DNA results of Hungarian forum members

[Ice]

Naturally, but on an individual level, if you know your ancestry, yDNA is meaningless. What really matters is autosomal, otherwise you'd have to consider a Khoisan tribal who from some reason is R-L21 as NW European - that'd be ludicrous

that would be still more important (for me) than autosomal results.

[Vasconcelos]

that would be still more important (for me) than autosomal results.

Wow so you would consider a Khoisan tribesman as NW European if he were R-L21? Or the Scots named Menzies who are E-M81 as Berber?

[Ice]

Wow so you would consider a Khoisan tribesman as NW European if he were R-L21? Or the Scots named Menzies who are E-M81 as Berber?

R1 belongs to steppe. some people went to europe, some to africa, and some others to asia.

I don't deny language/religion based ethnicities. as long as they don't forget their real ancestors. Scottish guy should visit morocco each year. if the khoisan tribe has close matches (67/67 markers at least), they should also visit each other.

[Turul Karom]

So, above 11%? What if i get idk 5% middle east and 6% asia? would that still be considered turanid or not?

Kis is pulling these numbers from her head. Nothing more. She originally talked about continuity but now talks about the required levels to be seen as "Turanid", while at the same time in post 101 saying that Turanism is cultural only, not racial. This is her shifting the goal posts as her position becomes more difficult. East Asian stereotypes has nothing to do with Turanism. Perhaps she is simply being overly passionate here.

I don't know who he are, but i don't consider it white european. Important to note, this is just my opinion. Turul Karom is very white european, 4% asian genetic is nothing.

Did I ever claim to be massively non white or non European in some way? But you also don't consider me one? I am not as obsessed over the idea of "whiteness" as you are (or at least seem to be) but I don't malign those with blonde hair and blue eyes. Cumans were noted to have them in fact by the Rus.

Look your 4% asian genetic is almost high in modern Hungary, average hungarian people has 0,5-2%. Anatolian turks have 15% asian admixture, it cannot be compared to hungarians:

Kis, we are not remaining consistent with our definitions of "Asian". I was talking about Anatolian Turkic results from the K11 Turkic calculator. I was saying that we sometimes score higher in the "Turkic" area than a few of them I have seen posted here. But now you are showing an East Asian admixture graph from eupedia as your reference when you talk about "15% Asian in Anatolian Turks". I also object to the idea that only East Asian DNA is representative of Turkic DNA.

My Turkic DNA may seem high to you, but several Hungarians I have seen post results score only a bit below me. That makes me no less Hungarian, all because I have a high Turkic score on one calculator. It shows the continuity that we were talking about pages ago to the Turkic claims that I make. Not in the name of everyone who identifies as a Hungarian, but for Turkic Hungarians who may feel it relevant to them, and of course, for myself. I understand if you particularly might dislike that DNA of me for whatever reason, but I cannot betray it, just like the researchers must honestly report their findings. It makes you no less Hungarian to hold your own views and I always welcome good will debate, but I believe it hurts our nation to be ashamed of such things. Besides, you're your own genetic individual. My Turkic "Asian" side doesn't somehow make you less "white", if this is something you're concerned about.

[Kaspias]

Being white or not is not about genetics come on.. Phenotype and genotype not in same parallel always.

[Vasconcelos]

R1 belongs to steppe. some people went to europe, some to africa, and some others to asia.

I don't deny language/religion based ethnicities. as long as they don't forget their real ancestors. Scottish guy should visit morocco each year. if the khoisan tribe has close matches (67/67 markers at least), they should also visit each other.

Funny you say that because there's no evidence E-M81 is actually from Morocco or elsewhere in North Africa. Besides those Menzies belong to subclades with exclusively European matches if I'm not mistaken, and they are probably descended from the a family from Mesnieres, Normandy, France. So which place should they visist each year?

I can't for the life of me understand why people should identify with a random ancestor from centuries or millenia ago, out of all the thousands of others, just because of one marker. And where do you draw the line? Do you just care about the terminal SNP? In which case being R1, I or whatever won't matter because of all those are dozens of thousands years old. And what if the terminal SNP is extremelly rare that he has no matches on whatever platform he tested? What about women, who have no yDNA? Sorry, but that makes no sense for me

yDNA is useful for populational study, or to help building geneaology, but in terms if personal ethnicity it's useless.


Anyway, sorry to have derrailed your Hungarian thread.

[Turul Karom]

R1 belongs to steppe. some people went to europe, some to africa, and some others to asia.

I don't deny language/religion based ethnicities. as long as they don't forget their real ancestors. Scottish guy should visit morocco each year. if the khoisan tribe has close matches (67/67 markers at least), they should also visit each other.

That would actually be a fascinating cultural exchange. Of course it would be more helpful if each party understood the implications of Y-DNA ancestry and what the results mean, or else the tribesmen of each culture wouldn't be able to see the larger perspective, lol

[Blondie]

Kis is pulling these numbers from her head. Nothing more. She originally talked about continuity but now talks about the required levels to be seen as "Turanid", while at the same time in post 101 saying that Turanism is cultural only, not racial. This is her shifting the goal posts as her position becomes more difficult. East Asian stereotypes has nothing to do with Turanism. Perhaps she is simply being overly passionate here.



Did I ever claim to be massively non white or non European in some way? But you also don't consider me one? I am not as obsessed over the idea of "whiteness" as you are (or at least seem to be) but I don't malign those with blonde hair and blue eyes. Cumans were noted to have them in fact by the Rus.



Kis, we are not remaining consistent with our definitions of "Asian". I was talking about Anatolian Turkic results from the K11 Turkic calculator. I was saying that we sometimes score higher in the "Turkic" area than a few of them I have seen posted here. But now you are showing an East Asian admixture graph from eupedia as your reference when you talk about "15% Asian in Anatolian Turks". I also object to the idea that only East Asian DNA is representative of Turkic DNA.

My Turkic DNA may seem high to you, but several Hungarians I have seen post results score only a bit below me. That makes me no less Hungarian, all because I have a high Turkic score on one calculator. It shows the continuity that we were talking about pages ago to the Turkic claims that I make. Not in the name of everyone who identifies as a Hungarian, but for Turkic Hungarians who may feel it relevant to them, and of course, for myself. I understand if you particularly might dislike that DNA of me for whatever reason, but I cannot betray it, just like the researchers must honestly report their findings. It makes you no less Hungarian to hold your own views and I always welcome good will debate, but I believe it hurts our nation to be ashamed of such things. Besides, you're your own genetic individual. My Turkic "Asian" side doesn't somehow make you less "white", if this is something you're concerned about.

Omg, which is "turkic hungarians"? There is no native turkic hungarian because 1. having few% turkic genetic does not mean you are turkic or something. If someone have 4% scandinavian admixture it means he is scandinavian?! Of course nope. 2. no one native people speaks turkic in Hungary only half-turkish half hungarians but nothing else.

I have never said that if someone have 4-5% turkic genetic is not real hungarian, or less hungarian, don't be pararanoid but your turkic claims is simple not true if you see the modern hungarians. Maybe it was true for early magyars they got influence from turks (genetically, culturally), but it was just partly and not much. 40% of early hungarian mtdna was germanic:

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794...raczki_PhD.pdf

So can i claim the germanic origin of early magyars? Of cource not, because it was a foreign influence result of assimilation and hungarians didn't originiated from Scandinavia, just like hungarians didn't originated from turkics or east asia.

[Kaspias]

My Hungarian match from Vojvodina. (6-7th cousin)

Eurogenes K13

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 31.54
2 North_Atlantic 24.47
3 West_Med 18.62
4 East_Med 11.85
5 West_Asian 5.62
6 East_Asian 3.44
7 Siberian 2.02
8 Amerindian 1.26
9 Red_Sea 1.03
10 Northeast_African 0.14



MDLP K23b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 35.33
2 Caucasian 28.28
3 European_Early_Farmers 18.9
4 Ancestral_Altaic 3.4
5 Tungus-Altaic 3.22
6 Near_East 2.99
7 North_African 2.69
8 Paleo_Siberian 1.57
9 South_Central_Asian 1.32
10 South_East_Asian 1.11
11 Amerindian 0.63
12 Melano_Polynesian 0.37
13 East_Siberian 0.19



Dodecad K12b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 41.77
2 Atlantic_Med 27.15
3 Caucasus 17.99
4 Southwest_Asian 4.14
5 Gedrosia 3.08
6 East_Asian 2.87
7 Siberian 2.23
8 Northwest_African 0.56
9 Southeast_Asian 0.2

[Turul Karom]

Funny you say that because there's no evidence E-M81 is actually from Morocco or elsewhere in North Africa. Besides those Menzies belong to subclades with exclusively European matches if I'm not mistaken, and they are probably descended from the a family from Mesnieres, Normandy, France. So which place should they visist each year?

I can't for the life of me understand why people should identify with a random ancestor from centuries or millenia ago, out of all the thousands of others, just because of one marker. And where do you draw the line? Do you just care about the terminal SNP? In which case being R1, I or whatever won't matter because of all those are dozens of thousands years old. And what if the terminal SNP is extremelly rare that he has no matches on whatever platform he tested? What about women, who have no yDNA? Sorry, but that makes no sense for me

yDNA is useful for populational study, or to help building geneaology, but in terms if personal ethnicity it's useless.


Anyway, sorry to have derrailed your Hungarian thread.

If one is willing to be extra-specific, there is no guarantee why someone would relate to an ancestor based on DNA at all because personalities might be highly different of the two people were to ever meet and be able to discuss a topic. Romanticism is nice, but being grounded in rationality is very important too. We are unique people today who shape our own destiny, but we stand on the genetic shoulders of those who came before.

Y-DNA, mtDNA, autosomal DNA, etc are all equally important for seeing the full image of a person's background. Though I can't speak for others, no worries about the derailment. I found it a fun tangent to read and TA threads always get derailed and then (usually) back on topic at some point, haha