Vallicanus
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 774
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z36
Iosif Lazaridis: Proto-Indo-Europeans had dark hair, brown eyes, and an intermediate skin tone
- Thread starter Moja
- Start date
Ivorix
Regular Member
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 119
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Spanish, British, Italian, Polish, Distant French and Scandinavian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-M153
In that case I just rather give up already with this argument... Sigh
The fact is that in almost all countries in the world there are some people who think they are unique and don't believe in any genetic and cultural relations between themselves and others but scientific studies show that some people have a common origin, this thing that Iranians and Italians have a common Indo-European origin doesn't mean that Iranian are European or Italians are Asian.
Pax Augusta
Elite member
Iranians and Italians share an Indo-European linguistic origin with many other European and Asian peoples. From what we understand, however, within the Indo-European language family, Italian and Iranian have different routes. Italian is descended from Latin, and the consensus is that the ancestor of Latin was spoken at some point in the Bell Beaker culture of central Europe around 4500/4000 BCE, when it likely splitted from the ancestor of the Celtic. The consensus on Iranian/Farsi, which would be part of the Indo-Iranian family, is that it was formed differently. I read that the ancestor of Iranian is associated with the Andronovo and Sintashta cultures, so the last contact between the linguistic ancestors of Latin and Iranian was probably more than 5,000 years ago, just before the spread of Indo-European languages in Europe.
No one has claimed that modern Iranians are the same Neolithic Iranians but they have the highest amount of Iran_N ancestry.
Of course what you said is just based one of hypotheses about the origin and migrations of Indo-Europeans, as Dr. Paul Heggarty said those who supported this hypothesis have retreated from it, now scholars are talking about CHG/Iranian ancestry of Indo-Europeans.
Pax Augusta
Elite member
I wouldn't be so sure about that. But at the moment I don't have a definitive answer. If one plays with G25 the highest amount of Iran_N ancestry does not come out to the modern Iranians. But one would have to have a super-updated spreadsheet, though, because a lot of new samples have come out from Mesolithic and Neolithic Asia, and one have to use updated models.
It is the most widely accepted thesis at the moment, not so much Paul Heggarty's thesis (which is not fully credible as far as I am concerned).
The thesis that the ancestor of Indo-European languages is to be associated with CHG/Iranian ancestry in any case concerns all Europeans and Asians who speak Indo-European languages, it does not prove any specific link between Italians and Iranians.
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,163
- Reaction score
- 1,501
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
I agree only partly. We have common ancestries for the most, it's the proportions which vary (sometimes very much). If a good trained person can easily enough tell some ethny from another, some individuals are very difficult to distinguish from individuals of other ethnies; OK it's a small % of the concerned pop's. What I want to say is that among the people obsessed (not only "interested" like us) by this question of pigmentation, I think very few of them would be able to distinguish between two 'Europoids' in front of all bearded and dyed people with same hair style!
Tautalus
Regular Member
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 965
- Points
- 93
- Ethnic group
- Portuguese (Luso-Ibero-Celtic)
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2-M223 / I-FTB15368
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b2y
I wanted to know more about the ancestry of the Iranian population, so I found this paper from 2019.
Distinct genetic variation and heterogeneity of the Iranian population
Author summary Based on genome-wide genotype data on over 1000 samples from eleven ethnic groups present in Iran and by comparison to reference data sets of both extant populations and ancient DNA samples, we show that the Iranian population comprises distinct genetic variation with respect to...journals.plos.org
According to paper most Iranian ethnic groups despite their genetic heterogeneity can be grouped into a shared genetic cluster known as the Central Iranian Cluster (CIC) consisting of Azeris, Kurds, Persians, and others.
Despite having a largely autochthonous ancestry, with limited gene flow from other populations, the CIC cluster is closely related to geographically adjacent populations and on a global scale also to European populations.
The paper says that there is a genetic continuity of the CIC cluster over several millennia, with limited contributions from Early Neolithic farmers from West Iran and from Steppe populations. They did not find substantial migrations into the CIC groups except for Caucasus populations during Neolithic through Bronze Age times.
The paper also refers to a component shared between the CIC and the Tuscans (Iran_N ??), they call it substantial in one paragraph and small in another part of the article. It is said that this component may reflect possible ancient migrations from the Near East.
In their own words “In comparison with global and local reference data, the CIC represents a distinct entity comprising an autochthonous genetic component, clustering closely with geographically adjacent populations and assuming a location in the ‘genetic map’ that corresponds to its geographic location at the nexus between South, Central and West Asia, Northern Africa and the Caucasus.”
“The largely autochthonous development of CIC groups, consistent with an early branching from the Eurasian population before the Neolithic [6], is further corroborated by the distinctiveness of these groups in comparison to different time strata represented by aDNA samples, indicating a genetic continuity for at least several past millennia …. Both, Early Neolithic farmers from West Iran and people from the Steppe appear to have made very limited contributions to CIC groups.”
“The small ancestry component shared between the CIC and Tuscans may mirror early migrations from the Near East although this requires further investigation.”
This is their PCA on a regional scale.
Despite having a largely autochthonous ancestry, with limited gene flow from other populations, the CIC cluster is closely related to geographically adjacent populations and on a global scale also to European populations.
The paper says that there is a genetic continuity of the CIC cluster over several millennia, with limited contributions from Early Neolithic farmers from West Iran and from Steppe populations. They did not find substantial migrations into the CIC groups except for Caucasus populations during Neolithic through Bronze Age times.
The paper also refers to a component shared between the CIC and the Tuscans (Iran_N ??), they call it substantial in one paragraph and small in another part of the article. It is said that this component may reflect possible ancient migrations from the Near East.
In their own words “In comparison with global and local reference data, the CIC represents a distinct entity comprising an autochthonous genetic component, clustering closely with geographically adjacent populations and assuming a location in the ‘genetic map’ that corresponds to its geographic location at the nexus between South, Central and West Asia, Northern Africa and the Caucasus.”
“The largely autochthonous development of CIC groups, consistent with an early branching from the Eurasian population before the Neolithic [6], is further corroborated by the distinctiveness of these groups in comparison to different time strata represented by aDNA samples, indicating a genetic continuity for at least several past millennia …. Both, Early Neolithic farmers from West Iran and people from the Steppe appear to have made very limited contributions to CIC groups.”
“The small ancestry component shared between the CIC and Tuscans may mirror early migrations from the Near East although this requires further investigation.”
This is their PCA on a regional scale.
Pax Augusta
Elite member
A paper in which 99 percent of the authors, perhaps even more, are Iranian. Quite curious, because this is not what you often see in genetics papers. In any case, this paper seems quite outdated as methodologies, and provides not much explanation for this assumption you quoted. I looked through the whole paper, including the supp info, and nowhere I've found clear evidence of what they claim. So much so that their assumption on ancient migrations has been clearly disproved by ancient DNA: no Iran_N nor CHG, or any Near Eastern signal, has been found in the Etruscans, as claimed by the 2021 paper. Etruscans were the population of Tuscany in the Iron Age, so clearly there were no ancient or early migrations from the Near East. In 2019 some geneticists still believed the fairy tale of the eastern origin of the Etruscans. The paper does not state so but that might be the reason.
There is also a possible explanation for their assumption, the paper mentions only TSI (there are other Tuscan academic samples) and TSI is part of 1000 Genomes, a project that has a very limited sampling for Europe. For all populations of Europe there are only 4 sample sets, for Southern Europe there are only IBS (Spanish) and TSI (Tuscans), there are no Central European samples, and there are only two samples for Northern Europe GB (British) and FIN (Finnish), CEU is instead Americans from Utah (and similar to GB). It is no coincidence that a lot of the crap we have read in genetics papers in the last 15 years generally is often based on the 1000 genomes sample set. In 1000 Genomes TSI is the sample furthest southeast of Europe, so it is obvious that TSI is where potentially one may found something that can be assumed to be Iran_N and CHG. Thus, when geneticists use TSI from the 1000 Genomes project the results may be that of a very rough proxy for the Southeast European cluster than anything else.
From the chart you posted (B), it looks like they didn't use ancestral components, although they call them in this way. It may be Iran_N but but it could also be CHG, or a mix of both. Worth mentioning that the blue component, which you circled in red, which has its peak in the Baluchis, also comes out a bit to the Finns (FIN), although in a smaller percentage than in TSI. What unites Finns with the TSI-Tuscans is that they are farther east (although the Finns are clearly northern European), than British (GB) and Spaniards (IBS). The fact that that blue signal also comes out to the Finns casts a lot of doubt on the reliability of this chart, on whether it really proves anything. I'm not denying there is Iran_N and CHG in TSI but for me in the case of this study it is simply something that fills the space, just look at the PCA. If they had used samples from all southeastern European populations in the study, that blue component would have come out to them as well, and maybe even to some central-eastern and northern-eastern European populations (if it comes out to the Finns, of course it can come out to them as well).
If you look at chart C, it gets even more confusing. Here they have used samples of Europeans from other projects, and there are many more than those used in chart B. There are also samples from the HGDP project here, and so there is also another sample of Tuscans, along with Bergamo (Lombardy) and Sardinia. If you see the blue component it also comes out to others, for example a lot to Poles, and even a sample of English. In this case the study makes no observation about Tuscan HGDP. But the differences between Tuscan HGDP and TSI are minimal, not such that you can argue that one has ancestry component shared with the CIC group and the other does not. The more I read this study, the more I do not find that they have proven what they claim. If they have really found something, it is something that goes back to the Roman imperial era, but it is not something that relates specifically to the CIC/Iranian groups but to a generic genetic signal from the eastern Mediterranean.
TSI's position in a PCA.
All samples from the 1000 genomes project. 100 genomes, I think partly out of laziness and partly out of bad faith, has often been used in studies, without ancient DNA, to pull hypotheses, often even on Europeans. But given its limited sample set, it could not be the worst sample set.
You certainly know about the genetic studies about Italy, like this one: "The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean" and "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"
As you read non-Indo-European Etruscans had steppe ancestry and no Iranian ancestry, what do you think about Indo-European people in Italy?
Pax Augusta
Elite member
Precisely. That study on the Etruscans did not find Iran_N ancestry in the Etruscans. But only in a minority of foreigners.
"Contrary to previously reported findings from Bronze Age Sicily and Iron Age Sardinia, we do not find evidence for Iranian-related ancestry in individuals from central Italy older than 2000 years. We were able to model C.Italy_Etruscan and C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu as a mixture between three distal sources [Anatolia_Neolithic (ANF/EEF), Western hunter-gatherers (WHG), and Yamnaya_Samara (Steppe ancestry)]".
"Although Etruscan is considered a relict language, which survived in central Italy until the Imperial Period, it was not isolated. Instead, Etruscan seems to be linked to both Rhaetic, a language documented in the eastern Alps in a population that ancient historians claim to have migrated from the Po valley, and to Lemnian, a language putatively spoken on ancient Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. This leaves the question open as to whether these enigmatic “Tyrsenian” languages may somehow relate to sea-borne expansions from the eastern Mediterranean. However, the lack of Iranian-related ancestry in C.Italy_Etruscan might also suggest that the close linguistic affinity across the Mediterranean Sea could represent population movements departing from the Italian peninsula"
One of the few individuals to whom they have found some Iran_N is MAS001, but in a PCA MAS001 plots with modern Romanians, Macedonians and Montenegrins, not with modern Iranians.
"C.Italy_Etruscan_MAS001 can be modeled as a mixture between the C.Italy_Etruscan cluster and Caucasian populations, such as Bronze Age Armenians, indicating the sporadic presence of Iranian ancestry in Etruria from at least the 2nd century BCE."
In the other study on Sardinia and Sicily, yes sure they found Iran_N in some individuals. But it is a signal that goes back to the Bronze Age in Sicily and geneticists think it is Mycenaean in origin.
"We detect Iranian-related ancestry in Sicily by the Middle Bronze Age 1800-1500 BCE, consistent with the directional shift of these individuals toward Mycenaeans in PCA."
Even for the individual found in Sardinia, I think Iron Age, geneticists speculate that the origin is Aegean.
None of these studies based on ancient DNA claim that there was a migration from Iran to Italy (which would be untenable on so many levels, archaeological, protohistorical, and so on).
In this context, Iran_N is no longer an exclusive signal of the Iranians but since the early Bronze Age it is a widespread signal throughout the eastern Mediterranean, including the Aegean and the Greek world, and perhaps even some southern areas of the Balkans.
What do I think about the Indo-European people in Italy? When I meet them, I greet them.
Tautalus
Regular Member
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 965
- Points
- 93
- Ethnic group
- Portuguese (Luso-Ibero-Celtic)
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2-M223 / I-FTB15368
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H6a1b2y
It's not immediately noticeable, I thought the same thing the first time I saw it, but the blue component in Finns (FIN) is not the same as the one that peaks in the Baluchis. The color is different, the blue FIN component is the one that peaks in JPT (Japan).
can you back this up somehow?
also i think in the context of westeurasians there aren't really any huge differences. OP's point was probably that the originial indo europeans could have resembled modern iranians. that's not impossible and maybe even if a modern euopean saw them they would probably not think they are from europe.
It seems you don't know who Indo-European were, Mycenaeans that you mentioned were one of the earliest known Indo-European people in Europe, it is clear that unlike non-Indo-European Etruscans, there should be a common genetic origin between Indo-Europeans who lived in Italy and Mycenaeans.
Vallicanus
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 774
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z36
IA Etruscans and IA Latins were genetically very similar despite the linguistic family divide.
HereToLearn
Regular Member
You may check PCA plots and genetic distances. Within Europe probably only the distance of (some) Italians to the Finns and far North-Eastern Euros is comparable to that to the Iranians.
No, that was not his point (his point was and is to infer that Iranians and Italians are genetically similar) and trying to make it look as if it was make me doubt about your motives too.
Last edited:
Pax Augusta
Elite member
Latin, from which Italian is descended, does not have the same origin as Mycenaean/Greek. The studies on IE you mention you know them only for the part about CHG and Iran_N but you do not know the rest of the theories and reconstructions.
Pax Augusta
Elite member
I downloaded the TIFF and checked it in Photoshop which gives you the ability to pick the colors, and that blue in FIN is not exactly the same of JPT (Japanese) either, in JPT it has no shading and is very homogeneous, in FIN it varies and in some points is intermediate between that of JPT and that in TSI, some lines are even closer to the latter. The blue in FIN also seems similar to that found in Mexicans (MXL). If you take IBS there are some traces even there, albeit very very minimal, of the blue found in TSI, but if you look closely even in TSI some lines, the terminal part, are lighter. Then it's most likely a gradient, the slightly different blues don't look like different components. Instead in chart C the blue found in Polish and English is just the same as in TSI, but here they likely used a different model. Do you see how confusing that is? I also searched in supp info for something that could unequivocally justify that chart, but could not find it. A lot of geneticists don't care about being really accurate, they wouldn't have just used only the 1000 Genomes samples in B if they wanted to be accurate.