"Proto-Iranians were not Northern Europeans"

[Babak]

The Eurogenes guy is a moron. Modern science destroyed all of his moronic dreams.


no one of them can explain why there is no ERGATIVIY in the Steppes, while Indo-Iranian had ergative construction.

Can you explain this diagram?

[Joso]

Very nice thread

[Zoro]

Even if andronovo and sintashta wasn't near Iran, it doesn't discredit their Iranic identity. Iran as a country is not the native land of the Iranic identity. It never originated in west Asia but the steppe. All Iranian language can be traced back to andronovo and sintashta. Persian didn't originate in Iran, it entered Iran from the north and evolved. Avesta which Persian itself derives from, is an eastern Iranian language. The same thing happened to kurdish and other western Iranian languages. Andronovo and sintashta marks the origins of Iranian identity.

For example, the similarities between what the scythians wore and the Persians is remarkable. And these 2 communities never intermixed with one another. Based on pictures and artifacts the Greeks and scythians themselves left behind, they wore the same clothing with the same patterns as the Persian soliders.

Yes, I understand that the language Iranians speak now may have originated with Sintashta and Andronovo but genetically their contribution to modern Kurds and Iranians is very limited and any genetic contribution they would have to modern Kurds and Iranians would be through Iron Age steppe nomads such as Alans, Sarmatians, Saka and the like, but probably 50% of the genetic contribution for Kurds and other Iranians would of course be the native Zagrosian pastoralists and like you said the rest of the genetic contribution would be from Central Asia via the BMAC farmers and Iron Age steppe nomads and some later Turkic admixture.

In fact the guy at Eurasiandna.com did an analysis of this not using the Eurogenes amateurish G25 nmonte but with the Admixtools qpAdm that researchers use in scientific papers ( I haven't seen a single scientific paper use G25 nmonte). What he found out when he tried to model Kurds ( other Iranians and Azeris would be included as they are our very close cousins) with strictly Sintashta and Iran Chl is that Sintashta was missing some ingredients that modern Iranians have and the models with strictly Iran Chl + Sintashta failed.
Passing models in papers generally show a p-value greater than 0.05.
https://eurasiandna.com/impact-of-th...an-demography/

[IMG][/IMG]


But when he modeled Iranians with qpAdm using Iran Chl + Saka , the models passed very well because Saka had some of those ingredients that modern Iranians have that Sintashta didn't have

[IMG][/IMG]


I believe the Iran Chl would be even lower if he had used BMAC + Iran Chl + Saka

[Zoro]

Those clowns were also denying that Yamnaya was founded by West Asians until important studies came out.
Those clowns also claimed first that Hittites were ‘Northern Europeans’ until recent studies killed their dreams.

Those clowns are wrong about EVERYTHING!

Yeah I vaguely remember that he was trying to even shit on David Reich when Reich had either talked about Yamnaya's West Asian half being south of the Caucasus around Iran or proto Indo European coming from there. Someone might remember. Everything revolves around East Europe for him.

[Zoro]

Can you explain this diagram?

It shows modern Iranians very close to Iran Chl but shifted in the direction of the steppe but interestingly Iron Age steppe nomads are missing from the PCA. In general PCAs are very rough tools just to give a very general idea of how things look like and its hard to make accurate conclusions based on them for many reasons. They can also be misleading because they only show 2 dimensions at a time. I bet on the other dimensions of the PCA if you plot them Iranians would be quiet far from Iran Chl because Iran Chl doesn't have something that modern Iranians have which is quiet a bit of East Eurasian.

I have also read that ancient samples have quiet a bit of DNA damage and are not diploid samples like modern people and this skews the results too.

[MS85]

Can you explain this diagram?

Who made this and where is this from? What is the source of the naming?

[Babak]

It shows modern Iranians very close to Iran Chl but shifted in the direction of the steppe but interestingly Iron Age steppe nomads are missing from the PCA. In general PCAs are very rough tools just to give a very general idea of how things look like and its hard to make accurate conclusions based on them for many reasons. They can also be misleading because they only show 2 dimensions at a time. I bet on the other dimensions of the PCA if you plot them Iranians would be quiet far from Iran Chl because Iran Chl doesn't have something that modern Iranians have which is quiet a bit of East Eurasian.

I have also read that ancient samples have quiet a bit of DNA damage and are not diploid samples like modern people and this skews the results too.

Yea I was trying to see if he can accurately explain what it shows. Nomadic Iron age herders were mostly likely still pretty close to Early Iranics considering the amount of steppe.

[Arhat]

Andronovo or Sintashta never lived in the Iran area. We'll never see their bones in Iran. There were off course Alans, Sakas and Scythians and other Iron Age groups in the area though.

Also you just can't jump from the Bronze Age to the present without going through the Iron Age. There were no pure Andronovans or Sintashtans in the Iron Age. Therefore the steppe admixture in Persians and Kurds and other Iranics and R1a that was introduced in the Iron Age and later must have been by Alans, Sakas, Scythians and other Iron Age groups and also by some more recent migrations from the steppe.

Anyone with half a brain can see what the guy at Eurogenes blog and some idiots at Anthrogenica are preaching is bullshit because there were no pure Andronovans and Sintashtans in the Iron Age and especially in the Iran vicinity in the Iron Age. The steppe groups that were in the area in the Iron Age were Alans, Sakas, Scythians and some others. Therefore they are the ones who are relevant.

The reason that the Eurogenes blogger keep pushing Bronze Age groups and pretends that we can jump from the Bronze Age to the present without going through the Iron Age or the Medieval period is because he wants to make it seem that Europeans dominated our Iranic women and conquered us because Andronovo and Sintashta are a little more European than Sakas, Alans and Scythians and other Iron Age and Medieval steppe groups in our area. Even though I would not consider Andronovo and Sintashta as 100% pure European.

There is zero linguistical or archaelogical evidence for this. Saka probably had a very limited genetic impact outside of the steppes, Most steppe ancestry in West and South Asia predates Saka.

Steppe ancestry to West Asia was brought by people similar to Turkmenistan_IA which were Pamiri-like and around 50% Sintashta and 50% BMAC. So using them as reference Kurds probably have around 30-40% early IA_Iranian ancestry from Central Asia

[Arhat]

Yes, I understand that the language Iranians speak now may have originated with Sintashta and Andronovo but genetically their contribution to modern Kurds and Iranians is very limited and any genetic contribution they would have to modern Kurds and Iranians would be through Iron Age steppe nomads such as Alans, Sarmatians, Saka and the like, but probably 50% of the genetic contribution for Kurds and other Iranians would of course be the native Zagrosian pastoralists and like you said the rest of the genetic contribution would be from Central Asia via the BMAC farmers and Iron Age steppe nomads and some later Turkic admixture.

In fact the guy at Eurasiandna.com did an analysis of this not using the Eurogenes amateurish G25 nmonte but with the Admixtools qpAdm that researchers use in scientific papers ( I haven't seen a single scientific paper use G25 nmonte). What he found out when he tried to model Kurds ( other Iranians and Azeris would be included as they are our very close cousins) with strictly Sintashta and Iran Chl is that Sintashta was missing some ingredients that modern Iranians have and the models with strictly Iran Chl + Sintashta failed.
Passing models in papers generally show a p-value greater than 0.05.
https://eurasiandna.com/impact-of-th...an-demography/

[IMG][/IMG]


But when he modeled Iranians with qpAdm using Iran Chl + Saka , the models passed very well because Saka had some of those ingredients that modern Iranians have that Sintashta didn't have

[IMG][/IMG]


I believe the Iran Chl would be even lower if he had used BMAC + Iran Chl + Saka

This analyze is bullshit and the sam guy claimed that Pashtuns have significant kurdish admixture lol

[Arhat]

Original Andronovo was not Iranic at all. Most likely Mongoloid. Andronovo had a HUGE part of West Siberian HG related auDNA. Later Eastern Aryans from BMAC 'Iranized' Andronovo and those 'Iranized' Mongoloid people became known as the Scythians.


Andronov had NOTHING to do with the Original ARYANS. Andronovo was MONGOLOID, period!

Well the facts dont change because you dont like them. You are just butthurt because history and genetics are not supporting your nationalist fantasy tales about "muh pur great Aryan ancestors". Andronovo had only mongolid admixture in the peripheral regions and early Andronovo/Sintashta was zero mongolid. Probably less mongolid than you and modern day West Asians. Also R1a-Z93 is the primarmy marker of Aryans and please dont try to deny that because you dont have R1a. R1a is an Indo-European marker and was found in Andronovo and Corded Ware but was absent in West Asia and Central Asia prior to the Iron Age/Late Bronze Age