Hungarian Conquerors were a mixture of Goth and Hunnic tribes according to newest research

[Peterski]

Feher et al. 2015, "Y‑SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian‑speaking populations":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25258186

The oldest known sample of N1c from Europe is ~4500 years old from Russia (the region of Smolensk):

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Arc...olbunova_E._ed

See page 294, Table 3., sample A6.

[Harkonnen]

N1c in China (2013 publication):

http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com...71-2148-13-216

Xiliao He - 26 samples of N1* and N1c dated to 6500-2700 years ago.

See also Ye Zhang et al. (2016 publication):

Jiangjialiang (Xueshan culture) - N1c-Tat (age 5600-4900 years ago)

Also (Xiaohe = Caucasoid Tocharian mummies):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T34tkRC-e2...EAsiaMetal.PNG



N1c came from China to Europe:



Some of these could be N1c too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon

You delusional Polak. That study disapproves East Asian origin of Chinese N1c1. Notice the complete absence of N1c1 in South East Asia. That is the first of N1c1 to China from the Steppes. Furthermore Turkic N1c1 is a subset of Uralic N1c1, not of Chinese N1c1 which could very well mean that on that timescale Egin Gool N1c1 could have European origin.

[Harkonnen]

Feher et al. 2015, "Y‑SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian‑speaking populations":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25258186

The oldest known sample of N1c from Europe is ~4500 years old from Russia (the region of Smolensk):

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Arc...olbunova_E._ed

See page 294, Table 3., sample A6.

Indeed and since Turkic and Siberian N1c1 is closer to European N1c1 than it is to Chinese it is more probable that the Egiin Gol N1c1 descents from Smolensk N1c1 than from the Chinese one.

[Fakirbakir]

Revising mtDNA haplotypes of the ancient Hungarian conquerors with next generation sequencing

"As part of the effort to create a high resolution representative sequence database of the medieval Hungarian conquerors we have resequenced the entire mtDNA genome of 24 published ancient samples with Next Generation Sequencing, whose haplotypes had been previously determined with traditional PCR based methods. We show that PCR based methods are prone to erroneous haplotype or haplogroup determination due to ambiguous sequence reads, and many of the resequenced samples had been classified inaccurately. The SNaPshot method applied with published ancient DNA authenticity criteria is the most straightforward and cheapest PCR based approach for testing a large number of coding region SNP-s, which greatly facilitates correct haplogroup determination."

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/12/07/092239

[Harkonnen]

So let's recap:

Chinese N1c1 is migrant from the Steppe

"The Upper Xiajiadian culture (UXC) of the late Bronze Age succeeded the LXC but was completely different from the LXC. The UXC people mainly practiced animal husbandry and made bronze objects decorated with animal and other natural motifs in the style of the Eurasian steppes...The presence of N1c in the UXC might suggest that there is immigration from the north Eurasian steppes during this period."


Physical anthroplogy:

The results of this study indicate that significant
craniofacial variation exists between southern and
northern Neolithic and Modern Chinese. For example,
northern Chinese have more robust crania than
southern ones. Principal component analyses show
that the Neolithic-North is distinguished from the
Neolithic-South in having a tall face, narrow nose and
high eyes, while the Modern-North separate from the
Modern-South in having a tall, broad face and high
nose. Bivariate plots of selected measures indicate the
northern Chinese are different from the southern
Chinese on cranial length, upper facial height and nasal
height. The Neolithic Chinese between the Qinling
Mountain range and the Yangtze River are mixed with
the North and South. Statistically significant cranio-
metrical differences exist between the Neolithic age
and Modern day groups, and between the northern and
southern Chinese. Temporal variation is also present.
For instance, size decreased through time. However,
some degree of morphological similarity exists
between North and South China, and also between
successive time periods. In the Neolithic sample the
separation is clearer between the northern and
southern samples than with the Modern arrays. During
the Neolithic, the Qinling Mountain Range and the
Yangtze River served as a geographic boundary
between North and South China.

This fits well with the ancient split of Chinese and European/Siberian N1c1.

[Harkonnen]

No. Those dates are way too late.

Mongoloids already devastated and raped the Indo-Iranian homelands of Volga Russia/western Siberia by the late bronze age. Mezhovskaya culture is the first central Russian/Volga culture that we see non-ANE Mongoloid admixture, from 1400 BC. The previous 0% non-ANE Mongoloid Altai region was devastated much earlier.

I do agree the Finns and Uralic people get their Mongoloid from separate sources, Finns from arctic Nganasan-like reindeer herders in a more mutual arrangement and Finno-Ugrics from more steppe Mongoloids, in a more rapey, conquest, non-mutual way.

A lot of European conquests from the east by other Europeans were likely done by people specifically fleeing Mongoloids.

Basically, Europid Indo-Europeans(specifically Afanasievo from the Altai/Mongolia/Xinjiang) taught Mongoloids everything they know about steppe culture and horse combat, it later came to bite them in the ass as the Mongoloids used this knowledge against them and took over the former European role as kings of the steppe, likely due to their higher intellect. You would've had fully white communities as far as Mongolia back in the day before this conquest.

Obviously what Mezhoskaya was doesn't have to have anything to do with with how modern populations were formed.

Anyway I have told yoú a dozen times to show caution with admixture results.

Fex. Here is a result from Lithuania 900 - 500 BC

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North-East-European 73.93
2 Indo-Iranian 9.04
3 North-European-Mesolithic 7
4 Mesoamerican 4.68
5 North-Siberean 3.76
6 Austronesian 1.6

On Gedmatch this same individual scores 100% North Slavic. Obviouly there is some kind of calculator effect messing things on the result I posted.

The results obtained by STRUCTURE/ADMIXTURE are themselves also greatly affected by sample size (Puechmaille 2016). Specifically, groups that are numerically small with respect to other groups in the sample or have undergone little population-specific drift of their own are likely to be fit as mixes of multiple drifted groups, rather than given their own ancestral population.
Indeed, if an ancient sample is put into a dataset of modern individuals, the ancient sample is typically represented as an admixture of the modern populations (e.g. Rasmussen et al. 2010, Skoglund et al. 2012), which can happen even if the individual sample is old er than the split date of the modern populations and thus cannot be admixed . A similar effect can happen
when a source population is put into a dataset with two or more drifted sink populations. The source can be represented as a mix, even though there is no mixture within its history.

Anyway Mezhovs may be mixed ofc. Ultimately it has huge chunk of East Eurasian as I have already told you that admixture components likely hide huge chunks of East Eurasian. But has it more than your usual modern Slavic Shitforbrains. It very likely may be that it doesn't.

These were the haplogroups of Mezhoskaya:

R1b1a2-PF6494 mtDNA J2b1a
R1a1a1b-Z649 mtDNA I5c

So what comes to your rape stories. Y-dna looks continuation from earlier IE times, and neither the mtDNA indicates a recent Dominatrix input into Aryan genepool.

[cosmoo]

Conclusion in thread title is one of the most improbable I've seen lately.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Obviously what Mezhoskaya was doesn't have to have anything to do with with how modern populations were formed.

Anyway I have told yoú a dozen times to show caution with admixture results.

Fex. Here is a result from Lithuania 900 - 500 BC

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North-East-European 73.93
2 Indo-Iranian 9.04
3 North-European-Mesolithic 7
4 Mesoamerican 4.68
5 North-Siberean 3.76
6 Austronesian 1.6

On Gedmatch this same individual scores 100% North Slavic. Obviouly there is some kind of calculator effect messing things on the result I posted.



Anyway Mezhovs may be mixed ofc. Ultimately it has huge chunk of East Eurasian as I have already told you that admixture components likely hide huge chunks of East Eurasian. But has it more than your usual modern Slavic Shitforbrains. It very likely may be that it doesn't.

These were the haplogroups of Mezhoskaya:

R1b1a2-PF6494 mtDNA J2b1a
R1a1a1b-Z649 mtDNA I5c

So what comes to your rape stories. Y-dna looks continuation from earlier IE times, and neither the mtDNA indicates a recent Dominatrix input into Aryan genepool.

RISE 598 from Lithuania is an extremely low coverage sample, which is why Haak et al. didn't even examine it. It's well known low coverage samples will produce weird results. Meanwhile, Mezhovskaya samples had as much SNPs as any other Haak sample such as German Corded Ware or Yamnaya.

Those are two examples of y-dna/mtDNA, lmao.

Nice try though. What difference does it make if Mongoloids invaded the Volga/Urals region in 1400 BC or when you suggested either way? You seem too defensive about something that irrelevant(pro-tip: Finns/Estonians have little to do with Finno-Ugrians other than language, even y-dna speaking Volga/Uralic people are mostly Slavic haplogroups). I was just correcting your excess ANE induced mistake.

[Harkonnen]

RISE 598 from Lithuania is an extremely low coverage sample, which is why Haak et al. didn't even examine it. It's well known low coverage samples will produce weird results. Meanwhile, Mezhovskaya samples had as much SNPs as any other Haak sample such as German Corded Ware or Yamnaya.

Those are two examples of y-dna/mtDNA, lmao.

Nice try though. What difference does it make if Mongoloids invaded the Volga/Urals region in 1400 BC or when you suggested either way? You seem too defensive about something that irrelevant(pro-tip: Finns/Estonians have little to do with Finno-Ugrians other than language, even y-dna speaking Volga/Uralic people are mostly Slavic haplogroups). I was just correcting your excess ANE induced mistake.

I agree Volga-Uralians are genetically closer to Indo-Europeans. You are closer to them than I am

[johen]

Anyway Mezhovs may be mixed ofc. Ultimately it has huge chunk of East Eurasian as I have already told you that admixture components likely hide huge chunks of East Eurasian. But has it more than your usual modern Slavic Shitforbrains. It very likely may be that it doesn't.

Can you explain how the admixture hide East Eurasian Components?

As far as I know, ANE AG 2, 3 had almost 80% of West Eurasian Component, being close to Han.