Conqueror tribes of Hungary couldn't spoke the ancestor of Hungarian language in 895!

S

Stears555

Regular Member
Messages
154
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Here is the shortened version (only 9 pages) of professor Nándor Dreisziger's WORK: http://ahea.net/sitefiles/file/journals/201110/DreiszigerN.pdf

Árpád's conqueror tribes of 895AD couldn't speak the ancestor of modern Hungarian language when they arrived to Hungary. They spoke turkic language which had no relaion with modern (finno-ugric) Hungarian language. They were very few in numbers, like Normans of England. The conquerors had no genetic and linguistic impact on Hungary. By time the christian kingdom shriveled them from political power, they were mostly behind the pagan revolts too (against the Hungarian kingdom).


Feel free to comment.
 
OK, these are the findings:

1. "This comparison revealed that the genetic distance between the present-day populations’ mt-DNA and the mt-DNA of the occupants of graves of the elite was great, while variance between the mt-DNA of people found in common graves and the mt-DNA of modern Hungarians was “negligible.”

2. "In other words, they found no genetic connection between Árpád’s warriors and Hungary’s present-day male population."

This is the speculation:

" In one of their studies they declared that the autochthonous population of the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century was mainly Slavic — and added that the conquerors, because of their superior political and social position, “imposed” their language on the locals. This of course is faulty logic. There had been at least a dozen examples of warrior tribes conquering settled peoples in early medieval Europe and in every one of these conquests the autochthonous peoples assimilated the conquerors rather then the other way around. Had the locals in the Carpathian Basin really been predominantly Slavs, the people of Hungary would be speaking a Slavic language today."

This is the explanation:

"...the Hungarians of the Middle Ages and the Hungarians of today are on the whole not the progeny of Árpád’s conquerors but the direct descendants of the earlier Onogur, late - Avar people. ”

This is something to have in mind:

"And, we have to admit, the Raskó team’s conclusions have been based on a minuscule number of samples, especially as far as the numbers of the acient Hungarians” are concerned."





So, what do we know abuot Onogur people, and their DNA? What to autosomal analysis say about the connection?
 
The Hungarians of today are a Central European population descended from all the various migrations that settled in the area. It should be clear by now that Central Europe has been populated and re-populated numerous times, in the Mesolithic, in the Neolithic, during the Indo-European migrations and on and on.

This is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a PCA or at their admixture results and compared them to their neighbors.

As anyone can see, they plot right where you would expect...very near Czechs and Slovakians...sometimes near southern Germans...nothing very exotic at all.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/images/nature07331-f1.2.jpg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...5iz4eRqk4hcp0taR4uWj_56g&ust=1412355584288475

It's also obvious that language can sometimes have very little to do with overall autosomal genetics.

Likewise, an elite establishing a kingdom or just passing through can leave barely a ripple in terms of the effect on the entire genome.

If such minor sources of input are of interest, it's better to stick with actual genetic studies, in my opinion.
A Limited Genetic Link Between Mansi and Hungarians:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-limited-genetic-link-between-mansi.html

This is supposed to be a site for the discussion of genetics, history and culture hopefully based on solid intellectual foundations.
 
Angela said:
The Hungarians of today are a Central European population descended from all the various migrations that settled in the area. It should be clear by now that Central Europe has been populated and re-populated numerous times, in the Mesolithic, in the Neolithic, during the Indo-European migrations and on and on.

This is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a PCA or at their admixture results and compared them to their neighbors.

As anyone can see, they plot right where you would expect...very near Czechs and Slovakians...sometimes near southern Germans...nothing very exotic at all.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/images/nature07331-f1.2.jpg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...5iz4eRqk4hcp0taR4uWj_56g&ust=1412355584288475

It's also obvious that language can sometimes have very little to do with overall autosomal genetics.

Likewise, an elite establishing a kingdom or just passing through can leave barely a ripple in terms of the effect on the entire genome.

If such minor sources of input are of interest, it's better to stick with actual genetic studies, in my opinion.
A Limited Genetic Link Between Mansi and Hungarians:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-limited-genetic-link-between-mansi.html

This is supposed to be a site for the discussion of genetics, history and culture hopefully based on solid intellectual foundations.
Click to expand...

Angela you're correct, I can give another good example, the traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews has been Yiddish, which is about 80% Germanic, but when looking at modern European populations, AJs plot closest to southeastern Europeans, specifically Greeks, not Germans, also when it comes to modern European populations AJs share highest IBD sharing with Greeks, not Germans.
 
Did you read the article? It clearly states that the conquerors of 895 did not speak the ancestors of Hungarian language. Hungarians and they language arrived to the carpathian basin at least two centuries earlier than the conqueror little ethnic minority.
 
Stears555;440610]Did you read the article? It clearly states that the conquerors of 895 did not speak the ancestors of Hungarian language.
Click to expand...
I certainly did...that's why I did you the courtesy of providing the link, a courtesy which was apparently wasted on you. Did you read anything written by me expressing an opinion on the matter?

Hungarians and they language arrived to the carpathian basin at least two centuries earlier than the conqueror little ethnic minority.
Click to expand...

This is utter nonsense. "Hungarians" did not arrive in the Carpathian Basin at least two centuries earlier than 895. "Hungarians" are an admixed ethnic group of people formed from remnants of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers of the LBK, "Indo-Europeans" from the steppe, Bell Beakers from further west, Uralic speaking peoples, some "conqueror little ethnic minority", German farmers, and on and on. THERE IS NO ETHNIC PURITY IN EUROPE, or anywhere else for that matter. Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else. Your language was bequeathed to you by one of those migrating groups. If you spent your time reading genetics papers and the writings of academics instead of relying on ultra-nationalist internet sites, you would know that.

Or if that is too taxing, why don't you take a look at the "ancestral components" in any admixture run. Let's look shall we?

Gedrosia 4.1
Siberia .7
Atlantic Med 27
North European 48.4
South Asian .3
Southwest Asian 3
East Asian .3
Caucasus 16.2

Now, let's see...how shall we assign that 1% combined Siberian and East Asian? I think your Uralic speaking ancestors are a good bet, don't you, given that the Finns have so much of this kind of admixture that they are far outliers in Europe. (I hasten to add that there's nothing wrong with that...people at the periphery have overlap with their neighbors. I'm also all for hybrid vigor...well, so long as it wasn't with Neanderthals...not much vigor in those offspring.)

Ed. This part unaccountably didn't print:
FWIW, I have .1 East Asian, and .1 Amerindian. The Huns? They made an appearance. Some Avar colonies? I have no idea.
As for the Southwest Asian, that is definitely farmer input. Much of the Atlanto-Med component is as well. I'm not sure what to do about the Caucasus component, mine or that of the Hungarians. How much is Neolithic farmer and how much is Steppe Indo-Europeans? The consensus seems to be that the Gedrosia and South Asian is down to them, however.

See what I mean?

Back to the original post:
Or, let's take another approach to Hungarian genetics...let's look at the average EEF/WHG/ANE percentages. Have you heard of this? If you haven't, you have a lot of taxing reading ahead of you. It's from the Reich Lab, the premier population genetics team in the world if you're interested, not a xenophobic web site.

Let's see:
EEF .558
WHG .264
ANE .179

Well, that’s interesting, your EEF score is about 5-6 points higher than that of the English, the Germans, and even the Czechs, but then Hungary was LBK central wasn’t it, at some point?
Still think you’re only descended from some Uralic speaking tribe from the northeast? I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
"Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else. Your language was bequeathed to you by one of those migrating groups."

Dear Angela!
What abouth "your pople"?
 
gyms said:
"Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else. Your language was bequeathed to you by one of those migrating groups."

Dear Angela!
What abouth "your pople"?
Click to expand...

How unutterably silly! Why on earth would I exclude my "people"!!!???

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "THERE ARE NO PURE ETHNIC GROUPS IN EUROPE"? Or the part where I said that all European ethnicities were formed in the same way and that indeed that's true of all world populations? Or, from what you quoted yourself....Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else.

How much clearer could I possibly be?

Should you wish to learn my opinions on Italian genetics, always grounded, I hope, on scientific papers and historical documents, you're of course free to use the search engine here to find and read them.

I mean no disrespect to eastern Europeans or people of the Balkans in general, goodness knows, but if certain posters wish to be taken seriously on a Board like this, they really have to pay more close attention to the content of posts, as well as do major amounts of reading in population genetics and history.

I mean, certain allowances have to be made, but the Iron Curtain has been down for a while. Information has been freely available, scientific, historic, etc. for decades now. It's time to catch up.

Ed. As for Finns, so far as I'm aware, there has been no interruption to their access to modern scholarship, and I am a great admirer of their school system, so I'm at a loss to explain why any of this should be such a huge surprise. If you're in a tizzy because some papers find that Finns are outliers in Europe, take heart, some papers find that Sicilians and perhaps other Southern Italians are too. There, do you feel better now? I always aim to please.
 
gyms said:
"Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else. Your language was bequeathed to you by one of those migrating groups."

Dear Angela!
What abouth "your pople"?
Click to expand...

this below changes some of your "your people" quote

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/
 
Angela said:
I certainly did...that's why I did you the courtesy of providing the link, a courtesy which was apparently wasted on you. Did you read anything written by me expressing an opinion on the matter?



This is utter nonsense. "Hungarians" did not arrive in the Carpathian Basin at least two centuries earlier than 895. "Hungarians" are an admixed ethnic group of people formed from remnants of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers of the LBK, "Indo-Europeans" from the steppe, Bell Beakers from further west, Uralic speaking peoples, some "conqueror little ethnic minority", German farmers, and on and on. THERE IS NO ETHNIC PURITY IN EUROPE, or anywhere else for that matter. Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else. Your language was bequeathed to you by one of those migrating groups. If you spent your time reading genetics papers and the writings of academics instead of relying on ultra-nationalist internet sites, you would know that.

Or if that is too taxing, why don't you take a look at the "ancestral components" in any admixture run. Let's look shall we?

Gedrosia 4.1
Siberia .7
Atlantic Med 27
North European 48.4
South Asian .3
Southwest Asian 3
East Asian .3
Caucasus 16.2

Now, let's see...how shall we assign that 1% combined Siberian and East Asian? I think your Uralic speaking ancestors are a good bet, don't you, given that the Finns have so much of this kind of admixture that they are far outliers in Europe. (I hasten to add that there's nothing wrong with that...people at the periphery have overlap with their neighbors. I'm also all for hybrid vigor...well, so long as it wasn't with Neanderthals...not much vigor in those offspring.)

Ed. This part unaccountably didn't print:
FWIW, I have .1 East Asian, and .1 Amerindian. The Huns? They made an appearance. Some Avar colonies? I have no idea.
As for the Southwest Asian, that is definitely farmer input. Much of the Atlanto-Med component is as well. I'm not sure what to do about the Caucasus component, mine or that of the Hungarians. How much is Neolithic farmer and how much is Steppe Indo-Europeans? The consensus seems to be that the Gedrosia and South Asian is down to them, however.

See what I mean?

Back to the original post:
Or, let's take another approach to Hungarian genetics...let's look at the average EEF/WHG/ANE percentages. Have you heard of this? If you haven't, you have a lot of taxing reading ahead of you. It's from the Reich Lab, the premier population genetics team in the world if you're interested, not a xenophobic web site.

Let's see:
EEF .558
WHG .264
ANE .179

Well, that’s interesting, your EEF score is about 5-6 points higher than that of the English, the Germans, and even the Czechs, but then Hungary was LBK central wasn’t it, at some point?
Still think you’re only descended from some Uralic speaking tribe from the northeast? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...

There were on german chronicles that they usually do business with Hungarians in the 8th century. Did you read the whole article? Árpád and its conqueror tribes were not Hungarians but turks, who spoke only in turkish language. Read the byzantine chronicles about their language.
 
So tell us your story on how standard central European genetic Hungarians started to speak Uralic language before Uralic people arrived to Hungary?
 
arvistro said:
So tell us your story on how standard central European genetic Hungarians started to speak Uralic language before Uralic people arrived to Hungary?
Click to expand...

Wrong. The conqueror minority of 895 was not Hungarian speaking, but turkic speaking. The Uralic speaking onugors arrived in the 7th century, long long before the turkic speaking elite minority of Árpád.
 
What is the genetic Impact of onugurs on Hungarians?
Or were they also small minority but unlike Arpad men they succeeded in passing their language to pretty standard central european folk?
 
The Turkish Onugurs from Central Asia probably spoke a Turkish language. My own guess about Hungarian is that it comes from a tribe of R1a folk who originally lived near the Ural mountains, learned to speak a Uralic language from their N1c overlords, then got caught up in a multi-ethnic, Turkish led invasion of Europe during the Iron Age and eventually settled in Hungary. The reason we can't see their genetic footprint is because we can't distinguish their descendants from the descendants of their Corded Ware and IE cousins.
 
Aberdeen said:
The Turkish Onugurs from Central Asia probably spoke a Turkish language. My own guess about Hungarian is that it comes from a tribe of R1a folk who originally lived near the Ural mountains, learned to speak a Uralic language from their N1c overlords, then got caught up in a multi-ethnic, Turkish led invasion of Europe during the Iron Age and eventually settled in Hungary. The reason we can't see their genetic footprint is because we can't distinguish their descendants from the descendants of their Corded Ware and IE cousins.
Click to expand...
That might well be the case. I'd say not a tribe but confederation of those, with Finno-Ugric lingua franca.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_tribes
 
Angela said:
How unutterably silly! Why on earth would I exclude my "people"!!!???

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "THERE ARE NO PURE ETHNIC GROUPS IN EUROPE"? Or the part where I said that all European ethnicities were formed in the same way and that indeed that's true of all world populations? Or, from what you quoted yourself....Your people are the product of multiple migrations, just like everyone else.

How much clearer could I possibly be?

Should you wish to learn my opinions on Italian genetics, always grounded, I hope, on scientific papers and historical documents, you're of course free to use the search engine here to find and read them.

I mean no disrespect to eastern Europeans or people of the Balkans in general, goodness knows, but if certain posters wish to be taken seriously on a Board like this, they really have to pay more close attention to the content of posts, as well as do major amounts of reading in population genetics and history.

I mean, certain allowances have to be made, but the Iron Curtain has been down for a while. Information has been freely available, scientific, historic, etc. for decades now. It's time to catch up.

Ed. As for Finns, so far as I'm aware, there has been no interruption to their access to modern scholarship, and I am a great admirer of their school system, so I'm at a loss to explain why any of this should be such a huge surprise. If you're in a tizzy because some papers find that Finns are outliers in Europe, take heart, some papers find that Sicilians and perhaps other Southern Italians are too. There, do you feel better now? I always aim to please.
Click to expand...

Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/09/a-limited-genetic-link-between-mansi.html
 
gyms said:
Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/09/a-limited-genetic-link-between-mansi.html
Click to expand...


However, this theory can't interpret, why have Northern Germanic and Slavic populations higher ratio of Mongoloid markers.
 
gyms said:
This is a new genetic study,not a theory.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25258186?dopt=Abstract
Click to expand...

Did you read it?

"Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations."

The Haplogroup N is frequent in Slavic speaking populations and Northern Germanic (inc. Northern Germany) speaking populations . Haplogroup Q is also frequent in slavic and NorthernGermanic populations.
 
Stears555 said:
Did you read it?

"Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations."

The Haplogroup N is frequent in Slavic speaking populations and Northern Germanic (inc. Northern Germany) speaking populations . Haplogroup Q is also frequent in slavic and NorthernGermanic populations.
Click to expand...

"Did you read it?"

The study is not available yet.But I read the abstract of course.I don´t understand what´s the problem,the study don´t contradict your assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 21739 times.

Back
Top