Turul Karom GEDmatch & DNA Results

[Jana]

Anything better than wikipedia? I have heard this statement before, but your wiki link doesn't even contain "magyar", mentions Hungarians once, but the source is a Russian language book from 2007 that is inaccessible. It's nearly as if they're trying to subtly throw the word "Hungarians" in. I will never understand why people use wikipedia as a primary source. At least checking the citations and finding it in the context of it would be helpful, but far too often they go to dead links or are otherwise inaccessible. You usually present a richer source when talking about DNA.

For every poorly sourced wiki article, we also have superior studies referencing past and present studies, such as this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...520-018-0609-7



Or this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...438-016-1267-z

Actually I encoutered this hypotesis in several Hungarian sources but I am now on mobile and searching exact links is too complicated.

I dont think anyone disputes Magyars dwelt in Central Asia in one period of time and were culturally heavily influced by Turks, but I really dont believe they were originally Turkic. Here I support Stears view that they are Uralic people from Siberia that moved to steppe later and encountered Iranic and Turkic people there.

How do you comment oldest substrate in Hungarian language (for fishing hunting, stars and sky) is Ugric , not Turkic ?

I def. Support Ugric origins of proto Magyars but have no doubt Arpad conquerors had significant Turk, Aryan and probably Hun influences among them, possibly some other too.

[Turul Karom]

Nope, those are just bullshit post created by pseudo-turanist. Do you look like a Turan? Neither your genetics show more than 10% of Turkic/Turanic genes, so tell me, I don't understand you. Those Turano-Turkic people who were in Hungary are dead already if they are alive maybe not even 5%, so tell me? Believe me, I wouldn't care, if it was true, but genetics just proved that modern Hungarians with people you are reffering to, if so only a very small amount.

So the scientific studies are made by pseudo-turanists? Or the Crown? Want to tell me what a "Turkic gene" is? The %s don't count what a "Turkic gene" is and ascribe it to you, they correlate with populations as referenced a few pages ago. Perhaps you are one who thinks that a "True Turk" must look 100% pulled from the Korean peninsula?

[Turul Karom]

Actually I encoutered this hypotesis in several Hungarian sources but I am now on mobile and searching exact links is too complicated.

That's fine. What I am saying is that I have encountered this as well in Hungarian sources. My critique was about your specific source and using wikipedia in general. Makes sense?

I dont think anyone disputes Magyars dwelt in Central Asia in one period of time and were culturally heavily influced by Turks, but I really dont believe they were originally Turkic. Here I support Stears view that they are Uralic people from Siberia that moved to steppe later and encountered Iranic and Turkic people there.

I don't recall stears claiming that; I was under the impression he found us to be a more "Aryan" sort. The key to this question is this: when do you think that the "Magyars" became an ethnicity? We can talk about the proto-Magyars, and the proto-proto-Magyars, and the proto-proto-proto-Magyars all day. We can talk about the Ugrics, and Turkics, etc. But we became who we are today formally at Etelköz, with Turkic names, Turkic culture, and all those around us calling us Turkic people. We even absorbed other Turkic tribes into us, but then our Turkic heritage is swept under the rug? Do you think the Magyar kings had no idea that the crown said, "King of the Turks", or how they were addressed? These are all real questions, and I want to hear your thoughts on them.

How do you comment oldest substrate in Hungarian language (for fishing hunting, stars and sky) is Ugric , not Turkic ?

I def. Support Ugric origins of proto Magyars but have no doubt Arpad conquerors had significant Turk, Aryan and probably Hun influences among them, possibly some other too.

I have had this conversation with another here, which I will happily summarize for you. I have no doubt that Ugrics played a part in the Magyar language, or the ethnogenesis in the sense that Ugrics and proto-Ugrics were taken into the "tribes". As we moved further to the west, we adopted new genetic and linguistic layers over time. Our cultural foundation was very Turkic, and not Finnic at all, hence why we are not a "child system" of Baltic-Finnic languages, but are glued onto the end as "Ugric" by some. I have never said that Magyars do not have other genetic, linguistic, and cultural markers that are not Turkic oriented. What I object to is the almost fanatical denial that Turkic ancestry, culture, and the like played a pivotal role in our foundational structure. Surely you can acknowledge all of the absolutist statements about "nothing", "never", etc, that we have zero to do with other Turkic peoples are thrown around despite the insurmountable evidence to the contrary, hmm?

[Jana]

Well people who deny Turkic presence among Hungarians are dishonest. Just keep in mind I didnt say Finno-Ugric, just Ugric base IMO.

Finnic and Ugric people are separated by tousands of years so they should be treated separately. Ugrics who never moved south are Khanty and Mansi. Hungarians at Etelkoz had Turk influnces, that is pretty clear and they were part of Khazar area of influence. But yes, the most ancient base is Ugric in my view (and not only mine)

[Turul Karom]

Well people who deny Turkic presence among Hungarians are dishonest. Just keep in mind I didnt say Finno-Ugric, just Ugric base IMO.

Among us, but not simply "among" but as a part of us.

Finnic and Ugric people are separated by tousands of years so they should be treated separately. Ugrics who never moved south are Khanty and Mansi. Hungarians at Etelkoz had Turk influnces, that is pretty clear and they were part of Khazar area of influence. But yes, the most ancient base is Ugric in my view (and not only mine)

This does not really address my questions or the claims I was making. Hence, I always find it fascinating that when people talk about the "ancient layers" of Hungarians, they say it is Ugric, but they usually date it back before "Magyar" was even a word. That renders the entire argument ineffective, because why not just keep dating us back all the way into Africa? Why not argue that we are proto-Ethiopian? Why select just the "Ugrics" and not "Turkic" as well then? Turkics travel west, fuse Ugrics and some Slavs, and the Magyar tribes unify at Etelköz with a totally Turkic culture, religion, and personal naming structure, but we are going to date everything back in the direction of the Ugrics exclusively? How does that make any sense?

[Nanushka]

mine is 2.8 or so

I dont have any known turkish ancestor . maybe some mix from a long time ago or something . but even if ......turkishness is like a snowballeffect which has stretched from the altais to balkans through mixing and mixing and mixing

Being from Dersim, you should have some Turkish ancestry. Have you seen this earlier post of mine, about the Bektashi Yörüks conversion to Alevi in eastern Turkey after massacres towards them executed by Ottoman rule following their conquer of Hijaz? There is unquestionable Yörük/Oghuz mix with Kurdish people there because they mostly disguised under the kurdish identity. So most probably even you have some Turkish blood:

https://turkiye.net/yelpaze/konuk/hangi-osmanliyiz/

[oszkar07]

Among us, but not simply "among" but as a part of us.



This does not really address my questions or the claims I was making. Hence, I always find it fascinating that when people talk about the "ancient layers" of Hungarians, they say it is Ugric, but they usually date it back before "Magyar" was even a word. That renders the entire argument ineffective, because why not just keep dating us back all the way into Africa? Why not argue that we are proto-Ethiopian? Why select just the "Ugrics" and not "Turkic" as well then? Turkics travel west, fuse Ugrics and some Slavs, and the Magyar tribes unify at Etelköz with a totally Turkic culture, religion, and personal naming structure, but we are going to date everything back in the direction of the Ugrics exclusively? How does that make any sense?

How do we know that Magyar wasnt a word before Etelkoz ? How do we know that there wasnt already a group identity under that name that may have been Ugric or predominatly Ugric.

I am not denying Turkic input into the Hungarian ethnogenesis , but most linguists seem to agree that there is more words of Ugric origin than Turkic in Hungarian.

There certainly was a fusion between Turkics and Ugrics and others that were among those that became Hungarians.
But I personally believe that the idea of a dual conquest type theory is also n interesting and possible explanation for the Hungarian ethnogenesis.
Dual conquest theory considers the idea that Arpads people may have been a Turkic elite group and that they encountered the predominatly Ugric speaking Hungarians whom were already in the carpathian basin and whom were described by historical writers as being the last wave of Avars but were actually Ugric speakers whom came to the Carpathian basin in either the 8th or late 7th century and went on to mix with the already Avar-Slavo peoples whom were present in the region.

In any case I tend to believe that Hungarian was already spoken in the Carpathian basin before 895/896.

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca...icle/view/7/17

That person was the above-mentioned Gyula László, an archaeologist, artist and university teacher. His archaeological researches led him to believe that Hungarians began arriving in the Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times,
probably in the 670s, with the rest of them coming at the end of the 9th century. His proposition became known as the “dual conquest” [kettős honfoglalás] theory of Hungarian origins (László 1978; Erdélyi 2013).

Late in his life, he amended his theory, arguing that most of the ancestors of the Hungarians had settled in the
Carpathian Basin in late-Avar times or even earlier, and the nomadic warriors who conquered that part of Europe at the end of the 9th century were predominantly Turkic-speakers (László 1997). Accordingly, the phrase “dual conquest” acquired a
new meaning.

In its new incarnation, the theory suggests that in the second half of the first millennium A.D., two important events took place in the Carpathian Basin that determined the course of Hungarian evolution.
The first of these was the arrival of the ancestors of the Hungarians, a development that established the demographic
basis of the future Magyar nation.
The second event was the conquest in 895 of the Hungarian homeland by a group of nomadic tribes — whose descendants later created a centralized feudal kingdom that still later evolved into the modern nation state of Hungary.

[Nanushka]

Among us, but not simply "among" but as a part of us.

This does not really address my questions or the claims I was making. Hence, I always find it fascinating that when people talk about the "ancient layers" of Hungarians, they say it is Ugric, but they usually date it back before "Magyar" was even a word. That renders the entire argument ineffective, because why not just keep dating us back all the way into Africa? Why not argue that we are proto-Ethiopian? Why select just the "Ugrics" and not "Turkic" as well then? Turkics travel west, fuse Ugrics and some Slavs, and the Magyar tribes unify at Etelköz with a totally Turkic culture, religion, and personal naming structure, but we are going to date everything back in the direction of the Ugrics exclusively? How does that make any sense?

Also, what is Ugric? I think this is another obscure matter to discuss. Osman Karatay asserts that Turkish main verb -bol/ol is very similar with Finnish -olla, Mansi/Vogul -ol, Votyak/Udmurt -val, Magyar -vol (and Avar -behol, my addition: ) He also adds Turkish has got firm historical and ongoing bonds & contacts with southern Finno-Ugric peoples, namely neighbours of the Tatar, Baskir and Chuvash, as well as they have more common vocabulary of this type. So he concludes that most probably proto-Turkish was closer to Finno-Ugric languages than any other language, and offers a new language classification (Iran and Turan, 2015)

[Nanushka]

How do we know that Magyar wasnt a word before Etelkoz ? How do we know that there wasnt already a group identity under that name that may have been Ugric or predominatly Ugric.

I am not denying Turkic input into the Hungarian ethnogenesis , but most linguists seem to agree that there is more words of Ugric origin than Turkic in Hungarian.

There certainly was a fusion between Turkics and Ugrics and others that were among those that became Hungarians.
But I personally believe that the idea of a dual conquest type theory is also n interesting and possible explanation for the Hungarian ethnogenesis.
Dual conquest theory considers the idea that Arpads people may have been a Turkic elite group and that they encountered the predominatly Ugric speaking Hungarians whom were already in the carpathian basin and whom were described by historical writers as being the last wave of Avars but were actually Ugric speakers whom came to the Carpathian basin in either the 8th or late 7th century and went on to mix with the already Avar-Slavo peoples whom were present in the region.

In any case I tend to believe that Hungarian was already spoken in the Carpathian basin before 895/896.

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca...icle/view/7/17

^What do you think about the above claims, that Ugrics may already have a close connection with Turkish and Turkic peoples? As an Avar I can say that I have noticed some similar words between two languages, like csodör (hungarian stallion) = chou (avar horse) and Turul confirmed that to me, while especially 'magyar' itself has got a certain meaning in Avar language. I think this may result from living together in Lebedia region in northern Caucasia or maybe being from the same origin

[oszkar07]

^What do you think about the above claims, that Ugrics may already have a close connection with Turkish and Turkic peoples? As an Avar I can say that I have noticed some similar words between two languages, like csodör (hungarian stallion) = chou (avar horse) and Turul confirmed that to me, while especially 'magyar' itself has got a certain meaning in Avar language. I think this may result from living together in Lebedia region in northern Caucasia or maybe being from the same origin

I am open to studying more about it, cant say I know enough about this linguistic theory but sounds interesting.

I tend to think there was a connection between the Avar's and the early Magyar's but difficult to know the exact nature of this.
I think its quite possible they had some connections prior to being in Carpathian basin together, I also think its quite possible that part of the Avar people in the Carpathian basin whom were referred to as late Avar's were actually the Ugric speaking Magyar and that these people were already present before and when Arpad arrived.