|
Post by oskarkristoff on Dec 6, 2006 8:16:34 GMT 3
Hello Tigin and thanks for your welcome,
|
|
|
Post by oskarkristoff on Dec 6, 2006 8:19:18 GMT 3
You are right. Most of them live in Romania, and those who now live in Vojvodina came here from Romania during the period of Austro-Hungarian rule. Large part of Hungarians from Southern Vojvodina are Szekelys. The Southernmost Hungarian villige in Vojvodina is situated on the banks of Danube, just 50km east of Belgrade and 6km west of my home-town Kovin. It is called Skorenovac (in Serbian) and SZEKELYKEVE (in Hungarian). For example, people of this villige came here from a place called Bukovina (somewhere in Romania) I know all this because my best friend is an ethnyc Hungarian from SZEKELYKEVE Thats interesting I didnt know that , and do the Szekely in Vojvodina see themselves as any different to other Hungarians there, are there any traditions or cultural practices that are different.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Dec 6, 2006 13:21:04 GMT 3
I know that Szekelys in Vojvodina have a different type of traditional clothes, but that is all. I also know that people from Hungary consider their dialect as archaic one.
I remember when there was a political campaign in our country, and when a member of DS (Democratic Party) Chila Borshosh (an ethnyc Hungarian) visited that villige. When she was preparing herself for the conversation with them, I remember her saing "I must be careful what I'm saing to them... they are Szekely, after all". So, I guess that there are certain things that make them different from eachother. But, those differences are not so visible to us, since Szekelys do call themselves Magyar.
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Dec 6, 2006 17:12:06 GMT 3
Székélys and Csangos are genetically near of Finnic peoples, but most Hungarians in Hungary are very far.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 24, 2008 6:16:07 GMT 3
Székélys and Csangos are genetically near of Finnic peoples, but most Hungarians in Hungary are very far. This is somewhat false. While there are genetic differences, Szekelys and Csangos are still genetically closer to the rest of the Magyars than they are to Finnic people.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 27, 2008 10:21:45 GMT 3
More on the above... I think I know where this is coming from and think it is a misinterpretation of what was written. In a particular study, the comparison was made between different Hungarian groups to each other and to other ethnicities. When comparing these different Hungarian groups with Iranians, Finns, and Turks, it showed that Szekely and Csango were closer than other Magyars. That isn't to be interpreted as saying that Szekely and Csango are far from other Magyars. The Hungarian groups are still closer to each other than they are to those other groups. Cf. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199606/ai_n8745452/pg_1
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 27, 2008 10:39:41 GMT 3
Highlights from the above article
" In the ninth century or shortly afterward, along with Magyar tribes other groups of Turkish and Iranian origin, such as Bulgars, Khazars (a confederation of Turkish people and Iranians), and Alans, arrived from the steppes of Asia. At the time of the Magyar conquest the Carpathian basin was already inhabited by other people, in particular, by Avars, who settled there in the sixth century, and by Slavs. A devastating Tatar invasion in 1241-1242 and the Turkish occupation (between 1526 and 1686) noticeably reduced the size of the population.
The relatively recent history includes the arrival of Jews (tenth century) and Gypsies (fifteenth century) and the admixture of Hungarians with populations of European origin, such as Germans, Slovaks, and southern Slavs.
Our purposes here are, first, to use a variety of statistical multivariate analyses to evaluate genetic similarity between all these groups (i.e., Hungarians considered separately and in comparison with non-Hungarians)
We give a short description of the Hungarian ethnic groups: Kiskun, Nagykun, Jasz, Matyo, Orseg, Paloc, Szekely, Csango, Budapest, Gypsies (two populations), and Jews
Non-Hungarian Reference Populations. The gene frequencies for the eight reference populations (Ashkenazi Jews, Finns, Germans, Iranians, North Indians, Orientals, Slavs, and Turks) are averages of values related to populations from a collection of literature samples reported by Czeizel et al. (1991). In this collection, for example, Slavs are a composite of Serbians, Czechs, Slovaks, Polish, Bulgarians, and Russians, and Orientals are mainly Inner Orientals, such as Mongols.
In particular, in both plots Hungarian Jews accord with Ashkenazi Jews and Gypsy groups are the closest ethnic groups to North Indians. It is evident that Jews and Gypsies stand out the most from the 12 Hungarian ethnic groups. The Csango population is the next most different and forms a separate cluster with Finns, Iranians, and Turks in Figure 3a. The last two groups appear not to be associated with the Csango population on the basis of the main fraction of total variability in the principal coordinate plot of Figure 2a, which, as can be seen, only separates North Europeans from the other populations. The Orseg population appears close to Slavs, and the Budapest group appears to be close to Germans. The Nagykun and Kiskun populations appear in two separate clusters.
The average distance of Orientals from the other 19 populations is high: 0.018 +/- 0.005; the range is 0.0244 (Oriental-Kiskun) to 0.0143 (Oriental-Iran). The average distance from Hungarian groups, excluding Jews and Gypsies, is 0.021 + 0.002. The smallest distance from Hungarians is that between Orientals and the Matyo population: 0.0172.
For North Indians the range of distances resembles that of Orientals: 0.018 +/- 0.05 with a maximum of 0.0231 (North Indian-Nagykun) and a minimum of 0.0092 (North Indian-Northeast Gypsy). The average distance from the nine Hungarian groups is 0.021 +/- 0.003.
Average distances from Ashkenazi Jews were smaller: 0.0061 =/- 0.003 with a maximum of 0.0157 (Ashkenazi-Orientals) and a minimum of 0.0021 (Ashkenazi-Turks); the distance from Hungarian Jews is among the lowest (0.0029).
The Csango and Orseg populations differ most markedly from the other Hungarians (excluding the Budapest group); the Csango group forms a cluster with Finns, Iranians, and Turks in 17 of 100 bootstrapped trees; the Orseg group is associated with Slavs in 57 of 100 bootstrapped trees. Other associations reflect the previous results: Jasz is associated with Szekely (50% of bootstrapped trees), Matyo with Kiskun (34%), Nagykun with Paloc (16%), and the Budapest group with Germans (16%). Of the two ethnic groups considered to be of Turkish origin, the Kiskun group appears to be closer to Turks than the Nagykun group is. In the PCA plot, on the basis of the principal fraction of total variability, the Matyo population is close to Finns and Turks.
The regression line, which has been traced only for descriptive purposes, shows that the Orseg-Csango, Paloc, Orseg-Csango, and Csango-Budapest distances are the highest above the line; that is, genetic distances are greater than expected on the basis of geographic distances. The Matyo-Kiskun, Paloc-SzCkely, and Jasz-Szekely distances, which are under the regression line, show the inverse situation; that is, each population pair is genetically closer than expected on the basis of geographic distances.
This analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors showed that, despite the Uralic origin of Hungarians, the current fraction of Uralic genes among Hungarians is estimated to be 13% (+/- 2.3%). "
!!NOTE: I think I read somewhere that Anatolian Turks also have about a 13% genetic relation with Turks from further east.
" The present results show that the Orseg population is isolated and is mainly influenced by Slavs. Accordingly, although historical data indicate that the Orseg group is an autochthonous group, probably descended from the conquering Magyars, some historians have demonstrated that one group of southern Slavs, the Vends (Slovenians), influenced the Orseg region.
Both Figures 4 and 5 show that the Csango population differs from all Hungarian ethnic groups and that it is closest to Finns, Turks, and Iranians.
The Csango population is also different from the Szekely population, although the two were expected to be similar on the basis of the proximity of their respective native homelands.
The remaining ethnic groups have less marked genetic affinities. The Kiskun and Nagykun groups, traditionally held to be of Turkish origin, appear to be genetically more distant than expected.
The Paloc and Matyo populations, which are also traditionally considered to share a common origin, now appear to be genetically different; in Figure 5a, the Matyo group occupies an intermediate position.
ome genetic similarities are unexpected, and we find no historical or geographic support for them. A case in point is the genetic similarity between the Jasz and Szekely populations, as confirmed by about 50'b of bootstrapped trees. For the Jasz group we would have expected a similarity with Iranians, but multivariate representation does not show this aspect. Nevertheless, according to Nei's genetic distances, we find that the Jasz-Turk distance is 0.0064, Jasz-German is 0.0055, Jasz-Slav is 0.0049, Jasz-Finn is 0.0044, and Jasz-Iranian is 0.0038. That is, the shortest genetic distance between the Jasz group and the five reference populations is that from Iranians. Although probably attenuated by relatively recent admixture, this similarity likely confirms the derivation of the Jasz population from Iranians.
The obvious limits of the present results lie in sampling errors and gaps in the data, which may in turn introduce spurious similarities or dissimilarities. This is especially so when the range of gene frequency variation is small, given the relatively short evolutionary time involved. "
About the Cumans, it should be kept in mind that Cumans were just as mixed genetically as Hungarians. See Dienekes....
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 27, 2008 13:29:21 GMT 3
That is simply not true.
Personally, I wouldn't believe what a Greek site says about Turkic genetics ;D
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Nov 28, 2008 14:09:47 GMT 3
^ I heard 9%, then I heard from Turanists = 77% ;D
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 28, 2008 14:29:48 GMT 3
Something in between ;D Yeah actually we had discussed this in detail in the "Black Tatars" thread in the Mongol Empire board
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 29, 2008 0:47:24 GMT 3
i think we had this Dienekes site discussed before on AE and someone said it is a supremacist webiste so i wouldn't believe even a single word.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 29, 2008 0:56:42 GMT 3
Hrm, I don't know anything about that. Whether Dienekes' himself is supremacist or not, the studies he blogs about are third party.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 29, 2008 1:24:18 GMT 3
Well, Turks are not third party people for Greeks, especially for the ultra-nationalist ones. Most of the publications claiming that the Turks in Turkey are non-Turkic (i.e. Turkified pre-Turkic Anatolians) are made by Greeks, Armenians and Kurds.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 29, 2008 1:50:16 GMT 3
A bit like Hungarian publications about Romanians and visa versa? I'll keep an eye out on that.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 29, 2008 2:33:16 GMT 3
Definitially
|
|