The non-Aryan origin of "Iranians"

[gültekin]

Mongoloid Caucasoids of Mesolithic - Tatiana Chikisheva, 2010:
As soon as you touch physical anthropology, odontology, genetics, osteology, lactose tolerance, blood groups, and other mundane details, traits intolerable for patriots of Indo-Iranism (or Arianism) come to light, and there are no intelligible answers from the Arian department, whose only arguments are name-calling and accusations in Pan-Turkism. Worse yet, self-aggrandizing theory was mostly forged by intellectually masculine “Arian” males, who dreamt up noble riders as their ancestors, but not in a small degree is debunked by c
ontemned females unobtrusively doing their daily work on mundane details, the ickiest offence of which is to find that noble Arian riders had flattish faces, squintish eyes, and Mongoloid admixture.
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...MesolithEn.htm

Portsmouth University:
An Iranian scientist has done a study on the historical Aryan emigration to Iran. The theory says that about 4000 years ago the Aryan tribes emigrated to Iran from central Asia and the Caucasus. By this theory the Iranians (Iran) should genetically be ralated to the Aryan peoples.
But a research on over 2600 Iranian DNA-sequences (y-dna & mt-dna) shows something else. Dr. Bonab Ashrafian says:
"... We have done studies on 26 different Iranian groups. Although we speak an Indo-European language we are not genetically very close to Indo-European peoples. The Aryan genetic markers that exist in central Asia and the Caucasus are found very few in the Iranian Plateau. This shows that if there is any Aryan genetic markers in the Iranian DNA, it probably came from the Aryan tribes that entered Iran."
Dr. Ashrafian has also studied on the Ancient Iranian bones. The study on the ancient bones found in Jiroft and Masjid Kabood shows they are the ancestors of todays Iranians. If these studies show Iranians are not Aryans, then where did they come from? Has the Arabian invasion of Iran (1400 years ago) effected the Iranian DNA?
Dr. Ashrafian continues as follows:
"Our research shows that all Iranian tribes are genetically related to the people who lived in south-west of Iran since 10.000 years. The Arabian invasion has effected south-west of Iran and Bushehr, but in very very few amounts."

[Yatoork]

Good for them

And too good for your my Turkified Persian Mongrel (aka Azeri/Azerbaijani)

[Kamal900]

Lol, your the one to talk. Turks are nothing but Turkified native Anatolians with minor Turkic admixture, and genetically, Turks cluster very close to the people they hate than their so called Turkic bretheren in central and north asia.

[StonyArabia]

Lol, your the one to talk. Turks are nothing but Turkified native Anatolians with minor Turkic admixture, and genetically, Turks cluster very close to the people they hate than their so called Turkic bretheren in central and north asia.

The culture is vastly different and is similar to that of their neighbours. Yakut,Tuvan, and even the Muslim Turkics have a very different culture.

[Sockorer]

Iranians are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners, not Arabs. Arabs too are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners but they have Negro admixture where as Iranians have Ancient North Eurasian admixture mostly from invading proto-Iranians from Central Asia.

[StonyArabia]

Iranians are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners, not Arabs. Arabs too are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners but they have Negro admixture where as Iranians have Ancient North Eurasian admixture mostly from invading proto-Iranians from Central Asia.

We have ancient East African admix, if you mean that by Negro, at least ethnic Arabians do, and they lack the West African and if some of them do it's recent. It's funny I have both ANE at quite high levels, and low East African, the first is from the Circassian side and the latter is from the Arabian side. That said we don't share much ancestry with Iranians, we have far more Basal Eurasian base to us than them.

[gültekin]

The culture is vastly different and is similar to that of their neighbours. Yakut,Tuvan, and even the Muslim Turkics have a very different culture.

no , its not. you have not a idea about Turkish culture. its similar and close to all Oguz populations, and other Turkics

Iranians are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners, not Arabs. Arabs too are mostly descended from Neolithic Middle Easterners but they have Negro admixture where as Iranians have Ancient North Eurasian admixture mostly from invading proto-Iranians from Central Asia.

not quite, this theory is no longer valid, last DNA research:
Dr. Ashrafian continues as follows:
"Our research shows that all Iranian tribes are genetically related to the people who lived in south-west of Iran since 10.000 years. The Arabian invasion has effected south-west of Iran and Bushehr, but in very very few amounts."

[Kamal900]

no , its not. you have not a idea about Turkish culture. its similar and close to all Oguz populations, and other Turkics

not quite, this theory is no longer valid, last DNA research:
Dr. Ashrafian continues as follows:
"Our research shows that all Iranian tribes are genetically related to the people who lived in south-west of Iran since 10.000 years. The Arabian invasion has effected south-west of Iran and Bushehr, but in very very few amounts."

" Due to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post-World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants."
http://www.pop.upenn.edu/biblio/who-...netic-evidence

"In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations."
Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...20772/abstract

[gültekin]

copy-paste

so, do you say that some superman chinchongs from Japan jumped over asia and Turkified a population of %90 ? cool, anyway it is of topic and has nothing to do with Iranians Aryanism

[lameduck]

Iranian definitely have lot higher ANE than their Arab neighbors.