Brand new genetic study on the origins of Huns, Avars and Hungarian Conquerors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

I am not against this. I take issue with the idea that somehow then that the Conquerors overlap with Baskirs and Tatars, who are considered Turkic today, yet despite Conqueror culture, personal and tribal names, Tengrist faith, genetic relationship (which includes Huns!) we must call ourselves Ugric or Uralic and that even Uralo-Altaic is taboo. So weird.

It also does not address what I pointed out regarding why modern Hungarians match conquerors via shared Turkic genetics more than Ugric genetics. This is even seen here on TA. Nor does it explain what I said about the Szekler population being seen as closer to the conquering Hungarians based on genetic Turkic, not Ugric, genetics.

For years I have said that it is clear that Ugric/Uralic contribution to the founding Hungarian population is evident. Somehow, the same courtesy is not given to our Turkic side, even though it was arguably more prevalent genetically among some of the conquering Hungarians and certainly more prevalent culturally. Somehow it is this that is taboo when most Hungarians today that have conqueror genetics match along shared Turkic lines, and some people would, amazingly, rather say we have no connection to them any longer than acknowledge the Turkic genetics, names, or cultural traits because they will only want to look for elements still shared among the Mansi/Khanty groups alone.

---

You are true drama queen, always whining why is it that nobody sane in mind eats up your outdated Turanist political ideology. I haven't seen any Hungarian user so far ignoring the Turkic connection of Hungarian Conquerors, it must be your persecution mania why you would claim such a lie. It just isn't the core of Hungarian Conquerors, it's a part of it, but not their essence based on all the genetic and archeological evidence. They lived initially in the East Urals, then crossed the mountains to the Volga-Uralic region and after they moved for a brief time into the Etelköz and then finally settled into the Carpathian Basin. There is no archeological evidence which shows the Conquerors to a Central Asian origin point, there is simply none. Today even archeogenetics corroborate this Uralic origin of Conquerors. The only one that can't be proven 100% is the linguistic connection too, however when all other fields of science already point to a certain area that already matches the linguistic area of Ugric languages, then it can justifiably be claimed that they have most likely also spoken Old Hungarian. Anyways at the end of the day this is about Hungarian Conquerors, Modern Hungarians barely have anymore connection to them, so I find it even more odd that you are trying to spread fairy tales about Central Asia while we live today in East-Central Europe and we are culturally most similar to our neighbors. I can't think of anything that connects Modern Hungarians to old or modern Central Asian Turkic people (there might be), except the fascination for strong-hand leaders.

Those who speak Hungarian can read here about the latest state of archeological finds regarding Hungarian Conquerors: https://www.academia.edu/69231360/A_...atkoz%C3%A1sai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buusra

good points and significant contribution in etymological terms. Urals region is inherently Turkic and the existence of Turkic toponyms and hydronyms as well as Turkic ethnonyms and genetics refer to this fact. 'Jaik' is 'Yayık' which means spread or wide in today's Turkish, the same word but the term Ural itself is Turkic as well since it has the root 'Ur' which denoted ancient Turks just like Tur and Tar, and that it is given to the river and mountains in that region shows that it originally belonged to a certain tribe resided there and named them after, etymology points to that.

---

Ural is not originally turkic, it's more likely that the Ural name came from the mansi "urala" word which means mountain peak, and turks just adopted this name later when they migrated to Europe. Mansi are native in the Ural, turkics are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

You are true drama queen, always whining why is it that nobody sane in mind eats up your outdated Turanist political ideology. I haven't seen any Hungarian user so far ignoring the Turkic connection of Hungarian Conquerors, it must be your persecution mania why you would claim such a lie. It just isn't the core of Hungarian Conquerors, it's a part of it, but not their essence based on all the genetic and archeological evidence. They lived initially in the East Urals, then crossed the mountains to the Volga-Uralic region and after they moved for a brief time into the Etelköz and then finally settled into the Carpathian Basin. There is no archeological evidence which shows the Conquerors to a Central Asian origin point, there is simply none. Today even archeogenetics corroborate this Uralic origin of Conquerors. The only one that can't be proven 100% is the linguistic connection too, however when all other fields of science already point to a certain area that already matches the linguistic area of Ugric languages, then it can justifiably be claimed that they have most likely also spoken Old Hungarian. Anyways at the end of the day this is about Hungarian Conquerors, Modern Hungarians barely have anymore connection to them, so I find it even more odd that you are trying to spread fairy tales about Central Asia while we live today in East-Central Europe and we are culturally most similar to our neighbors. I can't think of anything that connects Modern Hungarians to old or modern Central Asian Turkic people (there might be), except the fascination for strong-hand leaders.

---

You can call me names, but you will never answer to the points:

Shouting only about N while ignoring R1 dominance (and the presence of other Y haplos) is hypocritical.

Imagine saying that "the strong presence of N indicates a core of Mansi-related population" when the majority of the haplogroups matches Turkic graves (including the Y haplogroup of the founding Hungarian royal dynasty). They might then claim that," oh, the N haplos were the elite." An N elite with an R1 dynasty and the presence of I2 chieftains? LOL ok.

Also, there are far more % N haplos in Avar graves (who are called Turkic peoples), so are they actually Uralic Mansi graves? Hell, there were just as many Conquer Hungarian R1b graves alone as there were N graves in total. Saying N=Mansi means that the Avars must really be Mansi and not Turkic.

The problem comes when another people somehow meets a standard for being considered Turkic that we surpass, yet we are not called Turkic and they are? It makes no sense and is clearly an example of self denial. Thank goodness most (and more every year) Hungarians wake up to this. It would be more tragic and arguable if Hungarians stood alone in this, but all Turkic nations see us as brothers and fellow Turkic peoples. This can be seen not only on the forum and online but in their national curriculums when they talk about Hungary. You are a thinking man, right? Do you find it odd that people who genetically match our meta-ethnicity say we are a part of them, but outsiders (non-Turkics) say we are not a part of that group? Or are you so jaded about Turkics that you think it is all hollow despite everyday Turks/Turkmen/Uzbeks/etc stating otherwise?

Modern Hungarians have no connection to Conquerors? Have you seen my genetic results? Have you seen yours? Have you seen the results of other Hungarian members? The irony how you constantly ignore that people match the conquerors on the Turkic line of things and not the Ugric line, hence why you are so keen to dismiss any relevance. You also argue for the 100th time about clustering culturally with neighbors as if somehow that must always force us to be more like them.

Whether it is about Turanism, Hungarian genetics, or the EU, you never engage with me in good faith and just talk right past my points. Honestly, getting called a Turkic foreigner by a few anti-Turan TA members (thanks to my genetic results no less) was more entertaining than talking to you because you don't engage with anything asked. Finally, thank you for the implication at the end of your sermon that modern Hungarians are weak-minded sheep who gravitate to dictators. Maybe people who give you thumbs up on your post need to read that you're insulting Hungarians, which includes them. I guess that's why we need the EU to wake us from our barbarism and enlighten us with the Sun of the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

Those who speak Hungarian can read here about the latest state of archeological finds regarding Hungarian Conquerors: https://www.academia.edu/69231360/A_...atkoz%C3%A1sai

---

Most important things from this source:

1. The arrival of huns caused mass migration among south uralic peoples. The old turkic words in the hungarian language originated from this time period.
2. The conquerors were bilingual.
3. The magyar migration happened in waves.
4. The old iranic words came from alans in Etelköz.
5. In Etelköz, magyars were traders and mercenaries of Rus.
6. Not all magyar migrated to the Carpathian Basin but many stayed in West Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

You can call me names, but you will never answer to the points:

Shouting only about N while ignoring R1 dominance (and the presence of other Y haplos) is hypocritical.

Imagine saying that "the strong presence of N indicates a core of Mansi-related population" when the majority of the haplogroups matches Turkic graves (including the Y haplogroup of the founding Hungarian royal dynasty). They might then claim that," oh, the N haplos were the elite." An N elite with an R1 dynasty and the presence of I2 chieftains? LOL ok.

Also, there are far more % N haplos in Avar graves (who are called Turkic peoples), so are they actually Uralic Mansi graves? Hell, there were just as many Conquer Hungarian R1b graves alone as there were N graves in total. Saying N=Mansi means that the Avars must really be Mansi and not Turkic.

The problem comes when another people somehow meets a standard for being considered Turkic that we surpass, yet we are not called Turkic and they are? It makes no sense and is clearly an example of self denial. Thank goodness most (and more every year) Hungarians wake up to this. It would be more tragic and arguable if Hungarians stood alone in this, but all Turkic nations see us as brothers and fellow Turkic peoples. This can be seen not only on the forum and online but in their national curriculums when they talk about Hungary. You are a thinking man, right? Do you find it odd that people who genetically match our meta-ethnicity say we are a part of them, but outsiders (non-Turkics) say we are not a part of that group? Or are you so jaded about Turkics that you think it is all hollow despite everyday Turks/Turkmen/Uzbeks/etc stating otherwise?

Modern Hungarians have no connection to Conquerors? Have you seen my genetic results? Have you seen yours? Have you seen the results of other Hungarian members? The irony how you constantly ignore that people match the conquerors on the Turkic line of things and not the Ugric line, hence why you are so keen to dismiss any relevance. You also argue for the 100th time about clustering culturally with neighbors as if somehow that must always force us to be more like them.

Whether it is about Turanism, Hungarian genetics, or the EU, you never engage with me in good faith and just talk right past my points. Honestly, getting called a Turkic foreigner by a few anti-Turan TA members (thanks to my genetic results no less) was more entertaining than talking to you because you don't engage with anything asked. Finally, thank you for the implication at the end of your sermon that modern Hungarians are weak-minded sheep who gravitate to dictators. Maybe people who give you thumbs up on your post need to read that you're insulting Hungarians, which includes them. I guess that's why we need the EU to wake us from our barbarism and enlighten us with the Sun of the West.

---

Never stated ever on this forum that Modern Hungarians have no connection to Hungarian Conquerors, but what I always said it is negligible from a genetic point of view. Culturally in my opinion it is even more minimal since our mentality and value system would be completely alien to a Hungarian Conqueror, 1100 years of distance is a huge time difference. I guess it's cool and all that we are somehow related with them but I still prefer living in the present and think of the future. You are also free to dream of roaming the eternal steppes, but do it in your own name and stop generalizing as if this would be with what average Hungarians wake up and go to sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

Never stated ever on this forum that Modern Hungarians have no connection to Hungarian Conquerors, but what I always said it is negligible from a genetic point of view. Culturally in my opinion it is even larger since our mentality and value system would be completely alien to a Hungarian Conqueror, 1100 years of distance is a huge time difference. I guess it's cool and all that we are somehow related with them but I still prefer living in the present and think of the future. You are also free to dream of roaming the eternal steppes, but do it in your own name and stop generalizing as if this would be with what average Hungarians wake up and go to sleep.

---

Negligible how? Because every Turkic group is going to cluster with non-Turkics, too (Uyghur with Sinics, Turks of Anatolia with Kurds, etc). Negligible means that it is something that is dismissable with a handwave. I don't think that even 5% is something negligible when talking about genetic connections. Funny again how it's always the Turkic-Eurasian genetics that show up rather than Ugric genetic markers for people posting results, hmm?

Culturally, nobody is like their ancestors 1000 years ago. Nobody. This is a non-starter of a point that is irrelevant to what I do in my life. I like to do similar things as homage and because it's fun or because it's a remnant of something that has been passed down over a long time and it's fun to keep the practice alive, not because I think there's going to be some literal "great awakening" where everyone goes around talking about how cool it is to be a child of the steppes 24/7. I live in the modern world, too. As I have said on the forum and will say again, I don't care if I am the last Turkic Hungarian alive. It's something that not all Hungarians need to even take up if they don't want to, but it shouldn't be something so marginalized or ignored, especially since our eastern family reaches out to us with love and kindness.

Now, are you going to address the questions I asked you in post 114 and how you said Hungarians have a fascination with dictators as the only connection to Central Asians? Because I think Hungarian members would like to hear more of your thoughts about such things. I know I certainly would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blondie

Ural is not originally turkic, it's more likely that the Ural name came from the mansi "urala" word which means mountain peak, and turks just adopted this name later when they migrated to Europe. Mansi are native in the Ural, turkics are not.

---

Well..

Quote:

---

As attested by Sigismund von Herberstein, in the 16th century Russians called the Ural range by a variety of names derived from the Russian words for rock (stone) and belt. The modern Russian name for the Urals (Урал, Ural), first appearing in the 16th–17th century during the Russian conquest of Siberia, was initially applied to its southern parts and gained currency as the name of the entire range during the 18th century. It might have been borrowed from either Turkic "stone belt"[3] (Bashkir, where the same name is used for the range), or Ob-Ugric.[4] From the 13th century, in Bashkortostan there has been a legend about a hero named Ural who sacrificed his life for the sake of his people who then poured a stone pile over his grave, which later turned into the Ural Mountains.[5][6][7] Possibilities include Bashkir үр "elevation; upland" and Mansi ур ала "mountain peak, top of the mountain",[8] V.N. Tatischev believes that this oronym is set to "belt" and associates it with the Turkic verb oralu- "gird".[8] I.G. Dobrodomov suggests a transition from Aral to Ural explained on the basis of ancient Bulgar-Chuvash dialects. Geographer E.V. Hawks believes that the name goes back to the Bashkir folklore Ural-Batyr.[8] The Evenk geographical term era "mountain" has also been theorized.[8] (cf also Ewenkī ürǝ-l (pl.) "mountains") Finno-Ugrist scholars consider Ural deriving from the Ostyak word urr meaning "chain of mountains".[9] Turkologists, on the other hand, have achieved majority support for their assertion that 'ural' in Tatar means a belt, and recall that an earlier name for the range was 'stone belt'.[10]

---

Mansi origin seems weak one..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Shouting only about N while ignoring R1 dominance (and the presence of other Y haplos) is hypocritical.

---

The hungarian language is uralic, so of course we consider the uralic haplos as "original core". I hope you understand it. N or R doesn't matter because all have been found in the pre-ugric or uralic urheimat. You can read about it in the "Honfoglalók" rubicon historical magazine. I didn't say all N or R haplo are uralic, but they existed among uralics in the pre-uralic times, so these can be uralic or not uralic too, we don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Imagine saying that "the strong presence of N indicates a core of Mansi-related population" when the majority of the haplogroups matches Turkic graves (including the Y haplogroup of the founding Hungarian royal dynasty). They might then claim that," oh, the N haplos were the elite." An N elite with an R1 dynasty and the presence of I2 chieftains? LOL ok.

---

The presence of I2 means the nomad hungarians had very close relationship with east european slavs. R1 is not necessarily turkic but it can be iranic, or slavic or even pre-ugric too, becase this haplo existed among them. How do you know that this haplo must originated from only turkic peoples? This is just your wish. Nomad magyars had closely relationship with slavs, germanics or alans too, not only with turks. But basically the whole east european steppe region was a big mix of various tribes and peoples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Also, there are far more % N haplos in Avar graves (who are called Turkic peoples), so are they actually Uralic Mansi graves? Hell, there were just as many Conquer Hungarian R1b graves alone as there were N graves in total. Saying N=Mansi means that the Avars must really be Mansi and not Turkic.

---

We have no idea who were the avars exactly, their language is also unknown. We know only their names which were mostly turkic, but nomad magyar names were also turkic and they were uralic speakers, so it means nothing. The haplogroup N is originally siberian not steppe haplo, so its confirms the siberian origin of conquerors. At this time before the russification there were much more uralic people in East Europe, it's very possible that avars were partly uralic. This is the description of N1a1a haplo:

"The subclade N-M178[Phylogenetics 3] is defined by the presence of markers M178 and P298. N-M178* has higher average frequency in Northern Europe than in Siberia, reaching frequencies of approximately 60% among Finns and approximately 40% among Latvians, Lithuanians & 35% among Estonians (Derenko 2007 and Lappalainen 2008).
Miroslava Derenko and her colleagues noted that there are two subclusters within this haplogroup, both present in Siberia and Northern Europe, with different histories. The one that they labelled N3a1 first expanded in south Siberia and spread into Northern Europe. Meanwhile, the younger subcluster, which they labelled N3a2, originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region)(Derenko 2007)."

Quote:

---

The problem comes when another people somehow meets a standard for being considered Turkic that we surpass, yet we are not called Turkic and they are? It makes no sense and is clearly an example of self denial. Thank goodness most (and more every year) Hungarians wake up to this. It would be more tragic and arguable if Hungarians stood alone in this, but all Turkic nations see us as brothers and fellow Turkic peoples. This can be seen not only on the forum and online but in their national curriculums when they talk about Hungary. You are a thinking man, right? Do you find it odd that people who genetically match our meta-ethnicity say we are a part of them, but outsiders (non-Turkics) say we are not a part of that group? Or are you so jaded about Turkics that you think it is all hollow despite everyday Turks/Turkmen/Uzbeks/etc stating otherwise?

---

Don't make me laugh, most hungarians have no any turkic identity (neither uralic btw), they consider themselves just hungarians nothing else. Totally irrelevant that nomad magyars and turkics had same culture 1300 years ago, nobody cares in the 21. century, 90% of hungarians do not care abpout it, but they have european identity and they feel themselves closest to other central europeans i mean culture, history and everything. An average hungarian thinks these countries like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc are poor shitholes. The reputation of turks or Turkey also became more negative because of Orbáns anti-muslim propganda. No offense but this is the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Modern Hungarians have no connection to Conquerors? Have you seen my genetic results? Have you seen yours? Have you seen the results of other Hungarian members? The irony how you constantly ignore that people match the conquerors on the Turkic line of things and not the Ugric line, hence why you are so keen to dismiss any relevance. You also argue for the 100th time about clustering culturally with neighbors as if somehow that must always force us to be more like them.

---

There are some connection but this is only few %, the modern hungarians and nomad magyars are two completely different population. And if a hungarian got few % turkic genetic in the test how do you know it came from the conquerors? It also can be originated from tatars or cumans (13. century), or from ottomans (16-18. century), they also have been here, so what? Its not necessarily conqueror turkic, of courseb it can be but we dont know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hektor12

Mansi origin seems weak one..

---

According to turkologist... i have no question. So do you prefer a foreign etymology over a native etymology? lol