PDA

View Full Version : Maternal Lineages of 10th to 11th century Carpathians.



Angela
28-01-21, 15:53
See:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428268v1.full.pdf

"Maternal lineages from 10-11th century commoner cemeteries of theCarpathian Basin"

"Abstract:Background: Nomadic groups of conquering Hungarians played a predominant role in Hungarian prehistory, butgenetic data are available only from the immigrant elite strata. Most of the 10-11th century remains in the CarpathianBasin belong to common people, whose origin and relation to the immigrant elite has been widely debated.Methods: Mitogenome sequences were determined from 202 individuals with Next Generation Sequencing combinedwith hybridization capture. Median Joining networks were used for phylogenetic analysis. The commoner populationwas compared to 87 ancient Eurasian populations with sequence based (Fst) and haplogroup based population geneticmethods.Results: Haplogroup composition of the commoner population markedly differs from the elite and in contrast to theelite, commoners cluster with European populations. Besides, detectable sub-haplogroup sharing indicates admixturebetween the elite and commoners.Conclusions: Majority of the 10-11th century commoners most likely represent local populations of the CarpathianBasin, which admixed with the eastern immigrant groups including conquering Hungarians."

"The ratio of east Eurasian major-Hgs inthe commoners is 7.69% contrary to the 19.64% of the elite, besides the elite contains a broad spectrum of these; A, B, C,D, F, G, and Y, while only C and D occur with notable frequencies in the commoners, with single appearance of B.West Eurasian Hgs of ConqC and ConqE also show notable differences: Hgs HV, I, M, R, U1, U8 and W occurwith moderate frequencies in commoners, while these are completely absent from the elite. Three Hgs N, T1 and X,typically widespread both in east and west Eurasia, show much higher ratio in the elite than in commoners: N 11.61% inelite, 3.85% in commoners; T1 11.61% in elite, 2.75% in commoners; X 4.46% in elite and 0.55% in commoners. Theopposite is true for Hgs H and T2; among commoners H is the most prevalent Hg with 33.52% frequency, while in theelite group its proportion is significantly lower 19.64%; T2 has 6.59% proportion in the commoners and 1.79% in theelite."

https://i.imgur.com/n3y0xdQ.png


So, the elites were completely absorbed?

kingjohn
28-01-21, 19:14
some of the commoner mtdna type look mongolid to me though ...

u4c1
t2e
u8b1a1
u4b1a3a
j1c2j
u3a1b
u4a1a
u5a1d2b
h6a1b
h5
u4a2
u4a2
v7a
t2e
u3b2a
H+ 16291
D4m2a
j1c2j
u5a2a1
N1a1a1a1a
N1a1a1a1a
D4i2
v7a
u5a1c2a1
h5a1
k1a1b1
h1u2
k1a1a
h1c
h5b
C5b1a
u8b1b1
u8a1a1
u2e1b1
hv1a1a
i5a2+16086
u5b1b1a
k2b2


v7a
h6a1a
t2e7
h5e1a
h5a
h3h
N1b1a3
h1b
u4a
h13a2c1
h10a
u1a1a+16129
t1a1b
C4a2a1
h1u2
i
h5a1n
t1b3
h1j
h
r1a
u5b1b2
N1a1a1a1a
h10e
h11a7
D4h4a
N1b1a2
h11a2
u5b1b
h4a1a1a
t1a1
u5a1a1
h1a7
t1a1
t1a
v7a
hv4c
u4a1
h10e
N1a1a1a1a
M1b2
i1a1a
N1a1a1a1a
N1a1a1a1a
u4a2
h102
k1a+ 150
N1a1a1a1a
h
h
u4a1c
h1c
h2a1
h3h
k1a4a1
h10e
h3h6
k1a4c1
i1a1a3
t1a4
t1a1
u5a1d2b
i4a
C4b
t2b4a
N1a1a1a1a
h13a2b2
u5a2a1b
u5a1b1
h6a1a
x2f
u4a2
h13a2b2
h1c2
D5a3a1
t2b+152
h4a1a1a
u5a2b1c
u3b3
u5b1b1+ 16192
h1q
M1a1b1
u5a1a1h
u5a1a1h
k1c1
j2b1c
v6
h1a1
C4a2c
t2d2
u2e1b
k1a2
D4e4
v6
h13a2b2a
h16a1
u5b1d1
j2a2e
v7a
u2e1
v13
h14a
h1aj
u5b2b
h4a1a1a
j2b1a
h1aj
hv15
w5
w3a1a
h1c
h11
D4b1
w3a1
t2b
u5a1a1a
h3
u5a2b
j2a1a1a
D4j+16311
u5a1+16192
w3a1
h7
h3
h7a1
D4b1
t2b
B5b4
u8b1b
j1c5
t2c1d1
h1a1c
h6b
h6a1b3
h6a1a4
N9a9
h47a
h47a
h1ak1
t2b+ 152
h48
h13a2c1
h4a1c1a
h
u2e1a1
h
hv10
D4e4
j2a2a2
t2b31
h10a1
k1a4i
h
u5a1b1c2
A16
j1c3g
u5a1d2b
j1c2
h17a1
h5e1a
u4a2
h13a2b2a
h4a1
h11a

Angela
28-01-21, 21:32
In the original post you can find the following:

""The ratio of east Eurasian major-Hgs inthe commoners is 7.69% contrary to the 19.64% of the elite, besides the elite contains a broad spectrum of these; A, B, C,D, F, G, and Y, while only C and D occur with notable frequencies in the commoners, with single appearance of B."

Also,

"Three Hgs N, T1 and X,typically widespread both in east and west Eurasia, show much higher ratio in the elite than in commoners: N 11.61% inelite, 3.85% in commoners; T1 11.61% in elite, 2.75% in commoners; X 4.46% in elite and 0.55% in commoners. "

So, there was clearly admixture. The elites picked up local mtdna as well as the reverse. I got the impression that modern percentages are lower even than this for East Eurasian mtdna, and also for lineages which span both Western and Eastern Eurasia. So, what happened? Were there just not enough of them? Or, did Hungary get flooded with Germanic migrations later on which further diluted the mix.

kingjohn
29-01-21, 09:52
To me it looks like (the 8% mongolid mtdna even in commoners)
That there were some woman in
The magyar force :thinking:
That is very cool:cool-v:


P.s
Or it arrived with earlier movements avar, huns

Riverman
29-01-21, 13:28
In the original post you can find the following:

""The ratio of east Eurasian major-Hgs inthe commoners is 7.69% contrary to the 19.64% of the elite, besides the elite contains a broad spectrum of these; A, B, C,D, F, G, and Y, while only C and D occur with notable frequencies in the commoners, with single appearance of B."

Also,

"Three Hgs N, T1 and X,typically widespread both in east and west Eurasia, show much higher ratio in the elite than in commoners: N 11.61% inelite, 3.85% in commoners; T1 11.61% in elite, 2.75% in commoners; X 4.46% in elite and 0.55% in commoners. "

So, there was clearly admixture. The elites picked up local mtdna as well as the reverse. I got the impression that modern percentages are lower even than this for East Eurasian mtdna, and also for lineages which span both Western and Eastern Eurasia. So, what happened? Were there just not enough of them? Or, did Hungary get flooded with Germanic migrations later on which further diluted the mix.

Not just German, but also other Western European and especially Slavic people settled in the Hungarian kingdom. Additionally, a large portion of the Hungarians were practically annihilated in a succession of catastrophies which occured to them, most notably the Mongol and Ottoman invasions.
Concerning the West vs. East Asian split, not all West Eurasian came with non-Hungarian people, not all East Eurasian from Hungarian people. There are two facts to consider:
1st the Magyars themselves were a complex mix with different ethnic ingredients. They might have had Turkic, Germanic and Iranian admixture already in the EtelkŲz.

2nd the pre-Magyar inhabitents of the Pannonian sphere had East Asian admixture already, especially from the Huns and Avars.

As a possible 3rd factor, the Magyar rule was divided by tribes and clans it seems to me, so in different regions the representatives of the Magyar alliance could have been different, like more Uralic here, more Iranian-Germanic there, again more Turkic in a nother region. So I would also check for spacial differentiations.

In any case the simple equation of West Eurasian = local and East Eurasian = brought by Magyars might not work out all the time. Some of the lineages in common between West and East Eurasia might be Iranian-related more than anything.

Duarte
29-01-21, 19:00
To me it looks like (the 8% mongolid mtdna even in commoners)
That there were some woman in
The magyar force :thinking:
That is very cool:cool-v:
P.s
Or it arrived with earlier movements avar, huns

Maybe this paper can help to understand something more:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5

Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin



Endre Nepar√°czki,
Zoltán Maróti,
[…]
Tibor TörökScientific Reports (https://www.nature.com/srep) volume 9, Article number: 16569 (2019)Cite this article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5#citeas)

20k Accesses
8 Citations
33 Altmetric
Metrics details (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5/metrics)



Abstract

Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian nomadic groups arrived to the Carpathian Basin from the Eurasian Steppes and significantly influenced its political and ethnical landscape, however their origin remains largely unknown. In order to shed light on the genetic affinity of above groups we have determined Y chromosomal haplogroups and autosomal loci, suitable to predict biogeographic ancestry, from 49 individuals, supposed to represent the power/military elit. Haplogroups from the Hun-age are consistent with Xiongnu ancestry of European Huns. Most of the Avar-age individuals carry east Eurasian Y haplogroups typical for modern north-eastern Siberian and Buryat populations and their autosomal loci indicate mostly un-admixed Asian characteristics. In contrast the conquering Hungarians seem to be a recently assembled population incorporating un-admixed European, Asian as well as admixed components. Their heterogeneous paternal and maternal lineages indicate similar supposed phylogeographic origin of males and females, derived from Central-Inner Asian and European Pontic Steppe sources.

https://i.imgur.com/UyvcvyV.jpg




https://i.imgur.com/hYsDmq2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/e0bSdaM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1TZm4yu.jpg

Angela
30-01-21, 00:13
Thanks, Duarte. Much clearer picture based on actual data.

stardust
15-03-21, 09:59
The conquering part is exaggerated - the usual need for a glorious past. There were just a few, small battles, and most of the locals were left to their own. The new hungarian state was possible due to existing local establishments and trough marriage alliances with the local ruling families.
The conquerors are estimated to have been around 25k strong. The local population of Pannonia & Carpathian basin at the time was quite big, in the millions.
It was just a migration, like the ones before that brought those asian genes in the area.