i’m surprised balochi is so high in steppe ancestry while gilanis are lower, i never even knew nor expected that . also, what’s up with the khuzestani? I thought they were just arabic speaking iranians , didn’t know they were that distinct genetically.
> certainly from Mesopotamia not northern but southern, as this region became the new Imperial heartland under the Achaemenids and continued to be such unil the Arab invasion
who could’ve guessed that today’s southern iraq is where you will find the iranian militias… some irony in how the neocons invaded iraq just to give it away to iran
Yes, apparently Baluchs are actually Western Iranic speakers, meaning they're linguistically close to Mazandaranis and Gilanis, which is strange. I wonder if they were actually Medes once-upon a time, who were exiled by the Persians because they were perceived as a threat. Wikipedia says that there are old accounts of them rebelling against the Persians. Baluchs are also genetically the closest to the Zagrosians in modern day, but they do evidently have significant Steppe ancestry.
The Iranians have an incredible defensive position which has allowed them to historically invade Babylonia with little consequences if they fail. Worst case scenario, they retreat to the Zagros Mountains and go scorched earth if need be. They did this against the Romans twice, and the Ottomans once. They were too weak to mount a defense against the Arabs, and their army was devastated by the Macedonians before Alexander even entered Persia. The devastated Persians still held Alexander at the mountains guarding Persepolis for over a month. The Mongols, who were without a doubt the most devastating invader of Iran, didn't have to worry about this for obvious reasons
Good article, I’ve been discussing the Iran paper on some forums and a lot of people came to the same conclusion. It’s worth noting that Mazandaran also held out against the Rashidun Arabs after the rest of Sasania collapsed.
If only the Indo-Europeans would've stayed out of South Asia, it would have spared us thousands of years later from having to deal with jeets and their retarded theories.
First, you are not aware that Gilan and Mazandaran were actually among the first places of Indo-Iranian presence since the beginning of the Iron Age.
This is well confirmed by Marlik's evidence in Gilan:
"The archaeology is generally assumed to have belonged to a people group who spoke an Iranian language and who migrated into Iran from Central Asia in early to mid-2nd millennium BCE. The abundance of arms, horse-trappings (as well as horse burials)"
So your knowledge is clumsily derived from an imaginary map without even bothering to know that northern Iran was one of the first places of Indo-Iranian presence and you still cannot explain why this region lacks Sintashta until the end of the Sassanid period.
The Marlik burials (or at least the ones discovered in the 60s that that Wikipedia quote is referencing) are from the late Bronze Age and Iron Age. They're early for Iranian Plateau standards, but definitely not "among the first places of Indo-Iranian presence". The earliest estimates of anything at the site are from the 15th century BC, by which point the Andronovo Culture was already firmly established throughout Central Asia. And this is the earliest estimate. Many estimates date it entirely to well after 1000 BC, at which point it isn't necessarily particularly "early". We know by the 9th century BC there were Iranians on the Plateau.
It is assumed to be an Iranic site because of its similarities with the nomadic pastoralists of Central Asia, who the Steppe hypothesis deniers insist don't represent Proto-Indo-Iranians. So, if you don't believe in Steppe hypothesis, there isn't much of a reason to assume that Marlik was an indicator of Indo-Europeanization. It doesn't have any sort of recorded scripts. The earliest recorded Iranian text would be. For the record, I do believe Marlik was somewhat Indo-Europeanized, but the date of Indo-Europeanization is not particularly relevant to the degree of genetic influence by Indo-Europeans in my opinion.
The Amardis were Iranian, I never deny anywhere in the article the presence of Iranian-speaking people in Hyrcania. It's a non sequitur, but I don't know where you're getting the idea that they were an especially early Iranian group on the plateau. Also, the Amardis are described as related to East Iranic groups like the Scythians and Dahae in the very article you link, which would suggest that they aren't a typical representation of the Iranic population that actually spread its language to the region either.
I don't know what "imaginary map" you speak of. I'm going off of well-agreed locations of tribes in the Avesta. I explain in the article why MLBA Steppe DNA may not be present in Hyrcania despite MLBA Steppe rich peoples being the origin of the Iranic languages. The region is among the most fertile in Iran, good for farmers, and it is largely cordoned off from the rest of the country by the Alborz mountains and the great forests of that region. Historically it was resistant to incoming powers.
If the study have it right, then the Indo-Europeans were already very compatible with both Western Hunter-Gatherers and Early Eastern Farmers. This might explain why Europeans are similar even with regional differences and were proved to be a very dynamic race with high intelligence before the Roman Empire. Or did I misread it?
I think Europeans are similar more due to the Indo-Europeans basically retaining cross-continental kinship networks throughout the Bronze Age. And even afterwards there were these giant cultural expansions like the Celts, Slavs, and Germans
Scythians =/= Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian is older & spread from Iran & split during BMAC/IVC. In fact Scythian settlements later on in the 1st millennium BCE only validate heggarty because it could be argued as the source of steppe in the region and its far too late to form Indo-Iranian. TKM_IA is too late of a source (1st millennium BCE) and could be associated with early Scythians, but I don’t see how it could be associated with Indo-Iranians or Indo-Aryans specifically.
Indian clan groups with high enough steppe are simply Scythian/Afghan adjacent tribes anyways. Jats, Sindhis, Punjabis, or Iranian Baluchis and also as you said Gandharans. Doesn’t really correlate to Indo-Aryan as much as it correlates to Scythians. Scythians ruled/settled/influenced the region of Pakistan/Afghanistan for some 2000 years. All these are groups in that region.
There is evidence of Indo-Iranian in the region, the Mittani lol. Heggarty’s theory would just imply Iranian is a more divergent split from Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan conserves more of Indo-Iranian vocabulary. Hence the greater similarities between Indo-Aryan and the Indo-Iranian Mittani.
I'm gonna put on my pith helmet adorned with peacock feathers and say that some years ago I walked over the Alborz with a Gilani guide who looked exactly like Australian cricketer Shane Warne--ie a perfect Sintashta specimen (maybe)--and thus everything you say here is wrong.
The no good story ever started with a glass milk vid edit was crazy in 2019
i’m surprised balochi is so high in steppe ancestry while gilanis are lower, i never even knew nor expected that . also, what’s up with the khuzestani? I thought they were just arabic speaking iranians , didn’t know they were that distinct genetically.
> certainly from Mesopotamia not northern but southern, as this region became the new Imperial heartland under the Achaemenids and continued to be such unil the Arab invasion
who could’ve guessed that today’s southern iraq is where you will find the iranian militias… some irony in how the neocons invaded iraq just to give it away to iran
Yes, apparently Baluchs are actually Western Iranic speakers, meaning they're linguistically close to Mazandaranis and Gilanis, which is strange. I wonder if they were actually Medes once-upon a time, who were exiled by the Persians because they were perceived as a threat. Wikipedia says that there are old accounts of them rebelling against the Persians. Baluchs are also genetically the closest to the Zagrosians in modern day, but they do evidently have significant Steppe ancestry.
The Iranians have an incredible defensive position which has allowed them to historically invade Babylonia with little consequences if they fail. Worst case scenario, they retreat to the Zagros Mountains and go scorched earth if need be. They did this against the Romans twice, and the Ottomans once. They were too weak to mount a defense against the Arabs, and their army was devastated by the Macedonians before Alexander even entered Persia. The devastated Persians still held Alexander at the mountains guarding Persepolis for over a month. The Mongols, who were without a doubt the most devastating invader of Iran, didn't have to worry about this for obvious reasons
Good article, I’ve been discussing the Iran paper on some forums and a lot of people came to the same conclusion. It’s worth noting that Mazandaran also held out against the Rashidun Arabs after the rest of Sasania collapsed.
I’m getting good at this; somewhat understood what was said here and in the Jan 2024 post
If only the Indo-Europeans would've stayed out of South Asia, it would have spared us thousands of years later from having to deal with jeets and their retarded theories.
I thought it was from the South Caucasus?
That is the competing theory
Yo-check out the new Society for the Dissemination of historical fact substack btw!
this was fascinating, high quality stuff here man. Kudos
You have made two general mistakes.
First, you are not aware that Gilan and Mazandaran were actually among the first places of Indo-Iranian presence since the beginning of the Iron Age.
This is well confirmed by Marlik's evidence in Gilan:
"The archaeology is generally assumed to have belonged to a people group who spoke an Iranian language and who migrated into Iran from Central Asia in early to mid-2nd millennium BCE. The abundance of arms, horse-trappings (as well as horse burials)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlik
And similarly, the Amardis, who had been residents of northern Iran since the beginning of the Iron Age, were one of the Iranian ethnic groups:
"Of these four nomadic groups, they were the only tribe linguistically Iranian"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amardi
So your knowledge is clumsily derived from an imaginary map without even bothering to know that northern Iran was one of the first places of Indo-Iranian presence and you still cannot explain why this region lacks Sintashta until the end of the Sassanid period.
The Marlik burials (or at least the ones discovered in the 60s that that Wikipedia quote is referencing) are from the late Bronze Age and Iron Age. They're early for Iranian Plateau standards, but definitely not "among the first places of Indo-Iranian presence". The earliest estimates of anything at the site are from the 15th century BC, by which point the Andronovo Culture was already firmly established throughout Central Asia. And this is the earliest estimate. Many estimates date it entirely to well after 1000 BC, at which point it isn't necessarily particularly "early". We know by the 9th century BC there were Iranians on the Plateau.
It is assumed to be an Iranic site because of its similarities with the nomadic pastoralists of Central Asia, who the Steppe hypothesis deniers insist don't represent Proto-Indo-Iranians. So, if you don't believe in Steppe hypothesis, there isn't much of a reason to assume that Marlik was an indicator of Indo-Europeanization. It doesn't have any sort of recorded scripts. The earliest recorded Iranian text would be. For the record, I do believe Marlik was somewhat Indo-Europeanized, but the date of Indo-Europeanization is not particularly relevant to the degree of genetic influence by Indo-Europeans in my opinion.
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marlik/
The Amardis were Iranian, I never deny anywhere in the article the presence of Iranian-speaking people in Hyrcania. It's a non sequitur, but I don't know where you're getting the idea that they were an especially early Iranian group on the plateau. Also, the Amardis are described as related to East Iranic groups like the Scythians and Dahae in the very article you link, which would suggest that they aren't a typical representation of the Iranic population that actually spread its language to the region either.
I don't know what "imaginary map" you speak of. I'm going off of well-agreed locations of tribes in the Avesta. I explain in the article why MLBA Steppe DNA may not be present in Hyrcania despite MLBA Steppe rich peoples being the origin of the Iranic languages. The region is among the most fertile in Iran, good for farmers, and it is largely cordoned off from the rest of the country by the Alborz mountains and the great forests of that region. Historically it was resistant to incoming powers.
If the study have it right, then the Indo-Europeans were already very compatible with both Western Hunter-Gatherers and Early Eastern Farmers. This might explain why Europeans are similar even with regional differences and were proved to be a very dynamic race with high intelligence before the Roman Empire. Or did I misread it?
I think Europeans are similar more due to the Indo-Europeans basically retaining cross-continental kinship networks throughout the Bronze Age. And even afterwards there were these giant cultural expansions like the Celts, Slavs, and Germans
Scythians =/= Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian is older & spread from Iran & split during BMAC/IVC. In fact Scythian settlements later on in the 1st millennium BCE only validate heggarty because it could be argued as the source of steppe in the region and its far too late to form Indo-Iranian. TKM_IA is too late of a source (1st millennium BCE) and could be associated with early Scythians, but I don’t see how it could be associated with Indo-Iranians or Indo-Aryans specifically.
Indian clan groups with high enough steppe are simply Scythian/Afghan adjacent tribes anyways. Jats, Sindhis, Punjabis, or Iranian Baluchis and also as you said Gandharans. Doesn’t really correlate to Indo-Aryan as much as it correlates to Scythians. Scythians ruled/settled/influenced the region of Pakistan/Afghanistan for some 2000 years. All these are groups in that region.
There is evidence of Indo-Iranian in the region, the Mittani lol. Heggarty’s theory would just imply Iranian is a more divergent split from Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan conserves more of Indo-Iranian vocabulary. Hence the greater similarities between Indo-Aryan and the Indo-Iranian Mittani.
I'm gonna put on my pith helmet adorned with peacock feathers and say that some years ago I walked over the Alborz with a Gilani guide who looked exactly like Australian cricketer Shane Warne--ie a perfect Sintashta specimen (maybe)--and thus everything you say here is wrong.
Otherwise a valuable piece of high quality!