This quote, from a new paper at
Nature,
High-resolution genomic history of early medieval Europe by Speidel et al., is arguably the most idiotic take on the ancestry of present-day Hungarians that I've ever read.
Present-day populations of Hungary do not appear to derive detectable ancestry from early medieval individuals from Longobard contexts, and are instead more similar to Scythian-related ancestry sources (Extended Data Fig. 6), consistent with the later impact of Avars, Magyars and other eastern groups.
In fact, present-day Hungarians are overwhelmingly derived from West Slavic and German peasants, showing only minor ancestry from early Magyars (or rather Hungarian Conquerors). So in terms of genetic ancestry they're basically typical East Central Europeans.
Scythians and Avars don't even deserve a mention in this context.
The reason that Speidel et al. found present-day Hungarians to be broadly similar to Scythians is because they used so called Hungarian Scythians in their analysis.
It's important to understand that these Hungarian Scythians are genetically fairly typical Central Europeans for their time, and, by and large, don't show any significant genetic relationship to Asian Scythians, Avars or early Magyars. So they're mostly either just acculturated Scythians or wrongly classified as Scythians by archeologists.
That is, the broad similarity that Speidel et al. found between present-day Hungarians and Hungarian Scythians derives from the fact that both of these populations are genetically Central Europeans, rather than the ridiculously false idea that they show strong genetic links to Avars, Hungarian Conquerors and other eastern groups.
Here's a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasian genetic variation, courtesy of the excellent
Vahaduo:Global25 Views, that perfectly illustrates my point.
If Speidel et al. were correct about the genetic origin of present-day Hungarians, then the Hungarian_Modern and Hungary_Scythian samples would be shifted away from other Europeans, much like many of the Hungary_Avar and Hungary_Conqueror individuals. But that's obviously not the case, and instead they cluster strongly with, say, present-day Germans from Hamburg.
I emailed two of the authors of this paper, Leo Speidel and Pontus Skoglund, when they posted the preprint of the paper at
bioRxiv to cordially discuss this issue (see
here). But they totally ignored me.
Citation...
Speidel et al.,
High-resolution genomic history of early medieval Europe, Published online: 1 January 2025, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08275-2
243 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243@ Arsen- ok then. Good to see Putin turned your internet back on so you can update your intel
@Rob
Agree since a long time - but the late Urnfield phenomenon (spite not IE at first) involved a lot of diverse cultures among whom IE Celts, Italics, proto-Germanics, Etruscans, Illyrians and so on... the moves of people observed at those times seem linked to demographic increase of population, at least in some places, possible new religious believings and maybe ambitions doped by new weapons?
Haha... That was funny...
@ Mr Funk
Theoretically, If you had to choose, would you rather Dagestan be part of Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey or Iran?
@Tom
Poland
@ Arsen/ Mr Funk
IMO you look more like Mr Bean than a Yamnaya warrior
@ Moesan
''he late Urnfield phenomenon (spite not IE at first) involved a lot of diverse cultures among whom IE Celts, Italics, proto-Germanics, Etruscans, Illyrians and so on... the moves of people observed at those times seem linked to demographic increase of population, at least in some places, possible new religious believings and maybe ambitions doped by new weapons?''
Yes, a mix of migration and cultural adoption. So the question is can we detect the movement of the origincal, core Urnfield folk
@CordedSlav
The Russo-Ukraine war is off topic here.
@ Davidski
Maybe you should share that advice with Mr Funk, who seems to consistently post his Twitter updates.
@Rob
anything is possible
snow-covered Elbrus against a clear sky
https://youtube.com/shorts/ZxUJyNUNsDU
Avar from the Kotias branch J2-SK1313
https://t.me/avardna/1218?single
Dumbass Americans are about to learn how tariffs work.
FAFO
Viking Raids in the Caspian Sea
https://x.com/Varangian_Tagma/status/1884979381317353538
I asked deepseak to clarify the meaning of Davidsky's last comment about Americans, and this is what he came up with:
**Interpretation in the Context of Global Events:**
1. **Criticism of U.S. Trade Policy:**
The comment targets recent U.S. decisions to impose tariffs, which critics argue could backfire. For example, aggressive tariff hikes on imports (e.g., Chinese goods, EU products) might trigger retaliatory measures from other nations, harming U.S. exporters and consumers. This reflects broader debates about protectionism versus free trade.
2. **Meaning of FAFO:**
The acronym "FAFO" ("Fuck Around and Find Out") implies that reckless or unilateral actions will lead to unintended consequences. Here, it suggests that the U.S. is "fucking around" with tariffs and will soon "find out" how damaging such policies can be—economically or geopolitically.
3. **Global Trends and Reactions:**
The remark aligns with growing frustration over escalating trade conflicts. Examples include:
- U.S.-China trade wars and semiconductor restrictions.
- Tensions with the EU over subsidies (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act).
- Sanctions on Russia and their ripple effects on global markets.
Critics argue such policies disrupt supply chains, fuel inflation, and isolate the U.S. diplomatically.
4. **Tone and Sarcasm:**
The use of "dumbass" conveys disdain for U.S. policymakers perceived as overconfident or short-sighted. The sarcasm underscores a belief that the U.S. is ignoring historical lessons (e.g., the 2018-2019 tariff wars) and repeating mistakes.
---
**Conclusion:**
The comment blends criticism, mockery, and a warning. It reflects a view that unilateral U.S. trade actions—while politically popular domestically—risk alienating allies, provoking adversaries, and ultimately harming American interests. The phrase "learn how tariffs work" hints at a coming reckoning, where the U.S. might face economic blowback or diminished global influence.
@Mr Funk
But neither deepseek, the long better than what Americans were able to do, uderstands all. The question of the fentanyl should remember to the English Crown, the Yankees and their owners the Opium Wars and that history sooner or later sends the bill to pay.
When I spoke about the link of Uralic languages and IE I referred to something older than these links, which are very old too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz4jDTQc8Ik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPaJJEI2yeA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abFQOlYVmko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCVnvrr4-s4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfZGVjSvHZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVACMUqBMpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pGtEeEwYvA
@Gio What did you say about a Uralic-IE link? As for those videos, the first set from KELang are all right, but sometimes regurgitate obsolete research (e.g. loans like *porc'as from PIE when they have to be derived from Iranian or Balto-Slavic - see Holopainen 2019) or reconstructions (e.g. *tuxli, which is from Janhunen 1981; his theory of preconsonantal *x was already disproven in Aikio 2012). It's clear that the creator of those videos merely compiled floating excerpts from sources like Wiktionary. The second set from ILoveLanguages!, well we should all know by now their work is extremely unreliable; and to use Schleicher's Fable ("The Sheep and the Horse") for "Early Proto-Uralic", which was spoken by hunter-gatherers who didn't even have words for 'sheep' or 'horse' (see e.g. Aikio 2022), would be comical if it weren't so misleading to a general audience that wants to believe in deep theories like Indo-Uralic without ever reading a single publication. Apparently, that Proto-Uralic fable originates from a Youtuber named ABAlphaBeta, who either found it elsewhere or just made it up in bad faith: *kewe (UEW) does not mean 'sheep' in any Uralic language, and *lugV 'horse' is only found in the Ugric branch. Unfortunately, many proponents of Indo-Uralic like to push the "truth" as far as they can to serve their own wishes. If you'd like to read intelligent publications with a position on Indo-Uralic, some examples in support of the theory include Kallio 2018, Kassian & Zhivlov & Starostin 2015, and Hyllested 2004; and some against the theory include Grünthal et al. 2022, Holopainen 2020, and Ringe 2015.
@ Gio
Catholics & Orthodox shold stick together against the war-mongering rainbow- alphabet coalition, who seem to have purchased most EU politicians.
I think NATo and the EU will collapse in the next couple of years. Hopefully Europe re-invents itself, turns back to its roots, and does the needful
@Rob
"@ Gio
Catholics & Orthodox shold stick together against the war-mongering rainbow- alphabet coalition, who seem to have purchased most EU politicians.
I think NATo and the EU will collapse in the next couple of years. Hopefully Europe re-invents itself, turns back to its roots, and does the needful"
If you have carefully been reading part of my posts you should know that I am not a believer (I have been studying these arguments for all my life, at least from when i was 13 and read the "Lineamenti di storia delle religioni" of Ambrogio Donini) and all the faiths are whorf nothing to me. I dislike also who is for a Y marker against the others: not only R1b against R1a, which is absurd being them the sons of R1, but also hgs I, or J. I sopposed that probably they were linked in Europe in the Palaeolithic and I supposed that J2b expanded from central or Baltic Europe more than the Caucasus, and nothing against the Caucasus of course. I consider enemies, deadly enemies, who is against our identity, both in the body and in the mind, and of course I don't consider the Russians as enemies but of the same world… and my Y is probably "Russian" more than Italic, if not probably in older times.
@Finngreek
you are a professional linguist (perhaps of old knowledge), I am only an amateur, and I thank you for your suggestions. I convinced me that IE and Uralic were linked in the Palaeolithic when I was a "teen" and had my first grammar of Hungarian Language at hands. The conjugation of the verb convinced me, as Alfredo Trombetti linked Basque and Caucasian languages just through the conjugation of the verb. By looking Yesterday evening at a close link, I discovered the paper of our friend Davidski (who probably gets too many nicknames) that I didn't know and I'll study that with great pleasure, also because I have been studying these arguments for al my life (I know also Arbereshe Language) and writing about that and don't forget that Albanian Language has 40% of Latin words.
@Gio That's all fine, I just wanted to make sure you weren't misled by those resources. I am formally agnostic about Indo-Uralic; but there is a major quality control problem with Indo-Uralic research (It's not just a Carlos Quiles problem: There are many authors desperate to make Indo-Uralic seem true without proper evidence: Even professional linguists). Maybe Indo-Uralic is true, maybe it isn't - I lean towards "no", but I'm open to new research.
😨
@ FinnGreek
How would you personally explain some apparently “fundamental” lexical similarities between IE and Uralic ? (IIRC body parts , some family nouns, etc)
I asked chat gpity what she knows about Davidski, this is what she got
David Veselovsky, known by the pseudonyms Davidski and Polako, is the creator of the genetic calculator Eurogenes K36, developed in 2012–2013. This tool is designed for genome analysis, helping to determine the contribution of various ancient and modern populations to an individual's genetic makeup.
Eurogenes K36 classifies genetic samples into 36 population clusters, allowing users to identify their ancestral components. The calculator is available on GedMatch, where users can upload their genetic data to receive insights into their genetic origins.
Results from Eurogenes K36 are widely used in genetic research and personal ancestry analysis. For example, companies like Genotek utilize this tool to interpret the ethnic composition of their clients.
David Veselovsky has significantly contributed to the field of genetic ancestry analysis, providing researchers and enthusiasts with powerful tools to explore their genetic heritage.
@Rob can you try running Krivyansky as Aruchlo_LN_2/Caucasus_Eneolithic + Ekaterinovka + GK_Meso/Ukraine_N?
@Davidski
Rob wrote: "Catholics & Orthodox shold stick together against the war-mongering rainbow- alphabet coalition, who seem to have purchased most EU politicians.
I think NATo and the EU will collapse in the next couple of years. Hopefully Europe re-invents itself, turns back to its roots, and does the needful"
That's clearly referring to the Russo-Ukraine war! I thought that was off-topic here.
An investigation into the Early Bronze Age cemetery of Başur Höyük
"On the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates, archaeologists encounter evidence that challenges conventional understandings of early state formation as a transition from ‘small-scale, egalitarian’ to ‘large- scale, stratified’ societies. One such location is the Early Bronze Age cemetery of Başur Höyük, which presents evidence of grand funerary rituals—including ‘retainer burials’ and spectacular deposits of metallic wealth—in an otherwise small-scale, egalitarian setting. A further, puzzling feature of this cemetery is the preponderance of teenagers in the richest tombs. Here we describe the combined results of archaeological and anthropological analysis at Başur Höyük, including ancient DNA, and consider the challenges they pose to traditional accounts of early state formation."
I guess we'll get another chance to see Lazaridis' "Hittites".
@Rob It's hard for me to comment on that without providing a specific resource, because that would allow us to factor in the quality of data and reputation of the author. What I will say to you, as I have already said in discussions with professional Uralicists, is that after many decades of research into Indo-Uralic by both mainstream linguists and hobbyists, there has been no agreement on a phonological paradigm by even those circles who promote the idea in their own research. Without a functional paradigm, Indo-Uralic can not be a proper theory. There may be similar-looking terms for family members, personal verb endings etc. across the "Eurasiatic/Nostratic" scenes that are considered for genetic relations, but that is a deeper-level matter than an exclusive IU theory. Nobody should be convinced that IU is real until its proponents have agreed upon how to reconstruct it. The only decent example I've seen of someone at least try to reconstruct PIU was in the aforementioned Hyllested, Adam 2004; but that research (or anyone's version of PIU) has not been relied upon since then by any mainstream proponents of IU. Instead, we have dozens of enthusiasts starting from scratch, trying to be the one who "cracks the code" and gets the glory - yet nobody has gotten it, despite the cult-like fixation many have on wanting IU to be true. We determined that Indo-European and Uralic were language families by reconstructing their ancestors. Although certain linguists have their own versions of how to properly reconstruct those lemmas via critical phonological review, we ultimately rely upon the same data. There is currently no equivalent standard for IU research - and it's not for lack of trying. The state of IU research can not be furthered until its proponents rely on the comparative method to reconstruct PIU. It's 2025 now, and we are still waiting.
@ Anon
I have it on another desktop, will post in a week
@ SimonW
Whoops my bad. But at least you, Kamala and Klaus Schwab can take refuge in Swiss Alps lair
@All
You can now get the G25 coords via this link.
https://g25requests.app/
@Davidski.
Great job 👍
@ FinnGreek
Thanks for your viewpoint.
@ EthanR
Well all data is good data. ;)
I took this from the telegram channel:
Academician Kh.A. Amirkhanov is a leading specialist in the field of prehistoric archaeology of the Caucasus.
The archaeologist noted that two paths of Neolithization can be identified in the Eastern Caucasus: classical and alternative.
1️⃣ **Classical Path**: This path is characterized by a comprehensive transformation of all aspects of life, including domestic, economic, and production spheres. In the Eastern Caucasus, it is represented by two variants: the **conversive (Shulaveri-Shomutepe)** and the **heterogeneous (Chokh)** variants.
2️⃣ **Alternative Path**: This path did not lead to significant sociocultural changes in the region under consideration. It was mainly limited to the improvement of hunting equipment and better adaptation to the relatively scarce resources of the area it spread to. In the Eastern Caucasus, this path is realized in the **Gobustan Neolithic culture**.
For Neolithization, Academician Kh.A. Amirkhanov proposed the following terms: conversive, evolutionary, and heterogeneous.
1️⃣ **Conversive**: Characterized by total cultural replacement or a fundamental change in the cultural complex (Shulaveri-Shomutepe variant).
2️⃣ **Evolutionary**: Involves gradual changes through an evolutionary path, mainly based on local cultural foundations (Gobustan variant).
3️⃣ **Heterogeneous**: Involves the formation of a Neolithic-type complex with the participation of various components rooted in a diverse cultural substrate. This type of Neolithization in the Eastern Caucasus is demonstrated by the **Chokh archaeological culture**.
**Conversive (Shulaveri-Shomutepe) Variant of Neolithization in the Eastern Caucasus**:
The conceptual approach to solving the problem of the origins of the main Neolithic culture of the Eastern Transcaucasia (Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture) among many researchers boils down mainly to two postulates:
- The roots of this culture go back to the local base (Kura Lowland, Armenian Highlands).
- The formation of the Neolithic had a linear development here, regardless of which specific local part of the Eastern Caucasus it was realized in.
**Evolutionary (Gobustan) Variant of Neolithization in the Eastern Caucasus**:
This variant is represented by materials from Gobustan. Changes associated with the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic are limited here to typological and technological modifications of stone tools. They are not accompanied by the emergence of fundamental innovations such as the appearance of permanent settlements, domestication of agricultural animals, and cultivation of plants.
**Heterogeneous (Chokh) Variant of Neolithization**:
Clearly represented in the Chokh archaeological culture, this variant demonstrates the possibility of a more complex path of forming a Neolithic complex in a region like the one under consideration.
This model of Neolithization is characterized by the external borrowing of fundamentally significant technological innovations that change the cultural status but do not completely erase elements of typological specificity stemming from the indigenous local Mesolithic substrate.
Additionally, all this is combined with the emergence of cultural and economic inventory characteristic of the classical Neolithic with a producing economy.
Among the most important findings representing the cultural innovations of Chokh's Neolithic are undoubtedly archaeozoological and archaeobotanical remains.
East Germans show great affinity with Celts and Germanics (60-70%) even with a modern Polish-like source as "pure" Slavs, not need to use crappy Latvian proxy. The Early Slavs in Poland will generally resemble Belarussians/West Ukrainians the most, possibly with some outliers touching South Slavs (possibly mixed with Dacians near the border of Ukraine) and definitely there will be Latvians and Lithuanian outliers. The Y-DNA of the Slavs always point to Ukraine/Belorussia/South Poland. And given the territory size those people were definitely more numerous.
Nearly complete replacement could happen happen. One can see this in a region like Sicily, where the native IA population was strikingly different from mainland Italics (and the other migrants from Near East). This is, of course, different as the difference between Celts, Slavs and Germanics are not so pronounced.
You cant have proto-Slavic without I2a-CTS10228. I doubt this lineage will be found in Belarus. Maybe it will, but i'd bet west Ukraine, north Moldova, Bukovina, etc. Indeed, L621 is found in Bronze Age east Romania.
Maybe the Lion's share of G-W anestry is Belarus-IA like, but that isnt synonmymous with proto-Slavic expansion.
Donny
Western Ukrainians are genetically West Slavs. Belarusians and northeastern Poles are a mix of West Slavs and Iron Age Balts. In Poland there was no population exchange in the Middle Ages. In medieval Poland there was Slavicization of Balts. Therefore the Poland MA population has a range of genetic variation from Germans to Latvians. This is also visible in Speidel's models, where Poland MA is Slovakia IA plus Lithuania IA.
@ambron
Genetic structure of Slavic countries is much more complex and multidimensional than a simple division on West Slavs and East Slavs.
This image is self-explanatory.
https://i.imgur.com/JA25ttE.png
I am looking at this new Iranian Y DNA, the Achaemenids are all J2b. Hmmmmm.
Evaluating other possible source populations, we demonstrate through f4-statistics in the form of f4(CHG, Test, Samara_EBA_Yamnaya, Mbuti.DG) and qpAdm models, that the BA Steppe affinities is only apparent due to shared CHG-related ancestries, which were previously defined in the BA Steppe communities (represented in our dataset with Samara_EBA_Yamnaya, Supplementary tables S11,13). The AHG-type ancestry detected in ADMIXTURE persists into the historical period. Moreover, in some deep ancestry qpAdm models of the historical individuals, the AHG (Onge) component reaches detectable thresholds.
----
We demonstrated a strong Iranian Neolithic and CHG substrate in the historical-period samples from northern Iran, where these genetic components persisted in the pre- Medieval era. We confirmed the continuity from the Chalcolithic-Bronze Age into this period in northeastern Iran, despite this area hosting part of the Silk Road, which facilitated extensive human movement. Bronze Age Steppe ancestry remained relatively minor during the historical period in northern Iran. Instead, the historic period population of the northern Iranian Plateau exhibited strong genetic affinities with the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age communities of Turkmenistan, and northeastern-eastern Iran, forming homogeneous groups in our analyses as a part of the described east-west cline. As only one Iron Age genome is available from Turkmenistan, and there are none from the northeastern Iranian Plateau, further sampling is necessary to investigate the dynamics of this era, particularly to determine whether contacts between the two regions were sustained or disrupted after the Bronze Age.
No R1 and only insignificant Steppe ancestry among the earliest Iranians. Reminds me of the Greeks. Hmmmmmmm.
@Romul
Wezmeh has an additional small onge admix relative to ganjdareh?
If these "Achaemenids" are Mazandarani profile then they do have Steppe admixture but as usual the authors might have produced crappy models. I already see OITards wilding about this paper on X. Not sure how many years the data release is gonna take
Could we get coords for the Takarkori sample?
https://ufile.io/j2wh0t12
Post a Comment