensive Türkic borrowings.

This linguistic proposition rests on two historical/archaeological propositions – an uncontroversial one that the Etruscans came from the Carpathian basin, and a highly controversial one that identifies them as a proto-Hungarian/Uralic people.

The first of these had already been demonstrated by the late 1960s by archaeologists such as Hugh Hencken, who highlighted the cultural continuities between the Urnfeld cultures of Central Europe and the proto-Villanovan cultures of Northern and Central Italy, suggesting that the former culture had introduced a series of innovations to the latter, such as hydraulic engineering, the horse, the sword. Hencken also pointed out that the Urnfelders had probably left their signature among the Sea Peoples who attacked Mycenae and the Egypt of Ramesses III towards the end of the second millennium B.C., in the form of ships with prows in the form of horned birds’ heads, as well as a name cited by Egyptian sources, the Tursha which agrees with the Greek name for the Etruscans, the Tyrsenoi, and as Alinei tentatively suggests, with Türk.

Lawrence Barfield noted that Central Europe was the ‘industrial heartland’ of Bronze Age Europe, whose inhabitants developed their metalworking skills and by extension, the military technology that would have allowed them to become a colonial elite, capable of seeking mineral resources elsewhere and subjugating other less technologically advanced peoples. In this sense, their exploitation of Central Italy’s mineral wealth during the Bronze Age is hardly surprising. Alinei nevertheless believes that this process of gradual infiltration and scouring Europe for high quality mines may have begun as early as the middle of the 3rdmillennium, accelerating during the Polada culture. While the rule seems to have been peaceful coexistence between these Central Europeans and the Italic locals of the Palafitte/Terramare cultures, it appears that around 1250 B.C., migration from the Carpathian basin led to conflict and the overthrow of these local cultures, after which the proto-Etruscans moved into Central Italy and eventually carved out their own state that became the locus of the Villanovan culture.

While the above sequence of events does not necessarily place a Hungarian label on these Bronze Age Urnfeld peoples, it follows from Alinei’s continuity theory (see my review of Origini delle Lingue d’Europa) that Italic speakers are the original occupants of Italy and the Western Mediterranean. Hence, the Etruscans could only be an intrusive presence, despite the claims to the contrary by the classical historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

What has hidden the Uralic affiliations of Etruscan is its highly variable spelling, although Alinei assures us that its latitude is no worse than in Mediaeval Florentine or Venetian texts. If the Etruscans were a warrior aristocracy that was gradually absorbed by its subjects, then it presumably recruited its scribes from its Italic-speaking subjects, who wrote in a vowel-poor alphabet of Semitic origin, thus obscuring the open syllable, agglutinative nature of a Uralic language with extensive vowel harmony.

These links nevertheless become clear when we consider the Etruscan vocabulary for its offices of state. Writing in the 10th century, the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta, noted that Hungarian tribes split their leadership between a warlord wielding de facto executive power, the gyula, and a largely ceremonial but revered king, the kende. Alinei finds that the main offices of the Etruscan state included the ZILA/ZILAΘ/ZILCI/ZILI/ZILX, identifiedby Greek sources as the military commander, and the CANΘE/CAMΘI/CANΘCE, the princes civitatis or leader of the Etruscan community. Then there is the knight, LUCUMO (Hung. ló (horse) + Komi. kom (man)), the two-headed axe, PURΘ (Hung. balta (axe), Chuvash purte), and the land surveyor, MARUNU (Hung. mérő (measure)), to cite but a few examples.

Once one overcomes this hurdle, the relationships become much clearer, the main phonological differences being Etr. θ > Hung. t, Etr. c > Hung. k/h, Etr. z > Hung. gy/cs.

I have chosen the following examples from among the hundreds that Alinei provides togive a flavour of his proposed correspondences, which demonstrate the phonological conservatism of the Uralic languages. (NB Hung. = Hungarian, M. = Manty):

Etr. atranes > Hung. arany (gold) [Alinei points out that this was probably a general FUg borrowing tharana, from Iranian sarańa]; Etr. avil > Hung. év (year); Etr. calu > Hung. hal (die); Etr. caθ/cat/caθinum/caθna > M. kot (sun); Etr. elśsi > Hung. első (first); Etr. fulu (smith) > Hung. fűlő (stoker of fire); Etr. hus > Hung. hős (young); Etr. ilacve > Hung. elégvé/eléggé (sufficient); Etr. iθal > Hung. ital (beverage); Etr. laukh/lux > Hung. ló (horse); Etr. mar- (measure) > Hung. mér-(measure); Etr. nac/nacna > Hung. nagy (big); Etr. parliu (to cook) > Hung. párol (to boil/steam);Etr. rasna (territory, region, country) > Old Hung. resz (region, territory) [from FUg räc3(piece, part)]; Etr. tes/tez > Hung. tesz (do); Etr. uru (Sir, lord) > Hung. úr (landowner, lord); Etr.zilacal (stars) > Hung. csillag (star).

Indeed, with such a key, the Etruscan phrase zilaθ mexl rasnal/s can be read as ‘magistrateof the Etruscan country’. The word rasna which Dionysus of Halicarnassus misread as the Etruscans’ name for themselves is merely the word for country, while Alinei identifies mex as an archaic world for people, similar to magyar.

The origin of the Hungarian nation is traditionally dated to the conquest of its national territory in the Carpathian basin by Arpad in 895 A.D. This view evidently obliges the Hungarians to mill around on the steppes of Central Asia for millennia before they receive a European ‘visa’, and may at first sight be reinforced by the fact that within the Uralic family, Hungarian’s closest relatives are the Obugric languages, Mansi and Khanty, that occupy lands around the upper Ob and Irtush rivers in Western Siberia.

What is highly suspect about this ban is that it does not apply to other Uralic peoples, such as the Finns, Lapps, and Komi, who are thought to have spent the Ice Age in a watery refuge in the Ukraine and Southern Russia before moving North to exploit the new hunting opportunities provided by the retreating glaciers.

In addition, contemporary Arab sources from the 10thcentury onwards, most notably al-Garnarti, writing around 1080, speak of two groups of Hungarians, one living on the Danube and another 2000 km to the East in what is now the Bashkir republic, whose aristocracy was bilingual in Turkish and Hungarian, and which shared the gyula/kende model of kingship with the Khazars. Indeed, it is highly significant these words are of Turkic origin, with Hung. gyula reflecting Bashk. yulaj and kende Tatar [reverence, profound respect].

Archaeological evidence (e.g. from cemeteries) has confirmed the cultural continuities between the two groups. Furthermore, the Hungarian king, Géza I (1074-77) received a crown from the Byzantine emperor inscribed with the legend ‘to Geza, the faithful king of the Turks’. Indeed, the heavily Turkicized character of the Hungarians, as is apparent from their music and mythology, makes it most likely that less discerning classical sources would have labeled them with the hold-all description of Scythes.

On this point, the linguistic evidence is illuminating, in that Hungarian shares a vocabulary with Mansi and Khanty for horses and wagons that is borrowed from Turkic (e.g. Hung. ló, M. low [horse]; PUg. närk3, M. näwrä, Hung. nyerëg [saddle]); PUg. päkka, Kh. päk, Hung. fék [bridle, rein]; PUg. säk3r3, Kh. iker, Hung. szekér [vehicle], but is unique among the Uralic languages in also borrowing its agricultural vocabulary from Turkic (e.g. Hung. eke [plough], Hung. árpa [barley], Hung. búza [wheat], Hung. sajt [cheese], Hung. tinó [ox]).

This suggests that the proto-Hungarians were still united with the Mansi and Khanty at a stage when they were pre-agricultural nomadic pastoralists involved with horse breeding, but that the proto-Hungarians subsequently split away and were introduced to agriculture by another Turkic people. We may also conclude that the Hungarians were not present in Europe at the time they acquired their knowledge of agriculture, since if they had been, we would expect them to have borrowed an Indo-European agricultural vocabulary.

Assuming that by the Neolithic, they were more or less located in the Obugric region, a move South and West across the Urals would have brought them into contact with the Sredny Stog culture, well known as the precursor to the Kurgan culture, which intruded from the steppes into Europe, firstly into Eastern Hungary and Romania where its bearers encountered the Bodrogkeresztúr culture towards the end of the 4th millennium, and later, in greater numbers into the Carpathian basin itself, at the time of the Baden culture (around 2600 B.C.), which Alinei identifies as originally Slavic in origin, explaining the Slavic toponomy of the area. Hence, far from announcing the proto-Balts of Gimbutas’ theory, the Kurgans are actually a manifestation of a Hungarian invasion.

Alinei readily admits that there are areas of Etruscan that have not been explained by his theory, such as its words for numbers. His main point about the Turkic origins of Etruscan vocabulary for offices of state is nevertheless a powerful one. His theory also has the distinct virtue of generating testable hypotheses, most notably regarding the separation of the Hungarians from the Obugric group. If one accepts these, one is obliged to accept a causal chain of events that projects the Hungarians back to a Bronze Age presence in the Carpathian Basin, and by extension, to the Kurgan peoples. Alinei’s linguistic conclusions may thus be as important for Uralic studies as Ventris’ decipherment of Linear B was for Greek.

http://www.hungarianambiance.com/200...ungherese.html

So, do you accept that Etruscans, the forefathers of Latins was Turks??? You keep talking about Mario Alinei`s Paleolithic Continuity Theory. If you believe it that much, then how about this one? He wrote several books about this.

[Delodephius]

I have no problem with that theory. It's quite reasonable. Except to me Turks and Hungarians mean something quite different than what you may think.

You assume to much about me and you have been doing that from the start. Your entire post is one big ruse, and I don't appreciate that. You are going on my ignore list. Good bye.

[Onur]

Haha, you gave me web site links and after i`ve looked at those, i gave you an article and a book written by Mario Alinei, the inventor of your Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Now you say that this post is one big ruse!!!! If this is a ruse, then all your messages here are ruse too cuz it`s propagated by same person!!!


You are just a joke, dear Mr. Slovak. You just pick up what you like and ignore the rest. And yes, you better ignore me cuz it`s obvious that you cant even write a proper response to me. You better not to see it at all, rather than being overwhelmed with it.

[Delodephius]

Meh, f*ck off.

Moving on. Speaking of Germanic languages, I made this video some time ago. It's a reading of Beowulf in Old English/Anglo-Saxon, for those of you who were perhaps wondering how did this language in which we communicate on this forum sounded a thousand years ago. It clearly shows how different it is from modern English, after it went through a process of Normandization. Despite all that, more than 70% of modern English vocabulary is Germanic, yet see how different it is.

YouTube - ‪Beowulf, #2, Old English‬‏

I'm also planning to make a video of Old Saxon, the ancestral language of modern Plat Deutsche.

And here is an example of Gothic, reading of Lukas I from the the Gothic Bible of Wulfilas. The hymn in the back is actually in Old Slavonic/Old Macedonian.

YouTube - ‪Gotische Lesungen -- Lukas I‬‏

And an example of Old Norse sang in the traditional verse.

YouTube - ‪Hávamál, Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson - English subtitles‬‏

[Onur]

Meh, f*ck off.

Hmm, so you didn't ignore me yet! I better push my luck even more!!!

It clearly shows how different it is from modern English, after it went through a process of Normandization.

That`s actually a French touch. It wasn't that peaceful either since it resulted the total massacre of non-christians in England, mostly Saxons.

Thats also an indication of how young the current Angles(English) language is while you prefer to claim 10.000 year old existence of it in England.

And here is an example of Gothic, reading of Lukas I from the the Gothic Bible of Wulfilas.

This is not the original gothic script. This is created by Wulfilas to ease the assimilation process of Germanic people into the Roman christian world. Wulfilas was a Roman and he created this script for this purpose, just like Cyril&Methodius did same thing in Balkans in 4-5 centuries after him.

These are the original Germanic Runic alphabets;

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/runic.htm

[Delodephius]

Thats also an indication of how young the current Angles(English) language is while you prefer to claim 10.000 year old existence of it in England.

Language is a process not a stage.

This is not the original gothic script.

Duh.

This is created by Wulfilas to ease the assimilation process of Germanic people into the Roman christian world.

Don't be silly. I think he created a script that looked less stereotypically barbaric to Romans than a runic script, nothing to do with difficulty of assimilation.

Oh, and this reminds me. I'll have to tell Simon to update that page on the Runes on Omniglot. Some of those tables could be done much better.

[Ottoman]

He doesn't have to mention it. A logical interpretation of the facts and sources would lead to this conclusion, in spite of your personal views.

His family is from Karaman, so how on earth is Ataturk Macedonian?

No such thing as 'Slavic' roots, it's a language, not an ethnicity. And the Slavic-speaking peoples in Macedonia are the Macedonians. So you've just contradicted yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples

Testament of your ignorance.

Take a look in the mirror mate.

[Soldier of Macedon]

His family is from Karaman, so how on earth is Ataturk Macedonian?

We've been through this before. I have never denied that part of his ancestry may be from somewhere outside of Macedonia. I don't ignore that fact the way you do with all other facts.

Take a look in the mirror mate.

You don't even know about Turkish history, and you're going to blabber on about Slavic history? Don't waste my time 'mate'. Few people in the Slavic-speaking world consider the nations that make up this group as kindred in the 'ethnic' sense. You have no idea, and the fact that you impulsively cited a wikipedia article further corroborates your ignorance.

Ottoman, you're quickly becoming that which everybody here thinks you are. Is this you or your multiple personality posting?

[Onur]

Great article from a Dutch based journal of Eurasian studies. An analysis and some important findings for the language of the Huns and it`s influence in today`s Turkic, Hungarian, Mongolian, Chinese and in various slavic languages;



Hunnic Linguistic Issues
The research regarding the language of the Huns began in Europe after the French missionary Deguignes had translated in the 18th century Chinese sources which recorded the deeds of the Huns. The French scholar stated that Xiongnu in Far-Eastern sources is the same as Huns or Hunas in the European and Central Asian records. He also stated that the heritage of the Huns can be found in the living languages of their descendants: Turkic peoples, Hungarians and the Mongols. The Hungarian aspects were then elaborated by George Pray. During the same century, the research of the Hun tribes continued and several scholars investigated many ancient historical sources. Generally speaking until the mid 19th century, the above mentioned research was based solely on historical sources, and linguistic discussions followed that pattern.

The linguists of that time associated the language of the Huns not with a single ethnic group, but to those ones, who lived on the vast territories of the Eurasian steppe and who were traditionally related to Huns. At that time the artificial theory of language families had not been widespread, therefore the researchers believed that the root of the Turkic, Mongolian and the Hungarian languages was the language of the Scythians or Huns.

From the end of the 19th century onwards only a very few linguists thought in such a comprehensive way, the majority of the linguists accepted a linguistic concept, which was based on Darwinism and created so-called “family trees” with languages that had no real historical connections with each other.[1] Based on this new linguistic concept, they were busy reconstructing the proto-languages. According to Gábor Bálint this was completely unnecessary. Among the historians positivism became widespread, which rejected all the legends and stories of the steppe tribes; hence they did not accept their historical tradition.

During this period the previously admired Hun people became monsters and barbarians and scholars were obliged to write only in negative terms like barbarians or savages, etc. In publications on Huns they were described as not having permanent houses, or cities, that they could not write, and that they just learned everything from the "civilized" people, i.e. Indo-Europeans. The "new" historical approach and the linguistic theories completely clouded the results, and its negative impact, unfortunately, is still felt today, especially in the official Hungarian scientific circles, which is still dominated by these outdated theories.

While the Western European languages are not really affected by the new linguistic classification, those nations, which had Hun heritage, especially Hungarians, had been listed as Siberian clans with unknown roots.

At the turning of the century, the focus shifted temporarily towards the Turkic lineage. Some Hungarian scholars, chiefly János Fogarasi and Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna investigated the Mongolianand Manchu languages as well and they found, that the above mentioned languages are very close to Hungarian. They interpreted this fact as the common linguistic heritage from the Hun Empire. Unfortunately, this professional research method was abandoned by later scholars and Hungarian linguists spoke no more about the Hunnish heritage of the Hungarian language, Gyula Németh and Zoltán Gombocz being the only exceptions.

Nowadays, the research of the Hunnish languages is completely exiled from the official Hungarian linguistics; Mongolian or any other related Inner-Asian language does not get enough attention.[2]

When Doerfer has published a great essay about the Hun language, wherein he recorded that Barthold, Asmarin and Pritsak considered this language as a member of the Chuvas-Turkish group. This statement is very important for the origin of the Hungarian language, because most "Turkish loan-words" in Hungarian are of Chuvas type. It should be noted that Gábor Bálint[3] rejected the importance of the Chuvash language regarding Hungarian; according to him Hungarian and Mongolian are closer than Hungarian and Chuvas. Nicholas Poppe reiterated this point of view.[4] According to him these similarities are related to the common Hunnish ancestry.

Doerfer mentioned that two great linguists, Klaproth and Semenov identified the Hunnish language with Hungarian. It is curious that this point of view was not taken into account by the Hungarian linguists, though it significantly impacts the research of the origins of Hungarians.

Other researchers (Venelin, Velitman, Zabelin, etc) thought that the inheritors of the Hun language were the Slavs.[5] This is not accidental, because Slavic languages also preserved many Hun words and cultural elements.

Today it is unacceptable for many scholars that the language of the Huns is preserved only by one nation or group; moreover it is impossible to regard some small Siberian peoples as the sole descendants. This idea was raised by Pulleyblank, and Volvoni, and Lajos Ligeti also accepted it. But how can be this true? It is unlogical that an ancient, long-lived, large empire’s heritage remained only with a small group of peoples, whose area of living is situated rather far from the central areas of the Huns. Neither the Ostyaks nor Kets were able to establish an independent state; they lived in a clan type society, unlike the Huns, who created the ancient world's greatest empire.

As other researches also proved, the Hun language heritage is preserved by not one people, but lots of nations throughout the Eurasian steppe land.

Izabella Horváth published a study, wherein she provided a comprehensive overview of the theories on the origins of the Hunnish language. She listed those authors who thought Huns were Mongols, Turks, and Slavs, Finns, etc.

She was the first, who summarized the results of Chinese researchers. One of the most interesting
points of view is that of the Chinese Wu, who stated that during the Hun period the Altaic languages have not divided into parts, so Hunnish can be regarded as a proto-Altaic language.[6]

The above citied theories show that the Huns left deep trails in the languages of various people in Eurasia, and they had a great impact on world history. Moreover, it also indicates that the Huns did not disappear suddenly. Unfortunately, the research of ancient Central Asian peoples is not without difficulties. The greatest problem is that over the past half century linguists have boxed various peoples of ancient times to fictitious language families, such as Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians, etc.[7] Scythian people are still listed as Iranians, although there is no coherent linguistic record for that and the historical process shows that the Persians accepted lots of Scythian words and military equipments. Several Scythian words or cultural elements had spread throughout the Eurasian region, and they are not related to the above language only.

It would be much better to mention ancient peoples under their own names relating to the Scythian or Hun language-group as did Rasmus Rask, and other linguists of the 19th century. Schöning recently published a collection of essays on Mongolian languages and he has claimed that the Turkish and Mongolian languages’ high degree of similarity may indicate a common origin; this basis might be the Hun and/or Xianbei language.[8] Two Inner Mongolian scholars, Hugjiltu and Uchiraltu, arrived to the same conclusion, based on their historical linguistics researches. According to them there are in the Turkic and Mongolian languages more than a thousand words that may be similar, which probably refers to a common ancestor: the Hunnish language. Hugjiltu also claims that the common words may not be loanwords; they simply show that the Turkic and Mongolian peoples had close connection from ancient times until now. This truth is not only proved by linguistic correspondence, but also by the common way of life, and even political organization.[9] Some scholars think that the Turkic-Mongolian relations depend on areal relations only. According to Rassadin it happened only in Central Asia. However, this is not a correct theory, because the Mongols had appeared there only in the 13th century.

During the past decade lots of linguists[10] have questioned the legitimacy of the theories of language families, so it is highly expectable that in next decades new theories will arise in the international science, and the outdated methods of linguistics dating from the 19th century will slowly fade. One interesting initiative is a large international research program at Santa Fe University, which explores the possibility of monogenesis among languages of the world.

It is interesting that there is hardly any discussion on the Scythian language; the international literature clearly holds it as Indo-European or Iranian. The language of the Huns, however, was heavily disputed; the core issue was to which Turkic language it belonged: Chuvash type "r" Turkic or Common Turkic type "z" Turkic. Because in the name of Attila’s middle son Dengizik, one found the 'z' sound, the linguists held that the European Huns spoke such a Common Turkic language. In my view, in the heat of debate people forgot to clarify a few things: whether the "r" and "z" is really a significant difference to those special Turkic languages or merely dialect differences are involved. As Uchiraltu explained, the Hun tribes, as later other steppe peoples too, had no classified, official standard language; hence the language of the Huns varied by region. If one takes the vast territory ranging from the Great Wall in China to the Carpathian Basin, a vast number of types of dialects existed; it is highly possible that this issue is nothing more than a small difference in dialect.

Another unresolved issue is the etymology of the name Hun. It is interesting that those who accept that the Huns spoke a kind of Turkic language also accept that the name of the Empire, (“Hun”) is a Mongolian word. They deduct it from the word “hun” (or kümün) which means man, and this is in itself a major contradiction. If the Huns spoke Turkic, then why should they borrow their own name from a foreign language? The Huns, who were able to create such a developed civilization, did not have a word to designate themselves?

Returning to the question regarding the Huns, the focus of the current research is on creating new linguistic theories and on solving the issue of affiliation of the various steppe peoples. The ancient Chinese records, which preserved lots of Hunnish words, are of great help for the scholars. The Hun words found in these records can be found in the Turkic languages, in the Mongolian, the Manchu, or even in the Hungarian; this shows that several languages are linked to the language of the Huns, in line with the fact that the state and culture of the Huns had a decisive influence on the communities of the whole Eurasian steppe, and the above mentioned peoples are the descendants of the Huns.

The importance of the several hundreds Hunnish words, which were preserved in the Chinese sources, was highlighted by Otto Maenchen-Helfen. Indeed, the Chinese language also includes a relatively high number of foreign words whose origin is disputed. The well-known Hungarian expert of the Chinese language and civilization, Péter Polonyi recorded that Chinese words relating to the horse-breeding are very similar to the Hungarian words, which could suggest a common origin.[11] It is highly probable that both languages derived them from the Huns. Mang Muren from the University of Inner Mongolia, published an essay in 2004, and described an interesting theory, which is hotly debated among Chinese scholars.[12] He claims that in the Chinese language there are about four thousand words, which are similar to Mongolian. If we analyze this huge bulk of words, the result may lead us to the Huns. It is expected that in the coming years the international research results concerning the Scythians and the Huns will clarify a large number of linguistic and historical issue and this will affect the Hungarian prehistoric research, too.


Hun Linguistics
The Inner Mongolian scholar Uchiraltu has brought a new color in the international linguistics research. While the above mentioned scholars dealt with only some words and expressions, he created a system of reconstruction for those words, which survived in Chinese chronicles. He transcribed the words according to the old Chinese phonetics and looked at those ones in the early Turkic and Mongolian vocabularies and he tried to find the most suited word for that. With this method he tried to find out the earliest words and expressions in order to compare them with Hun words. According to the Wei-shu,[13] Turkic is rather a Hunnic language; the difference is less than a dialect difference, led Uchiraltu to the conclusion that the early Turkic and Mongolian languages well preserved the words of the Hunnic language. His main sources were the early Turkic runic inscriptions, glosses and the Secret History of the Mongols from the 13th century. The two empires were situated not so far from the Hun Empire; the Huns dominated much of Central Asian and European steppe region up until the 5th century A.D., after that they lost their dominating role. According to new historical results, Hun tribes existed on their own until
the 8th century A.D.[14] Uchiraltu’s linguistic work is not only sensational due to its topic, but also because of its strict linguistic aspects. Next to that he uses in his linguistic research the results of historical, religious and ethnographic studies; this method significantly improves the validity of his statements. He does not stop at the linguistics level; he records his opinion only if the result is supported by cultural and historical facts. This is a very important method in the linguistic research; the Hungarian examples below will prove that the match goes far beyond superficial form relationships of correlations.

His research contains several important elements which impact the Hungarian-Hun connections.
Uchiraltu’s studies show that the early Turkish and Mongolian words had existed in the Hunnic language and it is not correct if we speak about “loanwords”, but rather the Turkic, Mongolian, Hungarian and other related nations were closely related to the system consisting of the Scythian and Hun languages. His work will probably give an additional impetus to the research of the Hunnic language.


Some Hunnic expressions
Seal Uchiraltu’s study shows that the Huns used the "Keeper of the Seals” title as 'pichigechi', which appeared later in the Turkic, Mongolian, and even in the Sanskrit languages. The word, however, can be found in the Hungarian language as well, as ‘pecsét’. The Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary describes it as a Slavic loanword, but is not able to reveal the origin of the Slavic word itself.

The root ‘pichi-‘ does not only mean seal, but ‘letter’, too.[15] The ’bichi’ means ‘to write’ in Mongolian, the word ‘bichig’ means writing. In Clauson’s dictionary the root ‘bich-’ means ‘cut, engraving’, which refers to the ancient writing method of the runic script. The ancient peoples of the Eurasian steppe had their own writing system, or the runic writing. In some North-western Turkic dialects the 'pichu' form occurs. We need to mention the Hungarian word for one kind of knife — ‘bichka’ — it represents the object, with which the wood was carved. According to Clauson’s dictionary this word meant in the ancient Turkic languages: 'knife, sword'.[16] It is very likely that the writing (‘bich-‘) and the device of writing were related to each other. The word ‘pichik’ reconstructed by Uchiraltu indicates that the writing and the carving were closely related! The different signs throughout Central Asia (tree of life signs, swastika, etc.) can lead us to the steppe peoples. Moreover, the early Turkic word "irü" might be related to the above-mentioned word 'write' but Clauson linked it to the sign of ‘belgü’, or ‘stamp’.[17] It is worth noting that the word related to writing in Hungarian leads us to Central and Inner Asia. Though the Hungarian Etimological Dictionary states that the Hungarian ‘ír’ (‘write’) is 'yaz-' in the Chuvash-type Old Turkic language, the supposed original form could be *ir*. This word was also discovered in the Mongolian language, another link to the the Huns.[18] According to Szentkatolnai the Hungarian word ‘ír’ is related to the Mongolian ‘ira’, the latter having the meaning of ‘carve’.[19]

To the same conclusion arrived the authors of the Czuczor Fogarasi Dictionary,[20] which related it to ‘mark, symbol’. Recently, Katalin Csornai found that the Hungarian ‘ró’ (‘carve’) exists in the form of ‘lu’ in the Chinese chronicles[21] as a Hunnish word, whereby the runic symbols and and the act of engraving were considered holy.

The Hungarian etymological dictionary has no any idea regarding the origin of the word ‘ró’.[22] The fact that the above mentioned three words occur in such an early period, complemented by finds of runic monuments in Central Asia discovered during the last decades, are a clear proof that the steppe peoples had developed literacy which it existed later among Turkic, Avar, and Hungarian peoples, and others.


Kadar, the Chief Judge
According to Uchiraltu, the ‘godouhou’ was an important title of Huns as the Chinese sources recorded. The Mongolian linguist reconstructed it as ‘kutugu’. Among the ancient Turkic peoples the ‘kut’ or ‘gut’ can be found as a relevant title; among Uighurs, Turks, etc., the title ‘idikut’ was the rank of rulers of tribes whose origin is unclear according to Clauson.[23] Uchiraltu had studied the Chinese and Central Asian sources and he found, that the dignity of the chief judge was ‘kutugu’ among Huns. The Mongols preserved the word ‘kukuktu’, and they are still using it to identify Buddhist saints. In the old Turkic languages, the word ‘kut’ means grace of Heaven, but it also meant strength and majesty.[24]

The author, referring to Chinese linguists, explains that during the migration process of the western Huns some linguistic changes had happened: the sound 'u' rather than 'a' was used, so the original ‘kutugu’ became ‘katagu’ or ‘kadagu’.[25] The Chinese data proved the truthfullness of the ancient Hungarian chronicles, where ‘Kadar’ was the chief-judge of the Huns. We have additional data, e.g. Tarihi Üngürüs, which is an ancient Hungarian chronicle that was translated into Turkish and preserved in Turkey for a long period. In it the commander in chief of the Huns was ‘Kattar’, which may be a variant of the ‘kadar’.

Arnold Ipolyi, the renowned Hungarian scholar thought that the ‘kadar’ he was the representatives of the ancient judicial-priest system.[26] Podhracky explained it similarly; ‘kadar’ was originally monk or priest as the Parthian 'cat’, ‘kad' or ‘cat-ousi’, which is similar to the Turkish ‘kad’ and ‘kadi’.[27] There are some other variants as well, e.g. according to the historian György Győrffy ‘kadir’ was a Khazarian rank, and the same name can be found in the early Hungarian Kingdom in some personal names and toponims, and in the clan name of Kadarkaluz.[28] The Hungarian Historical Etimological Dictionary originates it from Bulgarian.[29] As we know from the ancient Bulgarian historical sources, or the list of the ancient kings, the leading clan originated from Attila.


Faith
According to Uchiraltu the word faith was a significant Hunnish title. The Mongolian scholar found closely linked to the Mongolian Mother Earth (Etügen) cult. This new data provides a new key to the understanding of the word faith, as the etymological dictionary considers it of unknown origin.[30] The goddess of the Central Asian steppe peoples is mostly known under the name Etügen (though several vartiations exist), in whom they revered Mother Earth. In the historical sources it is mentioned in different ways: in some places it is Etügen, a Turkic source calls her Ötüken, identifying the sacred mountain or forest. In Mongolia, the geographical names had often been called Eej, i.e. Mother; examples are: Mother Cliff, Mother Tree, or Pious Mother. The other names of the Mother are: Mother Earth, or World Mother. According to Zundui Altangerel, in the era of pre-Buddhist Mongolia, inside each yurt stood the altar of Mother Earth, the Etügen idol.[31]

The Etügen, Ötüken, Idugan forms can be found in the late Turkic and Mongolian sources, but its origin is less researched. When I investigated the Mother Earth cult, I realized that all of the above terms are related to the Hungarian word ‘hit’ (’faith’).[32] It came as a big surprise to me that Uchiraltu found it among the Hunnish words in the Chinese chronicles as ‘hitü’ or ‘hidü’, which was a title of that time.[33] In Turkic documents the word ‘iduq’[34] occurs, which means saint. It is possible that this may be a relative of the Hungarian word faith. Regarding the Hungarian word for faith Ármin Vámbéry, the famous Hungarian Turkologist found it in the Yakut language as ‘itegel’, and Gábor Bálint in the Mongolian ‘itegen’ or ‘sitügen’; but these interpretations have not been taken into account by the other Hungarian linguists, even though they may be of exact match.[35] There can be no better proof that this word is related to the Hunnisch language than the fact that next to the Turkic, Mongolian, Hungarian languages it can be found in the old Bulgarian as well, where in the form of ‘itzig’ it means ‘saint’.[36] In Sanskrit it means ‘good’, ‘well-doer’, ‘friendship’, ‘good action’, ‘good will’.[37]


Horde, the capital of the supreme king
In ancient times among the Central and Inner Asian people the word ‘horde’ was a very important term. In Clauson’s dictionary the word ‘ordu’ is a Mongolian loanword to the Turks with the meaning royal home and palace. The horde was a center for the tribal leader, and later for the khagans, or supreme kings. Uchiraltu thinks that the word can be found among Huns, as the Chinese recorded: ‘yu-tu’. For the early Turkic peoples 'orta' meant ‘medium’, ‘center’.[38] The Russians still use it as ‘gorod’.[39] The word for town is pronounced as ‘ghordas’, therefore it can be connected to the Horde. So it is doubtful that some Hungarian toponyms ending in ‘-grad’ would be of Slavic origin, but rather we should consider it as the heritage of the Huns. Uchiraltu connects the Horde with the ‘yurt’ (accommodation, a round tent), which meant the same center, but later became a name for family ‘house’.


Milk
Uchiraltu reconstructed the Hunnish word ‘dong / tong’, with the meaning of ‘milk’, and explained its relation to the Mongolian ‘sün’ or milk. He also noted that in the Eastern Mongolian gorlos dialect the word for milk is ‘tun’ or ‘tün’, because they used ‘t’ instead of ‘s’. This data may be important for the Hungarians as well. Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna guessed parallels between the Mongolian and Hungarian ‘milk’ but he could not find completely convincing explanation of how they relate to each other. Uchiraltu now provided the explanation. Indeed, the Hungarian Czuczor-Fogarasi etymological dictionary provided something valuable: ‘milk’ in the Szekler dialect is ‘té’. In the Central Asian Chagatai language we find the word ‘sai’ which has relationship to the above mentioned Hunnish expression.[40] The Chagatai language contains many words, which can be found in archaic Mongol. According to the etymological dictionary the word ‘milk’ in the Hungarian language is an Iranian loan-word, and comes from the ancient Iranic verb ‘dhayati’, which means ‘sucking’. It is also associated with the word for nurse, as the nurse and breast milk are closely linked. The Mongolian data also shows a similar agreement, as
the word ‘number’ means ‘milking’ and ‘full’ means ‘twice suckled lamb’. I am not a linguist, but because of the high degree of similarity, I believe that both the Iranian and Mongolian forms may be related to the Hungarian, which means that this word also goes back to a common source, i.e. the Huns. This is all the plausible, because all animal names, and milk-related terms are from the Eurasian steppe world, and are tightly connected to the Huns.


Buttermilk
The etymological dictionary considers the Hungraian word for ‘buttermilk’ as an ancient Chuvas loanword, in the form ‘*irago’ as the earliest variant. In Uchiraltu’s text we can find a form of Chinese dairy products as 'lao'. Katalin Csornai found that this word may be of Hunnish origin, too, because the Chinese people did not consume dairy products at that time; its spread has been observed only in the last few years and are mainly consumed as fermented milky products. In the past the milky products had been mainly consumed by the steppe peoples. We know from the ethnographic observations and the historical records regarding the steppe peoples that the sour milk products were very popular; nevertheless, fresh milk was only drunk by children, the elderly, and the spiritual leaders. Returning to the word for buttermilk, Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna considered it related to the Mongolian ‘airag’[41], — which is a fermented milk churn — due to morphological and semantic reasons. Later, György Kara established a relation between the Hungarian word ‘író’ or buttermilk and the Mongolian ‘agurag’, ‘uurag’. In my view Szentkatolnai’s research is more accurate, because the word indicates a product that must be a fermented one.


Bű or magic
The words ‘bű’ (‘magic’) and ‘báj’ (‘charm’) indicate some ancient healing methods. Not only the word but the whole Eurasian healing process survived in the vast area that was once inhabited by the Huns; its variants can be still studied in the Central Asian and Hungarian intellectual culture, even in folk medicine. ‘Bű’ has parallels with the Turkic and Mongolian word ‘böge’, which means wizard, but it also designates the old natural religion, i.e. shamanism.[42] This ancient belief in Tibet is called ‘bön’ (‘bon’ in the Western literature). The most western member if this word group is the Hungarian ‘bű’, which according to the academician Arnold Ipolyi originally meant ‘spell’.[43] The Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary gives the following explanation: 'Such an enticement that enchants us in a secret, wonderous was. It is such an amiable quality of somebody or something, which induces affection, coupled with admiration and attracts to itself’.[44]

All this indicates that in the entire Eurasian region there was a natural ancient belief, which was the religion of the Scythians and the Huns, and this was called ‘spell’. Some researchers agree that the magic of faith also appeared in the ancient Chinese civilization; sources often refer to magical women, the ‘wu’. Maspero, Uchiraltu, MacKenzie and others claim based on ancient Chinese sources that not only the Chinese word ‘wu’, but the whole healing process is derived from the steppe peoples.[45] The word ‘bű’ is considered of Old Turkic origin with the meaning 'sorcery’, ‘witchcraft'. The Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary defines ‘bű’ and ‘báj’ as two words originating from a common source, and the two academic linguists related these two words to the word ‘bölcs’ (‘wise’), meaning ‘adept at understanding mysterious, magical things’.[46] Regarding the word ‘báj’ the Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary defines it as of Old Turkic origin, meaning magic.[47]


LITERATURE
ALTAD, Damba: 2003 Hunud bolon mongol. (Huns and Hungarians) Höhhot: Belső-Mongóliai Népi Kiadó
BAJANBATU: 1985 Mongolin böögijn sasin. (The Mongolian Shamanism) Höhhot: Belső-Mongóliai Népi Kiadó
BÁLINT, Gábor: 1877 Párhuzam a mongol és magyar nyelv terén. (Parallels between the Mongols and Hungarians) Budapest: Hornyánszky
BANZAROV, Dordzs: 1980 The Black faith, or Shamanism among the Mongols. In: Mongolian Studies Vol. 6.
BARÁTHOSI, Balogh Benedek: 2001 A hunok három világbirodalma. (The Three Empires of the Huns.) Magyar Ház, Budapest
BATSZAJHAN, Zagd: 2002 Hunnu. (Huns) Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Állami Egyetem
BENKŐ, Lóránd: 1976 TESZ. Történeti Etimológiai Szótár. III. (Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó
CZUCZOR, Gergely–FOGARASI, János (2003): A magyar nyelv szótára. (The Dictionary of the Hungarian language) CD kiadás, Arcanum kiadó, Budapest
CLAUSON, Gerald: 1972 An Etimological dictionary of Pre-thirteenth century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press
DE GROOT, J.J M.: 2006. Hunok és kínaiak. A hunok története a Kr.sz. előtti évszázadokban –
kínai források alapján. (Huns and Chinese. History of the Huns before Christ – ccording to the Chinese sources) Raspensa, Budapest.
DOBREV, Ivan: 2005 Zlatnoto sikrovise na bilgarskite hanove ot Atila do Simeon. Riva, Sofi
DOERFER, Gerard: 1973. Zur Sprache der Hunnen. In: CAJ. 1-50. DU, Yaxiong – HORVÁTH, Izabella: 2000 A hunok legkorábbi története. Shi Ji 110. könyvének fordítása. (The earliest history of the Huns, Translation of Shi Ji) Budapest: Magyar Ház
DULAM, Bum-Ocsir: 2002. Mongol bööni zan ujl. (The ceremony of the Mongolian Shamans) Ulaanbaatar: Mönhijn useg
FOGARASI, János: 1862. A székely népköltészetről. (Ont he Szekely folk poetry) In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények. Budapest
GYŐRFFY, György: 1986 A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról. (About the ancient Hungarians and the conquest) Budapest: Szépirodalmi Kiadó
GYŐRFFY, György: 1993. Krónikáink és magyar őstörténet. Régi kérdések, új válaszok. (Chronicles and ancient Hungarian history. Old questions and new answers.) Balassi Kiadó, Budapest
HORVÁTH, Izabella: 2007 Uygur Scholars’s significiant discovery. In: Eurasian Studies. 79. 59- 67.
IPOLYI, Arnold: 1854. Magyar Mythologia. Heckenast Gusztáv. Pest.
LIGETI, Lajos (ford): 1962 A mongolok titkos története. (The Secret History of the Mongols) Gondolat, Budapest.
LIGETI, Lajos (szerk.): 1986 A magyarság őstörténete. (The ancient History of the Hungarians) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
LOEVWE, Michael–TWITCHETT, Denis (eds.): 1986 The Cambridge History of China. Chin and Han Empires. Vol. I. Cambridge University Press, London, New York, Melbourne.
MARCANTONIO, Angela: 2006.Az uráli nyelvcsalád. (The Uralic Family Tree) Magyar Ház, Budapest
MASPERO, Henri: 1978 Az ókori Kína. (The ancient China) Gondolat, Budapest.
NÉMETH, Gyula (ed.): 1986 Attila és hunjai. (Attila and His Huns) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
NÉMETH, Gyula: 1991 A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. (Creation of the Hungarian tribes)
Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest.
POLONYI, Péter: 1986 Kína. (China) Panoráma útikönyvek sorozat. Budapest.
PUSZTAY, János: 1977 Az „ugor-török háború” után. Fejezetek a magyar nyelvhasonlítás történetéből. (After the Ugrian-Turkic war) Magvető Kiadó, Budapest.
PRITSAK, Omeljan: 1954. Kultur und Schrache der Hunnen. In: Festschrift Dmytro Chyzhewskiy zum 60. Geburstag. Berlin, Harrasowitz, 239-249.
PRUSEK: 1971 Chinese statelets and the Northern Barbarian in the Period 1400-300 BC. Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.
PULLEYBLANK: (1962): „The Hsiung-nu Language”. In: Asia Major, n.s. 9. 239–265.
SCHÖNIG, Claus: 2006 Turko-Mongolic relations. 403-420. In: The Mongolic languages. Edited by Juha Janhunen. Routledge, London and New York
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 1. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 52–66.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 2. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 101–109.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 3. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 53–67.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 4. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 101–119.
UCHIRALTU (1997): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 5. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 104–120.
UCHIRALTU (2004): Hunnu kemekü üge-jin sergügelen. (A hun szó rekonstrukciója) In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 63–69.
YAMADA, Nobuo (1989): The formation of the Hsiung-nu nomadic state. The case of Hsiung- nu. In: Historical studies of nomadic peoples in North-Asia. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo. 295–304.
WU, Mu: 2005 Xiongnu shi yanjiu (The Study of Hun’s History). Beijing. Minority Press
VÁMBÉRY, Ármin: 1870 Magyar és török-tatár szóegyezések. (Hungarian and Turk-Tatar related words) In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények. 8. 109-190.


by Borbála Obrusánszky

January-March 2011
JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES
Volume III., Issue 1.

http://www.federatio.org/joes.html

[Ottoman]

We've been through this before. I have never denied that part of his ancestry may be from somewhere outside of Macedonia. I don't ignore that fact they way you do with all other facts.

You don't even know about Turkish history, and you're going to blabber on about Slavic history? Don't waste my time 'mate'. Few people in the Slavic-speaking world consider the nations that make up this group as kindred in the 'ethnic' sense. You have no idea, and the fact that you impulsively cited a wikipedia article further corroborates your ignorance.

Ottoman, you're quickly becoming that which everybody here thinks you are. Is this you or your multiple personality posting?

Slavic people are peoples who speak a Slavic language, why are you denying this?

The Slavic languages (also called Slavonic languages), a group of closely related languages of the Slavic peoples and a subgroup of Indo-European languages, have speakers in most of Eastern Europe, in much of the Balkans, in parts of Central Europe, and in the northern part of Asia.

[Ottoman]

Im Turkic, you are Slavic and Voltron is Hellenic, the best way to describe ourselves, in any case you disagree you might have a ID crisis.

[Delodephius]

Slavic is a linguistic term, not an ethnic or national one (there are no such ethnicities or nationalities, there are only Slavic languages). Furthermore, feeling of ethnic or national identity is not universal but only characteristic to certain personality types while it is irrelevant to other. To some people it is a key component of their individual identity, while to others, like myself, ethnic or national identity is a mere formality to suffer, more of a nuisance actually. An extroverted person identifies with the community he/she lives in, an introverted person with his/her own thoughts and experiences that formed him/her. Both types are equally present in the world, if you were thinking the later are only found in mental institutions, because that is the most common bias extroverts have mind you. Many great people in this world were introverts simply because they didn't care what the rest of the world thought, and they identified with themselves in privacy, while acting as extroverts while speaking to the masses. For example, I think that to Alexander the Great being a Macedonian was a nuisance, but he nonetheless used the power it gave him to control and order the Macedonian people to help him achieve his own introverted goals, i.e. to change the meaning of Macedonian into something more than "barbarian. Many introverts if they take on some wider and more abstract identity will usually try to either alienate themselves from it or try to change the definition of that identity, usually trying to eliminate the negative connotations that identity might carry, depending on their knowledge and skill, either through ignoring the negative or doing something positive to overshadow the negative. This later I think was what Alexander did.

[Onur]

Delodephius, this is especially for you. Some facts, rather then your theories about how English people has been born, who were the first settlers in in there, what was their beliefs, their language and script and finally how they became christians in to the hands of Frankish Romans;



The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a consequence of the migration of Germanic peoples from continental Germania during the Early Middle Ages, after the demise of Roman rule in the 5th century. These peoples are traditionally divided into Angles, Saxons and Jutes, but historical and archaeological research conducted in the early 20th century suggests that a wide range of Germanic peoples from the North Sea coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, and Jutland may have moved to Britain in this era, including Frisians and Franks. In their new homeland, they consolidated into unified Germanic identities through war and other forms of social interaction.

In the late sixth century the king of Kent was a prominent lord in the south; in the seventh century the rulers of Northumbria and Wessex were powerful; for a brief period around the year 616, East Anglia was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, and its king Raedwald was Bretwalda (overlord of the Anglo-Saxons kingdoms). In the eighth century Mercia achieved hegemony over the other surviving kingdoms. Successive kings of Wessex (and especially Ćthelstan) progressively reinforced the English unitary state, until, with the simultaneous dissolution of Mercia and submission of Northumbria upon Edgar's succession in 959, the old constituent kingdoms in effect became consolidated into one.


YouTube - ‪Secrets of the Dark Ages 1/3‬‏

YouTube - ‪Secrets of the Dark Ages 2/3‬‏

YouTube - ‪Secrets of the Dark Ages 3/3‬‏

[Delodephius]

Onur, why do you think I don't know all that? Yes those are facts. I am well aware of them. I don't deny or ignore them. They are all in place. But history is much complicated than that, little grasshopper. The theory is that a Germanic speaking-people lived in Britain before another Germanic people (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) came in the 5-6th century AD.

http://www.proto-english.org/a1.html

Estimation is that Britain had some 4 million inhabitants in AD 410. At least 2.7 million lived east of the Pennines. We know that Anglo-Saxons were invited in Britain as 'mercenaries' even before the fall of the Roman Empire. And that they were still coming 150 years later. In reality, the total migration represented probably no more than 35.000 up to 50.000 men, women and children, although the majority must have been young men. The Anglo-Saxons came over 4 or 5 generations.

Therefore, we must divide the total by 4 or 5 to have a more precise idea about the real percentage of the Anglo-Saxons part of the local population at any time during that period. The equation (50.000 / 4 = 12.500 Anglo-Saxons per generation. 2.700.000 locals / 12.500 A-S *100=0,46%) gives us a continuous max. between 0,25% up to 0,46%. This percentage can be compared with the 'classic' 0,5-1,5 % percentage for professional soldiers.

So, the Anglo-Saxons must have represented no more than half of the professional soldier quantity in Britain...

[Onur]

Interesting documentary about the Huns, Vandals and their Arian church in northern Africa who has been falsely described as "the seeds of the devil" by the Romans.

YouTube - ‪The End of the World 1/4‬‏

YouTube - ‪The End of the World 2/4‬‏

YouTube - ‪The End of the World 3/4‬‏

YouTube - ‪The End of the World 4/4‬‏


This is actually a proof of how powerful the Roman propaganda was and how it effects us even today. The word "vandalism" exists in all languages in the world today but in fact, the Vandals themselves wasn't more "vandal" than Romans at all.