Does genetics prove Iran/Armenia is the original land of Indo-Europeans?

There are several evidences which show Greek culture existed in the north of Iran, not Steppe, just compare ancient artifacts, especially golden works and death masks, archeologists, like André Godard, have also mentioned these huge similarities.
 
There are several evidences which show Greek culture existed in the north of Iran, not Steppe, just compare ancient artifacts, especially golden works and death masks, archeologists, like André Godard, have also mentioned these huge similarities.
Which golden work and death mask has a similarity?
David Anthony connected mycenaean death mask to catacomb culture.
 
According to your link:



We know they were Minoans who lived in Greece in the 3rd millennium BC and Mycenaeans migrated there in the 2nd millennium BC, so Mycenaean cultured related to Iranian one.

I'm not denying that components of Greek ancestry comes from elsewhere (to the east). However, we need to make the distinction that Iranian-farmer ancestry is not the same as "Iranian" people of today nor the Indo-European Iranian tribes. Also, again read the paper it is very clear that there is Steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans.

Secondly the Minoan & Mycenaean study pointed out that Mycenaeans had "northern" ancestry from the Steppe and Siberia (which is consistent in several IE speaking regions - hence why the Steppe Hypothesis has the most support these days).

There are several evidences which show Greek culture existed in the north of Iran, not Steppe, just compare ancient artifacts, especially golden works and death masks, archeologists, like André Godard, have also mentioned these huge similarities.

Yet, the genetic data right now shows there was a Steppe-descended component in the Mycenaeans that was not present in the Minoans (or Neolithic samples from Greece).

Furthermore I would like to quote the following in regards to earlier remarks about Haplogroup J & G, as well as the autosomal admixture of these populations (Minoan & Mycenaean):

This analysis shows that all Bronze Age populations from the Aegean and Anatolia derived most (~62–86%) of their ancestry from an Anatolian Neolithic-related population (Table 1). However, they also had a component (~9–32%) of‘eastern’ (Caucasus/Iran-related) ancestry. It was previously shown that this type of ancestry was introduced into mainland Europe via Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe who were a mix of both eastern European hunter-gathers and populations from the Caucasus and Iran4,6; our results show that it also arrived on its own, at least in the Minoans, without eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry. This ancestry need not have arrived from regions east of Anatolia, as it was already present during the Neolithic in central Anatolia at Tepecik-Çiftlik17 (Supplementary Information, section 2). The eastern influence in the Bronze Age populations from Greece and southwestern Anatolia is also supported by an analysis of their Y-chromosomes. Four out of five males belonging to Minoans, Mycenaeans, and southwestern Anatolians (Supplementary Information, section 3) belonged to haplogroup J which was rare or non-existent in earlier populations from Greece and western Anatolia which were dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup G21,2,17. Haplogroup J was present in Caucasus hunter-gatherers3 and a Mesolithic individual from Iran4 and its spread westward may have accompanied the ‘eastern’ genome-wide influence.

Haplogroup J, specifically J2 is still often linked to the spread of farming (which came from the east).

However, Mycenaeans can also be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations (Table 1; Supplementary Information, section 2), suggesting that, alternatively, ‘eastern’ ancestry arrived in both Crete and mainland Greece, followed by ~13–18% admixture with a ‘northern’ steppe population in mainland Greece only. Such a scenario is also plausible: first, it provides a genetic correlate for the distribution of shared toponyms in Crete, mainland Greece, and Anatolia discovered by Kretschmer21; second, it postulates a single migration from the east;third, it proposes some gene flow from geographically contiguous areas to the north where steppe ancestry was present since at least the mid-3rd millennium BCE6,9.
 
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml The oldest known J2a samples at present were identified in remains from the Hotu Cave in northern Iran, dating from 9100-8600 BCE.

Hotu Cave in Mazandaran is in the east of Neka (Nike), the goddess of victory, near Chalus (Achelous) river, the god of all water and the rivers and Zanus (Zanes) valley, the valley of Gods (plural of Zeus), in the same region is the beautiful village of Kandolus, the god of war, also Halestan (land of Hales/Hellas).

Moreover, lake baikal pottery and ANE admixture were found in the Hotu.
ha.png


This is a connection to EHG of J and R1a with mt DNA C /lake baikal pottery, and Lake baikal HG R1a.
So I said several times that PIE would be created within the triangle zone of three culture a few years ago.

Now David Anthony:
"Bomhard’s hypothesis is that PIE was the result of interference between a substrate related to Northwest Caucasian and a dominant language related to Uralic (pre-Uralic?) that absorbed Caucasus-like elements in phonology, morphology, and lexicon. That kind of interference would imply a long period of widespread bilingualism among the pre-Uralic speakers. The shared lexical cognates that Bomhard lists include kinship terms such as ‘daughter-in-law’, suggesting the occurrence of at least occasional formal intermarriage between the two language communities. I have been asked to outline how this hypothesis might correlate with genetic and archaeological evidence ‘on the ground’ in the Pontic-Caspian-North Caucasus region. Much of my assessment is based on research that has been posted on the public server bioarxiv but is not yet formally published. I accept Mallory’s reading of the current consensus that the Yamnaya expansion, beginning about 3000 BC into both Europe and Asia from the Pontic-Caspian steppes, represented the expansion of late PIE languages (after the separation of Anatolian). Putting aside the questions of how and why that expansion occurred, my topic is the formation and origin of the Yamnaya mating network, as a genetic phenomenon; and secondarily of the Yamnaya culture, beginning about 3300 BC within the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as an archaeological phenomenon. I also assess how pre -Yamnaya genetic and archaeological patterns of interaction might correlate with Bomhard’s hypothesis for early PIE origins"

P.s
This type of skull with strong brow ridge and forehead slope would originate in Caucasus, while typical EHG skull has upper facial flatness and prominent convex nose.
olenioostrowiec.jpg
 
Which golden work and death mask has a similarity?
David Anthony connected mycenaean death mask to catacomb culture.

Ok, we should compare, these are some ancient bronze death masks which have been found in Iran:

nm9807.jpg


human_mask_luristan_iran_hi.jpg
 
Ok, we should compare, these are some ancient bronze death masks which have been found in Iran:

nm9807.jpg


human_mask_luristan_iran_hi.jpg

Mycenaean death mask was made by golden foil, which seems to be connected to steppe sun-head culture like in lots of gold mask in china bronze and mesomaerica.

Moreover, their tomb has something to do with china bronze and mesoamerica. The dead in circle B were in supine position like china bronze, not like farmer's flexed position nor BB. And lots of horse burial. Those kinds of culture are not local, but from Iran?


[The practice of digging shaft tombs was a widespread phenomenon with prominent examples found in Mycenaean Greece; in Bronze Age China; and in Mesoamerican Western Mexico.[2]]
 
:giggle:
 
Last edited:
Mycenaean death mask was made by golden foil, which seems to be connected to steppe sun-head culture like in lots of gold mask in china bronze and mesomaerica.

Moreover, their tomb has something to do with china bronze and mesoamerica. The dead in circle B were in supine position like china bronze, not like farmer's flexed position nor BB. And lots of horse burial. Those kinds of culture are not local, but from Iran?


[The practice of digging shaft tombs was a widespread phenomenon with prominent examples found in Mycenaean Greece; in Bronze Age China; and in Mesoamerican Western Mexico.[2]]

More than 2,000 years Strabo also mentioned Greek burial places in Mazandaran: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&query=Str. 11.7&getid=2

Those nomads, however, who live along the coast on the left as one sails into the Caspian Sea are by the writers of today called Däae, I mean, those who are surnamed Aparni; then, in front of them, intervenes a desert country; and next comes Hyrcania, where the Caspian resembles an open sea to the point where it borders on the Median and Armenian mountains. The shape of these mountains is crescent-like along the foothills, which end at the sea and form the recess of the gulf. This side of the mountains, beginning at the sea, is inhabited as far as their heights for a short stretch by a part of the Albanians and the Armenians, but for the most part by Gelae, Cadusii, Amardi, Vitii, and Anariacae. They say that some of the Parrhasii took up their abode with the Anariacae, who, they say, are now called Parsii; and that the Aenianes built a walled city in the Vitian territory, which, they say, is called Aeniana; and that Greek armour, brazen vessels, and burial places are to be seen there; and that there is also a city Anariace there, in which, they say, is to be seen an oracle for sleepers, [Note] and some other tribes that are more inclined to brigandage and war than to farming; but this is due to the ruggedness of the region.
 
I'm not denying that components of Greek ancestry comes from elsewhere (to the east). However, we need to make the distinction that Iranian-farmer ancestry is not the same as "Iranian" people of today nor the Indo-European Iranian tribes. Also, again read the paper it is very clear that there is Steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans.

Secondly the Minoan & Mycenaean study pointed out that Mycenaeans had "northern" ancestry from the Steppe and Siberia (which is consistent in several IE speaking regions - hence why the Steppe Hypothesis has the most support these days).



Yet, the genetic data right now shows there was a Steppe-descended component in the Mycenaeans that was not present in the Minoans (or Neolithic samples from Greece).

Furthermore I would like to quote the following in regards to earlier remarks about Haplogroup J & G, as well as the autosomal admixture of these populations (Minoan & Mycenaean):



Haplogroup J, specifically J2 is still often linked to the spread of farming (which came from the east).

Iranian-speaking people migrated to Iran about 700 BC, before the establishment of Median/Persian empires, probably less than 10 percent of Iranians spoke Iranian languages, Steppe-descended component in the Mycenaeans doesn't mean that Mycenaeans migrated from the steppe but the more possible thing is that there were contacts between people who lived in the north of Iran and those who lived in the steppe probably before 6th millennium BC.
 
Italics might provide a clue. Their language group appears to originate in Southern Italy, where aDNA profiles suggest an admixture of ancient Balkan Chalcolithic-like people and more recent North West Asians. So from which group did their Italic IE language stem?
Chalcolithic Balkanics look too early and probably spoke a Basque-like language in any case.
North European or Yamnayan-like admixture looks too minimal to have brought language with it.
North Levantines - why would they have been IE?
Strangely, the Irano-Armenian component looks the most likely source. It appears to have admixed into North Levantines in the LBA/IA and from there into Southern Italians. As the catalyst or prime colonising element here, it must surely at least be considered a candidate for bringing the Italic languages into Southern Europe.
 
Italics might provide a clue. Their language group appears to originate in Southern Italy, where aDNA profiles suggest an admixture of ancient Balkan Chalcolithic-like people and more recent North West Asians. So from which group did their Italic IE language stem?
Chalcolithic Balkanics look too early and probably spoke a Basque-like language in any case.
North European or Yamnayan-like admixture looks too minimal to have brought language with it.
North Levantines - why would they have been IE?
Strangely, the Irano-Armenian component looks the most likely source. It appears to have admixed into North Levantines in the LBA/IA and from there into Southern Italians. As the catalyst or prime colonising element here, it must surely at least be considered a candidate for bringing the Italic languages into Southern Europe.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

My patience is wearing thin. Substantiate the claims you make or things are going to get very unpleasant.
 
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

My patience is wearing thin. Substantiate the claims you make or things are going to get very unpleasant.

Angela, there is little to gain from threatening to get "very unpleasant" with people who are indifferent to what happens one way or the other.

Here is my substantiation. I obtained an optimal autosomal fit (98.7%) for a sample of 5 Southern Italians by combining the following historical samples in the proportions indicated -
Anatolia 7th mill BC (Barcin various) - 2%
Balkans 5th mill BC (I2181) - 10%
Iberia 4th mill BC (ATP3) - 31%
Steppe 4th mill BC (RISE 507 & 508) - 3%
Armenia 4th mill BC (I1658) - 3%
Lebanon early 2nd mill BC (ERS1790732) - 30%
Armenia mid 2nd mill BC (I1656, RISE 416, RISE 423) - 2%
Armenia late 2nd mill BC (various) - 10%
Iran early 1st mill BC (F38) - 9%

As always, if you or anyone else can find a different combination that fits significantly better, I would be interested to learn what it is.
 
Angela, there is little to gain from threatening to get "very unpleasant" with people who are indifferent to what happens one way or the other.

Here is my substantiation. I obtained an optimal autosomal fit (98.7%) for a sample of 5 Southern Italians by combining the following historical samples in the proportions indicated -
Anatolia 7th mill BC (Barcin various) - 2%
Balkans 5th mill BC (I2181) - 10%
Iberia 4th mill BC (ATP3) - 31%
Steppe 4th mill BC (RISE 507 & 508) - 3%
Armenia 4th mill BC (I1658) - 3%
Lebanon early 2nd mill BC (ERS1790732) - 30%
Armenia mid 2nd mill BC (I1656, RISE 416, RISE 423) - 2%
Armenia late 2nd mill BC (various) - 10%
Iran early 1st mill BC (F38) - 9%

As always, if you or anyone else can find a different combination that fits significantly better, I would be interested to learn what it is.

For God's sakes, anybody can throw populations into an algorithm and get a "fit". That doesn't mean it's remotely plausible historically or archaeologically.

That's what's wrong with this hobby: too many people with no real knowledge of the material and their own axes to grind have access to programs where they can just plug in any numbers they choose.

This is why people should stick to the papers and ignore all these auto mechanics who think they're engineers.

You convince no one here with your nonsense. Why do you bother???
 
You demand my substantiation, then ignore it. That's fine

I usually ignore comments from t-rolls. I made a mistake in responding to yours. It won't happen again. I just wish everyone else would do the same. Then you could babble to yourself until you tire of it.
 
For God's sakes, anybody can throw populations into an algorithm and get a "fit". That doesn't mean it's remotely plausible historically or archaeologically.

That's what's wrong with this hobby: too many people with no real knowledge of the material and their own axes to grind have access to programs where they can just plug in any numbers they choose.
If anyone is able to refute the closeness of this fit or to replicate its closeness using different populations or programs, I would be interested to see it.
 
If anyone is able to refute the closeness of this fit or to replicate its closeness using different populations or programs, I would be interested to see it.
Well a good model that fits nicely can be totally wrong in terms of history and actual real ancestry
 
Well a good model that fits nicely can be totally wrong in terms of history and actual real ancestry
It can be - anything is possible. But is it likely that real ancestry is the total opposite of what the genetics indicate? No.

I've just checked up on the history, and find that it doesn't look wrong at all:
1. In the early 1st millennium BC, Italy was influenced by the Orientalising Period, in which Assyrian, Syrian and Phoenician culture moved in - my best-fit model estimates the greatest degree of Eastern admixture as coming from Northern Levant.
2. The Assyrian empire of that era extended from Northern Levant almost to South Urmia, which is where my Iranian sample from that same era was located, and not far from where my Armenian samples were located only a couple of hundred years earlier.
3. In that same period, bilingual inscriptions have been found in Phoenician and an IE language in Neo-Hittite sites in the Northern Levant.
4. The earliest-attested Italic dates to the Orientalising Period.

The autosomal closest fit actually matches surprisingly well with this.

We have no firm evidence where the Italic languages originated, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they migrated over to Italy with these 'orientals'.
 
Here is my substantiation. I obtained an optimal autosomal fit (98.7%) for a sample of 5 Southern Italians by combining the following historical samples in the proportions indicated -
Anatolia 7th mill BC (Barcin various) - 2%
Balkans 5th mill BC (I2181) - 10%
Iberia 4th mill BC (ATP3) - 31%
Steppe 4th mill BC (RISE 507 & 508) - 3%
Armenia 4th mill BC (I1658) - 3%
Lebanon early 2nd mill BC (ERS1790732) - 30%
Armenia mid 2nd mill BC (I1656, RISE 416, RISE 423) - 2%
Armenia late 2nd mill BC (various) - 10%
Iran early 1st mill BC (F38) - 9%

As always, if you or anyone else can find a different combination that fits significantly better, I would be interested to learn what it is.
This could be mix of local WHG and Steppe people but because Steppe admixture is itself very mix so the bias is in favour of local WHG component, are you getting what I am saying parts of Yamnaya's components could easily be confused with local WHG component hence give you much lesser values.
 

This thread has been viewed 97241 times.

Back
Top