were antique persians of the same stock as today

[Mortimer]

2. Persians were not muslim when they invented chess, and were not arabs, and are not much like they are today. Only chess invention that can properly go to a muslim is the genius Timur the Lame's more complex version.



is there any anthropological or genetical evidence that they were more northern like (for example higher frequency of light hair and eyes then today). i guess that is what melonhead means, that they were more northern like then today. is that just pseudo-science etc.?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Scythians - ancient persians, basically. Whatever you believe scythians to be, you can be sure it's not like iranians and iraquis today due to historical events. You can tell for no other reason than that they differ quite a bit even though both areas were once persian.

[blogen]

Yes. Without the medieval Turco-Mongol and Negroid influence of course.

[Mortimer]

Scythians - ancient persians, basically. Whatever you believe scythians to be, you can be sure it's not like iranians and iraquis today due to historical events. You can tell for no other reason than that they differ quite a bit even though both areas were once persian.

arent sycthians only one iranian speaking tribe and basically nomads etc. arent the persian empire of different tribes together etc.? and you think they were predominant northern like? i think they were mostly the same as you can find today, also you still can find light eyed persians etc. but they are not majority you think once they were majority similar to germany?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yes. Without the medieval Turco-Mongol and Negroid influence of course.

And south asain, and arabic. If you take away 70+% of their DNA they are the same as ever.

[Mortimer]

And south asain, and arabic. If you take away 70+% of their DNA they are the same as ever.

they have only 4% southasian dna and mostly ani (northern indian caucasian) they dont have southindian dna at all. and southwest asian also only a few, but which is normal for mideast and was in the past too, because it is a continuum between the regions etc. they are mostly westasian

[Dombra]

They were different back then but I doubt they were blond

Northern Iranics however were fair

[Mortimer]

They were different back then but I doubt they were blond

Northern Iranics however were fair

what was different about them? and where is the evidence?

[random]

what was different about them? and where is the evidence?


They can't back their claims with genetic studies.Typical white trash propaganda.

[random]

" European looking " ancient persians

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/PersepolistwoPersianSoldiers.jpg

http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/3/Persian.jpg

[blogen]

And south asain, and arabic. If you take away 70+% of their DNA they are the same as ever.

No, the ancient Persians were typical Middle Eastern peoples too, Taurids and Mediterranids.

This Persian king is not a light color complexed Cromagnoid character from the steppe:
http://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/1970/darius.jpg

or these Persian soldiers...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/PersepolistwoPersianSoldiers.jpg

The peoples who carried the Indo-Iranian language and conquered the pre-Iranian population maybe. Maybe, if they come directly from the steppe and they were not assimilated BMAC peoples. But they were a minority between the conquered Oriental folk.

[wvwvw]

I imagine Xerxes like Swan rather than this: :lol:

http://themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/xerxes.jpg

[Anglojew]

They were originally white like other IE but mixed with Assyrids and other Near Easterners before an Indid component. In the North they still look fairer (blue eyes etc).

[Mortimer]

They were originally white like other IE but mixed with Assyrids and other Near Easterners before an Indid component. In the North they still look fairer (blue eyes etc).

what does "originally" mean? maybe they draw a small part of their ethnogenesis from fairer people but can we say "persians are originally white"?

[Anglojew]

what does "originally" mean? maybe they draw a small part of their ethnogenesis from fairer people but can we say "persians are originally white"?

Yeah we can. All Indo-European peoples were white originally prior to mixing with others as they migrated from their original Urheimat or as other groups migrated to their homelands from the south and east.

[random]

They were originally white like other IE but mixed with Assyrids and other Near Easterners before an Indid component. In the North they still look fairer (blue eyes etc).


I know 2 persian brothers. One has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes. Both have similar features. Is the first one more ancient Perisan than the second one ? :confused2:

[Mortimer]

Yeah we can. All Indo-European peoples were white originally prior to mixing with others as they migrated from their original Urheimat or as other groups migrated to their homelands from the south and east.

i dont know if "original indo-europeans" etc. were white but lets say they were, persians draw a small part of their ethnogenesis from them, they also draw from the rich pre-indoeuropean cultures in that region etc. who had more civilisation and cities then indoeuropean nomads, to label them originally white because of their language is like labelling hungarians as originally mongoloid. indo-european isnt a race, it is a language group. and with unknown origins etc. many theories are around, where they originated who they were etc. genetic history is also not the same as linguistic history and shouldnt be confused etc.

[Mortimer]

I know 2 persian brothers. One has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes. Both have similar features. Is the first one more ancient Perisan than the second one ? :confused2:

i agree, the middle east is a place of rich genetic and cultural history etc. it is dumb to think in those white racist terms of them and their ethnogenesis etc. also i still didnt saw any evidence that the place called iran was once inhabitated by mostly white people or northern people or that by the time of the birth of the persian empire, civilisation and ethnicity they were different then now, in the sense that had higher frequence of light hair and eyes or lighter skin then now and different subraces etc.

[blogen]

Yeah we can. All Indo-European peoples were white originally prior to mixing with others as they migrated from their original Urheimat or as other groups migrated to their homelands from the south and east.

No. All Indo-European were Middle Eastern originally in their homeland. There is no any evidence onto an European PIE homeland but there are lot of evidence onto contact between the PEI peoples and Caucasian, Near and Middle Eastern peoples.

[wvwvw]

i dont know if "original indo-europeans" etc. were white but lets say they were, persians draw a small part of their ethnogenesis from them, they also draw from the rich pre-indoeuropean cultures in that region etc. who had more civilisation and cities then indoeuropean nomads, to label them originally white because of their language is like labelling hungarians as originally mongoloid. indo-european isnt a race, it is a language group. and with unknown origins etc. many theories are around, where they originated who they were etc. genetic history is also not the same as linguistic history and shouldnt be confused etc.

And even further more back in time they were apes

[Vesuvian Sky]

No. All Indo-European were Middle Eastern originally in their homeland. There is no any evidence onto an European PIE homeland but there are lot of evidence onto contact between the PEI peoples and Caucasian, Near and Middle Eastern peoples.

Wrong. The agro-wave of advance is a weak crappy theory and linguistic paleontology (a term you still have no idea as to what its actually meaning entails :D) still supports the Pontic Caspian Steppe theory. After all PIE is a linguistic debate first and foremost.

No IF, AND, or BUTS.:eusa_naughty::cool:

[blogen]

Wrong. The agro-wave of advance is a weak crappy theory and linguistic paleontology (a term you still have no idea as to what its actually meaning entails :D) still supports the Pontic Caspian Steppe theory. After all PIE is a linguistic debate first and foremost.
No IF, AND, or BUTS.:eusa_naughty::cool:

Yes, I know, the kurgan blablabla, and the fundamental linguistic problems, for example the basic duality of the agricultural terminology between the Old European and Indo-Iranian folks (their neolitization way was different), the connections between the PIE and the Caucasian and Middle Eastern languages, the deficiency of the paleoanthropological and solid cultural evidences of the Kurgan peoples' influence from West of the Danube/Vistula line or the strong continuity between the Central European prehistorical cultures since the neolithic until to the first documented Indoeuropean communities do not interest you since the steppic theory is is your faith. So be happy with this! :)

[Vesuvian Sky]

Yes, I know, the kurgan blablabla, and the fundamental linguistic problems, for example the basic duality of the agricultural terminology between the Old European and Indo-Iranian folks, the connections between the PIE and the Caucasian and Middle Eastern languages, the deficiency of the the paleoanthropological and solid cultural evidences of the Kurgan peoples' influence from West of the Danube/Vistula line or the strong continuity between the Central European prehistorical cultures since the neolithic until to the first documented Indoeuropean communities do not interest you since the steppic theory is is your faith. So be happy with this! :)

Actually if you read latest research you'd realize all of these things you've mentioned have been obliterated.:)

-'Duality' of argo terms is simply cause East Yamna was nomadic pastoral and West Yamna more sedentary agro. It does not support your notion the least bit.
-There are connections of PIE to Kartevelian and Uralic which you insist on leaving out yet anchors PIE firmly between these two groups. Hmmmmm, wonder where that could be?:icon_ask:
-Paleoanthro blah, blah, doesn't mean shit because this is a language debate. However Haak et al 2013 demonstrated Kurgan genes coming further West into Europe during the CWC. It was a far more compelling study then blogen et al. BS 2013. And certainly more then blogen et al. BS 2014.:cool:
-Ergo, the notion of complete continuity and static development from the Neolithic onward is high grade donkey shit that only typical internetz dimwhits espouse.

So, been to church yet lately blogen?:cool:

[Black Wolf]

Genetically they were probably similar to Iranians if today with large amounts of R1a, J2a, R1b. G2a and so on

[Anglojew]

No. All Indo-European were Middle Eastern originally in their homeland. There is no any evidence onto an European PIE homeland but there are lot of evidence onto contact between the PEI peoples and Caucasian, Near and Middle Eastern peoples.

Semitic and Indo-European languages were originally one but that was further back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages

[Vesuvian Sky]

Semitic and Indo-European languages were originally one but that was further back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages

All of these Indo-(fill in the blank) theories stem more or less from theoretical concept of a Proto-Nostratic language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Nostratic

There's even one that suggests Indo-European and Uralic to be close together, otherwise known as Proto-Indo-Uralic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic

More linguists these days are behind Indo-Uralic then Indo-Semetic because there are more structural similarities between the two.

[EyeOfTheTiger]

no, they were the same as they are today.
ancient sculptures and persian soldiers are drawn as middle easteners, also the coins show iranid types, hooked noses etc.
cyrus the great was brown eyed, brown skin and black haired. he called himself an aryan, and a son of aryans.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/337/d/6/ancient_persians_by_al_brazyly-d344byw.jpg
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/peoples/2-ancient-persian-bb.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MyPN8LthPMk/T6AD-b51d3I/AAAAAAABkJA/N3uwRn00m7k/s1600/Ancient+Persian+-+Tutt%2527Art%2540.jpg
unibrow is a typical trait of irano-armenoids^
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Darius_close_up.JPG
http://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publicpic/alexandermosaic/alexander_mosaic.web.4.jpg
Darius III and persian soldiers from alexander mosaic, 100 BC.

according to eupedia - The ancient Persians

Iran has a highly heterogeneous populations when it comes to Y-DNA. Percentages vary greatly between East and West, and from North to South. Ancient Persia was less diverse, but still very mixed by ancient standards. Its ethnic composition prior to the Greek, Arabic and Mongol invasions was probably made of about 35% of haplogroup J (J1 being more predominant in the South and J2 in the North), 20% of hg R1a, 15% of hg G, 15% of hg R1b, 5% of hg L, and 10% of other haplogroups.

those haplogroups are almost the same as today's. + south west asian admixture in persians is up to 10%(j1), so mixing with arabic population wasn't so significant. persians are predominantly j2ers(greco-mesopotamian haplotype).

[blogen]

Semitic and Indo-European languages were originally one but that was further back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages

These theories are unsubstantiated, the affinity of the known big language families are unclear.

[random]

no, they were the same as they are today.
ancient sculptures and persian soldiers are drawn as middle easteners, also the coins show iranid types, hooked noses etc.
cyrus the great was brown eyed, brown skin and black haired. he called himself an aryan, and a son of aryans.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/337/d/6/ancient_persians_by_al_brazyly-d344byw.jpg
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/peoples/2-ancient-persian-bb.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MyPN8LthPMk/T6AD-b51d3I/AAAAAAABkJA/N3uwRn00m7k/s1600/Ancient+Persian+-+Tutt%2527Art%2540.jpg
unibrow is a typical trait of irano-armenoids^
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Darius_close_up.JPG
http://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publicpic/alexandermosaic/alexander_mosaic.web.4.jpg
Darius III and persian soldiers from alexander mosaic, 100 BC.

according to eupedia - The ancient Persians

Iran has a highly heterogeneous populations when it comes to Y-DNA. Percentages vary greatly between East and West, and from North to South. Ancient Persia was less diverse, but still very mixed by ancient standards. Its ethnic composition prior to the Greek, Arabic and Mongol invasions was probably made of about 35% of haplogroup J (J1 being more predominant in the South and J2 in the North), 20% of hg R1a, 15% of hg G, 15% of hg R1b, 5% of hg L, and 10% of other haplogroups.

those haplogroups are almost the same as today's. + south west asian admixture in persians is up to 10%(j1), so mixing with arabic population wasn't so significant. persians are predominantly j2ers(greco-mesopotamian haplotype).

J1 did exist in Iran before the arab invasion ( from the Caucasus). Iranian Arabs usually have the " Semitic " J1 subclade.

[Xanthias]

I imagine Xerxes like Swan rather than this: :lol:

http://themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/xerxes.jpg

Show me yours if you dare to.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Abu_Abdullah_Muhammad_bin_Musa_al-Khwarizmi_edit.png
Here's the inventor of algebra.

Judge for yourself.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No, the ancient Persians were typical Middle Eastern peoples too, Taurids and Mediterranids.

This Persian king is not a light color complexed Cromagnoid character from the steppe:
http://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/1970/darius.jpg

or these Persian soldiers...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/PersepolistwoPersianSoldiers.jpg

The peoples who carried the Indo-Iranian language and conquered the pre-Iranian population maybe. Maybe, if they come directly from the steppe and they were not assimilated BMAC peoples. But they were a minority between the conquered Oriental folk.

BMAC was a tiny area on the border of persia, that has no clear continuity to anything, and which we don't even know the language for. It's like pulling up a picture of the pyramids to talk about the people of ancient greece.

They are just as much to do with modern persians as persians of antiquity we actually know about are to do with people in iran today, basically nothing.

[Visitor_22]

Yes. Without the medieval Turco-Mongol and Negroid influence of course.

Modern day persians are heavily semitic Elamits.

[Visitor_22]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Abu_Abdullah_Muhammad_bin_Musa_al-Khwarizmi_edit.png
Here's the inventor of algebra.

Judge for yourself.

He was Central Asian Iranian like modern day Tajiks.

[StonyArabia]

Modern day persians are heavily semitic Elamits.

No they don't cluster with Iraqis, if they were they would. Elamites were Dravidian people not Semitic. They cluster with Kurds, Eastern Turks, Alevi Turks, and Azeris.

[blogen]

BMAC was a tiny area on the border of persia, that has no clear continuity to anything, and which we don't even know the language for. It's like pulling up a picture of the pyramids to talk about the people of ancient greece.
They are just as much to do with modern persians as persians of antiquity we actually know about are to do with people in iran today, basically nothing.

The conquest of the BMAC and all other ex Jeitun culture was a step in the process of the region's Iranization. An important stop between the steppe and Mesopotamia. And we know everthing about the ancient peoples of Iran, since they had art and they depicted themselves:

Immortals, the Persian elite troops and they were swarthy Middle Easterners as the contemporary Persians:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Persian_warriors_from_Berlin_Museum.jpg

[blogen]

Modern day persians are heavily semitic Elamits.

As the ancient Persians too. Iranian hordes conquered the Elamite mass and other Zagros and highlander peoples, this happened once.

[Xanthias]

He was Central Asian Iranian like modern day Tajiks.

Totally wrong, I've done Maths and I can assure you he was of Persian/Arabian descent, and I've seen pictures of him where he almost looks semitic unless you would have guessed him as persian.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

The conquest of the BMAC and all other ex Jeitun culture was a step in the process of the region's Iranization. An important stop between the steppe and Mesopotamia. And we know everthing about the ancient peoples of Iran, since they had art and they depicted themselves:

Immortals, the Persian elite troops and they were swarthy Middle Easterners as the contemporary Persians:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Persian_warriors_from_Berlin_Museum.jpg

According to...you? This is completely impossible, BMAC was gone long before muslims came to existence.



The Bactria-Margiana complex has attracted attention as a candidate for those looking for the material counterparts to the Indo-Iranians, a major linguistic branch that split off from the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Sarianidi himself advocates identifying the complex as Indo-Iranian, describing it as the result of a migration from southwestern Iran. Bactrian Margiana material has been found at Susa, Shahdad, and Tepe Yahya in Iran, but Lamberg-Karlovsky does not see this as evidence that the complex originated in southeastern Iran. "The limited materials of this complex are intrusive in each of the sites on the Iranian Plateau as they are in sites of the Arabian peninsula."[8]

A significant section of the archaeologists are more inclined to see the culture as begun by farmers in the Near Eastern Neolithic tradition, but infiltrated by Indo-Iranian speakers from the Andronovo culture in its late phase, creating a hybrid. In this perspective, Proto-Indo-Aryan developed within the composite culture before moving south into the Indian subcontinent.[14] As James P. Mallory phrased it

It has become increasingly clear that if one wishes to argue for Indo-Iranian migrations from the steppe lands south into the historical seats of the Iranians and Indo-Aryans that these steppe cultures were transformed as they passed through a membrane of Central Asian urbanism. The fact that typical steppe wares are found on BMAC sites and that intrusive BMAC material is subsequently found further to the south in Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, India and Pakistan, may suggest then the subsequent movement of Indo-Iranian-speakers after they had adopted the culture of the BMAC.[20]

However, archaeologists like B. B. Lal have seriously questioned the BMAC and Indo-Iranian connection, and thoroughly disputed the proclaimed relations.[21]

While others maintain there is insufficient evidence for any ethnic or linguistic identification of the BMAC solely based on material remains, in the absence of written records.[22]


In short nobody knows who they are related to by language or by genetics, for sure. And it's not even in Iran!

There's BMAC words in tocharian though, which is not indo-iranian, and had people who were like western europeans. They have more connection but are nothing like them.

And they aren't really semites in Iran today either so seriously, this is just nonsense.

[blogen]

According to...you? This is completely impossible, BMAC was gone long before muslims came to existence.

Muslims? What Muslims? We talk about the Iranian wandering and the Iranization of the region from Khorasan to Mesopotamia.


In short nobody knows who they are related to by language

There is BMAC substratum in the Sanskrit, but this substratum is not enough onto the identification of the BMAC language. One thing is true only: this was not an Indoeuropean language.


or by genetics, for sure. And it's not even in Iran!

The Jeitun tradition (Khorasan neolithic) were southwestern origin. So presumably BMAC peoples were relatives of the Iranian plateau's pre-Indoiranian peoples.


There's BMAC words in tocharian though, which is not indo-iranian, and had people who were like western europeans.

The Tocharian language separated directly after the Hittite, so they were not related with the Old-Europeans.


They have more connection but are nothing like them.
And they aren't really semites in Iran today either so seriously, this is just nonsense.

Racially not nonsense. The whole region around the Gulf is Mediterranid (Arabid, Iranid, etc.) with a growing Taurid proportion towards north-west. The Arabs did not bring a new element into the Iranian racial mixture.

[Smeagol]

They are mainly the same except for some Mongoloid influences in the middle ages, as well as some minor negroid influence in parts of Southern Iran.

[Smeagol]

Edit...

[EyeOfTheTiger]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Abu_Abdullah_Muhammad_bin_Musa_al-Khwarizmi_edit.png
Here's the inventor of algebra.

Judge for yourself.
it's a soviet stamp from 1983.

[Styrian Mujo]

I lack knowledge of Persian history but I must assume that Aryan invaders were a ruling minority in that region and to top it off one must consider the fact that the Persian empire was multi-ethnic and also the later Arab expansion could have influenced the Persian gene pool. In conclusion modern Persian speakers are about as related to the original Aryan-Persian stock as are the modern Greeks to the ancient Aryan-Hellenic tribes (not much).

[Xanthias]

is there any anthropological or genetical evidence that they were more northern like (for example higher frequency of light hair and eyes then today). i guess that is what melonhead means, that they were more northern like then today. is that just pseudo-science etc.?

I believe there's no evidence at all that they looked Aryan like, I think they were the same people up till today with added exotic influence (Turkic, Mongrel, Arabian)

[Xanthias]

Scythians - ancient persians, basically. Whatever you believe scythians to be, you can be sure it's not like iranians and iraquis today due to historical events. You can tell for no other reason than that they differ quite a bit even though both areas were once persian.

sorry I might disagree with this. I don't think Ancient Persians are somehow with Scythians related. They are basically still the same people like today's Iran.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

sorry I might disagree with this. I don't think Ancient Persians are somehow with Scythians related. They are basically still the same people like today's Iran.

Scythia and persia and Iran, on a map, overlap a huge amount. BMAC does not overlap with modern Iran at all.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No, the ancient Persians were typical Middle Eastern peoples too, Taurids and Mediterranids.

This Persian king is not a light color complexed Cromagnoid character from the steppe:
http://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/1970/darius.jpg

or these Persian soldiers...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/PersepolistwoPersianSoldiers.jpg

The peoples who carried the Indo-Iranian language and conquered the pre-Iranian population maybe. Maybe, if they come directly from the steppe and they were not assimilated BMAC peoples. But they were a minority between the conquered Oriental folk.

No, he's the guy from battlestar galactica.

http://i.imgur.com/pIAMkw2.jpg

[blogen]

No, he's the guy from battlestar galactica.

This guy is Mestizo and not exatly analogy onto the Persian reliefs:
http://handson.provocateuse.com/images/photos/tahmoh_penikett_02.jpg

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Even today they don't look like pictures you posted, especially not from bmac.