Very interesting result of an European Hun 👍👌 Honestly I've expected more Western Euroasian dna (Eastern European, Balkan or Baltic at first, but Scandinavian/Viking is also not a surprise), not expected at all Sub - Saharian ancestry which is probably some noise or approximation. Regards 🙌
Many of the peoples who formed a part of their imperial confederation could also speak Hunnic (Oghuric Turkic). When the East Romans with Theognis negotiate with the Avar Khagan Bayan interpreters are said to have translated Greek into Hunnic to Bayan for an assessment of the armaments, composition and military power of the Avar armies.
Avar Bayan is Totally Mongol. Bayan is Mongolian name. Batbayan European hunnic king. Bayan is Avar Mongolian Khan. Bat is a Grandson of Genghis khan all have common ancestry.
For sure, everybody is Mongolian, the Hunnus, the Avars, the Scythes, everybody. However I'm anxious, what the Bulgarians (yes, that folk) found of it. Or the Chuvash people. They are the last Onugors left... perhaps the Magyars too?
@@iszb5339😊Turkish, but some other time- "Moreover, almost all the Halani are tall and handsome, their hair inclines to blond, by the ferocity of their glance they inspire dread, subdued though it is. They are light and active in the use of arms. In all respects they are somewhat like the Huns, but in their manner of life and their habits they are less savage.”-Am.Marc.XXXI.2.21
@@iszb5339Everyone is Mongolian? Until Genghis Khan came along Mongolian was a minor tribe. Xiongnu and Yemaek ruled NorthEast Asia. Even emperor of Qin dynasty was not Xia Chinese but Yemaek ethnicity modern Chinese calls Donyi. Emperors of Sui and Tang dynasty were also Dongyi. Ming had Xia ethnic emperor and that is reason why modern Chinese likes Ming dynasty. Last dynasty Qing was also not Xia or Han Chinese but Manchurian Yemaek. Distant descendants of Xiongnu mixed with Southern Korean but founded a kingdom with Jurchins majority in Manchuria and conquered central plain of modern day China.
Theophylact Simocattes asserts that Bayan's people had only adopted the awe-inspiring name of the Avars proper and that in fact the two tribes of these Pseudo-Avars, the Var and the Chunni, were of the same origin and spoke the same language, as the peoples joining them later; they belonged to the Oghur (Ogor, Ugor) ethnic group which spoke in all probability an Altaic or to be more exact a Bulghar- Turkic dialect. Denis Sinor | The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 1990 (pp.222)
It is obvious why the Hungarians are despised today. I think it is a greater shame to have remained a state for 1300 years and not learned how to fight. Those who learned how to fight from the Huns are trying to call them barbarians. If the Hungarians will buy this respect, they will always be respected in Eurasia.
@@reinerelierilke4409 indo-european language family,R and brother Q is Siberian Altaic Turkic and Native american man😆 Altaic man+european and indian women=yamnaya,indo-aryan,indo-european,Tagar culture🤣
In the case of Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic, certain loanwords in the Mongolic languages point to early contact with Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric) Turkic, also known as r-Turkic. These loanwords precede Common Turkic (z-Turkic) loanwords and include: • Mongolic ikere (twins) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric ikir (versus Common Turkic ekiz) • Mongolic hüker (ox) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric hekür (Common Turkic öküz) • Mongolic jer (weapon) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaric jer (Common Turkic yäz) • Mongolic biragu (calf) versus Common Turkic buzagu • Mongolic siri- (to smelt ore) versus Common Turkic siz- (to melt) The above words are thought to have been borrowed from Oghur Turkic during the time of the Xiongnu. Later Turkic peoples in Mongolia all spoke forms of Common Turkic (z-Turkic) as opposed to Oghur (Bulgharic) Turkic, which withdrew to the west in the 4th century. The Chuvash language, spoken by 1 million people in European Russia, is the only living representative of Oghur Turkic which split from Proto Turkic around the 1st century AD. Words in Mongolic like dayir (brown, Common Turkic yagiz) and nidurga (fist, Common Turkic yudruk) with initial *d and *n versus Common Turkic *y are sufficiently archaic to indicate loans from an earlier stage of Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric). This is because Chuvash and Common Turkic do not differ in these features despite differing fundamentally in rhotacism-lambdacism (Janhunen 2006). Oghur tribes lived in the Mongolian borderlands before the 5th century, and provided Oghur loanwords to Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic before Common Turkic loanwords. Golden 2011, p. 31.
You have take into account the fact that Huns were not united by their ethnicity, but by religion or by an idea of the world-view they shared. So the fact that one Hun was of certain ethnicite doesnt mean that he represents an average Hun. Just my 2 cents
According to the revised phylogenetic tree of C2*-ST in this study, we propose that sub-lineage C261a3a1c2-F5481/ SK1075 is an important clade of C2*-ST in Central Asia and adjacent region (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S3). Haplogroup C21a3alc2-F5481 only had one DEFINITIVE MARKER and gave birth to five different sub-branches determined by samples from MONGOLIAN POPULATION and populations from Central Asia, such as HAZARA, KAZAKHS, and KIRGIZ (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S3). As discussed in the Supplementary Text, Manghit, Keneges, Dulat, and Hazara can be CLEARLY TRACED to NIRU'UN MONGOLS. They are all descendants of the armies sent to various regions and is traced back 2600 years.
Haplogroup Q or Q-M242 is a Y chromosome DNA haplogroup. It has a primary subclade called haplogroup Q1 (L232/S432), which includes numerous subclades that have been sampled and identified among males in modern populations. The origin of this haplogroup is in Siberia and related to the ancient Turkic tribes, Gok Turks, Huns and Native Americans, the spread of this haplogroup in Iran is related to the migration of Turkic tribes, and this haplogroup is mostly found in Golestan province among the Turkmens.Historically and genetically, this haplogroup is attributed to early and ancient Turks, including Gok Turks, Huns and Oghuz Turks, also about 92% of South American natives, 73% of Uzbekistan Turkmen, 50% of Turkmenistan Turkmen, 42.5% of Golestan Province Turkmen belong to this haplogroup. Q belong. This haplogroup is present in 63% of Altai Turks, 38% in Siberian Tatars. In Siberia, the regions between the Altai and Lake Baikal, known for many prehistoric cultures and as the most likely birthplace of the Q haplogroup, Q-M242 is found in high abundance.
Only if to consider that My heritage ethnicity interpretation, but in reality 5:22 this Hun is not even close to Mansi or Ugric people, but rather Mongols(Kalmyk, Buryat, Mongolians) Altaians, Tuvans, Kirghiz.
@@-andreiDNAI know for u lol, I’m subscribed to your genetic channel, my comment was addressed for people who are not specialist and would take your comment without grain of salt.
I am Chinese. The Huns are closer to the Turkic language family, and their ancestors are mainly Scythians and American Indians (commoners and ruling class). The Huns' paternal line is white male. The Mongols were a Donghu tribe. After being defeated by the Huns, Mongolian women became the assets of the Huns, so the Huns carried Mongolian genes on their autosomes.
@@kasyakyoubfgamindikisboratThere were many Samartian(Alan) living in Gaul due to Attila and the Huns conquered Gaul. Alans were closely connected to the Huns.
Ancient khmer - modern Nepal thapa gurung Celtic gauls - modern turkey Celtic iberians - among Italians and french coastal people Sarmatians - Prussian germany Ukrainian poland Latvia Lithuania Phoenician - greece Sicily Algeria Tunisia and Palestine Lebanon
@@kasyakyoubfgamindikisborat Arya had five wave-directions from pamir knot bhatkandi temple of Sharda in kashmir was in madhyadesha central Kingdom and was cultural centre and tashkurgan or mound of stones erected was the epicentre of Arya panchamukh The second wave moved from pamir to lake qinghai and colonised whole of China by burning yellow river floodplains and introducing agriculture Ancient China Sichuan was at the edge and used these Arya as proto turkik tribes to cover east China , When han and east nomads became powerful they pushed these indo European Arya out many stages - Huns of Europe, Huns of india, kushans , turks , all were sons of those mummies of takla makaan which means in Arabic house of death
@@hamsolo5320 alaans were those cousins of Huns who were pushed from Kazakhstan to Europe because they refused to be feudalised as huun slaves Feudalism in Europe and in india is a gift of Huns
R1A1 all of the sub groups of it originate from Indo-Iranic/Indo European people though it is fascinating that a long time ago it would have become a part of the Xiongu from ancient mixing.
Hey Decimali, thanks for keeping uploading those videos, enjoy a lot your work. I have an idea for next ancient DNA could you do an Ancient Tibetan. In a recent genetic study « Human genetic history on the Tibetan Plateau in the past 5100 years » there were a lot of new studied paleo DNA from Tibetan plateau dating back to 5100. It would be interesting if you could make the video analyse of one these ancient Tibetan samples.
DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture. The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia. Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period. Keyser-Tracqui, C., et al. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. American Journal of Human Genetics73, 247-260 (August 2003).
Turkic people originated in central-west Asia. Xiongnu is famous in Chinese history and never forgotten. Xiongnu ruled the region of today’s Mongolia and the “Stan” countries in ancient times, Chinese, before defeating Xiongnu in the third century, paid tribute to them, and the only people Chinese paid tribute to. The DNA data indicates that Huns and Xiongnu were related. Xiongnu migrated west after defeated by the Chinese at last, and Xiongnu disappeared in Chinese records. then about two hundred years later the Huns showed up in the Roman records, and said they came from the East. Huns were Xiongnu mixed with the Central Asian Turkic people during the 200 years of migration to the west. But pure Xiongnu was Mongolic people, and the mongols were descendants of Xiongnu.
Interesting, Ive always felt a kinship to ancient Huns, this confirmed my suspensions!! Living DNA sent me matches of ancient burial sites. I matched to ancient Russian burials, the Steepe, and basically the same results, minus the Inuit
R1a-Z94 was formed about 4700 years ago in the Eurasian Steppes and is associated with the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures. These cultures developed from eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples from Europe to Central Asia. R1a-Z94 and its subsequent subclades is now considered the quintessential haplogroup of Eurasian nomads of Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry (Indo-European peoples). The Xiongnu most likely acquired R1a-Z94 from eastward migrations of Andronovo Culture peoples but they had mostly East Asian Altaic genetics. R1a-Z94 is not uncommon in samples of European Huns, Avars, Hungarian Conquerors and Onogur-Bulgars and most likely comes from mixing with Scytho-Sarmatian elements on their migration to Europe. R1a-Z94 doesn't have anything to do with Mongolian ancestry.
Haplogroup C21a3alc2-F5481 only had one DEFINITIVE MARKER and gave birth to five different sub-branches determined by samples from MONGOLIAN POPULATION and populations from Central Asia, such as HAZARA, KAZAKHS, and KIRGIZ (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S3). As discussed in the Supplementary Text, Manghit, Keneges, Dulat, and Hazara can be CLEARLY TRACED to NIRU'UN MONGOLS. They are all descendants of the armies sent to various regions and is traced back 2600 years.
This sample has a lot of Mongolian genes, which doesnt match the Tian Shan Hun, Gok Turk, and Xiongnu samples reviewed earlier. In those samples, the index of Mongolia was not high or was 0%, but the index of Central Asia was high. Also, in GEDmatch, he is 50% East Asian, which is not very common for a Hun with mainly Siberian genetic structure. He seems to be a mixture of Huns and Xianbei early Mongols (who were introduced in large numbers into the Hunnic community).
He simply has too much West Eurasian admixtures to be a Mongolian. At that time span Mongolians had just 0-2 percent West Eurasian admixtures. Besides Y-DNA R1a haplogroup almost never exists in Mongolians. His genetics has exact match with a noble Turk of that time span. Noble Turks had highly mixed biological ancestries as their ancestors were making marriages with the noble of the lands they have been in to acquire lands, dowries and to establish alliances. His paternal lineage was protected because of this. His high West Eurasian admixtures means that if he made a marriage with a blond Germanic girl his children would be blond and Europoid. If he was a true Mongolian even if he made marriage a blond Germanic girl his children would have have typical physical traits of East Eurasian people.
@@umhvdfjkczxcgjdryjndfjobff There is no such a thing like Mongolian DNA. There is only East Eurasian, admixtures and haplogroups. Mongolians (actualy they were proto-Mongolians) at these ancient times had almost zero West Eurasian admixture. That's enough to eliminate the possibility that Altai Scythians were proto-Mongolians. In Altai region and southern Siberia only Turks and proto-Turks had both West Eurasian and East Eurasian admixtures. That's because those were the samples extracted from the noble people and the proto Turks just like the Turks had the practice of making marriages with the nobles of the adjacent states and empires in order to acquire lands, dowries and to establish alliances.
The Gaoju (高車 lit. "High Cart"), also known as Tiele,[90] were early Turkic speakers related to the earlier Dingling,[91][92] who were once conquered by the Xiongnu.[93][94] Weishu also mentioned the linguistic and ethnic proximity between the Gaoju and the Xiongnu.[95] de la Vaissière proposes that the Hephthalites had originally been one Oghuric-speaking tribe who belonged the Gaoju/Tiele confederation.[82][96][97] This can be surmised by analysing the names of Hunnic princes and tribes. The names of the following Hunnic princes are clearly Oghuric Turkic in origin: Mundzuk (Attila's father, from Turkic Munc uq = pearl/jewel: for an in-depth discussion of the Hunnic origin of this name in particular see Schramm (1969), 139-40), Oktar/Uptar (Attila's uncle, Öktär brave/powerful), Oebarsius (another of Attila's paternal uncles, Arbårs leopard of the moon), Karaton (Hunnic supreme king before Ruga, Qarâton = black-cloak), Basik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, early fifth century, Bársig = governor), Kursik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, from either Kürsig, meaning brave or noble, or Quršiq meaning belt-bearer). For these etymologies see Bona (1991), 33. Three of Attila's known sons. have probable Turkic names: Ellac, Dengizich, Hernak, and Attila's principal wife, the mother of the crown prince' Ellac, has the Turkic name Herekan, as does another notable wife named Eskam. See Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 392-415. See also Bona (1991), 33-5, and Pritsak (1956), 414. Most known Hunnic tribal names are also Turkic, Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 427-41, e.g. Ultincur, Akatir etc. The cur suffix in many of these names is a well-known Turkic title and as Beckwith (1987), 209, points out the To-lu or Tardus tribes (Hunnic in origin) of the Western Turkish On Oq were each headed by a Cur (noble). Zieme (2006), 115, speculates that the title cur belongs to a pre-Turkic Tocharian stratum of the Turkic language, which, if true, again highlights the essential heterogeneity of Central Asian peoples and even languages. See also Aalto (1971), 35. In addition to this primary language (Oghuric Turkic), Priscus informs us that Latin and Gothic were also understood by the Hunnic elite. See Priscus, fr. 13.3, Blockley (1983), 289. The name of Ellac, Attila’s eldest son, is a corruption of the Turkic älik ( ilik ) meaning ‘ruler, king’. 21 Ernak/Irnik the youngest son also has the variation of the same suffix in his name. His name is probably Turkic är-näk , meaning ‘great hero’, with the suffix here functioning as an augmentation of the Turkic är-än (hero). 22 Thus the suffix -ik/ich was used in Hunnic to imply greatness (i.e. ruler or kingship). These names were, it seems, formal court titles rather than personal names. Kim, H. (2013). The end of the Hunnic Empire in the west. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 89-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naturally we also have more probable Turkic etymologies for these names, especially for those of Attila and Bleda. However, even if they were Germanic or Germanicized Turkic names," ,99 this does not allow us to make any hasty assumptions about the official language of the empire, if it ever existed. What Heather ignores is the fact that we have convincing or highly probable Turkic etymologies for the names of many of the other Hunnic kings and nobles before and after Attila, e.g. Mundzuk (Attila's father, from Turkic Muncuq = 'pearl/jewel'), Oktar/Uptar (Attila's uncle, Öktär = "brave/power ful'), Oebarsius (another of Attila's paternal uncles, Aïbârs = 'leopard of the moon'), Karaton (Hunnic supreme king before Ruga, Qaraton = 'black cloak'), Basik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, early fifth century, Bårsig= 'governor'), Kursik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, from either Kürsig, meaning 'brave or noble', or Qursiq meaning 'belt-bearer'). All three of Attila's known sons have probable Turkic names: Ellac, Dengizich, Hernak, and Attila's principal wife, the mother of the first son Ellac, has the Turkic name Herekan, as does another wife named Eskam (Ešqam = 'companion of the Shaman).102 It seems highly likely then from the names that we do know, most of which seem to be Turkic, that the Hunnic elite was predominantly Turkic speaking. However, in the western half of the empire, where most of their subjects spoke Germanic languages, the Huns may have used both Hunnic (Oghuric Turkic) and Gothic. Thus fief holders and royal family mem Ibers in the west who ruled Germanic tribes often bore Germanic or Germanicized titles (of great significance, as we will discover later on in the book), e.g. Laudaricus and Ardaric.105 Priscus, who is our only reliable source, being an actual eye-witness, tells us that at the Hunnic court Hunnic, Gothic and Latin were spoken, but with Hunnic always men tioned before Gothic. All three languages were apparently understood by the elite to some degree, so much so that Zercon the Moor could provoke laughter by jumbling all three together at a Hunnic banquet in the presence of Attila.107 There is, however, no indication anywhere that any of these three languages was the lingua franca. Kim, H. (2013). Notes. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haussig (2000), 277, suggests that Oult or Oulti is a Greek rendering of the Oghuric Turkic word for the number six. What is interesting is the fact that in names such as Oultizouroi and Ultzincur above we have clearly two elements Oulti (six) + the Turkic title Cur (noble), meaning ‘the six lords’. Kim, H. (2013). Notes. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 159-275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The core Turkic tribes of the Hunnic Empire from very early on all possessed different names: Akatziri , Alpidzuri, etc. in addition to their Hunnic identity. Kim, H. (2013). Introduction. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huns: 1. Scythian (Indoeuropean) father - Y Hg - R1a. 2. East Asian/Siberian mother - mt hg - D. 3. Autosomal admixture: most of East Asian with some of European Admixture. Change my mind
@@Altaicwarrior It was the ancient Scythians who spread these haplogroups throughout Eurasia. Part of the remains of the Scythians can be found in the vicinity of Siberia and Mongolia. On the other hand, the southern Scythians (known as Aryans) invaded India a long time ago. Hence the occurrence of this haplogroup in the north of this country. All Europeans (Indo-Europeans) with haplogroup r1a/r1b came from the steppe.. But haplogroup Q is 100% Siberian - also occurs in American Indians
@@Altaicwarrior If this Hun carried haplogroup C or Q, I would not consider that his ancestor was a Scythian. Meanwhile, there are rumors that Genghis Khan carried haplogroup R1b.
It's now agreed over that the Xiongnu, European Huns, & White Huns were a common Hunnic people whereas their ethno-linguistic affiliation is presumed to be Oghur Turkic Reconstruction of the Turkic Jie language, spoken by the Jie people, a Xiongnu tribal group su-Ø kete-r erkan boklug-gu tukta-ŋ English translation : When/as the army goes out, capture the Boklug (a chief) ! The Hunnic inscription on a dinner plate belonging to the last ruler of the Huns, Dengizich, was identified as Turkic. The Hunnic sample of Khan Diggiz plate ; kinkeg dikkiz ükü essä - kijü sax sax saxynil gür täηrig English translation : Beware of king Dikkiz the Wise's blow ! Retreat to the Tengri (God) beyond the world!
Modern Mongolians are a mixture of Xianbei (N1), Siberian (C2) Tungus and Han Chinese (O2). The Han people of North China have a lot of Mongolian, Siberian, and Turkish DNA, so this means that the Great Wall of China was destroyed.
The Huns were the ruling elite, who ruled the local people. Only Hungarians that descend from the elites would carry any of this DNA. The majority of Hungarians are going to have local east and south east European DNA.
@@tonyturntable8025Deutsch call us Hungarian-Macar-Scythians as German in form of UnGar and not themselves where Ugar,UnGar,InGar,HonGri,VenGri,WanGer...OnoGuri always applies to Hungarians irrelevantly of the version and not a Deutsch-Roman group.
@Rhksnbdjska lol ok....but by this theory, Finnish people kept running away from home.....l watched lots of these videos and almost everyone has Finnish DNA.
@@maik4946 Finnish people have a general mix of steppe and northern (finnic) ancestry, and the ancestral components of that which is correlated to 'relations' which are made by the kit estimates.
@@RahulVerma-iv8ph In comparison between Turks and Mongolians it decides many things because particular Y-DNA haplogroup never exist Mongolians and it's abundant in Turks.
@@RahulVerma-iv8ph My friend DNA doesn't define ethnicity. Ethnicity is about language, culture and lineage. DNA isn't an accurate ancestry recording machine, and people cannot learn their ancestries beyond 6 generation because DNA doesn't keep more genetic information about ancestries of people more than this and these DNA samples are compared with only limited amount of ancient DNA samples. Besides gene pools of ethnicities all the time englarge depending on migrations. That's why every single ethnicity in the world has multiple biological ancestries both from maternal and paternal sides DNA rather gives us information about migration patterns and migration routes of humans. Since East Eurasian and West Eurasian people were living in different geographical locations for a long time they have no biological ancestries other than with the ones that existed in their own geographies. Turks are an exception in that regard as they were the ones who started the mixing of east and west Eurasian people in Xiongnu times by conquering the lands where East Eurasian people were living. If we see those DNA samples which are in the form of blend of West Eurasian and East Eurasian admixtures significantly higher than both East Eurasian and West Eurasian people we can confidently say they're the Turks because Turks are the only ethnicity which had both of these admixtures since they appeared as a distinct ethnic group. Also because those samples normally all belong to noble people and traditionaly the nobles in Turks marry the nobles of adjacent and neighbouring countries in order to get dowries and to acquire lands and Turks have been the inhabitants of the lands of west Eurasian and East Eurasian people for a long long time.
Y-DNA haplogroup of him clearly suggests that he wasn't Mongolian. R1a haplogroup almost never exists in Mongolians. He has all the genetic traits of a noble Turk who is heavily mixed with the nobles of the lands his ancestors have been in order to acqurie lands and dowries as well as to establish alliances but naturally his paternal lineage was preserved.
Actually the level of R1a is the same in Turkey than in Mongolia (low level, look on an haplogroup map). However Y haplogroup is a very minor part of the genetic background from an individual (like 0,00001%). The most important part is admixture and this european elite Hun has a lot central asian and Mongolian dna.
Haplogroups can be more frequent in other places than their origins, as per subclades until new differentiations. Haplogroup R, as per that part of the Steppe-Siberia can be associated with the more ancestral Ancient North Eurasians whose descendants share the paternal lineage namely across west Eurasians, including the 'intermediary' Turks. With that being said, he could have been nearly as easily corded ware or indo-european descended unless you believe that is apart of the ethnogenesis or ethnic makeup of some or many turks to begin with. The issue is that a subclade of which he belongs is not mentioned.
@@ainz1998 Is it 'American Indian', or is it rather the element of Eurasia, which was largely the minority and in-land (Ancient North Eurasian, rather than the large eastern proto-siberian-like migratory (and first wave) peoples? The integration, and rather the formulation of peoples is evident when one takes, for instance as per the historical common, women as wives. Likewise, however, the paternal lineages which can be so distant persisted as per people themselves across groups. Would then the Huns be entirely paternally descended from 'White males', (West-Eurasians/Prehistoric and Ancient lineages derived from Aryans in ANE) or also other elements? I would say, entirely though, that your conclusions are proper if there is only a contrast in wording. I very much hold to the idea, as per influence, hence admixture, that Turkic peoples were foremost of intermingling culturally between West & East Eurasia, as alike, there was influence between Mongolic and Altaic, along with other Siberian tribes and peoples.
@@papazataklaattiranimamDon’t bring your purely linguistic term of turkic😂 Mongol is an large modern ethnic group with subgroups like Barga-Buryat,, Khalkha, Oirat, Deed, Ovur, Dagur. And we are closer to Huns than even Central Asians
@@barguttobed Turkic being "only linguistic" is western bullcrap. In Orkhon inscription the term Türük is more than a linguistic reference. Yes, Turkics are heterogeneous , but can be traced to common ancestors. In today's politics there is the "Turkic Council" where Turkic states still try to support each other. Kurdish people in Turkey who speak Turkish or even have Turkish surenames don't identify themselves as Turks nor are they viewed as such.
Neparáczki et al. 2019, p. 1. "Haplogroups from the Hun-age are consistent with Xiongnu ancestry of European Huns." Keyser et al. 2020, pp. 1, 8-9. "[O]ur findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied.... [W]e propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants... [E]ast Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since... Some Xiongnu paternal and maternal haplotypes could be found in the gene pool of the Huns, the Avars, as well as Mongolian and Hungarian conquerors."
the first known Turkic expansion is identified with the polyglot Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) empire ca. 3rd c. BC - AD 48, mostly based on the interpretation the language of the so-called Jie couplet included in Jin Shu, a history of the Jin dynasty period (Shiratori, 1900; Benzing, 1959; Tenišev, 1997; Schönig, 1997-1998; Dybo, 2007; Janhunen, 2010). More than a dozen readings of the Jie couplet are available in the literature, and most of them iden- tify its language as an early Turkic variety. Those include the oft-cited reading by Ramstedt (1922), who based himself on Shiratori (1900) and was followed by Bazin (1948) and Gabain (1949).
The history of the Gaoju is given in the respective entry in WS 103 + (pp. 2505-2508); until the beginning of Text 1.056/B it is extracted as follows. 高車,蓋古赤狄之餘種也初號為狄歷,北方以為敕勒,諸夏以為高車、丁零。 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異,或云其先匈奴之也。 The Gaoju are probably the remaining tribes of the ancient Chidi [lit. 'the red Di']. Initially they were called Dili. People in the north called them Chile, whereas people in China proper called them Gaoju or Dingling. Their language is roughly the same as that of the Xiongnu but at times has minor differences from that. Some say that their ancestors were the nephew of [i.e. indirectly related to] the Xiongnu.
While its true that there was some controversy about the origin of the Huns, the consensus after recent decades is that they were Turks of Oghuric affiliation, mostly based on credible studies confirming that the vast majority of attested Hunnic names, as well as all Hunnic successor clans are of evident Oghur Turkic origin. All Hunnic tribes (entirely Oghur Turkic) : Akatziri, Onogurs, Utigurs, Sabirs, Bulgars, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Barsils, Balanjars Recorded Hunnic names of Turkic origin : Aigan = moon prince; from Turkic aï & can Alp Ilutuer / Ilteber = heroic chieftain; from Turkic alp & iltäbär Althias = six; from Turkic Alti Akkagas = white rock; from Turkic ak & kayač Atakam = elder shaman; from Turkic ata & kam Balach = calf; from Turkic Malaq Berik = strong; from Turkic Berık Basik = governor; from Turkic Bârsiğ Bleda = wise; from Turkic Bildä Bochas = either gullet; from Turkic Boğuz; or bull, from Buqa Dengizich = ocean-like, heavenly; from Turkic teɲez & dêɲri; or, more simply, great lake Donat / Donatu = horse; from Turkic Yonat Edeco = good; from Turkic Ädgü Ellac = to rule; from Turkic el & lä Emmedzur = horse lord; from Turkic Ämäcur Eskam / Esqam = companion of the shaman; from Turkic Eŝkam Hereka / Kreka = pure princess; from Turkic Arïqan Ernakh / Hernac = small man, heroic man; from Turkic Ernäk Iliger = prince man; from Turkic ilig & är Karadach = black mountain; from Turkic Qaradağ Karaton = black cloak; from Turkic Qarâton Kursik = either noble; from Turkic Kürsiğ; or belt-bearer, from Qurŝiq Kutilzis = blessed herald; from Turkic kut & elči Mundzuk = bead; from Turkic Munčuq Oebarsius / Aybars = moon leopard, from Turkic Aïbârs; or dun leopard, from oy & bars Oldogan / Odolgan = either red falcon; from Turkic al & dogan; or chubby, from Tolgun Oktar / Uptar = brave; from Turkic Öctär Ruga / Rua = wise man; from Turkic Ögä Turgun = still/calm; from Turkic Turkun Uldin = six; from Turkic Alti Zolban = shepherd star; from Turkic Čolpan.
China had repeated attacks from the Xiongnus and Mongolians. For protection a series of Great Walls were erected. Xiongnus were defeated and maybe that’s why they moved west into eastern Europe. The Mongolians however defeated and conquered China establishing the Yuan Dynasty.
2. Proto-Turkic: Its homeland and historical background The Turkic peoples are known to be traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pasto ralists, which can be confirmed by various written sources from at least the second half of the first millennium AD onwards (for example, a herding lifestyle including horse riding is reflected in Old Turkic runic texts, such as the 8th-century Kul Tigin inscription from the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia). For those Turkic speaking peoples that were described as agriculturalists rather than pastoralists in the past few centuries, such as the Chuvash in the Volga Basin, a relatively recent shift from nomadism to sedentarism has been attested.' The majority of traditional 1.Turkic societies practiced agriculture only as a secondary activity. Needless to say, one cannot automatically extrapolate such a situation to the Proto-Turkic period. However, one can provide some insights into the issue by integrating linguistic data with historical and archaeological evidence. To do so, it is first necessary to outline the contemporary views of the Proto-Turkic homeland and the probable historical affiliation of the Proto-Turkic speech community. It is generally agreed among historians and linguists that the starting point of the Turkic migrations was located in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe (see, e.g., Golden 1992; Kljaštornyj & Sultanov 2009; Menges 1995:55). Turkologists use various definitions for describing the Proto-Turkic homeland, but most indicate more or less the same region. While Janhunen (1996: 26, 2015:293) locates the Proto-Turkic homeland fairly precisely in Eastern Mongolia, Róna-Tas (1998:88), in a rather general manner, places the last habitat of the Turkic speakers before the disintegration of the family "in West and Central Siberia and in the region south of it." The latter localization overlaps in large part with that proposed by Tenišev et al. (2006), who associate the Proto-Turkic urheimat with the vast area stretching from the Ordos Desert in Inner Mongolia to the foothills of the Sayan-Altai Mountains in Southern Siberia. Such a vague localization seems to be quite compatible with the association of at least late Proto-Turkic speakers with nomadic herders. From a historical linguistic viewpoint, the region under discussion appears to be the most probable habitat for a language that is assumed to have been in contact with Old Chinese, Old East Iranian and possibly Tocharian (and, according to some scholars (see Dybo 2007), at the same time reaching the languages far to the north-west, such as Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Ugric). An attempt at verifying the homeland by examining archaeological and paleobotanical evidence, as well as the Proto-Turkic roots referring to natural environment, has also been made (Tenišev et al. 2006). A few noteworthy proposals on the depth of Proto-Turkic, i.e., the time of its primal split into the Bulgar and Common Turkic branches, vary from the 5th century BC (Róna-Tas 1998, based on contact linguistics) to the period between 120 BC and the beginning of the first millennium AD (Mudrak 2009, based on glottochronological analysis of Turkic morphology and historical phonology) to the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD (Dybo 2007, based on contact linguistics and lexicostatistics). The proposals regarding the Proto-Turkic homeland can be seen in the context of the possible Proto-Turkic affiliation with the Xiongnu, a nomadic group that lived north and northwest of China in the first centuries before and after the common era. Several dozen words used by the Xiongnu were recorded in Old Chinese texts such as Shiji (or the Records of the Grand Historian) and the Book of Han, and based on these few words, contemporary scholars have speculated on what language the Xiongnu may have spoken. Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affili ated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars (Ramstedt 1922; Basin 1948; Gabain 1949; Šervašidze 1986). This affiliation is based on direct linguistic evidence, i.e., comparing the Xiongnu words in Old Chinese texts with Proto-Turkic, supplemented by historical data that connects the Xiongnu and the subsequent Turkic peoples. Recently, the most reliable Xiongnu words that are comparable with reconstructed Proto-Turkic stems have been outlined by Dybo (2007). Janhunen (2015) also recognizes this affiliation. In short, although we can never exclude that the Xiongnu were a multi-ethnic confederation, it is very likely that their core was Turkic-speaking.2 Different historical and archaeological sources give clues about the subsistence patterns of the Xiongnu. Old Chinese histories (including Shiji) emphasize that the Xiongnu were nomadic pastoralists that bred different kinds of domestic ungulates, namely horses, cattle, sheep and camels (Watson 1961). On the other hand, there are multiple indications in Chinese chronicles (including Shiji, Hou Hanshu (or the Book of the Later Han) and notes on the Han annals by Yen Shi-ku) that the Xiongnu were familiar with agriculture, including millet farming (Bičurin 1950; Davydova & Šilov 1953; Davydova 1985). The written sources, however, do not indicate clearly whether it was the Xiongnu themselves or their Chinese captives who were involved in agricultural activities. From an archaeological perspective, although there is about 1000 years of nomadic life in Mongolia beforehand, the Xiongnu period is the first time we have any evidence of agriculture in the region. Agricultural tools and millet grains dating to this period have been found, as well as some isotopic evidence for millet consumption (William Taylor, p.c., Jena, May 2017). It is commonly agreed that the Xiongnu economy was based on pastoralism and had an agricultural component. However, the question of how important the latter was remains open (see Wright et al. 2009; Kradin & Kang 2011; Machicek 2011; Spengler et al. 2016 for further discussion). Given all these observations, it is interesting to examine whether historical linguistic analysis of Turkic subsistence terms can support the association of Proto-Turkic with the Xiongnu. 2. Dybo (2007) shows that the Turkic affiliation is valid, first of all, for the late Xiongnu, while some early "Xiongnu" words may have belonged to an Eastern Iranian (Khotan Saka?) language. There is also a hypothesis by Pulleyblank (1962), which was supported by Vovin (2000, 2002), that the Xiongnu were a Yeniseian-speaking people. An agnostic view of the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu is presented in Doerfer (1973). 3. Pastoralist vocabulary in Proto-Turkic Below I list some of the most relevant Turkic pastoralist terms. To give a more de tailed picture, I distinguish between Proto-Turkic and Common Turkic levels. The former label is used when a root occurs in both major subdivisions of the family: the "Standard" Turkic languages, like Turkish, Uyghur, Kazakh etc., and the very specific Bulgar branch, which is represented by its only living language, Chuvash, as well as rather poor lexical data from the extinct Bulgar dialects preserved mainly as loanwords in Hungarian. The label "Common Turkic" means that the word is not attested in Bulgar and hence should be technically attributed to the time after the split of Proto-Turkic. However, due to scarcity of evidence from the Bulgar branch, it is common practice in the field to equate such roots with the Proto-Turkic ones unless a source of borrowing into Turkic has been established. Robbeets, M. and Savelyev, A., n.d. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. pp.136,137, 138.
R1a has the origin of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian, Iranians taught horse riding and archery to East Eurasian people, Iranian Scythians domesticated horses
R doesn’t mean only Indo-European. Many R carrying peoples like Basques, Etruscans, Iberians, Chadic peoples, Siberians etc. weren’t Indo-Europeans. Those Eurocentric fantasies always make me laugh too much😂
@@papazataklaattiranimamR haplogroup is of ANE origin, and yes, it's not limited to Indo-Europeans. but the examples you gave are nonsense, the fact that Etruscans and Basques don't speak an Indo-European language, doesn't mean they don't have 25-30% Steppe ancestry.
@@vitocorleone9456 In fact the Etruscans have recently been shown to have been predominately IE & Steppe admixed as their neighboring Italic and continental European neighbors.
European Huns have a very significant amount of European ancestry, with minor asiatic genetic evidence, these results are consistent with a xiongnu origin of the Huns.
First of all, thank you very much. This was an awesome scientific inspection. I really very appreciated your work, great job! Also as a curious man, I am trying to understand the relations between linguistics and genetics. So, I have compared language maps to ydna haplogroup maps. During my inspections, I got such a conclusion in my opinion mostly matching in origins: A - Khoisan B - Nilo-Saharan C2 - Austronesian C3 - Mongolic, Tungusic C4 - Australian D - Tibeto-Burman E1a - Niger-Kongo, Bantu E1b1 - Kushitic, Hellenic E1b2 - Berberic G - South Caucasian H - South Indian I1 - Germanic I2 - Slavic J1 - Semitic, Aramic J2 - Persian, Grecoroman K2 - Thai-Kadai L,T - West Indian M,S - Papuan N - Uralic, Finnic O1 - Sinotic O2 - Austroasiatic O3 - Koreanic, Japonic P1 - Altaian, Tuvan Turkic Q - Yeniseian, Native American R - Uyghur Turkic, West Altaian R1a - Oghur/Oghuz Turkic, European, Indian Hunnic R1b - Anatolian, Asian Turkic/Ugric/Sumerian, European Saka/Scythian/Tyrrhenian/Vasconic, North Caucasian R2 - Tamil Dravidian I think most of people will deny my classification, because there are lots of exceptions. On the other hand, these classifications are just about ORIGINAL ethnicities. Today, they all changed to different other ethnicities by assimilation, diversification etc. When I come to my intention to message, this inspection video matches very well with my classification. As you can also see, R1a is hunnic ydna and all related hunnic, turkic emperors were R1a as evidence for this classification. Indian and european R1a is directly related to golden huns of europe and white huns of south asia who are relatives of central asian huns (west altaian turkic + east altaian mongolic union). Also, R1b is european saka/scythian/sumerian which is also relative of R1a hunnic/turkic/ugric origins. Sumer (Sakir=Saka, Kengir=Khans) were related to ancestors of all R1b people. They were speaking agglutinative language which is similar to modern turkish and hungarian. Also, north caucasians, old anatolians, tyrrhenians, vasconians and modern basq people have spoken similar languages. If we look at genetics, all R1a, R1b, R2 are mutated from R haplogroup and it still exists in modern Uyghur turkic people. Also, R have mutated from P1 haplogroup and it still exists in Altai, Tuva turkic people. Also, Q haplogroup of yeniseian and native american people have separated from R haplogroup 25k years ago. P1 is one of ancient northern east asians (ANEA) who are C3 mongolic, tungusic, N uralic, finnic, O3 koreanic, japonic and P1 hunnic, turkic, ugric. ANEA were speaking uralic-altaic at least 9k years before. (Reference: Martine Robbeets / Max Planck Institut) C3, N, O3, P1 are related to O1, O2 chinese and austroasiatic people. All these haplogroups were ancient east asians (AEA) and they are mutated from C2, K2 people of ancestral southeast asians. Also, C4 australians and M, S papuans are descendants of these people. C2, K2 were also neighbours of D tibetans and have been effected from their tibetan language too. So, as you can see, C2, C3, C4, D, K2, M, N, O1, O2, O3, P1, Q, R, R1a, R1b, R2, S people were speaking similar languages which are mostly agglutinative as austronesian, papuan, australian, austroasiatic, thai-kadai, sino-tibetan, dene-yeniseian, native american, uralic, altaic, sumerian, north caucasian, thyrrhenian, vasconic as relative languages. As a conclusion, R1a, R1b haplogroups are not indoeuropean genetics. These were mostly turkic, ugric, hunnic, vasconic, tyrrhenian, north caucasian people as descendants of altaian huns and mesopotamian saka/sumers.
I see you keep spreading your bs her as well. If Yamnaya and Corded Ware were Turkic cultures then why do they have all have more more European hunter gatherers dna ? Why don’t majority of Turks have more European hunter-gatherer dna? After all Ottoman mixed with only white European women. Yet when I look at European dna result, I don’t see much European.
I like how khazars from I forget how to spell it, where borat is from, is the primary ethnicity which agrees with my analysis of their ethnicity where they are from is mentioned first in the list which seems accurate to me. Because the gepids mixed so thoroughly with the Huns by the year 450ad that nobody could tell either tribe apart. But all these different Asian admixtures just proves that all Asians are somehow related someway and somewhere way back when.
Proto-Bulgarians have nothing to do with the Huns. They founded and developed modern Bulgaria, the oldest national state in Europe. Very well organized. Infrastructure. Fortresses. Creation of Cyrillic alphabet. One of the best educational systems in Europe at this time. In the middle of the 10th century, all Bulgarians were literate.
@@RandomGuy-df1oy This is not true. The proto-Bulgarians (ancient Bulgarians) were Western Eurasian (Europeans). No Turkic genes or language. Please give your sources. Modern Bulgarians also have no Central Asian genes.
@@ogniankamenov481 "Modern Bulgarians also have no Central Asian genes" they rarely do but that doesn't change the fact that the "Old Great Bulgaria" was found by Oghur Turkic people in modern day Crimea. If Volga Bulgaria is Turkic than how come Danube Bulgars not lol
@@RandomGuy-df1oy You make an unsupported claim. Give me your source. The proto-Bulgarians also have no Central Asian genes. There are genetic studies of proto-Bulgarians according to which they relate to Sarmatians. After the Mongolian invasion, Volga Bulgaria switched to Turkic language (Kipchak, Kuman). Mongols were the elite and Kumans were the majority of the invaders. Look at the genetic studies of Tatarstan.
Unlike Hun commoners who were ethnically diverse(Goths, Finno-Ugric, Iranic groups) the elite of Huns had modern Mongolian genetic profile like and harboured mostly East Eurasian ancestry due to their descendance of earlier archaeological cultures(Slab Grave, Deer Stone Khrigsuur, Selengaa Dauria cultures etc) associated with pastoralist and hunter gatherers Mongoloid populations from following regions of Central and Eastern Mongolia, Hulunbuir(North East, Inner Mongolia) and Transbaikal area. 5:25 HUN001 the sample analysed in this video although being for majority east Eurasian also had also considerable amount Scytho-Siberian ancestry regarding it Y-DNA and autosomal which shift it closer to Altaians but still relatively close to Mongolians. Here genetic comparison based on G25 Vahaduo admixture of sample populations associated with modern Khalkha-Mongolians from Central Provinces of Mongolia (sample has about 16-18% West Eurasian ancestry) and each individual sample associated with Huns from HUN(Hungaria) KAZ(Kazakhstan) and Tian Shan Huns. HUN001 is not even the closest one but there are at least two (MSG1, VZ12673) other Hungarians Huns sample being genetically very close to Mongols, as well as all other Hun associated populations (Xianbei-Hun, Hun-Sarmatian period nomads and even one Tian Shan Hun outlier) has some samples with Mongol-like genetic. Distance to: Mongol_Mongolia 0.02409153 HUN_Hun_period:MSG1 0.02612134 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE014 0.02971137 KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian:DA27 0.04984164 HUN_Hun_period:VZ12673 0.05788092 Hun_Tian_Shan_o:DA127 0.06159889 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE008 0.07101708 KAZ_Kurayly_Hun_elite_Antiquity:KRY001 0.08287388 KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian:DA20 0.08301892 HUN_Hun_Elite_IA:HUN001 0.12217810 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE007 0.20798496 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE011 0.25660890 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE004 0.26661647 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE013 0.26947974 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA54 0.27356087 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA385 0.27823012 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA74 0.28076697 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA96 0.28086815 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA104 0.28530602 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA66 0.28854482 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA100 0.29094481 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA65 0.29384024 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA73 0.29986590 HUN_Hun_period:KMT2785 0.30249959 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA82 0.30366524 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA52 0.31012585 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA80 0.31379204 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA72 0.32951768 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA69 0.33890830 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA101 0.36025332 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA98 0.36610018 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA85 0.38132014 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA81 0.38445587 Hun_Tian_Shan:DA70 0.41686413 HUN_Hun_period:ASZK1 0.49020137 HUN_Hun_period:CSB3 0.49207798 HUN_Hun_period:SEI5 0.49471200 HUN_Hun_period:SEI1 0.50669254 HUN_Hun_period:SEI6 0.52505310 HUN_Hun_period:SZLA646
PS. I forgot to add. Xiongnu-Hun connection although not being totally proved, some of Huns especially the Elite one were clearly non-European or West Asian based on their East Asian genetic ancestry typical to populations of Inner Asia more precisely Mongol steppes. And the date of Hun apparition correlated with Xiongnu decline. Of course there were also Huns of non-Xiongnu origin who were mostly commoners but the rulling class as and the elite originated from Xiongnu. Appearance depiction of Attila the Hun chief by the Eastern Roman bureaucrat Jordanis having asiatic features proves this point « as well Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and swarthy skin, showing evidence of his origin »
@@barguttobed While its true that there was some controversy about the origin of the Huns, the consensus after recent decades is that they were Turks of Oghuric affiliation, mostly based on credible studies confirming that the vast majority of attested Hunnic names, as well as all Hunnic successor clans are of evident Oghur Turkic origin. All Hunnic tribes (entirely Oghur Turkic) : Akatziri, Onogurs, Utigurs, Sabirs, Bulgars, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Barsils, Balanjars Recorded Hunnic names of Turkic origin : Aigan = moon prince; from Turkic aï & can Alp Ilutuer / Ilteber = heroic chieftain; from Turkic alp & iltäbär Althias = six; from Turkic Alti Akkagas = white rock; from Turkic ak & kayač Atakam = elder shaman; from Turkic ata & kam Balach = calf; from Turkic Malaq Berik = strong; from Turkic Berık Basik = governor; from Turkic Bârsiğ Bleda = wise; from Turkic Bildä Bochas = either gullet; from Turkic Boğuz; or bull, from Buqa Dengizich = ocean-like, heavenly; from Turkic teɲez & dêɲri; or, more simply, great lake Donat / Donatu = horse; from Turkic Yonat Edeco = good; from Turkic Ädgü Ellac = to rule; from Turkic el & lä Emmedzur = horse lord; from Turkic Ämäcur Eskam / Esqam = companion of the shaman; from Turkic Eŝkam Hereka / Kreka = pure princess; from Turkic Arïqan Ernakh / Hernac = small man, heroic man; from Turkic Ernäk Iliger = prince man; from Turkic ilig & är Karadach = black mountain; from Turkic Qaradağ Karaton = black cloak; from Turkic Qarâton Kursik = either noble; from Turkic Kürsiğ; or belt-bearer, from Qurŝiq Kutilzis = blessed herald; from Turkic kut & elči Mundzuk = bead; from Turkic Munčuq Oebarsius / Aybars = moon leopard, from Turkic Aïbârs; or dun leopard, from oy & bars Oldogan / Odolgan = either red falcon; from Turkic al & dogan; or chubby, from Tolgun Oktar / Uptar = brave; from Turkic Öctär Ruga / Rua = wise man; from Turkic Ögä Turgun = still/calm; from Turkic Turkun Uldin = six; from Turkic Alti Zolban = shepherd star; from Turkic Čolpan.
@@barguttobed The earliest reference to the Mongols classifies them as a Tang dynasty tribe of Shiwei during the eighth century. It was only after the fall of the Liao dynasty in 1125 that they became an important tribe on the Central Asian steppe, but tribal wars weakened their power over the ensuing century. During the thirteenth century, the term Mongol was used to refer to the Mongolic and Turkic tribes who fell under the control of Genghis Khan. The Mongols are primarily a shamanist society; their central deity is the sky god Tenger. Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues By Steven L. Danver, p.225
@@barguttobed The history of the Gaoju is given in the respective entry in WS 103 + (pp. 2505-2508); until the beginning of Text 1.056/B it is extracted as follows. 高車,蓋古赤狄之餘種也初號為狄歷,北方以為敕勒,諸夏以為高車、丁零。 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異,或云其先匈奴之也。 The Gaoju are probably the remaining tribes of the ancient Chidi [lit. 'the red Di']. Initially they were called Dili. People in the north called them Chile, whereas people in China proper called them Gaoju or Dingling. Their language is roughly the same as that of the Xiongnu but at times has minor differences from that. Some say that their ancestors were the nephew of [i.e. indirectly related to] the Xiongnu.
@@barguttobed Even your Barghud tribe has Turkic origin not Mongolic 🤣 In the 7-8th centuries, ancestors of Bargas, the Bayirku, a Turkic tribe appeared as tribes near Lake Baikal, named Bargujin. In "Old Tangs Book", it was called "拔野古", "拔野固", "拔曳固". Genghis Khan's ancestor Alan Gua was of Barga ancestry. In the Mongol Empire, they served the Great Khans' armies.
Not Mongolian but the Turkic people who lived in Mongolia. Remember. Otuken was the capital of the GÖKTÜRK empire and Genghis Khan literally established his own capital over Otuken because he was considering his empire to continuiation of the Göktürks. PS: Xiong-nu's (Hunnu's-Huns) were literally Turks ancestors. Mongols, Hungarians and Turks are cousin nations all coming from the Xiong-Nu confederation.
@Cyrusthegreat2928This could be different but in sence his paternal line is even in Turkey common. Other Hunnic results are similar to those of Turks in Anatolia.
Small amount of Native American-like ancestry may be due to Hunnic peoples being partially descended from certain Siberian peoples, mainly Yeneseian-speaking peoples, who roughly share such a profile.
Huns descended from the East Scythian Chandman culture. Saka horizon. this sample in half dna is Saka. Saka themselves descended from Siberian hunter gatherers. as modern Tatar and Bashkir peoples.
@@mr.purple1779 Saka descent from Andronovo culture stupid. Siberia was once populated by ANE north Eurasian Caucasoid people, which are ancestors of Tarim mummies. Modern Siberians are Tungusic and Finno Asians
@@MbisonBalrog "Norwegians and other northern Europeans have a strong genetic link to the Yamnaya people, a group of herders from the Pontic Steppe who migrated to northern Europe around 5,000 years ago. The Yamnaya people's genetic legacy has had a significant impact on the genetic profile of Europeans"
@Cyrusthegreat2928 l have central asian, inuit and japanese and korean. Etnic Turks didn't much differs. İllustrative DNA shows l have %27 Xiongnu heritage. So you can't talk about Real ethnic Turks. Non-turkic minority members lived in Türkiye.
@@rb98769 too bad they're wrong he had an African 3x great grandfather get over it idk why you Hungarians get so offended at factual history and genetics sad honestly
As a turkmen living in Türkiye, I enjoyed having the same amount of central asian genes. Although i also carry 32.5% central asian genes, unlike this person, the remaining part is mostly italian and greek genes.
Your assimilated freak i am Kipchak Cuman and more Central Asian then Türkmens i carried true medieval Türkic blood from thousands of centuries during Byzantine Empire and i speak Greek language with no Greek ancestry
Its vahaduo genetic distance list, more green more close about ADMIXTURE. If you are half mongol half persian, you will be closest to kazakhs, not mongols or persians even if u dont have any connection with kazakhs.
I'm related to Kazakhstan Nomad Woman 0.0% 🧬 match Genetic Distance "0" is a perfect match, "1" is a one-step mutation, etc. The more mutations, the longer the probable time period since the most recent common ancestor. 10+generations back. ANTIQUITY Nomad Woman Found in Kazakhstan DA121 Turkistan Region, Kazakhstan. Her remains have been radiocarbon dated to foll between 450 and 320 BCE. female warrior in the southern Kazakhstan. Scientists suggest that a noble woman had lived during the period between the 11th century B.C. and 4th century AD. Probably, she led a group of nomads, which lived on the territory of modern Kazakhstan. 🧘♀️❤️🔥🪽🦅🪶 #ComptonCaliLove Tuatha de Danaan 🧬 Tepehuan de Durango Mexico 🇲🇽🪽
check the map of Yamnaya culture,Scythia and Sarmatia,Onoguria and Old Great Bulgaria,steppes around Black see where first horses are domesticated and migrated,with horses to China,and bin pushed back.Thracians,scythians,dacians,sarmatians,getae,goths all same peoples,by DNA,come from steppes and are burried,with horses in kurgans.Bulgars are not huns,but rulled by Dulo clan,i think.Bulgarian tradition,for deformated long head,come from sarmatians.Old great in slavic is the same,as Magna in latin and greek,why is given for 30 years existing country,weird?Bulgars made two other Bulgaria country after,the one still exist and give alfabet,to peoples of the same region,manny slavic countries,as Ukraine and Russia,why they not take some other alfabet,but bulgarian?I think history of Bulgaria is verry manipulated,by all empires,from West,to the East hihihi,but science will show the truth hihi.We all,from Balkans and Caucas mountain,to Iceland are cousins and in all have some part scythian,sarmatian,thracian,gots,dacian and so on(the same peoples domesticated horeses,from Yamnaya i think)blood and we,are all dividet,by greedy rullers and empires.If you see the history of khan Kubrat and his 5 sons,divided bulgarians,is the same,as Charlemane and his sons later hihi.Uncontroled greed of all our rullers,make all wars.They must think,how to save our planet and spread Life in Space,to other planets.EU is great thing (Bulgaria have 1400 years history of wars and yokes)and must start do something faster,coz on Old bulgarian calendar,today is 7532 year hihi.Healt and happynes and good job,to tell the truth :)
I don’t even know what Oghur Turkic speaking Huns have to do with real Mongolic speaking peoples from Manchuria😂 not even single Hunnic word has Mongolic root
@@papazataklaattiranimamTheir linguistic classification is debated, but most importantly that elite Huns genome is most similar to Mongols cause they and Mongols share same ancestry 😂 Unlike some turkified Anatolians
@@barguttobed Explain why there is 0 Mongolic word in Hunnic you Mongolized boxhead😹 The Gaoju (高車 lit. "High Cart"), also known as Tiele,[90] were early Turkic speakers related to the earlier Dingling,[91][92] who were once conquered by the Xiongnu.[93][94] Weishu also mentioned the linguistic and ethnic proximity between the Gaoju and the Xiongnu.[95] de la Vaissière proposes that the Hephthalites had originally been one Oghuric-speaking tribe who belonged the Gaoju/Tiele confederation.[82][96][97] This can be surmised by analysing the names of Hunnic princes and tribes. The names of the following Hunnic princes are clearly Oghuric Turkic in origin: Mundzuk (Attila's father, from Turkic Munc uq = pearl/jewel: for an in-depth discussion of the Hunnic origin of this name in particular see Schramm (1969), 139-40), Oktar/Uptar (Attila's uncle, Öktär brave/powerful), Oebarsius (another of Attila's paternal uncles, Arbårs leopard of the moon), Karaton (Hunnic supreme king before Ruga, Qarâton = black-cloak), Basik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, early fifth century, Bársig = governor), Kursik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, from either Kürsig, meaning brave or noble, or Quršiq meaning belt-bearer). For these etymologies see Bona (1991), 33. Three of Attila's known sons. have probable Turkic names: Ellac, Dengizich, Hernak, and Attila's principal wife, the mother of the crown prince' Ellac, has the Turkic name Herekan, as does another notable wife named Eskam. See Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 392-415. See also Bona (1991), 33-5, and Pritsak (1956), 414. Most known Hunnic tribal names are also Turkic, Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 427-41, e.g. Ultincur, Akatir etc. The cur suffix in many of these names is a well-known Turkic title and as Beckwith (1987), 209, points out the To-lu or Tardus tribes (Hunnic in origin) of the Western Turkish On Oq were each headed by a Cur (noble). Zieme (2006), 115, speculates that the title cur belongs to a pre-Turkic Tocharian stratum of the Turkic language, which, if true, again highlights the essential heterogeneity of Central Asian peoples and even languages. See also Aalto (1971), 35. In addition to this primary language (Oghuric Turkic), Priscus informs us that Latin and Gothic were also understood by the Hunnic elite. See Priscus, fr. 13.3, Blockley (1983), 289. The name of Ellac, Attila’s eldest son, is a corruption of the Turkic älik ( ilik ) meaning ‘ruler, king’. 21 Ernak/Irnik the youngest son also has the variation of the same suffix in his name. His name is probably Turkic är-näk , meaning ‘great hero’, with the suffix here functioning as an augmentation of the Turkic är-än (hero). 22 Thus the suffix -ik/ich was used in Hunnic to imply greatness (i.e. ruler or kingship). These names were, it seems, formal court titles rather than personal names. Kim, H. (2013). The end of the Hunnic Empire in the west. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 89-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naturally we also have more probable Turkic etymologies for these names, especially for those of Attila and Bleda. However, even if they were Germanic or Germanicized Turkic names," ,99 this does not allow us to make any hasty assumptions about the official language of the empire, if it ever existed. What Heather ignores is the fact that we have convincing or highly probable Turkic etymologies for the names of many of the other Hunnic kings and nobles before and after Attila, e.g. Mundzuk (Attila's father, from Turkic Muncuq = 'pearl/jewel'), Oktar/Uptar (Attila's uncle, Öktär = "brave/power ful'), Oebarsius (another of Attila's paternal uncles, Aïbârs = 'leopard of the moon'), Karaton (Hunnic supreme king before Ruga, Qaraton = 'black cloak'), Basik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, early fifth century, Bårsig= 'governor'), Kursik (Hunnic noble of royal blood, from either Kürsig, meaning 'brave or noble', or Qursiq meaning 'belt-bearer'). All three of Attila's known sons have probable Turkic names: Ellac, Dengizich, Hernak, and Attila's principal wife, the mother of the first son Ellac, has the Turkic name Herekan, as does another wife named Eskam (Ešqam = 'companion of the Shaman).102 It seems highly likely then from the names that we do know, most of which seem to be Turkic, that the Hunnic elite was predominantly Turkic speaking. However, in the western half of the empire, where most of their subjects spoke Germanic languages, the Huns may have used both Hunnic (Oghuric Turkic) and Gothic. Thus fief holders and royal family mem Ibers in the west who ruled Germanic tribes often bore Germanic or Germanicized titles (of great significance, as we will discover later on in the book), e.g. Laudaricus and Ardaric.105 Priscus, who is our only reliable source, being an actual eye-witness, tells us that at the Hunnic court Hunnic, Gothic and Latin were spoken, but with Hunnic always men tioned before Gothic. All three languages were apparently understood by the elite to some degree, so much so that Zercon the Moor could provoke laughter by jumbling all three together at a Hunnic banquet in the presence of Attila.107 There is, however, no indication anywhere that any of these three languages was the lingua franca. Kim, H. (2013). Notes. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haussig (2000), 277, suggests that Oult or Oulti is a Greek rendering of the Oghuric Turkic word for the number six. What is interesting is the fact that in names such as Oultizouroi and Ultzincur above we have clearly two elements Oulti (six) + the Turkic title Cur (noble), meaning ‘the six lords’. Kim, H. (2013). Notes. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 159-275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The core Turkic tribes of the Hunnic Empire from very early on all possessed different names: Akatziri , Alpidzuri, etc. in addition to their Hunnic identity. Kim, H. (2013). Introduction. In The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
@@barguttobed The history of the Gaoju is given in the respective entry in WS 103 + (pp. 2505-2508); until the beginning of Text 1.056/B it is extracted as follows. 高車,蓋古赤狄之餘種也初號為狄歷,北方以為敕勒,諸夏以為高車、丁零。 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異,或云其先匈奴之也。 The Gaoju are probably the remaining tribes of the ancient Chidi [lit. 'the red Di']. Initially they were called Dili. People in the north called them Chile, whereas people in China proper called them Gaoju or Dingling. Their language is roughly the same as that of the Xiongnu but at times has minor differences from that. Some say that their ancestors were the nephew of [i.e. indirectly related to] the Xiongnu. Neither Di, nor Gaoju nor Dingling has even slightly common with Mongolic-speaking peoples😭 Nice try though
@@papazataklaattiranimam There is no any serious evidence of Hunnic language as no inscriptions or whole sentences in the Hunnic language have been preserved, the attested corpus is very limited, consisting almost entirely of proper names in Greek and Latin sources. The Hunnic language cannot be classified at present,[4][5] but due to the origin of these proper names it has been compared with Turkic,[5][6] Mongolic, Iranian, and Yeniseian languages,[7] or various Indo-European languages.[8] Other scholars consider the available evidence inconclusive and the Hunnish language therefore unclassifiable. But the remains of elite Huns genome shows closest affinitities to historical Xiongnu, Xianbei, Medieval Mongols and modern Mongols rather turkic groups 😂
Decimali !! Bizler Orta Asya dan Anadolu ya göç eden insanların bakiyeleriyiz Selçuk lu harekatı ile birlikte bu günkü Türkiye ye gelenler benim büyük atalarım ammaki bizler mongolit değiliz tam Avrupai de değiliz ikisinin arasında bir yerdeyiz
I don't think you realize how crappy the MyHeritage calculator is. It's arbitrarily ascribing Eastern hunter-gatherer DNA to Scandinavia, Baltic, Finland or Irish-Scottish when in reality the admixture took place much further east or south and the only thing they have is shared ancestry in common with Scandinavians. I'm 7.8% Irish, Scottish, Welsh according to MyHeritage. But I'm Kurdish, lol. It's just Steppe admixture from the Indo-Iranians that brought the language to our lands. The only thing the Steppe people have in common with Irish is that some of them migrated west and settled there.
It's not Scandinavian, it's old Indo-European dna that still resided in people of the Steppe. The modern calculator says Scandi because modern Scandis also have a high percentage of this.
@@JohnDoe10350 Yes, I agree with you, the percentage from Ireland on MyHeritage is an indication that it is genes from the Yamnaya. The Y-DNA haplogroup responsible for the spread of the Iranian languages is R1a-Z93, a subclade of the larger R1a haplogroup. This haplogroup is different from the R1b-M269 haplogroup, which is prevalent among the Irish. Despite the common ancestry tracing back to the Yamnaya, these two haplogroups represent different migration and settlement patterns. R1a-Z93 is particularly associated with the Indo-Iranian migrations from the Eurasian steppes into Central Asia and further into Iran and South Asia. This haplogroup is a marker for the populations that brought the early Iranian languages to the region. Among the Kurds, R1a-Z93 accounts for approximately 10-15% of the male population. This reflects the historical influence of Indo-Iranian migrations into the Kurdish regions, contributing to their genetic makeup. Ethnic Groups with the Highest Frequency of R1a-Z93 • Kirgiz People: Up to 63% of the males • Kazakh People: Approximately 50-60%. • Tajik and Uzbek People: Around 30-40%. The Kurds share this paternal lineage with these Central Asian groups, indicating a common ancestral link through the Indo-Iranian migrations. This shared haplogroup highlights the Kurds’ genetic connection to the peoples responsible for spreading the Iranian languages, emphasizing their historical and genetic ties. References 1. Haak, W., et al. (2015). “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.” Nature. 2. Underhill, P. A., et al. (2010). “Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a.” European Journal of Human Genetics. 3. Eupedia: Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). 4. FamilyTreeDNA Discover: Y-DNA Haplogroup R-Z93.
He has Xianbe-Dong Hu-Wu huan Dna (Mixed with mongols) Cause Asian Xiongnu people have more Central Asia and dont have any Mongol. Compare with other Xiongnu and Mongol Results.
The Majority of Xiongnu sample had close autosomal genetic profile to this Hun, while the minority had genetic profile of Eastern Scythians and Sarmatian. And since medieval as well as modern Mongols are direct descendants of Xianbei and Xiongnu not surprising why Mongols genetically closest populations to the elite of Huns and most of Xiongnu.
@@Wassupdudee You don’t know anything. Xiongnu were genetically *heterogenous* and those with predominantly Mongoloid ancestry were the majority using G25 admixture and individual Xiongnu period samples you can clearly notice that majority were East Eurasians while West Eurasians were minority. Most of Xiongnu were closer to modern Mongolians than to any turkic populations.
@@barguttobed The historical Mongols were a federation of heterogenous groups of different nomad peoples of "Tartar" and also Türkish origin. The word "Mongol" is derived from the name of a tribe called Mongɣol or Manqol. Even if the cultural levels of these ethnic groups were different, they had a common language and a common culture which made their unification under the hand of a strong leader easier. In 1206, Temüjin (1155 or 1167-1227) of the Borjigid line of the Mongɣol adopted the title of Great Khan (qaɣan, in Chinese kèhán! 可汗). He is known as Činggis Qaɣan (Genghis Khan). Under his leadership the Mongols destroyed the Western Xia 西夏 (1038-1227) and Jin 金 (1115-1234) empires and conquered central Asia. The successors of Činggis Qaɣan created the largest empire that ever existed in premodern history. Yet this empire soon disintegrated into several states (ulus), one of which was China, ruled by the Yuan dynasty 元 (1279-1368) that was founded by Qubilai Qaɣan (Emperor Shizu 元世祖, r. 1260-1294), a grandson of Činggis. Source:Chinaknowledge Mongols
you have nothing to do with atilla😂. He lived in Eastern europe centuries before the hairy Anatolians were brainwashed into thinking they were raw meat eat eating primitive barbarians in tents😂
@Cyrusthegreat2928 then the creators of civilization are the Anatolian Turks because first building have been found in Anatolia. Then Santa Claus, Strabon, Thales are from Anatolia. The Jesus'mother Mary is from Anatolian.
They are Caucasian in skin tone Huns are descendants of JAPHETH (north mountain lands) - NOT SHEM Genesis 9 "May God extend Japheth's territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.'
@@RandomGuy-df1oy no. Some ppl have lighter skin because they have minimal sun exposure. Sun exposure creates more melanin So ppl who live the northern region in the cold/mountains will be lighter toned But their eyes and hair are still the dominant original gene of mankind - brown/black
@@anjalE30 Yes and many asian people have light skin. Light eyes come from Western Hunter Gatherers whom were dark skinned and blond hair comes from ANE, whom were originally in Siberia
I know you think you know what you're talking about....but you don't. "Caucasian in skin tone" is a made up term and not scientific. These ruling Huns were intermediate-to-light brown skinned, similar to other Asians.
@wratch-gd2jq Need to precise because it’s also closer to Mongols and only some Turkic(Altaian, Tuvan, Kirgiz) majority of Turkic people don’t share common ancestry with this Hun.
@wratch-gd2jq 5:25 This Hun is closer only to Kyrgyz, Mongols and Altaians. Even Kazakhs are at 0,09 which is not very close, while other Central Asians like Turkmens, Uzbeks would be very far from this one.
@@barguttobed The earliest reference to the Mongols classifies them as a Tang dynasty tribe of Shiwei during the eighth century. It was only after the fall of the Liao dynasty in 1125 that they became an important tribe on the Central Asian steppe, but tribal wars weakened their power over the ensuing century. During the thirteenth century, the term Mongol was used to refer to the Mongolic and Turkic tribes who fell under the control of Genghis Khan. The Mongols are primarily a shamanist society; their central deity is the sky god Tenger. Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues By Steven L. Danver, p.225
@wratch-gd2jq I clearly understood that you were talking about this sample which is 75% East Eurasian, i think it’s just our perspective of East Eurasianess differs because for me as Mongolian 25% West Eurasian it’s a sizeable contribution. For predominantly west Eurasian guys everything over 70% East Eurasian is fully Mongoloid 😂
It is not DNA from Scandinavia, it is DNA from the steppes, the DNA of the ancient Indo-Europeans of the steppes is better preserved by the Scandinavians, 50% of the DNA of the western Scandinavians come from ancient peoples of the Eurasian steppes that spread in Europe 6000 years ago, the DNA test interprets it as Scandinavian DNA since the test only compares genetic similarities but does not necessarily come from there
@@user-yt3xd2jl6dLol no, that's some mental gymnast to explain. It's actually just as simple as this Hun have Scandinavian grandparent. Because there's actually alot of Huns living in Scandinavia during Roman period. They have Huns as kings during those times, like Oldin, Octar and Atilla.
More probably old name of the Volga river! Itil/Atil, and later name of the capital of Khazars. Probably Atila was born there. The place ín the Hungarian Cronicas called Etel-küzü between two river(Don,Volga).
@@Scythian_nomad 1 people From manchuria They migrated to nw Then split into 2 groups about 7000 years ago Mongol turks Turkish language began about 4500 years ago in modern day central mongolia I am explaining this to you Because you are scythian And of course a different people
