Genetic structure of the early Hungarian conquerors inferred from mtDNA and Y-DNA

I-M170 and I-P37.2 is present at low frequencies in other Eurasian countries and popuations like Kazan Tatars,Kazakhstan,Üzbekistan,Pakistan,South Altai,Koryaks,Evenks,Nenets etc. So who knows?
http://www.transpacificproject.com/index.php/genetic-research/

Interesting, gyms, but may I ask where you in this link you see these populations specifically having I-P37.2? I just see the map with a key for haplogroup I (which I understand being I-M170 yes?) but without the subclade.
 
Interesting, gyms, but may I ask where you in this link you see these populations specifically having I

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/tatarstan/default.aspx?section=yresults

There is I-P37 in Merke Kazakhstan,Jeti-Oguz Kyrgyzstan,Novosibirsk and Tobolsk Russia.......

One of the most interesting finds is the presence of a few IJ-M429* chromosomes in the sample. Haplogroup IJ encompasses the major European I subclade, and the major West Asian J subclade. The discovery of IJ* chromosomes is consistent with the origin of this haplogroup in West Asia; it is widely believed that haplogroup I represents a pre-Neolithic lineage in Europe, although at present there are no Y chromosome-tested pre-Neolithic remains.
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2012/07/huge-study-on-y-chromosome-variation-in.html
 
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2016/12/12/gr.202945.115.abstract

In addition, we uncovered admixtures between Siberians and Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Samara, Karelia, Hungary, and Sweden (from 8000–6600 yr ago); Yamnaya people (5300–4700 yr ago); and modern-day Northeastern Europeans. Our results provide new insights into genetic histories of Siberian and Northeastern European populations and evidence of ancient gene flow from Siberia into Europe.
 
Interesting, gyms, but may I ask where you in this link you see these populations specifically having I

http://www.ranhaer.com/redirect.php?tid=34559&goto=lastpost

We have studied the gene pools of populations with «Tatar» enthonym in three regions of Eurasia – Tatars of Crimea, Tatars of Volga region and Tatars of Siberia. About 1000 individuals of these peoples were analyzed on 50 SNP markers of Y-chromosome, the most informative tool in population genetics. Ethnoterritorial groups of Tatars were found to be genetically different, we didn’t found their common ancestry component. The Westasian and Mediterranean genetic components (population of Asia Minor and Balkans) predominate in the gene pool of Crimea Tatars, the Eurasian steppe component is much fewer. The genetic variants of Ural and North Europe predominate in the gene pool of Volga Tatars, the genetic components of Asia Minor and Central Asia are much fewer. The populations of Siberia Tatars are very variable. Some includes the prominent Siberian genetic component, other has predominated genetic lineages from southwest regions of Eurasia. Consequently the gene pools of all the Tatar ethnoterritorial groups were formed based on the indigenous population with genetic flow of migrations from other regions.

I2a1-P37.2 in

Tobol-Irtysh:3.1%
Istyak-Tokuz 11.6%
Siberian Bukhar Tatars: 3.8%
 
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794/1/Neparaczki_PhD.pdf

Our data implies that Hungarian conquerors assembled from three major sources before the conquest, corresponding to 3 major distinct populations. It follows that our initial population genetic analysis which considered the conquerors as a single population was not justified. Based on genetic and historical data half of the conqueror population had probably Xiongnu origin, corroborating the statement of medieval Hungarian chronicles, which all declare Hunnic origin of the Hungarians. The conquerors with Scandinavian-German genetic affinity had most probably Ostrogothic origin, as this group was reported to have been integrated into the European Hun Empire hundreds of years before the conquest. Interestingly this European component also support the Hun affinity of the Hungarian conquerors. Our data do not support the Finno-Ugric origin of the conquerors, therefore historical linguistic arguments will have to be reconsidered. The lack of Finno-Ugric genetic rather raises the possibility, that the language connection can also be be indirect, which may have happened very long time (thousands of years) ago.
 
Mitochondrial DNA diversity in a Transbaikalian Xiongnu population

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-017-0481-x

We detected 16 mitochondrial DNA haplotypes belonging to seven East Eurasian haplogroups (A, B5, C, D4, G2a, N9a, and Y) in the Transbaikalian Xiongnu series. We observed substantial similarity between Transbaikalian and Mongolian Xiongnu series with respect to main haplogroup composition and frequencies.
 
http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/3794/1/Neparaczki_PhD.pdf

Our data implies that Hungarian conquerors assembled from three major sources before the conquest, corresponding to 3 major distinct populations. It follows that our initial population genetic analysis which considered the conquerors as a single population was not justified. Based on genetic and historical data half of the conqueror population had probably Xiongnu origin, corroborating the statement of medieval Hungarian chronicles, which all declare Hunnic origin of the Hungarians. The conquerors with Scandinavian-German genetic affinity had most probably Ostrogothic origin, as this group was reported to have been integrated into the European Hun Empire hundreds of years before the conquest. Interestingly this European component also support the Hun affinity of the Hungarian conquerors. Our data do not support the Finno-Ugric origin of the conquerors, therefore historical linguistic arguments will have to be reconsidered. The lack of Finno-Ugric genetic rather raises the possibility, that the language connection can also be be indirect, which may have happened very long time (thousands of years) ago.

This study is total BS, almost unreal someone would publish this shit.
 
A study of the Bodrogköz population in north-eastern Hungary by Y chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00438-017-1319-z


The Bodrogköz region was chosen due to its isolated nature, because this area was a moorland encircled by the Tisza, Bodrog, and Latorca Rivers and inhabitants of this part of Hungary escaped from both Tatar and Ottoman invasions, which decimated the post-Hungarian Conquest populations in many parts of the country.
Furthermore, in the first half of the tenth century, this region served as the Palatial Centre and burial grounds of the Hungarian tribes. It has thus been assumed that the present population in this area is likely to be more similar to the population that lived in the Conquest period.
 
Fantastic. I'm so glad they are taking the time to get more detailed results. From a quick glance I saw a J get updated to J2a1 and an H5 go to H5e1.
 
MITOMIX, an Algorithm to Reconstruct Population Admixture Histories Indicates Ancient European Ancestry of Modern Hungarians


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/01/12/247395.full.pdf


Hierarchic clustering of the SHD matrix (Fig. 6) positions modern Hungarians into a common European subgroup with modern Danish, Italian, French, Swedish and Finnish populations. The closest ancient populations to modern Hungarians by SHD are Baltic Late Bronze Age (BalBA 0.815), Bell Baker (BellB 0.830) and European Early Neolithic (EUEN 0.879).
 
A study of the Bodrogköz population in north-eastern Hungary by Y chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00438-017-1319-z


The Bodrogköz region was chosen due to its isolated nature, because this area was a moorland encircled by the Tisza, Bodrog, and Latorca Rivers and inhabitants of this part of Hungary escaped from both Tatar and Ottoman invasions, which decimated the post-Hungarian Conquest populations in many parts of the country.
Furthermore, in the first half of the tenth century, this region served as the Palatial Centre and burial grounds of the Hungarian tribes. It has thus been assumed that the present population in this area is likely to be more similar to the population that lived in the Conquest period.

Quite a mix of everything.
 
Mitogenomic data indicate admixture components of Asian Hun and Srubnaya origin in the Hungarian Conquerors


The possible genetic relation of modern Hungarians to Finno-Ugric groups was tested in several studies [6–8], however all these found Hungarians being genetically unrelated to Uralic people. One of the latest studies [9] reported that a Y-chromosome haplogroup ([FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]N-L1034[/FONT][/FONT]) is shared between 4% of the Hungarian Seklers (Hungarian-speaking ethnic group living in Transylvania) and 15% of the closest language relatives the Mansis, though the same marker is also present in Central Asian Uzbeks and has been detected just in one Hungarian [10]. These results indicated that Uralic genetic links hardly exist in modern Hungarians.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/19/250688
 
I'm hungarian from the Partium region, my grandpa is from the Nyírség region of Hungary from Nyírkáta also my grand grandfather. I have Y haplo N. I have the L708 and the M2126/P298 SNP-s but I don't have the L392, the L1034 or the M2019.
So could it be that the N Tat of the Hungarian Conquerors is the same from the Hun N-Tat.
I don't know the supclades of the N-Tats found among the Mongolian, Buryats, Usbek and Khanty populations. But it would be interesting. Is there any N Tat subclades known from early Hungarian conquerors other than L1034?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk
 
I'm hungarian from the Partium region, my grandpa is from the Nyírség region of Hungary from Nyírkáta also my grand grandfather. I have Y haplo N. I have the L708 and the M2126/P298 SNP-s but I don't have the L392, the L1034 or the M2019.
So could it be that the N Tat of the Hungarian Conquerors is the same from the Hun N-Tat.
I don't know the supclades of the N-Tats found among the Mongolian, Buryats, Usbek and Khanty populations. But it would be interesting. Is there any N Tat subclades known from early Hungarian conquerors other than L1034?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G903F mit Tapatalk

https://www.google.se/search?q=the+...h=479#imgrc=4fTeIBSNOvAQqM:&spf=1516556070702
 

This thread has been viewed 103962 times.

Back
Top