A question about the origins of the various Hungarian groups...
KLa...@msn.com
Paloc, Csango, Nagykun and Szekely groups? For example, I have heard
that the Paloc originated from various Turkic peoples, such as Bulgars
and Avars. Also, it's been stated that the Orseg are basically
Magyarized Slovenes.
progea
Csangos are basically Szekelys that found themselves outside the
empire when it was forced to move eastward its western boundary
because of the Mongol invading hordes. From there, some groups were
gradually assimilated by the people they found themselves among,
except for their faith. But others fight assimilation until nowadays
and good they do
Another group fleed the empire in 1764, temporarily settled in
Bucovina but some of them went back, to Deva, in 1910.
KLa...@msn.com
Did any Csango ever settle in Hungary itself? Also, could you tell me
about the other Magyar groups mentioned?
progea
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think I've heard of Csangos making it back to Hungary but I don't
have any relevant info for now. Szeklers have been for a long time in
the Haromszek area in the eastern Erdely. NagyKun are nowadays in the
Nagykonya county of Hungary and I don't know about the others.
KLa...@msn.com
> On May 26, 12:18 am, KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 1:21 pm, progea <pro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 12:29 am, KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > > Could someone tell me about the origins of the Kiskun, Orseg, Matyo,
> > > > Paloc, Csango, Nagykun and Szekely groups? For example, I have heard
> > > > that the Paloc originated from various Turkic peoples, such as Bulgars
> > > > and Avars. Also, it's been stated that the Orseg are basically
> > > > Magyarized Slovenes.
>
> > > Csangos are basically Szekelys that found themselves outside the
> > > empire when it was forced to move eastward its western boundary
> > > because of the Mongol invading hordes. From there, some groups were
> > > gradually assimilated by the people they found themselves among,
> > > except for their faith. But others fight assimilation until nowadays
> > > and good they do
>
> > > Another group fleed the empire in 1764, temporarily settled in
> > > Bucovina but some of them went back, to Deva, in 1910.
>
> > Did any Csango ever settle in Hungary itself? Also, could you tell me
> > about the other Magyar groups mentioned?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think I've heard of Csangos making it back to Hungary but I don't
> have any relevant info for now.
Didn't some move to Tolna county?
>Szeklers have been for a long time in
> the Haromszek area in the eastern Erdely.
Also, weren't there Szeklers who moved to Hungary, such as Tolna?
> NagyKun are nowadays in the
> Nagykonya county of Hungary and I don't know about the others
Weren't they at least partly of Kipchaq/Cuman descent? Also, where
might I find out information about the Orseg, Paloc and the others?
tur...@shaw.ca
the reckless fascist regime settled some csangos into the serbian
territory
later on some of these csangos were left hopelessly behind to fend for
themselves in a hostile environment, while some others were re-settled
near budapest
tur...@shaw.ca
>Also, weren't there Szeklers who moved to Hungary, such as Tolna?
is this a leading question, or what?
yes, due to demands that were stipulated by the allies after the war,
many "nepi-nemet"/volksbundists were driven out from hungary,
abandoned houses and property that formerly belonged to them were
given to misplaced szeklers
KLa...@msn.com
From what I've heard, things like that weren't uncommon in Easter
Europe immediately after WWII. Also, does anyone know for sure what
the origin of the Szekely group is? Were they Magyars or some other
group that was Magyarized?
tur...@shaw.ca
--magyarized
there are many books about this, if you have no library access perhaps
you should try google or something
progea
> On May 26, 9:25 am, progea <pro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 12:18 am, KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 1:21 pm, progea <pro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 25, 12:29 am, KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Could someone tell me about the origins of the Kiskun, Orseg, Matyo,
> > > > > Paloc, Csango, Nagykun and Szekely groups? For example, I have heard
> > > > > that the Paloc originated from various Turkic peoples, such as Bulgars
> > > > > and Avars. Also, it's been stated that the Orseg are basically
> > > > > Magyarized Slovenes.
>
> > > > Csangos are basically Szekelys that found themselves outside the
> > > > empire when it was forced to move eastward its western boundary
> > > > because of the Mongol invading hordes. From there, some groups were
> > > > gradually assimilated by the people they found themselves among,
> > > > except for their faith. But others fight assimilation until nowadays
> > > > and good they do
>
> > > > Another group fleed the empire in 1764, temporarily settled in
> > > > Bucovina but some of them went back, to Deva, in 1910.
>
> > > Did any Csango ever settle in Hungary itself? Also, could you tell me
> > > about the other Magyar groups mentioned?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I think I've heard of Csangos making it back to Hungary but I don't
> > have any relevant info for now.
>
> Didn't some move to Tolna county?
I don't know. Some moved back from Bucovina to Deva in 1910, though.
There's a Csango church by the eastern boundary of the town.
> > NagyKun are nowadays in the
> > Nagykonya county of Hungary and I don't know about the others
>
> Weren't they at least partly of Kipchaq/Cuman descent?
Yes, Kuns are Kipchaqs/Cumans. Their name was preserved as Kun in
Hungarian settled areas and as Coman (with variations - Comanici,
Comaneci, Comanescu, Comanitza) outside.
Also, where
> might I find out information about the Orseg, Paloc and the others?-
I don't know "Google is your friend" ;)
R. P.
> Yes, Kuns are Kipchaqs/Cumans. Their name was preserved as Kun in
> Hungarian settled areas and as Coman (with variations - Comanici,
> Comaneci, Comanescu, Comanitza) outside.
And Communist, of course ... ;-)
progea
Igen - es kommunisztai
KLa...@msn.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The origins of the Szekely people are of dispute. From what I've
heard, some think that the Szekely may actually be Magyars, but ones
who lived in the Carpathian Basin region before the main Honfoglalas.
tur...@shaw.ca
>The origins of the Szekely people are of dispute.
not really, perhaps to the uninformed and to those who want to exploit
the issue for political gain
>From what I've heard, some think that the Szekely may actually be Magyars,
i don't know who are you talking to, but perhaps one should ask the
szeklers, as their popular bon mot teaches: szekely szarta a magyart
> but ones who lived in the Carpathian Basin region before the main Honfoglalas.
the magyar is a mosaic nation that was created from the alliance of
several ethnically diverse tribes, so it's fair to say that before the
blood-treaty (verszerzodes) there were no magyars as such, only
proto-magyars, --and even afterwords, the ruling class remained
turkish (see at homan and others)
further, the earliest available reference doesn't say that the
szeklers and magyars were speaking the same language, but rather a
language that both parties understood (probably some turkish dialect)
there is no doubt, that the proto magyars (or say, a certain group of
them) were akin to the szeklers, but they were not the same
Bill Forintos
>The origins of the Szekely people are of dispute.
>
> not really, perhaps to the uninformed and to those who want to exploit
> the issue for political gain
I don't know what possible political gain can be had by keeping the issue in
dispute. I think the political gain could come by stating that the issue is
settled.
> i don't know who are you talking to, but perhaps one should ask the
> szeklers, as their popular bon mot teaches: szekely szarta a magyart
That's just a tease to the magyars. It only implies that they came into the
Carpathian Basin before the Magyars. Perhaps with the Huns. What do you
think of the theory that the Szeklers are actually the descendants of
Attila's Huns. Personally I don't know but I never liked the idea that the
Huns just suddenly disappeared soon after Attila's death.
tur...@shaw.ca
<B...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
><turan*@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>The origins of the Szekely people are of dispute.
>>
>> not really, perhaps to the uninformed and to those who want to exploit
>> the issue for political gain
>
>I don't know what possible political gain can be had by keeping the issue in
>dispute.
the "mother country" has a long track record that shows the
exploitation and abuse of szekler people
if it wasn't bad enough for the misapprotiation and presentation of
szekler culture as "real magyar", now it seems szeklers are about to
be sacrificed again for the sake of some makebelieve gross-magyar
reich, and/or petty party politics
i'm worried about this kind of modern day brainless and retrograde
spiritual anschluss, because the loudmouths, those "magyarkodo to'tok"
just go home as it became usual in the last 1000 years, but the
szeklers are the ones who have to live with the consequences
> I think the political gain could come by stating that the issue is
>settled.
how so?
what difference would it make today whether the szeklers originated
from the huns, or others?
(many rumanians also originated from huns, and cumans [tatars])
>> i don't know who are you talking to, but perhaps one should ask the
>> szeklers, as their popular bon mot teaches: szekely szarta a magyart
>
>That's just a tease to the magyars. It only implies that they came into the
>Carpathian Basin before the Magyars.
indeed, that's the point
szeklers were not part of the landtaking (honfoglalas) and haven't
participated in the blood treaty either, they had their own laws and
own special organization until the madefalva massacre, in which not
only the loboncz, but also the nadasdy hussars took part shamelessly
thank you, "mother country"
nem felejtjuk el
> Perhaps with the Huns.
perhaps yes, perhaps not
> What do you think of the theory that the Szeklers are actually the descendants of
>Attila's Huns.
it's a theory, and it's so far unproven
> Personally I don't know but I never liked the idea that the
>Huns just suddenly disappeared soon after Attila's death.
of course not
many remained on the territory and morphed/mixed into the
slavic/germanic and turkish population
you'll find their descendants in the ukraine and israel too, and some
in present day hungary, not only because some remained there from the
hun's time, but rather because they have returned with arpad as
memebers of "kabar" (la'zado/revolting) kazar tribes, and perhaps in
other disguise as well
btw. the huns were also mosaic people, they started out as the
hsiung-nu (a.k.a. the first turks)
later on some other people became amalgated/subjugated to them, but
the core (much like in the case of the landtaking "magyars") remained
turkish
as the newcomers learned to shoot arrows, ride horses, and live in
yurts, doing the turkish things in general, the hordes became bigger
and splinter groups were developed
these groups were eventually separated from the core following some
charismatic leader, one such group were the "magyars"
as you might know, the "magyars" lived with the kazars for quite some
time, the kazars similarly to szeklers were also "horse people"
here is the connection to the huns, present in some cultural elements
--that is
as for present day hungarians they have some bragging rights,
but not much more
let's move on
************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siculicidium.jpg
akkor is ment a nagy rofoges, hogy: vitam et sanguinem!
--de vegul megiscsak a szekely verzett
tarara
"Bill Forintos" <B...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:g1nc62$f3j$1...@aioe.org...
> Personally I don't know but I never liked the idea that the Huns just
> suddenly disappeared soon after Attila's death.
Some returned to Asia. The rest simply blended into the surrounding
more numerous Aryan-speaking populations.
Mark
KLa...@msn.com
Didn't those Huns who returned East meet up with the related Bulgars,
and weren't they absorbed by them?
KLa...@msn.com
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:31:38 -0700 (PDT), .
>
> not really, perhaps to the uninformed and to those who want to exploit
> the issue for political gain
>
>
> szeklers, as their popular bon mot teaches: szekely szarta a magyart
What does that mean?
> the magyar is a mosaic nation that was created from the alliance of
> several ethnically diverse tribes, so it's fair to say that before the
> blood-treaty (verszerzodes) there were no magyars as such, only
> proto-magyars, --and even afterwords, the ruling class remained
> turkish (see at homan and others)
Could you tell me more about those tribes? What were they made up of?
>
> further, the earliest available reference doesn't say that the
> szeklers and magyars were speaking the same language, but rather a
> language that both parties understood (probably some turkish dialect)
>
> there is no doubt, that the proto magyars (or say, a certain group of
> them) were akin to the szeklers, but they were not the same
So the ancestors of the Szeklers may have been related to the Magyars,
but still distinct?
KLa...@msn.com
>> the "mother country" has a long track record that shows the
> exploitation and abuse of szekler people
>
> if it wasn't bad enough for the misapprotiation and presentation of
> szekler culture as "real magyar", now it seems szeklers are about to
> be sacrificed again for the sake of some makebelieve gross-magyar
> reich, and/or petty party politics
>
> i'm worried about this kind of modern day brainless and retrograde
> spiritual anschluss, because the loudmouths, those "magyarkodo to'tok"
> just go home as it became usual in the last 1000 years, but the
> szeklers are the ones who have to live with the consequences
>
> > I think the political gain could come by stating that the issue is
> >settled.
>
> how so?
>
> what difference would it make today whether the szeklers originated
> from the huns, or others?
>
> (many rumanians also originated from huns, and cumans [tatars])
>
>
> >That's just a tease to the magyars. It only implies that they came into the
> >Carpathian Basin before the Magyars.
>
> indeed, that's the point
That's the one thing that is known for certain. :-)
> szeklers were not part of the landtaking (honfoglalas) and haven't
> participated in the blood treaty either, they had their own laws and
> own special organization until the madefalva massacre, in which not
> only the loboncz, but also the nadasdy hussars took part shamelessly
What happened?
> thank you, "mother country"
>
> nem felejtjuk el
>
> > Perhaps with the Huns.
>
> perhaps yes, perhaps not
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the Huns did indeed play a role, at
least to some degree.
> > What do you think of the theory that the Szeklers are actually the descendants of
> >Attila's Huns.
>
> it's a theory, and it's so far unproven
I think that Bulgar, Avar, or gepid origin theories are more widely
held.
> > Personally I don't know but I never liked the idea that the
> >Huns just suddenly disappeared soon after Attila's death.
>
> of course not
>
> many remained on the territory and morphed/mixed into the
> slavic/germanic and turkish population
Following the collapse of their empire, the Huns scattered to the four
winds, basically. Some hired out to the ROman empires, some
intermingled with the locals, and some went back to southern Russia
where they eventually joined the related Bulgars. In fact, wasn't one
of the Bulgar kings said to have been a descendant of Atilla himself?
> you'll find their descendants in the ukraine and israel too, and some
> in present day hungary, not only because some remained there from the
> hun's time, but rather because they have returned with arpad as
> memebers of "kabar" (la'zado/revolting) kazar tribes, and perhaps in
> other disguise as well
Could you tell me a bit more about the Kabars?
> btw. the huns were also mosaic people, they started out as the
> hsiung-nu (a.k.a. the first turks)
>
> later on some other people became amalgated/subjugated to them, but
> the core (much like in the case of the landtaking "magyars") remained
> turkish
Story of pastorial peoples in general.
> as the newcomers learned to shoot arrows, ride horses, and live in
> yurts, doing the turkish things in general, the hordes became bigger
> and splinter groups were developed
>
> these groups were eventually separated from the core following some
> charismatic leader, one such group were the "magyars"
>
> as you might know, the "magyars" lived with the kazars for quite some
> time, the kazars similarly to szeklers were also "horse people"
What was the Magyars relationship to the Khazars?
> here is the connection to the huns, present in some cultural elements
> --that is
>
> as for present day hungarians they have some bragging rights,
> but not much more
>
> let's move on
>
> ************************http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siculicidium.jpg
tur...@shaw.ca
>So the ancestors of the Szeklers may have been related to the Magyars,
>but still distinct?
by the way of the language (that was spoken back then) and similarity
of culture, much like the germans are related to the dutch, or to the
brits
now, if you'd ask me about the degree of relationship between german
speaking vends and brits of norman origin that's a question i really
couldn't aswer
KLa...@msn.com
So what exactly do you feel that the ancestors of the Szeklers were?
Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
tur...@shaw.ca
>On Jun 1, 3:27 am, tur...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT), KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>> >So the ancestors of the Szeklers may have been related to the Magyars,
>> >but still distinct?
>>
>> by the way of the language (that was spoken back then) and similarity
>> of culture, much like the germans are related to the dutch, or to the
>> brits
>>
>> now, if you'd ask me about the degree of relationship between german
>> speaking vends and brits of norman origin that's a question i really
>> couldn't aswer
>
>So what exactly do you feel that the ancestors of the Szeklers were?
exactly?
no idea
>Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
>think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
what difference would it make?
Bill Forintos
> what difference would it make?
Why even bother studying history then? Does that make any difference?
tur...@shaw.ca
wrote:
><turan*@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> what difference would it make?
>
>Why even bother studying history then? Does that make any difference?
not much
in order to study history one needs some historical evidence, but here
we are talking about pre-historical events
so, i'm affraid "studying" such "history" is not really possible
one can guesstimate of course, but one's guess is just as good as the
others'
unless you know where the walking sticks of the good pastors' are
located, that is
you know the ones who have taken down everything in runic writing,
using a "bugyli bicska" :-)>
KLa...@msn.com
I'm just curious as to what your opinion is.
G.Raffe
"Bill Forintos" <B...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> Why even bother studying history then? Does that make any difference?
Because we virtually must, to gain access to the laboratory of human
experience.
tur...@shaw.ca
(...)
>> >Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
>> >think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
>>
>> what difference would it make?
>
>I'm just curious as to what your opinion is.
as i've already said; there are many diverse concepts and ideas
floating around, however, i can't give you informed opinion about the
validity of any, or choose one over another one
if you wish, you might pick up the rest here
tur...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>In article <in4k44pal30nqbtr1...@4ax.com>, turan*@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>>>Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
>>>think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
>>
>>what difference would it make?
>
>Nagyot csalodtam benned, immaron masodszor.
hogyan?
ugyanazt irtad amit en
stogies
wrote:
>In article <in4k44pal30nqbtr1...@4ax.com>, turan*@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>>>Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
>>>think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
>>
>>what difference would it make?
>
>Nagyot csalodtam benned, immaron masodszor.
>
>
>Mocsár Tibor
Nem csoda,hogy meglepodik az aki ilyen "objektivan tudosit"
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.magyar
>From: Tibor_Moc...@t-online.de (Tibor Mocsar)
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:19:00 +0100
>Subject: Objektiv tudositas
>Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>Hosszu szunet utan ujra lurkoltam itt vagy harom hetet es most valahogy
>szukseget erzem, hogy irjak is valamit, hatha valaki el is olvassa.
>(Ha nem, az se baj, azok legalabb megmaradnak edes alomvilagukban.)
>
>Kedd ota szunet nelkul dol a propaganda. A medianak definitiv semmi mas
>temaja nincs, csak WTC, terror, USA, haboru. Errol akkor sem lehetne
>tobbet targyalni, ha minket talalt volna az akcio. Filmek sugarzasat
>halasztjak el, unnepsegeket allitanak le, sportesemenyeket mondanak le.
>Mindezt azert, mert egy tavoli, idegen orszagban alig otezer ember
>eletet vesztette. Csak osszehasonlitaskeppen: a torokorszagi foldrenges
>idejen, ahol valami harmincezer aldozat volt, lehetett vidaman futbalozni,
>TV-t nezni, vagy eppen magunkat a sarga foldig leinni. Ugyanez ervenyes
>az iraki haboru _civil_ aldozataival kapcsolatban is, akikbol mar az elso
>ot napon szazezret oltek meg. (Forras:BBC) (Vizualizalasi javaslat a
>"nem a szamok embereinek": kepzeljetek el husz lebombazott WTC-t.)
>Figyelemre melto, hogy a nemet TV es sajto egyetlen negativ szot sem emlit,
>ami akarcsak tavolrol is megbanthatna az USA lelkivilagat. Kinomban a helyi
>"nyilvanos csatornat" is bekapcsoltam, amit egyebkent nem teszek, mert
>a musoruk nem nagyon erdekel ("Iran TV", "Hindukus TV", "Polska TV"
>stb.) Nagyon meglepodtem, milyen sok nemet kapcsolodott bele a musorba
>telefonon es Internet chaten keresztul. Ezek velemenye gyokeresen mas,
>mint a hivatalos mediaban hallottake. Nagyon jol latjak az osszefuggest
>az USA kataszrofalis kulpolitikaja es Izrael egyoldalu tamogatasa
>kozott. Egybehangzo volt a velemeny arrol is, hogy a hivatalos media
>egy kifejezetten haborus hangulatot igyekszik kelteni, es egyaltalan
>nem helyeslik, hogy Nemeto. barminemu segitseget, kulonosen pedig
>katonait nyujtson, kulonosen az o adojukbol es idegen erdekekert.
>Ezt csak azert meselem el, nehogy a butuskak azt higgyek, az egesz
>vilag osztatlan orommel tamogatja az USA aljassagait. Egy nem tul
>tavoli napon, meg a fafeju nemet is rajon, hogy az o elete amerikai
>szempontbol tekintve talan 10-15 afganeval egyenerteku, de csak 0,01
>izraelieval, ill. 0,1 amerikaieval. De lehet, hogy tevedek, mert o meg
>azt mondja, ez meg mindig nagysagrendekkel jobb arany, mint peldaul egy
>palesztin eseteben.
>
>
>Aki targyilagos tajekoztatasra sulyt fektet, annak szivbol ajanlom a
>BBC hirmusorait. BBC mindig is hires volt arrol, hogy tudositasuk a
>legkevesbe reszrehajlo az egesz vilagon. Ez manapsag is meg igy van.
>Igen ugyelnek ra, hogy a hir es a kommentar jol megkulonboztethetok
>legyenek. Ezidaig CNN egyetlen szoval sem emlitette a pakisztani
>tunteteseket, a nemet tv egy mondatra meltatta oket, BBC meg kepeket is
>mert mutatni roluk. Meg mernek szolaltatni olyan szemelyeket is,
>(katonai es politikai szakertoket), akiknek velemenye szoges
>ellentetben all a hivatalos brit allasponttal.
>
>
>Az utobbi kb. ket honapban a fenypont szamomra az iraki haborut elemzo
>sorozat volt, ill. az Ariel Sharon haborus bunosseget bizonyito ketoras
>dok.film (amire persze jott a standard tiltakozas).
>
>
>El tudom kepzelni azt a kultursokkot, amiben most Amerika
>szenved: Hollywood olyan sokszor ijesztgette oket a torzonborz, szakallas
>arab terroristaval, hogy azt mar lassan megszoktak. Most meg jon a
>terrorista, es nincs szakalla! Viszont van felsofoku muszaki
>vegzettsege, megpedig nem valami amerikai kosarlabda-egyetemtol, hanem
>egy igen jonevu europaitol (nehany utcanyira tolem). Es meg csak nem is
>a repulo szonyegen jon, hanem repulon, amit maga iranyit. Biztos a CIA
>is elegedetlenseget fejezi ki Hollywoodban, hogy ilyen hamis nyomra tereltek
>oket. Minden esetre alaposan korrigalniuk kell az elkepzeleseiket.
>
>
>--
>
KLa...@msn.com
> In article <05fa90dd-6511-486e-904c-fe8dde1a3...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> KLa...@msn.com wrote:
>
> >So what exactly do you feel that the ancestors of the Szeklers were?
> >Were they Turkic, Finno-Ugric,Iranian, what? Also, what people do you
> >think they originated from? Bulgars? Huns? Avars?
>
> doesn't know and cannot know it, just like any of us.
>
> Even if we accept Heribert Illig's "phantomage" theory this remains one
> of the unsolved questions. Klaus Weissenberg has also carefully avoided
> to answer this question in his work. However, I find it interesting
> (and somewhat farefetched) that he mentions germanic gepides among the
> possible ancestors.
>
> Mocsár Tibor
DIdin't genetic research show that the Szeklers have a good sized
Iranian element? Maybe they were partly of Scythian-Sarmatian origins.
Oluptulma
>I also doubt there would be "iranian elements" that could be prooved by
>genetics, though here I can be wrong. Anyway, the Scythians being of
>iranian origin is so far a hypothesis only, a *linguistical* one,
>not an antropological.
Of course linguistical. But speaking a certain language and not other
has (had) certain reasons. (Even ancient Iranians and today's Iranians
are related but not the same.) About 3-4-5 thousand years ago those
Cimmerian-Scythian-Iranian tribes belonged to the same group.
Proto-Kurds, proto-Slavs, proto-Baltics, even proto-Armenians were also
closely related. From among the Iranic languages (or dialects) speaking
peoples which were magyarized there were the Alans a.k.a. Yazyges
(Jászok). Those of them who still speak an Iranian dialect (an
*East*-Iranian one) are the Ossetians in the Caucaus mountains. Khwarizm
(Horezm) Turks were also of Iranian extraction. These are known in
Hungarian as the Káliz(ok). Some of them were colonized in eastern
Transylvania, among Szeklers. Also Petcheneks (Besenyôk) and Cumans
(Kunok), Berendeys (Berendek), esp. as military border units (along all
Hungarian borders).
All or most of those Turk-language dialects speaking groups also had
Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan ancestors (as is the case with most of Turcs,
and partially with Mongolians). But beside the Turkic (chiefly of the
proto-Bulgarian a.k.a. Onogur a.k.a. Varkhunni kind), Magyar, Iranic
elements, of major importance was the Slavic one (even before the
Arpadian exodus from the Ukrainian "Atilkuzu"). In the 10th century
there were some... Viking (Varangian) elements, too. One of the
onomastic skandinavian relics: kylflingr (or so) => Kulpun/Kulpin =>
Kölpény. (cf. Ond and Kulpun in the Hungarian chronicles, and the tribe
of Tarianos (Tarján))
Malto Dekstrin
>Tibor Mocsar wrote:
>
>>I also doubt there would be "iranian elements" that could be prooved by
>>genetics, though here I can be wrong. Anyway, the Scythians being of
>>iranian origin is so far a hypothesis only, a *linguistical* one,
>>not an antropological.
>
>Of course linguistical.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v8/n5/abs/5200468a.html
T�m�ry G., Cs�nyi B., Bog�csi-Szab� E., Rask�I., Comparison of
maternal lineage and biogeographic analyses of ancient and modern
Hungarian populations. Institute of Genetics, Biological Research
Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 6726 Szeged
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632797
keywords: ancient, autosomal, europe, finno-ugric, fst, h, haplotype-
counting, hungary, mds, mt, mtdna, n1a, population-origins, r, sekler,
t, transylvania, update-when-published, uralic, x
Abstract
The Hungarian language belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic
family, but Hungarian speakers have been living in Central Europe for
more than 1000 years, surrounded by speakers of unrelated Indo-
European languages. In order to study the continuity in maternal
lineage between ancient and modern Hungarian populations,
polymorphisms in the HVSI and protein coding regions of mitochondrial
DNA sequences of 27 ancient samples (10th-11th centuries), 101 modern
Hungarian, and 76 modern Hungarian-speaking Sekler samples from
Transylvania were analyzed. The data were compared with sequences
derived from 57 European and Asian populations, including Finno-Ugric
populations, and statistical analyses were performed to investigate
their genetic relationships. Only 2 of 27 ancient Hungarian samples
are unambiguously Asian: the rest belong to one of the western
Eurasian haplogroups, but some Asian affinities, and the genetic
effect of populations who came into contact with ancient Hungarians
during their migrations are seen. Strong differences appear when the
ancient Hungarian samples are analyzed according to apparent social
status, as judged by grave goods. Commoners show a predominance of
mtDNA haplotypes and haplogroups (H, R, T), common in west Eurasia,
while high-status individuals, presumably conquering Hungarians, show
a more heterogeneous haplogroup distribution, with haplogroups (N1a,
X) which are present at very low frequencies in modern worldwide
populations and are absent in recent Hungarian and Sekler populations.
Modern Hungarian-speaking populations seem to be specifically
European. Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic
differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking
populations, and no genetic continuity is seen.
Am J Phys Anthropol 2007. � 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/ryanraaum/article/1459192
http://www.pubget.com/site/preload_results?search%5Bquick%5D=17632797
tur...@shaw.ca
so?
KLa...@msn.com
Could you tell me if there is a English language page or translation?
stogies
I sincerelly hope that there isn't any 'cause this "historian" Kiszely
is not taken very serioiusly among his peers.(btw..even his
qualification is questionable,well this of course tells a thing or two
about the poster turan.Today no self respecting scientist claims
any hun magyar relationship.It only lives in the little minds of
weekend historians romanticizing about our glorious past.
The internet is not the best place to study this,I'm afraid.
tur...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>>> if you wish, you might pick up the rest here
>>>
>>> http://magyarerzelmek.multiply.com/journal/item/4
>>
>>Could you tell me if there is a English language page or translation?
>
>I sincerelly hope that there isn't any 'cause this "historian" Kiszely
>is not taken very serioiusly among his peers.
firstly, i've already stated here, in the very thread
"in order to study history one needs some historical evidence, but
here we are talking about pre-historical events"
considering this, one "available source" is is just as good as an
other one :-)>
thus, with tongue in the cheek i recommended the one by the name of
"magyarerzelmek"
"erzelmek", you've got it?
you've not! --obviously the irony was wasted on on you,
människa, what a moron you are :-)>
secondly that page is only *based* on dr. kiszely's book, in real life
it is an *annotated bibliography*
thirdly, petty politics notwithstanding dr. kiszely is probably the
most internationally published hungarian researcher and writer on this
field amongst us, still alive
"Tudományos munkák
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1966): A szentendrei langobard temeto" embertani
vizsgálata.
Anthropológiai Közlemények. X.1-3. Budapest. Pp. 57-89.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (1967): A lencsepusztai kelta temeto"
embertani feldolgozása.
Anthropológiai Közlemények. XI. 3-4. Budapest. Pp. 187-198.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - KATONA, FERENC (1968): Operationen im Gebiet des
Foramen occipitalis magnum an ungarischen Schädeln aus dem 10.
Jahrhundert.
Südhoffs Archiv. LII. 3. Bern. Pp. 211-220.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - DÁVID, PÉTER (1969) Absolute Antersbestimmung
subfossiler Knochen auf derivatographischen Weg. Zeitschrift für
Morphologie und Anthropologie.
LX.3. Tübingen. Pp. 297-304.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - KATONA, FERENC (1969) Operationen am Foramen
occipitale megnum bei ungarischen Schädeln. Zeitschrift für
Morphologie und Anthropologie.
LX.No.3. Tübingen. Pp 289-296.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - SCALGLIONI, ANTONIO (1969): Lo sviluppo
antropologico del sepolcreto longobardo (barbaro) di Testone, Italia.
Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La
Columbaria".
XXXIV. Firenze. Pp. 247-283.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1969): Sírok, csontok, emberek. Embertan a
régészetben.
Egyetemi kézikönyv. Gondolat Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 430.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1969): Esame antropologico degli scheletri longobardi
di Brescia.
Natura Bresciana. V. No.6. Brescia. Pp. 125-153.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1969): Derivatographic Research of Subfossile Bones.
Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. I. No.2. Szeged. Pp. 217-224.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1969): Derivatographische Untersuchungen an
subfossilen Knochenmaterial.
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Math. Nat. Reihe. XVIII. Berlin. Pp. 981-987.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1969) Anthropological examination of a Nubian
premature Infant.
Archivio per l'antropologia e l'etnologia. IC. No. 1-2. Firenze. Pp.
79-84.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1969): Anthropologische Untersuchung der
frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Skelettfunde mit Küntlich deformierten
Schädeln von Letkés.
Mitteilungen der Arch. Inst. der Ung. Akademie der Wissenschaften. II.
Budapest. Pp. 103-117.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): Le caratteristiche antropologiche delle tombe
longobarde di Fiesole, Italia.
Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La
Columbaria". XXXV. Firenze. Pp. 77-100.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): On the peculiar Custom of the Artificial
Mutilation of the Foramen occipitale magnum.
Acta Archaeologica Hungarica. XXII. Budapest. Pp. 301-321.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): On Hungarian Anthropology. Discussion and
Criticism. Current Anthropology.
XI. No.1. U.S.A. Pp. 61-62.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): Derivatograficseszkije ispitanija v sluzbe
archeologij i antropologij.
MOM Review. II. Budapest. Pp. 33-45.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): Short Antropological Characterization of the
Langobard Graveyard in Kranj.
Glasnik Antropoloskog Drustva Jugoslavije. VII. Novi Sad. Pp. 65-79.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - MAXIA, CARLO (1970): Studio sui resti scheletrici
delle tombe barbariche di Dolianova (Cagliari) del VII. secolo.
Seminario della Facolta di Scienze della Universita di Cagliari. XL.
Cagliari. Pp. 453-488.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - MAXIA, CARLO (1970): Sulla mutilazione del Foramen
occipitale megnum allo stato attuale delle conoscenze.
Seminario delle facolta di Scienze della Universita di Cagliari. XL.
Cagliari. Pp. 489-518.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1970): Breve descrizione antropologica della
sepolture di eta barbarica trovate a Gussago/Brescia.
Natura Bresciana. Annuario del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di
Brescia. VI. No. 7. Brescia. Pp. 113-135.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1971): Derivatographic Analyses in the Service of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
MOM Review. III. Budapest. Pp. 28-39.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1971): Esame antropologico dei resti scheletrici
della necropoli longobarda di Castel Trosino.
Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La
Columbaria". XXXVI. Firenze. Pp. 113-161.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1971): Esame antropologico dei resti schelerici di
eta tardo-romana rinvenuti a Vobarno/Brescia.
Annali del Museo di Gavardo. IX. Brescia. Pp. 27-41.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ: Mesterségesen deformált
koranépvándorláskori férfikoponya Tamási-Adorjánpusztáról.
A Szekszárdi Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve. II. Szekszárd. Pp. 67-84.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1972): Problems of Investigation of the Lombard Ethnic
Group. In: Töro", Imre - Szabady, Egon - Nemeskéri, János - Eiben,
Ottó ed.: Advances in the Biology of Human Population.
Academic Press. Budapest. Pp. 479-487.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - BAKAY, KORNÉL (1972): Neue Angaben zur Geschichte
des Komitates Békés in der Landnahmezeit. Gräberfelder von Gerendás
und Mezo"kovácsháza.
Mitteilungen des. Arch. Inst. der Ungarischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. III. Budapest. Pp. 103-123.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1972): Die deformierte Schädel im Grabfund von
Kesztölc. Mitteilungen des Arch. Inst. der Ung.
Akademie der Wissenschaften. III. Budapest. Pp. 123-127.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1972): Esame antropologico di uno scheletro d'eta
barbarica reperito in Brescia. Natura Bresciana.
Annuario del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Brescia. VIII. No.3.
Brescia. Pp. 280-286.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1972): Studio antropologico dei resti scheletrici
longobardi trovati a Cividale.
Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi. LII. Udine. Pp. 33-51.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1973): Derivatographic Examination of Subfossile und
Fossile Bones.
Current Anthropology. XIV. No.3. Washington. Pp. 280-286.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1973): Il volto dei Langobardi.
Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La
Columbaria". XXXVIII. Firenze. Pp. 63-79.
KISZELY István (1973): A letenyei VIII-IX. századi csontvázak
antropológiai jellemzése.
Folia Archaeologica. XXIV. Budapest. Pp. 153-158.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1973): A fehérvári-uti avar kori temeto" rövid
embertani jellemzése.
Budapest Régiségei. XXXXII. Budapest. Pp. 89-98.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1973): Torzított koponyájú sírlelet rekonstruált arca.
Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. I. Kaposvár. Pp. 299-301.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - BAKAY KORNÉL (1973): Újabb adatok Békés megye
honfoglaláskori történetéhez.
A Békés Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. II. Békéscsaba. Pp. 63-97.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1974): Rassengeschichte von Ungarn. In. Schwidetzky,
Ilse ed.: Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. Bd. VI. Oldenburg Verlag.
München-Wien. Pp. 1-49; Tafel I-VIII.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1974) On the Possibilities and Methods of the Chemical
Determination of Sex from Bones.
OSSA. I. Stockholm. Pp. 61-62.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - KORVÁTH-KELEMEN, MÁRTA (1974-1975): Anthropologische
Untersuchung von Frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Gräbern aus Epöl.
Mitt. des Arch. Inst. der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. V.
Budapest. Pp. 163-173; Tafel 56-57.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1975): Untersuchung der Menschenknochen der
Urzeitlichen Siedlung des Gräberfeld von Altacker in Pári.
Mitteilungen des Arch. Inst. der Ungarischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. IV. Budapest. Pp. 119-128.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1976): Sírok, csontok, emberek. 2. átdolgozott és
bo"vített kiadás.
Gondolat Kiadó. Budapest. P. 466.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1976): Artificial Skull-Deformations in Europe of the
Early Migration Period; as they had been valued previously and as they
are considered today.
Acta Congressus Internationalis XXIV. Historiae Artis Medicinae 25-31
Augusti 1974. Budapestini. Museum, Bibliotheca et Archivum Historiae
Artis Medicinae de I. Ph. Semmelweis nominata. Budapest. Pp.
1309-1315.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1976): The Representation of the Langobard Man in the
Light of the Anthropological Finds.
Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitatis Comenianae.
Anthropologia. XXII. Bratislava. Pp. 123-125.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1976): Anthropologische Bearbeitung der
prälangobardischen Gräber in Soponya.
Mitteilung des Archaeologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. VI. Budapest. Pp. 125-131.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1978): The Origins of the Artificial Cranial
Formation in Eurasia from the Sixth Millennium B.C. to the Seventh
Century A.D. British Archaeological Reports.
International Series (Supplementary). Vol. L. Oxford. P. 76; Fig.
1-41.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1978) A somogyvári apátsági templom területén
elo"került csontanyag embertani vizsgálata.
Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. III. Kaposvár. Pp. 95-130.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - SCHWIDETZKY, ILSE (1978): Der Mensch des
neolithikums und der Stein-Kupferzeit in Ungarn. In: Schwidetzky, Ilse
ed.: Die Anfänge des Neolithikums von Orient bis Nordeuropa.
Böhlau Verlag. Köln-Wien. Pp. 120-128; Abb. 26-28.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1979): The anthropology of the Lombards. British
Archaeological Series (BAR).
International Series. LXI. Oxford. Vol. I-II. P. 622 and 670.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1979): A Föld népei. I. Európa népei.
Gondolat Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 735.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1980): The Anthropology of the Lombards. British
Archaeological Series (BAR).
International Series. LXI. Oxford. Vol. I-II. 2nd. Edition. P. 622 and
670.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1980): The Lombard (Langobard) Man in Space and Time.
In: Schwidetzky, Ilse - Chiarelli, Brunetto - Necrasov, Olga ed.:
Physical Anthropology of European Population.
Mouton Publishers. The Hague - Paris - New York. Pp. 355-365.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1980): Kratka antropologiska karakterizacija
grobiscse v Krajna. In: Vida, Stare: Kranj nekropola iz casa
prezeljevanja ljudestev.
Katalogii in Monografija. Izdat. Narodni Muzej v. Ljubljana. XVIII.
Ljubljana. Pp. 33-37.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1981): On the True Face of the Longobards in Italy.
Atti del Congresso "La Cultura in Italia fra Tardo Antico e Alto
Medioevo) dal 12 al 16 November 1979. Roma. Parte VII. Archeologia e
Storia dell'Arte. Roma. Pp. 888-892.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1982): What do Hungarians Look like?
Hungarian Digest. 1982/2. Budapest. Pp. 90-92.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN - VADAY, ANDREA (1982): Sarmatische Gräber in
Tiszakürt, Homokos.
Mitteilungen des Archologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. X-XI. Budapest. Pp. 109-116; 375-380.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1982): Nhan Hoc trong Khao co Hoc.
Khao Co Hoc. 1982/2. Hanoi. Pp. 61-77.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1982): Anthropologie de la population Hongroise.
Revue de Hongrie. 1982/2. Budapest. Pp. 34-37.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1982):: From Prehistoric Times to Conquest of a
Country.
Hungarian Digest. 1982/2. Pp. 38-43.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1982-1983): An Anthropological Examination of Human
Bones coming to light from the Territory of the Pilisszentkereszt
Abbey.
Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften. XII.XIII. Budapest. Pp. 227-241; Pt. 421-427.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1983): Csopakon elo"került "lékelt" koponyájú
csontvázleletek antropológiai feldolgozása. Anthropological Analysis
of Skeletal Finds with Trephined Skull found at Csopak.
A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. XVI. Veszprém. Pp. 27-34.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1983): Contribution of Archeological Chemistry.
Acta Archaeoloogica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. XXXV. Budapest.
Pp. 420-453.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1983): From Prehistoric Times to the Conquest of a
Country (Hungary).
Hungarian Past. XII. No. 1. Sydney. Pp. 1-9.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1984): A Budalo"rinc-i pálos kolostor Szent
Keresztro"l elnevezett oldalkápolnájában talált csontvázak
antropológiai vizsglata.
Budapest Régiségei. XXVI. Budapest. Pp. 259-268.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1984): A Föld népei II. Ázsia.
Gondolat Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 745.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1984-1985): A Kárpát-medencei magyarság embertani
vizsgálata.
Magyar Múlt. XIII. No.1. Sydney. Pp. 11-15.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1985): Viec dinh cu o Chau Dai Du'ong.
The Peopling of Oceania and the Importance of the Protoaustronesian
Minorities in Vietnam. Khao Co Hoc. No.2. Hanoi. Pp. 81-90.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - LO"NCZY BARNA (1985): Szegvár-Szo"lo"kalja X. századi
temeto"je.
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae. Budapest. Pp. 141-162.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1986): Om Österbottninggarnas antropologi. Studia
Archaeologica Osterbotniensa.
Organ för Österbottniska Forknings-sällskapet. r.f. Helsinki. Pp.
82-97.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): A Föld népei III. Afrika.
Gondolat Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 626.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): Honnan jöttek a honfoglalók? Eredetkutatás
biokémiai módszerekkel.
Magyar Múlt. XIV. No. 1-2. Sydney. Pp. 75-78.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SZO"KE BÉLA - VÁNDOR LÁSZLÓ (1987): Pusztaszentlászló
Árpád-kori temeto"je.
Fontes Archaeologica Hungariae. Akadémiai Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P.
188.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (1987): "Testében él." A magyarok
o"shazája, ahogyan ma látjuk. Magyarság és Mu"veltség.
Az INTART Társaság I. Szimpoziumának elo"adásai. Mu"velo"déskutató
Intézet és INTART Kiadása. Budapest. Pp. 16-31.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1987): Des Hongrois sur les traces des Huns.
Bon sang ne saurat mentir. Nouvelliste (Suiss) 1987. 19. janv.
KISZELY ISTVÁN.(1987): A magyar korona funkcionális-morfológiai
aspektusa. In: Magyarság és Mu"veltség.
Az INTART Társaság I. Szimpoziumának elo"adásai. Mu"velo"déskutató
Intézet és INTART Kiadása. Budapest. Pp. 8-124.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A Hadtörténelmi Intézet és Múzeum udvarából
elo"került csontok vizsgálata.
Hadtörténelmi Közlemények. XXIV. No.1. Pp. 196-205.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1988): La Reine Adelhaide.
In: Histoire de la Chapelle Royale Saint-Franbourg de Senlis. France.
Senlis. P. 33.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Az aquincumi késo"római ero"d közelébo"l
származó csontvázak antropológiai összegzése.
Comm. Arch. Hung. Budapest. Pp. 71-75.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): O"störténetünk. I. Magyarok. I. No.1. 1989.
május.
Babits Kiadó. Szekszárd. Pp. 11-40.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): A magyarok o"störténete és a hunok. Magyarok.
I. No.3.
Babits Kiadó. Szekszárd. Pp. 11-35.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): A magyarság embertanáról. Magyarok. I. No.7.
1989. november.
Babits Kiadó. Szekszárd. Pp. 57-73.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): A magyarok honfoglalásáról. Magyarok. I. No. 8.
1989. december.
Babits Kiadó. Szekszárd. Pp. 125-139.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - CEY-BERT GYULA - CSANG REI (1989): A huszonnegyedik
óra után. Magyar expedíció a jogurok között.
Polyák Kiadó. Cleveland. P. 32.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Mi magyarul vagyunk emberek. In: Fejér Gyula
szerk: Beszélgetések a magyarságtudatról itthon és a nagyvilágban.
Hírnök Kiadó. Budapest. Pp. 75-82
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Az erdélyi magyarság összetételéro"l és
eredetéro"l. Magyarok. II. 1990. október.
Babits Kiadó. Szekszárd. Pp. 14-20.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1990): Ecriture runique en Valais.
Importance découverté et appel. Nouvelliste. 1990. 2. december. Sion.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - LÁCZAY ERVIN (1990): Az erdélyi blak vagy bulak
(bulaq) nép török eredetéro"l.
CÉH. Budapest. 1990. július-augusztus. Pp, 21-29.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (1990): A nádori kripta.
Babits Könyvkiadó. Szekszárd. P. 177.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1990): Language Atlas on the Pacific area.
Acta Ethnographica Hungarica. Budapest. Pp. 464-466.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): A magyarok o"shazája (Ahogyan ma látjuk).
A Második Nemzetközi Zürichi Magyar Történelmi Társaság 1988. évi
kongresszusának elo"adásai. Zürich. Pp. 84-95.
KISZELY, ISTVÁN (1991): Rhapsodie provencale.
Var Matris. P. 26.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): Embervilág. A Föld benépesülése és mai lakói.
Egyetemi jegyzet az ELTE Bölcsész Karán. I. Európa népei. P. 247; II.
Ázsia népei. p. 286; III. Afrika népei. P. 289; IV. Amerika népei. P.
245; V. Ausztrália és Óceánia népei. P. 249.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): Az erdélyi magyarság összetételéro"l és
eredetéro"l.
Magyar Múlt - Hungarian Past. XVIII. No. 41. Sydney. Pp. 1-24.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): Honnan jöttünk? Elméletek a magyarok
o"shazájáról.
Hatodik Síp Alapítvány. Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 460.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992) az Encyclopaedia Hungarica I-IV. kötetében
számos szócikk írója.
Megjelent Calgary-ban (Canada).
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): Hogyan éltek o"seink? Magyar kutatók
Kelet-Turkesztánban.
Magyar Múlt - Hungaraian Past. XIX. No. 42. Sydney. Pp. 18-30.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): A budaszentlo"rinci pálos kolostor területéro"l
elo"került embercsontok.
Budapest Régiségei. XXIX. Budapest. Pp. 167-179.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): Földünk népei. I. Amerika népei.
Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 192.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Short anthropological description of the
graveyard No. VI. and VII.
In: Topál, Judit: Roman cemeteries of Aquincum, Pannonia. The Western
Cemetery, Bécsi Road. I. Aquincum Nostrum Ed. Budapest. Pp. 283-319.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Vélemények a nagyszentmiklósi kincsleletkro"l.
A CÉH. 1993/3. Budapest. Pp. 45-50.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): The Anthropological Examination of the Frankish
Graveyard of Chambly-Oise, Picardie.
Amiens. P. 350.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): The Anthropology of the Merovingian Population
od the VI-VII. Centuries in Baron, Picardie.
Amiens. P. 283.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Mégis Peto"fi? A szibériai Peto"fi-kutatás
irodalma ido"rendi sorrendben.
EXTRA Kiadó. Szekszárd. P. 335.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1994): The Anthropological Examination of the Roman
Grave-Yard of Bécsi út, Budapest.
British Arhaeological Report. BAR. Oxford. P. 96.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1996). A magyarság o"störténete. Mit adott a magyarság
a világnak. I-II.
Püski könyvkiadó. Budapest. P.862. II. kiadás 1997-ben, harmadik
kiadás 1998-ban, negyedik kiadás 2000-ben.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1996): O"störténeti mozaikok. Somogy.
Somogy Megye Közgyu"lése és a Berzsenyi Dániel Irodalmi és Mu"vészeti
Társaság folyóirata. XXIV. évf. 2. szám. Fo"szerkeszto": Tüskés Tibor.
Kaposvár. Pp. 150-154.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1996): A svájci "Hun völgy". A Wallis tartományi Val
d'Anniviers-i völgy.
Magyarországi Unitárius Egyház. Budapest. P. 42.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1996). A magyarság eredete a legújabb kutatások
alapján. Ezerszáz éves értékekre építkezünk. Értékeink - Kérdéseink -
Reményeink.
Máriabesnyo". Albertfalvi Keresztény Társas Kör kiadása. Pp. 34-50.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1998). A magyarság o"störténete.
Egyetemi tankönyv. Budapest. P.100.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1998): A Lagoa Santa-i koponyák leírása. In:? Bányai
Mihály: Régészeti kutatásaim Brazíliában a Lagoa Santa vidékén (Minas
Gerais állam).
A szerzo" kiadása. Budapest. Pp. 65-97.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (1998): A magyarok o"shazája (The
Craddle fo the Hungarians) Magyar Múlt - Hungarian Past.
XXV. No. 1-2. Syney. Pp. 25-33.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (1998): Esame fisico antropologico dei
resti della testa di S. Elisabetta nelle Basilica S. Francesco alla
Rocca, dei Fratri Minori Conventuali a Viterbo.
Collectio Viterbiensis Conventus Basilicae S. Franciscani OFM. Conv.
2. Roma. P. 63.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1999): Történelmi szerep, napi feladatok.
Népfo"iskolák a vidék polgárosodásáért. A Falu.
A Magyar Vidékfejleszto"k Folyóirata. 1999. o"sz. Budapest. Pp. 9-15.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1999): Elo"szó A magyarság o"störténete címu" munka
1999-ben megjeleno" negyedik, átdolgozott kiadásához.
Százak Tanácsa. Magyarok Világszövetsége. Trikolor Könyvkiadó.
Budapest. Pp. 193-200.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1999): A túlélo"k igaza. Vidéken Élni.
A Százak Tanácsa Balatonbogláron. Balaton Akadémia. Könyvek. 42. sz.
Balatonboglár. Pp. 13-16.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1999): A magyarság eredete - ahogy ma látjuk.
Fekete-Fehér. Pécs. Pp. 29-30.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1999): Történelmi szerep, napi feladatok.
Népfo"iskolák a polgárosodásért.
Magyar Nemzet. 1999. október 5. p. 13.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000). Népfo"iskolák. Trianon Kalendárium. Magyar
Olvasókönyv.
Trianon Társaság. Budapest. Pp. 73-82.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): Mikor Napóleon. Kiinduló pont. Híres emberek
keze-írása érdi diákoknak.
A Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Általános Iskola kiadványa a Millennium
tiszteletére. Érd. Pp. 18-19.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): A népfo"iskolákról és a Hangya-Szövetkezetro"l.
Százak Tanácsa. Magyarok Világszövetsége.
Trikolor Könyvkiadó. Budapest. Pp. 209-216.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): A magyarpk eredete és o"si kultúrája.
Püski Könyvkiadó. Budapest. I. kötet Pp. 1-800; II. kötet Pp.
801-1497.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): Meghalt Szibériában. Egy szomorú magyar
szellemi kórkép. A szibériai Peto"fi-kutatás eseményei és irodalma
ido"rendi sorrendben.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 654.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): A magyarság o"störténetéro"l. In: Bobory Zoltán
szerk. Fidelitate Mariae.
Elo"adások 1994-1999. Szent István Mu"velo"dési Ház. Székesfehérvár.
Pp. 39-47.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000). Elo"szó Hetényi György: A harmadik évezred felé
címu" verseskötete.
Magyar Téka. Erkel Sándor Könyvesház. Békéscsaba. Pp. 5-8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): A magyarság eredete és o"störténete. Egyetemi
tankönyv és tanári segédkönyv.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 320.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): A magyar nép o"störténete. Egyetemi tankönyv és
tanári segédkönyv.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 294.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (2002): Ozírisz birodalmában. Hogyan
mumifikáltak az o"si egyiptomiak?
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 400.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): Mit adott a magyarság a világnak?
Kelet-Magyarországi Népfo"iskola Egyesület II.
Hírlevél. Kiáltó szó magyarságunkért. Debrecen. Pp. 19-21.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): Magyarságunk a világban. Népfo"iskolai Füzetek.
Magyar Népfo"iskolai Collegium. 10 éves az MNC Jubileumi kiadvány.
Számvetés keresztyén nézo"pontból. A balatonszárszói népfo"iskolai
konferencián elhangzott elo"adások 2001. július 23-29. Pp. 106-113.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): Életrajz.
Napút 10. 2001, december. Masszi Kiadó. Pp. 61-62.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): A magyar nép sikertörténete.
A falu. 2001. tél. Pp. 5-10.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2001): Ugyanúgy, mint a magyarok. A genetikai
kapcsolat az ujgurokhoz vezet.
Demokrata 2001. december 6. Pp. 22-23.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): A magyar írásról.
Demokrata. 2002. január 10. Pp. 28-29.
KISZELY ISTVÁN 2002: Gondolatok a magyar népzenéro"l.
Demokrata. 2002. január 17. Pp. 38-39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): A parasztság becsülete.
Heti Válasz. 2002. február 15. Pp. 42-43.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): Szkíta kabát. Eleink viselete változatos volt.
Demokrata 2002. február 21. Pp. 35-36.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): O"si ételkultúránk.
Demokrata 2002. március 14. Pp. 32-34.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): Rémképünk a világban.
Magyar Demokrata. 2002. április 4. Pp. 56-57.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): Milyen a magyar ember?
Magyar Demokrata. 2002. április 25. Pp. 30-31.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2002): A parasztság becsülete. In: Gyo"ri-Nagy Sándor
- Dulai Sándor szerk.: Szántani kén' tavasz vagyon.
Válasz Könyvkiadó. Budapest. Pp. 61-64.
ISZELY ISTVÁN - HANKÓ ILDIKÓ (2003): Ozírisz birodalmában. Hogyan
mumifikáltak az o"si egyiptomiak.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 386.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2003): Attila az elso" évezred legnagyobb európai
uralkodója. In: Bognár József szerk.: Attila nagy király.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. Pp. 26-59.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2004): A magyarság többet adott Európának, mint
amennyit kapott.
EVOÉ Magazin. Tavasz. Pp. 48-51.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2004): Amerika népei. (A Föld népei sorozat IV:
kötete).
Püski Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 606.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2004): A magyar ember. A Kárpát-medence embertörténete
I-II.
Püski Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 998.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2005): Ausztrália és Óceánia népei (A Föld népei
sorozat V. befejezo" kötete).
Püski Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 620.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2005): Sírok, csontok, emberek. (És egy ember).
Történelmi embertan.
Püski Könyvkiadó. Budapest. P. 620.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): A magyarság embertana (A magyar ember)
Magyar Ház kiadó. Budapest. P. 522.
HANKÓ ILDIKÓ - KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): Szokatlan szokások.
Testdíszítések és más biológiai és társadalmi furcsaságok.
Püski Kiadó. Budapest. P. 696.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): A magyarság keleti elemei.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. Magyar embertan sorozat.
II. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): Székely magyarok.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. Magyar Embertan sorozat.
II. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): A magyar ember.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. Magyar Embertan sorozat
III. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): Ko"be vésett és fába rótt történelem.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. Magyar írás- és
nyelvtörténet sorozat II.kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): Az o"smagyarok hitvilága.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. O"si magyar hitvilág
sorozat V. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): Az o"smagyarok életkultúrája.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. O"si magyar életkultúra
sorozat I. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2007): O"si magyar népmu"vészet.
Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor Magyar Egyetem jegyzete. Magyar népmu"vészet
sorozat I. kötet.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2008): Eleink lakomái. A magyarság o"s állat-,
növényvilága és ételkultúrája.
Püski Kiadó. Budapest. P. 880.
II. Ismeretterjeszto" munkákból szedetek
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SUSITS LÁSZLÓ (1965): A koponyák fényképezése.
Anthropológiai Közlemények. Budapest. IX. No. 23. Pp. 101-118.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1969): Vallanak a csontok.
Delta Magauzin. II. Budapest. Pp. 16-18.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1977): Történeti embertan.
Az Élet és Tudomány Kalendáriuma. Pp. 100-106.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1979): Tizenötezer nép antropológiája.
Magyar Nemzet. 1979. november 27. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1981): Alexandra Pavlovna, az ürömi cárleány.
Élet és Tudomány. XXXI. Pp. 966-968.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1982): Tetemrehívás. Beszélgetés a régészeti
antropológia ellentmondásairól.
Élet és Irodalom. 1982. június 11. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1982): Egy tárgyalás ürügyén.
Magyar Nemzet. 1982. február 3. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1982): Királyi csontok feltárása. Török Aurél
embertani kutatásai.
Magyar Nemzet. 1982. július 29. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SEBO"K JÁNOS (1984): Hol vagy István király?
Ifjúsági Magazin. 1984. XX/11. 1984. november. Pp. 38-39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1985): A Kalevala színhelyén.
Magyar Nemzet. 1985. augusztus 10. p. 9.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1985): A múlt születése. Könyvismertetés.
Magyar Nemzet. 1985. szeptember 3. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - FÖLDES MARGIT (1985): Csontjainkban a múlt.
Magyar Hírlap. 1985. december 14. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): Hol éltek o"seink?
Szittyakürt. 1986. április. Pp. 7-8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): Az igazság nem helyettesítheto".
Somogyi Néplap. 1986. augusztus 30. p. 5.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): Ko" se mutatja helyét. Recenzió.
Magyar Nemzet. 1986. április 9. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): Honnan jöttek a honfoglalók? Eredetkutatás
biokémiai módszerekkel.
Magyar Múlt. Sydney. XIV. No. 1-2. Pp. 75-78.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1986): A múmiapólyák és Sejk Ali kecskéi.
Kölyök Magazin. 1986. december. Pp. 27-28.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - BUZA PÉTER (1986): Vendégségben o"seinknél.
Új Tükör. XXIII. No. 24. Pp. 10-11.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - KÁKOSY LÁSZLÓ (1986): Fáraók, csaták, múmiák.
Igaz Szó. XXXI. No. 6. 1986. június. Pp. 35-37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - LACZKA MIKLÓS (1986): Az o"shaza nyomában.
Képes Újság. 1986. december 20. XXVII. No. 51-52. Pp. 16-17.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - NÁDOR TAMÁS (1986): Csontjaink bölcsessége.
Magyar Ifjúság. 1986. április 25. XXX. No. 7. Pp. 24-26.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - RÉTHY ISTVÁN (1986): Ki van a ko"lap alatt?
Népszabadság. 1986. szeptember 9. p. 6.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SEBO"K JÁNOS (1986): Kínából jöttünk?
Ifjúsági Magazin. 1986. december. XXII. No. 12. Pp. 46-49.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Hol éltek a magyarok elo"dei?
Soproni Újság. 1987. január 10.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): O"skereso"ben.
Képes 7. 1987. december 12. Pp. 26-27.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Rokonsági világtérkép. New York és Környéke.
Magyar Élet. 1987. március 12.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor szellemi hagyatéka nyomán.
Veszprém Megyei Napló. 1987. december 24. p. 2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Különös könyvkritika.
Magyar Nemzet. 1987. június 2. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Legsúlyosabban Batthyány Lajos teteme sérült
meg. Dönto" a ruhamaradványok vizsgálata.
Esti Hírlap. 1987. január 22. XXXII. No. 18.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Roga a pirosat választotta.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. június. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Zuhanás a becsületért.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. július. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Fülfájós fejvadászok.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. augusztus. p. 43.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Tízezer bátor kukukuku.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. szeptember-október. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): A világ legjobb nyomkereso"i.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. november. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1987): Szépséges tulipán.
Kölyök Magazin. 1987. december. p. 42.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - FARKAS ESZTER (1987): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor
végcéljánál.
Fejér Megyei Hírlap. 1987. június. 5. p. 3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - ILKEI CSABA (1987): Itt ringott o"seink bölcso"je?
Ujgurok földjén.
Képes Újság. 1987. november 21. XXVIII. No. 47. Pp. 16-17.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - OLÁH TIBOR (1987): A csontok nem hazudnak.
Debrecen. II. No. 2. 1987. május 30. p. 11.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SEBO"K JÁNOS (1987): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor
végrendelete nyomán. Expedíció indul a magyarok o"shazájába.
Ifjúsági Magazin. XXIII. No. 8. Pp. 24-26.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SZÖLLO"SY FERENC (1987): Nyomkeresés Kínában.
Képes 7. 1987. No. 32. augusztus. Pp. 20-21.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - VÁRNAI ÁGNES (1987): A magányos napraforgó üzenete.
Somogyi Néplap. 1987. október 31. p. 7.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - ZIKA KLÁRA (1987): A magyarok o"shazája a történeti
antropológia tükrében.
Magyar Hírek. XL. No. 2. 1987. január 24. Pp. 14-15.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Hol nyugszanak középkori királyaink?
Magyar Hírek. XLI. No. 1. 1988. január 8. Pp. 14-15.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Tu"zben születo" élet.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. január. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Nanimagu, a férfi.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. február. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Saxo és a hósivatag.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. március. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A fekete madonna az életre készül.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. április. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Mada és a gyu"ru"k.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. május. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Sék Ali dédunokája.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. június. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Abdul a magyaráb.
Kölyök Magazin. III. No. 7-8. 1988. július-augusztus. p. 30.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A szellemek megbocsátottak.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. szeptember. p. 39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Barátaim a habonóban.
Kölyök Magazin. 1988. november. p. 37.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - GÁBOR JÓZSEF (1988): Testében él a nemzet? Kínai
o"shazánk titkai.
Impulzus Magazin. 1988. február 13. Pp. 38-39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Hungarian Expedition to Potential Magyar
Homeland.
Naily News. 1988. január 13.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A Mennyei-hegység lakói. Magyar expedíció a
joguroknál.
Szittyakürt. 1988. október. p. 9.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor testamentumának
szolgálatában.
Szittyakürt. 1988. szeptember. Pp. 1-4.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A Mennyei-hegység lakói. Magyar expedíció a
joguroknál.
Magyar Nemzet. 1988. szeptember 24. p. 10.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Expedíció a sárga ujgurokhoz. Ko"rösi Csoma
Sándor nyomában.
Népszava. 1988. augusztus 15.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): A magyar nép o"störténete. Recenzió.
Magyar Nemzet. 1988. szeptember 9. p. 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Elo"bb meg kell enni.
Élet és Irodalom. 1988. május 6. XXXII. No. 9. p. 3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor testamentuma.
Film Szinház Muzsika. 1988. augusztus 1. XXXII. No. 32. p. 21.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor útján.
Népszava. 1988. július 22.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1988): Látogatóban egykori szomszédainknál.
Magyar Nemzet. 1988. június. 4.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - KONCZ JÓZSEF (1988): A nyomok Kínába vezetnek?
Soproni Népújság. 1988. február 6.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - MEGYERI GYÖRGY (1988): Tudomány vagy vallás?
Montreáli magyarság. 1988. június 2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - NÉMETH GÁBOR (1988): ".Meg kell keresni a nagyapa
szomszédait".
Természet Világa. 1988. CXIX. No. 8. Pp. 442-446.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - NYÍRO" JÓZSEF (1988): O"seink és a jelzo"gének.
Magyar Hírlap. 1988. augusztus 6. p. 5.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - ZIKA KLÁRA (1988): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor nyomában. Az
expedíció naplója.
Magyar Hírek. 1988. január 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Eltünnek rokonaink? Üzenet a joguroktól.
REFORM. 1989. március. p. 33.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Searching for our roots.
MALÉV inflight Magazine. 1989. No. 2. p. 47.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): A magyar o"störténetkutatás újabb
eredményeiro"l és tanulságairól.
Hírlevél. 1989. No. 7. Pp. 1-3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Válasz Bökönyi akadémikus nyilatkozatára.
Magyar Tudomány. 1989. No. 12. Pp. 999-1000.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Kinek múltja nincs, jövo"be sem láthat.
In: Bosnyák Sándor szerk. Hagyomány és Mu"velo"dés. Peto"fi Sándor
Mu"velo"dési Központ. Gödöllo". Pp. 13-19.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Vért ittam az afaroknál.
Kölyök Magazin. 1989. No. 1. január. p. 39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Hajmi és az o"sök dicso"sége.
Kölyök Magazin. 1989. március. p. 39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Kurufa férjhez megy.
Kölyök Magazin. 1989. április. p. 39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Vér és parázs.
Kölyök Magazin. 1989. május. p. 39.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - MIKULÁS ANIKÓ (1990): O"si jelek Ujguriában.
Szabad Föld. 1990. szeptember 18. p. 13.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): A jogurok (jugarok) földjén.
Az Ige. Kovászna. II. No. 4. Pp. 14-16.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): Rhapsodie provencale.
Var Matris. 1991. mars. 26. p. 3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1991): Mais ou son nos encetres hongrois?
Var Matris. 1991. mars. 10. p. 3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): O"seink Kínában.
Romániai Magyar Szó. 1992. március 13. p. 2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): Befürdött-e Für Lajos?
Élet és Irodalom. 1992. No. 12. március. 20. p. 2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): Ko"rösi Csoma Sándor igazi útjáról.
Hunnia. XXXII. 1992. június 25. Pp. 3-8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1992): A megtörtént múlt.
Heti Magyarország. 1992. szeptember 11. p. 14.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Magyar életfa. Fejezetek a magyarság
történetébo"l.
Magyar Fórum. 1993. május 27. p. 9.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Magyarságtudat - Múlttudat.
Hunnia. 1993. június 25. Pp. 40-44.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): A magyarábok I. Világszövetség.
1993. július 20. No. II/15. Pp. 1-2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): A magyarábok II. Világszövetség.
1993. augusztus 3. No. II/16. Pp. 28-29.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Népmu"vészetünk egyik gyakori alapeleme - a
tulipán.
Vecsési Krónika. I. évf. 1. szám. 1993. november 5.
1993 óta a megjelent ismeretterjeszto" cikkeket nem regisztráltam
III. Néhány publikáció a Peto"fi-témában
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Szerintem Peto"fi.
Magyar Nemzet. 1989. július 31.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Nyilatkozat Sass Ervinnek.
Békés Megyei Újság. 1989. augusztus 19.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Antropológiai és régészeti jelentések,
vizsgálati jegyzo"könyvek.
Kiadja a Megamorv Peto"fi Bizottság. 1989. augusztus.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Válasz a gondolatrendo"rségnek.
Világ. 1989. október 12.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Barguzinban temették el Peto"fit. I. A sír
elo"kerülése és állapota.
Hevesi Szemle. Eger. 1989. október . Pp. 70-76.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Tudomány barguzini módra.
Élet és Tudomány. 1989. november 3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Az MTA elnökségének.
Hevesi Szemle. Eger. 1989. december. Pp. 74-75.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1989): Barguzinban temették el Peto"fit. II. A koponya
méretei, jelzo"i és élettani sajátosságai.
II/2. Hevesi Szemle. Eger. Pp. 66-73.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Elfogult a bizottság.
Mai Nap. 1990. január 12.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Barguzini utózöngék.
Napi Nap. 1990. május 8.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Hallgattassék meg a másik fél is. Bizonyítsák
be, hogy nem Peto"fi csontváza.
Hírlap. 1990. május 26.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Tiltakozás egy becsmérlo" cikk ellen.
Romániai Magyar Szó. 1990. augusztus 10.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1990): Véleményünk nem változott.
Magyar Nemzet. 1990. szeptember 25.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Megjegyzések a Nem Peto"fi! címu" kötethez.
Nógrádi Hírlap. 1993. január 2-3.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Tudományos dáridó. Nem Peto"fi!
Hunnia. XXXIX. 1999. február 25. Pp. 25-36.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): A végso" bizonyíték az Akadémia jóvoltából
hiányzik.
Hevesi Napló 1993/1-2.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (1993): Mégis Peto"fi? A szibériai Peto"fi-kutatás
irodalma ido"rendi sorrendben.
Extra Kiadó. Szekszárd. P. 336.
KISZELY ISTVÁN - SINKOVICS FERENC (1999): Hazatér-e Peto"fi Sándor? A
harc a csontok hazahozataláért még mindig tart.
Magyar Demokrata. 1999/52. 1999. december 30. Pp. 8-12.
KISZELY ISTVÁN (2000): Meghalt Szibériában. Egy szomorú magyar
szellemi kórkép. A szibériai Peto"fi-kutatás eseményei és irodalma
ido"rendi sorrendben.
Magyar Ház Kiadó. Budapest. P. 654.
http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/publikaciok.html
>(btw..even his qualification is questionable,
Tagságok
Anthropological Society of Washington
Rendes tagság.
Centro Internazionale Studi Sardi, Cagliari
1969 óta rendes tagság.
Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien
1969 óta rendes tagság.
OSSA
Stockholmban megjeleno" tudományos folyórat szerkeszto"ségi tagja
1973-tól
International Society for Forensic Odonto-Stomatology
Rendes tagság 1975 óta.
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie und Humangenetik Mainz.
Vezeto"ségi tagság 1976 óta
Österbottniska Forfornskingssälskapet r.f.
Rendes tagja 1986 óta
Ungarischer Historischer Verein. Zürich
Alapító- és Rendes tagja 1986 óta.
International Society for Trans-Oceanic Research (USA, Berkeley,
Fullerton)
Alapító- és rendes tagja.
Internationale Gesellschaft für Polyästetische Erziehung. Salzburg.
Rendes tag 1988 óta.
A Viterbó-i San Francisco alla Rocca (Centro Francescana)
Antropológusa 1991 óta.
INTART (Nemzetközi Tudományos, Nevelési és Mu"vészeti Társaság)
Rendes tagja 1988 óta.
MUOSZ Sajtószabadság Klubja
Alapító tagja 1991 óta.
A Velemi Népmu"vészeti Stúdió Alapítvány
Rendes tagja.
Százak Tanácsa
(***)
Külföldi munkahelyek
Ausztria : Bécs (3 éves anyagfeldolgozás a Naturhistorisches
Museumban), Salzburg- Mittersill Mozarteumban elo"dások évente o"sszel
Németország: Mainz, Kiel, Hamburg, München, Stuttgart, Tübingen stb.
elo"adások és anyagfeldolgozás
Franciaország: Senlis királysírok, Baron, Chambly-Oise
anyagfeldolgozás, Regusse, Correns 1531-ben kivitt magyarok kutatása
Svédország: Stockholm, Ullriksdal, Lund, Dösjebro anyagfeldolgozás,
tanítás
Finnország: Helsinki elo"adások, Isokyro ásatás, anyagfeldolgozás és
elo"adás 3 éven át
Anglia: Cambridge, Oxford, London egyetemeken elo"adás, tanítás sok
éven át
Jugoszlávia: Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Kranj elo"adások és anyagfeldolgozás
Olaszország: Cagliari, Firenze, Verona, Vicenza, Cividale, Brescia,
Castel Trosino, Canne stb. folyamatos munka; Roma, Firenze, Cagliari
egyetemi oktatás; Viterbo anyagfeldolgozás
Egyiptom: Kairó tanítás az Amerikai Egyetemen, Luxor-Gurna ásatáson
részvétel 9-szer, anyagfeldolgozás
Irak: Baghdad elo"adás, Abu Sahrain-Eridu ásatáson részvétel,
anyagfeldolgozás, elo"adás
Vietnam: Saigon, Hanoi anyagfeldolgozás, elo"adás az egyetemeken,
terepmunka
India: Calcutta egyetemi elo"adás
Kína: Peking, Ürümcsi, Csukutien egyetemi elo"adás, anyagfeldolgozás,
Minghua, Kan-Loa terepmunka, Góbi-sivatagban több szezonon át
expedíció vezetése
USA: Yale, Berkeley egyetemi tanítás, Fullerton ISTOR-intézet
alapítása, New York, Danbury, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Chicago stb.
elo"adások tartása
Kanada: Toronto, Montreal elo"adások
Burjátia: Ulan-Ude, Barguzin terepmunka és anyagfeldolgozás több
ízben.
Munkái[.] magyar, német, angol, francia, olasz, szerb, orosz, szlovák,
cseh, svéd, finn, kinh és indiai nyelveken jelentek meg.
(ibid)
following the above: "te csak akkor veheted dr. kiszelyt a szajadra
kisoreg, mikor szarik"
>so, i'm affraid "studying" such "history" is not really possible
why don't you say someting that wasn't said before? :-)>
>well this of course tells a thing or two about the poster turan.
well this of course tells more about you, than anybody else
contributing ad hominem attack against other(s') professional
integrity without contributing anything meaningful to the conversation
is a sure sign of a moron and an arsehole :-)>
>Today no self respecting scientist claims any hun magyar relationship.
history is not a science by any means, kisoreg
actualy dr. kiszely is an anthropologist, --from some of his early
books i also benefited a great deal
>It only lives in the little minds of
>weekend historians romanticizing about our glorious past.
well, yes and no
obviously direct connection can't be proven, besides the ancestrors
of most present day "hungarians" arrived in hungary a few hundred
years ago, however bragging rights could be maintained because some of
the landtaking hungarians belonged to the hinterlands of the horsemen
>The internet is not the best place to study this,I'm afraid.
actually internet is a really good resource if one knows how to use it
and evaluate data, i bet even you could learn a new thing or two
i hope this helped
tur...@shaw.ca
>> http://magyarerzelmek.multiply.com/journal/item/4
>
>Could you tell me if there is a English language page or translation?
dr. kiszely's books are translated into the major languages and could
be found at better universities, --i know this is the fact in canada
nonetheless it would be perhaps better if you'd investigated the
primary (german) sources that are mentioned here
http://magyarerzelmek.multiply.com/journal/item/3
********************
"Nem lehetünk a Kelet ködlovagjai, de fel kell, hogy emeljük tiltó
szavunkat a Dévényen át bejött új-magyarok germán-latin-keresztény
címzésu" történetírás ellen is" - olvassuk Szász Bélánál. "Hoztunk és
átmentettünk Keletro"l is hagyományt, népi hivatásérzetet és
kulturális formakincset, nem különben olyan fajtakomponenseket, melyek
kitörölhetetlenek és amiknek tudatos elpusztítása bu"n és esztelenség
lenne… A magyar lélek krízise azért oly mély - folytatja Szász Béla -,
mert formában javarészt nyugatiakká lettünk, de lelkileg és
túlnyomórészt fajilag is ezer elszakíthatatlan szál köt ma is Kelethez
és emiatt egyedül maradtunk… Végzetünk, hogy elo"bb ék voltunk nyugat
felé, aztán védo"bástya kelet felé…" (ibid)
(*Szász* Béla, jo mi, bo"rszivar? :-)>
tur...@shaw.ca
<cblmntcph...@hatespam.org> wrote:
(...)
>Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic
>differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking
>populations, and no genetic continuity is seen.
>Am J Phys Anthropol 2007. ? 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
a letezo magyarsagrul
KLa...@msn.com
Could you maybe give me a few English language titles? Maybe I could
ask my local library. Also, doesn't Kiszely believe that the Magyars
were actually of Turkic origin?
KLa...@msn.com
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Malto Dekstrin
>
>
> (...)
>
> >Our findings demonstrate that significant genetic
> >differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking
> >populations, and no genetic continuity is seen.
> >Am J Phys Anthropol 2007. ? 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
>
> a letezo magyarsagrul
>
> http://www.zetna.org.yu/zek/folyoiratok/99/ferdinandy.html
Just out of curiosity, what does that say?
tur...@shaw.ca
>Could you maybe give me a few English language titles? Maybe I could
>ask my local library.
i've already posted such, on "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:00:25 GMT"
> Also, doesn't Kiszely believe that the Magyars
>were actually of Turkic origin?
i don't know what he believes in, but "István Kiszely and some other
scholars looked for an ethnic urheimat and traced the seed of the
Magyars to today's Eastern Turkestan, specifically, the northern and
western edges of the Gobi Desert, the Jungar Basin and the confines of
the Taklamakan Desert."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_prehistory&diff=217919151&oldid=217906365
if you're asking me, i'm believing that some of the proto-magyars had
a turkic heritage indeed
(btw. i've never read kiszely's books that have a more
speculative/popular nature, so i can't comment on those, but i've
read and enjoyed some of his osteological work)
tur...@shaw.ca
>> a letezo magyarsagrul
>>
>> http://www.zetna.org.yu/zek/folyoiratok/99/ferdinandy.html
>
>Just out of curiosity, what does that say?
belles lettres, with a pinch of autobiographical elements perhaps
it demonstrates, how germans, slavs, (jews?) and others became
"magyars", and in turn how magyars became germans, slavs, (jews?) and
others again
it's acculturation only, needless to say i have no use for nationalism
Gladius Sagitta
>i don't know what he believes in, but "István Kiszely and some other
>scholars looked for an ethnic urheimat and traced the seed of the
>Magyars to today's Eastern Turkestan, specifically, the northern and
>western edges of the Gobi Desert, the Jungar Basin and the confines of
>the Taklamakan Desert."
That's the Urheimat (actually for some time periods) for only some
parts of the medieval Hungarians (Hungarians, not Magyars!), namely
the Old Turkish-speaking Kavars, as well as the "upper crust" of most
of those tribes in the 10th century (even if the majority of some
was Uralic-speaking or Iranian-speaking and Slavic-speaking social
entities or "uluses"); as well as of the later Khazar, then of
Khwarizm (Khwarism/Horezm Turks that were of Iranian extraction),
the lesser known Berendey Turks and esp. the notorious Petchenek Turks
and their cousins the Cumans, who were assimilated and who played a
great role in the defense structures of the Hungarian kingdom in the
10th-14th centuries (hence typical toponyms all along the frontiers of
the former greater Hungary). (inter alia, cf. Göckenjan, Hansgerd,
"Hilfsvoelker und Grenzwaechter im mittelalterlichen Ungarn", Wiesbaden,
1972)
But all those various proto-Turk tribes were more or
less mixtures of "Indo-European" (Scythian/Alan & Slavic) and Turkic
peoples from all over Eastern Europe and Central Asia -- all of them
heavily influenced by Persian culture (even by Zoroastrism), and
some of them even speaking Iranian dialects (the most prominent of
those groups were the Alans a.k.a. Jászok in Hungarian). E.g. the
Turkic term for the Cumans, KIptchak (QIptchak) means "the Red
Scythians". (The Hungarian name Csák is a relic of that Tchak < Saka
ethnonym of Scythians.)
But the most significant thing is that the language is neither
Turkic, nor Indo-European, but Uralic, namely Ugric -- namely of
the obscure tribes of the Megyers, whose Urheimat was on the
Eastern then Western slopes of the Ural, and then where their
direct kinship still lives (in Mari-El, Mordovia, Tchuvashia,
Bashkortostan, and Tatarstan; the Tchuvash speak the only existing
remnant of the Turkic dialect that supposedly was spoken by Huns,
Avars, Khazars and Protobulgars, i.e. also by Arpad, Tuhutum, Huba,
Soboltchu, Bultchu etc.). I.e., "subordinated" populaces imposed
their language on to the ruling class (this happened in the
new Bulgaria, along the Danube, too, where another proto-Bulgar
Turkish-speaking overlords then (after 1-2-3 centuries) spoke the
Slavic idiom of their underlings only.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_prehistory&diff=217919151&oldid=217906365
>
>if you're asking me, i'm believing that some of the proto-magyars had
>a turkic heritage indeed
"Some"? Quite many of them. (Yet keep in mind that many Turks were
actually assimilated Scythians, Alans, Ugrians etc., i.e. peoples
who had spoken other languages. The Turkic way of life in the
steppe, along their horse-breading culture and warrior idiosyncrasies
(up to the garments, ornaments, arms) were and are... Scythian
heritage.) At the same time they had "some"... Slavic heritage, way
before encountering, in the 10th century, the Slavs living in a
Yougoslav-Slovakian-Moravian "continuum". As well as "some" *direct*
Scythian=Sarmatian=Alan heritage (which belonged to the greater branch
of the Iranian-speaking peoples), carried by Alanic tribes. And
some... Vikings (Varangians), such as the chieftain Kulpun (Kölpény),
whose name is an awkward rendering of the Skandinavian word "kyflingr".
(Vikings, a.k.a. "Rus", were spread all over the cnezial "clusters"
of the 10th-11th centuries Ukraine and Russia.)
>(btw. i've never read kiszely's books that have a more
Also read György Györffy, Gyula László, András Róna-Tas ("Hungarians and
Europe in the early middle ages: An introduction...," European
University Press, 1999, ISBN 963-91-1648-3), János Harmatta, Imre Boba,
Hansgerd Göckenjan, Bálint Hóman, Gyula Moravcsik, L. Rásonyi, Denis
Sinor, Gyula Kristó ("Myth and History", Budapest, 1979) etc.
Gladius Sagitta
>it's acculturation only, needless to say i have no use for nationalism
But "turan" as your user name is a symbol for nationalism (of the
"ultra" kind at that). (Ha tudnád micsoda alakok az igazi török
nacionalista "szürke farkas" es "togrul" fiuk, hehe...)
tur...@shaw.ca
mainstream turkish nationalism is unique, and as such it is not
chauvinistic but rather inclusive
"also read" ataturk :-)>
tur...@shaw.ca
<gladius...@trashdevil.com> wrote:
>turan*@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>>i don't know what he believes in, but "István Kiszely and some other
>>scholars looked for an ethnic urheimat and traced the seed of the
>>Magyars to today's Eastern Turkestan, specifically, the northern and
>>western edges of the Gobi Desert, the Jungar Basin and the confines of
>>the Taklamakan Desert."
>
>That's the Urheimat (actually for some time periods) for only some
>parts of the medieval Hungarians (Hungarians, not Magyars!), namely
>the Old Turkish-speaking Kavars, as well as the "upper crust" of most
>of those tribes in the 10th century (even if the majority of some
>was Uralic-speaking or Iranian-speaking and Slavic-speaking social
>entities or "uluses"); as well as of the later Khazar, then of
>Khwarizm (Khwarism/Horezm Turks that were of Iranian extraction),
>the lesser known Berendey Turks and esp. the notorious Petchenek Turks
>and their cousins the Cumans, who were assimilated and who played a
>great role in the defense structures of the Hungarian kingdom in the
>10th-14th centuries (hence typical toponyms all along the frontiers of
>the former greater Hungary). (inter alia, cf. Göckenjan, Hansgerd,
>"Hilfsvoelker und Grenzwaechter im mittelalterlichen Ungarn", Wiesbaden,
>1972)
i'm not into science fiction and/or propaganda
>But all those various proto-Turk tribes were more or
>less mixtures of "Indo-European" (Scythian/Alan & Slavic) and Turkic
>peoples from all over Eastern Europe and Central Asia -- all of them
>heavily influenced by Persian culture (even by Zoroastrism), and
>some of them even speaking Iranian dialects (the most prominent of
>those groups were the Alans a.k.a. Jászok in Hungarian). E.g. the
>Turkic term for the Cumans, KIptchak (QIptchak) means "the Red
>Scythians". (The Hungarian name Csák is a relic of that Tchak < Saka
>ethnonym of Scythians.)
indeed, but as i've already said not much of those remained with us as
we speak
>But the most significant thing is that the language is neither
>Turkic, nor Indo-European, but Uralic, namely Ugric -- namely of
>the obscure tribes of the Megyers, whose Urheimat was on the
>Eastern then Western slopes of the Ural, and then where their
>direct kinship still lives (in Mari-El, Mordovia, Tchuvashia,
>Bashkortostan, and Tatarstan; the Tchuvash speak the only existing
>remnant of the Turkic dialect that supposedly was spoken by Huns,
>Avars, Khazars and Protobulgars, i.e. also by Arpad, Tuhutum, Huba,
>Soboltchu, Bultchu etc.). I.e., "subordinated" populaces imposed
>their language on to the ruling class (this happened in the
>new Bulgaria, along the Danube, too, where another proto-Bulgar
>Turkish-speaking overlords then (after 1-2-3 centuries) spoke the
>Slavic idiom of their underlings only.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_prehistory&diff=217919151&oldid=217906365
the hungarian language is bonafide ural-altaic
>>if you're asking me, i'm believing that some of the proto-magyars had
>>a turkic heritage indeed
>
>"Some"? Quite many of them. (Yet keep in mind that many Turks were
>actually assimilated Scythians, Alans, Ugrians etc., i.e. peoples
>who had spoken other languages. The Turkic way of life in the
>steppe, along their horse-breading culture and warrior idiosyncrasies
>(up to the garments, ornaments, arms) were and are... Scythian
>heritage.) At the same time they had "some"... Slavic heritage, way
>before encountering, in the 10th century, the Slavs living in a
>Yougoslav-Slovakian-Moravian "continuum". As well as "some" *direct*
>Scythian=Sarmatian=Alan heritage (which belonged to the greater branch
>of the Iranian-speaking peoples), carried by Alanic tribes. And
>some... Vikings (Varangians), such as the chieftain Kulpun (Kölpény),
>whose name is an awkward rendering of the Skandinavian word "kyflingr".
>(Vikings, a.k.a. "Rus", were spread all over the cnezial "clusters"
>of the 10th-11th centuries Ukraine and Russia.)
"Words similar to the magy element of the word are also used by the
Khanty and Mansi peoples (referring to one of their groups (mos) or to
themselves (mansi) respectively) which suggest that it is of Ugric
origin and it possibly means "those who speak".[2] The ar element of
the world may be either of Ugric or Turkic origin and it probably
means "man". (kristo)
>
>>(btw. i've never read kiszely's books that have a more
>
>Also read György Györffy, Gyula László, András Róna-Tas ("Hungarians and
>Europe in the early middle ages: An introduction...," European
>University Press, 1999, ISBN 963-91-1648-3), János Harmatta, Imre Boba,
>Hansgerd Göckenjan, Bálint Hóman, Gyula Moravcsik, L. Rásonyi, Denis
>Sinor, Gyula Kristó ("Myth and History", Budapest, 1979) etc.
i've read gyorffy quite a bit, and scanned some others
in my opinion gyorffy is the best of them, i have no immediate use for
the others
Gladius Sagitta
>i'm not into science fiction and/or propaganda
That's science.
>indeed,
"indeed"?! You commented the previous paragraph: "i'm not into science
fiction and/or propaganda". ;)
>but as i've already said not much of those remained with us as
>we speak
It depends on what we mean by "not much of those" (i.e. ethnic,
linguistic, folklore aspects, customs, culture, religious relics &c.)
Of course, those Ugrians, proto-Turks, Scythian-Iranians, Slavs and a
few Vikings (e.g. Kölpény) were a minority as compared with the
populations of other extractions that were assimilated as Hungarians:
the large Slavic groups of the Croatians, Slovaks, Serbians, the even
larger German group (chiefly from southern provinces of the Holy Roman
Empire of German Nation) and Vlachs, esp. in the eastern half of
medieval Hungary. And the Romas (Gypsies) with their own dialects that
belong to the Iranian-Indian branch of Indo-European languages.
>the hungarian language is bonafide ural-altaic
Morphologic & syntactic structures, and basic vocabulary (i.e., the main
characteristics that determine what kind of language is one idiom or
another). Old vocabulary also contains important words of the Iranian
kind (along with the word... Isten), and other Indo-European origins.
These are least as important as the old Turkish loanwords (of the "R"
kind, in contrast with those of the "Z" kind, which are typical of
"modern" Turkish dialects; cf. ökör vs. öküz).
>"Words similar to the magy element of the word are also used by the
>Khanty and Mansi peoples (referring to one of their groups (mos) or to
>themselves (mansi) respectively) which suggest that it is of Ugric
>origin and it possibly means "those who speak".[2] The ar element of
>the world may be either of Ugric or Turkic origin and it probably
>means "man". (kristo)
As for the Ugrian part of the primeval Magyars, an interesting
occurrence: contemporary Bashkirs have two tribes called Yurmatu
and Yeney, that, according to scholars (see the link below about
Németh Gyula's writings, "Magna Hungaria" et al.), are equivalents
of the Magyar tribes Kurtugermátu and Genakh, as they were mentioned
by the Byzantine emperor Constantin VIIth Porphyrogenitus, i.e.
KürtGyarmat and Jenö, in the modern Magyar language. Bashkirs are
themselves an Uralic people (according to some, even a Magyar branch)
that today speaks a Turkish dialect ("Tatar-Bashkir"), mutually
intelligible with Turkey and Azerbaidjan Turkish and with Uygurian
(without the help of any tertchüman a.k.a. dilmatch "tolmács"). Still
today, in the Russian countries Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Mordovia,
Mari-El Turkish-speaking populations coexist with Uralic-languages
speaking populations, as was the situation 1,000 years ago.
http://www.kroraina.com/hudud/hud_22_c.html
(An excerpt from a text by the V. Minorski, a Russian scholar,
who commented the primary source Hudud al-Alam (...), "The regions of
the world," by an unknown author. It contains information on Hungarians
in the "honfoglalás" era; it was finished in 982.)
>in my opinion gyorffy is the best of them, i have no immediate use for
>the others
Yes, but if you're interested in the Turkic links, then the turkologists
are the 1st address (e.g. Moravcsik, Rásonyi, Róna-Tas (the latter lives
in Szeged, AFAIK).) And above all, the primeval sources are those that
count; all these historians are only... "interpreters" of those sources
(chiefly Greek, Persian, Arab, Armenian ones as well as the sources 3-4
centuries later on, such as Anonymous, Kézai, Chronicon pictum
vindobonense).
--
An interesting text (in German) on the prehistoric dichotomy
"Iran-Turan" (sedentary vs seminomad cultures) and Zarathustra, that
also has some significance as proto-Hungarian history is concerned, but
also that of Turkic and Scythian-Alan peoples of the "steppe":
http://www.celtoslavica.de/bibliothek/turan1.html
http://www.celtoslavica.de/bibliothek/turan2.html
tur...@shaw.ca
<gladius...@trashdevil.com> wrote:
>turan*@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>>i'm not into science fiction and/or propaganda
>
>That's science.
by definition, history is not a science
>>indeed,
>
>"indeed"?! You commented the previous paragraph: "i'm not into science
>fiction and/or propaganda". ;)
yes, i recognize the facts, but not necessarily recognize all the
interpretations ;)
>>but as i've already said not much of those remained with us as
>>we speak
>
>It depends on what we mean by "not much of those" (i.e. ethnic,
>linguistic, folklore aspects, customs, culture, religious relics &c.)
much of the present day "hungarian culture" was borrowed by, picked up
from others or even pushed down the magyars' throat
the rest of it is the so called peasant culture, and as you know, the
ur-magyars were not typically agriculturists or christians
go figure
(...)
> Bashkirs are
>themselves an Uralic people (according to some, even a Magyar branch)
>that today speaks a Turkish dialect ("Tatar-Bashkir"), mutually
>intelligible with Turkey and Azerbaidjan Turkish and with Uygurian
>(without the help of any tertchüman a.k.a. dilmatch "tolmács"). Still
>today, in the Russian countries Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Mordovia,
>Mari-El Turkish-speaking populations coexist with Uralic-languages
>speaking populations, as was the situation 1,000 years ago.
everybody knows that :-)>
nonetheless "tolmacs" came into the hungarian from the "german"
dolmatscher
>http://www.kroraina.com/hudud/hud_22_c.html
>(An excerpt from a text by the V. Minorski, a Russian scholar,
>who commented the primary source Hudud al-Alam (...), "The regions of
>the world," by an unknown author. It contains information on Hungarians
>in the "honfoglalás" era; it was finished in 982.)
>
>>in my opinion gyorffy is the best of them, i have no immediate use for
>>the others
>
>Yes, but if you're interested in the Turkic links, then the turkologists
>are the 1st address (e.g. Moravcsik, Rásonyi, Róna-Tas (the latter lives
>in Szeged, AFAIK).)
only if one has limited resources and/or is limited to a certain
language
> And above all, the primeval sources are those that
>count; all these historians are only... "interpreters" of those sources
>(chiefly Greek, Persian, Arab, Armenian ones as well as the sources 3-4
>centuries later on, such as Anonymous, Kézai, Chronicon pictum
>vindobonense).
basically this is the main problem of historical research
namely, some priests wrote made to order history books
that were intended to aggrandize certain rulers
(it's not to say that i don't trust armenian sources :-)>
KLa...@msn.com
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:06:44 -0700 (PDT), KLa...@msn.com wrote:
> >Could you maybe give me a few English language titles? Maybe I could
> >ask my local library.
>
> i've already posted such, on "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:00:25 GMT"
>
> > Also, doesn't Kiszely believe that the Magyars
> >were actually of Turkic origin?
>
> i don't know what he believes in, but "István Kiszely and some other
> scholars looked for an ethnic urheimat and traced the seed of the
> Magyars to today's Eastern Turkestan, specifically, the northern and
> western edges of the Gobi Desert, the Jungar Basin and the confines of
> the Taklamakan Desert."
>
>
> if you're asking me, i'm believing that some of the proto-magyars had
> a turkic heritage indeed
>
> (btw. i've never read kiszely's books that have a more
> speculative/popular nature, so i can't comment on those, but i've
> read and enjoyed some of his osteological work)
Have you heard of Peter Sara? Didn't he write a book called "A
Different Way" which basically stated that the number of Hungarian
language root words that were of Turkic origin was really considerably
larger than previously thought?
tur...@shaw.ca
>Have you heard of Peter Sara?
i'm afraid i have not
> Didn't he write a book called "A Different Way"
i'm sorry, but i'm not a linguist, so i don't really follow such
could you perhaps provide a link for the benefit of this group?
>which basically stated that the number of Hungarian
>language root words that were of Turkic origin was really considerably
>larger than previously thought?
i suspected this on my own accord
not only because balint homan stated that the rulers and the "noble
class" of the proto-magyars spoke a turkic language (or more properly
put: a turkish dialect), but also, if you think about it that 3 or 4
of the landtaking "magyar" tribes out of the ten (or 7) tribes were
actually turks, than the frequency of use for such words should also
correspond to this percentage, which in turn will hasten the inclusion
of such words into the magyar language
***********************************************
"It is very hard to make this estimate, particularly as many words
reached English, for example, from Latin by way of Norman French.
However, the result of a computerized survey of roughly 80,000 words
in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd edition) was published in
Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973). They
reckoned the proportions as follows:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/proportion?view=uk
Gladius Sagitta
>the rest of it is the so called peasant culture, and as you know, the
>ur-magyars were not typically agriculturists or christians
They were approximately as the Bashkirians et al. plus Lithuanians and
Latvians were and are. E.g. the closest relatives of the proto-Magyars,
namely those who didn't move to Pannonia, but have stayed in the
primeval "Heimat", within the so-called "Finnic-Ugrian belt":
http://www.chuvsu.ru/chuvashia/chuvashi/chuvashi.htm
http://www.sanat.orexca.com/eng/2-03/img/ritual1.jpg
http://gov.cap.ru/home/000/deva.jpg
>everybody knows that :-)>
Jó lenne...
>nonetheless "tolmacs" came into the hungarian from the "german"
>dolmatscher
Tolmaç/Tolmács/Tálmács/Tálmát/Tilmaç was a Beçenek tribe, that
moved from the Don to Transylvania (where a part of it assimilated
for good; warriors, used in the defense system of Transylvania).
>basically this is the main problem of historical research
>namely, some priests wrote made to order history books
This is why the Eastern sources are so important; Persian, Arab
etc. authors visited those territories/kaganates and had better
insights. Whereas some Western, catholic monks barely saw some
terribly looking soldiers who were looting and who belonged to
Kurszán et al. "dukes".
>(it's not to say that i don't trust armenian sources :-)>
Doesn't he post any longer? :-)
Gladius Sagitta
>not only because balint homan stated that the rulers and the "noble
>class" of the proto-magyars spoke a turkic language (or more properly
>put: a turkish dialect), but also, if you think about it that 3 or 4
>of the landtaking "magyar" tribes out of the ten (or 7) tribes were
>actually turks, than the frequency of use for such words should also
>correspond to this percentage, which in turn will hasten the inclusion
>of such words into the magyar language
This is not a "must". According to onomastics interpretations and
comparisons, even most of the chieftains of the other, "Megyer",
tribes were Turks. A considerable effect played a role: the language
spoken by "anné" (anya); if the maternal language was rather Magyar,
then the logical consequence was that in a couple of centuries
Turkish disappeared altogether. In connection with the fact that
many Turkish-speaking men died on the battle fields. Anyway, Hungarians
must have been so thoroughly magyarized, that, when other Turks
moved in (Petchenegs, Cumans etc.), and much later the Ottomans,
these waves were not able to induce a Turkic revival within the
medieval Hugarians. The Turkish/Turkic "hagyomány" simply wasn't
there. In contrast with Crimea, the territories around the Caspian
Sea ("the Khazar Sea": Hazar Deniz), and Turkey - where there must
have been enough Turks so that the language could be spoken for
longer periods of time (i.e., until today, even in parts of N-W
Iran, wich is Azerbaydjan, and Kurdistan).
Considerable regions of Hungary were provinces of Turkey (vilayets).
To no avail as the language is concerned: there was no "revival"
of the "grey wolves". :-) Not even in Transylvania, where the
presence of the Petchenek, Cuman (Kun), Berendey etc. was quite
strong, and the distance to the western borders of another
important medieval Turkish entity, the Golden Horde, were shorter.
>***********************************************
>"It is very hard to make this estimate, particularly as many words
>reached English, for example, from Latin by way of Norman French.
For genuine linguists + turcologists it is by no means as hard as
for dilettantes. The entering path can be seen in many lexems
due to phonetic occurrences, that show *when* and *where* that
and that kind of word could've been borrowed. For example,
experts were able to establish that words such as árpa, búza,
alma, sárga, bika, kis+kicsi (etc.) are old Turkish (belonging
to the "R" branch, i.e. proto-Bulgar) despite the fact that
they are extant in all the other dialects (i.e. dialect groups),
e.g. in modern Turkey's Turkish. And that kalauz, balta, csôsz
are Petcheneg-Cuman words. (AFAIK, in modern Turkish: balta and
kilavuz).
So, of course, Turkic and Iranian (and other old Indo-European)
words known for sure that they are late loanwords from other
medieval languages aren't taken in consideration as old Turkic
and Iranian borrowings (i.e. prior to 1000-1100). What's taken
in consideration are such words as anyu, Isten, arany, vásár,
oroszlán, szekér, kard, búza, árpa, alma, kis+kicsi, kék, sárga,
híd, szakál, kapu, vám, bilincs, gyula, törvény, boszorkány,
barom, gyümölcs, szűcs, gyermek, asszony, etc. (Various such
words of Turkic origin are themselves loanwords.)
>However, the result of a computerized survey of roughly 80,000 words
>in the old Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd edition) was published in
>Ordered Profusion by Thomas Finkenstaedt and Dieter Wolff (1973). They
>reckoned the proportions as follows:
>
>http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/proportion?view=uk
But it is much easier than in most east-European languages, since
English started to be written prior to the year 1000, and there
are many texts that have been studied, etymologically and
statistically. Most of the Latin vocabulary that entered
the language via Old and Middle French are known. Some experts
are even able at least to write in Old English, whereas nobody
can do that in Old Hungarian (Magyar) (i.e. in the language
spoken in the 10th-11th-12th centuries).
Besides, the statistics data by these German authors say much
about the characteristics/ typology of the English language,
which, despite the Latin vocabulari of over 60%, is a (West-)
Germanic language, and not a Romance one.
KLa...@msn.com
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:53:58 -0700 (PDT), KLa...@msn.com wrote:
> >Have you heard of Peter Sara?
>
> i'm afraid i have not
>
> > Didn't he write a book called "A Different Way"
>
> i'm sorry, but i'm not a linguist, so i don't really follow such
>
> could you perhaps provide a link for the benefit of this group?
http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/language.htm
http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4115&st=30
http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4519&st=15&p=55049&#entry55049
> i suspected this on my own accord
>
> not only because balint homan stated that the rulers and the "noble
> class" of the proto-magyars spoke a turkic language (or more properly
> put: a turkish dialect), but also, if you think about it that 3 or 4
> of the landtaking "magyar" tribes out of the ten (or 7) tribes were
> actually turks, than the frequency of use for such words should also
> correspond to this percentage, which in turn will hasten the inclusion
> of such words into the magyar language
What tribes are you referring to?
tur...@shaw.ca
>What tribes are you referring to?
Gladius Sagitta
>What tribes are you referring to?
The "Kavaroi" (as Constantine the 7th Porphyrogenitus called them in "De
administrando imperii"). In the chronicle written by the "anonymous
notary P." of the king Béla II, the Kavars are called "Cumani" (Cumans)
/perhaps because he was a contemporary of the genuine Cumans a.k.a.
Kyptchaks a.k.a. Polovtsians who immigrated later on/, and the seven
"dukes" of them were called (according to the same anonymous chronicler,
who wrote his account in the last decade of the 12th c.):
Ed(u), Edum(er) or Edumen, Etu, Bunger (his son: Borshu), Ousad
(Oushad?) (his son: Ursuur), Boyta (founder of the clan Brucsa), Ketel
(his son: Oluptulma).
According to another chronicler, Simon of Kéza (around 1270-80), Ed and
Edumen were the sons of Ethele.
Otherwise, almost no details on those (three) Kavar tribes, that were of
Khazar extraction. The other tribes also had Turkic elements, esp. the
"upper" clans thereof (almost all names of their chieftains, incl.
Arpad, are Turkic name. Only the name of one of Arpad's sons, Liüntik,
is Uralic.)
KLa...@msn.com
What were the names of the Kabar tribes? Also, does anyone know what
religion or religions they practiced?
KLa...@msn.com
wrote:
Well, I suspect that the Magyars had lived in close proximity to
various Turkic peoples for quite a few centuries, so it shouldn't be
all that surprising.