Ossetian is East Iranic language as well and not in the same Iranic subgroup as Persian. Well for sure they must be in part Caucasic people too, as must have been the Alans too, even though not at first.
Ossetian is East Iranic language as well and not in the same Iranic subgroup as Persian. Well for sure they must be in part Caucasic people too, as must have been the Alans too, even though not at first.
"The Y-haplogroup data indicate that North Ossetians are more similar to other North Caucasian groups, and South Ossetians are more similar to other South Caucasian groups, than to each other. Also, with respect to mtDNA, Ossetians are significantly more similar to Iranian groups than to Caucasian groups. It is thus suggested that there is a common origin of Ossetians from Iran, followed by subsequent male-mediated migrations from their Caucasian neighbours"Quote:
Originally Posted by Foreigner
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...131.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15598217
Ossetians are a mixture between a Caucasian father and an Iranic(Alan) mother. So much for them in being Turkic or any of that nonsense.
In Coon's chapter on Scytho-Sarmatians he does mention the existence of one theory that they spoke Turkic and were Europo-Mongoloid mix or Mongoloids, but he dismises this idea. He also says Ossetes are mix of Alans and native Caucasians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh900
They have everything to do with them: they speak a language that is a descendant of Scythian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke
Hm, this seems fishy or very surprising anyway. Why the mother Alan? Weren't they the rulling or dominant tribe in the region and a warrior people? Also why Iran? Iranics originate in northern Central Asia, from where they also spread to Iran and Eastern Europe and the North Caucasus or so it is usually believed. Iranians in Iran have proto-Iranic admixture which was European, but are more West Asian/Middle Eastern by blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh900
Alans maybehave been in south poland, and there is no genetic link with ossetiansQuote:
Originally Posted by Foreigner
This is reallity
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...skeletons.html
It's a warriors' tomb, but we now know it says more about culture than conquest. It contains ancient Scythian skeletons discovered in the Altai mountains of Mongolia in 2005, and their DNA is part of the first hard evidence of genetic blending between Europe and Asia.
Researchers at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, extracted mitochondrial DNA from the bones and teeth of skeletons found in the mountains. Bronze-Age skeletons, dating from the seventh to the 10th century BC, showed no sign of mixed lineages: those from the western side of the mountain range were European, and those from the eastern side were Asian. However, come the Iron Age - seventh to second centuries BC - and the coming of the Scythian culture, and the skeletons display a neat 50-50 blend of lineages.
The Scythians were already known to be the first large Eurasian culture, but were believed to be the product of migration from Europe. The researchers now suggest that the genetic blending is actually a result of the expansion of Scythian culture over the mountains.
That culture was based on nomadic pasturing and horse breeding - as you may have guessed from the presence of a horse alongside humans in this tomb.
Scythians weren't confirmed to exist in east Asia before this tomb and others were found in 2005 in the Altai mountains, where Russia, China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan share borders. In ancient times the mountain range prevented cultural and genetic blending, dividing the Asian and European populations until the Scythian culture expanded from the west.
tl:dr
Most eastern fringe part of Scythia is where Russian like people mixed with Mongol like people after Iron age
the scythians and sarmatians of europe spoke northeastern iranic languages and ossetian is the descendant of one of them. So they are scythian /sarmatian regardless of their genes. But the saka of khotan and central asia spoke spoke southeastern iranic languages and they left many buddhist manuscripts. Their language is more related to modern sarikoli, , wakhi, pashto and other southeastern iranic languages. None of their languages had turkic infuences and only very late turks migrated from mongolia to western central asia and displaced the native iranic population thereQuote:
Originally Posted by KawaiiKawaii
Well, the Alans suffered a lot by the hand of the tatar barbarians, and many of their men died fighting for their people while many women were left behind. There is an cultural myth about the origins of the ossetian people on how an Alanic mother(forgot her name) rescued many children from the hand of the mongols. It makes sense that they would start mixing with caucasian males to keep their people alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foreigner
Not sure what your point was Duke. The Ossetes are not pure Scythians or Sarmatians, but a mix of that and native Caucasians. Their language is Iranic and they were once known as Alans. Their history in the region is well documented. They are a Sarmatian tribe basically. I think they look between Caucasics and Slavs and a bit like Balkanics, being the lightest group in their region.
osssetians have also on the maternal side not much iranic ancestry. There is a misconception that ossetians have iranic admixture on their maternal side because they have similar mtdna like persians but actually persians have mtdna which is almost entirely pre-indoeuropean. Iranic migrations were dominated by males who took local non-iranic wifes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foreigner