Origin of Slavs

File: Balto-Slavic_lng.png (468KB, 1031x783px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1031x783px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs

The Proto-Slavic homeland is the area of Slavic settlement in Central and Eastern Europe during the first millennium AD, with its precise location debated by archaeologists, ethnographers and historians.[29][30] Theories attempting to place Slavic origin in the Near East have been discarded.[29] None of the proposed homelands reaches the Volga River in the east, over the Dinaric Alps in the southwest or the Balkan Mountains in the south, or past Bohemia in the west.[31][32]

According to historical records, the Slavic homeland would have been somewhere in central Europe (possibly along the southern shore of the Baltic Sea.

>>1759344
Yes, this is where they became known as "slavs" instead of Sarmatians in 6th century AD. But their origins go back to Iran.

They don't come from Iran. Also sarmatians don't come from Iran. Iranians weren't white before the Arab invasion.

I hope I clarified all your questions.

>>1759352
No, their origins don't go back to Iran. Also Bronze Age Iranian autosomal DNA has already been mapped and it has nothing to do with Slavs either.

>>1759352
[citation needed]

>>1759362
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

WE

File: Indo-European-Language-Family-Tree.jpg (78KB, 798x425px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 798x425px

>>1759367
Even linguistically he's wrong

>>1759379
Where does it say they originated in Iran?

>>1759381
>comparing this to fake nigger history

This basically just says that ancient Iranians are modern day Slavs. That's not hard to believe. Their culture/appearance were almost identical. And their languages are similar.

File: kuffir.jpg (22KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x201px

>History
>Slavs were first created by Radegast late in the Iron Age. In the War of Rome, the Slavs made up a large part of Attila's Army, together with the Dunlendings, man-enemies of Rome. There are suggestions that the Slavs of Sclaveni were the result of crossbreeding slavs and men. Certainly, there were other creatures in Attila's armies, and under his command in the Balkans, that appear to have been hybrids. "Half-slavs" were as tall as Men and are never described simply as slavs, as the Slav frequently are. It has also been suggested that the Slav are the cross-breeds of indo-iranians and half-slavs. Attila's army of Slavs fought against King Théoden of Rome and his people at the holy city of Istanbul.

>>1759395
>That's not hard to believe.
Yes it is.
>Their culture/appearance were almost identical.
No, they had nothing to do with each other.
>And their languages are similar.
Not by a stretch.

>>1759388

>The Sarmatians of Iranian people

>Their territory, which was known as Sarmatia to Greco-Roman ethnographers, corresponded to the western part of greater Scythia (mostly modern Ukraine and Southern Russia, also to a smaller extent north eastern Balkans around Moldova).


Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>1759403
Do you speak Farsi or Russian?

>>1759413
They are Iranic, it doesn't mean they originated in Iran at all. It's an ethno-linguistic term.

>>1759323
>>1759344
>even though most modern day Iranians look brown
Proof?
>Slavs are essentially more closely related to the original iranians than modern day Iranians themselves
Proof?
>since Aryan Persians migrated to Eastern Europe prior to the Muslim conquest
Proof?

>>1759417
Do you speak both?

>>1759417
>Do you speak Persian* or Russian?

>>1759417
Do you speak Swahili or Arabic?

>>1759413
are you? since when has iran been in eastern europe?

Sarmatians and Scythians descend from the same proto-Indo-Iranian group that descends directly from the Andronovo culture but stayed in that same area between the Ukraine, Russia and into Central Asia; the other Iranian peoples like the Persians, Medes, Gilaks, etc...descended through the Caucasus mountains into the Iranian plateau.

>>1759382
Interestingly some reconstructions of Indo-European phylogeny have the most recent 'split' between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian

File: not brown.jpg (1MB, 4539x3026px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4539x3026px

>>1759423
>pic related
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

>>1759424
Yes.

File: 4312432xcvdf.jpg (70KB, 400x503px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 400x503px

>>1759435
Not him but the Sarmatians are known for straddling into both Eastern Europe around the Balkans and through the Ukraine.
>>1759441
So what?

>>1759439
[citation needed]

File: Tehrani.jpg (91KB, 548x544px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 548x544px

>>1759441
Proof?

Apparently this belief was a thing in Poland for a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

I doubt the veracity of this theory, although there is evidence of Sarmatian tribes extending into parts of Eastern Europe, they were likely quickly assimilated by the local Slavs, similar to the Huns in Hungary or the Bulgars in Bulgaria.

Also, anyone have that image of a map with "Sarmatian admixture" with the Polish version of Alberto Barbosa over it?

It would probably be applicable to this thread.

>>1759426
It's called Farsi you retarded nigger. Only non-Persians call it Persian.

>>1759436
More likely they descended from east of the Caspian, but the rest is correct.

>>1759441
>Not brown

Maybe by African standards.

File: Ayatollah-Khomeini-and-Sean-Connery.jpg (29KB, 449x295px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 449x295px

>>1759441
I can take images of Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuegse and make them look darker and "browner" as well with google image search as well.
>>1759451
>The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has declared that the name "Persian" is more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in western languages and better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national continuity.[32] Some Persian language scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater, editor of Encyclopædia Iranica, and University of Arizona professor Kamran Talattof, have also rejected the usage of "Farsi" in their articles.

>>1759422
Do you know what ethno-linguistic means? The study of the relationship between language AND culture. Iranic people ARE Iranian people.

>>1759451
We call it Persian, you faggot. Arabs call Pepsi as "Fepzi", as well since they can't into the letter P.

File: nazanin_afshin_jam...jpg (54KB, 299x405px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 299x405px

>>1759441
K.
>>1759457
>>1759441
Nice (You) btw.

>>1759463
so, they would say bebsi. iranian here.

File: I'm CIA.jpg (60KB, 360x479px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 360x479px

>>1759471
>iranian here

>>1759450
There is no reason to believe they specifically became Slavs. More likely they're related to Ossetians, who actually speak an East Iranian language.

East Slavs likely have some Scythian ancestry, but specifically Mordvins and related groups are likely Uralized Scythians or close since they have the closest genetic affinity to PIE steppe peoples.

File: 324252345.jpg (80KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1300x957px

>>1759475
>>1759402

>>1759474
What does this mean?

>>1759461
Point stands. They don't come from Iran.

>>1759460
"Persia" isn't even an Iranian word. Iran was named Persia by the Greeks in 500 BC.

>>1759469
Is she supposed to look white?

>>1759484
Work those neurons.
>>1759485
His point is that they are Iranian because Iranian = Iranic; people sharing the same root culture, languages, and origins.
>>1759488
Persia is the Greek corruption of Parsa from Persian. Cyrus is what you call Koroush, we all know this stuff.

>>1759491
That looks pretty white to me, Jamal.

>>1759488
Persis was a region in ancient Persia.
Persians called all Greeks "Ionians", but Ionia is only a region ancient Greeks inhabited.

>>1759492
I fired my neurons, and I still haven't figured it out.

>>1759491
How is she not exactly white? Looks like any woman from Southern Europe.

>>1759500
Then you are retarded.

File: 1446417401121.jpg (15KB, 201x247px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 201x247px

>>1759323
>>1759344
I've seen shit tons of Slavs that look brown as fuck, mate. Have you ever actually been to the Balkans or Southeastern Europe before?
>Slavs are more Iranian and closer to ancient Iranians then modern Iranians
This is super retarded bait.

>>1759508
Why don't you say what you mean explicitly

File: 1455337289883.jpg (63KB, 611x715px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 611x715px

>>1759514
But I did.

>>1759492
Persian and Sarmatian similarities are restricted to their distant past. Also Sarmatians spoke an East Iranic language and Persians spoke a West Iranic language. They had different religions, different lifestyles and different influences. Iran borrowed a lot from neighboring cultures and peoples, and it was already inhabited by sedentary peoples when the indo-europeans arrived.

>>1759517
Oh, so did you claim to be a member of the CIA?

File: F1.large.jpg (127KB, 1280x1205px)

127KB, 1280x1205px

>>1759447

File: Ossetians.jpg (345KB, 800x488px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 800x488px

>>1759475
The only difference between Slavs and Ossetians is that Slavs went West from Sarmatia and Ossetians went south.

They look completely slavic to me.

>>1759518
>Sarmatians spoke an East Iranic language
>Persians spoke a West Iranic language
Hence, a related group and family of languages, not disproving my point here.
>They had different religions
They were both largely polytheistic, had the same unifying view of fire, and ancestor worship that are common in Indo-Iranian peoples. Still not disproving my point.
>different lifestyle
Persians were semi-nomadic pastorals. The Scythians were fully-nomadic pastorals. Not that dissimilar until Cyrus showed up and changed them.
>difference influences
Nope.
>Iran
Iran didn't exist as a nation-state back then.
>from neighboring cultures
All Indo-Iranian peoples did, the Scythians and Sarmatians are no different from that.

>>1759521
I proved you were retarded.

File: 123424532.png (33KB, 210x300px)

33KB, 210x300px

>>1759540

>>1759526
Slavs were already in the west and had a distinct culture/language. Sarmatians descend from the group that actually went east while Slavs and linguistically most ethnicities in Europe descend from the group that went west.

>>1759540
I never compared them to modern Persians. In fact, my whole point was that Slavs came from the ANCIENT Iranian people. Modern day Iranians are almost completely Arab. I explicitly said this in my original post.

File: keffir.jpg (26KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x201px

>>1759546
I was talking about the thread in general, apologies if it didn't come out that way.

>>1759529
I know you are but what am I? I was just confused because your response was a non sequitur.

>>1759544
No they weren't. Slavs weren't established until the 6th century. Sarmatians (at the time they were just the Medes) came to Eastern Europe around 400 BC.

>>1759528
>They were both largely polytheistic
Zoroastrianism is not polytheistic.
>had the same unifying view of fire
Just because Sarmatians had a fire god it doesn't mean that is a connection. Also the Zoroastrian fire temples were a later development and probably didn't exist in early Persian history. Scythians have nothing on fire rituals.
>and ancestor worship that are common in Indo-Iranian peoples
Not really sure what that's about?
>Persians were semi-nomadic pastorals.
Depends on the time, but a very large amount of them was sedentary.
>The Scythians were fully-nomadic pastorals.
As were pretty much everyone else who lived on the steppes at the time aside of a handful Greek colonists north of the Black Sea.

>>1759562
Zoroastrianism was not the dominant religion for Persians until the Sassanids. Until Katir came along, ancestor worship and the other Aryan and Iranian gods were worshiped until Katir ordered all family alters destroyed in Sassanid Persia.
>Just because Sarmatians had a fire god
And Goddess of River, and Goddess of Fertility, and God of Spring, and God of War, and God of Light, etc...I can go on. You really don't seem to know much about Iranian history but protip: scanning Wikipedia isn't going to help you out here.
>Not really sure what that's about?
The name completely gives it away.
>but a very large amount of them was sedentary
>majority pre-Achaemenid Persians
>sedentary
Nope.
>As were pretty much everyone else
And you just proved my point further that all Iranic peoples overlapped in almost every way. Scythian customs, culture, languages, dress, and so on were not alien to the Medes or the Persians or other Iranics living in the Iranian plateau. Or Central Asia. Or whatever.

>>1759555
>non sequitur
Nope, but keep being retarded.

You can't just spout a bunch of statements without posting sources. We're never going to learn anything if you just keep making stuff up without any proof.

>>1759546
>In fact, my whole point was that Slavs came from the ANCIENT Iranian people.
They didn't.

>>1759582
Tell me how you claim to think that what you said was relevant to what I said.

>>1759562
Zoroastrianism wasn't the state religion in any Persian state until Shapur II made it so to counter Constantine making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. In fact, one of the rival faiths in Persia since the Achaemenid period was Mithra, which hugely popular.

>>1759599
Tell me how you can be so retarded?

>>1759603
Nuh unh, you're retarded.

File: 1358316105770.jpg (24KB, 192x182px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 192x182px

>>1759608

File: IMG_4465.jpg (174KB, 1280x1108px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x1108px

>>1759546
>Modern day Iranians are almost completely Arab.
That is unfounded statement and makes little sense. Neolithic pre-indo-european Iranians cluster genetically close to Afghans and Pakistanis, which are mostly "Iranic" too. Iron age Iranians are genetically very close to modern day Iranians.

>>1759540
We arent arabs tho. We are a mix of mesopotamian,caucasian and indo-euro.

>>1759596
Slavs came from the Sarmatians. How is that hard to understand? Iran and Russia are both located in the Caucasus. They are geographically very close, so why would it surprise you that they originated from the same people? The only reasons Iranians look so dark today is because of the Arab invasions. If that hadn't happened, Iranians would still be white.

>>1759578
>And Goddess of River, and Goddess of Fertility, and God of Spring, and God of War, and God of Light
Like pretty much all Indo-Europeans.

>>1759635
>Slavs came from the Sarmatians
You have yet to provide any actual evidence.

>>1759635
>Iran and Russia are both located in the Caucasus. They are geographically very close
The Caucasus is a barrier, not a corridor. There's a reason it's mostly inhabited by non-Indo-Europeans.

>>1759635
1. Where's the evidence?
2. Why are so many Slavs so dark and brown?
3. Define "whiteness".
4. Modern day Iranians cluster with their ancestors before Islamic conquest
5. Stop pulling the stormfront bullshit.

>>1759636
So how does that disprove any of my points or arguments? Their gods and goddesses even all shared the essential same names, purposes, and roles with other Indo-Iranian ones.

>>1759626
You definitely LOOK Arab. Originally, you were "European white." In fact, anyone who encountered the Sarmatians or the Scythians described them as fair skinned and blonde, with light eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Physical_appearance

File: 1386911113394.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>1759654

>>1759654
Why are you posting Sarmatians to contest a post about Persians?

>>1759654
Iranians definitely DON'T. See >>1759616, if the genetics weren't effected by Arabs, then the phenotypes wouldn't be either. Phenotypes in human genetics stem from environmental variables and influences.

Stop with your bullshit.

>>1759663
Because he's a goal post moving retard.

>>1759654
>look arab

Maybe for the untrained eye. I can still tell any arab from an iranian apart

>>1759654
Gr8 b8 m8

>>1759650
Some Slavs are dark and brown because during the 7th century, Islam came to the Caucasus. Arabs invaded and mixed with the locals. It's the same reason why Iranians today are brown and dark with a few exceptions.

>>1759671
>Slavs
>Caucasus
>because Ayyrabs
Nope, Slavics have always been a swarthy people.
>It's the same reason why Iranians today are brown and dark
You can keep claiming this but without evidence, your claims are groundless.
>with few exceptions
Wrong.

Come up with new bullshit at least if you are going to keep shitposting.

>>1759665
Sarmatians are an Iranian people.

>>1759671
Except if you want to talk about race, skull morphology, language, culture, and genetics are more relevant then phenotypes.Now there's tremendous overlap and continuation between pre-Islamic Iranians with post-Islamic conquered Iranians. Or how facially Iranians are still nothing like Semitics peoples or those who come from the same Afro-Asiatic groups.
>>1759677
Yes, but not all Iranian peoples are Persian. So still has nothing to do with that.

>>1759668
My point is they are dark, with dark features. I can also tell a Persian from an Arab, but you can't deny the similarities.

>>1759680
So are Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, and many Southern Europeans, especially several Slavic ones in the Balkans. You don't have any actual factual points.

>>1759679
I was only ever talking about Iranian people.

>>1759685
I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm saying original Iranians (who were nomadic) eventually became slavs. That doesn't mean that all of them remained white. Obviously Arabs came to Slavic regions too. My point is, Iranians are Slavs share an origin.

>>1759709
>I'm saying original Iranians (who were nomadic) eventually became slavs.
You never proved this claim.

>>1759703
>someone specifically talks about Persians
>bring up a specifically different group as with the Saramatians
Doesn't work that way.

File: whos that pokemon.jpg (41KB, 295x432px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 295x432px

>>1759668
>I can still tell any arab from an iranian apart
So is this guy iranian or arab?

>>1759729
Arab

>>1759716
How have I not proved it? Sarmatians (WHO ARE ORIGINAL IRANIANS, described as fair skinned, light eyed, yellow haired) migrated to Eastern Europe and settled there. I ask you, who are Eastern Europeans? Oh yeah, SLAVS.

File: 143325423.jpg (58KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 440x440px

>>1759729

>>1759732
>Its proven because I said so!
Nope. See>>1759650
>>1759649
>>1759641

File: whos that pokemon 2.jpg (34KB, 322x418px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 322x418px

>>1759731
Are you sure?

Have a side shot of his face

>>1759738
>not fact checking me if you're that skeptical
>being THIS lazy

c'mon Jamal

>>1759732
>>1759741
Where's the proof, Vasily? You've only done the equivalent to bullshit with 19th century Eugenics crap to claim their Samartian.

File: 23432452.jpg (718KB, 1500x1600px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1500x1600px

>>1759740

>>1759740
He's definitely arab

File: 1432404870650.jpg (15KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x250px

>>1759741

File: its a filthy balkan kul.jpg (51KB, 601x287px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 601x287px

>>1759747
Well I'm sorry to inform youthat he is neither.

He is a greek ultra-nationalist that got arrested in Korinthos for weapon possession.

Thanks for playing.

File: 4354353.jpg (208KB, 1000x1600px)

208KB, 1000x1600px

>>1759758

>>1759758
Don't care. He's still arab.

>>1759475
>>1759540
>>1759553
>>1759402

Report for avatar fagging.

>>1759526
>Slavs went West from Sarmatia
yes, UNDER a small sarmatian ruling class that assimilated with them. Slavs are not sarmatians. Retards seem to think they are because the ruling class was sarmatian. It's like calling russians vikings.

That theory only speculates some Slavic tribes had Iranian origin (Croats, Serbs) and even then it's based on the fact their names mean nothing in Slavic languages and some words and customs (like Croats calling their leaders "ban" and other details).
It's possible but there isn't much data to work with.

>>1759323
WE

>>1759413
Iranians are native to Eastern Europe & Kazakhstan. They migrated to Iran around 1500 BC. Scythians and Sarmatians are the Iranians that stayed behind, they didn't come from Iran.

>>1759513
That's to be attributed to mixing with Paleo-Balkanic peoples who have a mediterranean look.

>>1759323
>They WERE white prior to the Arab invasion in 633 AD. After this however, they were mixed with the Arabs, and thus now have very Arabic features, ie. hooked noses, brown skin, dark hair, dark eyes.
Wow I didn't know that 40 000 arabs could have such an effect on the millions of persians living there

>>1759362
>>1759367
this

>>1759323
it is the other way around

modern Iran speaking Persian is like Mexico speaking Spanish

Mexicans are not Spanish in ethnicity

the Andronovo of northern Asia (not Iran) are the original Ironi

the northern Andronovo invaded what is now Iran, which was populated by Elamites, Semites (Assyrians, Chaldeans), Dravidians etc...

they dominated the locals and mixed with the locals to create the newly formed Iranian empire, named after the northern Andronovo invaders

however, Iranians != Andronovo,

the conquered adopted the name, language, identity of their conquerers

>>1759758
Why are you so obsessed with us mehmet?

>>1759323
Sarmatian origin is literally a late medieval meme between Polish nobles.

>>1759422
>>1759436
>>1759518
modern Iran is named after an ancient region outside of modern Iran, which was located north of Iran, primarily in modern Kazakhstan, Arya was the land of the Andronovo, who conquered Elamites, Semites, Dravids of modern Iran and introduced the Iranian identity to the newly conquered southern peoples

>>1760374
>Venezuela named after venice
>we wuz Venetians n shiet


>Romania named after Rome
>we wuz Romans n shiet

>New Zealand named after Zeeland (Holland)
>we wuz Dutch n shiet


>America named after Amerigo Vespuci
>we wuz Italians n shiet


>Iran named after Arya (Kazakhstan)
>we wuz Aryan n shiet

>>1759344
>Moldavia
>Thracian
It seems to me that the consensus is that the Thracian-Dacian divide lies in Bulgaria rather than in Romania - afaik most historians consider Moesians to be Dacians as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>1759677
>Spanish are a Mexican people

Elamites, Assyrians, Veddoids were conquered by Andronovo to become modern Iran

>>1759402
this is now canon.

>>1759616
>"Iranians" related to Pakistanis, Afghans, and Indians


>By using a new method that looks at patterns of inheritance of chunks of DNA, Hellenthal found that the early Zagros Mountain farmers have left a genetic legacy in Pakistanis, Afghans, and Indians

>But the ancient Iranian DNA was dramatically different from that of the western Anatolian farmers. The two groups of farmers, who lived about 2000 kilometers and 2000 years apart, must have descended from completely different groups of hunter-gatherers who separated 46,000 to 77,000 years ago, Burger says.


>By sequencing 1.2 million nucleotides from across each genome, the team found that early farmers of Israel and Jordan (known as the Levant) were genetically distinct from those in the Zagros Mountains, and that both populations were distinct from the western Anatolians who later spread their genes throughout Europe.

>Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.

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 east into South Asia.

>>1759546
modern Slavs are a mixture of Tatar (Turko-Mongol), Uralic (Mongoloid), Paleo-Siberians (Mongoloid), Balto-Slavs (Slavs originate from Baltics), Iranics of northern Asia (Scythians, Sarmatians), Germanics, and assorted others

many Mongols and Iranics migrated south to conquer Iran

so modern Slavs share same Mongol ancestry with modern Iranians

File: svetamir4.jpg (47KB, 565x505px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 565x505px

>>1759323
A lie.
Slavs stem from Precambrian.
Slavic inscriptions on the surface of the Sun prove it.

>>1759323
This is just one of many theories of our origin, It has yet to be proven.

>>1759513
That is the result of them intermarrying with Paleo-Balkan peoples.

>>1759675
>Nope, Slavic have always been a swarthy people.

Not according to these sightings:

1. Procopius of Caesarea (6th century):
"(...) Valerian chose one of the Sklaveni who are men of mighty stature. (...)"
"(...) Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"
2. Theophilact Simokatta (describing events from year 595):
"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe, he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"
3. Theophanes the Confessor (describing the same event from year 595):
"(...) The Emperor was admiring their beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"
4. Pseudo-Maurice (Strategikon) - late 6th century / early 7th century:
"(...) Tribes of Sclaveni and Antes (...) are very resistant to hardships, they easily endure both heat and cold, rain and lack of garment. (...)"
5. Constantine Porphyrogennetos (10th century):
About ancestors of Balkan Croats and ancestors of Balkan Serbs:
"(...) their ancestors were Pagan Croats and Serbs, known also as White [Croats and Serbs]. Great Croatia, called also White [Croatia], until today is still Pagan, just like neighboring [Lusatian] Serbs [Sorbs] (...)
II. Muslim and Sephardi Jewish sources:
6. Al-Baladuri (late 7th century):
"(...) Slavs are a tribe of ruddy complexion and fair hair. (...)"
7. Ibn Qutajba (describing events from years 691 - 694):
"(...) If only Prince wanted, outside of his doors would be black Sudanians or ruddy Slavs (...)"
The same information is repeated also by 8. Al-Baladuri (9th century).
9. Al-Ahtal (late 7th century):
"(...) Birds of the desert saw in those people a crowd of fair-haired Slavs. (...)"

>>1760518
but the surface of the sun is constantly changing

File: 0_4e5f2_db6b7512_orig-1024x777.jpg (293KB, 1024x777px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1024x777px

Slavs are direct descendants of the ancient region of Hyperborea.

>>1760040
It is believed that the ruling class was Sarmatian,but it's more likely that the Slavs have only absorbed the remaining Sarmatians in Europe.

>. It's like calling Russians vikings

Rurik and his family were of Finno-Baltic origin, they're even distantly related to the Gediminid dynasty.

>>1759323
>They WERE white prior to the Arab invasion in 633 AD. After this however, they were mixed with the Arabs, and thus now have very Arabic features, ie. hooked noses, brown skin, dark hair, dark eyes.

lmao

File: b0f1bda2-eb4e-48c2-8efd-18ab6d5ea9b4_1.3c0d8c698055abf987174387609bb193.jpg (19KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x450px

>>1759402
>roachposting
>on /his/

shoo shoo

>>1760374
Hahaha, bullshit.
>>1760397
Assyrians and Veddoids don't live in Iran, not too mention the genetic autosomal DNA testings show the latter has even less impact on Persians then Arabs did, who for all intents had no impact to begin with.
>>1760410
I like how he posted evidence proving your claim wrong and you posted a theory that's largely been ignored because it lacks empirical evidence. Neat.
>>1760711
>antecedal evidence
Nope.

>>1760908
They're not anecdotal, they're sightings of travelers and learned men.

Also, Slavs can't be predominately swarthy because they house the largest population of blonde-hair individuals in Europe, Incidentally, the genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a, which is the most common among Slavs and the Germanic descendants of Goths.

Source: Eupedia.

>>1760916
>They're not anecdotal
Except they are.
>Eupedia
Nope/10.

ITT: misconstruing the simple common Indo-European origin of Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranics

>>1760908
>Assyrians and Veddoids don't live in Iran
t. Iranian Veddoid


The Assyrian presence in Iran goes back 4000 years to ancient times, and Assyria was involved in the history of Ancient Iran even before the arrival of the modern Iranian peoples to the region circa 1000 BC. During the Old Assyrian Empire (c.2025-1750 BC) and Middle Assyrian Empire (1365-1020 BC) the Assyrians ruled over parts of Pre-Iranic northern and western Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Assyrians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senaya_language

http://www1.jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100951754043

>>1760949
They're recurrent and almost identical in every documented sighting and for the record, Eupedia is run and managed by geneticists.

>>1760908
>100% FinnoSlavic Iranian no Veddoid
>no ancient and recent Veddoid mixture


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garachi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyuli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghorbati


The world-wide used name for Gypsies to identify themselves is the term “Rrom”,[3] which in the Romani language means a man. The words Rom, Dom and Lom are used to describe Romani peoples who diverged in the 6th century, related to the Domba people of India.

The Romani, Dom, Lom originated in India and arrived in Persia, then Europe, around 1,000 years ago,[56]

Romani existence and permanence in Persia of have been largely assimilated, despite the strong loss of culture brought about by fragmentation and geographical dispersion.

Besides Romani of Persia, there are numerous Veddoid peoples including Zargari, Dom, Garachi, Lyuli, Ghorbati. Another group of Dom origin in Iran are the Lori, who are found in the Baloch regions of southeast Iran.

>>1760981
>t. Iranian Veddoid
Not an Iranian and b) not supported by any genetic sequencing of autosomal DNA of various Iranian peoples. Try again.

>>1760997
Your just copy pasting your same shitposts from the last Iranian thread /his/ from earlier in the week. Bait better.

>>1760985
>They're recurrent.
No they aren't, namefag.
>Eupedia is run and manged by geneticists.
>"Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide to countries of the European Union, with an emphasis on travel, history, culture and life in Europe."

>>1760410
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. You propose they somehow disappeared from Western Iran just because they branched into South Asia? Did you miss the part of the paper that mentions modern Iranians have a significant neolithic contribution, especially the Zoroastrians and Mazandarani?

Also what part of Iron Age Iran clusters with Modern Iran did you not understand?

>>1760384
>Iran named after Arya (Kazakhstan)
>we wuz Aryan n shiet

Hungarians (Balto-Slavs) LARPING AS MONGOLIANS

Persians (Elamo-Semites) LARPING AS Andronovo

>>1761019
>Elamo-Semites
Elamites aren't Semites. Also this shitpost opinion of yours was disproven in the last thread when you tried to claim Persians were assimilated by Elamites and not the other way around. Especially when the Medes and Persians appeared after the Neo-Elamite Empire was sacked and heavily razed by the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the point most of its cities and villages were flattened and the land salted and people enslaved.

Shitpost better if your going to shitpost at all here.

>>1761018
He's a shitposter, its that simple. Every time he has his arguments debunked and rebuked by proof he just falls back to the same copy-pasted wikipedia outdated articles on Iranian "genetics".

According to Palanichamy et al. (2015), "The presence of mtDNA haplogroups (HV14 and U1a) and Y-chromosome haplogroup (L1) in Dravidian populations indicates the spread of the Dravidian language into India from west Asia."

>>1760410
Also the Anatolian farmers, Levantine farmers and Zagros farmers didn't just vanish because they expanded to other areas. They were genetically isolated from each other, they didn't exactly share recent descent, and they moved-because they were farmers, and farmers go through much higher population booms than hunter-gatherers.

>>1761019
Ariane isn't Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is Turan or Transoxiana.

>>1760410
>>1761025


We sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed substantially to the ancestry of modern Europeans. These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46,000 to 77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern-day South Asian populations. We conclude that multiple, genetically differentiated hunter-gatherer populations adopted farming in southwestern Asia, that components of pre-Neolithic population structure were preserved as farming spread into neighboring regions, and that the Zagros region was the cradle of eastward expansion.


>>1761018
>I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here.

>Iranian population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed substantially to the ancestry of modern Europeans.

>These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46,000 to 77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern-day South Asian populations.

> the Zagros Mountain farmers spread east into South Asia

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6298/499

>>1761026
The Indo-Iranian migrations have resulted in high R1a frequencies in southern Central Asia, Iran and the Indian subcontinent. The highest frequency of R1a (about 65%) is reached in a cluster around Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. In India and Pakistan, R1a ranges from 15 to 50% of the population, depending on the region, ethnic group and caste. R1a is generally stronger is the North-West of the subcontinent, and weakest in the Dravidian-speaking South (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh) and from Bengal eastward. Over 70% of the Brahmins (highest caste in Hindusim) belong to R1a1, due to a founder effect.

>>1761039
>repeating yourself ad naseum
Not working. See: >>1759616

>>1761026
this
modern "Iranians" are Dravids in denial larping as ANDRONOVO ARYANS

they are the same people of pakis and indos that has been in south asia for eons

>>1761039
I never said the Zagros farmers went into Europe, what exactly are you contesting from my post?

>>1761019
>Hungarians (Balto-Slavs) LARPING AS MONGOLIANS
>Persians (Elamo-Semites) LARPING AS Andronovo
I haven't been paying attention to your conversation so far, but it's well-established that Magyars are Ugric Uralics and Persians are Iranic Indo-Europeans.

>>1761035
Turanian is a psuedo-scientific term[1] that has been used in reference to diverse groups of unrelated people. It has had currency in Turanism, Pan-Turkism, and historic Turkish nationalism.

Turanid race or Ural-Altaic race is a now obsolete term, originally intended to cover populations of Central Asia associated with the spread of the Turanian languages, which are the combination of the Uralic and Altaic families (hence also "Ural–Altaic race").[1]

"Turanid race" that included the Uralic and Altaic speaking peoples more generally.[4] There was also an ideology of Hungarian Turanism in Hungarian fascism.

>>1761045
Modern Iranians have at least 15 to 20% steppe ancestry. Also they don't have to LARP as "Andronovo Aryans" as the culture and civilization they produced is far more relevant than some steppe pastoralists no one knows anything about.

File: 1386382805256.jpg (2KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 100x100px

>>1761045

>>1761051
I never used the term "Turanian". I am talking about the geographic region that ancient Persians called Turan and ancient Greeks called Transoxiana and corresponds to Kazakhstan and neighboring areas. Aria/Areia itself is centered around Herat, Afghanistan.

Posting random Wikipedia quotes don't make a point.

>>1761055
except the Andronovo introduced the Aryan identity, language and culture to Elamo-Semites of present day Iran

if you want to reject the foreign Andronovo elements then you have to reject the Iranian name, language and identity and revert to Elamo-Dravidian language and identity


Andronovos are to Persia as Spanish are to Mexico

and you are the Aztecs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

>>1761045
>genetics, haplogroups, and autosomal DNA show there's a continuity and little admixing between ancient and modern Persians
>but here's my pseudo-eugenics /pol/ tier bullshit so believe that instead
Kill yourself.

>>1761071
>Elamo-Semites of present day Iran
Here's your (You), retard kun.

>>1761071
I'm not rejecting the Proto-Indo-European contribution, but that doesn't mean you can simply erase all other contributions and claim that ancient Persians are pure Andronovo remnants and try to hijack their civilizations as "Slavic", which makes no sense as Slavs aren't descended from Ancient Persians and only share a partial distant genetic past.

Stop masturbating to other civilizations, this is as bad as Afrocentrists and is incredibly stupid.

>>1761071
>Elamo-Semites
>of present day Iran
There are none of those today at all. Did you completely ignore my post that we have various historical records, statements, and data that show the Elamite civilization was nearly wiped out and its people in terms of "ethnic" stock were put on the extinction route thanks to the Neo-Assyrian Empire? Or how the Elamite language completely ceases to exist after the late 5th century?

Or why most Iranians do not look like Dravidians? You sure seem persistent on blatantly lying with a clear set biased historical revisionism styled narrative but don't worry, myself and several others will continue to call you out every time you do so.

>>1761071
>Andronovos are to Persia as Spanish are to Mexico
They're not as an academic paper has already been posted confirming Iron Age Iranians cluster with Modern Iranians rather than Steppe populations.

Zagros farmers are not Dravidian, and that's why they cluster with Afghanistan/Pakistan (which are part of Ancient Persia, by the way) instead of clustering with actual Dravidians. Ancient Persians were a mix of steppe influences, Zagros farmers and probably other influences as well.

>>1759323
we wuz aryans

t. Vasili Valislivavidosili

>>1761016
They are, hence their description being near identical in almost every documented mentioning.

>"Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide to countries of the European Union, with an emphasis on travel, history, culture and life in Europe

That doesn't diminish the quality of their information regarding European genetics.

File: Summary_Piontek.png (84KB, 680x1714px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 680x1714px

>>1759323
Bullshit

Germanic-speakers were not the original IE inhabitants of territory which is now Poland, they came during middle-to-late Iron Age as immigrants or invaders and in relatively small numbers.

There is a biological population continuity in Poland since the Bronze Age until nowadays - neither Germanic immigration nor Slavic immigration altered it considerably.

Language & culture of population of Poland were changing few times, but population - in its main core (not counting quite numerous admixtures from migrating peoples) - is similar as in times of Biskupin-builders:

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/pdf/mono/vol012/01piontek.pdf

File: Janke.png (214KB, 560x576px)

214KB, 560x576px

>>1761176
Even today people in eastern Germany and in Austria have a lot of R1a haplogroup, which was most common among Medieval West Slavs.

Also I2a haplogroup is very typical for Slavic populations. Of course it would be a mistake to associate haplogroups with ethnicities, but are there are certain statistical correlations, which allow us to arrive at certain conclusions and generalizations concerning their origins.

Also Slavic surnames are common in Germany - some of them are Polish in origin but some are from other Slavic groups.

For example here is surname "Janke", distribution of which indicates that it is Obotrite-Veleti rather than Polish, Pomeranian or Sorbian:

File: R1a_R1b_cities_B.png (347KB, 1076x761px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1076x761px

>>1761177
Comparison of R1a and R1b haplogroups among people in various German, Austrian, Czech and Polish cities today:

Map shows modern-day R1b / R1a proportions among inhabitants of 25 selected cities located in Central Europe:

Dark green = Polish and Czech cities
Light green = German & Austrian cities with ~20% (Greifswald) up to ~43% (Graz) of R1a
Dark red = other cities in Germany

What can be observed is that former Slavic areas in Germany & Austria correlate with high % of people with R1a haplogroup:

File: Chart_R1a_R1b.png (37KB, 504x568px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 504x568px

>>1761179
Graz in Early Middle Ages was a Slavic city (burgh) of the Principality of Carantania, which was called Gradec (in Old Slovene language). Graz has so high percent of people with R1a haplogroup, that it is obvious that they are mostly descendats of Germanized Slovenes (Carantanians).

Note that German-speaking Austrian inhabitants of Graz have a higher % of R1a than ethnic Slovenes of Slovenia.

According to our website, 38% of Slovenes from Slovenia have R1a haplogroup, while 43% of Austrians from Graz have it:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

>>1761138
It completely does.

>>1761073
Wouldn't autosomal DNA samples from Achaemenid and Sassanian figures establish this once and for all? I don't really care about either the Andronovo or Sarmatians -- I just want to know if genetically I am close to the Achaemenids and Sassanids, but to tell you the truth, I care more for the Sassanids than the Achaemenids.

>>1761203
The site is managed by a team of geneticists, I'd rather trust them than you.

>>1761431
>The site is managed by a team of geneticists

No it isn't it's run by one autist called Maciamo.

Eupedia is literally the shittiest source there's is when it comes to genetics, because it's biased and he makes conclusions solely based on his opinion.

The guy calls himself geneticist, atheist, philosopher, historian etc.

>>1760518
Eeeee blet tuoh dyiiigyiiiin deeeee?

>>1761420
Are there autosomal dna samples of achaemenid or sassanid figures, preferably the latter?

>>1761420
I don't know about the Achaemenid period but they have done so from the Parthian and Sassanid periods of various mummies and corpses dug up from those time frames. Why do you think autosomal dna has shown little change between Iron Age Persians and modern day ones?

>>1759504
>Southern Europe
>White

>>1761497
>but they have done so from the Parthian and Sassanid periods of various mummies and corpses dug up from those time frames.
Then give the source already!!! I have spent a lot of time searching for that.

>>1761527
See the another anon posting the sequence charts, he should know where they are.
>>1761514
>/int/ shitposting
>in /his/

>>1759616
Oh ok, I gotchya.

Neolithic Iranians were basically close to Sardinians, but the Iron Age Iranians are close to modern-day Iranians.

Wow, that really shuts up the Nordicists...

>>1761602
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full

>>1761604
Yeah, I just read it. It can finally make the Europeans shut the fuck up with their "we wuz Achaemenids and Sassanids" shit.

>>1761616
proto-Aryans were Europid in the physical sense, but Achaemenids =/= Proto-Aryans.

>>1761635
>proto-Aryans
>"Europid"
Europid isn't a term or a designation. The Sassanids looked like the Achaemenids, the modern day Persians look the Sassanids. So unless you mean Proto-Indo-Iranics, there is really no divergence.

File: Steppe_Phenotypes.png (150KB, 961x1271px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 961x1271px

What went wrong?

>>1761657
if you're asking why modern Indo-Iranids aren't blond it's because they don't have a lot of Indo-European maternal haplogroups, most steppe DNA is paternal.

>>1761652
yeah I was referring Proto-Indo-Iranics being Europid in appearance.

>>1761667
Proto-Indo-Iranians, who are chiefly attributed to the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures, were genetically European, yeah.

I guess that resolves a long debate.

>>1761442
All his articles contain traceable links,including those that deal in Human genetics."His" assumption" seem to correlate perfectly with empirically proven and largely agreed on facts.

>>1761825
lol you're so dense and never admit to being wrong first you claimed a "team" of geneticists is editing that page turned out it's one autist with no degree in anything related to genetics seems good to you

>>1761825
Look here: >>1761604 & >>1761602

You can't claim the Achaemenids or Sassanids. You can claim giving a formative influence from the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures though.

Proto-Indo-Iranians =/= Iron Age Iranians

>>1761825
Nope, its run by an individual with an agenda and he produces zero academic articles or scientific scholarly research. Stop pushing this shit, faggot. Post the dudes credentials.

Oh wait.

He has none.

>>1761833
Outside of language, what's the difference in terms of genetics or ethnicity between Proto-Indo-Iranics and actual Indo-Iranics?

>>1761842
Look at these:
>>1761604
>>1759616

Neolithic Iranians were basically close to Sardinians, but the Iron Age Iranians are close to modern-day Iranians. Proto-Indo-Iranians were genetically Eastern European though.

>>1761846
I don't understand what you mean by "genetically Eastern European". How does that work? What data are you using to determine this?

Modern day Iranians group with the people of the Caucasus and Southern Europeans are the most related genetic group like Anatolians, Greeks, Italians, etc...to both of them.

>>1761846
No, that's incorrect. Neolithic Iranians are of the Zagros Farmer stock, which is isolated from both Anatolian and Levantine neolithic farmers. Sardinians are close to the Anatolian branch.

>>1761862
The Neolithic Iranians and Iron Age Iranians are genetically distinct from the Proto-Indo-Iranians of the Andronovo and Sintashta cultures. There's a lot of research showing how the Proto-Indo-Iranians of the Andronovo and Sintashta cultures were like Eastern Europeans genome wise.

You can research that yourself, but my number one goal was showing how the Achaemenids and Sassanids =/= Proto-Indo-Iranian genetically. I gave sources on that.

>>1761833
You've quoted the wrong person, I spoke of a different issue.

>>1759323
When Finns, PiEs, and Greeks love eachother very much they bump uglies and shit out a yugoslav

The yugoslav is raped by a norseman and you get a russian

>>1761871
JESUS CHRIST I MEANT PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN.

I am color-blind. I misread the image/

>>1759323

>>1761883
The presence of Scandinavian admixtures in the Russian gene pool is negligible at best ,certainly not enough to influence any drastic changes in his phenotype.

Blondness isn't a Scandinavian trait.

>>1759323
WE