"Proto-Iranians were not Northern Europeans"

[Babak]

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 area

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.

The point im trying to make is Iranics of today are Iranicized, unlike Turks, who have legit direct Turkic ancestry.

[Zoro]

Which further proves assimilation. Whether we have direct ancestors or not, its all assimilation.

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.

[Leto]

Which further proves assimilation. Whether we have direct ancestors or not, its all assimilation.

The point im trying to make is Iranics of today are Iranicized, unlike Turks, who have legit direct Turkic ancestry.

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.
Don't waste your time on Guti's theories.

[Leto]

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.

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.

[Token]

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.

There were also a couple migration waves from BMAC into the Steppes. BMAC was older than Andronovo culture.



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

Nope, there are actual Proto-Iranic loanwords in Proto-Uralic. In Uralic languages Aryan (orja) literally means slave.

[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.

[Guti]

The ancient Aryans were Parthians and Sogdians . Medes who came before Parthians also had some ancestors from that area.

Nope, actually the Medes predate Parthians and were the original Aryans.

There was an Aryan migration (Medes/Amadai) from Kurdistan into Khorasan area around 1000 BCE.

[Guti]

Nope, there are actual Proto-Iranic loanwords in Proto-Uralic. In Uralic languages Aryan (orja) literally means slave.

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.

Not really for any significance here.

[Guti]

Nope, actually the Medes predate Parthians and were the original Aryans.

There was an Aryan migration (Medes/Amadai) from Kurdistan into Khorasan area around 1000 BCE.

Diakonoff, I.M. (1985) wrote something about how the Medes dominated the trade routes between Kurdistan and Khorasan


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

[Guti]

The point im trying to make is Iranics of today are Iranicized, unlike Turks, who have legit direct Turkic ancestry.

Turks are 100% Turano-Mongoloid monkeys, while real ethnic Kurds and real Persians are 100% Aryans