Were Ancient Persians dark skinned or did they look like the man pictured here (note, I look like him too). I'm referring to the ones that inhabited Persepolis.
I recently had a debate with someone who argued Ancient Persians looked dark skinned and somewhat like modern Pakistanis:
Read Chanakya Aryabhata's comment responses here:
He does a good job defending his viewpoint, so I recommend reading our whole argument.
Persians are pretty diverse looking. The common narrative is that they started out looking light skin Mediterranean and then became darker due to admixture and stuff. However, this guy is arguing for the reverse.
In 16th century, Shah Abbas I brought in a lot of Circassians, Armenians, and Turks due to a power struggle. That change Iran's genepool significantly, making it lighter.
This is his argument. Ancient Persians depicted themselves as brown in Persepolis' relief and so forth, He also challenges the Kurgan hypothesis and such.
I recommend reading it.
That's because a lot of today's Persians mainly descend from Circassians, Armenians, or Azeris. This guy argues their Y-DNA would be European whereas their mtdna would be Iranian (which was never White he argues).
I think he is arguing Ancient Persians and elamites were more closely related to Dravidians.
Persians look different from north to south and east to west. I'm assuming most Ancient Persians from Persepolis looked like archetypical southern Iranians, but without as much recent input from the north, since northern Iranians tend to look "whiter"
They are the same as they were ,normally agricultural people mever change genetically because they are mostly a majority of the region's inganitants so unless genocide happens cultures and languages are the only changing things in a certain population.
Like most people of the middle east and medit. europe they were a mix of skin colors and this is insanely obvious if you aren't a Eurocentrist or Afrocentrist obsessed with proving they were pure white/black.
Do retards ever learn?
>In 16th century, Shah Abbas I brought in a lot of Circassians, Armenians, and Turks due to a power struggle. That change Iran's genepool significantly, making it lighter.
That's absolutely ridiculous. It's like >>76891 said, a significant change in the makeup of Iranians would either require migration in the millions (which never happened) or a genocide of the native Iranians. The Iranians have probably looked roughly the same since agriculture was introduced, even before the Aryans arrived.
Genocide did happen though, with the Mongols. About 10-15 million Iranians were killed on the Iranian Plateau.
This is why I find the resentment towards Arabs ridiculous. It was the Mongols that damaged Iran the most.
"In 1219–21 the Khwarezmian Empire suffered a devastating invasion by the Mongol army of Genghis Khan. According to Steven R. Ward,
"Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people. Some historians have estimated that Iran's population did not again reach its pre-Mongol levels until the mid-20th century."
Problem is persians previous to armenian, turk and arab migration were indo europeans, and indo europeans although they may not have looked "white" by some standards were caucasion and it makes specific skin tone pretty irrelevent.
Mongols also fucked up surrounding countries and theres no evidence 1600's migration was anywhere close enough to genetically alter the area by any large scale. Besides by this argument modern iranians would be more mongol than turk/armenian/arab.
Like this apparently.
The paradox is why would Greeks describe them as being fair skinned then?
>Thus, there's no evidence to believe that the Indo-Iranians, or proto-Indo-Europeans for that matter, looked any lighter or darker than modern day Persians or other Iranian peoples. Also, it only takes roughly 100 generations (or 2,500 years) for a peoples' skin color to dramatically change. Seeing as Indo-Europeans (along with their ancestors) have been around for about eight millennia, yet Indo-Iranian languages themselves only began to split four millennia ago, that means that even if the proto-Indo-Europeans were relatively light-skinned, there was a 4000 year period that Indo-Iranians had to split from proto-Indo-Europeans and gradually (or even suddenly, relatively speaking) have their skin tone change. Cemetery H culture in ancient India, which is now identified with Indo-Aryans, even began a little less than four thousand years ago.
Also I forgot to mention Georgians were brought in with Armenians, Circaassians, and etc.
>Similar to the aforementioned Pahlavi-era Aryan race propaganda (which has slowly lost favor in contemporary Iran), the British colonists invented the idea of an "Aryan migration" taking place, and of the invaders supplanting the less advanced, darker-skinned indigenous residents of South Asia and the Iranian plateau, in order to justify their own actions. However, this specific theory has been utterly disproven by modern historians and archaeologists. Aside from the genetic and (lack of) archaeological evidence, the Indus Valley peoples and the Elamites seemed to have been more advanced then the Indo-Iranians who supplanted their respective cultures, especially in the case of the former. (The Indus Valley was one of the four "Cradles of Civilization," and arguably the most "advanced" civilization at the time, aside from ancient Egypt.)
>arabs made them lose their identity and submit to islam
Go back to /pol/.
Ferdowsi was able to writer Shahnameh using few words in Arab and save the Persian language and aspects of the heritage. Also, Persianate culture spread after Islamic invasion, encouraging growth in the sciences. Look at Avicenna, al-khwarizmi (best one), Omar Khayyam, Rhazes, and etc.
It's not as simple as Islam = bad and Zoroastrian = noble and progressive. Zoroastrians could be brutal too, hence why Sassanids killed so many Christians, Manichaeists, and Buddhists.
Also, scaphism was pretty crazy...
I'm not in the mood for your shit. You don't know enough about the history to make exaggerated claims like Persians lost their identity.
Go to fucking /pol/. I'm asking in an impartial manner what Ancient Persians looked like. We have genetic studies on Ancient Greeks and other stuff, but we don't have much on what the Ancient Persian looked like
Yeah, but Zoroastrianism and pre-Islamic culture is so much more fascinating (just like people find pre-Christian Celtic culture fascinating). I really hate all the wipe out the false gods and idols shit Christians and Muslims did.
That's off-topic. I honestly think the best ME religion was Greco-Buddhism. Both Buddhists and Greeks propagated it, and Gandhara was a melting pot of Greek, Persian, Indian, and etc. cultures. A Parthian Iranian actually brought Buddhism to China.
Zoroastrianism is just Christianity-lite. It was just as violent as Christianity and Islam during the bloody times. Look up how Mazdakism sect of Zoroastrianism was suppressed for example. Even Zurvanism was persecuted thanks to Kartir Hangirpe.
Look at how Mani was killed. Manichaeism was a weird Gnostic, Buddhist school.
I'm telling you, Zoroastrians could get fucking crazy too.
I meant to say Ancient Egypt, idiot. Stop berating me over a small typo.
The thing that I like about Zoroastrianism, other than it being a proto-abrahamic religion, is that it had correctly hypothesized the creation and destruction myths. They believed that the world born from and will die in a ball of fire.
Ok. I know about Frashokereti. Wtf does that have to do with what I'm asking, lol?
All religions are man-made unless they place more emphasis on gnosis, personal insight, and practice. That is, they distance themselves from myth, ritual, and dogma.
I do not like non-revisionist forms of Paganism because it treats myth as literal. Myth as metaphorical and learn wisdom to apply in daily life is different though, but to base a practice on it is stupid in my view.
What makes you think I'm autistic. Someone told me their opinions on religions, and then I gave my opinion. To me, Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity, and Islam are equally low-tier. Greco-Buddhism and Manichaeism were more interesting but suppressed.
>This reminds me of American Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazis and Aryan Brotherhood who claim they are White Aryans! These illiterate morons do not have a shred of racial and anthropological knowledge! American White Supremacists are of the White "Anglo-Saxon" race and by no means they are Aryan! On the other hand mostly Northern Iranians are of the White "Aryan" Race. So these bozos call themselves Aryans, which are not, yet they call us Rag Heads whom we are the true white Aryans! These idiots still assume that we are Arabs! Typical Redneck illiterate Americans! What do you expect?
Like Argentinians probably