Iosif Lazaridis: Proto-Indo-Europeans had dark hair, brown eyes, and an intermed‌iate skin tone

[Pax Augusta]

can you back this up somehow?

also i think in the context of westeurasians there aren't really any huge differences. OP's point was probably that the originial indo europeans could have resembled modern iranians. that's not impossible and maybe even if a modern euopean saw them they would probably not think they are from europe.

Assuming that the linguistic ancestor of Proto-Indo-European (not Indo-European, which is later phase) is due to a population that was CHG or Iran_N, here we are talking about a population that lived thousands of years before the so-called Indo-Europeans (who were not an ethnicity or a people in the modern sense of the term), and who were in any case genetically different from the Eneolithic population of the Yamnaya culture, which is the one to which the Late PIE output is attributed.

It is certainly possible that some Etruscans had adopted Latin language but Latin was the original language of the Romans.

It is obvious that there were some Etruscans who spoke Latin, just as it is possible that some Etruscans spoke Greek or a Celtic language or Venetic. In all developed civilizations there were probably individuals who were bilingual.

Romans are none other than the inhabitants of Rome, a city on the territory of the Latins, the Latium vetus, bordering the territories of the Etruscans and Sabines. Latin was spoken in Rome because the Latins were most likely the predominant group.

 

[Moja]

Latin, from which Italian is descended, does not have the same origin as Mycenaean/Greek. The studies on IE you mention you know them only for the part about CHG and Iran_N but you do not know the rest of the theories and reconstructions.

As you said this study says "We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA." It doesn't mean that the people of Sicily were the same Mycenaeans in Greece but it talks about a common origin, in fact it says the same Indo-Europeans who created Mycenaean culture in Greece about 1800-1500 BC, migrated to the south of Italy too.

 

[Pax Augusta]

As you said this study says "We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA." It doesn't mean that the people of Sicily were the same Mycenaeans in Greece but it talks about a common origin, in fact it says the same Indo-Europeans who created Mycenaean culture in Greece about 1800-1500 BC, migrated to the south of Italy too.

They were certainly not Iranians from Teheran.

 

[gourd2]

You may check PCA plots and genetic distances. Within Europe probably only the distance of (some) Italians to the Finns and far North-Eastern Euros is comparable to that to the Iranians.


No, that was not his point (his point was and is to infer that Iranians and Italians are genetically similar) and trying to make it look as if it was make me doubt about your motives too.

when i check pca plots posted in this thread then your statement doesn't hold already for central italians and poles. you see the problem i have is that you people constantly overstate the difference between any european population and any non-european population. what are your motives? because you are not objective.

 

[Moja]

They were certainly not Iranians from Teheran.

Whether you like it or not, all genetic studies point to CHG/Iran_N ancestry of Indo-Europeans.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Whether you like it or not, all genetic studies point to CHG/Iran_N ancestry of Indo-Europeans.

They continue not to be modern Iranians from Tehran, it is a gradient of ancestral components, which depends very much on the model that is used with the G25. I could be mistaken but I don't think, to date, it has been 100% confirmed that CHG and Iran_N are exactly the same thing, and anyway you should read better the studies on the Indo-European languages, this is from Lazaridis' latest study.

 

[Moja]

They continue not to be modern Iranians from Tehran, it is a gradient of ancestral components, which depends very much on the model that is used with the G25. I could be mistaken but I don't think, to date, it has been 100% confirmed that CHG and Iran_N are exactly the same thing, and anyway you should read better the studies on the Indo-European languages, this is from Lazaridis' latest study.

Anyway, it can't be denied that based these genetic studies Modern Iranians are one of the most closest people to the original Indo-Europeans.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Anyway, it can't be denied that based these genetic studies Modern Iranians are one of the most closest people to the original Indo-Europeans.

That the Iranian language is Indo-European of the Indo-Iranian subfamily is undeniable, but who the original Indo-Europeans are genetically is much more complex. We need to agree on names. The consensus is that late proto-Indo-European (LPIE) was spoken in the Yamnaya culture, so when the Yamnaya culture pops up, we still cannot talk about Indo-Europeans, and the Yamnaya population is EHG + CHG. So the discussion is about the ancestors of proto-Indo-Europeans, not so much about Indo-Europeans (who were not an ethnic group in the modern sense of the term, repetita juvant). If one reads the latest study by Lazaridis, the issue is much more complex than one might think, so much so that Lazaridis talks about a possible homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans between southern Russia and the northern Caucasus (the North Caucasus-Lower Volga area).

Indo-European Origins: A new Solution to an old Puzzle

A meeting between Nick Patterson and David Anthony in Princeton, NJ in 2010 began a 15-year long collaboration to find the answer to the 250-year old question of the origin of Indo-European speakers that culminated in the breakthroughs of our new paper. We tell some of that story here.

communities.springernature.com

 

[Moja]

That the Iranian language is Indo-European of the Indo-Iranian subfamily is undeniable, but who the original Indo-Europeans are genetically is much more complex. We need to agree on names. The consensus is that late proto-Indo-European (LPIE) was spoken in the Yamnaya culture, so when the Yamnaya culture pops up, we still cannot talk about Indo-Europeans, and the Yamnaya population is EHG + CHG. So the discussion is about the ancestors of proto-Indo-Europeans, not so much about Indo-Europeans (who were not an ethnic group in the modern sense of the term, repetita juvant). If one reads the latest study by Lazaridis, the issue is much more complex than one might think, so much so that Lazaridis talks about a possible homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans between southern Russia and the northern Caucasus (the North Caucasus-Lower Volga area).

Indo-European Origins: A new Solution to an old Puzzle

A meeting between Nick Patterson and David Anthony in Princeton, NJ in 2010 began a 15-year long collaboration to find the answer to the 250-year old question of the origin of Indo-European speakers that culminated in the breakthroughs of our new paper. We tell some of that story here.

communities.springernature.com

Dr. Paul Heggarty says about the Lazaridis study: "Indeed the authors would have the name ‘Indo-European’ refer now only to those, to exclude Anatolian - notwithstanding universal agreement that Anatolian belongs to the family. But Pandora’s box is already opened. If one branch of the family certainly did not emerge from the Steppe, how solid really is the case that all others did?"

And he says in his own study: "Indo-Iranic is an early independent branch in our analyses, with no close relationship to Balto-Slavic (see Box 1 and SM section 7.6.2.1), so that argument in favor of a northern route falls away. Genetically, the ancestry of Indo-Iranic speakers also derives much more heavily from south of the Caucasus and from Neolithic Iran than from the Bronze Age steppe. More parsimonious geographically, at least, would be a route for Indo-Iranic directly eastward out of a South Caucasus homeland through the Iranian Plateau, south of the Caspian (Fig. 1D)."

 

[MOESAN]

It is certainly possible that some Etruscans had adopted Latin language but Latin was the original language of the Romans.

Latins were Italic people relatively close enough to Celts (and even Germans) at first, as their IE languages (post PIE) were without too much doubt inherited from the northern BB people of West-Central Europe. They knowed a particular evolutin later; we may suppose that their genetic links with Etruscans are due to tight contacts in Northern Italy or Austria... NO direct links with Iran, ancient or new. The Greeks had surely more recent ties with Iran, but all teh way, this last story is surey complicated and not straight away

 

[MOESAN]

It is certainly possible that some Etruscans had adopted Latin language but Latin was the original language of the Romans.

Latins were Italic people relatively close enough to Celts (and even Germans) at first, as their IE languages (post PIE) were without too much doubt inherited from the northern BB people of West-Central Europe. They knowed a particular evolutin later; we may suppose that their genetic links with Etruscans are due to tight contacts in Northern Italy or Austria... NO direct links with Iran, ancient or new. The Greeks had surely more recent ties with Iran, but all teh way, this last story is surey complicated and not a straight away travel.

 

[Moja]

Latins were Italic people relatively close enough to Celts (and even Germans) at first, as their IE languages (post PIE) were without too much doubt inherited from the northern BB people of West-Central Europe. They knowed a particular evolutin later; we may suppose that their genetic links with Etruscans are due to tight contacts in Northern Italy or Austria... NO direct links with Iran, ancient or new. The Greeks had surely more recent ties with Iran, but all teh way, this last story is surey complicated and not straight away

It is clear that you just believe in the Steppe hypothesis, there is absolutely no evidence which shows Italic people (not Etruscans) originated in the West-Central Europe, Latin is actually one of the closest languages to Elamite, as it was also mentioned in this thread, genetic studies have proved the arrival of Iranian ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE.

History of Sicily: https://sicilianheritage.com/history/

Who were Elami people? Where was Sikan river? Do you know ancient Idali/Itali people? https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali

 

[Vallicanus]

It is clear that you just believe in the Steppe hypothesis, there is absolutely no evidence which shows Italic people (not Etruscans) originated in the West-Central Europe, Latin is actually one of the closest languages to Elamite, as it was also mentioned in this thread, genetic studies have proved the arrival of Iranian ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE.

History of Sicily: https://sicilianheritage.com/history/

Who were Elami people? Where was Sikan river? Do you know ancient Idali/Itali people? https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali

Absolute rubbish, sorry.

 

[Moja]

Absolute rubbish, sorry.

Because you ou know absolutely nothing about Sicily.

The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

The Castelluccio culture of Sicily, 1800-1500 BC:

 

[Pax Augusta]

It is clear that you just believe in the Steppe hypothesis, there is absolutely no evidence which shows Italic people (not Etruscans) originated in the West-Central Europe, Latin is actually one of the closest languages to Elamite, as it was also mentioned in this thread, genetic studies have proved the arrival of Iranian ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE.

History of Sicily: https://sicilianheritage.com/history/

Who were Elami people? Where was Sikan river? Do you know ancient Idali/Itali people? https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali

None of your examples prove anything. Certainly Italic people were not Iranians from Tehran or Mashhad or Isfahan. The prevailing theory among archaeologists is that they were formed in Italy, and that the linguistic ancestors of the Italic people were in the Bell Beaker culture of central Europe around 4500 BC, and that the Latin-Faliscan group may have entered in Italy before the Osco-Umbrian group (with the latter entering Italy from the northern Balkans). There is still a margin of uncertainty; what is certain is that Italics did not come from Iran.

No sane linguist considers Latin the closest to Elamite, a language attested in Iran and still unclassified. You probably meant to say Elymian language attested in Sicily during the Iron Age, which however is poorly attested and has nothing to do with the Elamite attested in Iran. Elymian is believed to be Indo-European, in the past there was a debate whether it was an IE Anatolian language or an Italic language. Today, according to what is written in a recent university text, "in most of the academic world today this language is considered part of the Italic group instead of Anatolian."

Sicani are not considered Italic.

 

[Ricardo]

The homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans was the block between Northern Iran, the Caspian Sea, Northern Mesopotamia, Southern Caucasus, Northern Caucasus (the North Caucasus-Lower Volga area) and only then Southern Russia.

 

[Moja]

None of your examples prove anything. Certainly Italic people were not Iranians from Tehran or Mashhad or Isfahan. The prevailing theory among archaeologists is that they were formed in Italy, and that the linguistic ancestors of the Italic people were in the Bell Beaker culture of central Europe around 4500 BC, and that the Latin-Faliscan group may have entered in Italy before the Osco-Umbrian group (with the latter entering Italy from the northern Balkans). There is still a margin of uncertainty; what is certain is that Italics did not come from Iran.

No sane linguist considers Latin the closest to Elamite, a language attested in Iran and still unclassified. You probably meant to say Elymian language attested in Sicily during the Iron Age, which however is poorly attested and has nothing to do with the Elamite attested in Iran. Elymian is believed to be Indo-European, in the past there was a debate whether it was an IE Anatolian language or an Italic language. Today, according to what is written in a recent university text, "in most of the academic world today this language is considered part of the Italic group instead of Anatolian."

Sicani are not considered Italic.

In my previous post I mentioned what archaeologists say, as you read they clearly believe there was a migration of peoples from Iran to Sicily in the Middle Bronze Age and genetic studies show Iranian ancestry in Sicily in the same period, we are talking history, it is meaningless to talk about modern cities in Iran, we know about 4.2-kiloyear event and other severe climate events which caused abandonment of ancient cities and villages and mass migrations from Iran.

 

[Pax Augusta]

The homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans was the block between Northern Iran, the Caspian Sea, Northern Mesopotamia, Southern Caucasus, Northern Caucasus (the North Caucasus-Lower Volga area) and only then Southern Russia.

In Lazaridis 2025 the North Caucasus-Lower Volga area is quite smaller.

the CLV cline (it's just EHG and CHG).

 

[Vallicanus]

Because you ou know absolutely nothing about Sicily.

The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

The Castelluccio culture of Sicily, 1800-1500 BC:

View attachment 17881

You are still all at sea,friend!

You should start your own alternative reality blog.

 

[Vallicanus]

Because you ou know absolutely nothing about Sicily.

The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/editio...?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

The Castelluccio culture of Sicily, 1800-1500 BC:

View attachment 17881

And you know nothing about any part of Italy or its genetics and culture except through the filter of your alternative reality.