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

Armenians are not "whiter" than us Kurds . in fact Türkiye Kurds are a bit whiter than Armenians as a whole espcially when you also include western Armenians . but overall Armenians and Kurds are the same level of "whiteness" . i say this because you said "than any iranian population" and we are an iranic speaking people

i dont know why i am ignored and why people dont look into the threads i linked in this thread . when you look into the threads i linked you will see how real / actual Kurds look like . without gypsy mix

by the way the reason why even Syrians are darker and more exotic looking than Kurds Armenians etc. is their natufian ancestry . they have a lot more of it than we do

additionally we Kurds are around 10% EHG

please check out this thread :

Kurds, just like Iranians and Syrians are noticably darker than Armenians. When one stops posting individuals and start posting crowds (which are much harder to cherry pick) it becomes obvious that the vast majority of Kurds do not phenotypically resemble Caucasian ethnic groups.

Kurds:

1742141755886.webp
1742141557465.webp
1742141513606.webp
 
by the way you might actually be the greek member who made these qpadm runs . are you onyx ? :D
Kurds, just like Iranians and Syrians are noticably darker than Armenians. When one stops posting individuals and start posting crowds (which are much harder to cherry pick) it becomes obvious that the vast majority of Kurds do not phenotypically resemble Caucasian ethnic groups.

Kurds:

View attachment 18036View attachment 18035View attachment 18034

as i have said before there are millions of gypsies and gypsy mixed people in Kurdish regions and they often just say they are Kurdish and they speak Kurdish etc. . and we have also many arabs and arab mixed people

i have posted many crowd and group pics too in the links i have provided on page 11 . and even large videos of festivals etc

you can not go by random crowd pics of Kurds on google . they are not representative much of the time

real Kurds look like the DNA tested Kurds i posted here on Eupedia . thats how Kurds look like . all of us are DNA tested / DNA confirmed .

but if you want to have crowds then look for example at these videos and i can give you more crowd / group pics and videos .but you will also have arab and gypsy people on such videos / pics ....it is not avoidable :





some snapshots from the videos

and even here some will be gypsy and arab mixed btw

45030302rb.jpg





45030303su.jpg





45030304ui.jpg
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter. Where are the maps?

it does matter . but we will have to agree to disagree here


"Corduene is considered proto-Kurdish and a precursor to modern Kurdistan. The Kingdom of Gordyene emerged from the declining Seleucid Empire and for most of its history, it was a province of the Roman Empire and acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome."

41466980bl.jpg
 
How could ANFs (G2a) be close to Natufians (E)? It is generally understood that the ANFs emerged from the AHGs whose point of origin must have been in East Anatolia or the Caucasus, far away from where you'd expect the Natufians or their predecessors. It is where AHGs split from the ancestors of WHGs and CHGs at various points in time. In fact, the AHGs are believed to be the earliest split from a core West Eurasian population and are even equated with Dzudzuana. The Natufians have Dzudzuana, too, so that's the only connection. Now fast forward to the neolithic, the ANFs are pretty much the AHGs genetically but there was a minor gene flow from the Levant and the Caucasus but it was limited to the border regions. For some reason, and I suspect it's due to a population explosion, the ANFs expanded in all directions, including the Levant. That's why the Natufian-derived Pre-Pottery Neolithic B has a lot of ANF admixture and not the other way round. Whatever shared ancestry there was between the ANFs and Natufians, it was mediated through Dzudzuana, a core West Eurasian component. But it doesn't make any sense to claim that ANFs were closer to Natufians than WHGs or even CHGs, considering the fact that their principal male haplogroup G2a comes from the macro-group GHIJK, whereas the Natufians belonged to E, itself derived from DE with its closest sibling being the East Asian/Eurasian haplogroup D. Bear also in mind that the Old European language spoken by the Basque, the people most closely related to EEFs/ANFs, seems to be a remnant of the latter. The Natufians are thought to be the progenitors of Afro-Asiatic. Where is the relation?

It doesn't matter what I think. Nobody relates the ANFs to Natufians as was once the case. Today everybody recognises that the ANFs are a separate group (although heterogeneous), completely unrelated to the Natufians and Levantines because they were basically farming AHGs who adopted agriculture on their own. They kept expanding throughout the calcolithic and the Bronze Age, of course, which is why Levantines have so much of their ancestry as opposed to the populations of the Arabian peninsula where the Natufian component is the highest.
Here I think you see what you want see.
Let's read again the survey of Lazaridis and Cy about the region since Paleo to Neolithic.
"...
These analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,
except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG
(Extended Data Fig. 5a).
"...
It says: on the gradian between European Siberian HG's and NAF Near Eastern pop's, stay Dzudzuana and Anat-Neol- pop's, both of this last ones very closer one to another than to the two extreme pop's. Like that it says nothing about relative proximity of Dzu & NE with one of these extremes.
...
Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other
ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically
related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE
populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East
from Europe
. ...
It says that among HG ancestor of Europe it's the Villabruna cluster which is close to Dzudzuana and also that Villabruna had some ties with the Levant (via Dzu-) and that these ties are not the result of newcomers from Western Europe, and I conclude that it's could be ancient enough.
...
Neolithic Anatolians, while forming a clade with Dzudzuana with respect to ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5a), share more alleles with all other PGNE (Extended Data Fig. 5d), suggesting that PGNE share at least partially common descent to the exclusion of the much older samples from Dzudzuana. ...
How could ANFs (G2a) be close to Natufians (E)? It is generally understood that the ANFs emerged from the AHGs whose point of origin must have been in East Anatolia or the Caucasus, far away from where you'd expect the Natufians or their predecessors. It is where AHGs split from the ancestors of WHGs and CHGs at various points in time. In fact, the AHGs are believed to be the earliest split from a core West Eurasian population and are even equated with Dzudzuana. The Natufians have Dzudzuana, too, so that's the only connection. Now fast forward to the neolithic, the ANFs are pretty much the AHGs genetically but there was a minor gene flow from the Levant and the Caucasus but it was limited to the border regions. For some reason, and I suspect it's due to a population explosion, the ANFs expanded in all directions, including the Levant. That's why the Natufian-derived Pre-Pottery Neolithic B has a lot of ANF admixture and not the other way round. Whatever shared ancestry there was between the ANFs and Natufians, it was mediated through Dzudzuana, a core West Eurasian component. But it doesn't make any sense to claim that ANFs were closer to Natufians than WHGs or even CHGs, considering the fact that their principal male haplogroup G2a comes from the macro-group GHIJK, whereas the Natufians belonged to E, itself derived from DE with its closest sibling being the East Asian/Eurasian haplogroup D. Bear also in mind that the Old European language spoken by the Basque, the people most closely related to EEFs/ANFs, seems to be a remnant of the latter. The Natufians are thought to be the progenitors of Afro-Asiatic. Where is the relation?

It doesn't matter what I think. Nobody relates the ANFs to Natufians as was once the case. Today everybody recognises that the ANFs are a separate group (although heterogeneous), completely unrelated to the Natufians and Levantines because they were basically farming AHGs who adopted agriculture on their own. They kept expanding throughout the calcolithic and the Bronze Age, of course, which is why Levantines have so much of their ancestry as opposed to the populations of the Arabian peninsula where the Natufian component is the highest.
have another reading!
« … analyses show that ESHG share more alleles with Dzudzuana than with PGNE populations,

except Neolithic Anatolians who form a clade with Dzudzuana to the exclusion of ESHG

(Extended Data Fig. 5a). Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of Neolithic

Anatolians does not necessarily reflect any admixture into the Near East from Europe, as an

Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya. »/…


IT’s says : on the cline between Europe-Siberia HG’s and NAFr-Near-East extremes of the cline we found Dzu- and Anat-Neol-, both closer to one another than to the extremes – and that Near-East had Dzu- Not come by force from Western Europe but here since possibly a long enough time./ …

« Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other

ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically

related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE

populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East

from Europe. »/ …


It says : In the Europelike ancestry of Dzudzuana, it’s Villabruna the principal donor and the affinities between Villabruna and Near East is not due to an immigration from Europe. It doesn’t precise the supposed time of Villabruna introgression in Near-East if even introgression. / ...



« Neolithic Anatolians, while forming a clade with Dzudzuana with respect to ESHG

, share more alleles with all other PGNE
, suggesting that PGNE share at least partially common descent to the exclusion of the much older samples from Dzudzuana. »/ … / « The Dzudzuana population was not identical to the WHG, as it shared fewer alleles with both an early Upper Paleolithic Siberian (Ust’Ishim) and an early Upper Paleolithic East Asian (Tianyuan), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry. The detection

of this type of ancestry, twice as early as previously documented and at the northern edge

of the Near East, lends weight to the hypothesis that it represents a deep Near Eastern lineage

rather than a recent arrival from Africa.


It says : Dzudzuana (Caucasus) had ‘Basal Eurasion (whatever the definition) as the pop’s of Near-East and even NAF and it’s ancient enough , when for Euro-Siber-HG’s had not this BE ; BE among these southern pop’s is not a recent event. And also that on the above mentioned cline, ANAnat- were already closer to the more southern pop’s (Levant/NAF) than to Euro-Siber-HG when original Dzu- stayed a bit closer to Euro-Siber-HG.



We used qpGraph to build an admixture graph model of the relationship between ESHG

and Dzudzuana, also including the earliest PGNE populations from North Africa (Taforalt)

and the Epipaleolithic Levant (Natufians)... According to this model, a common population contributed ancestry to Gravettians (represented by Vestonice16) and to a “Common West Eurasian” population that contributed all the ancestry of Villabruna and most of the ancestry of Dzudzuana which also had 28.4±4.2% Basal Eurasian ancestry. Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic. If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East.


In the Near East, the Dzudzuana-related population admixed with North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia whose proximate sources may be clarified by future sampling of geographically and temporally inter-mediate populations./ …




Both Europeans and Near Easterners also share in AG3-related ancestry of up to ~30% in eastern

Europe down to ~0% in parts of North Africa. Europeans are differentiated by an excess of

up to ~20% Villabruna-related ancestry relative to non-European populations and also by a

relative lack of extra ‘Deep’ ancestry compared to the Near East and North Africa
, a type of

ancestry that may only partially be explained by the Basal Eurasian ancestry of ancient West

Eurasian populations and must also trace to Africa. ‘Deep’ ancestry,

including Basal Eurasian ancestry, is associated with reduced Neandertal ancestry, confirming that Neandertal ancestry in West Eurasia has been diluted by admixture./ …

It says :
Iran/CHG and Near-East/NAF had different respective complementary admixture, what doesn’t exclude the common Dzudzuana, which contained BE, and had another deep ancestry, these last ones almost absent in old Europeans.

In a few words : we all share a common basis with some drift and received diverse adstrata themselves results of ancient drifts. To be precise, these groupings of ESHG and PGNE aren’t homogenous, they help to give us a rough sketche.

In another survey they said (same squad ?) Dzudzuana was roughly half way between ESHG and PGNE (NANE), so ANA (Anat Neol) were a bit closer to PGNE than to ESHG. Plus on every PCA I saw (I know PCA’s are not God’s word) Anatolian Farmers and close pop’s were close to the middle on the clines between today Europeans and Near-East, but a bit closer to modern Near-East and North Arabs people as a whole, if we leave ancient pre-Neolithic Natufians and current Southern Arabs besides . When compared to ancient Euro HG’s they were even farther than to modern Euro. History passed there, with in Euope a bit more EHG, and CHG/Iran at diverse proportions, this last component passed through more than a way and decreasing the distances between all. Today South- and South-eastern Europeans are no more the first EEF farmers, - these last ones already a bit drifted from first Anatolian Farmers. So the position of these ancient farmers doesn’t predict the today position of our southerners.
 
Thanks for the pics
That said I don't s

THanks for pics.
I don' share totally your analysis. You're right for the means but we can see there are a non negligible number of people in Syria that can pass in Armenia, Turkey and even soutehrn European post. To say the contrary is not accurate or is dishonest, IMO. WHat we can see too is that some more or less recent SSA inputs have modified the Arabes and Arabised pop's. NO po is homogenous concerning phoenotypes, what we have are gradians.
I disagree with the terminology "non negligible". While it is true there will always be a small minority of lighter arabs or Iranians that could be mistaken for a southern european or caucasian nationality and also the the inverse relating to darker europeans, we are talking about exceptions to the norm. Going even further there are north african populations such as the Kabyles which can be mistaken for northern Europeans.

1742142717819.jpeg

You can always find exceptions to the average but it's rather pointless to look specifically for the exceptions. What is a lie is to pretend southern europeans or caucasians broadly share same phenotypes as arabic and Iranic populations. There are large differences in phenotype when we speak about the averages and majority representation of each nationality.
 
@MOESAN

You seem to think that I claim that there was a migration of European hunter-gatherers into Anatolia or the Near East. I'm talking about a much deeper affinity between ANF and WHG. You are quoting from the Lazaridis paper from 2018 and even there it is emphasised, whatever one might think about the models they use, that most of the Dzudzuana population's ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster. The population closest to Dzudzuana were the Anatolian hunter-gatherers and their descendants, the ANFs. The paper also mentions that Dzudzuana was close to the Gravettians. The lumping of various populations into this PGNE category is a bit strange but the affinities are due to the lack of ANE ancestry among ANFs and them being the primary carriers of Dzudzuana.

This paper came out before it was finally revealed that ANF derive most of their ancestry from the Anatolian hunter-gatherers and that farming in Anatolia did not emerge via demic diffusion from the Levant, as was previous thought, but that was a local invention.

"In addition to the long-term stability of the major component of the Anatolian ancestry, the researchers also found a pattern of interactions with their neighbors. By the time that farming had taken hold in Anatolia between 8,300-7,800 BCE, the researchers found that the local population had about a 10% genetic contribution from populations related to those living in what is today Iran and the neighboring Caucasus, with almost the entire remaining 90% coming from Anatolian hunter-gatherers. By about 7000-6000 BCE, however, the Anatolian farmers derived about 20% of their ancestry from populations related to those living in the Levant region."

There was some admixture from the Levant during the middle neolithic, long after ANFs set out to colonise Europe. But most of the gene flow went the other round, from Anatolia into the Levant which increased the regions Dzudzuana ancestry. And if I may add, it seems to me that you think that I claim that there was a migration of WHGs into Anatolia and the Near East and that this is the basis of my ANF-WHG affinity claim. However, there is this:

"Mesolithic individuals from the Balkans, known as Iron Gates Hunter-Gatherers, are the most genetically similar group to the Anatolian Hunter-Gatherer lineage. Feldman et al. suggest that this affinity is not due to a genetic flow from the AHG to the ancestors of the Villabruna cluster, but on the contrary: there was a genetic flow from the ancestors of the Villabruna cluster to the ancestors of the AHG."
 
I disagree with the terminology "non negligible". While it is true there will always be a small minority of lighter arabs or Iranians that could be mistaken for a southern european or caucasian nationality and also the the inverse relating to darker europeans, we are talking about exceptions to the norm. Going even further there are north african populations such as the Kabyles which can be mistaken for northern Europeans.

View attachment 18037
You can always find exceptions to the average but it's rather pointless to look specifically for the exceptions. What is a lie is to pretend southern europeans or caucasians broadly share same phenotypes as arabic and Iranic populations. There are large differences in phenotype when we speak about the averages and majority representation of each nationality.
we can also cherry pick crowd pictures. the point is not to depict armenians as something they are not but to show very clear overlap with surrounding populations.
1742168323131.jpeg


1742168343165.jpeg


i've met kurds and iraqis. they often have light skin if not tanned and could fit in these crowds easily. i still believe armenians aren't darker than kurds, it just seems more logical because they are more northern.


for the distances to anatolia BA why did you only show the closest 5? because right after you would have lebanese popping up? and sure this is in part because of migrations from anatolia into the levan. but these migrations also went the other way and even before that there was similarity. as Power said, in the end sugar is sugar doesn't matter in what way you get it.

1742219990050.png

1742220015777.png

1742220039500.png

1742220080744.png
 
Last edited:
It's apparent that you are confusing phenotype with pigmentation here. A dark Central European does not look Near Eastern and viceversa.
you said yourself that that other guy could "easily" pass in central europe. imo he could pass there, not easily but he could. and he also passes in near east easier than in central europe. we probably have to agree to disagree here.
 
Last edited:
you said yourself that that other guy could "easily" pass in central europe. imo he could pass there, not easily but he could.
I live right next door to your (supposed) homeland, do not worry, I do know how Swiss people look. The guy from Val d'Aosta passes very easily in Switzerland, unless you now want to make us believe that in Switzerland they all look like Kimi Reikkonen.

Conversely to me it is apparent that he does not pass in the Near East, so I agree with you that we do not agree.
 
Last edited:
we can also cherry pick crowd pictures. the point is not to depict armenians as something they are not but to show very clear overlap with surrounding populations.
View attachment 18043

View attachment 18044

i've met kurds and iraqis. they often have light skin if not tanned and could fit in these crowds easily. i still believe armenians aren't darker than kurds, it just seems more logical because they are more northern.


for the distances to anatolia BA why did you only show the closest 5? because right after you would have lebanese popping up? and sure this is in part because of migrations from anatolia into the levan. but these migrations also went the other way and even before that there was similarity. as Power said, in the end sugar is sugar doesn't matter in what way you get it.

View attachment 18057
View attachment 18058
View attachment 18059
View attachment 18060
A distance of 4 or even 3 is not that close.
 
@MOESAN

You seem to think that I claim that there was a migration of European hunter-gatherers into Anatolia or the Near East. I'm talking about a much deeper affinity between ANF and WHG. You are quoting from the Lazaridis paper from 2018 and even there it is emphasised, whatever one might think about the models they use, that most of the Dzudzuana population's ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the Villabruna cluster. The population closest to Dzudzuana were the Anatolian hunter-gatherers and their descendants, the ANFs. The paper also mentions that Dzudzuana was close to the Gravettians. The lumping of various populations into this PGNE category is a bit strange but the affinities are due to the lack of ANE ancestry among ANFs and them being the primary carriers of Dzudzuana.
I know to read and I haven't thought your made these claims. I just recall to everybody who want know that Dzudzuana (not pure Villabruna by the way) was seemingly the basis of all Near-East pop at some ancient stage of history, despite external influences from North-Africa. I noticed in more than a thread here and elsewhere that some Europeans tend to be repulsed by the idea of being linked in any kind of way or proportion to Levant or Arabs people. My auDNA is far from them at an Western Eurasian level but I don't deny some ties with them as much of us, even if these ties are become rather tiny. It's why they may be classified as overwhelmingly 'europoids'.
 
It's why they may be classified as overwhelmingly 'europoids'.
Of course. With all due respect I don't think that's even matter of debate.

You come across as a reasonable person and between being "repulsed" by the idea of being linked and the idea of being connected in any meaningful way there is a lot of space in between. I think you can see my point.
 
Last edited:
I know to read and I haven't thought your made these claims. I just recall to everybody who want know that Dzudzuana (not pure Villabruna by the way) was seemingly the basis of all Near-East pop at some ancient stage of history, despite external influences from North-Africa. I noticed in more than a thread here and elsewhere that some Europeans tend to be repulsed by the idea of being linked in any kind of way or proportion to Levant or Arabs people. My auDNA is far from them at an Western Eurasian level but I don't deny some ties with them as much of us, even if these ties are become rather tiny. It's why they may be classified as overwhelmingly 'europoids'.

What you say about the behaviour of some Europeans is certainly true. But if we are to get an approximate picture of our genetic histories, and science is mostly about approximation rather than accuracy, we have to acknowledge both the similarities and differences. I'm not disputing the West Eurasian meta-connection (and why should I?) but even within that vast category, populations are separated by tens of thousands of years. Both the Japanese and the Aboriginal Australians are East Eurasians but you are still going to agree that they are not the same or closely related. The farther back you go, the closer related all humans are. But to return to the case of the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, their immediate ancestors were the Anatolian Hunter-Gatherers and they separated from the ancestors of the Western Hunter-Gatherers and later of those of the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers. Such a connection does not exist with the Natufians except the share in Dzudzuana ancestry of which the AHGs are the prime example. Such are the current theories and who knows how reliable they are. If you take the Lazaridis paper as an example, it is full of contradictions and the same can be said about many others. Who knows how reliable all these categories are (WHG, CHG, ANF etc.) or if they were invented for convenience. The Basal Eurasians are an invention and who knows, maybe even ANE.

We have gone way off topic here and it's mainly my fault, so I apologise to everyone.
 
I live right next door to your (supposed) homeland, do not worry, I do know how Swiss people look. The guy from Val d'Aosta passes very easily in Switzerland, unless you now want to make us believe that in Switzerland they all look like Kimi Reikkonen.

Conversely to me it is apparent that he does not pass in the Near East, so I agree with you that we do not agree.
so as soon as not everyone looks like Kimi Reikkonen this guy passes very easily. why don't you apply the same logic to near eastern pops? what the about the other guy? does he also pass very easily in central europe but not at all in near east?
 
the actual distance is 0.05-0.06 comparable to all the other distances shown. he just cut it off after the first 5 displayed populations to make his point.
So?

A distance of even 3 to Cypriots is not very close considering Anatolia and Cyprus are geographically beside each other.
 
I think you are kidding, Russians?! Let's compare Italy and Iran national football teams:

View attachment 17825
This thread was semi entertaining for a few pages.

I would like to stress that Ehsan Hajsafi (the captain) has played atrociously for AEK this season. He really shows his age, was much better last year, let alone two years ago. Still a pretty nice fella though.
 
Power said:
in reality the peoples of northern west asia (Kurds , Armenians , Georgians , Turks etc.) have big overlap with europeans . however at the same time as i already said on page 11 that we are still distinguishable as groups and we are uniformly darker than any part of europe . but denying overlap is just dishonest and whenever a west asian speaks this out he/she will be accused of being a "wannabe european" . it is really annoying .

People always see confirmation for what they believe. For example, a century ago Finns were still widely believed to be Mongols, even though the blond ratio was (and still is) among the highest in the world. Cherrypicking some random examples and explaining the majority looks as "Swede-mixed" were used to support those beliefs.
 
Back
Top