Search results

I have pity for you, it is really better that you say nothing because your European masters may become angry, there are many people who can defend me, I have more than 40k followers on Instagram, including Dr. Amjadi, Dr. Tavallaie and almost all other genetic scholars in Iran.

https://twitter.com/SkandArya999/status/1877461271576023512 Haggerty et al published a recent study on Proto-Indo-European homeland and suggested Upper-Mesopotamia Zagros is most likely the homeland.

Who care what you consider false or spam?! All scientific studies support CHG/Iranian ancestry of Indo-Europeans, Indians have also a large amount of this ancestry.

It sounds much more logical than the Steppe hypothesis which says Indo-Iranians migrated to the North of India in the Iron age and never to Iran.

Honestly the Out of India hypothesis is much less racist and much less bigoted than the Steppe hypothesis.

Honestly the Out of India hypothesis is much less racist and much less bigoted than the Steppe hypothesis.

It talks about the cattle carrying farmers, source: Origin and Spread of Domestication and Farming, By Premendra Priyadarshi.

In my previous post I mentioned what archaeologists say, as you read they clearly believe there was a migration of peoples from Iran to Sicily in the Middle Bronze Age and genetic studies show Iranian ancestry in Sicily in the same period, we are talking history, it is meaningless to talk about...

Because you ou know absolutely nothing about Sicily. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily - Page 27: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Archaeology_of_Ancient_Sicily/8_OCAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover The Castelluccio culture of Sicily, 1800-1500 BC:

It is clear that you just believe in the Steppe hypothesis, there is absolutely no evidence which shows Italic people (not Etruscans) originated in the West-Central Europe, Latin is actually one of the closest languages to Elamite, as it was also mentioned in this thread, genetic studies have...

Dr. Paul Heggarty says about the Lazaridis study: "Indeed the authors would have the name ‘Indo-European’ refer now only to those, to exclude Anatolian - notwithstanding universal agreement that Anatolian belongs to the family. But Pandora’s box is already opened. If one branch of the family...

Anyway, it can't be denied that based these genetic studies Modern Iranians are one of the most closest people to the original Indo-Europeans.

Whether you like it or not, all genetic studies point to CHG/Iran_N ancestry of Indo-Europeans.

As you said this study says "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." It doesn't mean that the people of Sicily were the same Mycenaeans in Greece but it talks about...

It is certainly possible that some Etruscans had adopted Latin language but Latin was the original language of the Romans.

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.

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...

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.

No one has claimed that modern Iranians are the same Neolithic Iranians but they have the highest amount of Iran_N ancestry.