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

[gixajo]

[Noob Alert]
Can you post K12b of this 3?

Of which 3? These ones? Why for?

Bashkir_Central,9.33,19.12,0.42,0.68,10.78,37.02,1.35,0.08,1.19,10.80,9.09,0.13
Bashkir_North,8.37,17.30,0.20,0.55,11.90,40.91,1.80,0.02,1.01,7.60,10.19,0.16
Bashkir_South,10.99,24.14,0.23,1.19,7.55,29.65,1.64,0.13,0.61,15.92,7.83,0.12
Tatar_Siberia,9.49,26.48,0.18,1.51,6.07,27.55,2.06,0.07,0.87,18.14,7.58,0.01
Tatar_Zabolotniye,10.68,36.15,0.01,0.89,3.37,31.84,1.39,0.19,0.00,13.15,2.32,0.00

That noob alert is for you or for me? And if for me, why exactly?

[Turul Karom]

The half Ugric, 1/3 Sarmartian, 15% Hun is based on the autosomal approximation of Hungarian Conquerors, not the distribution percentage of their Y-DNA. The current paper didn't publish yet the full list of which specific Y-DNA belonged to each Hungarian Conqueror individual, this will appear in a later peer-reviewed version of the study.

Addresses zero points countering you hanging your hat on haplogroup N. Pointless.

[gixajo]

Bashkir_Central,9.33,19.12,0.42,0.68,10.78,37.02,1.35,0.08,1.19,10.80,9.09,0.13
Bashkir_North,8.37,17.30,0.20,0.55,11.90,40.91,1.80,0.02,1.01,7.60,10.19,0.16
Bashkir_South,10.99,24.14,0.23,1.19,7.55,29.65,1.64,0.13,0.61,15.92,7.83,0.12
Tatar_Siberia,9.49,26.48,0.18,1.51,6.07,27.55,2.06,0.07,0.87,18.14,7.58,0.01
Tatar_Zabolotniye,10.68,36.15,0.01,0.89,3.37,31.84,1.39,0.19,0.00,13.15,2.32,0.00

And a Bashkir average based in these 3 Bashkir references:

Bashkir:Average_n3,9.56,20.19,0.28,0.81,10.08,35.86,1.60,0.08,0.94,11.44,9.04,0.14

[Dunai]

Addresses zero points countering you hanging your hat on haplogroup N. Pointless.

I read the ca. 40% N haplogroup estimation from someone who is in contact with the research group on another forum, but indeed, until it comes out officially it isn't a fully reliable information, but I thought I would still share it. However we already know the autosomal composition and that clearly points out to a dominant Ugric component in Conquerors, only you seem to be unable to cope with this fact.

[Turul Karom]

I read the ca. 40% N haplogroup estimation from someone who is in contact with the research group on another forum, but indeed, until it comes out officially it isn't a fully reliable information, but I thought I would still share it. However we already know the autosomal composition and that clearly points out to a dominant Ugric component in Conquerors, only you seem to be unable to cope with this fact.

Oh, cool game of telephone, so you read and heard from a person who is supposedly in contact with someone else on the inside while also neglecting to mention that fact in your assertion about N in the first place. Glad it took you 11 pages to admit this. But I am the one who is biased. You need to address the questions I made on the second page.

Your autosomal composition puts conquerors with other Turkics (Bashkir, Tatar) as closest populations and not the Mansi. So unless these are suddenly Ugrics, then the "50% Ugric DNA" is incredibly subjective and also fails to explain why modern Hungarians match conquerors via shared Turkic genetics more than Ugric genetics.

The study also says we are directly related to Huns via conquerors, which I frankly thought would have raised the most eyebrows.

[Jana]

Oh, cool game of telephone, so you read and heard from a person who is supposedly in contact with someone else on the inside while also neglecting to mention that fact in your assertion about N in the first place. Glad it took you 11 pages to admit this. But I am the one who is biased. You need to address the questions I made on the second page.

Your autosomal composition puts conquerors with other Turkics (Bashkir, Tatar) as closest populations and not the Mansi. So unless these are suddenly Ugrics, then the "50% Ugric DNA" is incredibly subjective and also fails to explain why modern Hungarians match conquerors via shared Turkic genetics more than Ugric genetics.

The study also says we are directly related to Huns via conquerors, which I frankly thought would have raised the most eyebrows.

If somebody is half Ugric, they won't cluster with Mansi who are full Ugric. It's actually logical mixed Ugric-Iranic-Turkic population will cluster relatively close to Bashkir and Tatars who themselves have large Uralic admixture (and some Iranic). This Uralo-Irano-Turkic mix is perfectly in line with Magyar ethnogenesis.

[Turul Karom]

If somebody is half Ugric, they won't cluster with Mansi who are full Ugric. It's actually logical mixed Ugric-Iranic-Turkic population will cluster relatively close to Bashkir and Tatars who themselves have large Uralic admixture (and some Iranic). This Uralo-Irano-Turkic mix is perfectly in line with Magyar ethnogenesis.

I am not against this. I take issue with the idea that somehow then that the Conquerors overlap with Baskirs and Tatars, who are considered Turkic today, yet despite Conqueror culture, personal and tribal names, Tengrist faith, genetic relationship (which includes Huns!) we must call ourselves Ugric or Uralic and that even Uralo-Altaic is taboo. So weird.

It also does not address what I pointed out regarding why modern Hungarians match conquerors via shared Turkic genetics more than Ugric genetics. This is even seen here on TA. Nor does it explain what I said about the Szekler population being seen as closer to the conquering Hungarians based on genetic Turkic, not Ugric, genetics.

For years I have said that it is clear that Ugric/Uralic contribution to the founding Hungarian population is evident. Somehow, the same courtesy is not given to our Turkic side, even though it was arguably more prevalent genetically among some of the conquering Hungarians and certainly more prevalent culturally. Somehow it is this that is taboo when most Hungarians today that have conqueror genetics match along shared Turkic lines, and some people would, amazingly, rather say we have no connection to them any longer than acknowledge the Turkic genetics, names, or cultural traits because they will only want to look for elements still shared among the Mansi/Khanty groups alone.

[Chelubey]

You call it assimilation but i call it rather "founding" of the western Turkic people, pretty similar to founding of Hungarian nation. In fact, all Turkic peoples as early as Xiognu had ancestry from Central Asian-Siberian Aryan cultures and for me all those aryan cultures like Sintashta, Andronovo, Afanasievo etc.. are founding cores of Turkic peoples.

That's bullshit .
There is a famous English proverb:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
Some of the Turks do not have the intellectual courage to admit that the Scythians were Turks.
Two rivers of ancient times of Central Asia have clear Turkic etymologies:
Ural river: Turkic Jaik-(2nd century AD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/vasm...AF%D0%B8%D0%BA

Yaik is old. the name of the Ural River (for example, at Pushkin), since 1775 it has been called the Ural (see) (Ely 430). The ancient name is attested in the form Δάιξ (Ptolemy VI, 14, 2 et seq.), Δαίχ (Menander Proteus, frag. 21; K. Müller, Hist. Gr. Min. 2, 54, 31), Γεήχ (Const. Bagr ., De adm. imp. 37, 2). This name is Turkic. origin, cf. Tur., Crimean-Tat., Chagat., Uig., Alt. jajuk "spread out, wide" (Radlov 3, 75 ff., 77), Chuv. Jεjǝk "Ural river" (Paasonen, CsSz. 23), Kazakh. ǯajuk – the same (Radlov 4, 19), shor., sag. čajuk "flood" (Radlov 3, 1853); see Markwart, UJb. 9, 82; Kumanen 25; Moravchik, Buz.-Turs. 2, 109; Mikkola, JSFOu 30, No 33, 11. The last scholar reconstructs for the Greek. forms in Δ Turk. source *d᾽ajuq.

Oksus river - Turkic aksu - "white water" - is still an archaic Turkic name for the Amu Darya river(5 century BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya

The Amu Darya[a] (also called the Amu, Amo River, or Jayhūn, and historically known by its Latin name Oxus or Greek Ὦξος)[2] is a major river in Central Asia and Afghanistan...
In classical antiquity, the river was known as the Ōxus in Latin and Ὦξος (Ôxos) in Greek — a clear derivative of Vakhsh, the name of the largest tributary of the river.[4] In Vedic Sanskrit, the river is also referred to as Vakṣu (वक्षु). The Brahmanda Purana refers to the river as Chaksu. The Avestan texts too refer to the River as Yakhsha/Vakhsha (and Yakhsha Arta ("upper Yakhsha") referring to the Jaxartes/Syr Darya twin river to Amu Darya).

[Nanushka]

That's bullshit .
There is a famous English proverb:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
Some of the Turks do not have the intellectual courage to admit that the Scythians were Turks.
Two rivers of ancient times of Central Asia have clear Turkic etymologies:
Ural river: Turkic Jaik-(2nd century AD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/vasm...AF%D0%B8%D0%BA

Oksus river - Turkic aksu - "white water" - is still an archaic Turkic name for the Amu Darya river(5 century BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya

good points and significant contribution in etymological terms. Urals region is inherently Turkic and the existence of Turkic toponyms and hydronyms as well as Turkic ethnonyms and genetics refer to this fact. 'Jaik' is 'Yayık' which means spread or wide in today's Turkish, the same word but the term Ural itself is Turkic as well since it has the root 'Ur' which denoted ancient Turks just like Tur and Tar, and that it is given to the river and mountains in that region shows that it originally belonged to a certain tribe resided there and named them after, etymology points to that. Just like the Sabirs named Siberia and then went southwards to Caspean steppes (where they were expelled by Avars and disappeared from history), but the remnants of Sabirs still live on there, called Chuvash

and Scythians, they were solely Turkic, esp the ruling class. Even only looking at the Turkic knots in Pazyryk carpets found in kurgans proves that, let alone the other items there and Turkic runes found in Essyk kurgan. Maybe the peripherals that they later on conquered spoke iranic in the south but I find it ridiculous to talk about the term iranic as it is very recent compared to vast Turkic history and persian language is a mixture made up of Turkic, arabic and indian languages. Unfortunately it will take some years, hundreds of academic articles and many unbiased interpretations for those members here to gain their courage and honour despite there is already clear evidence regarding these facts that they are not aware of

[Hektor12]

That noob alert is for you or for me? And if for me, why exactly?

Me of course, i have 0 affiliance with this calculators and samples, i asked for help.

Some of the Turks do not have the intellectual courage to admit that the Scythians were Turks.

Kaspias says that and i support..