eylok

The following image is my tree of the Iranian language family, based on descent alone. Terms like “North West Iranian” and “East Iranian” are not genetic terms, and they don’t map properly onto areal contact zones either. A great deal of research is still needed to refine how the Iranian languages descend (some more than others). A big problem at the moment is that linguists often contradict each other on how some of these branches should be classified, because the traditional groupings rest on a handful of features, assumptions, etc that newer data no longer support. Glottolog is one attempt to bring the classifications of various linguists together. The problem is that it combines placements that contradict each other. For example, it places North Western Iranian under Agnes Korn’s Central Iranian node, yet Korn (2016), in the same paper that proposes Central Iranian, argues that the North Western node should be deleted from the tree. Central Iranian is also not well established enough to be asserted as fact: Korn herself presents it as a preliminary sketch. Glottolog’s tree also gives no indication of roughly when these splits are supposed to have happened. The position of Proto Iranian itself might need to be revised. Persian, the ś branch (Khotanese Tumshuqese and Wakhi) and Nuristani, which Halfmann (2025) now places within Iranian, all split off before Proto sp, so their separate histories go back an unknown length of time before 1500 BCE. Nonetheless, until further investigation I have kept Proto Iranian where it is, with the changes that could define it listed beside it. If that node fails in the future, several more Indo Iranian branches would need to be opened up, and the deepest node we could still support would be the one I have called Proto sp. I have relabelled some branches. For example, Khotanese Tumshuqese is usually called “Saka”, a name that ties it to the Scythians. But the little evidence we have for Scythian proper puts the two on different branches: Scythian has sp (Akkadian Išpakāya, c. 675 BCE, from *spaka ‘dog’), while Khotanese has ś (aśśa ‘horse’). In other cases I have kept the names, like the “Pamir” branch, but limited it to Shughni Roshani, Sarikoli and Yazghulami, a grouping that goes back to Sokolova (1967). The other so called Pamir languages are placed elsewhere. What I have listed as Proto sp needs the most attention in future. The exact path by which those languages diversified could involve some regroupings, and some of them have had little to no attention in academia. One possible regrouping is whether Ossetian forms a closer branch with Sogdian, as Novák (2014) and Glottolog both propose. Expand the image, and open it in a new tab for a higher resolution.

R1a-Z93 > CTS6: a complete guide and clarification. The Y-DNA lineage R1a-Z93 > CTS6 is shared between Ashkenazi Jews (~11.6% of their FTDNA matches), Kurds, Azeris, “Persians”, Armenians, Spaniards, and now a Pamiri from eastern Tajikistan. This post explains where it comes from and clears up some common misconceptions. First, the obvious. R1a-Z93 (2644 BCE) is an Indo-Iranian lineage derived from the eastern Corded Ware offshoots, Fatyanovo > Sintashta. This is well established by the countless ancient samples we have. Why CTS6 is harder to place. R1a-Z93 > CTS6 (1308 BCE) is much trickier to assign to a specific Iranian branch at first glance, because there are no notable ancient samples on this line. That leaves the diversity of modern testers as the main guide, and the modern Iranian-speaking world carries the largest hub of R-CTS6 diversity. Several additional facts reinforce why Iranian-related peoples hold this diversity. Its important to note that around 1500 to 1000 BCE, the Iranian world was breaking into two cultural spheres: a proto-Scythian/Saka camp and what we can call an Avestan/Zoroastrian camp. Lineages from either side almost never overlap and become divergent, both autosomally and in Y-haplogroups. The proto-Saka/Scythian camp is roughly defined by Mongun-Taiga/Sagsai > DSKC, Karasuk, whatever the Idzhim burials should be classified as, and perhaps Baitag in south-western Mongolia. Scythians are among the most extensively tested ancient populations. We have hundreds of samples from proto-Scythian-derived peoples, and not a single one has ever yielded R1a-Z93 > CTS6. They only ever carry lines such as R-S23592 and Q-L330. The Khazars, an Oghuric branch of the Turks, have also never yielded CTS6 in ancient samples, and typically carry the same kind of Scythian lines from their Iranian side. The SCA Avestan/Zoroastrian group, by contrast, can be linked to the Yaz-Dahistan phases, Chust and related cultures. We have only a couple of samples from these peoples, which is why SCA-derived lineages usually lack associated ancient DNA. This is largely due to limited excavation in places tied to this type of Iranian activity. Zoroastrian sky burial does not help either, since vultures and the sun leave no remains. On top of that, Iranians are very poorly tested on FTDNA and YFull, where most testers from Iran are Arabs, Jews, Armenians and others. The two most divergent R-CTS6 clades are carried by Achomis in the gulf. Because R-CTS6 dates so close to the proliferation of the Iron Age Avestan Iranians, who had not yet migrated onto the Iranian plateau in significant numbers, it is not possible to pinpoint which exact subgroup was responsible for bringing this lineage into the Jewish population. Logically, it would have been Iranians living in the vicinity of Jews. The Pamiri’s connection to Ashkenazis, predicted around 700 BCE, is still too distant to be of direct relevance, since that is roughly when “western Iranians” began migrating onto the plateau. The Pamiri branch could therefore simply descend from an Iranian who went east instead. It should also not be ruled out that this Pamiri inherited the lineage through backflow from populations further west. After all, Pamiris even carry E-M81 and E-M2 lines. Strictly speaking, this branch cannot be both Persian and NW Iranian. Linguistically, Persian dialectal forms long predate the Avestan age and were only later assimilated into that social grouping. It has to be one or the other. It's not possible to know for now which one it is, but NW Iranian movement seems more likely. Clearing up common incorrect claims: - Pamiris being Scythian. No, Pamiris descend from the Avestan cultural bubble that proliferated out of south central Asia during the iron age (also not Sogdian related). - There are no confirmed ancient Turkoman samples on this lineage. This 1x coverage medieval Turkoman attributed to R-CTS6 on Carlos Quiles’ sheet is a mislabel. FTDNA shows that DA126 only has enough coverage to reach generic R-Z93, and not any further. Listed as Almaly 126. - We have no Mitanni R1a-CTS6 samples. Had the Mitanni carried R-CTS6, we would expect a much more western modern distribution, since they disintegrated far outside the Iranian core lands. - Not a single ancient Alan sample has this haplogroup. - The Spanish branch clusters upstream and downstream with Armenians and Azeris. The far more logical explanation is descent from Muslim Iranian converts, who are attested in large numbers in Islamic Iberia. - Ashkenazis carrying SCA Avestan-type lineages is not unusual. Several of their major lines, together roughly 30% of their Y-DNA, are of this type: R1a-BY33370, R1a-Y2619, G-L201, G-BY21343, G-BY764, R2-FGC13211 and Q-Y2200. - Hazaras testing positive for R-CTS6 (no terminal resolution) is entirely unsurprising. Hazaras, for example, carry around 10 to 15% "west Iranian" Y-DNA. This post is of interest to @JewishGenomics @iosif_lazaridis @nrken19 @Afghan_DNA @aboutadna

Does the Kurdish feature of ergativity come from Hurrian? No. Below, I have tabulated how alignment in past transitive clauses works across various Iranian languages. Ergativity appears across the Iranian language family, in Pashto, Balochi, Yaghnobi and the "Pamir" languages (in decayed forms). Modern Standard Persian has lost this feature, but Middle Persian still had it, and Achomi, a close relative of Persian, still does. Hurrian ergativity worked differently: it applied in every tense, and the verb agreed with the doer. Of course, no serious linguist has ever suggested this common folk belief that Kurdish got ergativity from Hurrian.

I created a map that reconstructs the approximate distribution of the ancestral forms of languages and dialects across the Sasanian Empire (Ērānšahr) c. 242 CE, at the accession of Šābuhr I following the death of his father, Ardaxšīr I. Particular attention is given to the Iranian dialect continuum. The reconstruction is based on the historical dialectology of each variety, for example the shared innovations, diagnostic isoglosses and contact-induced features preserved in each. These features help us understand how the speakers of these languages migrated over the course of history. Historical sources were used as supplementary evidence where possible. What is immediately noticeable is that speakers of Persian were largely confined to what is now south-western Iran. North-western Iranian languages dominated most of the Iranian Plateau, and some like Kurdish also had a presence in the province of Persis. Mesopotamia at this time was still dominated by Aramaic speakers despite centuries of Iranian rule, due to factors like Aramaic being the historic lingua franca of Iran up until that time. The association of Corduene and the Carduchii with the Kurds is largely rejected in modern scholarship, and it is also completely inconsistent with the linguistic history of Kurdish. Sometime during the Parthian era, the first wave of Kurdish speakers migrated out of Persis into the area around Dēnāwar and the surrounding regions. The bulk of Kurdish speakers did not leave Persis until much later.

R1a-Z282>YP4858 is an Iranian lineage. The SK2014 mutation, which accounts for almost the entirety of YP4858, can be attributed to an Avestan-type Iranian lineage and not a Scythian one: - Z283+ which is very close to Z282 is found in Srubnaya-Alakul (ID: Kazburun 8) but lacks proper coverage depth for a closer call. This is evidence towards a proto-Iranian route. - YP4858 has very high diversity and spread among Iron Age Avestan-descended peoples over the past 4000 years, including many Arabs who trace to Iranian groups. - YP4858 has near non-existent diversity among Slavs, Germanics, Kipchaks, Karluks, Oghuz, and so on. - YP4858 has only one ancient sample found in Xiongnu. It models with 0% Hunnic ancestry, 70% Eastern Saka ancestry, and 30% Sogdian (or adjacent Iranian-type) ancestry. - The outlier at Tian Shan used in the model is not Saka here, but Avestan-type ancestry. Used for the most proximal Avestan type ancestry to the Xiongnu empire. - This sample doesn't model like a Kangju type Iranian. - Scythians are among the best-tested ancient groups globally, with a very high sampling rate, and have never turned up SK2014 or YP4858 outside of this outlier, which has Avestan-type ancestry. - YP4858 dates back to the proto-Iranian phase at 1800 BCE. SK2014 dates roughly to the Avestan age, around 1400 BCE. - Avestan-type Iranian historical samples are very poorly tested. It should be noted that the only Scythian haplogroups among modern Middle Easterners so far are mediated through Turkics, particularly the non-Oghuz ones, since Oghuz tend to derive their Iranian ancestry from Sogdians rather than Sakas. Considering everything it is not reasonable at all to suggest SK2014 is Scythian.

The following pie chart shows the ethnic origins of modern Kurdish patrilines, roughly dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages, based on fully sequenced Y-haplogroup data. Several months ago, I released a preliminary draft, and this can be considered the first finalised draft. I will release a new version as we get significantly more modern and ancient samples, perhaps sometime at the start of 2027. The vast majority of the samples uploaded have clear origins, while others are more speculative and can only be vaguely categorised through archaeology and modern distributions alone. There is perhaps only one major puzzle left to solve in terms of the Kurdish/Iranian question: what Elamite Y-DNA looked like. We assume that, at its root, it is related to the Bakun culture, which in essence would create a distribution pattern similar to that of the BMAC. However, late-stage Elamites would have had some unknown degree of Uruk, Semitic, and Hurrian gene flow. It is therefore unclear what level of pseudo BMAC lines are getting absorbed into the Mazdayasni category. A smaller yet relevant question is what Y-DNA the Uruk culture would have had. They had some level of impact, especially on the Hurro-Urartians. Presumably the Hurro-Urartian category will capture some level of Urukian flow, despite them being ethnically distinct. The most important patrilineal root among the Kurds is the Early Mazdayasni population, from which the Iranian umbrella ethno-religious identity formed in Iron Age South Central Asia, stemming from the followers of the prophet Zoroaster. Therefore, Iranianness in this context, and as a concept, can be measured against this Early Mazdayasni population, which formed from a mixture between BMAC and Andronovo, among other minor elements.

This paper documents systematic exploitation in Iran's mining industry across Rojhelat (Eastern Kurdistan), focusing on Kurdistan Province (Saqqez, Bane, Qorwe, Kamyaran, Bijar) with additional coverage of Kermanshah and West Azerbaijan. It shows how state extractive policy has caused major ecological and environmental damage in the region: contaminated water, degraded pasture and agricultural land, and unsustainable mining practises with little regard for local communities. Despite sitting on vast mineral wealth, Rojhelat sees almost no reinvestment in its own infrastructure, services, or economy. Profits flow to Iran's centre while the Kurdish periphery bears the ecological and social cost, extraction without development. - Kurdistan Province holds 50% of Iran's gold reserves and ranks fifth nationally in iron ore, silica, and barite. - Around 1,571 mines have been documented across Rojhelat's four provinces (675 West Azerbaijan, 461 Kurdistan, 325 Kermanshah, 110 Ilam). - Extracted minerals are overwhelmingly exported as raw material rather than processed locally. Kurdistan has only 3 concentration factories compared to Zanjan's 12, despite having triple the iron ore capacity. - This limits local job creation and value capture. - Legal provisions requiring reinvestment of mining profits in host regions (Article 14 of Iran's Mining Law, roughly 15% to the province) have not been implemented in Kurdistan. - The national development plan allocates just 1% of mining profits to compensation and development in mining areas. - Case studies of specific mines (Qol Qoleh, Zarshuran, Sari Gunay/Dashkasan) document water contamination, arsenic and cyanide exposure, soil erosion, and heavy water consumption in a province already facing water stress. - Zarshuran now imports water from another province to sustain output. - Mining has damaged agricultural and pasture land, displaced communities, and provoked local protest and NGO opposition, met at times with regime pushback, including a September 2025 incident in Saqqez where the paper reports a fatality during protests against gold mining.