Isn't the "Parthian" example just the Turkmenistan_IA sample? So not a Parthian result. Too early.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Printable View
Isn't the "Parthian" example just the Turkmenistan_IA sample? So not a Parthian result. Too early.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
That's what I thought. Turkmenistan IA sample is Dahae at best. Even from actual Parthian period samples from Turkmenistan and Northeast Iranian would be Parni (Scythian tribe) Allot of people are confusing the Parthians with the early Elite of the Parni.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Snow
This sample is more Scythian or Massagetae than anything West Iranic.
It was posted by Fedora in this thread. He labeled it as parthian because he claimed they wouldn't be much different from that sample, which i don't doubt. The sassanian sample is accurate though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
I am sorry to say that but than Fedora is misinformed. An Iron Age sample from Turkmenistan is most definitely not Parthian. I doubt it is even from the Parni Elite. It is also too early to be ParthianQuote:
Originally Posted by Babak
About the "Sassanid" sample, where is it from and from which time? Can I see the actual study that introduced us to this sample?
I have big doubts about the origin of these samples
labelling him Aryan, Early Indo-Iranic would make more sense imo (for now). Ydna is R1a-z93Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Axelredneck posted this, but im not sure where he got it:
Sassanian 1430-1485 CE
Gedrosia 24.42 Pct
Siberian 1.63 Pct
Northwest_African 1.10 Pct
Southeast_Asian -
Atlantic_Med 4.93 Pct
North_European 12.34 Pct
South_Asian 5.95 Pct
East_African -
Southwest_Asian 9.86 Pct
East_Asian 0.30 Pct
Caucasus 39.29 Pct
Sub_Saharan 0.17 Pct
Distance to: Ganj_Dareh_His
6.65560666 Azerbaijani_Dagestan
7.14205153 Talysh_Azerbaijan
7.14205153 Talysh_Azerbaijan
7.69040961 Azerbaijani_Iran
8.35496858 Azerbaijani
8.37251456 Kurd_Kurmanji
8.58128778 Iran_Central_East
8.64250542 Iranian
8.78799750 Azerbaijani_Turkey
8.85366591 Zaza
9.37118456 Kurd_Sorani
9.40927734 Iran_Khorasan
9.41502523 Iranian_Fars
9.78289834 Iran_Mazandaran
10.26444835 Kurds
10.30237351 Kurd
10.42784733 Lur_Iran
11.50329518 Turkmen_Iraq
11.54196690 Turk_Southeast
11.80012288 Iranians
12.93724855 Turk_East
13.45886697 Turk_Central_East
13.74012373 Turk_South
14.20730446 Circassian
14.34555332 Kumyks
Correct. That's definitely not a Parthian sample. I would consider it Parni tribe but even for that it is a little too early it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Snow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parni
Some early middle Iranic period iranic sample makes more sense.
I imagine Parthians more like modern Turkmens without the excess of East Eurasian. But hard to tell without samples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Seriously 1430 CE sample while Sassanid Empire (650 CE) was gone 7-800 years earlier :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Babak
Why did you believe that?
I mean, doesn't seem too far off tbh bro. NE euro is higher and a bit less sw asian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
I think they'd probably be closer to Tajiks tbh, the Parthians originated from that area anyway. Turkmens and Uzbeks especially are more Chorasmians than anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Snow
It's not far off but thats still no Sassanid sample it's 800 years inbetween. Also this sample looks more to be some kind of Iranic sample from the Caucasus than actually Sassanid imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
Yeah I think it looks more like a Mede sample, all things consideredQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
I believe the Parni/Parthians were mixed with Scythians and there was diversity within them just like you see with Azeris and Kurds and formed a substantial genetic base for Kurds, Azeris and some other NW Iranians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyp Snow
You guys are making a mistake here you are confusing the Parni tribe (East Iranic early Elite) with the Parthians. I doubt that they will look like Tajiks. The East Parthians might appear more similar to Turkmens without excess East Eurasian. but the West Parthians (overall Parthians) will be much closer to Northwest Iranians imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
The Parthians were a Northwest Iranic tribe and according to Roman and Greek sources descended predominantly from the local Medes who absorbed Scythian tribes among them. The confusion often comes from the fact that the people equote Parthians with Parni.
The Parni started the rebellion and uprising against the Seleucids from the Satrap of Parthia (that's where the name comes from) but the Imperial Parthian people were predominantly descended of Northwest Iranic speaking tribes (mainly Medes).
We clearly see a discontinuity of the early Parni (early Elite) and the later Parthians here.Quote:
Before Arsaces I founded the Arsacid Dynasty, he was chieftain of the Parni, an ancient Central-Asian tribe of Iranian peoples and one of several nomadic tribes within the confederation of the Dahae.[14] The Parni most likely spoke an eastern Iranian language, in contrast to the northwestern Iranian language spoken at the time in Parthia.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parni_conquest_of_Parthia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parni
Here's somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f740_B13UU&t=13s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
hmmm yeah I think you're right
Could be a Mede or something similar from modern Azerbaijan or Khorasan yes. But as long as we don't have real samples from the correct timeframe we will never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
Thanks I will watch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
It's best to just call it Medieval IranianQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsaces_I_of_Parthia
Quote:
Parthia was under considerable Parni influence.[11] The Parni were not the only to migrate to Parthia, as the region was constantly receiving new waves of Iranian migrants from the north.[13]
The Parni were an eastern Iranian tribe, who practised Iranian polytheism.[14] By the middle of the 3rd-century BC, however, they had been assimilated into the local Parthian culture; they adopted Parthian, a north-western Iranian language, and became adherents of the Zoroastrianism religion, even giving themselves Zoroastrian names, such as Arsaces' father, Phriapites, whose name was derived from Avestan *Friya pitā ("father-lover").[4][14][15][a] Arsaces himself was probably born and raised in Parthia, speaking the Parthian language.[18] According to the French historian Jérôme Gaslain, Arsaces could have arguably spent much of his life in the Seleucid lands, and may even have belonged to the local elite of Parthia.[
Quote:
Arsaces was a Scythian or a Bactrian chieftain, who became the leader of the Parni, one of the three tribes of the Dahae confederacy of Central Asia.[8] The Dahae relied their strength completely on horseback, and thus possessed an extremely mobile force, which was able to retreat to the south of the Aral Sea when endangered.[9] Because of this, other empires met complications in their efforts trying to control them
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/part/hd_part.htm
Quote:
From the northeast of Iran, the Parni advanced toward the frontier of the Seleucid satrapy (administrative district) of Parthia, near the Caspian Sea. In about 250 B.C., they launched an invasion under their leader Arsaces. Known as the Parthians after their successful conquest of the land, they made their own imperial aspirations clear by instituting a dynastic era in 247 B.C., and subsequent rulers assumed the name Arsaces as a royal title.
Quote:
Most of the extant objects and monuments are from sites at the edges of the Parthian world, in Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Iranian plateau. The art of the Parthian capitals at Hecatompylos (Shahr-e Qumis in northeastern Iran), Ecbatana (Hamadan in west-central Iran) and Ctesiphon (in Iraq) is almost entirely lost. Overall, Parthian art resists a straightforward definition, as it employs styles and motifs from both Hellenistic and earlier Near Eastern traditions that result in innovations in various media
Balochi and Kurdish are under Parthian branch
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/vDuXrQM.png[/IMG]
Some new Azerbaijani samples added:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...65#post6639165
Median is to Northwest Iranic literally what Old Persian is to Southwest Iranic. It is Old Proto Northwest Iranic and all modern Northwest Iranic languages/dialects descended from it. Parthian is literally to Northwest Iranic what Sassanid is to Southwest Iranic. It is the middle Iranic version of the Northwest Iranic branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
I had really hard time explaining some people those facts. Some people literally believe Parthian is Eastern Iranian to this day.
Old Iranic period
Quote:
The Median language (also Medean or Medic) was the language of the Medes.[2] It is an Old Iranian language and classified as belonging to the Northwestern Iranian subfamily, which includes many other languages such as Azari, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Zaza–Gorani, Kurmanji, Sorani, Kalhori, and Baluchi.[3]
Old Persian is one of the two directly attested Old Iranian languages (the other being Avestan) and it is the ancestor of Middle Persian (the language of Sasanian Empire).
middle iranic
Quote:
What is known in Iranian linguistic history as the "Middle Iranian" era is thought to begin around the 4th century BCE lasting through the 9th century. Linguistically the Middle Iranian languages are conventionally classified into two main groups, Western and Eastern.
The Western family includes Parthian (Arsacid Pahlavi) and Middle Persian, while Bactrian, Sogdian, Khwarezmian, Saka, and Old Ossetic (Scytho-Sarmatian) fall under the Eastern category.
You know, there may be another explanation for thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
The native Persian dynasties in the 8th-9th centuries like the Tahirids, Saffarids, Samanids were the ones who effectively created 'New Persian', adding in Islamic elements etc. The problem is, these people usually ruled the Iranian plateau + Khorasan (and up to Khwarezm in the case of the Samanids) but never the Zagros and Atropatene regions (where Kurds lived), as well as the caspian coast (where other 'northern' Iranian languages are spoken). These areas were controlled by dynasties like the Buyids, Ziyarids and Sallarids who were all of Daylamite origin (Mazanderani) and who only spoke MIDDLE PERSIAN, the language of Sassanids which was also extremely similar to the Parthian language (as opposed to the New Persian spoken by the muslim Samanids etc). The Balochis also were never really controlled by any of those dynasties rather local rulers who probably spoke middle persian as well. Therefore I think it is possible that Parthian is an east Iranian language, the reason that it is spoke in the west is because the daylamites did not have New Persian as the official language, but rather Middle Persian (Sassanid but also extremely similar to Parthian)
zazas in turkey also call themselfs daylams btw.
I don't quite understand. New Persian influence Parthian to become West Iranic? What has Persian influence on Dailamite to do with Parthian, which is from a different timescale, becoming West Iranic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
Also these classifications are not based on simple loandwords or influences. Linguists are very capable of filtering through it. There are things like grammatical structure that can not be influenced by other branches.
Let's forget about the messed up timelines. This is out of a scientific point of view simply impossible. Parthian has grammatical traits and loudshifts that are hardcore Northwest Iranic and can not be explained by Persian influence because they are different to Persian loudshifts. Such as the v/w-> b shift in Persian or the z-d and J/C-Z (as example Roc/j vs Roz for day/sun) shift.
There are clear linguistic loudshifts that can be attributed to East vs West Iranic. And there are loudshifts that divide Northwest and Southwest further. Linguists can easily filter loandwords from this, because loanwords apply to single words. Loudshifts apply to whole roots of many words. And the changes are systematic. It is impossible for a Southwest Iranic language to cause a Iranic language of Eastern branch to become Northwest Iranic through influence. Also because the loudshifts in Southwest Iranic are the most divergent. While Northwest Iranic and East Iranic are quite more archaic.
Some in Diyarbakir call themselves Dimli. They also exist among Iraqi Arabs as Al-Dailami. In Northwest Iran among the Kurmanji speakers exists a tribe called the dumbuli. In Sirnak they too existed in ancient writings as Dumbili Boxti as in meaning the Dumbili from Botan. It's a tribe. Like the Alans that exist throughout Kurdistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora
I mean that New Persian, the pre-cursor to Farsi, was NOT the lingua franca of Kurdish lands. The language spoken then was still Middle Persian, which was effectively the same as Parthian. Basically I am saying that while the Persian spoke in most of Iran was Islamicized into New Persian by the Samanids, the language spoke in the area where Kurds, Balochis lived was still the same as Middle Persian, which would explain why they are closerQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Ah now I understand what you mean :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
There is quite a misunderstanding here. The linguistic subgroups don't work like that. middle Iranic refers to the time frame.
Middle Persian wasn't closer to Parthian on these specific traits that define North and South. The Northwest/Southwest split is based on grammatic and loudshifts. Every Iranic language of today is l a new Iranic language, even Kurdish. Just that it belongs to the Northwestern branch. Kurdish shares loudshifts with Parthian that differs from Sassanid. The conncetion between Parthian (Median) and Kurdish is based on archaic, historical loudshift that differs from middle and new Persian.
I don't know how to explain this more properly to you. Even if they had new Persian influence on Kurdish areas the Northwest Iranic languages would still be closer to Parthian
Hmmm I honestly have to look over it more, I am not really an expert in the language field... Maybe you are right, but how can Parthian NOT be eastern considering geography? Is there really a Median connection? I don't think its likely tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Its possible that Kurdish is descended from Parthian with median influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
Eastern Iranic is not a geographic term, it overlaps allot with geography but East and West divide is a linguistic term. Royal Scythians and Skoloti from Ukraine and Caucasus lived more West than the Medes the language however belongs to the East Iranic branch. Tajiks live in Central Asia that doesn't change the fact that their language is derived from Middle Persian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Maul
You have to understand that the East living Parthians were just a small group of Scythians known as Parni. The Imperial Parthians were located more West, Their main cities were located in Media. Baghdad was infact one of their capitals.
Also remember The Medes expanded/migrated vastly over the Iranian Plateau all the way into Central Anatolia. It could even be that the original Parni already mixed with Medes as some authors classify the language of Parni like a mix of Scythian and Mede.
Parthian doesn't really need Median influence it is already predominantly like Median but with Scythian influence. That is down to the Parni tribe coming down to the local Median tribes who had expanded all the way into the East and mixing with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
Median + Parni (Scythian tribe ) = Parthian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
And Parthian subsequently = Kurdish. Am I correct?
That's one of the more logical explanations, yes. Especially since the Parthians introduced Mithra as the sun deity. And according to world leading figures such as Prof. Kreyenbroek in Iranistic science. Yezidis and Yarsan and to some extend the Alevis are based on Parthian type of Mithraism. You know the importance of the sun among Kurds. The Medes according to Kreyenbroek already worshipped a sun deity. But especially with the Parthians Mithra became the personification of the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halgurd
Ardashir in the middle, right Ahura Mazda and left Mithra. You see the sun ray crown around his head?
Ardashir depicted himself with a reason together with Mithra as well Ahura Mazda. To signal to the tribes that he was chosen King of the Parthians as well Persians. Parthians were overhelmingly Mithra (sun) worshippers. Even their first Kings were named Mithridates, literally meaning "given (send) by Mithra"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nvestiture.jpg
Thats wrong, we spoke about eastasian admix. And i really doubt that even that they have low eastasian that it comes from ancient people. Just chorasan iranians and iranians with knowns azerbaijani/turkic ancestors score more than 3% eastasian, and maybe even those people with that low eastasian admix could have far distant turkic ancestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
What does that means? They have from 20-60% Turkic admixture.Yes, it is depending to from where you are, from which tribe you are and whether you have iranian/caucasian ancestors. Especially the azerbaijani turks dont deny that they are iranic/caucasian influenced. quite the contary they proud of that. Also they are proud of their turkic heritage and they love beeing turkic. For anatolian turks azerbaijanis are a kind of their youth, like "good old time when we were young". Also anatolian turks like me donty deny they iranic influenced culture. So please stop indicating that azerbaijanis are just turkified locals. And if that is right, you have the right to deny that. Also i dont say "Kurd are just kurdified armenians/turkomans/asyrians/jews/arabs etc..." Everybody have to be proud of the ancestors(and we are proud of beeing turkic), we dont deny any iranic influence in us.Quote:
I agree with this. It's not necessarily a mark of Turkic ancestry. It may very much be from the early Iranic empires which makes sense given that the first Iranic tribes originate from that area.
As I wrote in a later comment. It was not my intention to doubt the Turkic-ness of the people and I very much do believe most of the East Eurasian in Azeris and Turkmens there is Turkic derived. I was merely pointing out that allot of people around here are filtering the East Eurasian out as if it is something very foreign while this kind of ancestry did probably exist even in ancient times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko
result from Naxcivan added:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...zeri-DNA/page3