10th century Hungarian commoner DNA

[vbnetkhio]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428268v1.full

This study analyzed the mtDNA of 10-11th century Hungarian commoner graves, i.e. those burried with less weapons and precious jewelry.

here's the merged autosomal of 31 low quality samples from Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld in Eastern Hungary:

35.58% North_Atlantic
30.26% Baltic
8.87% West_Med
5.95% West_Asian
0.71% East_Med
7.40% Red_Sea
1.47% South_Asian
4.04% East_Asian
2.16% Siberian
0.46% Amerindian
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% Northeast_African
3.10% Sub-Saharan

Mixed Mode:
1 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Moroccan @ 8,818
2 84,77% North_Swedish + 15,23% Bedouin @ 8,905
3 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Mozabite_Berber @ 8,956
4 86,33% North_Swedish + 13,67% Saudi @ 9,030
5 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Algerian @ 9,143
6 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Tunisian @ 9,266
7 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Syrian @ 9,371
8 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Egyptian @ 9,439
9 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Aghan_Hazara @ 9,457
10 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Uygur @ 9,465

Least-squares method.

Using 1 populations approximation
1 100% East_German @ 11,926
2 100% Austrian @ 12,552
3 100% Hungarian @ 13,733
4 100% North_Swedish @ 13,892
5 100% North_German @ 15,154
6 100% Swedish @ 15,485
7 100% South_Polish @ 16,464
8 100% Croatian @ 16,688
9 100% Southwest_Finnish @ 16,866
10 100% West_German @ 16,906

Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Icelandic + 50% Tatar @ 10,118
2 50% Irish + 50% Tatar @ 10,179
3 50% West_Scottish + 50% Tatar @ 10,249
4 50% Southwest_English + 50% Tatar @ 10,315
5 50% North_Dutch + 50% Tatar @ 10,320
6 50% Ukrainian_Lviv + 50% Irish @ 10,327
7 50% North_German + 50% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 10,344
8 50% French + 50% East_Finnish @ 10,351
9 50% Swedish + 50% Moldavian @ 10,368
10 50% Finnish + 50% French @ 10,376

Using 3 populations approximation
1 33% North_German + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,427
2 33% Swedish + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,575
3 33% North_Swedish + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,631
4 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,636
5 33% South_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 9,761
6 33% South_Dutch + 33% Danish + 33% Chuvash @ 9,923
7 33% North_Dutch + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,949
8 33% Icelandic + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,980
9 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Chuvash @ 9,991
10 33% North_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 10,007

Using 4 populations approximation
1 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,048
2 25% West_Scottish + 25% West_Scottish + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,101
3 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Tatar @ 9,175
4 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_Russian + 25% Tatar @ 9,327
5 25% Swedish + 25% Swedish + 25% Croatian + 25% Tatar @ 9,357
6 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uygur @ 9,455
7 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Chuvash @ 9,456
8 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Tatar @ 9,470
9 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uzbek @ 9,533
10 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Chuvash @ 9,538

[Zanzibar]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428268v1.full

This study analyzed the mtDNA of 10-11th century Hungarian commoner graves, i.e. those burried with less weapons and precious jewelry.

here's the merged autosomal of 31 low quality samples from Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld in Eastern Hungary:

35.58% North_Atlantic
30.26% Baltic
8.87% West_Med
5.95% West_Asian
0.71% East_Med
7.40% Red_Sea
1.47% South_Asian
4.04% East_Asian
2.16% Siberian
0.46% Amerindian
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% Northeast_African
3.10% Sub-Saharan

Mixed Mode:
1 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Moroccan @ 8,818
2 84,77% North_Swedish + 15,23% Bedouin @ 8,905
3 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Mozabite_Berber @ 8,956
4 86,33% North_Swedish + 13,67% Saudi @ 9,030
5 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Algerian @ 9,143
6 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Tunisian @ 9,266
7 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Syrian @ 9,371
8 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Egyptian @ 9,439
9 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Aghan_Hazara @ 9,457
10 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Uygur @ 9,465

Least-squares method.

Using 1 populations approximation
1 100% East_German @ 11,926
2 100% Austrian @ 12,552
3 100% Hungarian @ 13,733
4 100% North_Swedish @ 13,892
5 100% North_German @ 15,154
6 100% Swedish @ 15,485
7 100% South_Polish @ 16,464
8 100% Croatian @ 16,688
9 100% Southwest_Finnish @ 16,866
10 100% West_German @ 16,906

Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Icelandic + 50% Tatar @ 10,118
2 50% Irish + 50% Tatar @ 10,179
3 50% West_Scottish + 50% Tatar @ 10,249
4 50% Southwest_English + 50% Tatar @ 10,315
5 50% North_Dutch + 50% Tatar @ 10,320
6 50% Ukrainian_Lviv + 50% Irish @ 10,327
7 50% North_German + 50% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 10,344
8 50% French + 50% East_Finnish @ 10,351
9 50% Swedish + 50% Moldavian @ 10,368
10 50% Finnish + 50% French @ 10,376

Using 3 populations approximation
1 33% North_German + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,427
2 33% Swedish + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,575
3 33% North_Swedish + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,631
4 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,636
5 33% South_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 9,761
6 33% South_Dutch + 33% Danish + 33% Chuvash @ 9,923
7 33% North_Dutch + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,949
8 33% Icelandic + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,980
9 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Chuvash @ 9,991
10 33% North_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 10,007

Using 4 populations approximation
1 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,048
2 25% West_Scottish + 25% West_Scottish + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,101
3 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Tatar @ 9,175
4 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_Russian + 25% Tatar @ 9,327
5 25% Swedish + 25% Swedish + 25% Croatian + 25% Tatar @ 9,357
6 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uygur @ 9,455
7 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Chuvash @ 9,456
8 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Tatar @ 9,470
9 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uzbek @ 9,533
10 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Chuvash @ 9,538

3% Negroid seems strange.

[vbnetkhio]

3% Negroid seems strange.

It's low quality. But There are 200 samples in the study. When all are merged, the noises should dissapear.

[vbnetkhio]

conquerors - around 14% East asian
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?345575-Hun-Avar-and-conquering-Hungarian-results-Vahaduo-K13&p=7187610&viewfull=1#post7187610

commoners - around 6% - but some of that could be noise, as i said.

[oszkar07]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428268v1.full

This study analyzed the mtDNA of 10-11th century Hungarian commoner graves, i.e. those burried with less weapons and precious jewelry.

here's the merged autosomal of 31 low quality samples from Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld in Eastern Hungary:

35.58% North_Atlantic
30.26% Baltic
8.87% West_Med
5.95% West_Asian
0.71% East_Med
7.40% Red_Sea
1.47% South_Asian
4.04% East_Asian
2.16% Siberian
0.46% Amerindian
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% Northeast_African
3.10% Sub-Saharan

Mixed Mode:
1 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Moroccan @ 8,818
2 84,77% North_Swedish + 15,23% Bedouin @ 8,905
3 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Mozabite_Berber @ 8,956
4 86,33% North_Swedish + 13,67% Saudi @ 9,030
5 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Algerian @ 9,143
6 83,20% North_Swedish + 16,80% Tunisian @ 9,266
7 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Syrian @ 9,371
8 85,55% North_Swedish + 14,45% Egyptian @ 9,439
9 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Aghan_Hazara @ 9,457
10 82,42% North_Swedish + 17,58% Uygur @ 9,465

Least-squares method.

Using 1 populations approximation
1 100% East_German @ 11,926
2 100% Austrian @ 12,552
3 100% Hungarian @ 13,733
4 100% North_Swedish @ 13,892
5 100% North_German @ 15,154
6 100% Swedish @ 15,485
7 100% South_Polish @ 16,464
8 100% Croatian @ 16,688
9 100% Southwest_Finnish @ 16,866
10 100% West_German @ 16,906

Using 2 populations approximation
1 50% Icelandic + 50% Tatar @ 10,118
2 50% Irish + 50% Tatar @ 10,179
3 50% West_Scottish + 50% Tatar @ 10,249
4 50% Southwest_English + 50% Tatar @ 10,315
5 50% North_Dutch + 50% Tatar @ 10,320
6 50% Ukrainian_Lviv + 50% Irish @ 10,327
7 50% North_German + 50% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 10,344
8 50% French + 50% East_Finnish @ 10,351
9 50% Swedish + 50% Moldavian @ 10,368
10 50% Finnish + 50% French @ 10,376

Using 3 populations approximation
1 33% North_German + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,427
2 33% Swedish + 33% Swedish + 33% Tatar @ 9,575
3 33% North_Swedish + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,631
4 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Tatar @ 9,636
5 33% South_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 9,761
6 33% South_Dutch + 33% Danish + 33% Chuvash @ 9,923
7 33% North_Dutch + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,949
8 33% Icelandic + 33% Icelandic + 33% Tatar @ 9,980
9 33% North_German + 33% North_German + 33% Chuvash @ 9,991
10 33% North_Dutch + 33% North_Dutch + 33% Chuvash @ 10,007

Using 4 populations approximation
1 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,048
2 25% West_Scottish + 25% West_Scottish + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Tatar @ 9,101
3 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Tatar @ 9,175
4 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_Russian + 25% Tatar @ 9,327
5 25% Swedish + 25% Swedish + 25% Croatian + 25% Tatar @ 9,357
6 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uygur @ 9,455
7 25% Southwest_English + 25% Southwest_English + 25% Russian_Smolensk + 25% Chuvash @ 9,456
8 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Tatar @ 9,470
9 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Polish + 25% Uzbek @ 9,533
10 25% Icelandic + 25% Icelandic + 25% Moldavian + 25% Chuvash @ 9,538

Totally amazing,

much more west shifted than what I would have imagined, they are almost on genetic level as east Austrian's, East Germans or West shifted Czech's.

Im half Hungarian half NW European and those K13 dont look too different to my Gedmatch K13.
Just posted below my Gedmatch K13 as comparison and to highlight how west shifted those Hungarian commoner K13's are.

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 38.89
2 Baltic 31.02
3 West_Med 12.33
4 East_Med 8.97
5 West_Asian 4.72
6 Siberian 2.29
7 Red_Sea 1.7
8 Oceanian 0.07

# Population (source) Distance
1 Austrian 4.21
2 East_German 4.5
3 Hungarian 6.49
4 West_German 9.28
5 North_German 9.67
6 South_Dutch 10.05
7 North_Swedish 10.72
8 Swedish 11.21
9 Croatian 11.87
10 Danish 11.94
11 North_Dutch 12.25
12 South_Polish 12.64
13 Norwegian 12.91
14 Southeast_English 13.09
15 Serbian 13.31
16 Orcadian 13.64
17 Moldavian 13.89
18 French 14.28
19 Southwest_Finnish 14.28
20 Ukrainian_Lviv 14.49
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.6% North_Swedish + 27.4% Greek_Thessaly @ 2.58
2 72.5% North_Swedish + 27.5% Tuscan @ 2.6
3 75.9% North_Swedish + 24.1% West_Sicilian @ 2.63
4 68.1% West_German + 31.9% Belorussian @ 2.75
5 78.4% North_Swedish + 21.6% South_Italian @ 2.75
6 76.7% North_Swedish + 23.3% Central_Greek @ 2.79
7 77.2% North_Swedish + 22.8% East_Sicilian @ 2.8
8 80.6% North_Swedish + 19.4% Algerian_Jewish @ 2.82
9 66.2% South_Dutch + 33.8% Belorussian @ 2.82
10 66% South_Dutch + 34% Southwest_Russian @ 2.86
11 80.4% North_Swedish + 19.6% Italian_Jewish @ 2.93
12 68.5% West_German + 31.5% Estonian_Polish @ 2.95
13 77.8% North_Swedish + 22.2% Ashkenazi @ 2.99
14 75.3% North_Swedish + 24.7% Italian_Abruzzo @ 3
15 57.4% French + 42.6% Finnish @ 3.02
16 66.6% South_Dutch + 33.4% Estonian_Polish @ 3.02
17 77.9% Austrian + 22.1% North_Swedish @ 3.03
18 68.6% Hungarian + 31.4% Norwegian @ 3.04
19 67.5% Hungarian + 32.5% North_Dutch @ 3.1
20 70% Hungarian + 30% Orcadian @ 3.13

[Dunai]

This is looking very promising, it would be very interesting to have both Conqueror and Commoner averages, but Commoners already seem to have been pretty Germanic but influenced by Avars too. Surprisingly not as Slavic as many would expect, but perhaps Medieval Slavs were more close to Modern Germanic people.

[vbnetkhio]

but perhaps Medieval Slavs were more close to Modern Germanic people.

probably not, it's just that these Hungarian commoners already had both Germanic and Slavic, like modern Hungarians.

[oszkar07]

probably not, it's just that these Hungarian commoners already had both Germanic and Slavic, like modern Hungarians.

it really seems that way.
much more central european /east central european than expected.

[Lucas]

probably not, it's just that these Hungarian commoners already had both Germanic and Slavic, like modern Hungarians.

It would be amazing if modern Hungarian genetic structure isn't really much different then early medieval.
So German colonization in medieval and later times had to be mediated with Slav input (Slovaks, Croats, Serbs) to not Germanize Hungarians too much autosomally. And it means Slavic input in pre conqueror times would be less then medieval.

[vbnetkhio]

It would be amazing if modern Hungarian genetic structure isn't really much different then early medieval.
So German colonization in medieval and later times had to be mediated with Slav input (Slovaks, Croats, Serbs) to not Germanize Hungarians too much autosomally. And it means Slavic input in pre conqueror times would be less then medieval.

according to history and archaeology the Germanic tribes supposedly mostly left Hungary, and in the Avar era there were just Slavs, Romans and Avars living there.

I wonder if anything will change when all files are merged.

[Dunai]

according to history and archaeology the Germanic tribes supposedly mostly left Hungary, and in the Avar era there were just Slavs, Romans and Avars living there.

I wonder if anything will change when all files are merged.

It could be that a part of the previous Germanic people ruling Pannonia after the fall of the Roman Empire didn't move out completely after the Slavic and Avar invasions, but were assimilated into them, who later themselves became assimilated by the Magyar Conquerors, thus becoming the so-called Magyar Commoner population. Unfortunately the time of invasions of Early Medieval history in Europe really is a dark ages in which we know very little precise things about the distribution of various ethnic groups.

[Blondie]

The Carpathian Basin had germanic majority before the slavic migration, firstly the Marcomani and Quadi, after that vandals, goths, heruli, gepids, longobards. They can also met with vikings and other goths in the steppe where are they from. And the commoners lived in the central part of Carpathian Basin, not in the separated mountain areas like slavs. Obsiously they assimilated these germanic remains.

[smd555]

Are there any modern individual samples of Hungarians, which would be similar to that commoners average?

[oszkar07]

Interestingly root words of German origin in Hungarian language are 11% whilst root words of Slavic origin are 20%. Words relating to Christian religion are more Slavic than German even though Hungary's transition into Christianity had German connections.

[vbnetkhio]

Are there any modern individual samples of Hungarians, which would be similar to that commoners average?

If you filter the noise and move the red sea to east med, then yes.

[vbnetkhio]

The Carpathian Basin had germanic majority before the slavic migration, firstly the Marcomani and Quadi, after that vandals, goths, heruli, gepids, longobards. They can also met with vikings and other goths in the steppe where are they from. And the commoners lived in the central part of Carpathian Basin, not in the separated mountain areas like slavs. Obsiously they assimilated these germanic remains.


It could be that a part of the previous Germanic people ruling Pannonia after the fall of the Roman Empire didn't move out completely after the Slavic and Avar invasions, but were assimilated into them, who later themselves became assimilated by the Magyar Conquerors, thus becoming the so-called Magyar Commoner population. Unfortunately the time of invasions of Early Medieval history in Europe really is a dark ages in which we know very little precise things about the distribution of various ethnic groups.

Yes, this Seems like the only explanation. But let's wait for more higher quality samples.

[bained]

Can you run only the X2f individual? She's my great grandma I swear.

[smd555]

If you filter the noise and move the red sea to east med, then yes.

I am more concerned about another question - the high West Med component among modern Hungarians, and the low East Asian/Siberia. While at the moment we can hardly get modern Hungarians out of the mix of these commoners with Slavs. Of couse, after merging all of them the average can change.
I met one sample of a Ukrainian, which can be more close to them, and theoretically can be presented as a mixture of Slavs with something similar to those commoners. His father is from Zakarpatska oblast and his mother is from Poltavska (but her result is typical for central Ukrainians, that's why I assume he inherited the components from the Zakarpattya side). His results:



Population
North_Atlantic 34.36 Pct
Baltic 36.51 Pct
West_Med 9.16 Pct
West_Asian 6.09 Pct
East_Med 9.05 Pct
Red_Sea 2.41 Pct
South_Asian 0.38 Pct
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.28 Pct
Amerindian 0.99 Pct
Oceanian 0.08 Pct
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan 0.68 Pct

# Population (source) Distance
1 Hungarian 6.03
2 South_Polish 7.03
3 East_German 7.34
4 Croatian 8.17
5 Austrian 8.27
6 Ukrainian_Lviv 8.96
7 Ukrainian 9.72
8 Polish 9.96
9 Moldavian 11.11
10 Southwest_Finnish 11.75
11 North_Swedish 12
12 Southwest_Russian 12.56
13 Russian_Smolensk 12.81
14 Ukrainian_Belgorod 12.93
15 Belorussian 13.06
16 Estonian_Polish 13.36
17 Serbian 13.57
18 North_German 14.54
19 Swedish 14.91
20 Finnish 15.02

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 55.7% Southwest_Russian + 44.3% West_German @ 3.38
2 75.4% Hungarian + 24.6% Estonian @ 3.45
3 54.7% Belorussian + 45.3% West_German @ 3.49
4 69.5% Hungarian + 30.5% Southwest_Finnish @ 3.49
5 62.7% Austrian + 37.3% Belorussian @ 3.51
6 74.9% Hungarian + 25.1% Finnish @ 3.53
7 72.1% Hungarian + 27.9% Belorussian @ 3.55
8 55% Ukrainian_Belgorod + 45% West_German @ 3.62
9 57.5% Southwest_Russian + 42.5% South_Dutch @ 3.63
10 78.4% Hungarian + 21.6% Lithuanian @ 3.69
11 54.1% Estonian_Polish + 45.9% West_German @ 3.79
12 56.8% Ukrainian_Belgorod + 43.2% South_Dutch @ 3.8
13 62% Austrian + 38% Southwest_Russian @ 3.8
14 55.3% Russian_Smolensk + 44.7% West_German @ 3.8
15 66.4% Hungarian + 33.6% Polish @ 3.86
16 54% Southwest_Finnish + 46% Serbian @ 3.88
17 61.9% Belorussian + 38.1% French @ 3.91
18 63.7% Austrian + 36.3% Estonian_Polish @ 3.91
19 61.3% Croatian + 38.7% North_Swedish @ 3.93
20 72.8% Hungarian + 27.2% Russian_Smolensk @ 3.96

Most accurately I modeled his result as something like a mixture of 1/2 WHG + 1/2 Romanians.

[vbnetkhio]

I am more concerned about another question - the high West Med component among modern Hungarians, and the low East Asian/Siberia. While at the moment we can hardly get modern Hungarians out of the mix of these commoners with Slavs. Of couse, after merging all of them the average can change.
I met one sample of a Ukrainian, which can be more close to them, and theoretically can be presented as a mixture of Slavs with something similar to those commoners. His father is from Zakarpatska oblast and his mother is from Poltavska (but her result is typical for central Ukrainians, that's why I assume he inherited the components from the Zakarpattya side). His results:



Most accurately I modeled his result as something like a mixture of 1/2 WHG + 1/2 Romanians.

These commoners already have Slavic admixture, this is around 400 years after the arrival of first Slavs to Hungary.

[smd555]

These commoners already have Slavic admixture, this is around 400 years after the arrival of first Slavs to Hungary.

Probably yes - but how much percent of Slavic admixture? For example in Belarussia Baltic tribes were assimilating for at least 500 years after the arrival of the east Slavs, in Russia Finno-Ugric tribes assimilated even longer. It seems that there was some local cell of Germanic tribes (with strong Scandinavian genotype) in Eastern Hungary. Then Slavs and Ugric/Turkish nomads migrated there. Otherwise I can not explain it.

[Jana]

To me this implies later massive impact of Slavic genetics into Hungarian gene pool (possibly post-Mongol incursions and Ottoman era settlement of Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Ruthenians). Hungarian population was massively devastated by mongol raids and than aditionaly by Ottoman incursions. But especially mongol raids that killed sth like half of Hungarian population. Because these commoners are heavily Germanic, much more than modern Hungarian population that is more east European, less mongoloid and less Germanic (despite ofc there is lot of Germanic like ancestry remaining in HU today, but nowhere close to level of these commoners). But modern Hungarians Germanic ancestry is mostly different from this in OP, more southern German like (thus with Celtic) and recent from Swabian colonizations while these commoners had very northern more purely Germanic like input.

Also these samples lack Balkanic/southern European like ancestry that is also rather significant in modern Hungarians.

[rothaer]

To me this implies later massive impact of Slavic genetics into Hungarian gene pool (possibly post-Mongol incursions and Ottoman era settlement of Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Ruthenians). Hungarian population was massively devastated by mongol raids and than aditionaly by Ottoman incursions. But especially mongol raids that killed sth like half of Hungarian population. Because these commoners are heavily Germanic, much more than modern Hungarian population that is more east European, less mongoloid and less Germanic (despite ofc there is lot of Germanic like ancestry remaining in HU today, but nowhere close to level of these commoners). But modern Hungarians Germanic ancestry is mostly different from this in OP, more southern German like (thus with Celtic) and recent from Swabian colonizations while these commoners had very northern more purely Germanic like input.

Also these samples lack Balkanic/southern European like ancestry that is also rather significant in modern Hungarians.

Exactly. Good consideration.

[Nausevar]

I think it's possible that lots of croats moved to Hungary during Ottoman wars and became hungarians. After all, n.1 surname in Hungary iirc is Horvath.

[Dunai]

I think it's possible that lots of croats moved to Hungary during Ottoman wars and became hungarians. After all, n.1 surname in Hungary iirc is Horvath.

Surnames meaning ethnic groups have no direct correlation to a given individual also being descendant of that ethnic group, it can be, but most often it doesn't. In all languages this is the case, in Hungarian especially, since surnames that also mean an ethnic group name is very frequent: Tóth (Slovak), Horváth (Croat), Németh (German), Oláh (Romanian), Rácz (Serb), Török (Turk), Gál (French), Magyar (Hungarian), Orosz (Russian), Lengyel (Polish), Székely (Székely), Szász (Saxon), Olasz (Italian), Tatár (Tatar), Kun (Cuman). Most of the people with these surnames are of recent Hungarian ethnic background, but some of them also appear among ethnic Slovaks, Croats and especially Romas, since they adopted Hungarian surnames.

[XenophobicPrussian]

It seems Hungary has seen the most population shifts in Europe outside of border areas. Even before this and before the Migration Era/Roman era, you had anything from huge HG resurgences in some Hungary_BA samples that were similar to Baltic_BA, to very exotic Caucasus shifted Scythian nomads living there.

Hungary must be very prime land.

https://www.arc2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Balaton_Hungary_Landscape1.jpg

https://dailynewshungary.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/etnofeszt33.jpg

https://i.redd.it/go131slgl7j51.jpg

[Jana]

Hungary must be very prime land.

Absolutely. In very heart of Europe, in middle of all roads, extremely fertile and with lot of fresh water sources, plus protected via Carpathians in north and east.

[Blondie]

I think it's possible that lots of croats moved to Hungary during Ottoman wars and became hungarians. After all, n.1 surname in Hungary iirc is Horvath.

Horvath surname is more common in Slovakia just saying. These given names have nothing to do with your origin. For example Dunai said "Kun" (Cuman), its basically magyarized version of the jewish Kohn name, so most Kuns have jewish origin and not even turkic.

[Blondie]

Probably yes - but how much percent of Slavic admixture? For example in Belarussia Baltic tribes were assimilating for at least 500 years after the arrival of the east Slavs, in Russia Finno-Ugric tribes assimilated even longer. It seems that there was some local cell of Germanic tribes (with strong Scandinavian genotype) in Eastern Hungary. Then Slavs and Ugric/Turkish nomads migrated there. Otherwise I can not explain it.

There is an other alternate version, what is the most possible. The commoners were the hungarian speakers not the elite, the second one was turkic in every way. Core of the commoners was formed in East Europe, genetically they were slavs but linguistically uralic/ugric. This population was pushed to West by turkic, iranic and other tribes, along with other slavs. There are medieval sources which proves that the hungarian topography was already in the Carpathian Basin before the nomad magyars and 9. century, and the locals used these hungarian words. After the 9. century the hungarian nation was the merger of commoners and elite, and the commoners adopted the nomad magyars identity because they gived the statehood. Btw this separation between elite and commoners are still existed later, Werbőczy's book (16. century) about the hungarian nationalism describe the nobility as real descedants of conquerors, and the commoners are not part of hungarian nation. This view was changed in the 19. century by Kossuth who created the modern hungarian national identity.

[smd555]

Core of the commoners was formed in East Europe, genetically they were slavs but linguistically uralic/ugric..

But as we can see those commoners by K13 are far from all Slavs (both southern and western and eastern).

[Blondie]

But as we can see those commoners by K13 are far from all Slavs (both southern and western and eastern).

Because in the Carpathian Basin they assimilated tons of germanic people. I have talked about the original core of commoners.

[oszkar07]

But as we can see those commoners by K13 are far from all Slavs (both southern and western and eastern).

If we are getting an adequatly accurate picture from the low snp commoner samples then certainly they seem heavily Germanic even though also slavo-germanic. But I do agree with the dual conquest theory that Blondie is talking about. The mainstream theory just doesnt seem to add up , the the theory that a culturally/genetically Turkic population that somehow doesnt speak Turkic but Ugric and then somehow gives this Ugric language and identity to a much larger host population ...just does not seem to make sense. Remember children learn language from their mothers whom they spend most of their childhood time with ...particuliarly true in those times. Conquerors likely by majority were males and warriors not language teachers.
So a dual conquest theory makes much more sense... like the Bulgar / Bulgarian example the language of what becomes the nation state was already there present in the host population.



If the ancestors of the Hungarians were already living in the Carpathian Basin before
895 as the advocates of the dual conquest theory say, who then were the conquerors?
Anthropological examinations of the skeletal remains of individuals from 10th
century graves, according to Lipták, suggest that the elite of post-conquest society
in the Carpathian Basin was to a large degree different anatomically from the other
elements of society (Lipták 1983: 161). This suggests that the conquerors, or at least
most of them, belonged to a different ethnic group (or groups) than did the
Carpathian Basin’s subject population.
In recent years, evidence surfaced that reinforces this conclusion, and it came
from the newly-emerged science of genetics, in particular three genetic studies that
had been conducted by the Hungarian geneticist István Raskó and a team of experts.
Raskó’s team studied mitochondrial, Y-chromosomal, and autosomal DNA
extracted from the skeletal remains of men and women — both members of the elite
(the conquerors and their immediate descendants) and members of the subject
peoples — and DNA samples taken from present-day Hungarians living in Hungary
and in the Hungarian-populated counties of Transylvania (Tömöry et al.2007;
Csányi et al.2008; Nagy et al.2011).
All three of Raskó’s studies suggested that the conquerors of 895 were
different genetically from both the subject peoples of 10th century Hungary and from
the population living in Hungary today. This fact indicates above all that the conquerors were small in numbers and could leave only minimal “genetic footprints” in
the post-conquest population of the Carpathian Basin. As István Raskó remarked in
a book he wrote about these studies: “the contribution of the conquerors to the
genetic pool of present-day Hungarians [was] insignificant” (Raskó 2010, p. 158;
Dreisziger 2011). Despite this statement, Raskó assumed that the conquerors spoke
Hungarian and claimed that the pre-985 population of the Carpathian Basin “adopted
[átvette]” the language of the conquerors. This of course is inconceivable: in the
Middle Ages all nomadic warrior tribes who conquered a region populated by settled
peoples became assimilated by the local population and not the other way around.
3. Examples of conquests by warrior people in the Middle Ages
The course of European history from the demise of the Roman Empire in the West
to the 12th century is full of examples of nomadic peoples occupying one or another
part of Europe. Every time such an occupation occurred, the result was the same: the
8
occupiers were sooner or later assimilated by the local population. We can start with
conquests by Germanic-speaking peoples. Soon after the collapse of Roman rule in
Italy, the Ostrogoths occupied most of that land and established a kingdom of their
own — and their children started to be Romanized. About the same time, the also
German-speaking Burgundians moved into what is eastern France today. In our days
nothing remains of their language in that part of France. Also in the 5th century, the
Visigoths conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula, and within about half-dozen
generations their descendants spoke Spanish. In the 6
th century, the Longobards set
up a kingdom in Italy, and today only the name Lombardy reminds us of their
Germanic language and culture. Still later the Franks, a federation of Germanspeaking tribes, extended their rule over much of what is now France, part of Italy,
and much of the rest of Central Europe. Today there is no linguistic trace of them,
except in the lands that had been originally populated by German-speakers. Some
people say that the conquest of England in the 5th century by the Saxons, Angles,
and Jutes was different, that these tribes imposed their West-Germanic language on
the people of England, but this is not the case, if we are to believe geneticist and
historian Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University and a few other students of the
British past. According to these scholars the migration of West-Germanic peoples to
England had started before Roman times, and by the time the Saxons and the others
had invaded, much of the population there spoke an early form of English
(Oppenheimer 2007: 477ff; Heather 2010: 12-21; Pryor 2004).
The experience of Scandinavian conquerors was similar. Wherever they
conquered or otherwise acquired lands (Novgorod, Kiev, Sicily, etc.), they became
assimilated by the locals. Early in the 10th century, they occupied Northern France
and established what became known as the Norman kingdom, and in about halfdozen generations their descendants spoke French. In 1066 these French-speaking
Normans occupied England, and in another half-dozen generations their descendants
began speaking English. Much further east, in Eastern Europe’s lower Danube
region, the Turkic-speaking nomads known as Bulgars came as occupiers in the 7th
century. They established themselves as the region’s ruling class — and in less than
ten generations their descendants spoke Slavic, the language of their subjects. The
same must have happened in the Carpathian Basin after the end of the 9th century:
the Turkic-speaking nomadic warriors who occupied the region were assimilated –
in a few, or in some cases several generations – by a more numerous, autochthonous,
Hungarian-speaking population





I agree with Stearsolina earlier post that quite likely there was a second wave of significant Slavic input that has given Hungarians the Slavic genes they present with in DNA tests.