Mol Genet Genomics. 2014 Sep 26. [Epub ahead of print]
Y-SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian-speaking populations.
Fehér T1, Németh E, Vándor A, Kornienko IV, Csáji LK, Pamjav H.
Abstract
Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations. We proposed that some genetic links need to be observed between the linguistically related Hungarian and Mansi populations.This is the first attempt to divide haplogroup N-Tat into subhaplogroups by testing new downstream SNP markers L708 and L1034. Sixty Northern Mansi samples were collected in Western Siberia and genotyped for Y-chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups. We found 14 Mansi and 92 N-Tat samples from 7 populations. Comparative results showed that all N-Tat samples carried the N-L708 mutation. Some Hungarian, Sekler, and Uzbek samples were L1034 SNP positive, while all Mongolians, Buryats, Khanty, Finnish, and Roma samples yielded a negative result for this marker. Based on the above, L1034 marker seems to be a subgroup of N-Tat, which is typical for Mansi and Hungarian-speaking ethnic groups so far. Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
Link
Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest. "
ReplyDeleteBravo.
Russian and other N-Tat samples from regions closer Central Europe would have been good for checking possible East European origins. It is a bit far fetched to compare with populations that we already can expect being genetically and linguistically distant, except Mansi people.
ReplyDeleteThe Mansi live mostly here.
ReplyDeleteThe Hungary language shift happened around 1000 CE, so the genetic divide is about 1500 years earlier and probably represents a split between the Mansi and a now extinct Southern Steppe Uralic population.
Thank you for this article (link) !
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how they playing with the words, and guides them to the old/distorted opinion.
Hungarians never been relatives with ugric people, its a long story how this idea came up. And why.
The ancient Hungarians lived in the Eurasian nomadic pastoral region (e.g. Cherkaskul culture). I guess the early Hungarians were a mixture of Scytho-Sarmatian (Iranic) and Uralic peoples. A language shift is also possible.
ReplyDelete"Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest."
ReplyDeleteHuh? That doesn't even make sense. No contemporary linguist would ever "suggest" anything conclusive about genetics based on a linguistic tree model alone. The most obvious reason being that genetic history and linguistic genealogy can be easily decoupled over time, based on things such as elite dominance. But that has been obvious since at least the 19th century.
Really, only someone with very limited knowledge about what historical linguistics is about would feel the need to proudly restate such a basic fact of life as if it were a new finding in need of publicity. The authors would do well to have a specialist from a Linguistics department help them.
A look at the vast literature on Hungarian non-Uralic loanwords, for example, (which is independent from genealogy), could tell them a lot more about the complex interaction between the multiple groups that resulted in modern populations.
Linguistically there is no doubt that Hungarian belongs to the Ugric branch of Finno-Ugrian languages and is thus related with Khanty and Mansi. This has to be made clear because laypeople tend to get misconceptions otherwise, like about Turkic relationships or with Etruscan or whatever.
ReplyDeleteSimon_W
ReplyDeleteI heard a lot of fantastic and often nonsensical idea about the origin and connections of the Hungarian language, but the Etruscan one is new for me. Probably because I can't bear to read the comments on some Hungarian forums that are sadly flooded by conspiracy theorist retards with apparently unlimited time.
However as for Turkic "relationships": those are fact. They do not make the Hungarian a Turkic language, but Hungarian has a layer of Turkic influence that is notably strong.
There are actually attempts to reconstruct extinct Turkic languages based on the Hungarian.
In the 19. century when the study of the Finno-Ugrian relationships was seriously established (after 18th century forerunners) the Turkic theory was the only serious "rival". The debate was finally settled as the leader of the Turkic "fraction" on the Academy publicly admitted that his opponents were right and Finno-Ugrian "core" of the language is older and more significant that the Turkic part. Still, it was not the same level of misconception as an Etruscan relationship.
Unknown (Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:07:00 am), sorry, what?...
ReplyDeleteWhich study found that L708 is a downstream and Tat is an upstream?
ReplyDeleteThe great new thing about this study is that every single Mansi haplotype is tagged with the name of the specific settlement where it was obtained.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know why the age estimations of N-P43 are so disparate? In the Chinese paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102), the age of STR variation of N1b-P43 is 18.9 kya, and in this new paper (N-P43-all, pooled), it is 7,834. In an earlier Derenko et al paper (2007), the coalescent time of N-P43 (N2) is 6.66. In the Chinese paper they tested mostly men from the Chinese territory, and apparently the individuals with N-P43 were mostly taken from earlier analyses. In the Chinese paper, N-P43 individuals were Evenks, Manchurian, Hui, Tibetan, Altaians, Tuvans, Eskimo, Khakass, Tofalars, Shors, Mongolians, Buryat, Tatar, Komi, Mari, Kalmyk, Russians, Vepsan, Karelian, West Finnish.
ReplyDelete@ Slumbery,
ReplyDeleteTrue, it's like with English and Romance. A large part of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin and was mediated by the Normans.
Kristiina ,
ReplyDeletecan You please remind me, whom did Derenko test?
The paper is found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v52/n9/pdf/jhg2007106a.pdf
In Table 1, the populations tested are: Altaians, Khakassians, Shors, Tuvinians, Sojots, Buryats, Kalmyks, Evenks, Yakuts, Koryaks, Koreans, Evens, Mongolians, Tajiks, Iranians and Russians. So, at least the following are missing: Manchurian, Hui, Tibetan, Eskimo, West Finnish. However, I do not know how many Uralic groups, if any, are included in 406 Russians.
Koryaks, Koreans, Tajiks and Iranians who were tested in the Derenko paper did not have any N1b. It seems that the populations tested are geographically more extendsive in the Chinese paper. Should their estimate then be more correct?
Thanks, Kristiina.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can remember, the Chinese N-P43 are more divergent than those in Russia. Maybe the Manchurian, Hui, Tibetan are as well.
I'll check it more thoroughfully a bit later.
Anyways, those dates are obtained using the old Zhivotovsky method, they should be much younger.
Thank you very much! I think that the age of N-P43 and N-M178 is crucial for the cultural and genetic interpretation of their expansion. I mean that if N-P43 started to expand from China to Siberia and Europe 15kya ago it is open to different interpretations compared to a context in which it started expanding only 10kya ago.
ReplyDeleteAm I right then that N-P43 and N-M178 are both about the same age and both probably arose somewhere in West China and started expanding to South Siberia and Europe c. 8kya, i.e. only 6 BC. In this case, I doubt that there would be enough time for them to for example reach Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov (=7,500 uncal yBP) so quickly. Moreover, Finnish/West Siberian microblade cultures, such as Early Kunda and Early Butovo cultures (8-10 kya), must be linked with other yDNAs, for example y DNA Q and/or I*.
Sorry for double posting! Do you know, by the way, if this new ancient N yDNA from Hungary belongs to N-P43 or is it part of this early European P189.2? Do we have any idea of this latter DNA line’s age?
ReplyDelete