My remarks on Uralic and Altaic in [ brackets]

pg. 187 That the Uralic language family stemmed from the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Hungarian Plain. According to most authorities Uralic originated in the Ural Mountain area and spread out from there, including a final intrusion into Hungary in the 9th century A.D. This is most improbable because there is no accounting for how much a pastoral adaptation could have in this starting location. Yet if the adaptation moved into the area from outside, it should have been brought by people whose linguistic affiliations lay elsewhere. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that some relatively primitive nomads from the Urals could have intruded themselves into the heart of Eastern Europe, but no good reason for such a move has been offered.

[[ Except the facts are the Magyar were no primitives .! Also they never came from the Urals but the Caucasus Mtn area. However that goes against the grain of presumed facts, and archeological evidence is ignored or misrepresented. However I still agree that the newcomers simply were absorbed by the autochthonous population simply because they must have been more numerous and entrenched. ]]

The only resolution to the problems is to postulate Hungary as the origin place of the Uralics, and having them spread to the north and east from there. As reconstructed here, they would automatically have separated themselves into the three major subdivisions that are now located in the northern regions. It also follows here that the easternmost of these subdivisions would automatically have the closest affinity with the Hungarian source.

[[ There was also an extinct north-western branch as evidenced by ancient Uralic place names in such places as northern Germany and Sweden. It is doubtful if these can be attributed to the Lapps also.]]

Archeological evidence of a presumed early Uralic population in the Ural Mountain area fits just as well with the new interpretation offered here as it does with the traditional view. It is a simple consideration of who had the capacity to move in which direction, at what time, and against which population, that should decide the issue. The only problem that remains is the linguistic time depth that is apparently involved. Since this appears to be a common problem throughout this reconstruction, and the only one of note, the principle of Occam's Razor would argue that we should make a general correction just this one aspect.

pg 145

The Magyar advance should have been affected by the fact that most of these people had only recently become serious farmers [?Then why are the most basic farming terms not loans from Indo European languages?]. Previously their emphasis had been on cattle herding and horse riding. [how about the rich terminology related to fishing?!] Their later history suggests that they did not ever settle very densely outside of the Hungarian Plain. [What about the Caucasus?, what about Baskiria? ] What ultimately proved to be their firm boundary to the west was only 200 km removed from their original homeland. [ In recent times,yes] They apparently did progress another 300 km to occupy the main body of Austria, but gave it up readily to the German reflux a few centuries later (Fig 23).

Given their equestrian skills and newly augmented population, Magyar armies periodically raised havoc, especially to the west of their extended homeland. Atilla the "Hun" was merely their current leader when the factors for expansion first developed.

The many supposed ethnic changes within Hungary during this and later times could have been no more than changes in the political control of the nation. [[ The Magyar name is an import from the east but not the language or people! ]] The historic waves of conquest out of Asia are without any ecological foundation. A few tens of thousands (at most) of invaders will not change the ethnic composition of half a million entrenched peasants without some mechanism that has yet to be specified.
[[ Just as Mongol, Manchu, Hun and Turkic inroads into China made no difference there either. ]]

There is one case that can be made for a degree of ethnic change within Hungary. The original development mold-board plow would have increased the population in the northeastern corner by a factor of ten times or more, prior to its spread over the rest of the country. An explosion of numbers, power, and prestige would engulf the rest of the country spreading from this spot. Predictably , the dialect of this norheastern corner would have overrun all other dialects. The significance of this is that the Vogul/Ostyak migration must have started out from this very same corner more than 6,000 years earlier. This then explains why modern Magyar resembles Vogul/Ostyak more than either of them resembles the other two branches of Uralic. If a different dialect within Hungary had prevailed over the others, then the relation between Hungarian speech and the three outliers would have been different.

This reconstruction presupposes that the differences between the Uralic dialects of 6,000 B.C. were in some ways greater than the amount of contrast that has accumulated since then between Vogul/Ostyak and Magyar. This suggests a slow rate of change in recent millennia, and a two or three times longer period of differentiation among the original dialects in Mesolithic Hungary. These contentions are presently neither supported nor disproven by other data that might pertain to these languages.
[[The slow rate of change of Magyar relative to most IndoEuropean languages is supported in historic times however. ]]

[[ This theory also coincides with a Finnish anthropologists southern theory of origin quite nicely, as well as several Hungarian theories of a non-northern origin which was based on historical links with the Caucasus. This theory had general acceptance before WWII based less on language than on history and cultural links. A southern range from Caucasus and Carpathian in ancient times was severed. A link with the southern Urals from the Caucasus which was based on a trading routes, mines, fur trade and like. It is also from the Caucasus that the Ugrian link with Turkic people is noted by early historians. This Ugrian refers to eastern and Caucasus Magyar originally not the Vogul/Ostyaks [Ob-Ugrians] of the north. The Magyar name also is an eastern term found from the Urals to the Caucasus area. We dont know what the Carpathian Hungarians called themselves originally. The contention that the Indo Europeans came from Anatolia and were the spreaders of agriculture is one main sticking point of the author which has many many faults in it, which even the author acknowledges. Yet the great spread of IndoEuropean languages, most recently Slavic must be explained somehow along with the great decline of Uralic languages during the Slavic upswing. Perhaps tying too much to language families in itself is a huge mistake. Like linguists, the author also ignores historic events or plays them down, because it is a reflection of the ruler's history and not the people and language. Tying the technology of one northern branch of an ancient language link to a southern group, separated for thousands of years is also absurd. Such is the state of development of Ugrians with Hungarians.]]

ALTAIC
pg186

[[ The author also claims that Altaic originates from the Kuban region rather than from the Altai Mountain area. This would be important to explain the many very early links with Hungarian and Ugrian, which could not have occurred if they originated in the Altai area or further east. ]]

The only available impetus that would account for Altaic expansion would be their animal husbandry, initially based on sheep and goats. The most obvious source of this economy is the Near East. Putting the exact location of proto-Altaic just east of the Sea of Azov is not well substantiated, but it could not have been far from there. The timing of this origin at 7,500 B.C. ought not to generate much controversy, especially if a long-persistent dialect mesh is allowed for in the early stages.

There will be disagreement with my identification of Kurgans (a Turkic term), and especially Scythians, with the Altaic family of languages. Ecology and geography argue for a single ethnic group having spread pastorialism over the entire Eurasian Steppes, and there is no evidence opening for even a partial replacement until the time of the (spread of the) Slavic heavy-plow farmers.

No mechanism has ever been suggested whereby Indo-European speech could have entered the steppe area at some early date, let alone spread out over most of its neighbors, and then be replaced by Altaic. Some Iranian names along the later Scythian rulers are no indication that this was the language of the population. A conquest from outside, or even imitation of names from a higher civilization nearby, could easily account for this meager linguistic evidence. The fact that the Mongol conquest in the 13th century A.D. left only a few small language enclaves would certainly argue for ethnic stability of even this region.

[[ However there are many customs were very common in Altaic and Hungarian but rare in early Indo European groups which agree strongly with early Scythian assosciation. The Scythians were conquered by the Iranian types who were later also called Scythian by the Greeks, but were not. This is the basis of making them now Iranian. The Scythians intruded into the territory of the IndoEuropeans from Anatolia but eventually were repelled and conquered by the locals. ]]