Hungarian Women DNA and mtDNA of Conquering Magyars

**Turul Karom** · 10-27-2019, 08:43 AM

The origins of Hungarians unfolds each year with new and fascinating studies.

mtDNA is very important because women don't fight as often as men on the battlefield, and can preserve their genetic lineages easier as they are usually not killed if conquered while excess men are in jeopardy. Men are also quick to defend the women of their tribal groups from raiders. Therefore, in a nomadic population, it is very important that we see these things through the eyes of the women and all the possibilities as to how their particular mtDNA could be in a given population (romantic love, arranged marriages for alliances or family reasons, one-night-stand, kidnapping, tribal conquest, migrations gone wrong, tribal fusions, adoption, etc).

Here is a compiled list all of the mtDNA backgrounds of conquering Hungarians from the following 2019 Hun, Avar and Conquering Hungarian DNA study along with studies below. Repeats are for convenience of keeping in order with the list of samples analyzed. Admixtures of each Hungarian remain on the right for references.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...97997.full.pdf

**Ylla** · 10-27-2019, 09:11 PM

Mostly East Eurasian
I don't understand why mother's mtdna is ignored or considered less important.

**Jana** · 10-27-2019, 09:18 PM

Fantastic thread! Any info on your own mtda Turul? Would be interesting to analyze mtdna of Hungarian TA members.
I share mtdna with Hungarian member Dunai.

**Blondie** · 10-27-2019, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ylla

Mostly East Eurasian

Nope, it's mostly european:

**Turul Karom** · 10-28-2019, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Blondie

image

Your image above does not differentiate between finer regions, only East Asian and European. Central Asian, Siberian, Eurasian, Caucasus, etc are considered "European", yet you wouldn't call several populations or people from these regions "European" despite them having "European" mtDNA. You also posted no source. My list is exhaustive and far more detailed with better sources.

**~~Kamal900~~** · 10-28-2019, 03:35 AM

Hmm, seems to be more east-eurasian than Caucasoid or west-eurasian. I mean, it does make sense considering that the Caucasoid peoples of North Asia and East-Europe would mix mostly with Mongoloid women than the other way around, and if the Magyars who came to the region in the early middle ages were a mixture between the two then it would have been between Caucasoid men and Mongoloid women for the most part.

**Blondie** · 10-28-2019, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

Your image above does not differentiate between finer regions, only East Asian and European. Central Asian, Siberian, Eurasian, Caucasus, etc are considered "European", yet you wouldn't call several populations or people from these regions "European" despite them having "European" mtDNA. You also posted no source. My list is exhaustive and far more detailed with better sources.

The "asian" or "european" haplos means europid or mongoloid. Not all asian marker are mongoloid, Central Asia was caucasoid and Indo-european for a long time:

Source:
https://tte.hu/els-rajzvazlatok-a-ho...-mintazatarol/

And your source is misleading because it shows almost only the elite class, not the complete conqueror population.

**Turul Karom** · 10-29-2019, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Blondie

The "asian" or "european" haplos means europid or mongoloid. Not all asian marker are mongoloid, Central Asia was caucasoid and Indo-european for a long time:

Source:
https://tte.hu/els-rajzvazlatok-a-ho...-mintazatarol/

And your source is misleading because it shows almost only the elite class, not the complete conqueror population.

The entire point of using the elite is because it reduces the chances of analyzing a recent "pick up" or a mistaken grave that did not belong to an ethnic Hungarian. The entire idea is that the elite is an "in group" you need to be invested in and therefore probably would not be a relative newcomer or outsider. Therefore their genetics can be reliably representative of the ethnic "Magyars".

Have you ever read the methodology arguments behind this study? Have you emailed and spoken to any of the professors who participated? You seem very desperate and/or confused as to the scope and purpose.

**Blondie** · 10-29-2019, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Turul Karom

The entire point of using the elite is because it reduces the chances of analyzing a recent "pick up" or a mistaken grave that did not belong to an ethnic Hungarian. The entire idea is that the elite is an "in group" you need to be invested in and therefore probably would not be a relative newcomer or outsider. Therefore their genetics can be reliably representative of the ethnic "Magyars".

Have you ever read the methodology arguments behind this study? Have you emailed and spoken to any of the professors who participated? You seem very desperate and/or confused as to the scope and purpose.

You are lying as always that's why you're simple propagandist as we know for example when you posted turks as "hungarians" i debunked you with google search. Your source based on mostly the elite class, bones which came from the rich graves, have you every read your own source? My source based on the complete population and shows the elite and simple peoples were not same. The elite was more asiatic because of mixing with other tribal leaders, the more numerous common folk was mostly europid.

**Turul Karom** · 10-29-2019, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Blondie

You are lying as always that's why you're simple propagandist as we know for example when you posted turks as "hungarians" i debunked you with google search. Your source based on mostly the elite class, bones which came from the rich graves, have you every read your own source? My source based on the complete population and shows the elite and simple peoples were not same. The elite was more asiatic because of mixing with other tribal leaders, the more numerous common folk was mostly europid.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. Your source is from 2010. It'sthe same chart you posted on that three threads. Do you realize what this discussion is about?

I explained to you the scope of this study in the very text you quoted. They are fundamentally different in both time (publishing date) and clarity (because of advancing understanding of genome).