What does "Iranian related ancestry" mean?

[halfalp]

You are right Levant_Chl does have Anatolia_N even the older Pre-Pottery Neolithics have a lot of Anatolia_N:

View attachment 12263

The Natufians spread south to Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. I am not aware of huge movements of Natufians to Anatolia.

Surely that much % of Barcin ancestry is probably related to Dzudzuana no? Seems too much for that time.

 

[halfalp]

Would you please tell me what I should read in this paper?!
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.full
What does it mean?
This is not my theory, look at Journal of European Studies, most of scholars already believe Indo-European culture originated in South of Caucasus or Iran.

The problem is that you are taking random datas and assimilate them to your own theories. What does Iranian-related ancestry in Mycenaeans and Bronze Age Sicily is related with the Indo-European topic?

What they are saying, is that there is a consistant Iranian flow in the Mediterranea from East to West in the Bronze Age. Even supporters for an Iranian Proto-Indo-European origin would not use this trail as a clue, because he doesn't evolve any other clues like Archeology.

That apart, Bronze Age Mediterranea like Sardinian Nuragic Civilization or Corsican Torrean Civilization link with some Baleares and other Mediterranean Megalithic Cultures are extremelly interesting. And if their Bronze Age warriors were linked to Iranian ancestry, it will be very interesting to see further studies on it.

 

[Aaron1981]

I have read it several times in recent genetic studies but I see different interpretations of it, is it the same Anatolian-related ancestry which relates to the spread of farming to the west? So why do they call it Iranian related ancestry? Of course haplogroup J2 existed in both in Anatolia and Iran, does it talk about just this haplogroup, not even one of its subclades? What culture is associated with Iranian related ancestry? Please also talk about the time span.

Iran-related ancestry is largely restricted to southern by south-eastern Europe. A CHG-like ancestry moved onto the steppes and mixed with local people inhabiting the steppes, EHG + CHG-like + EEF creates Yamnaya. Iran-related ancestry is more likely related to something the Mesopotamians would have had.

 

[Ygorcs]

In the Bronze Age this "Iranian-related ancestry" came to Anatolia and then Hittite, Luwian and some other IE cultures appeared there, in 2,000 BC it came to Greece and 1,500 BC in South of Italy, what appeared there?
DNA analysis unearths origins of Minoans, the first major European civilization
It seems to be clear in Greece it was not Minoan culture, so what was it?

Actually, the beginnings of the spread of Iranian-related ancestry far predates those Bronze Age civilizations (some of it was already present in Neolithic Greece, more specifically in the Pelopponese, and in Neolithic Central Italy), and it never went beyond the Aegean zone and the Italian peninsula. So it just cannot explain the massive spread of Indo-Euorpean languages in the ENTIRETY of Europe in the Bronze Age up to the late Iron Age ---- conversely, the spread of steppe pastoralist ancestry fits the archaeological and linguistic evidences entirely.

Andm, btw, Minoans had more Iranian-related ancestry than Mycenaeans, and I also think you can't be that brainwashed to be unable to notice that the one and only thing clearly distinguishing Minoans from Mycenaean Greeks (Indo-European-speaking) were... let me see... yeah, steppe pastoralist ancestry with the typical EHG+CHG admixture, which Minoans (non-IE-speaking) lacked.

 

[Shahmiri]

The problem is that you are taking random datas and assimilate them to your own theories. What does Iranian-related ancestry in Mycenaeans and Bronze Age Sicily is related with the Indo-European topic?

What they are saying, is that there is a consistant Iranian flow in the Mediterranea from East to West in the Bronze Age. Even supporters for an Iranian Proto-Indo-European origin would not use this trail as a clue, because he doesn't evolve any other clues like Archeology.

That apart, Bronze Age Mediterranea like Sardinian Nuragic Civilization or Corsican Torrean Civilization link with some Baleares and other Mediterranean Megalithic Cultures are extremelly interesting. And if their Bronze Age warriors were linked to Iranian ancestry, it will be very interesting to see further studies on it.

It is at least good that you say this Iranian ancestry could have cultural impacts in the south of Europe, I asked in quora: "Did ancient people from Iran build the Minoan civilization in Greece?", I can ask the same question about Sardinian Nuragic Civilization or Corsican Torrean Civilization, but do you really think those who have researched about these ancient civilizations will say "YES"?

Petra Goedegebuure, professor of Hittitology at the University of Chicago, says all evidences show that Anatolian culture, as the earleist known Indo-Eueopean culture, originated in the south of Caucasus and Iran, I wonder how the same people who migrated from the same region to Greece built non-Indo-European cultures.

Would you please tell me from where steppe-related ancestry came to Anatolia and Greece? Balkan? According to "The genomic history of southeastern Europe", steppe-related ancestry is rare in Balkan until the late Bronze Age but Indo-European cultures certainly existed in Anatolia and Greece in the Middle Bronze Age.

 

[Shahmiri]

Iran-related ancestry is largely restricted to southern by south-eastern Europe. A CHG-like ancestry moved onto the steppes and mixed with local people inhabiting the steppes, EHG + CHG-like + EEF creates Yamnaya. Iran-related ancestry is more likely related to something the Mesopotamians would have had.

Read this article: Iran_N/CHG Ancestry and the Genetic Origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

the most likely place from where this Iran N/CHG type ancestry spread across Eurasia is South Central Asia.

Mesopotamians had 'Neolithic Revolution' which means the transition to sedentism in the Neolithic, before the Achaemenid era, except a small region in the southwest of Iran (Elam), you can't find even a a specific kingdom in this country.

 

[halfalp]

It is at least good that you say this Iranian ancestry could have cultural impacts in the south of Europe, I asked in quora: "Did ancient people from Iran build the Minoan civilization in Greece?", I can ask the same question about Sardinian Nuragic Civilization or Corsican Torrean Civilization, but do you really think those who have researched about these ancient civilizations will say "YES"?

Petra Goedegebuure, professor of Hittitology at the University of Chicago, says all evidences show that Anatolian culture, as the earleist known Indo-Eueopean culture, originated in the south of Caucasus and Iran, I wonder how the same people who migrated from the same region to Greece built non-Indo-European cultures.

Would you please tell me from where steppe-related ancestry came to Anatolia and Greece? Balkan? According to "The genomic history of southeastern Europe", steppe-related ancestry is rare in Balkan until the late Bronze Age but Indo-European cultures certainly existed in Anatolia and Greece in the Middle Bronze Age.

Of course Iranian ancestry in the sens of Iran_Neo and Iran_Chl will show up in many different places and civilizations like Ancient Egypt, Ancient India and the Mediterranea. We are not diminishing the Iranian-related label. It will be intersting in the studies of population genetics.

What we are saying is that Iranian-related ancestry is very difficult to link to the PIE ethnogenesis, at least in most part.

What if PIE came from Anatolia? Anatolia was never fully Iranian related? Not even mostly. Even the Hajji Firuz individual on the eastern fringe seems to show a little bit more Anatolian_Neo ancestry than Iranian_Neo.

In any case, you are talking about the origin of PIE hypothesis. What really interest you, Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis in the sense of an Indo-European Cultural context and not a geographic one. Are pretty much all believe to come from a Steppe EMBA population.

Researchers seems to be incredibly unlucky in not founding too much Steppe markers in Anatolia, Middle-East and Iran/India, but surely it will come at some point. It's litterally impossible that Bronze Age / Iron Age Anatolia and Iran/India didn't have any Steppe ancestry, such ancestry will always irradiate in neighboring places, like we can see with Iranian ancestry in different places.

Or maybe they have the samples, but they dont fit the synthesis of their papers. Who knows really?

 

[halfalp]

Read this article: Iran_N/CHG Ancestry and the Genetic Origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans



Mesopotamians had 'Neolithic Revolution' which means the transition to sedentism in the Neolithic, before the Achaemenid era, except a small region in the southwest of Iran (Elam), you can't find even a a specific kingdom in this country.

If the CHG in steppe was linked to Iran_Neo in neolithic times, it would be probably an unadmixed population like Ganj Dareh who would have traveled into the Steppe without meeting people of Anatolia_Neo ancestry. If this is really the same ancestry, it could then have existed in the Steppe for at least the epipaleolithic.

Iran_Neo ancestry doesn't necessarily = Iranian Neolithic.

 

[Shahmiri]

Actually, the beginnings of the spread of Iranian-related ancestry far predates those Bronze Age civilizations (some of it was already present in Neolithic Greece, more specifically in the Pelopponese, and in Neolithic Central Italy), and it never went beyond the Aegean zone and the Italian peninsula. So it just cannot explain the massive spread of Indo-Euorpean languages in the ENTIRETY of Europe in the Bronze Age up to the late Iron Age ---- conversely, the spread of steppe pastoralist ancestry fits the archaeological and linguistic evidences entirely.

Andm, btw, Minoans had more Iranian-related ancestry than Mycenaeans, and I also think you can't be that brainwashed to be unable to notice that the one and only thing clearly distinguishing Minoans from Mycenaean Greeks (Indo-European-speaking) were... let me see... yeah, steppe pastoralist ancestry with the typical EHG+CHG admixture, which Minoans (non-IE-speaking) lacked.

What if it is proved that Minoans (of course those ones who lived in 2,000 BC, not 3,000 BC) were Indo-European? As you read about recent researches: https://www.ancient-origins.net/art...rypting-scripts-minoans-and-mycenaeans-008180 "There is agreement that Linear A is likely Indo-European".

 

[MOESAN]

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



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



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.

concerning the linguistic aspect, the Frenchman Michel LEJEUNE thought Elymian was an Indo-European tongue of Centum aspect with 5 vowels (no confusion of A and O), with some closeness rather Western meta-Italic/Venetic; the language could be imposed by people from Lycania or Bruttium upon a pré-Emymian substratum maybe come from Western Anatolia (Troyan legend); both groups or strata would have been distinguished by some differences in archeology.
If this man is right, i dont see too much tight links with Elamite.
I wonder if I didn't read somewhere Elymians could have been close enough to Ligurians, but I' m not sure or it's obsolete science.

 

[MOESAN]

Another one on which we disagree.

They are not identical, but they're pretty damn similar. The way Eurogenes discusses it it's as if they're different "races".

This old Dienekes chart may not be the last word, but it's not bad:

The vast majority of the ancestry which went into the steppe people is the same as the vast majority of the ancestry in Iran Neo.

I think many academics feel it's so difficult sometimes to tell them apart that it's better to just say Iran related.

I have more and moredoubts about the precise reliability of these admixtures charts. Ithink they depend on the choices made by authors of surveys orpersonal anlysis. Here eg DIENEKES chooses arbitrary references popsconsidered by him as pure, eg WHG, EHG, Iran, Levant... So CHG is nomore a source of Iran neol, and Anatolian farmers are described as amix of Iran neol + WHG + Levant (good bye Dzudzuana and AHG). Why notto choose Anatolian farmers as a pure component and consider Iranneol as a mix of (at least) CHG + Anatolian farmers + ?Arbitrary choices have big importance because they can change thedirection of admixtures (donor/recipient pop).
Let's look at thediverse admixtures charts produced since 2013/2014, concerning samepop's ?
I know all thesenamings and charts hide same reality for the most, but their wronguse can lead people to create wrong historical interactions betweenancient pop's.
Even in this post wesee two results not exactly the same ones for same pop's. I see morereliability in distances as a whole, spite even distances depend toomuch on modelings.
Davidsky likessplitting hairs and contradicts himself sometimes. But his aim istrying to prove that the CHG contained in Steppes auDNA is there frommore ancient periods, for the most, and from North Caucasus andsurroundings, and not from metal ages Iran pop's introgression, if Iunderstood well (not sure). Will he prove it, I don't know. Now thequestion is how to distinct convincingly the more recent origins ofparts of ancestry which came indirectly from the same ancient sourcepop ? How is told CHG or « Iran » of Steppic mixorigin apart of direct CHG or « Iran », eg among Europeanancient tribes and current pop's ? IBD apart, only severe driftcan help to separate them, at first sight. How long time is neededfor this drift to occur ? And If some admixture analysis« sees » Anatolian farmer + WHG ancestry at low levelamong CHG or « Iran » incorporated into Steppic, it cancontradict partly other interpretations « seeing »European LN introgressions into Steppes carrying this Anatolian +CHG. Here only neat enough differences in same places according todates* can help.
*: time -
:indifferent:

 

[halfalp]

I have more and moredoubts about the precise reliability of these admixtures charts. Ithink they depend on the choices made by authors of surveys orpersonal anlysis. Here eg DIENEKES chooses arbitrary references popsconsidered by him as pure, eg WHG, EHG, Iran, Levant... So CHG is nomore a source of Iran neol, and Anatolian farmers are described as amix of Iran neol + WHG + Levant (good bye Dzudzuana and AHG). Why notto choose Anatolian farmers as a pure component and consider Iranneol as a mix of (at least) CHG + Anatolian farmers + ?Arbitrary choices have big importance because they can change thedirection of admixtures (donor/recipient pop).
Let's look at thediverse admixtures charts produced since 2013/2014, concerning samepop's ?
I know all thesenamings and charts hide same reality for the most, but their wronguse can lead people to create wrong historical interactions betweenancient pop's.
Even in this post wesee two results not exactly the same ones for same pop's. I see morereliability in distances as a whole, spite even distances depend toomuch on modelings.
Davidsky likessplitting hairs and contradicts himself sometimes. But his aim istrying to prove that the CHG contained in Steppes auDNA is there frommore ancient periods, for the most, and from North Caucasus andsurroundings, and not from metal ages Iran pop's introgression, if Iunderstood well (not sure). Will he prove it, I don't know. Now thequestion is how to distinct convincingly the more recent origins ofparts of ancestry which came indirectly from the same ancient sourcepop ? How is told CHG or « Iran » of Steppic mixorigin apart of direct CHG or « Iran », eg among Europeanancient tribes and current pop's ? IBD apart, only severe driftcan help to separate them, at first sight. How long time is neededfor this drift to occur ? And If some admixture analysis« sees » Anatolian farmer + WHG ancestry at low levelamong CHG or « Iran » incorporated into Steppic, it cancontradict partly other interpretations « seeing »European LN introgressions into Steppes carrying this Anatolian +CHG. Here only neat enough differences in same places according todates* can help.
*: time -
:indifferent:

I know it's not the topic but, anyone knows why Dienekes stopped posting on is blog?

 

[Shahmiri]

concerning the linguistic aspect, the Frenchman Michel LEJEUNE thought Elymian was an Indo-European tongue of Centum aspect with 5 vowels (no confusion of A and O), with some closeness rather Western meta-Italic/Venetic; the language could be imposed by people from Lycania or Bruttium upon a pré-Emymian substratum maybe come from Western Anatolia (Troyan legend); both groups or strata would have been distinguished by some differences in archeology.
If this man is right, i dont see too much tight links with Elamite.
I wonder if I didn't read somewhere Elymians could have been close enough to Ligurians, but I' m not sure or it's obsolete science.

What about Sicani:

It is also very similar to ancient Sikan River in Hidali region of Elam.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Shahmiri: What about the Sicani? Could they have had some Iranian_Neolithic like ancestry, yes, and there is evidence that they did, but the likely origin of the Sicani are local Neolithic tribes pre-steppe migration of peoples which has now been documented from Iberia, which in fact might support the Sicani origins theory of the Greek historians. So any Iran_neolithic type ancestry would have came in with first earlier Neolithic EEF migrations and the ancient Iberians who brought in some Steppe type ancestry. There is no direct source of Iran_Neolithic ancestry into Sicily or anywhere else in Italy, it came in with peoples who had some Iran Neolithic related type ancestry.The Sicani territory actually covers several towns where 2 of my great grandmothers were born. There ancestry is not directly from Iran_Neolithic sources, neither is mine, and neither are the Elymians, Sicani or Siculi. Some of the oldest and most healthiest people on the planet, hopefully God willing some of those genes were passed to me. You just can't give it a rest can you. And for the record, I only cited this article just to make a point about Sicily and the regions there that I have visited and have ancestors directly from. Both ancient areas that would overlap Elymian and Sicani territory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3412743/

 

[Ygorcs]

What if it is proved that Minoans (of course those ones who lived in 2,000 BC, not 3,000 BC) were Indo-European? As you read about recent researches: https://www.ancient-origins.net/art...rypting-scripts-minoans-and-mycenaeans-008180 "There is agreement that Linear A is likely Indo-European".

If a source claims that there is agreement that Linear A is likely Indo-European, it's most probably not a credible source. There is no such agreement. Also, there are some sentences in the language of Keftiu (Crete) in Egyptian documents, unlike Linear A they have of course been properly deciphered, and the sentences make no sense in any Indo-European language branch.

Even if they spoke an Indo-European language, it would still prove nothing. Iranian-related ancestry expansion does not follow the divergence and expansion of the Indo-European language neither chronologically (it started far before the PIE expansion in the LC/EBA, especially in South Asia and Central Asia), or geographically (it never impacted Europe beyond the regions in and around Greece and Italy, regions that, by the way, still had non-Indo-European languages even as late as the Iron Age).

There is also the issue that Iranian-related ancestry actually seems to have been quite diverse and have spread to other regions from quite genetically distinct populations of the Iranian Plateau. The latest genetic study on South Asia demonstrates that the kind of eastern Iranian-related ancestry that spread in South Asia was pretty divergent from the western Iranian ancestry that expanded the most into the Near East and thence to Europe, having split from that other branch about 10,000 years ago or even before that. It's unlikely that those two Iranian Plateau groups spoke the same language family, let alone the same language by the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age.

 

[MOESAN]

What about Sicani:

It is also very similar to ancient Sikan River in Hidali region of Elam.

First I answer (right or not) to hypothesis maybe based upon kind of phonetic partial similarities between Elym-ian and Elam-ite, then you take out of your hat an other similarity between Sican-i and a Sikan river; what would be the third attempt? No offense but...?
etrified:

 

[spruithean]

What about Sicani:

It is also very similar to ancient Sikan River in Hidali region of Elam.

Similar looking or sounding names or words are not convincing at all. They are coincidental. Was Canada named after the Kannada people of India? No. The papers you keep citing in regards to genetics and otherwise are not really supporting your theory at all, yet you somehow manage to ignore what is being laid out in these papers.

 

[Ygorcs]

Petra Goedegebuure, professor of Hittitology at the University of Chicago, says all evidences show that Anatolian culture, as the earleist known Indo-Eueopean culture, originated in the south of Caucasus and Iran, I wonder how the same people who migrated from the same region to Greece built non-Indo-European cultures.

Anatolian culture, including IE Anatolian cultures, was heavily based on non-IE cultural substrates. There is a reason why Hittites used Hattic as a liturgical language and adopted the Hattic names of many god and other religious concepts: a lot of things suggest the IE Anatolians were a reasonably recent dominant group in Central Anatolia and Western Anatolia by the time they started writing in the Middle Bronze Age. There's a lot in Hittite and Luwian cultures that seems to come from prior cultures... prior cultures that were decidedly non-IE.

Also, I think you often mistake what authors are really saying. For instance you keep repeating the Southeastern European genetic history paper but you never pay attention at the keywords there: an alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of PIE could've been in the Caucasus or Iran. Read those 3 bold words carefully. Most scientists that think the ultimate homeland of PIE was in Caucasia or Iran do not think what you think, which is that IE languages spread directly from Iran and is related to Neolithic Iranian haplogroups and autosomal admixtures. They actually think PIE might have been originally spoken in Caucasia or Northwestern Iran and MOVED INTO THE PONTIC-CASPIAN and INTO ANATOLIA, creating the first phylogenetic split of the IE family. Therefore, they do not negate the steppe pastoralists' expansion and its direct connection with the expansion of ALL Indo-European branches except for Anatolian. They just think it may have been a process in two stages: first in Caucasia or Northwestern Iran into 2 different places (Anatolia and Pontic-Caspian steppe), later an expansion from the Pontic-Caspian area to all other regions where IE were or are spoken, while the Anatolian IE didn't spread beyond West Asia.

I have NEVER read any genetic paper that agrees with your concept of a multiple-waves IE expansion out of Iran, with all its individual branches already formed and diverged between themselves and spreading straight from Iran. Never.

 

[Ygorcs]

Similar looking or sounding names or words are not convincing at all. They are coincidental. Was Canada named after the Kannada people of India? No. The papers you keep citing in regards to genetics and otherwise are not really supporting your theory at all, yet you somehow manage to ignore what is being laid out in these papers.

Indeed, I was always sure that Brazil was actually Irish and is definitely the Hy-Brazil Atlantic island of the Celtic legends.

 

[MOESAN]

..........
I have NEVER read any genetic paper that agrees with your concept of a multiple-waves IE expansion out of Iran, with all its individual branches already formed and diverged between themselves and spreading straight from Iran. Never.

I agree with you. But concerning the above statement (multiple waves from Iran or a very close southern region), I think I can say Grigoryev supported a not too far hypothesis, which I don't accept at all, by the way.