PDA

View Full Version : New preprint on Hungarian conqueror mtDNA (Neparaczki et al. 2018)



Onur Dincer
01-22-2018, 01:49 AM
Mitogenomic data indicate admixture components of Asian Hun and Srubnaya origin in the Hungarian Conquerors (Neparaczki et al. 2018)

It has been widely accepted that the Finno-Ugric Hungarian language, originated from proto Uralic people, was brought into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarian Conquerors. From the middle of the 19 th century this view prevailed against the deep-rooted Hungarian Hun tradition, maintained in folk memory as well as in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources, which claimed that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns. In order to shed light on the genetic origin of the Conquerors we sequenced 102 mitogenomes from early Conqueror cemeteries and compared them to sequences of all available databases. We applied novel population genetic algorithms, named Shared Haplogroup Distance and MITOMIX, to reveal past admixture of maternal lineages. Phylogenetic and population genetic analysis indicated that more than one third of the Conqueror maternal lineages were derived from Central-Inner Asia and their most probable ultimate sources were the Asian Huns. The rest of the lineages most likely originated from the Bronze Age Potapovka-Poltavka-Srubnaya cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which area was part of the later European Hun empire. Our data give support to the Hungarian Hun tradition and provides indirect evidence for the genetic connection between Asian and European Huns. Available data imply that the Conquerors did not have a major contribution to the gene pool of the Carpathian Basin, raising doubts about the Conqueror origin of Hungarian language.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/19/250688

Onur Dincer
01-22-2018, 02:01 AM
From the paper:

20957

Onur Dincer
01-22-2018, 02:05 AM
From the paper:

20958

Onur Dincer
01-22-2018, 02:10 AM
From the paper:

"The large genetic diversity of the Conquerors which seemingly assembled from multiple ethnic sources and their relative low proportion, having no lasting effect on Hungarian ethnogenesis, raises doubts about the Conqueror origin of the Hungarian language. Even if our samples represent mainly the Conqueror elite, the “elite dominance” linguistic hypothesis seems inconsistent when it presumes that the same Turkic elite was first readily assimilated linguistically by Finno-Ugric groups, and then it assimilated locals of the Carpathian Basin. Turkic character of the Conqueror elit is indicated by their “Turk” denomination in contemporary sources as well as Turkic tribal names and person names of tribe leaders of the conquest-period [104]. Above data infer that preconquest presence of the language in the Carpathian Basin, is an equally grounded hypothesis, as had been proposed by several scientists (a summary in English is given in [105]), which is also hinted by a recently detected genomic admixture between Mansis and a Middle Neolithic (5000 BCE) individual from the Carpathian Basin [90]." [emphasis mine]

Do they seriously imply the presence of a Ugric language in the Carpathian Basin since at least the Middle Neolithic? The authors should make a clarification/correction in that part, otherwise it will stay as apparently the most nonsensical statement in the whole paper.

Fungene
01-22-2018, 03:41 AM
From the paper:

"The large genetic diversity of the Conquerors which seemingly assembled from multiple ethnic sources and their relative low proportion, having no lasting effect on Hungarian ethnogenesis, raises doubts about the Conqueror origin of the Hungarian language. Even if our samples represent mainly the Conqueror elite, the “elite dominance” linguistic hypothesis seems inconsistent when it presumes that the same Turkic elite was first readily assimilated linguistically by Finno-Ugric groups, and then it assimilated locals of the Carpathian Basin. Turkic character of the Conqueror elit is indicated by their “Turk” denomination in contemporary sources as well as Turkic tribal names and person names of tribe leaders of the conquest-period [104]. Above data infer that preconquest presence of the language in the Carpathian Basin, is an equally grounded hypothesis, as had been proposed by several scientists (a summary in English is given in [105]), which is also hinted by a recently detected genomic admixture between Mansis and a Middle Neolithic (5000 BCE) individual from the Carpathian Basin [90]." [emphasis mine]

Do they seriously imply the presence of a Ugric language in the Carpathian Basin since at least the Middle Neolithic? The authors should make a clarification/correction in that part, otherwise it will stay as apparently the most nonsensical statement in the whole paper.

Yes, they do, apparently.

[90] is Wong et al. 2016.“Reconstructing Genetic History of Siberian and Northeastern European Populations.” Genome Research.

The samples from 5000 BCE discussed in this article, Ajv52 and Ire8, were from Gotland. There is no mention of the Carpathian Basin at all.

About some of the samples studied (none of them from the Carpathian Basin), Wong et al. state:
“Since Mansi-related admixtures are detectable within an ancient individual, who lived 8-6.6 kya, the ANE-related ancestry among Eastern European hunter-gatherers could be attributed to gene flows between population ancestral to Mansi and Eastern European hunter-gatherers that occurred before 6,600 years ago. The unexpected genetic link between Mansi and ancient Hungarians may explain similarities between Mansi and Hungarian languages, although further analyses would be required to definitively establish this connection.
Siberians also shared part of their ancestry with Pitted Ware Culture (PWC) 5,000-year-old hunter-gatherers from Sweden Ire8 and Ajv5233. Ajv52 and particularly Ire8 had strong admixture signals with Western Siberians Mansi (Fig. 5e, Supplementary Fig. 17b), suggesting that like the closely related Yamnaya culture, they had strong ANE ancestries likely due to admixtures with Mansi-related population.” [quoted from version posted in BioRxiv 2015].

Voilŕ! Our authors take these comments to “hint” that a Hungarian-like language was spoken in the Carpathian Basin 5000 BCE.

The “equally grounded hypothesis” referred to in [105] is a non-standard view advocated by a person by the name of Ármin Vámbéry (1832-1913), and defended in an article published in Hungarian Cultural Studies, an e-Journal of the American Hungarian Educators’ Association.
The author of the article, Nándor Dreisziger, identified as faculty of the Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Canada, is a member of the advisory board of the association that published his article. Nándor Dreisziger is not listed as faculty, either current or emeritus at Royal Military College’s website, although he was once listed as an emeritus professor of history at that institution.
The most compelling evidence, according to Dreisziger, that Vámbéry was right and that Hungarian was spoken in the Carpathian Basin since late Roman times, comes from … the study of skull shapes! He predicts that DNA studies will confirm his views.


Studies of ancient mitogenomes are always welcome.
Attempting to shoehorn in fluff is unnecessary.
Maybe the authors needed to do this to secure more funding in their home country? Who knows.

RCO
01-22-2018, 02:34 PM
The Eastern Asian mtDNA is pretty convincing of the Eastern origins of a substantive part of them
Looks like they are also going to test the Y-DNA
In the supplementary material - S1 Figure.
Karos 3/12 I2a
Karos 3/1 R1b1b1a
Karos 3/17 I2a
Karos 3/3 R1b1b1a

gravetti
01-22-2018, 03:08 PM
THE CONTROVERSY ON THE ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIANS

The Hun-Magyar relationship is also referred to in the recently published Hungarian translation of a Turkish version of the history of Hungary, (Tarihi Üngürüsz), based on an earlier Latin text lost during the Turkish wars (16th-17th c.). This source also mentions that when the Huns and the Magyars arrived in Hungary, they both found peoples already settled there who spoke the same language as themselves, thus lending support to the Hun-Magyar identity and extending the continuity of the Hungarian people in the Carpathian Basin further back in time (7).
http://www.hunmagyar.org/tor/controve.htm

Dewsloth
01-22-2018, 03:10 PM
It's interesting that they have the J2a1 sample listed as "Irish"-like when only 2 of the 4,000+ FTDNA mtDNA J Group members is specifically listed as "plain" J2a1 (and one of them lists a MDKA in Yemen?) -- also one of the oldest samples of J2a1 variants is from Hungary:

ID Population Site Date Sex Mt Hap Y Hap Cov. HG% ALD Ref
GEN15a Baden Budakal´asz-Luppa cs´arda 3367–3103 M J2a1a1 G2a2b2a1a1c1a 1.66 10.9±1.7 22±9.2
3.-K11 Iberia CA La Chabola de la Hechicera 3627–3363 F J2a1a1 .. 0.12 24.7±2.5 30±12
LY.II.A.10.15067 Iberia CA Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 F J2a1a1 .. 0.30 24.1±2.0 ±
Also later:
Atapuerca, Burgos (where J2a1a1 [YDNA=G2a] shows up dated to 2880-2630 BC)
.

gravetti
01-22-2018, 03:31 PM
The Eastern Asian mtDNA is pretty convincing of the Eastern origins of a substantive part of them
Looks like they are also going to test the Y-DNA
In the supplementary material - S1 Figure.
Karos 3/12 I2a
Karos 3/1 R1b1b1a
Karos 3/17 I2a
Karos 3/3 R1b1b1a
Sample 12 is I2a1b3a>S17250.
Probability 63,42
Fitness 48,81

mtDNA: A12

Sample 17 is I2a1b3a>4460>4318
Probability 87,52
Fitness 29,66

mtDNA: H6a1a

(Y-haplogroup predictor-NEVGEN)

Genetic structure of the early Hungarian conquerors inferred from mtDNA haplotypes and Y-chromosome haplogroups in a small cemetery

http://link.springer.com/article/10....438-016-1267-z

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot/page18

George
01-22-2018, 05:37 PM
Sample 12 is I2a1b3a>S17250.
Probability 63,42
Fitness 48,81

mtDNA: A12

Sample 17 is I2a1b3a>4460>4318
Probability 87,52
Fitness 29,66

mtDNA: H6a1a

(Y-haplogroup predictor-NEVGEN)

Genetic structure of the early Hungarian conquerors inferred from mtDNA haplotypes and Y-chromosome haplogroups in a small cemetery

http://link.springer.com/article/10....438-016-1267-z

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot/page18

We know that the Hungarians "picked up" people along the way (best known are the Kabar Khazars). The I2 Y's were likely "picked up" from the area of Ukraine or "found in situ" when they arrived in the Carp. basin. I don't see them as part of the original Asian group.

gravetti
01-22-2018, 06:44 PM
We know that the Hungarians "picked up" people along the way (best known are the Kabar Khazars). The I2 Y's were likely "picked up" from the area of Ukraine or "found in situ" when they arrived in the Carp. basin. I don't see them as part of the original Asian group.
https://www.europeana.eu/portal/sv/record/2023901/NatEu_HNHM_Anthropology_HNHM_REC_Kustar_NE_10_pdf. html
Craniofacial reconstruction of a Hungarian conqueror warrior from
10th century cemetery Hungary (Karos–Eperjesszög II.)
Based on the archaeological finds the Upper Tisza region might have
been the place of the first settlements of the Hungarian conqueror
chieftain’s. The warriors’ graves excavated from the site Karos–
Eperjesszög II, not only remarkable for their richness, but for the
completeness of their war equipments: almost all kind of rank marker
came to light from the graves rich in artefacts. The man unearthed from
the Grave No 60 belonged to the armed escort of the leader. His head
was extremely large, high and wide. The craniofacial reconstruction
brings his wide and high featured face to life again.

The mtDNA of simple 12 is A12 !


Haplogroup A12 is a Siberian branch on the maternal tree of humanity. Its age has not been determined.

What is known about this line comes from one research paper. The sample in it is from the Buryat people of Siberia. (Derenko et al., 2007)

Sample 12 have three symbolic trephinations.

In Hungary, during the Conquest period (late 9th–10th c. AD), there was a unique type of trephination. It consisted of removal of an external layer of bone, was not complete and likely had symbolic meaning. So far there have been 130 cases of surgical trephination and 157 cases of symbolic trephination found from Hungary during this period. Bereczki et al. (2013) examine these unique superficial trephinations.
https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/symbolic-skull-scrapings-trephination-in-hungary/