HUN, HUNGARUS, MAGYAR - Identitásunk több ezer éve

[Universe]

Okay, after I watched the presentations focused on the latest archeogenetic research and results about Conquest Era Magyars these are the very brand new conclusions, which according to the scientists are still in preliminary phase, since the final results will be published in the coming months, but still they are close to being very precise:

Thus far both mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups have proven that Conquest Era Magyars were the closest from Ancient populations to to Eurasian Scythians, while from modern populations to Volga Tatars and Bashkirs. Well, we all know these two haplogroups only constitute ca. 1% of the entire genome of an individual, while the admixture results are clearly the ones which paint the full picture of somebody's origins. Well, according to preliminary results it seems that the admixture of Conquest Era Magyars also solidify previous results, that indeed, Eurasian Scythians and Western Huns were the closest people to them, while from modern populations still the same Bashkirs, Volga Tatars, Turkmen. They also shown that there was a difference between the elite of the Magyars who had this Eurasian Scythian component, while the regular population living in Hungary after the Conquest happened, had a more European type of characteristic, but still with ca. 10-15% Eurasian and Asian background. If these results are indeed true, then it becomes even more of a mystery how did these Magyars end up speaking Hungarian, while genetically they don't seem to be very close to Finno-Ugric populations. Were Conquest Era Magyars truly the population that brought with them the Hungarian language and spread it around the local people, or did they rather find this language already here, while they only conquered and organized them into a new state, but ended up adopting their Hungarian language?

Baskhirs and Volga Tatars are autosomally quite similar to Volga Finnic groups (Mordvins/Eryza, Mari).

[Universe]

The conquerors were turkic in every way that's pretty clear and the hungarian language was already here before 9. century, there are many sign for that. I said many times obviously there was a ugro-slavic population in East Europe who migrated to the Carpathian Basin along with other slavs when the slavic migration waves happened between the 6-8. century and these population were the hungarian speakers. When the turkic speaker Árpáds moved here they created the hungarian state and they adopted the locals language and these locals were named after the magyar elite.

That's not too far fetched, exactly that happened in Bulgaria's case.
Foreigners probably don't know, but this is a relatively popular theory in Hungary (but it isn't accepted as mainstream).

[IrisSelene]

I can't even read more than 3 sentence posts on TA, letalone watch 10 hour video XD ADHD stronk.

I have to read every single word or sentence 2 times or more over bc if not my mind thinks something bad will happen lol.

When i watch videos i have rewind either 1 time alone, or 5 or 7 times to feel at ease lol

Yay ADD and OCD.

This is why I can't even read books.. Which I loved to do when I was younger and didn't have these dumb issues lol

Enviado desde mi CLT-L09 mediante Tapatalk

[Blondie]

Then who they were and where did they come from?
For example, (if I remember correctly) Blogen claimed, that it were Avars. Do you also think so?

I said, around the 6. century there was a significant mixing between slavs and uralic peoples in present day Russia, just look the north russian genetic they have tons of uralic paternal ancestry and these mixed population were the ancestors of hungarian speakers, mostly slavic genetic with ugric language. They migrated to West for unknown reason around 6. century, maybe the turkic tribes pushed them to West. If we would cut the german influence/genetic among hungarians (what is result of medieval and later german migration), we will get such homogeneous slavic population like poles or ukrainians, this is fact.

[Blondie]

That's not too far fetched, that happened in Bulgaria's case.
Foreigners probably don't know, but this is a relatively popular theory in Hungary (but it isn't accepted as mainstream).

The hungarian historical science has always distinguished between the common folk and elite because they had totally different genetic. The question is who were the real hungarians the elite or the common folk?

[Dunai]

Baskhirs and Volga Tatars are autosomally quite similar to Volga Finnic groups (Mordvins/Eryza, Mari).

Yes, this is true, also recent archeology finds show that before the Conquest the Magyars lived in large numbers in the Volga-Urals region and practiced a similar horseback nomadic lifestyle as their Eastern Turkic neighbors. Genetically according to newest finds they were also very similar to their Turkic neighbors, meaning a very Pontic-Caspian steppe characteristic. It could also very well be that these Early Magyars were the southernmost speakers of Finno-Ugric, culturally and genetically being similar to Turkic people, however linguistically still preserving their Uralic roots. At least this is the academically accepted theory, but these new archeogentic results seem to show an even stronger steppe Eurasian influence than a Uralic one.

[Blondie]

Yes, this is true, also recent archeology finds show that before the Conquest the Magyars lived in large numbers in the Volga-Urals region and practiced a similar horseback nomadic lifestyle as their Eastern Turkic neighbors. Genetically according to newest finds they were also very similar to their Turkic neighbors, meaning a very Pontic-Caspian steppe characteristic. It could also very well be that these Early Magyars were the southernmost speakers of Finno-Ugric, culturally and genetically being similar to Turkic people, however linguistically still preserving their Uralic roots. At least this is the academically accepted theory, but these new archeogentic results seem to show an even stronger steppe Eurasian influence then a Uralic one.

Yes the genetic doesn't lie, the nomad magyars had turkic origin, so we must search the ancient hungarian speakers somewhere else.

[Jana]

Baskhirs and Volga Tatars are autosomally quite similar to Volga Finnic groups (Mordvins/Eryza, Mari).

Yes, both Bashkirs and Volga Tatars have significant Finno-Ugric genetic admixture.
I don't believe in dual conquest theory at all, no evidence for that in historical sources and early Slavs lived nowhere close to Uralics.

[Jana]

Yes the genetic doesn't lie, the nomad magyars had turkic origin, so we must search the ancient hungarian speakers somewhere else.

It doesn't lie indeed. It confirms what was previously believed, Magyars left Siberia and on their way to Hungary absorbed Iranian and Turkic admixture, but kept the language.

[Radomir]

Yes, both Bashkirs and Volga Tatars have significant Finno-Ugric genetic admixture.
I don't believe in dual conquest theory at all, no evidence for that in historical sources and early Slavs lived nowhere close to Uralics.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...XYE0MDBiTZzX6t