I descend from the Avestans

Asiangymmax

Asiangymmax

Embarassingly bad pheno
Joined
Jun 21, 2025
Posts
1,716
Reputation
1,404
The Yaz culture is often discussed as a candidate for the culture of the early Iranians as described in the Avesta, i.e., the collection of religious literatureof Zoroastrianism.[68] Its texts were passed on orallyfor a long time, which makes an identification with a precise archeological culture difficult.[69]Regardless, the identification of the Yaz culture with the civilization described in the Avesta is based on a number of factors that correlate the textual and archeological evidence.[70]

First, the geographical horizon of the Avesta makes it clear that the Avestan people lived in the eastern portion of Greater Iran.[71] As regards the time frame, the oldest texts are assumed to correspond to the late second millenium BCE,[72] whereas the later texts were probably composed in the first half of the first millenium BCE.[73] The Avesta is therefore probably connected with the southward movement of Iranian tribes from the Eurasian steppeinto southern Central Asia and eventually onto the Iranian plateau during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.[74]

Moreover, the archeological features of the Yaz I culture are seen as the results of the intrusion of nomadic Indo-Iranians from the northern Andronovo culture and their interaction with indigenous traditions from the preceding BMAC culture.[2][24]This is also substantiated by the genetic makeup of Iranophone populations of southern Central Asia. A 2021 study by Kumar et al. shows how by the late Iron Age, the population of this region was characterised by a combination of BMAC and Andronovo ancestries.[75] Likewise, a 2022 study also shows how the ancestry of modern Tajiks and Yaghnobis largely formed during the early Iron Age by a mixture between these two groups.[76]

Finally, a lack of graves and excarnations emerged in the Early Iron Age, especially in Yaz I and II cultures,[77] the same period in which Zoroastrianism developed (works such as the Gathas often being dated to the second half or end of the 2nd millennium BC); the contemporary occurrence falls in line with certain traditions (see Tower of Silence) and cultural schools of thought, but there is ongoing scholarly debate surrounding such a connection.[2][78][79]
 
  • +1
Reactions: 2025cel
I am 14.6% yaz yaz is turkmenistan_iA
Image

@2025cel
Im a fucking avestan your spekaing to an avestan
 
  • JFL
Reactions: 2025cel
14.6%
 
  • +1
Reactions: Asiangymmax
Whether 14.6% of an ethnicity is enough to be considered “mixed” with that ethnicity depends on context, including:














✅


1. Biological / Genetic Perspective








From a genetic ancestry point of view, 14.6% is significant. It typically means you had a great-great-grandparent (or multiple more distant ancestors) from that ethnic group. So yes, biologically, you are mixed — you have a meaningful proportion of ancestry from that group.





  • 12.5% = 1 great-great-grandparent
  • 15–25% = often considered partial ancestry







📌 Conclusion: Yes, genetically, 14.6% is not negligible. It qualifies as mixed ancestry, especially if you’re talking about DNA inheritance.














✅


2. Cultural or Identity Perspective








This is more subjective and depends on how you were raised:





  • If you grew up with the culture, language, or traditions of that ethnicity, you might be socially identified as part of that group even at 14.6%.
  • If you didn’t, people might not see you as “mixed” in any visible or cultural way, regardless of the DNA.







📌 Conclusion: Social or cultural identification often requires more than just DNA — but 14.6% can still be valid if you personally connect with that identity or are accepted by others from it.














✅


3. In Official or Legal Terms








Different contexts (like tribal enrollment, affirmative action, or demographic surveys) might require specific thresholds, or direct lineage, not just percentage.





📌 Example:





  • Some Native American tribes require specific blood quantum (like 25%) and proof of descent, not just DNA.
















⚖️ Final Answer:








Yes, 14.6% is enough to be considered mixed, biologically speaking. Whether that also applies in social, legal, or cultural contexts depends on upbringing, recognition, and context.





Let me know what specific ethnicity or context you’re asking about — I can give you a more tailored answer.
 
  • +1
Reactions: 2025cel
Whether 14.6% of an ethnicity is enough to be considered “mixed” with that ethnicity depends on context, including:














✅


1. Biological / Genetic Perspective








From a genetic ancestry point of view, 14.6% is significant. It typically means you had a great-great-grandparent (or multiple more distant ancestors) from that ethnic group. So yes, biologically, you are mixed — you have a meaningful proportion of ancestry from that group.





  • 12.5% = 1 great-great-grandparent
  • 15–25% = often considered partial ancestry







📌 Conclusion: Yes, genetically, 14.6% is not negligible. It qualifies as mixed ancestry, especially if you’re talking about DNA inheritance.














✅


2. Cultural or Identity Perspective








This is more subjective and depends on how you were raised:





  • If you grew up with the culture, language, or traditions of that ethnicity, you might be socially identified as part of that group even at 14.6%.
  • If you didn’t, people might not see you as “mixed” in any visible or cultural way, regardless of the DNA.







📌 Conclusion: Social or cultural identification often requires more than just DNA — but 14.6% can still be valid if you personally connect with that identity or are accepted by others from it.














✅


3. In Official or Legal Terms








Different contexts (like tribal enrollment, affirmative action, or demographic surveys) might require specific thresholds, or direct lineage, not just percentage.





📌 Example:





  • Some Native American tribes require specific blood quantum (like 25%) and proof of descent, not just DNA.
















⚖️ Final Answer:








Yes, 14.6% is enough to be considered mixed, biologically speaking. Whether that also applies in social, legal, or cultural contexts depends on upbringing, recognition, and context.





Let me know what specific ethnicity or context you’re asking about — I can give you a more tailored answer.
Chatgpt is a saint ngl
 
  • +1
Reactions: Asiangymmax

Similar threads

Asiangymmax
Discussion My ancestors
Replies
0
Views
40
Asiangymmax
Asiangymmax
Сигма Бой
Replies
27
Views
176
Сигма Бой
Сигма Бой
Terrorizer512
LifeFuel Dance
Replies
1
Views
50
Сигма Бой
Сигма Бой
Sloppyseconds
Replies
54
Views
13K
Kayra139
Kayra139

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top