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

[Turul Karom]

You can remain calm, I won't "infest" your Nationalist circles with my "treacherous" Western morals

I would think that Turanism is quite internationalist and opening the door for diverse encounters in many ways, and therefore would not call myself as a pure "nationalist." However, as I believe in the sovereignty of nation states and their agency rather than in bureaucratic empires and anti-Hungarian NGO infiltration, I suppose that this is all it takes to be seen as a nationalist extremist.

The questions in post 114 will be waiting for you whenever you're ready.

[Chelubey]

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

You can read it here.
http://www.wikiznanie.ru/wikipedia/i...80%D1%8C%D1%8F

Amu or Amu-Darya (Ox among the writers of classical antiquity, Jaihun among the Arabs, Potsu or Fatsu among the Chinese) is the main river of Turkestan, flowing into the Aral. The upper reaches of A. have other names. The upper reaches of A. are usually considered to be the Aksu River, which flows out at 37 ° 15 'N. sh. and 89° E. from Lake Kulyi Pamir Khurd in Wakhan, at an altitude of about 4200 m. y. m. It flows first to the northeast and north, flows around the Pamirs-Big and Alichur-and then under the name Murghaba flows through Roshan, where at a distance of 420 km. from the source it receives the Pyanj, which is considered by others, especially by the natives, to be the main river. It flows out in the Greater Pamir, at an altitude of 4250 m "from Lake Kul-i-Pamir (Victoria), then, by connecting with another river, the southern Pyanj, flows north-north-west through Shugnan. The connected rivers already bear the name Amu, which flows northwest through Darvaz, where it receives Vanj-ab on the left

The Turkic people call the upper part of the Amu Darya river - Aksu (Uzbek dial. Oksu - white river) because of the rapid flow, the river foams and has a white tint.
The Iranian word "Vaksh" comes from the Turkic Aksu and has no Iranian etymology. However, Hippocrates names the largest river of Central Asia, associated by modern researchers with the Amu Darya), Ag (without the formant "su" - water,river ) , this is an additional argument in favor of the Turkic origin of the Greek name Oxus - 5th century BC

[Blondie]

Actually the r1a-z93 is highest among the afghans, tajiks and kyrgyz peoples, two of these are iranic speakers.

..speakers who have been highly influenced by Turkic genetics. [/QUOTE]

But this haplo is not even turkic but originated from Europe spreaded by indo iranics.

Apparently we do, because the largest % of Hungarian words are unknown origin, lol.

Doesn't matter, we know that the hungarian language is uralic, but we have no idea about the avar language, so you cannot classify it as turkic.

It has a large Turkic %, but regardless, if the genetics and culture are Altaic in a large part then you would think that this alone would be enough to call the people Uralo-Altaic.

But their most genetic were not altaic, because these markers have been found everywhere, among non turkics too, the r1a-z93 originated from europe, not from altay. And now in 21. century the hungarian genetic is mostly slavic just like the large part of hungarian culture, so Hungary is a slavic coutry now, do you agree?

Plus, other nations call us Uralo-Altaic without question in their classifications.

What kind of nations? Turkmens or khazaks? lol

I would be fine with accepting that classification, but the almost pathological fear from the western academia at such an idea reads more like someone who is afraid of a spider than someone who is intellectually honest in their disagreement.

The science is more free in West than in eastern countries, like in Turkey where if you are talking about such historical facts like amermenian genocide you will be prisoned.

I present it as a growing identity that will one day be a majority in an overt sense.

Gypsies will be the majority in Hungary and i doubt they will have turkic identity, neither hungarians.

The idea that Hungarian history should only begin in the last few hundred years is nonsense to me.

I have never said that.

This "hungarus vs. Conqueror" thing was never something that happened in Hungary.

It happened but hungarus = köznép in the hungarian society and this is a scientific term in the hungarian academy.

There is no book ever from the time talking about how the "hungarus" hated the conquerors or felt exploited by them before or after Christianity.

Then you should read the Gesta Hungarorum.

Most Hungarian elite class was of mixed groups anyway. Do you think that the Vata pagan Tengrist uprising that placed Andrew on the throne was not a popular uprising among the commoners who clamored for their return to Hungary and they took their offer?

The noble class were mixed of course, but they considered themselves as descedants of counquerors, they claimed it, not me.

You are allowed to change your mind, it's only more confusing if you accept that you have older posts out there why you would delete factual other academic sources that you posted at the same time. Instead of saying "I changed my mind" you just deleted everything old and immediately went into the new mode of discussion. It seems more like embarrassment and wanting to minimize appearing like you ever changed your thoughts.

No need to start personal attacks, my pro turkic comments from the last half years are still visible. This is the problem with you, you make identity question of it, and you don't even care the facts, but the conquerors must be turkic and nothing else, because this is your identity.

You also don't need to care about the conquerors more than what is convenient because as you have said before on TA, you identitfy yourself primarily as a German.

Yes my majority ancestry is german, my identity is danube swabian, but im partly hungarian too, and i grew up in Hungary, this is my home, so of course i do care about my hungarian side. The german prehistory is very clearly, there are no debates about it. The german subforum is also dead, only Morti, Teutone and me write comments there.

what are things that you find we agree on? I would like to hear them. Also, do you agree that Szeklers are not a uniquely different Turkic group to Hungarians but rather preserved on average more Turkic genetics?

For example we agree that the human rights are okay in Hungary, or the western media is always lying about this country, etc.
About székelys i accept their origin myth, that they are descedants of huns, if you see their paternal origin székelys have the highest haplogroup Q in Europe which is a pure original hunnic marker and huns were most likely old turkic. We know there were such hungarian tribes who had turkic origin (for example kabars), but hungarians as ethnicity are not and were not turkic in general.

[Blondie]

Btw Dunai as Julio at 15:43 lol

[Nanushka]

Ural is not originally turkic, it's more likely that the Ural name came from the mansi "urala" word which means mountain peak, and turks just adopted this name later when they migrated to Europe. Mansi are native in the Ural, turkics are not.

I dont take the opinions of a person coming from gut feelings on historical facts seriously. You dont even know Avars spoke Turkic language lol read Harmatta at least and keep quite

The term Ural belongs to Turkics noone can show me another nation that keep it alive in their society and culture and it represented only proto-Turks. Hanty and Mansi, both Ugrics, overall 30-40.000 in number cannot have influenced the toponym more than Turkics who were natives, ruled the area for centuries and left their heritage there with ethnic Turkic names and Ugors are our relatives too, that is coming fast

[Token]

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

Keep dreaming, Mongolian.

[Turul Karom]

But this haplo is not even turkic but originated from Europe spreaded by indo iranics.

Ok, so what is a Turkic haplo to you? Just Q? C? It seems like what you are willing to accept as Turkic is unreasonably narrow considering that from the start, Turkic people were heterogeneous tribes and not an ethnostate. Considering the Eurasian steppes and the quick rise and fall of nomadic empires, it is no surprise that there would be so much variety.

Doesn't matter, we know that the hungarian language is uralic, but we have no idea about the avar language, so you cannot classify it as turkic.

I am not trying to do it myself. I am saying that academics are the ones who are doing that; most see Avars as a Turkic people. Hence the irony at them being majority N (that we currently have access to) while Hungarian conquerors who some academics try to make more associated as Khanty/Mansi related are predominantly R1.

But their most genetic were not altaic, because these markers have been found everywhere, among non turkics too, the r1a-z93 originated from europe, not from altay. And now in 21. century the hungarian genetic is mostly slavic just like the large part of hungarian culture, so Hungary is a slavic coutry now, do you agree?

This is because of how a nomadic empire spreads. It doesn't exactly respect or keep borders. R1a-Z93 is found in many places like other haplos. Your Slavic argument is not hard to understand, but I don't agree. All that matters is origin and continuity, not overall % total. Turkics were never even 100% East Asian, not even close, and I find the idea that this somehow represents elements of "Turkicness" as the only possible modern element as not giving enough credit to the western Eurasian admixture Hungarians had during the conquering era (or other Turkics, say during the Bilge Khagan era).

There are some Africans in the West who are 50% European but still got enough genetics to look more African than European via chance. Are their African ancestors Germanic now? No. They are still part of each, but their ancestors were different. Just like modern Hungarians vs. old Hungarians. Same concept. The issue I have is that there are those who feel so detached from the founding populations that they wish to have nothing to do with them (although with a weirdly hostile behavior) that seems like more desperation to not be seen as non-western rather than apathy.

What kind of nations? Turkmens or khazaks? lol

I see it mostly from Turkey, but I have seen it in most nations. Of course, I know you are aware that this is what the Turkic Council calls us as well.

Gypsies will be the majority in Hungary and i doubt they will have turkic identity, neither hungarians.

I disagree, and I know we will not see eye-to-eye on this future about demographics. If you are so worried about demographics, then make that a point of something to address in your life. What matters most is what the Hungarian nation (which is a people, not a magical border) does.

I have never said that.

It wasn't an accusation.

It happened but hungarus = köznép in the hungarian society and this is a scientific term in the hungarian academy.

Then you should read the Gesta Hungarorum.

It is no different than the feudalism of the Lords vs. the pedantry. You are framing it in a racial light. My counter is that the Vata Tengrist uprising is a great example of a successful grass-roots Hungarian effort to restore the "Conqueror elite" to prominence in Hungary. This could not have happened if they preferred a European master to the Conqueror dynasty since the violence was not simply religiously based but mostly driven by anti-foreign sentiment.

The noble class were mixed of course, but they considered themselves as descedants of counquerors, they claimed it, not me.

I don't trust the Gesta 100%. It has political motivations. I am sure some of it is true, but there is plenty that can be too politically motivated at the time. I prefer to look to modern sciences, archaeology, and genetics. Stories can also be too corrupted over time.

No need to start personal attacks, my pro turkic comments from the last half years are still visible. This is the problem with you, you make identity question of it, and you don't even care the facts, but the conquerors must be turkic and nothing else, because this is your identity.

There was no personal attack. It was an observation about how it appears to me (your behavior of deleting the posts). Also, it is tiresome when you even respond to posts of mine that mention the Hungarian conquerors can be classified as Uralo-Altaic and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but in the same breath you will claim that I think the conquerors must be 100% pure-pure Turkic (which cannot even be defined by either of us in an academic way).

Yes my majority ancestry is german, my identity is danube swabian, but im partly hungarian too, and i grew up in Hungary, this is my home, so of course i do care about my hungarian side. The german prehistory is very clearly, there are no debates about it. The german subforum is also dead, only Morti, Teutone and me write comments there.

Most of the subforums are dead, unfortunately. I am aware you have some Hungarian ancestry, hence why I think it would be interesting for you to actually take a DNA test with some companies and post the results.

Teutone has been very friendly with me, and I appreciate some of his insight on certain topics.

For example we agree that the human rights are okay in Hungary, or the western media is always lying about this country, etc.
About székelys i accept their origin myth, that they are descedants of huns, if you see their paternal origin székelys have the highest haplogroup Q in Europe which is a pure original hunnic marker and huns were most likely old turkic. We know there were such hungarian tribes who had turkic origin (for example kabars), but hungarians as ethnicity are not and were not turkic in general.

Hungary is frequently lied about in the West, true. Though in another thread there seems to be an interesting documentary that is pro-Hungary in this sense.

We don't know what haplogroup Attila or his children would have been, therefore I don't think one can say for sure what a "pure original Hunnic marker" is. Also, I don't think that my sub-group is more Hunnic than the Conquering Hungarians. I think that this divide comes from the idea that Hungarians must be Ugric-oriented and therefore the Szeklers must be Turkic-oriented based on the runes, genetics, and legends. We have never thought of ourselves as different from other Hungarians, as a separate nation from other Hungarians, but as a type of "durable Hungarian" who kept the old ways more from the steppe times. I don't think it is productive or helpful to think of Szeklers as Turkic but Hungarians are not.

This is a point I would like to make to you, since you have spoken with me for this long. Surely you need to appreciate my good faith, as if Szeklers are a Turkic people, and if I am so interesting in identifying as one, then I can just say that I am Szekler alone. Right? It would be an easy excuse; you have seen my yourDNAportal results that show my 50% Szekler ancestry, and I have always been open about my DNA results across all tests I have taken through them and more. So why do I not do this? Because I don't believe that Szeklers are a different Turkic group. I don't think the evidence is good enough. I think that, at the "strangest" we could be from one another, that Hungarians are Hunnic from tribes that joined pre-blood oath from Central-East Asia, and Szeklers are additionally Hunnic from extra European holdout descendants of Huns. That is perhaps why Szeklers have more Turkic genetics on average (besides simply dying less in the Transylvania region). That does not mean that Szeklers are different Huns or a different tribe, but that the Conquering Hungarians set the Szeklers in Transylvania (and in other areas of Hungary that is rarely talked about) and we mixed together more over time. The language similarities attests to this common origin truth. Róna-Tas explained this point beautifully. While it doesn't eliminate the possibility, the only real language challenge is the name.

Do you believe specifically that we are Turkic in a way that other Hungarians are not based on origin?

[Blondie]

I dont take the opinions of a person coming from gut feelings on historical facts seriously. You dont even know Avars spoke Turkic language lol read Harmatta at least and keep quite

Harmatta never claimed that avars were 100% turkic speakers, read his original source if you know hungarian:
http://regi.smmi.hu/publikaciok/rege...6_harmatta.pdf

The term Ural belongs to Turkics noone can show me another nation that keep it alive in their society and culture and it represented only proto-Turks. Hanty and Mansi, both Ugrics, overall 30-40.000 in number cannot have influenced the toponym more than Turkics who were natives, ruled the area for centuries and left their heritage there with ethnic Turkic names and Ugors are our relatives too, that is coming fast

Ural not belongs to turkics because they were just foreign invaders here. Proto turkics lived in altay not in Ural.

Keep dreaming, Mongolian.

Actually she is half arabic (middle eastern).

[Blondie]

Ok, so what is a Turkic haplo to you? Just Q? C? It seems like what you are willing to accept as Turkic is unreasonably narrow considering that from the start, Turkic people were heterogeneous tribes and not an ethnostate. Considering the Eurasian steppes and the quick rise and fall of nomadic empires, it is no surprise that there would be so much variety.

Q is an original altaic marker, but proto-turkics had other haplogroups like C, R1, or N1, but doesn't matter we are talking about N1 and R1 haplo among pre-magyars. In the case of magyars why we should consider the siberian N1 marker as non siberian turkic if we can consider it siberian ugric? Why? Or why we should consider the R1 haplo as turkic if proto-ugrics also had this haplo? Its like if you would find a cup of tea in your mom's kitchen and you would think she ordered it from Romania because there are tea in Romania too, no, it makes no sense. The most realistic version is this tea was made by your mom in the kitchen 10 minutes ago. Why should we prefer a foreing influence instead of local answer?

I am not trying to do it myself. I am saying that academics are the ones who are doing that; most see Avars as a Turkic people.

I ask you again, how can you classify an ethnicity linguistically if you don't know their language? Just because some profs thinks the avars were most likely turkics it doesn't mean it's 100% sure or something, because we don't know their language.

Just like modern Hungarians vs. old Hungarians. Same concept. The issue I have is that there are those who feel so detached from the founding populations that they wish to have nothing to do with them (although with a weirdly hostile behavior) that seems like more desperation to not be seen as non-western rather than apathy.

No, most hungarians do care about the conquerors, but they don't make about it a turkic identity quoestion like you do.

I see it mostly from Turkey, but I have seen it in most nations. Of course, I know you are aware that this is what the Turkic Council calls us as well.

Okay, Hungary is not full member of Turkic Council just an observer member, and Hungary will leave it for sure if Orbán goes, simple because modern hungarians have nothing to do with them.
And it's a very nice thing if turks like hungarians, but hungarians don't care about it in general, neither West Europe btw. Hungarians compare themselves to austrians (or other central euros), not only because the historical relations, but Austria is the idol of most hungarians economically, that we must reach their economic level, this rivalization is also existed in the Monarchy.

I disagree, and I know we will not see eye-to-eye on this future about demographics.

Doesn't matter your opinion in this question, Hungary will be gypsie majority just like other neighbor countries if the government won't do anything.

It is no different than the feudalism of the Lords vs. the pedantry. You are framing it in a racial light.

Wrong, the elite vs commoners identity existed before the feudal hungarian state. The hungarian nobility always claimed that they are descedants of counquerors, but commoners (hungarus) are not, so they don't belong to the hungarian nation. It was the thinking in medieval Hungary and later until the national awakening. And nobody talked about any racial thing.

It was an observation about how it appears to me (your behavior of deleting the posts). Also, it is tiresome when you even respond to posts of mine that mention the Hungarian conquerors can be classified as Uralo-Altaic and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but in the same breath you will claim that I think the conquerors must be 100% pure-pure Turkic (which cannot even be defined by either of us in an academic way).

Man... i deleted only 2 post, and now you present me like i always do it, bullshit. I have already said why i deleted it, i realized this is obsoleted, thats all. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.

Most of the subforums are dead, unfortunately. I am aware you have some Hungarian ancestry, hence why I think it would be interesting for you to actually take a DNA test with some companies and post the results.

Yes i know in TA the genetic test is like Bible, but i said million times why i don't do genetic test. First of all i don't trust in these companies who store you personal datas, secondly the language, culture and identity does matter not this cheap genetic test what is basically just playing with numbers, i have seen such genetic map which claimed such nonsense things like hungarians are closer to swedes than finns, or you will get different results almost in every test, sorry i can't take it seriously.

We don't know what haplogroup Attila or his children would have been, therefore I don't think one can say for sure what a "pure original Hunnic marker" is. Also, I don't think that my sub-group is more Hunnic than the Conquering Hungarians. I think that this divide comes from the idea that Hungarians must be Ugric-oriented and therefore the Szeklers must be Turkic-oriented based on the runes, genetics, and legends. We have never thought of ourselves as different from other Hungarians, as a separate nation from other Hungarians, but as a type of "durable Hungarian" who kept the old ways more from the steppe times. I don't think it is productive or helpful to think of Szeklers as Turkic but Hungarians are not.

Attila's haplo is irrelevant, it can be bantu-negro too does not matter, because he was hun and he will always be hun regardless of his paternal origin. And of course the hungarian academy is ugric oriented because the hungarian language is ugric, that's why. Its not a difficult thing, but i have never seen any hungarian prof who denied the significant old turkic influence. Neither me, nor Dunai don't deny that.

if Szeklers are a Turkic people, and if I am so interesting in identifying as one, then I can just say that I am Szekler alone.

No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin. Btw if you really interested the origin of székelys you should buy the rubicon "A székelység története" historical magazin, 20 page only about it, they analysed every theory. Very interesting.



In my opinion, székelys are descedants of huns, and they lived in Transylvania since the huns, and later they adopted the hungarian language somehow. Of course this is just my subjective opinion.

[Chelubey]

I dont take the opinions of a person coming from gut feelings on historical facts seriously. You dont even know Avars spoke Turkic language lol read Harmatta at least and keep quite

The term Ural belongs to Turkics noone can show me another nation that keep it alive in their society and culture and it represented only proto-Turks. Hanty and Mansi, both Ugrics, overall 30-40.000 in number cannot have influenced the toponym more than Turkics who were natives, ruled the area for centuries and left their heritage there with ethnic Turkic names and Ugors are our relatives too, that is coming fast

In fact, Ural are full of Ugric toponyms / hydronyms, even in the south. They are adjacent to the Turkic one. The most interesting thing is that there are many non-Turkic toponyms / hydronyms in Altai and the word Altai itself is probably not of Turkic origin, in contrast from Kazakhstan, where there are practically only Turkic and Mongolian toponyms