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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universe

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.

---

Not sure about exact time frame, but approximately. It's just that I assume there might be correlation of people who can trace back soley Hungarian speaking ancestors (without Slavic or German names) and presence of Old Magyar ancestry. It's a theory that is yet to be explored, but possible nonetheless.

Quote:

---

I think hungarians were genetically very European by the time magyarization started.

---

Yes, surely. But they could harbor minor "exotic" stuff later assimilants didn't have. (my speculation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

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?

---

We can always speculate why some inherited such genes while others didn't, but since none of us knows our complete family tree than it is just how it is and it was due to random recombination and inheritance of genes I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

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the Gesta Hungarorum is not a 100% scientific document but modern historians whose job is to research the validity of historical documents.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.

---

Laughable, you also a beliver because you and these historians have no idea about the events exactly, there are many scientific theory too, and we can just guessing things from the very limited greek and arabic sources or the genetic. Yes Anonymus is more valid who saw the original documents of the conquest of magyars, what tatars destroyed completely, then modern historians 1100 years later who firstly thought pre-hungarian were uralic, after that iranic, 2-3 years ago they said they were turkic and now it seems conquerors are uralic again. This is what i'm talking about, the historians just guessing things, i belive in Anonymus more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blondie

Laughable, you also a beliver because you and these historians have no idea about the events exactly, there are many scientific theory too, and we can just guessing things from the very limited greek and arabic sources or the genetic. Yes Anonymus is more valid who saw the original documents of the conquest of magyars, what tatars destroyed completely, then modern historians 1100 years later who firstly thought pre-hungarian were uralic, after that iranic, 2-3 years ago they said they were turkic and now it seems conquerors are uralic again. This is what i'm talking about, the historians just guessing things, i belive in Anonymus more.

---

Just like I said, you a true believer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

Just like I said, you a true believer :)

---

You too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Not sure about exact time frame, but approximately. It's just that I assume there might be correlation of people who can trace back soley Hungarian speaking ancestors (without Slavic or German names) and presence of Old Magyar ancestry. It's a theory that is yet to be explored, but possible nonetheless.



Yes, surely. But they could harbor minor "exotic" stuff later assimilants didn't have. (my speculation)

---

There may be a slight correlation.
However surnames are overrated imo. Hungarians (except nobility) didn't have surnames until 1500s.
There used to be a slavic speaking population in western Hungary before the hungarian conquest (which may have persisted for a few centuries after hungarian conquest). The words Balaton and Danube are of Slavic origin. Today there aren't Slavs in those places. That means descendants of those Slavs have hungarian surnames today because surnames were introduced only 500-600 years later. Someone who has only hungarian surnames in his family tree between year 1700 and 2000 can have non-hungarian ancestors further back. Nevertheless I do think it's possible that there's a correlation between a person's conqueror ancestry and frequency of hungarian surnames in his family tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

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.

---

How about you actually talk about my points from post #15 rather than accusing me of a conspiracy, considering they are apparently so inconvenient for your claims that you've ignored them completely? How about not just making up what I'm saying and actually engage with the topic? Thus far, everything you type to me is always some ridiculous tangent about things I've never even claimed. It would be less egregious if you at least had something to say about my points in good faith rather than weasel away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

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

---

I score many Turkic groups across multiple companies and calculators. I believe this is because of our Szekler ancestry, potentially. However, I do not think that Szeklers are more Turkic/conqueror because of being a different tribal group but because we simply lived while other Hungarian populations were wiped out in some areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universe

There may be a slight correlation.
However surnames are overrated imo. Hungarians (except nobility) didn't have surnames until 1500s.
There used to be a slavic speaking population in western Hungary before the hungarian conquest (which may have persisted for a few centuries after hungarian conquest). The words Balaton and Danube are of Slavic origin. Today there aren't Slavs in those places. That means descendants of those Slavs have hungarian surnames today because surnames were introduced only 500-600 years later. Someone who has only hungarian surnames in his family tree between year 1700 and 2000 can have non-hungarian ancestors further back. Nevertheless I do think it's possible that there's a correlation between a person's conqueror ancestry and frequency of hungarian surnames in his family tree.

---

Interestingly, if you are able to go back far enough, you could find other areas of interest from where you family could be from in Hungary. Though there is hardly a way to show if you have actual Cuman or something specific to a Turkic tribe from 500 years ago without an incredibly rare paper trail, it would be interesting to see more studies around this, too. I don't think surnames would be a way to know for sure about conqueror ancestry. More DNA tests on 100% certain Conqueror graves and modern Hungarians is the only reliable result to expand the scope for the full Hungarian population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

We can always speculate why some inherited such genes while others didn't, but since none of us knows our complete family tree than it is just how it is and it was due to random recombination and inheritance of genes I guess.

---

Yeah, people underrate the randomness of our genome inheritance. And in case of some exotic ancestors like Rouran/Xiongnu/Hunns it is perfectly possible for some person who has a similar / identical number of such ancestors from previous 1000 to actually score much less on one's DNA test than someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunai

We can always speculate why some inherited such genes while others didn't, but since none of us knows our complete family tree than it is just how it is and it was due to random recombination and inheritance of genes I guess.

---

Two hundred years back the family tree can be well known if someone has made genealogy. If I got Stearsolina's theory right, that should be sufficient as her theory is restricted to such an approach.

As for random recombination one should see whether the results are gaussian distributed or not. But then you need rather much data. Likely it's easier to check just kind of 6 individuals, 3 of them having Hungarian-only ancestors 200 years ago and the 3 others not. That could yield a notable indication already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

How about you actually talk about my points from post #15 rather than accusing me of a conspiracy, considering they are apparently so inconvenient for your claims that you've ignored them completely? How about not just making up what I'm saying and actually engage with the topic? Thus far, everything you type to me is always some ridiculous tangent about things I've never even claimed. It would be less egregious if you at least had something to say about my points in good faith rather than weasel away.



I score many Turkic groups across multiple companies and calculators. I believe this is because of our Szekler ancestry, potentially. However, I do not think that Szeklers are more Turkic/conqueror because of being a different tribal group but because we simply lived while other Hungarian populations were wiped out in some areas.



Interestingly, if you are able to go back far enough, you could find other areas of interest from where you family could be from in Hungary. Though there is hardly a way to show if you have actual Cuman or something specific to a Turkic tribe from 500 years ago without an incredibly rare paper trail, it would be interesting to see more studies around this, too. I don't think surnames would be a way to know for sure about conqueror ancestry. More DNA tests on 100% certain Conqueror graves and modern Hungarians is the only reliable result to expand the scope for the full Hungarian population.

---

It's not my problem that you can't interpret a scientific paper. There's nothing you wrote in that post that proves Hungarian Conquerors were Central Asian Turkic people. All the quotations I presented from the article state that Turkic genetic input was minor among them, around 15%, which is notable but not at all substantial. I never spoke about culture and religious aspects but strictly genetics, that is a way different topic. You can create a new thread in which you can speak about none-genetics aspects of Hungarian Conquerors.