What does "Iranian related ancestry" mean?

[Regio X]

@All
In my previous post, I considered ENA as ANE-like, and summed both. Those ANE-like in CHG/Iran could still be divided into ANE proper and ENA. The 30.3 in CHG would be something as 22.2 ANE and 8.1 ENA. The 32.7 in Iran Neo, 21.8 ANE and 10.9 ENA.

Anatolia Neo also could be modeled with ENA (2.4%, plus 97.6 Dzudzuana), but that's perhaps 'cause it had already a bit of CHG/Iran-related ancestry. Possibly AHG would lack these traces of ENA.

 

[ratchet_fan]

@All
In my previous post, I considered ENA as ANE-like, and summed both. Those ANE-like in CHG/Iran could still be divided into ANE proper and ENA. The 30.3 in CHG would be something as 22.2 ANE and 8.1 ENA. The 32.7 in Iran Neo, 21.8 ANE and 10.9 ENA.
Anatolia Neo also could be modeled with ENA (2.4%, plus 97.6 Dzudzuana), but that's perhaps 'cause it had already a bit of CHG/Iran-related ancestry. Possibly AHG would lack these traces of ENA.

That's a lot of ENA. What population is it closely related to? Does it jive with the uniparental markers? If so I have my doubts on this much ENA. I read somewhere of the possibility of a ghost , trans Eurasian population that might account for this.

 

[Angela]

I don't know how you can't see in the map that steppe ancestry and Iranian-related ancestry are two different lines, the date on the map is "2000 BC", but Lazaradis et al paper talks about people of Chalcolithic Iran (about 5000-4000 BC), this Iranian-related ancestry clearly comes through Anatolia, not the steppe. I think you know what it means but you want interpret it in another way.

I don't know how you can't understand that the map just doesn't show the ultimate source population, ultimately from the North Caucasus to the South Caucasus/present day Iran area.

The populations were not IDENTICAL, because they mixed with surrounding people in the north and south.

The lines show the routes those two VERSIONS took.

They are so similar that they are difficult to distinguish and so some academics don't even bother, and so say Iranian related. NOTE: not MODERN Iranian related, but related to ancient samples FOUND in what is now IRAN, which is clearly explained in all the papers.

Re-read them if necessary.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

I don't know how you can't see in the map that steppe ancestry and Iranian-related ancestry are two different lines, the date on the map is "2000 BC", but Lazaradis et al paper talks about people of Chalcolithic Iran (about 5000-4000 BC), this Iranian-related ancestry clearly comes through Anatolia, not the steppe. I think you know what it means but you want interpret it in another way.

No I think what you are wanting is for me to confirm what you have been arguing in another thread, that Iran was the source of PIE languages. I am agnostic on that point. You may be correct, you may not be correct and I will confess it is not something that I am overly dogmatic about 1 way or the other. Yes, I live in a country that speaks English, an IE language and yes my ancestors when they came to the USA over 120 years ago spoke Italian, another IE language, so in that context yes I find it interesting but debating the ultimate source of IE languages is not something I get overly passionate about. I thought the substance of your post is who are the Iran_Neolithic peoples genetically related to.

And that 2000 BC appearance of Iran Related I think is not saying this was first time Iran Related ancestry was that far West. This well cited and known paper by Feldman et al 2019 (with Krause as a Co-author) documents that 10% of the Anatolian Farmer ancestry was from Iran-Related/CHG along with 90% local HG ancestry. Even in the later Neolithic the Anatolian Farmers were still 80% Local Anatolian Farmer with some Levant Neolithic moving North as well.

The Lazaridis et al 2017 study on Ancient Greeks (with Krause and Reich on it) documents some Iranian Related ancestry in the Minoans, but some EHG and/or Siberian HG ancestry was in the Mycenaeans, which is consistent with the map you showed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7

So rather than me trying to read your mind, what it is it exactly you are wanting me to agree with or say about Iran related ancestry?

 

[Shahmiri]

I don't know how you can't understand that the map just doesn't show the ultimate source population, ultimately from the North Caucasus to the South Caucasus/present day Iran area.

The populations were not IDENTICAL, because they mixed with surrounding people in the north and south.

The lines show the routes those two VERSIONS took.

They are so similar that they are difficult to distinguish and so some academics don't even bother, and so say Iranian related. NOTE: not MODERN Iranian related, but related to ancient samples FOUND in what is now IRAN, which is clearly explained in all the papers.

Re-read them if necessary.

The main reason that I asked my questions here is that not only this map but also the article says nothing about the source of this Iranian-related ancestry, of course when it says "Iranian" and east of Anatolia in the map is "Iran", it seems to be very possible that the source is also Iran.
Anyway whether from the Caucasus or Iran, the unanswered question is that who were these people who migrated from there to the south of Europe about 2000 to 1500 BC.

 

[Shahmiri]

No I think what you are wanting is for me to confirm what you have been arguing in another thread, that Iran was the source of PIE languages. I am agnostic on that point. You may be correct, you may not be correct and I will confess it is not something that I am overly dogmatic about 1 way or the other. Yes, I live in a country that speaks English, an IE language and yes my ancestors when they came to the USA over 120 years ago spoke Italian, another IE language, so in that context yes I find it interesting but debating the ultimate source of IE languages is not something I get overly passionate about. I thought the substance of your post is who are the Iran_Neolithic peoples genetically related to.

And that 2000 BC appearance of Iran Related I think is not saying this was first time Iran Related ancestry was that far West. This well cited and known paper by Feldman et al 2019 (with Krause as a Co-author) documents that 10% of the Anatolian Farmer ancestry was from Iran-Related/CHG along with 90% local HG ancestry. Even in the later Neolithic the Anatolian Farmers were still 80% Local Anatolian Farmer with some Levant Neolithic moving North as well.

The Lazaridis et al 2017 study on Ancient Greeks (with Krause and Reich on it) documents some Iranian Related ancestry in the Minoans, but some EHG and/or Siberian HG ancestry was in the Mycenaeans, which is consistent with the map you showed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7

So rather than me trying to read your mind, what it is it exactly you are wanting me to agree with or say about Iran related ancestry?

Of course I believe those who lived in ancient Iran were Proto-IE people but I want to know are there other possibilities or not?
Anyway it seems you have confirmed that "Iranian related ancestry" relates to Iran in the Bronze age, I think it is actually a wrong term, if it is proved that Iran is the original land of Proto-IE people, we should call it "Proto-IE related ancestry", this "Iranian related ancestry" is wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to say "Turkish related ancestry", instead of "Anatolian related ancestry", those who lived in early Bronze Age Turkey were not Turks and those who lived early Bronze Age Iran were not Iranians.

 

[Angela]

The main reason that I asked my questions here is that not only this map but also the article says nothing about the source of this Iranian-related ancestry, of course when it says "Iranian" and east of Anatolia in the map is "Iran", it seems to be very possible that the source is also Iran.
Anyway whether from the Caucasus or Iran, the unanswered question is that who were these people who migrated from there to the south of Europe about 2000 to 1500 BC.

Quite a few people have given you their opinions, and shown the graphs to prove it.

I don't know that there's anything to add.

 

[Regio X]

That's a lot of ENA. What population is it closely related to? Does it jive with the uniparental markers? If so I have my doubts on this much ENA. I read somewhere of the possibility of a ghost , trans Eurasian population that might account for this.

The ENA in CHG's best fit was Tianyuan, while the best one for Iran Neo was Onge. It doesn't mean these were necessarily the actual sources, as you suggested. It likely means the actual source, the ghost source - as you called it -, must have been related to these, and it was certainly closer related to them than to ANE and others used in modeling.

 

[Anfänger]

@All
In my previous post, I considered ENA as ANE-like, and summed both. Those ANE-like in CHG/Iran could still be divided into ANE proper and ENA. The 30.3 in CHG would be something as 22.2 ANE and 8.1 ENA. The 32.7 in Iran Neo, 21.8 ANE and 10.9 ENA.
Anatolia Neo also could be modeled with ENA (2.4%, plus 97.6 Dzudzuana), but that's perhaps 'cause it had already a bit of CHG/Iran-related ancestry. Possibly AHG would lack these traces of ENA.

Interesting, so Sardinians have to be the most Dzudzuana-like population in the world today ?

 

[Ygorcs]

Please show your source about it, there are some thousands years between 2000-1500 BC and Neolithic age, please also be clear, when we read about unmixed people with Iranian-related ancestry in the Middle Bronze age, who these people could be other than inhabitants of Iran?

Lots of people already showed, including myself. Learn to analyse PCA and admixture graphs and do your own homework.

What are those unmixed people with Iranian-related ancestry in the Middle Bronze age? That map is clearly talking about Iranian-related ADMIXTURE/ANCESTRY, not flesh and blood unmixed people. Again, you seem to have a problem interpreting those things.

 

[Ygorcs]

I just searched in Google Image and found another map:

It says Anatolia and Iran plus Steppe?! But it comes from the northwest of Iran, in the west of Anatolia it is divided into two branches.

What's the source of this map? Anyone can make a map and publish it on the internet.

And, yes, we already know the Armenia_MLBA-related ancestry expanded into Southern Europe and it was probably already very mixed especially with CHG, Iran_N, ANF and perhaps also in some cases steppe ancestry (some amount of steppe admixture was already found in the South Caucasus and nearby areas as early as the EBA). Minoans, however, show only evidences of that CHG/Iran_N+ANF expansion, no steppe ancestry at all. That expansion basically affected only the Aegean zone and Italy, not Europe as a whole, unlike the steppe migrations from the LCA to the MLBA (and, of course, also unlike the Indo-European language expansion).

 

[Ygorcs]

@All
In my previous post, I considered ENA as ANE-like, and summed both. Those ANE-like in CHG/Iran could still be divided into ANE proper and ENA. The 30.3 in CHG would be something as 22.2 ANE and 8.1 ENA. The 32.7 in Iran Neo, 21.8 ANE and 10.9 ENA.
Anatolia Neo also could be modeled with ENA (2.4%, plus 97.6 Dzudzuana), but that's perhaps 'cause it had already a bit of CHG/Iran-related ancestry. Possibly AHG would lack these traces of ENA.

Where did you take those admixture proportions from? It's interesting that Anatolia_N also had some tiny ENA proportion.

 

[ratchet_fan]

The ENA in CHG's best fit was Tianyuan, while the best one for Iran Neo was Onge. It doesn't mean these were necessarily the actual sources, as you suggested. It likely means the actual source, the ghost source - as you called it -, must have been related to these, and it was certainly closer related to them than to ANE and others used in modeling.

Thanks. That seems like a lot. Unless weird stuff in the uniparental markers hasn't popped up yet. What about the ENA in WHG?

 

[Regio X]

@Ygorcs @rachet
Always Lazaridis et al. You guys can check some models here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf
Afaik, p-values above 0.05 are more meaningful, and higher p-values could indicate more feasible models (which doesn't mean that they should be taken literally; we have examples of supposed good models evidencing shared ancestry rather than actual ancestry).

You may find models for the same components in more than one table, so explore them. For example, models for Anatolia N may be found in tables S3.1, S3.2 and S3.5.

rachet, as for uniparentals markers, are you talking abt. modern lineages in Caucasus/Iran that could be related to these old components such ENA?

 

[ThirdTerm]

The main reason that I asked my questions here is that not only this map but also the article says nothing about the source of this Iranian-related ancestry, of course when it says "Iranian" and east of Anatolia in the map is "Iran", it seems to be very possible that the source is also Iran.

This ancestry is related to early Iranian farmers and ancient DNA was recovered from a site in the Zagros Mountains. The early Zagros Mountain farmers have left a genetic legacy particularly in Zoroastrians in Iran. The Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all Eurasians 50,000 to 60,000 years ago and they have less Neanderthal ancestry than Anatolian farmers.

The descendants of these early farmers went separate ways. Whereas the western Anatolians later migrated to Europe, Reich’s team proposes that the ancient farmers of the Levant migrated to East Africa, where living people carry some of their distinct DNA, and the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse

 

[Shahmiri]

Shahmiri: Take a look at this paper. Maybe it can help out. The paper suggest most closely related to the Caucus Hunter Gathers from just to the North. No direct link to modern European populations, so probably came in with some other direct source (e.g., Yamnaya). This paper suggest no genetic relationship with the Anatolian Farmers further to the West.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326

This ancestry is related to early Iranian farmers and ancient DNA was recovered from a site in the Zagros Mountains. The early Zagros Mountain farmers have left a genetic legacy particularly in Zoroastrians in Iran. The Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all Eurasians 50,000 to 60,000 years ago and they have less Neanderthal ancestry than Anatolian farmers.

The descendants of these early farmers went separate ways. Whereas the western Anatolians later migrated to Europe, Reich’s team proposes that the ancient farmers of the Levant migrated to East Africa, where living people carry some of their distinct DNA, and the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse

Ok, we read from the above link:

The agricultural transition profoundly changed human societies. We sequenced and analysed the first genome (1.39x) of an early Neolithic woman from Ganj Dareh, in the Zagros Mountains of Iran, a site with early evidence for an economy based on goat herding, ca. 10,000 BP.

It seems there was a Proto-Zagrosian language:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12284-011-9076-9

The Dravidian languages, now spoken mainly in peninsular India, form one of two main branches of the Zagrosian language family, whose other main branch consists of Elamitic and Brahui. ... The reconstructed vocabulary includes terms related to herding, with words for sheep, goat, cattle inherited from Proto-Zagrosian:

“sheep, goat”, Elamite hidu “sheep, goat”, Brahui

“she-goat”, Proto-Dravidian

“sheep, goat”.

Latin haedus "young goat": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haedus#Latin

From Proto-Italic *haidos, probably a loanword from a pre-Indo-European substrate language due to the fact that it cannot be derived from any known root. The only sure cognate is Proto-Germanic *gaits (“goat”).

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38356-Pre-Proto-Germanic-loanwords-from-Akkadian

Proto-Germanic *kida "kid, young goat" & *gaito "goat" from pre-Proto-Germanic gʰaido/gaidʰo from Akkadian gadû "young goat, goat's kid" (http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=6434&language=id)

Who were the ancient people of Hidali (Idali), land of young cattle, in Zagros mountain area? https://iranicaonline.org/articles/hidali

 

[spruithean]

Sigh, here we go again. The same thread, rehashed.

 

[Shahmiri]

Sigh, here we go again. The same thread, rehashed.

Who did it?!

 

[Shahmiri]

Look at also this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28668-Link-between-Elymians-and-Elamites (Link between Elymians and Elamites?)

The ancient Elymians conquered extreme western Sicily, they split the island with sicani and siculi people, who where ethnically different. Their most important cities where Segesta, Entella, Eryx, Iatae, Drepanon etc. Some say that they arrived from Anatolia ad where a sea people's sub-group. The Greeks identified them as descendants of conquered Trojans/Trojan war refuges landing in Sicily. But what if they where not ANATOLIANS and where Elamites instead? The Elamites lived in what is now today extreme southwestern Iran. Situated just east of mesopotamia, their capital was Susa. Their kingdom stretched from Susa in the west to Anshan in the east. Their kingdom lies on top of a 10-13% stretch area of haplogroup T. Western Sicily also has higher than normal haplogroup T stretches, for example Sciacca, not too far from ancient Elymians territory has some 17% haplogroup T. Maybe there is a link between Elamites/bakhtiaris/lurs people and Elymians or certain other rare areas of Europe here and there? Some of those areas have some of the worlds highest % of haplogroup T. (Town in western Sicily, Elamite region of Iran).

We really see many similar Italic and Elamite words, like this one:

Elamite san "blood": https://ids.clld.org/units/216-100

Latin sanguis "blood": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sanguis

Originally sanguīs, from older sanguen, from *san- (compare saniēs (“ichor; ulcer”)), from Proto-Indo-European *h₁sh₂-én-, oblique stem of *h₁ésh₂r̥ (“blood”); compare Old Latin assyr, aser, Hittite 𒂊𒌍𒄯 (ēšḫar), Sanskrit असृज् (ásṛj), Ancient Greek ἔαρ (éar), Old Armenian արիւն (ariwn). The original paradigm must have been nominative assyr, oblique san-, which then split into doublets. The element -guen is probably from unguen, inguen.

However it seems there is an Indo-European origin for the Latin word.

I'm also interested to know about haplogroup T that adamo mentioned.

 

[Angela]

Well, from Razib Khan's review of "

he seems to feel they're correct in their conclusions.

"In the paper, they used whole genomes to reconstruct the ancestral steppe/Iranian population without any residual “Ancient Ancestral South Indian” (AASI), the latter of which has no West Eurasian. They did the same for the AASI. These reconstructions are always dicey, but they made a good faith effort to check their work. On the whole, that section was impressive. The authors seem to be roughly aligned with the results in Narasimhan et al. 2019. The AASI seems to be homogeneous, with the exception of attempting to model them from donors which were Munda or Burusho, both groups with deep East Asian admixture (illustrating the problem with deconvolution). Second, they show that the AASI are not clustering with the Andamanese, which makes sense since these groups diverged closer to 40,000 years ago. Finally, the steppe/Iranian group looks most like Armenian middle-to-late Bronze Age people. A synthesis of steppe and some Iranian-like ancestry."

Now, does he mean by steppe/Iranian group the "Iranians" of the steppe, or just the steppe people living on the eastern steppe. I'd say the Iranian speaking people on the steppe? So, then, what's the definition of steppe in the last sentence? Does it also include CHG/Iranian like of the "steppe" people, but just a little more?

The whole thing gets very tricky when every term isn't precisely defined.

The paper:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/36/8/1628/5364274

The Khan article:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020...ute-carrier-family-genes-are-importantbut-how