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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blondie

Okay i accept the uralic origin of conquerors, the turkic theory seems outdated. But if the conquerors brought the hungarian language why are these locals used hungarian topography, names, and words before Árpáds? There is no hungarian sources about the conquest nowadays, because the tatars burned everything, but when Anonymus lived and wrote the Gesta Hungarorum these original sources are still existed, and this book is based on these original sources about conquest, and this is the most authentic source about the conquest and the ethnic and politic relations in the Carpathian Basin. And Anonymus clearly talked about the hungarus ethnicity, who lived here before nomad magyars. Another fact, in the medieval Hungary this hungarus vs conqueror identity still existed, the noble class considered themselves as descedants of the 7 conqueror tribe, but the hungarian speaker peasants had hungarus identity and they did not identify themselves with the conquerors. The academic hungarian historical science also take differece between the hungarus (commoners) and the conquerors (elite), this is also fact.

---

Gesta Hungarorum is a not a scientific written document, but is a child of its time, when authors combined real documents with legends and myths. Only a critical and careful analysis of its content should be applied whenever quoting anything from it and claim them as historical facts.

http://arpad.btk.mta.hu/14-magyar-os...nfoglalas.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Less than you think. More Hungarians need to do thorough DNA testing and wake up to who they are.

---

My Hungarian average is based on ca. 400 carefully selected Modern Hungarians, and pretty much representative, and based on my most recent custom-made calculator it still shows the closest eastern affinity to modern Uralic populations and not to Central Asian Turkics. Volga Tatars are more Uralic than Turkic:

Target: Hungarian
Distance: 0.4934% / 0.49335421 | ADC: 0.25x RC
42.3 Eastcentral_European
30.6 West_Balkanic
23.1 Southeast_German
4.0 Volga_Uralic_(Tatar)

Target: Volga Tatar
Distance: 0.7648% / 0.76477083 | ADC: 0.25x RC
39.8 West_Uralic
27.0 Crimean_Tatar
16.0 Volga_Uralic_(Udmurt)
11.0 West_Balkanic
6.2 Volga_Uralic_(Chuvash)

Of course you do you and keep up this Central Asian Turanist agenda, but maybe doesn't hurt also to know the facts on which your are basing this agenda on.

Exotic admix in Stears seems to be mixed Uralo-Turkic (Mishar Tatars) and "Aryan"/Iranic (Pamiris), perfectly reflecting Hungarian ethnogenesis.

Target: Stears
Distance: 1.1541% / 1.15411173 | ADC: 0.5x RC

45.7 Moldovan_North
42.7 Hungarian_North
7.5 Tatar_Mishar
4.1 Pamiri_Ishkashim

His Moldovan like admix is from his Szekely half ofc.

So, Stears is over 10% conqueror like (old Magyar). Remarkable result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Exotic admix in Stears seems to be mixed Uralo-Turkic (Mishar Tatars) and "Aryan"/Iranic (Pamiris), perfectly reflecting Hungarian ethnogenesis.

Target: Stears
Distance: 1.1541% / 1.15411173 | ADC: 0.5x RC

45.7 Moldovan_North
42.7 Hungarian_North
7.5 Tatar_Mishar
4.1 Pamiri_Ishkashim

His Moldovan like admix is from his Szekely half ofc.

---

Yes, some individual Hungarians will show higher eastern affinity with Central Asian Turkic people than with Uralic people, just like myself, but when we speak of population genetics we never make our conclusions based on individual results but mainly take population averages into consideration. Only some users here seem to be that stubborn that they love to create big agendas based on individual results and claim they are representative on the entire people. Even Transylvania Hungarians show closer eastern affinity to Uralic region than with Central Asia:

Target: Hungarian_Transylvania+Székely
Distance: 0.4675% / 0.46751498 | ADC: 0.25x RC
38.7 West_Balkanic
37.7 Pannonian
9.1 Southwest_German
8.7 Northeast_Italian
4.8 Volga_Uralic_(Bashkir)
0.7 Crimean_Tatar
0.3 West_Greenlandic

^^^^Mishar Tatars are heavily Uralic admixed as well, even more than Volga ones iirc. But they will have Turkic blood as well ofc.

Distance to: Tatar_Mishar

5.91624881 Tatar_Kazan
9.85970588 Komi
10.33495525 Bashkir_North
10.84001384 Chuvash
11.23540386 Besermyan_Udmurtia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

Yes, some individual Hungarians will show higher eastern affinity with Central Asian Turkic people than with Uralic people, just like myself, but when we speak of population genetics we never make our conclusions based on individual results but mainly take population averages into consideration. Only some users here seem to be that stubborn that they love to create big agendas based on individual results and claim they are representative on the entire people. Even Transylvania Hungarians show closer eastern affinity to Uralic region than with Central Asia:

Target: Hungarian_Transylvania+Székely
Distance: 0.4675% / 0.46751498 | ADC: 0.25x RC
38.7 West_Balkanic
37.7 Pannonian
9.1 Southwest_German
8.7 Northeast_Italian
4.8 Volga_Uralic_(Bashkir)
0.7 Crimean_Tatar
0.3 West_Greenlandic

---

Why would you say some ethnic Hungarians like you and Stears have notable conqueror like ancestry while some others have none?
I know you explored your geneaology and have Hungarian speaking ancestors centuries back expect some Schwabs and Slovaks in great majority. So does Stears.

Would you say ethnic Hungarians who lack conqueror like input represent more lately assimilated Slavic and/or German minorities (last 200 years for eg.)?
While those who have conqueror like admix represent population with longer continuity of Hungarian speaking ancestors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

Gesta Hungarorum is a not a scientific written document, but is a child of its time, when authors combined real documents with legends and myths. Only a critical and careful analysis of its content should be applied whenever quoting anything from it and claim them as historical facts.

http://arpad.btk.mta.hu/14-magyar-os...nfoglalas.html

---

Of course Anonymus knew much more information about the conquest, then the modern historians 1100 years later without any original document. As i said these original sources about the magyar conquest are still existed when Anonymus lived (these were destroyed by tatars later), he is more trustworthy than modern historians who are just guessing things because of lack of original documents. This is the reason why the hungarian prehistory is changing almost in every decade, because they have no idea how it happened exactly. There are many thing in the Gesta Hungarorum what other medieval sources or the modern archaeology confirmed, for example the transylvanian vlachs (you also can read it in the Nestor's Chronicle) or the roman survivors in Pannonia etc, or the bulgars too. Or the hungarus vs conqueror identity in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. This is just laughable to claim that the Gesta Hungarorum is sci fi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Would you say ethnic Hungarians who lack conqueror like input represent more lately assimilated Slavic and/or German minorities (last 200 years for eg.)?

---

Why last 200 years? Hungarians assimilated and mixed with non-hungarian speakers before 18th century. I think hungarians were genetically very European by the time magyarization started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blondie

Of course Anonymus knew much more information about the conquest, then the modern historians 1100 years later without any original document. As i said these original sources about the magyar conquest are still existed when Anonymus lived (these were destroyed by tatars later), he is more trustworthy than modern historians who are just guessing things because of lack of original documents. This is the reason why the hungarian prehistory is changing almost in every decade, because they have no idea how it happened exactly. There are many thing in the Gesta Hungarorum what other medieval sources or the modern archaeology confirmed, for example the transylvanian vlachs (you also can read it in the Nestor's Chronicle) or the roman survivors in Pannonia etc, or the bulgars too. Or the hungarus vs conqueror identity in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. This is just laughable to claim that the Gesta Hungarorum is sci fi.

---

It's not me who is claiming that the Gesta Hungarorum is not a 100% scientific document but modern historians whose job is to research the validity of historical documents. Modern archeology, study of historic documents and archeogenetics is also as important, if not even more important scientifically as any contemporary historical source, which are products of their time when the idea of scientific rigor wasn't even a concept. You are a true believer, while I prefer to stick to demonstrable facts and I actually want to know and not believe things. You can't understand 8th and 9th century Carpathian Basin history only from a manuscript written 3 centuries later, that's absolutely baffling you can even claim such a thing.