The Altaic and Ugro-Finnic Peoples

One of the major controversies among different scholars regards the common origin of Hungarians and Turks. Undoubtedly, Hungarians are not a Turkic people, and probably they never were. The cultural differences existing between these two groups, mainly after the Magyar settlement in the Carpathian Basin, generated the elaboration of a new "official" theory of origins supported by the Austro-Hungarian élite, followed by the Soviet-ruled Hungary and by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences until now: the Ugro-Finnic theory. This thesis, however respectable it may be, lacks of proofs and leaves many enigmas unsolved, as it was formulated only in the later 18th century c.e. neglecting all the previously existing historic records. Even though the process of Germanization of the Hungarian people began with King Vajk (then christened as István) by the end of the 10th century c.e., it was under the Austrian rule that the need of a sharp distinction from the rival Ottoman Empire required a new theory of origins which placed the Hungarians definitely on the European side. Besides this, the religious leadership of Rome monopolized the official history of Europe, and Hungarians had to be "cleansed" of the ugly picture of the Huns portrayed by the Romans ‒ the alleged higher degree of civilization attributed to the Romans in comparison with Attila's Huns is strongly disputable, however. Consequently, a prestigious leading monarchy as the Austro-Hungarian could not acknowledge any non-European component, and the Ugro-Finnic theory, strongly supported by German linguists, was hallowed as the only feasible one that may have made of Hungarians a fully European, western people that with time would have finally forgotten its obscure, barbaric origins and recognized the valuable contribution of Germanic civilization to their cultural development ‒ according to the racial prejudices of that epoch.
In any case, before we consider the Altaic (Turkic) issue and for the sake of impartiality, it is correct to present the main postulates on which the Ugro-Finnic theory is founded:

According to linguistic patterns, Hungarians belong to a common root with the peoples classified as Ugrian [Khanty (Ostyak) and Mansy (Vogul)] and Finnic [Finn-Karelian, Estonian-Vepsa, Erzya-Moksha (Mordvin), Mari (Cheremiss), Komi (Zyrien), Vudmurt] as well as the Sami (Lapp) and Nentsy. Other Uralic peoples like Bashkir and Chuvash are set aside of any relationship with Hungarians simply because they are considered Turkic on a language basis. On this linguistic classification, it is assumed that a Finno-Ugrian stem emerged from a purely hypothetical Uralic group of primitive peoples. Then occurred a later split into two branches, Ugrian and Finnic, and a further separation between the "Ob-Ugrians" and the western Ugrians from which the Hungarians are supposed to descend. They were forest-dwellers whose cultural degree was that of the nomadic hunters until they got in touch with higher European civilizations(!). These allegedly peaceful early Magyar farmers organized themselves to migrate westwards in order not to be subdued by the fierce Turkic hordes that invaded their homeland in the Volga-Ural Basin, and so the conquest of the Danubian plains under the legendary chieftain Árpád took place.
This theory, as it was stated, is founded on supposition and leaves many things unexplained:

• First, it is based on linguistic patterns, which not necessarily reflect an ethnic relationship; consequently, even though it is asserted that the Finno-Ugrian tribes shared a common homeland in the east of the Ural Mounts and spoke a common language, it is not possible to ascertain that they were ethnically homogeneous, since the association of different peoples speaking one language was common in Central Eurasia.
• The upholders of this theory also admit that they cannot prove that the Huns, Avars, Sabirs and other tribes spoke a language different from that of the Magyars, and if so, which tongue it was. On the contrary, they give no plausible explanation concerning the fact that the different migratory waves from Attila to Árpád had a common language, according to the witness of contemporary sources, and had the same runic alphabet, the rovás.
• They also cannot give an answer to the origin of the Székely, considering of no esteem what the Székely themselves acknowledge, and have not given any scientific explanation for the origin of the term "Magyar" either.
• They admit that the Finno-Ugrians have no history or written records (and perhaps such a people never existed) and that there is not any documented information from the period previous to their arrival in European lands, not as a group but as different national entities. It is not clear how did those primitive hunters become herdsmen, horse riding masters and skilled warriors in the best Scythian style (while the "Ob-Ugrians" and the Finns did not).
• With regard to the alleged higher civilized Europeans with whom they got in touch and learnt to be gentlemen, it is hard to establish who they were: in the case of the Finns, that moved to the Baltic region, it is obvious that they were the Scandinavians ‒ by that time known as "Vikings", "Varyags", "Normans" and paradoxically compared with the Magyar predators ‒ and the Balts; in the case of the Magyars, the nearest European people with whom they interacted were the notorious Rus' and the Slavic tribes, whose degree of civilization was lower than that of the Turkic Khazars.
• Concerning the "Ugrians", alleged ancestors of the Magyars, they cannot be identified with any historically documented people except the Ugur, a tribe closely related with the Saragur, Utigur, Kutrigur and other Bulgar/OnOgur peoples. The Ugur lived in the heart of Khazaria, exactly in the region considered to be the Ugrians' homeland. Their very name is ultimately derived from the Turkic term "ogur", meaning tribe, and is related with the name Uyghur.
• To conclude, the Ugro-Finnic theory has not any reasonable explanation regarding Hungarian mythology. How could ancient Mesopotamian legends become so relevant in the Magyars' belief, while traces of the early Finnic peoples' religion are hardly found? How could names of evident Biblical origin like Ménrót and Magor, or Sumerian ones like Eneth and Damacsek, be perpetuated after so many centuries among the Magyars, while they are not found among other Ugro-Finnic peoples?

This theory, however, may not be completely discarded if it undergoes an impartial scientific review, setting aside dogmatic statements and making the appropriate research and comparison with the archaeological and documentary proofs that have been disregarded. We cannot exclude that the Finnic peoples were in some way related with the Scythians and other Eurasians, having shared with them the same lands for centuries. Yet, we cannot accept that they came into existence like mushrooms, appearing from nowhere around the Ural Mounts, without any origin. Taking account of the historic environment and political situation in which the Ugro-Finnic theory was framed and by whom it was supported, there are reasons to suspect that it was formulated with a specific purpose beyond the purely scientific research. As it is presented today, the Ugro-Finnic theory is as creditable as saying that the Spaniards and Romanians come from a common ethnos because both of them speak neo-Latin languages.

On the opposite side, there are mediaeval documents in which the Magyars are called "Turks" or numbered among the Turkic peoples. Nevertheless, such designation was used in a general way for every Eurasian people, actually replacing the old term "Scythian", which since the 4th century c.e. resulted anachronistic as the land called Scythia in Eastern Europe did no longer exist. This country was subsequently the dwelling place of Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, OnOgurs, Bulgars, Magyars, Slavs and Turkic tribes; a great part of that country belonged to Khazaria until it was taken by the Rus' ‒ when the Hungarians had to find another home and settled in the Carpathian Basin. Therefore, the tribes from the East once called Scythians became "Turks" for the European chroniclers, and the Hungarians were among them.
From the linguistic viewpoint, the Eurasian peoples have been conventionally classified as Uralo-Altaic, being the Uralic branch constituted by the Ugro-Finnic group and the Altaic one by the Turk-Mongol cluster. According to this artificial classification, Hungarians or any other Eurasian people must fit into one or the other, regardless of their actual genetic and cultural heritage. A relevant number of formerly Scythians were excluded from both and assigned to the Indo-Aryan or Iranian group only because of their acquired language, as in the case of the Rajputs, Jats, Gujjars, etc. As a result of this linguistic division, we find peoples now quite different and geographically separated by thousands of kilometres claiming the same ancestry, either Scythian, Sarmatian, Hun or other, but still improperly classified together with non-related folks just because they have undergone cultural assimilation or adopted the language of the geographically prevailing ethnos.
The complex of peoples dwelling in the Parthian Empire and particularly in Khwarezm, as we have said, separated their ways and destinies by following different directions and mixing themselves with other tribes, giving birth to new ethno-cultural entities that with time acquired their own identity. Such expansion aroused plurality of opinions and controversies among scholars, that have framed various theories without reaching any definitive agreement for a possible solution. For instance, one of the unsolved questions is if the Huns were related with the Hsiung-Nu or not: any answer would be relatively right; it depends on which branch of the Huns is referred to by the question. Almost certainly, Attila's folk and the subsequent Hun groups that arrived in Europe came directly from the region of Khwarezm without having been in touch with the Xiung-Nu, nor having performed any previous migration to the east. So, if the question regards Attila's Huns and the ancestors of Hungarians, the answer with a good amount of certainty is "no". On the other side, if the Huns are those that contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Uyghurs, according to Chinese records and other documentary sources, the answer is "yes". The same is valid for the Avars and their presumed link with the Juan-Juan: it should be true for the eastern branch of the Avars, though not for the whole. Notwithstanding, according to their noticeable Asiatic physical features, it is likely that the Avars reached Europe in a counter-migration from the eastern front. Hence, a further query arises: Since both Hungarians and Uyghurs have both Huns and Avars as forefathers, and the Uyghurs are definitely recognized as Turks, would the Hungarians be Turks as well? No. This is the heart of the matter: the Hun-Avar tribes were not a homogeneous block but autonomous entities, and expanded from Khwarezm following different routes in two main directions: eastwards and westwards. It is the eastern group that roughly coincides with the definition of Altaic peoples, or Turks in a broad sense, to which the Hungarians (and the whole western branch) do not belong.
Therefore, since the Hungarians are not Altaic peoples and do not fit the Ugro-Finnic group either, another classification is needed... Khwarezmian, maybe.