"Proto-Iranians were not Northern Europeans"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arhat

well if this is true you have a basal clade but that does not mean it is ancestral at all. The daddy of all R1a died long ago so dont talk bullshit again. R1a* just means you have a rare clade not that your clade is older.

---

What is true? That I'm R1a* lol. Well, my R1a* is rare and unique because I'm not a product of mass rape. R1a in Kurdish population is very divers what means that our R1a is NOT a product of mass rape or a bottlenecked elite dominance like in other places. Diverse R1a is very fair distributed among other haplogroups, like J2a in Kurdistan.

I know that my R1a* is very rare to have a name, but it is also a fact that it didn't evolve from modern major bottlenecked R1a's. It has its own different history on his native areas of Kurdistan.

Of course my R1a* is a modern one of our age, but it is evolved from someone who predate M417.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arhat

well explain me why Pamiri have around 40-50% Sintashta/Bronze Age Euro ancestry and Pashtuns around 30%. And why Jatts and Brahmins also have this kind of ancestry. Brahmins did not mix with foreigner after the Iron Age so where they got this european admixture?

---

Because they have the most of the so called Eastern Iranic 'Saka'/Dahae & Massagetae and other 'Mongoloid' Central Asian ancestry.

That auDNA entered India only after 1500BC with the East Iranian Scythians. Indo-Iranian is much, much older than 1500BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS85

Because they have the most of the so called Eastern Iranic 'Saka'/Dahae & Massagetae and other 'Mongoloid' Central Asian ancestry.

That auDNA entered India only after 1500BC with the East Iranian Scythians. Indo-Iranian is much, much older than 1500BC.

---

MUH VERY OLD INDO-IRANIAN

https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1506...6274633541.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS85

Because they have the most of the so called Eastern Iranic 'Saka'/Dahae & Massagetae and other 'Mongoloid' Central Asian ancestry.

That auDNA entered India only after 1500BC with the East Iranian Scythians. Indo-Iranian is much, much older than 1500BC.

---

Aryan BMAC PREDATE those people. And BMAC even predates the Andronovo Horizon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arhat

well explain me why Pamiri have around 40-50% Sintashta/Bronze Age Euro ancestry and Pashtuns around 30%. And why Jatts and Brahmins also have this kind of ancestry. Brahmins did not mix with foreigner after the Iron Age so where they got this european admixture?

---

Look no one is denying that Sintashta/Andronovo is a distant ancestor to Iranics, but they are one of many and their link is not even direct. There were no pure Sintashtans or Andronovans around who mixed with native Iranics 1000 or 2000 years ago. So their link to us is via the Iron Age and later steppe nomads who are more relevant to us Iranics. Also, if you post the exact analysis you got those numbers from I can give you more specific answers.

Quote:

---

Kurdish has nothing to do with it and after jaghnobi and Ossetian Pamiri and Pashto are closest to Saka.

---

I think its pointless even discussing this with you since you clearly did not pay any attention to the genetic, linguistic and archeological evidence I posted on the previous page

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token

MUH VERY OLD INDO-IRANIAN

---

I don't know what is your native language, Hebrew, Assyrian or German, but my native ARYAN language (family group) is at least much older than your language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS85

Because they have the most of the so called Eastern Iranic 'Saka'/Dahae & Massagetae and other 'Mongoloid' Central Asian ancestry.

That auDNA entered India only after 1500BC with the East Iranian Scythians. Indo-Iranian is much, much older than 1500BC.

---

No Brahmins have also this ancestry and they have R1a-L657 which Saka lacked and obviously not mixed with Saka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoro

Look no one is denying that Sintashta/Andronovo is a distant ancestor to Iranics, but they are one of many and their link is not even direct. There were no pure Sintashtans or Andronovans around who mixed with native Iranics 1000 or 2000 years ago. So their link to us is via the Iron Age and later steppe nomads who are more relevant to us Iranics. Also, if you post the exact analysis you got those numbers from I can give you more specific answers.



I think its pointless even discussing this with you since you clearly did not pay any attention to the genetic, linguistic and archeological evidence I posted above

---

In most sense, yeah. The PIE peoples of central asia began mixing and assimilating the native populace of central asia long before their migration to Iran and other places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoro

Look no one is denying that Sintashta/Andronovo is a distant ancestor to Iranics, but they are one of many and their link is not even direct. There were no pure Sintashtans or Andronovans around who mixed with native Iranics 1000 or 2000 years ago. So their link to us is via the Iron Age and later steppe nomads who are more relevant to us Iranics. Also, if you post the exact analysis you got those numbers from I can give you more specific answers.



I think its pointless even discussing this with you since you clearly did not pay any attention to the genetic, linguistic and archeological evidence I posted on the previous page

---

which fucking linguistic or genetic evidence? Posting a link to a dubious site is fucking irrelevant. Show me one linguist who thinks Saka is closer to Kurdish than to Jaghnobi, Pashto or Ossetian? Also Pamiri, Jaghnobi and Pashtunsa are genetically much closer to Saka and Pamiri are basically southern Saka which survived the turkification and persianization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

In most sense, yeah. The PIE peoples of central asia began mixing and assimilating the native populace of central asia long before their migration to Iran and other places.

---

They entered the region via the Yaz culture i would say and probably had around 50% BMAC-admixture already. So yeah they probably looked nothing like North Europeans when they entered Persia. That is an outdated fantasy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoro

Look no one is denying that Sintashta/Andronovo is a distant ancestor to Iranics, but they are one of many and their link is not even direct.

---

Kurds are somehow related to Sintashta/Andronovo monkeys due to Alan and Scythians. Alan and Scythians brought indirectly Steppes ancestry into Kurdistan. But the Aryan Medes were just native to Kurdistan. And the Medes are actually the major direct ancestors of the Kurds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arhat

They entered the region via the Yaz culture i would say and probably had around 50% BMAC-admixture already. So yeah they probably looked nothing like North Europeans when they entered Persia. That is an outdated fantasy too.

---

You are just projecting history of India around 1500BC into the Iranian Plateau. And that is failure big time.

The migrations was actually in the opposite direction. It were the people from the Iranian Plateau who migrated into the Steppes and India.

https://i.postimg.cc/FFB8XpxD/ivanov.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/B6chLcWP/3-19.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Vvr4K9YY/ace.jpg

I have noticed that people have absolutely no evidence at all that Sintashta was Indo-Iranian. There is no evidence for it. Nothing from archaeology and nothing from historic written sources.

What we do know is that BMAC was related to the Aryans, we have got archaeological and written evidences for that. And BMAC predates Andronovo!

People can't answer my question why Indo-Iranian had ergativity, while ergativity is NOT native to the Steppes.


With other words their fantasises are based on nothing but loose sand. They have no evidence at all. They show up, make some wishful thinking statements without evidence and leave, lol. They are just bluffing and farting out of their mouth. People who fail for their nonsense are even more stupid than they are.


While I have got a lot of inductive and deductive scientific evidences based on language, archaeology and DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arhat

which fucking linguistic or genetic evidence? Posting a link to a dubious site is fucking irrelevant. Show me one linguist who thinks Saka is closer to Kurdish than to Jaghnobi, Pashto or Ossetian? Also Pamiri, Jaghnobi and Pashtunsa are genetically much closer to Saka and Pamiri are basically southern Saka which survived the turkification and persianization.

---

Nice, when you can't scientically counter the evidence simply call all the sites fucking dubious.

You clearly have lots to learn about our complex Iranic ethnogenesis and the complexities of the connections between Eastern and Western Iranian languages. But hey I don't expect you to know since you don't speak our languages. I bet you didn't know that Pashto and Kurdish share more congnates than Pashto and Ossetian, or that there are Pashto and Kurdish common words not even found in Persian or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto

Quote:

---

Like Kurdish, but unlike most other Indo-Iranian languages, Pashto uses all three types of adpositions – prepositions, postpositions and circumpositions.

---

Nothing is as simple as black and white or Western and Eastern Iranian. It's alot more complicated than that. You would understand what I am saying alot more if you could speak some of our languages.

Sure Pamiris and Pashtuns will be genetically closer to some Saka than Kurds or Azeris, but there are some Sarmatians Sakas and Alans where Kurds and Azeris are genetically closer to and some Sarmatians and Alans where Caucasians are closer to. These nomads covered a huge area. Believe me I have seen the IBS and other analysis. I have also seen alot of Scythian samples where Tatars and the like are closest. These groups are all over the place.It's not that simple...

Can somebody explain me why do they connect Sintashta with proto-Indo-Iranian at the first place? What is the connection between those 2 very different things? How does this specific deduction works? What kind of steps/arguments are they making and what kind of evidence do they have to substantiate their claims. How do they come to their conclusions?

I love science fiction, so please entertain me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

Well, according to nigger brazilian troll Token, they were FULL BLOWN NORTH EUROPEANS

FULL BLOWN

---

well he also has no idea about what he is talking about . I always get pissed of when I visit this forum because 90% of posts here are idiotic. Neither were Aryans from Weet Asia nor they looked Nordic. Also Europe is a modern day concept and if course they would not identify as Europeans. Arguing that they had 19th century concepts of race and nation is retarded . They were warlike steppe people who cared mainly about cattle, water and metals. Also they did not genocide the locals and rather absorbed the elites and that is why Yaz is already 50% BMAC. Even Saka in Europe had BMAC ancestry from back migrations so even the ones who stayed in the European steppe became Central Asian shifted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token

I'm talking about Proto-Iranians. I understand Iranians have low IQ but this is some serious lack of basic comprehension skill.

---

Not really. Even the "purest" of them weren't fully European, and their genetic structure was Northern European like. They were heavily mixed with the local Iranian neolithic peoples of central Asia before their migration to what is now Iran 3,000 years ago and began mixing with the local population from there.

The Sintashta were very similar to the Corded Ware, I don't know why so much fuss about it in 2019.

This thread is so fire made me curry chicken

The Bronze Age nomads in modern Kazakhstan (the samples are from Eastern or Southeastern KZ) who are believed to have been Indo-Iranians were obviously white people genetically, probably more like Eastern Europeans but not identical to any modern group. That shouldn't be controversial. The Persians are a whole different thing, they were never similar to them to begin with. The Persian language originated in Fars, which is Southwestern Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

From the recent Central/South Asian paper. Credit to @LukaszM for uploading these guys to GM

Kit No.: Z092581
Y-DNA: R1a1
mtDNA: U2e1
Date: 1611-1503 BCE
SNP count: 270,236

Kit No.: Z303460
Y-DNA: R1a1a1b
mtDNA: H1
Date: 1610-1454 BCE
SNP count: 376,263

Kit No.: Z740946
Y-DNA: -
mtDNA: J1c2
Date: 1640-1527 BCE
SNP count: 392,006

Kit No.: Z523705
Y-DNA: -
mtDNA: U5b2b
Date: 1736-1621 BCE
SNP count: 410,359

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Dodecad K12b Oracle results:


Kit Z092581

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 49.12
2 Atlantic_Med 21.16
3 Gedrosia 18.34
4 Caucasus 4.9
5 Siberian 4.62
6 East_African 1.02
7 South_Asian 0.68
8 Southeast_Asian 0.16


Kit Z303460

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 52.91
2 Gedrosia 18.5
3 Atlantic_Med 18.31
4 South_Asian 3.05
5 Siberian 2.86
6 Caucasus 1.99
7 East_Asian 0.84
8 Southeast_Asian 0.6
9 Sub_Saharan 0.57
10 East_African 0.37


Kit Z740946

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 46.7
2 Gedrosia 20.75
3 Atlantic_Med 18.84
4 Siberian 5.4
5 Caucasus 5.16
6 South_Asian 1.58
7 East_Asian 1.02
8 Sub_Saharan 0.55


Kit Z523705

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 54.5
2 Atlantic_Med 19.46
3 Gedrosia 19.22
4 Siberian 2.99
5 South_Asian 2.21
6 Caucasus 0.99
7 Sub_Saharan 0.43
8 Southeast_Asian 0.19

---

I get like 56% North European, 18% Atlantic Med, 10% Caucasus and 5% Gedrosia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

The Bronze Age nomads in modern Kazakhstan (the samples are from Eastern or Southeastern KZ) who are believed to have been Indo-Iranians were obviously white people genetically, probably more like Eastern Europeans but not identical to any modern group. That shouldn't be controversial. The Persians are a whole different thing, they were never similar to them to begin with. The Persian language originated in Fars, which is Southwestern Iran.



I get like 56% North European, 18% Atlantic Med, 10% Caucasus and 5% Gedrosia.

---

Did Indo-Europeans arealdy looked like nordids when they were in South Asia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolsonaro

Did Indo-Europeans arealdy looked like nordids when they were in South Asia?

---

They probably didn't. I guess they were more like Scythians or a mix of Caucasians and Balto-Slavs. In India they must have been heavily outnumbered by the natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolsonaro

Did Indo-Europeans arealdy looked like nordids when they were in South Asia?

---

No, they looked like Pamiris, if anything.

Something like this:

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion...36.h536.2x.jpg

Alanas Chošnau is half Iraqi Kurdish, half Lithuanian. Quite 'Aryan' to me. Hopefully he's R1a too to complete the picture but he may as well not be.

https://popnable.com/images/singers/...top_40_133.jpg
http://img.lrytas.lt/show_foto/?id=364383&s=11&f=4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Alanas Chošnau is half Iraqi Kurdish, half Lithuanian. Quite 'Aryan' to me. Hopefully he's R1a too to complete the picture but he may as well not be.

https://popnable.com/images/singers/...top_40_133.jpg
http://img.lrytas.lt/show_foto/?id=364383&s=11&f=4

---

We have Kurds that look like him actually. Especially Iraqi kurds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

We have Kurds that look like him actually. Especially Iraqi kurds.

---

Iraqi Kurds are believed to be the darkest. He looks nothing like fucking Hadouken or similar types. I'm not saying some individual Kurds or Iranians cannot pass as white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

The Bronze Age nomads in modern Kazakhstan (the samples are from Eastern or Southeastern KZ) who are believed to have been Indo-Iranians were obviously white people genetically, probably more like Eastern Europeans but not identical to any modern group. That shouldn't be controversial. The Persians are a whole different thing, they were never similar to them to begin with. The Persian language originated in Fars, which is Southwestern Iran.

I get like 56% North European, 18% Atlantic Med, 10% Caucasus and 5% Gedrosia.

---

I'm sure that Bronze Age Mitanni/Kasites (REAL Indo-Iranians) were very different from this Kazakhstan samples.

Indo-Iranian Bronze Age Mitanni / Kassites from Kurdistan were contemporary to the Hittites..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Iraqi Kurds are believed to be the darkest. He looks nothing like fucking Hadouken or similar types. I'm not saying some individual Kurds or Iranians cannot pass as white.

---

I understand, but they have uncommon ones too. I nowhere said that he looks like a typical Kurd. Put your white nationalism away for a second and relax.

ARYAN Bronze Age Mitanni & Kassites in Kurdistan who predate ARYAN Medes & Kurds.

https://i.postimg.cc/7h0yvcyb/Mitann...or-Horites.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/hGvW4hqk/main-q...e4797506a7.jpg

Bronze Age ARYANS (Kassites & Mitanni) in Kurdistan predate Turco-Saka migration from Andronovo into India.


There is no evidence at all that Andronovo was Indo-Iranian before Scythians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

I understand, but they have uncommon ones too. I nowhere said that he looks like a typical Kurd. Put your white nationalism away for a second and relax.

---

I don't know why you added the last part, that has nothing to do with white nationalism, nor do I identify as such. I was going to add this Iranian singer as a similar example
https://i.scdn.co/image/efcab0044e19...9e0bb7935da0fc

Why are you guys so triggered by the idea that some groups might have looked white? And why is it a bad thing to celebrate whiteness on a European cultural community? I don't white-wash any group, I would never say Ancient Egyptians or even Ancient Greeks looked like Norwegians or anything like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Why are you guys so triggered by the idea that some groups might have looked white? And why is it a bad thing to celebrate whiteness on a European cultural community? I don't white-wash any group, I would never say Ancient Egyptians or even Ancient Greeks looked like Norwegians or anything like that.

---

Because it was truly not the case. It is just a huge fart from your mouth.

Where is your evidence?. I want to see evidence for your claims. All what you do is just throwing some statement without backing them with science.


Eastern Slavic people have NOTHING to do with the ARYANS. Eastern Slavs, especially Russians, are actually heavily mixed with the Turkic/Tatar groups. When ARYANS build civilisations in Mesopotamia Slavic language group didn’t even exist yet, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

I don't know why you added the last part, that has nothing to do with white nationalism, nor do I identify as such. I was going to add this Iranian singer as a similar example
https://i.scdn.co/image/efcab0044e19...9e0bb7935da0fc

Why are you guys so triggered by the idea that some groups might have looked white? And why is it a bad thing to celebrate whiteness on a European cultural community? I don't white-wash any group, I would never say Ancient Egyptians or even Ancient Greeks looked like Norwegians or anything like that.

---

Understandable, however when i mentioned that Kurds like that half Lithuanian guy exists, you got defensive and immediately said that they are the darkest group in Iraq. Nobody got triggered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

Understandable, however when i mentioned that Kurds like that half Lithuanian guy exists, you got defensive and immediately said that they are the darkest group in Iraq.

---

My bad. However I didn't mean the darkest in Iraq, I meant the darkest Kurdish group. I was surprised when you said especially among Iraqi Kurds. I believe Hadouken himself said this (the darkest Kurds).

I know the history of the Eastern Slavs very well. I was born in the USSR. No matter how much of you wannabe Aryan guys are pushing your agenda to be linked with the Aryans, you will FAIL big time.

Why? Because this game is already lost for you from the very beginning. There is 0 historic evidence that Slavs are linked to the Aryans.

Slavic people have NOTHING to to with the Aryans. They were never Aryans, they are not Aryans and they will never be Aryans. Slavic language evolved from a very different language group. The only Eastern Iranian connection of Slavs are the Scythians from Central Asia. But Slavs ae also heavily mixed with the TURKS / TATARS.


Sergey Shoygu Russian Minister of Defence is a pure Tatar. Millions of Eastern Slavs are like him.

https://i.postimg.cc/5tgGZCkc/shoygu.jpg

Aryans were an European people and central asia used to be European. Many Central Asians still score a partly European ancestry. And a tatar is not a slav. You must be either stupid or a troll. Iranians original were Europeans before they mixed and Iranized middle eastern people. Nowedays iranians look middle eastern to pakistani. They have little ancient Iranian ancestry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashoeva

Aryans were an European people and central asia used to be European. Many Central Asians still score a partly European ancestry. And a tatar is not a slav. You must be either stupid or a troll. Iranians original were Europeans before they mixed and Iranized middle eastern people. Nowedays iranians look middle eastern to pakistani. They have little ancient Iranian ancestry.

---

Where is your evidence that Aryans were European people? As far as I know Aryans never lived in Europe.

I want just to see evidence that links Aryans to Europe. Something like written language or archaeology etc.

Nah, Kurds look very well similar to their direct Aryan ancestors the Medes

Who is here a troll?


I'm asking you guys just to show me 1 prove that Aryans were European. Just something that links Europe to people who spoke ARYAN language.

ARYANISM forever bitches!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktlI_4032tA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

Not really. Even the "purest" of them weren't fully European, and their genetic structure was Northern European like. They were heavily mixed with the local Iranian neolithic peoples of central Asia before their migration to what is now Iran 3,000 years ago and began mixing with the local population from there.

---

Everything you wrote in this post is false. Look at the kits that Leto posted and tell me if there is any Iranian Neolithic there. Come on, don't be dumb like these Iranian autists.