Iranian Nordoid examples

[aherne]

A rebuke to aherne:

This is baseless. Simply your ideas, not supported by anthropology, linguistics and any evidence available (physical anthropology as well as genetics). Simply crackpot pan-Turkic "science"... Scythians were in general pure Aryans (or "Nordids" for those that hate that word because it reminds them of Hitler and concentration camps). Those towards Sayan-Altai region over time got substantial Turanid admixture because that region is Turanic urheimat.

Depends which parts of Kazakhstan. If we are talking of Eastern parts, a slow ingression of Turanid element from over Altai range is already accepted.

[Smeagol]

The main bulk of the Scythians were indeed of Turanid Andronovo type

No they weren't. Do you have anything to support that? Skeletal evidence proves Scythians were mainly Nordid-Eastcromagnid with Turanid influences mainly in the east.

[Proto-Shaman]

This is baseless. Simply your ideas, not supported by anthropology,

The major component of the Turanid type is indeed characterized by the Europoid Andronovo form, the anthropological type of Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Karakalpaks, Kirghizes, Altaians, partly Tatars and Uzbeks, etc. Historical report and the testimony of archaeology and anthropology, placed the genesis of Turkic culture in the areas of the Yenisey river and of the Sayan and Tannu-ola ranges. This region had been the home of Europoid races who produced the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures.

source: Liptak, the prominent Hungarian pyhisical anthropologist

linguistics

Read carefully:

- More on Archaeology and Language: Mario Alinei, Richard N. Frye: ''Current Anthropology'', Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2003), pp. 109-110. Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. DOI: 10.1086/345686:
"A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic, and (2) a convergence between a hippocentric geo-cultural scenario, on the one hand, and the continuity of the archaeological record, on the other ("The steppe tribes of horse-breeders and mobile pastoralists had already begun, in the Copper Age, to play the role which they were to continue to play for the next 5,000 to 5,500 years of human history" [Chernykh 1992:42-3]), pace Anthony and other scholars who continue to cultivate the myth of the hippocentrism of the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians. The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion."

- Archaeology and Language: ''The Indo-Iranians'', by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, pp.63-84:
"Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot."

- C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, In: The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Edwin Bryant, Associate Professor of Early Indian Religions and Laurie Patton, Laurie Patton, Routledge 2013, pp.142-172:
"Thus, there is an equally valid quest in searching for the homeland and subsequent migration of the Altaic languages (Turkish, Mongolian), Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian) - see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for a full listings of these language families and Elamo-Dravidian. Each of these three language families have their roots on the Eurasiatic steppes and/or in Central Asia. The fact that these language families, compared to Indo-European, are of far less interest to the archaeologist with regard to the study of homeland(s) and/or subsequent spread, may have a great deal to do with the fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European who address this topic in search of their own roots. [...] Although there is a consensus among archaeologists working on the steppes that the Andronovo culture is in the rightplace at the right time, and thus is to be considered Indo-Iranian, there is neither textual, ethnohistoric, nor archaeological evidence, individually or in combination, that offers a clinching argument for this consensus."

and any evidence available (physical anthropology as well as genetics). Simply crackpot pan-Turkic "science"...

Because during the former Soviet Union so much scientific literature was composed by the supporters of the Indo-European theory, the ideological and spiritual direction of which constituted the ideological policy of the colonialists.

Depends which parts of Kazakhstan. If we are talking of Eastern parts, a slow ingression of Turanid element from over Altai range is already accepted.

It's about Kazakhstan as a whole landmass. The origin of the Turanid type is from the mixing of the Eastern Cromagnoid (Cromagnoid-C or Paleoeuropid) and Mongoloid types in the Bronze age Central Asia. The origin of the Pamirids is from the mixing of the Turanids and Central Asian Taurids. source: Henkey Gyula and Horváth Izabella, Physical Anthropological Field Report and Comparative Research Results on the Kazaks and Kirghiz from the Peoples Republic of China - International Journal of Central Asian Studies; Volume 3, 1998

Scythian mtDNA:


Scythian y-DNA:


I couldn't detect any Indo-Iranian marker here btw, only Finno-Ugric and Turkic.

[Proto-Shaman]

No they weren't. Do you have anything to support that? Skeletal evidence proves Scythians were mainly Nordid-Eastcromagnid with Turanid influences mainly in the east.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...=1#post2319807

[Smeagol]

It's about Kazakhstan as a whole landmass. The origin of the Turanid type is from the mixing of the Eastern Cromagnoid (Cromagnoid-C or Paleoeuropid) and Mongoloid types in the Bronze age Central Asia. The origin of the Pamirids is from the mixing of the Turanids and Central Asian Taurids. source: Henkey Gyula and Horváth Izabella, Physical Anthropological Field Report and Comparative Research Results on the Kazaks and Kirghiz from the Peoples Republic of China - International Journal of Central Asian Studies; Volume 3, 1998

This is true, but it doesn't contradict what I said, because the Scythians had some Turanid influence but were mainly not Turanids. Can you post the source for that chart of Mongoloid admixture in Kazakhstan?

[Proto-Shaman]

This is true, but it doesn't contradict what I said, because the Scythians had some Turanid influence but were mainly not Turanids. Can you post the source for that chart of Mongoloid admixture in Kazakhstan?

Here is the original one:

[Smeagol]

Here is the original one:

Yes, but can you give the source from where it comes from? I've seen it before, I'd just like to re-read it.

[Proto-Shaman]

Yes, but can you give the source from where it comes from? I've seen it before, I'd just like to re-read it.

I found it: http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.p...d=4:1&Itemid=4

[Smeagol]

I found it: http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.p...d=4:1&Itemid=4

The text seems to contradict the chart.

''Ancient-Europoid features such as medium wide and quite high skull, mesocranial index, medium inclined forehead, low and rectangular orbits, wide but low face, horizontally profiled face, slightly projected cheek bones, deep canine fossas and sharply pronounced nasal bones. These and other craniological peculiarities of skulls related to the ancient local inhabitants of Kazakhstan can be referred to their ancient-Europoid race which was wide-spread in the Bronze Age as at the territory of Kazakhstan as beyond its borders in the steppes of Eurasia. Owing to comparative analysis of paleoanthropological data of inhabitants of Kazakhstan from the following historical epochs, it was stated that ancient-Europoid anthropological base was prominent in the further ethno-anthropological processes of formation and continuous development of anthropological appearance of local population up to contemporaneity [2].

First of all one can be convinced in it by the anthropological peculiarities of inhabitants of Kazakhstan in the Iron Age (VIII-IV cc. B.C.), which were direct genetic successors of the Bronze Age tribes as anthropologically as ethno-culturally including the whole complex of their handmade and spiritual cultural values. Generally the carriers of ethno-cultural traditions of the Iron Age anthropologically had the same physical features as inhabitants of Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age, i.e. their morphological basis remained within variations of ancient-Europoid race. At the same time in comparison with inhabitants of the previous epochs there was some influence of Mongoloid elements of Central Asian origin among them. At that the conditional portion, i.e. degree of Mongoloid admixture brought from the outside by newly arrived Central Asian (i.e. superstrate) groups into racial structure of local (i.e. substrate) population, made 15% according to our calculations [3]. Therefore, preliminary range of introduced so-called Eastern component in the Western racial complex of morphological peculiarities of local populations was quite high. Nevertheless, that fact concerned with inflow of new genes into the environment of local inhabitants of Kazakhstan certifies about the start of their involvement into wide-ranging and continuous processes of mixing. The craniological data, as well as paleogenetic study of odontological material of the inhabitants of Kazakhstan of Iron Age, argues with that [4]. At the same time these facts certify that the Iron Age is a temporary starting point of the commenced processes of mixing between Europoid and Mongoloid races at the territory of Kazakhstan.

Further increase of relative portion of Mongoloid elements among local population of Kazakhstan can be traced during the Antique Time (III c. B.C. - IV c. A.D.). Within that period racial composition of local inhabitants was getting more mixed due to Great immigration from the East to the West. As a result conditional portion of Mongoloid elements in the anthropological type of local population reached approximately 25% within the territory of Kazakhstan.

According to this Kazakhs were pure Europids until the iron age, and 25% Mongolid at the Classical period, whereas the chart shows 70% Mongoloid admixture in classical times..

[Proto-Shaman]

The text seems to contradict the chart.

Further increase of relative portion of Mongoloid elements among local population of Kazakhstan can be traced during the Antique Time (III c. B.C. - IV c. A.D.). Within that period racial composition of local inhabitants was getting more mixed due to Great immigration from the East to the West. As a result conditional portion of Mongoloid elements in the anthropological type of local population reached approximately 25% within the territory of Kazakhstan.

According to this Kazakhs were pure Europids until the iron age, and 25% Mongolid at the Classical period, whereas the chart shows 70% Mongoloid admixture in classical times..

I don't see the alleged contradiction here. The text clearly says 25% Mongolid during III c. B.C. - IV c. A.D.