Nah because yaz was 50% proto iranic 50% bmac itself. Iranics have up to 20% original iranic ancestry MAX. No more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
Printable View
Nah because yaz was 50% proto iranic 50% bmac itself. Iranics have up to 20% original iranic ancestry MAX. No more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
IF proto-Iranics came from SouthCentral Asia then Yaz was 100% proto-Iranic (ARYAN).Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
I still believe that the Medes were just native to Kurdistan and were the same as the Iron_Age Hassanlu ARYANS, but let say the Medes came from Yaz. If the Medes came from Yaz then Kurds have more than +35% of SouthCentral Asian (Yaz) ancestry.
The Aryan Medes were related to the Hurrians anyway if we assume that the Iron_Age Hassanlu folks were Hurrian (Mannaeans). Because Yaz people were for a huge part of a Caucaso-Iranic (CHG/Iran_ChL) racial stock themselves anyway. So in Kurdish case it doesn't really matter. Kurds kept the majority of their ancient (CHG/Irn_ChL) DNA.
The 'Iron_Age Hassanlu' and the 'Iron_Age Yaz' people were related for sure.
Guti himself is around 15% Steppe which is a good amount but nonetheless he's over 80% West Asian and Middle Eastern as he likes it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
This is impossible due to the simple fact of the extensive borrowings from Proto-Iranic in Proto-Uralic. Proto-Iranic branched off from Indo-Iranian while still in the northern steppes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
There is a genetic gradient of steppe ancestry from Central Asian Iranics to West and South Asian which clearly shows the migration route of early Iranic peoples.
I think if Porto-Iranians/Proto-IEs had emerged in Westasia, they would never have the chance to spread around whole Eurasia, before this would have happened they probably would be swallowed by the other groups there who were definitely too dominant. Main reason of IE-spread were horses too, not domesticated by them but without this animal they wouldn't have conquered all this lands.
Proto-Iranians are not the same as proto-IEans. You are confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mejgusu
Proto-Iranics could spread from Kurdistan into BMAC and from BMAC all the way into the Steppes. The ancient Steppes were full of the BMAC ancestry.
Not, who is saying it was proto-Iranic? I heard some theories that there was some connection between proto-Indo-Iranian and proto-Uralic. Proto-Uralic was older than proto-Iranic, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
There were also a couple migration waves from BMAC into the Steppes. BMAC was older than Andronovo culture.
https://i.postimg.cc/c4Ryv3Wt/abe4414-f4.jpg
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414
You need to make up your mind because you conflate ancient populations like CHG with rather modern populations (your supposed Aryans) and mix them all with linguistics when it suits you although it makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmiito
The Medes were ARYAN people, that's a fact. Suppose the Medes (as Western Iranics) were not native to Kurdistan and arrived in Kurdistan from SouthCentral Asia, more precisely from the Yaz area. The Medes (Western Iranics) themselves had NOTHING to do with the Andronovo Horizon.
At the end, it doesn't even matter where those Medes came from in the first place. Why? If they were native to Kurdistan they would be CHG (Iron_Age Hasanlu) and even if they were from BMAC they would be also mostly CHG, since BMAC was CHG/Irn_ChL derived itself. So no matter how you look at it, the Medes as ARYAN people (Western Iranics) were mostly related to the ancient CHG people (Northwestern Asians).
CHG (Irn_ChL) has been related to the proto-Indo-Europeans and later Iranics (Western and Eastern) from the very beginning of their respective origins
I am sure that if the Medes were from YAZ, they made Kurds even more CHG/Iran_ChL, because CHG/Irn_ChL was less diluted in SouthCentral Asia than CHG in West Asia.
Kurds have more CHG/Irn_ChL than Armenians, and that thanks to the Medes!
CHG/Irn_ChL = ARYAN
So your position is that the Medes are an unaltered version of the Mesolithic inhabitants of the same territory, largely CHG, Iran_N and Levant_N, who already spoke a Proto-Indo-European language?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
And yet the most CHG populations today speak Kartvelian and Caucasian languages. This doesn't seem to fit with your theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
My position is that IF once again IF the Medes were from SouthCentral Asia than they were mostly BMAC derived people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmiito
BMAC has CHG/Iran_ChL origin. If you don’t believe me, I can give you link to the academic papers.
BMAC mixed a little bit the native people of Central Asia, but they kept more CHG/Iran_ChL intact than let say Armenians
You didn’t read the Southern Arc paper? If you have issues with the paper and the academic world, it is not really my problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmiito
It has been said that the proto-Hurrians and proto-Indo-Europeans share the same origin and the same ancient pre-Sumerian ancestors.
The Medes are a population contemporary to ancient Rome. Pretending that they have any importance in the ethnogenesis of any other population is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
You have no idea if the Medes are of local origin and descended from a population who had been living in the same land for 10k years, or if the original Medes came from somewhere else and if they made a small or big impact in the local population (like the Huns in Hungary vs the Hazaras in Afghanistan). You don't even know if the CHG/Iran_N-like of the Medes has its origin in BMAC or from from locals CHGs. All you have is your wishful thinking.
No, you're just making things up because you're clueless but desire very strongly that your theory becomes true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
You can't pretend to link an ancient population (CHG) to a macrogroup of languages (Indo-European) and then forget that the populations who today harbour the highest amount of this ancient ancestry do not speak the languages which supposedly originated in them. Not to mention the insane ties you make between ancient and modern populations and between populations with mixed origins who share the same ancient ancestry. Seriously nothing you say makes sense.
Except Iranics dont have the most CHG in west asia. Those would be north caucasus folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
Bro, you're all over the place. Its clear that the original west Iranics originated from the Sintashta/Andronovo cultures.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmiito
The biblical MedES, the Aryans, and not the Meds, I don't refer to the Medeterranean people, hehe.
The Medes were direct ARYAN ancestors of the Kurds
The MedEs were the founders of the 1st Aryan Empire ever. If they were not significant than nobody is on this planet. Even more significant than the Sumerians.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6G3Qj9C/Median-empire-map.png
You are wrong. Iranics have, together with the modern Hurrians, the most CHG/Irn_ChL ancesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
In the Southern Arc paper they use Irn_ChL for their CHG models.
No way in 1000 years people in Sintashta/Andronovo cultures spoke a Western Iranic dialect aka proto-Kurdic hehe. Western Iranic is either native to Kurdistan or was native to Yaz (BMAC). With other words a CHG/Iran_ChL language, period!
If the Medes came from SouthCentral Asia than this was most likely the case.
https://i.postimg.cc/Df6C6xM7/R1a-migration-map.jpg
Which shows they came from Andronovo/Sintashta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
Dawg, its right there lol
No, they were NOT at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
According to the most Iranologists proto-Iranics/Aryans crystalized around Yaz. This is what most of them are telling us
If the Medes came from the east, then the Medes entered Kurdistan from Yaz and NOT from Andronovo at all
WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about the Medes being Mediterranean. You made this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
The Medes are a people from 600 BC, too late to be the original "Aryans". If anything they're one of the many tribes originating from the Indo-Europeans, hardly relevant really.
You don't address anything I say because you don't know anything, just invent stuff to fit your agenda. Seriously you're so deluded and retarded that I'm not going to waste more time with you.
The Medes are the most important ancestors of the Kurds. Without the Medes Aryan Kurdish language, history, religion etc. would not exist. The Medes were mentioned by their neighbours long before 612BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmiito
By the 612BC it were the Aryan Medes who destroyed the Assyrians. But the Medes existed in Kurdistan centuries before that.
The Medes called themselves 'ARYANS'. Also other people around them, such as Armenians, Greeks etc. referred to them as the Aryans. You know nothing about history, mate. First educate yourself then we can talk. The Medes are the real ARYANS and they were CHG/Irn_ChL people.
NEXT
Im talking about the original Iranics, not the ones that mongrelized with bmac natives. Yaz was already mixed, which is why west iranics were already 50% EHG and 50% BMAC by the time they migrated to Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
Kurds and Persians are an assimilated people. The Iranian or 'Aryan' identity was passed down, just like how Egyptians are now Arabs.
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
But the original proto-Iranics were 'mongrelized' people. I don't understand why you are denying this fact. Like Yamnaya people were 'mongrelized', like CWC people were 'mongrelized', like Italo-Celtic people were 'mongrelized' etc. Every new distinct ethnic group is 'mongrelized' and a mixture between locals and the immigrants.
Once again IF the Medes came from the east, then they came 100% from Yaz. It is what the academic world and Iranologists are telling us. Whether you like it or not. Nobody is asking about your opinion.
Bro, unlike you who is a ethnic Turkic Azeri, I am IRANIC, I know the history of my people very well, maybe much better than all the people here combined.
I have never seen any Iranologist claiming that that the Medes or Persians didn't come from SouthCentral Asia (BMAC) area.
According to them proto-Iranic, proto-Western Iranic (Kurdic and Farsi), proto-Eastern Iranic were formed around Yaz.
The only thing what I have against what most Iranologists are claiming is that I think that it were the Western Asians who brought an Aryan language into BMAC and not the other way around.
But BMAC is a very special place of origin for many Iranic languages I never denied that. No sane person with considerable knowledge of Iranic/Aryan history is denying that.
Meanwhile you can still find Afghans who score like this (no recent European ancestry whatsoever)
Target: Shamal_simulated_g25_scaled
Distance: 1.4918% / 0.01491835
41.0 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
34.4 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
19.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
3.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
2.4 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
Doesn't have to say anything. Most likely mixed just with the native Central Asians, non-Indo-European Turkic people, Mongols/Golden Horde etc.
You can find also high Steppe results among Siberian and Turkic people, doesn't make them more 'Iranic' aka Aryan than the Persians, hehe.
Also don't forget that the Scythians as speakers of the Eastern Iranic dialects were nomads, so they migrated back and forth. Some Steppes ancestry in modern SouthCentral Asians can be explained by the Scythians who have assimilated many non-Iranic Mongoloid/Siberian people in the Steppes.
FACT is that proto-Iranic is NOT from Andronovo.
Im of both Azeri and Persian background. Nothing to do with what I know or dont know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
Second of all, what im saying is, is that Proto Iranics became to be known as West Iranics when they mixed with the native BMAC population. Proto Iranic->West Iranic->Persian and Kurdish.
The Persian identity was formed with the fusion of Elamite and Iranic cultures, while the Kurdish identity was formed with the fusion of Northwest Iranics and Kassites/Gutians.
There seems to be alot of confusion about Aryans and Arya. Arya was centered around Herat which was part of the Persian empire and part of the Aryana region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aria_(region). The ancient Aryans were Parthians and Sogdians . Medes who came before Parthians also had some ancestors from that areaQuote:
Originally Posted by Babak
Aryana was home to some of Kurd and Persian ancestors, their ancient Zoroasterian religion and language. Now with the Southern Arc oaper it seems proto Indo European originated from western Iran and Armenia and developed into proto Indo-Iranian by the likes of Andronovo and Sintashta but Kurds and Persians don’t have direct ancestors according to Eurasian dna but rather have a connection to Yaz and Ariana the ancestors of who (BMAC) admixed with surrounding Andronovo like people.
It’s not 50% EHG but closer to 50% Andronovo according to qpadm https://eurasiandna.com/2659-2/ but keep in mind that Andronovo is only 35-40% EHG. So that would make Turkmenistan-IA about 17-20% EHG. According to Eurasian dna qpadm kurds and persians have close to 30% Yaz Turkmenistan-IA. If you do math Kurds and persians would have received 30% x 18% = 6% EHG from Aryans which is close to Reich Southern Arc paper
Which further proves assimilation. Whether we have direct ancestors or not, its all assimilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
The point im trying to make is Iranics of today are Iranicized, unlike Turks, who have legit direct Turkic ancestry.
Not really. If they were just Iranicized then they would genetically be 100 % Iran-Chl which some Kurds barely have 40% according to qpadm. G25 is absurd because i heard it shows some kurds as 97% 2700 year old Hasanlu. This is absurd because no one in north W. Asia is 97% 300 year old grandparent let alone 2700 year old random person. This is one of the many proofs why G25 is a joke. Only people that are 97% someone from 2700 years ago are inbred isolated islanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
But Turks of Turkey are rarely over 25% Medieval Turkic. Even if we assume they were 40-50% East Eurasian. In modern Turkey most people are below 15% East Eurasian. So it's more like a similar situation with the Aryan blood in Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babak
Don't waste your time on Guti's theories.
Are you trying to say no ethnic group in West Asia has remained unchanged in the last 300 years? No way. 3000 yes of course, perhaps 1500 too but 300 is a relatively short period of time. Some people can trace their documented ancestors to the 18th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
Nope, there are actual Proto-Iranic loanwords in Proto-Uralic. In Uralic languages Aryan (orja) literally means slave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guti
This theory doesn't hold up well and can be explained by thousand other things. So, sounds like bull to me. Most likely proto-Uralic predates proto-Iranic and maybe if 'orja' refers to 'Arya' it could even come from the Scythians and not from proto-Iranics.
Eastern Irancis roamed the steppes for a long time and were in contact with the Uralic/Mongoloid people.
Read the Southern Arc paper and according to the writers of that paper proto-Uralics had maybe some proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords. Nothing special to invent crazy theories about it.
Nope, actually the Medes predate Parthians and were the original Aryans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
There was an Aryan migration (Medes/Amadai) from Kurdistan into Khorasan area around 1000 BCE.
Read the Southern Arc paper and according to the writers of that paper proto-Uralics had maybe some proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords. Nothing special to invent crazy theories about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
Not really for any significance here.
Diakonoff, I.M. (1985) wrote something about how the Medes dominated the trade routes between Kurdistan and KhorasanQuote:
Originally Posted by Guti
As the region inhabited by Parthians, Parthia first appears as a political entity in Achaemenid lists of governorates ("satrapies") under their dominion. Prior to this, the people of the region seem to have been subjects of the Medes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia
https://www-cambridge-org.vu-nl.idm....9E9142D0A245EF
Also this:
Some of Diakonoff's articles deal with the history of eastern and central parts of Asia Minor during the 8th-6th centuries BCE, and his other works are devoted to the ancient cultures of Central Asia. In his article "Vostochnyĭ Iran do Kira" (Eastern Iran before Cyrus; see Diakonoff, 1971a), Diakonoff considered the problems of the origin and allocation of Iranian-speaking tribes in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Eastern Iran, as well as their history in pre-Achaemenid times, based on the Avestan tradition and in the context of archeological data. According to his opinion, pre-Avestan and Avestan cultures of pre-Achaemend times should be located in Parthia, Margiana, Bactria, and Arachosia and dated to the first half of the 1st millennium BCE.
In collaboration with his brother, Mikhail Diakonoff, and Vladimir Livshits, he participated in the decipherment and study of over two thousand ostraca which were discovered during archaeological excavations at Nisa in Turkmenistan in 1948-61. As these scholars have demonstrated, the above-mentioned ostraca contain economic documents written in Parthian but in Aramaic heterographic script. Later these texts were published by Diakonoff together with V. A. Livshits (Diakonoff, 1960) and then they were edited by D. N. MacKenzie (1926-2001) in Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum (Diakonoff, 1976-2002).
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/d...ional-standing
Turks are 100% Turano-Mongoloid monkeys, while real ethnic Kurds and real Persians are 100% AryansQuote:
Originally Posted by Babak