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

[Norse]

What it means is that the Hun forefathers were Aryan whites living in Siberia or rather more likely a hybrid Aryan white and Mongoloid, just like the North American Indians.

[Fakirbakir]

Modern day Hungarians admixture, Hellenthal 2014


According to the research Hellenthal's conclusion fits their results

Hellenthal predicted that the German/Asian mixture occurred between 400 and 1000 AD

[Rudel]

But where the Huns not mostly European? Where do you get it from that the Huns were mostly Asiatic prior to mixing?

God knows what the Huns were in what proportions. Ethnic boundaries are very fuzzy when it come to tribes that roamed long distances over the gigantic Eurasian steppes.

[Fakirbakir]

Is the study also indicates the level of relation between old and modern Hungarians?

Hellenthal predicted that the German/Asian mixture occurred between 400 and 1000 AD but he only dealt with modern samples

[Wrong]

Did the Goths and Huns mingle? I thought they were bitter enemies.

Anyways, Huns do not have much to do with the Magyars I think. The latter was strongly Caucasoid, so the Magyars were the ones mixed with Goths if anything.

[RN97]

No they weren't, Where did you hear that?

saw someone on the forum post something like that waaaaay back in the day. He did give some reason, don't really remember it though. IDK if there are any sources of what huns were.

[Robocop]

So Xiongnus=Huns and Huns+Later Goths=Hungarians? Then who were the people (called Magyars) who settled EtelKöz after Khazars and then modern Hungary in 9th-10th centuries?

No, Huns were just part of Xiongu tribes north of China, we know this from Chinese scriptures from 2nd century BC.

I explained this about Hungarians in one of my threads, I will copy my text here:

Let's make things straight here, linguistic of late 19th and beginning of 20th century couldn't place Hungarian and Finnish language into same family with IndoEuropean languages, so they throw them both into one basket: Finno-Ugric.

But the "funny" thing is that Finnish and Hungarian language have almost no similarities, to be more precise, ONLY 22 words could be relatively connected between these to languages.

Now, compare this to Turkish language as "relation" to Finnish or Hungarian and you will get insanity.

Finnish people, along with Estonians, lived in area they are living for 10 000 years...

From genetical and linguistical point of view they separated themselves from others long time ago.

They were North-Western neigbhours (on same area position they are today) to Neolithic IndoEuropean cultures, means before Indoeuropean cultures of Eneolithic (like Yamna, Novodanilovka, Gorodsk-Usatovo etc...) started to spread on west.

We Archaeologists like to use in modern times ArcheoGenetics, which became a sub-field of Archaeology, very expensive but it can give many answers.

In most of the cases we use Y-DNA research to comapre it with our Archaeological research and studies, because of paternal (male) migrations trough history.

Now plz, pay attention, when talking about Y-DNA in Archaeology or in general, one cannot talk about entire DNA of person, but a "window" into his or her past from paternal side.

The fact on which everyone agrees in Archaeology is that all haplogroups belonging to haplogroup I are the oldest in Europe, Paleolithic/Mesolithic European.

First Homo Sapiens of Europe carried I haplogroup, later that haplogroup will emerge (produce) It's "family" of I haplogroups: I1, I2a1b, I2a2, I2c, I2b.

Also for a fact we can say that all I haplogroup people are Indoeuropeized by language, they didnt spoke IndoEuropean before Indoeuropean "invasion" starting around 4500-4000 BC.

Finnish people dont have anything to do with I haplogroup, but they belong to N1c1, now while this haplogroup of theirs is not from Paleolithic in Europe, it is a very very old in Europe, from late Mesolithic to Neolithic.

When it comes about Hungarians, things are somewhat more complex, and I will try to explain it, so everyone interested, read it:

Modern Hungarians are virtually undistinguishable from their Austrian and Slovak neighbours in terms of Y-chromosome haplogroups.

But Hungary is a notoriously difficult country for Y-DNA proportions. Percentages tend to vary widely from one study to another, depending on the regional populations sampled. Some studies have found over 60% of R1a in Hungary, although the average if half that figure. Some villages have a small percentage of CentralNorth Asian haplogroups Q or C, but they are otherwise quite rare. Interestingly neighbouring countries like Austria, Slovakia and Ukraine appear to have more C, Q (even though not much) than Hungary.

Hungary has a peculiar history due to its geography - a vast plain surrounded by mountains on every side (the Alps and the Carpathians). In Neolithic times, it was at the centre of the Danubian cultures, which was composed of E-V13 farmers from Thessaly and I2 hunter-gatherers (soon converted to farming). Then came the Slavic invasion (around 3,000 BCE), followed by the Proto-Italo-Celts and Alpine Celts (2,000 BCE to 200 BCE), who brought respectively R1a and R1b to the region.

Hungary was named after the Huns, who invaded Europe from 370 CE and partly settled in the Pannonian plain (now known as Hungarian plain). It isn't sure where the Huns came from, but it is generally believed that they descended from the Xiongnu peoples of Mongolia. They were a confederation and included various ethnic group under Hunnic leadership. It is likely that there were many R1a peoples (e.g. Scythians) from the Eurasian Steppe. The Huns themselves may have been an admixture of haplogroup Q and C. However less than 2% of the modern population of Hungary belong to Q and C combined.

Map: Magyars in 700 AD.



The next invaders were the Magyar, a Finno-Ugric people who arrived in Europe in the 9th century, and settled in Hungary in the 10th. Hungarian language is actually a descendant of Magyar, not Hunnic, despite the misleading name in "Hun-". The Magyar came from Central Asia, and are related to the modern Bashkirs of Russia. Modern Bashkirs have about 35% of haplogroup R1b1b2, 26% of R1a, 17% of N1c and 13% of R1b1b1. However, they were conquered by the Mongols, which may account for all the haplogroup C. In fact, the presence of C in Europe is usually attributed exclusively to the Mongols, and C is almost non-existent in Hungary anyway.

A study compared the Y-chromosome of the Madjar tribe from Kazakhstan to the Magyars of Hungary, and found that some G lineages were related. The article doesn't specify the subcalde, but G1 is the dominant strain in Kazakhstan, and is also found in Hungary (but normally not elsewhere in Europe).

Another study compared the Y-DNA of Hungarians with other Finno-Ugric-speaking populations in order to understand why modern Hungarians have so little of the typical Uralic haplogroup N1c. They tested a few individuals from a 10th-century cemetery found out that half of the individuals belonged to N1c. The sample was small, and maybe "pure" Magyar, but it nonetheless suggests that the original Magyar had much more N1c than modern Hungarians.



The Magyar population is thought to have suffered considerably from the 13th-century Mongol invasion of Europe, and from the 16th-century war against the Ottomans. Hungary was repopulated in great number by ethnic Germans/Austrians, which explains why modern Hungary is closest to Austria for its Y-DNA composition.

From all this can be deduced that the original Magyars were an admixture of N1c and R1a (predominant), with some G1, and maybe some R1b.

As haplogroup Q is neither associated with the Magyars not with the Mongols, it must be either of Hunnic origin, or from other Asian tribes part of the various invaders from the steppes.

Thread: Origin of Hungarians - ArchaeoGenetics & History

[Harkonnen]

Hellenthal predicted that the German/Asian mixture occurred between 400 and 1000 AD but he only dealt with modern samples

According to recent Busby paper the Finno-Ugrians of Central Russia lacked East Eurasian admixtures until migration period times, coinciding with Turkic/Hunnic

Within our dataset, only the Finnish, Hungarians and
Mordovians speak Finno-Ugric languages, the latter of which we group into two clusters (mordo13: 792
(564-975CE); mordo2: 558 (179-843CE)) and, together with the Russians (russi25: 913(754-1007CE))
and Chuvash (chuva16: 829 (627-940CE)) populations, infer admixture at approximately the same time
(500-900CE) involving Mongolian, Central European, and Finnish donors. In a recent analysis that re-
constructed the ancestry of Eurasia on the basis of ancient DNA [S?], the ancestry of these groups could
not be explained without a putative stream of recent Asian admixture, a scenario which we confirm in our
analysis. As such, the Asian admixture in these groups is unlikely to be associated with the Mongolian
expansion described above and may instead be related to earlier Turkic movements, involving the Huns
and Avars [S?], but separate to the event inferred in the Finnish.

[Pennywise]

No, Huns were just part of Xiongu tribes north of China, we know this from Chinese scriptures from 2nd century BC.

That's disputed. But the study seems like a bit fuzzy and mixed up lots of things.

[Fakirbakir]

According to recent Busby paper the Finno-Ugrians of Central Russia lacked East Eurasian admixtures until migration period times, coinciding with Turkic/Hunnic

Within our dataset, only the Finnish, Hungarians and
Mordovians speak Finno-Ugric languages, the latter of which we group into two clusters (mordo13: 792
(564-975CE); mordo2: 558 (179-843CE)) and, together with the Russians (russi25: 913(754-1007CE))
and Chuvash (chuva16: 829 (627-940CE)) populations, infer admixture at approximately the same time
(500-900CE) involving Mongolian, Central European, and Finnish donors. In a recent analysis that re-
constructed the ancestry of Eurasia on the basis of ancient DNA [S?], the ancestry of these groups could
not be explained without a putative stream of recent Asian admixture, a scenario which we confirm in our
analysis. As such, the Asian admixture in these groups is unlikely to be associated with the Mongolian
expansion described above and may instead be related to earlier Turkic movements, involving the Huns
and Avars [S?], but separate to the event inferred in the Finnish.

According to this study Wong in 2016 analysed Khanty and Mansi samples and his research group made the conclusion that the Khantys and Mansis had ancient European haplotypes but about 5-7 thousand years ago they received some Asian markers. However Neparaczki says that there is (was) a very little connection between Hungarians and Khanty-Mansi peoples in the sense of genetics.