Printable View
Who cares what branch of Eurasian Z93 he belonged to. Only thing most important to me is how they really looked like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stearsolina
It's not like if a Indian man's R1a Eurasian Z93 who mated Black women mtDNA L producing sons and grandsons looking like typical negroes means there is great deal of racial pride Eurasian Z93 branch.
First of all the concept of "pure Hungarian" genetically is challenging to define at all because of the mixing even the conquering Magyars did with Ugrics, Slavs, Germanics, and other Turkic peoples during their movement west. The only argument I think can be "general phenotypes" that they had. There were no dark African Magyars or 100% east Asian Magyars during the entry into Europe, so the Turanid phenotypes were the most common ones, West Eurasian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic
Second, there is great debate on the origins of the Székely people. The common consensus is that they are Turkic peoples (even the Wikipedia link Stears likes to quote states this), but when they arrived is the issue. Some say they are the remnants of Huns in the Carpathian that joined the Magyars during the conquest. Some say they are a Magyarized Turkic tribe that the Magyars placed to guard the border.
See post number 7 in this thread for my highlights from the source:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...iors-in-Europe
You can also see some of Stears' incomplete opinion above and more Turkic evidence posted below.
Original West European.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
p.s.
I see, that with every appearance you are coming with more
weird theses. It is sad, as you started some time ago well...
R1a and R1b are Eurasian in origin. I have no idea why you bring up phenotypes and Y DNA in this scenario. I am not a "white supremacist" and don't care about these African examples you are showing when their Y DNA is from Africa downstream but had Eurasian roots, perhaps before Africanization of the migrants thousands and thousands of years ago. Each African people have their own ethnogenesis and it is up to them to decide who contributed significantly enough to be included in their ethnic identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
Again this has nothing to do with the topic. We weren't even considered defacto "white" until the early middle of the 20th century. Hell, the Meyers ethnographic chart has the Ottomans as more "Caucasian" than us. But now that we're this great "bastion of Europe" in the eyes of some once more, I'm supposed to care about being white or something? Where was that European care during Trianon? Where was that thanks for those years during the Ottoman invasion or during our revolutions for freedom from Hapsburg oppression or communist hell?Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
He looks like a typical South Indian Veddoid :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rethel von Rethelsky
http://worlddocumentaryphotographer....s-together.jpg
Between whom? Beceause the scientific community of the Hungarian historians not supported the foreign origin Székely-theory. They were average Magyars, their social status was the source of their Székely identity. Because there is not any evidence their different ethnical origin. Every early Székely related evidence is connected to the Magyar language and the Magyar society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Pre-resettlement age Székely related toponyms:
https://i.img.ie/3q2.jpg
toponym from the székely name, toponym from the lövő name, place with writtend evidence of the Székely population.
See the links posted in the thread I linked to and I will also post more sources for you later. I am not saying they are not Magyars; they are and they are proud. They have mixed with us through the ages as well, so we are truly one. The debate is how separate they were in fact during the land taking and how they have gotten their unique origins as Magyars.Quote:
Originally Posted by blogen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Because they came from Central Asia not from Europe, North Africa, Middle east BUT CENTRAL ASIANS. If it's from Central Asia that means there's always a huge risk of any Central origin haplogroup being heavily hybrisized with Mongoloid. I find it stupid when people get excited of the fact he is R1a or R1b, if he was from England with no central Asian connection than no one should give a crap but since Hungarians claim close relations with central asians, it's a totally different story.
Cambodians also have western eurasian haplogroups such mtDNA U, H and Y-DNA R1a but all of these are absolutely related with South Asian or Indian population. There were not European or middle eastern looking people that spread these to Cambodia.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ze9Lg_t4lb...7043356490.jpg
How much?Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
Not a lot but it's ussually mainly from Southern Cambodia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rethel von Rethelsky
2.5% West Eurasian haplogroup with 4.5% South Asian mtDNA like mtDNA M2
R1a is 7.5%
South Asian mtDNA map
http://i60.tinypic.com/r0o2v6.png