But the remarkable fact is the name of one of their leaders _Heten_,[26] a name which we see in the list of the proper Majiar patriarchs. This confirms the notion that the division into tribes and sub-tribes may have been less Majiar and more Turk than it seems to be. The _Bashkirs_ of Hungary are a difficult population. In the thirteenth century, the Arabian writer Jakut, writes that he found in the city of Aleppo some florid-faced Mahometans, who were called Bashkirs, and came from Hungary. Now, the present Bashkirs are the occupants of those parts beyond the Uralian Mountains from which the Majiars came: their language being Turk. But, as there is satisfactory evidence that this is an adopted tongue, and that their original speech was Ugrian, they are reasonably supposed to represent in the thirteenth century, not the Majiars of Hungary, but the Majiars of the mother-country from which the invaders of Europe proceeded. If so, how came they to be Mahometans? Were they not rather the Bulgarians last mentioned? Their florid complexion is the chief fact against it. On the other hand, it must be remarked that though Jakut says that they were called _Bashkirs_ (“audiebant Baschgardi”) he does not say that they called themselves so. Again, the number of their chiefs is seven--the number of the so-called Majiar patriarchs; amongst whom it must remembered we find the _Bulgarian_ Heten. Hence, of a Bashkir intermixture, separate from the Bulgarians on one side, and the Majiars on the other, there is no satisfactory evidence. The analysis as far as it has proceeded has given us-- 1. Ugrians Majiars. 2. Turks _a._ Huns. “ _b._ Avars. “ _c._ Petschenagi. “ _d._ Kumanians. “ _e._ Khazars. “ _f._ Bulgarians, “ α. Pagan, “ β. Mahometan. The Majiar conquest converted a Turk into a Ugrian area: its date being the tenth century. The Hun conquest converted a semi-romanized into a Turk area; its date being the fifth century. A.D. 444 is a convenient epoch for this event. It was the year of the murder of Attila’s brother, and the sole supremacy of Attila himself. We will first ask how Attila _left_ Hungary: next how he _found_ it. I am not at all satisfied with the reasons generally given for believing that, as his power fell to pieces at his death, so did the Hun blood in Hungary become extinct. Still less am I satisfied with the reasons which give any particular nation the credit of having destroyed it. The recovery of the province of Pannonia never took place. I cannot find that either the Goths of the Lower, or the Germans of the Upper, Danube made any permanent conquest. That the Slavonic tribes of the surrounding frontier pressed towards the interior is certain; but it is not certain that they ever made the country their own.