Mitochondrial DNA of first Near Eastern farmers is sequenced

[Piling]

The mitochondrial DNA of the first Near Eastern farmers has been sequenced for the first time. In the research, published in the journal PLOS Genetics, experts analysed samples from three sites located in the birthplace of Neolithic agricultural practices: the Middle Euphrates basin and the oasis of Damascus, located in today's Syria and date at about 8,000 BC

The paper is signed by Daniel Turbón and Alejandro Pérez Pérez, from the Department of Animal Biology of the University of Barcelona (UB); Eva Fernández, from Liverpool John Moores University; Cristina Gamba, Eduardo Arroyo Pardo and Pedro Cuesta, from Complutense University of Madrid; Eva Prats, from the Spanish National Research Council, and Josep Anfruns and Miquel Molist, from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). The study is focused on the analysis of mitochondrial DNA —a type of non-Mendelian maternally inherited DNA— from the first Neolithic farmers, by means of samples obtained by the UAB research group which were first processed by the UB research group.
The Neolithic: a deep revolution in human societies
Agricultural and husbandry practices originated around 12,000 years ago in a region of the Near East known as the Fertile Crescent. This phenomenon, known as "Neolithic", meant a profound social, cultural and economic transformation of human populations (agricultural production, sedentary farming lifestyle, origin of the first cities and modern societies, etc.).
Eva Fernández, first author of the article who got her PhD from UB, explains that "the Neolithic Revolution rapidly expanded from these territories into Europe, where the hunter-gatherer subsistence economy —prevailing till then— was replaced by an agropastoral producing system". To know the nature of the diffusion of the Neolithic —in other words, to know if it was a population migration process or a cultural adoption— has been widely debated for the last fifty years. Different research fields, for instance archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistics and, more recently, human paleogenetics, have made contributions to the discussion.

The unknown genetics of first Near Eastern farmers :
The genetic composition of first Neolithic populations was one of the mysteries of science till today, although some advances in European Neolithic populations' genetics were made during the last decade. Professor Daniel Turbón points out that the results revealed by the study published in PLOS Genetics "are the first ones regarding first Near Eastern farmers; in other words, the genetic stock of original Neolithic". However, it is important to remember that other data have been published about European first farmers, to be exact in Catalonia (by Cristina Gamba et al., 2012), the Basque Country (by Hervella et al.) and Germany (by Wolfgang Haak et al., 2010, and Brandt et al., 2013).

"Conclusions of previous studies —explains Turbón— are based on the comparison with current Near East populations, as first agricultural societies' genetics have remained unknown until now".
From the Near East to Europe
The study published in PLOS Genetics provides a new framework to interpret the results of other studies about European Neolithic populations, stress the authors. According to conclusions, genetic affinities have been observed between the mitochondrial DNA of first Neolithic populations and the DNA of first Catalan and German farmers. This suggests that probably Neolithic expansion took place through pioneer migrations of small groups of population. Moreover, the two main migration routes ―Mediterranean and European― might have been genetically linked.
"The most significant conclusion —highlights Eva Fernández— is that the degree of genetic similarity between the populations of the Fertile Crescent and the ones of Cyprus an Crete supports the hypothesis that Neolithic spread in Europe took place through pioneer seafaring colonization, not through a land-mediated expansion through Anatolia, as it was thought until now".
How did the Neolithic Revolution spread?
Other scientific studies had already provided signs of an alternative scenario of Neolithic spread in Europe different from the one through Anatolia. According to Turbón, "recent archaeological finds have proved that the Neolithic arrived to Cyprus around 10,600 years ago, some years after the first documentation of agricultural practices in the Near East". Architecture and burial models found in Cyprus' sites are similar to the ones found in the Middle Euphrates basin, "that indicates a direct colonisation of these territories", highlights the author. "Besides, spatial interpolation of radiocarbon dates from different Neolithic sites in the Near East and Europe also suggests a first seafaring expansion through Cyprus", he concludes.
In order to support these conclusions, the scientific team aims at analysing a greater number of human Neolithic samples from other regions of the Fertile Crescent, and at increasing the number of genetic markers analysed in the samples.
Explore further: Genetic study pushes back timeline for first significant human population expansion
More information: "Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands." Eva Fernández, Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, Cristina Gamba, Eva Prats, Pedro Cuesta, Josep Anfruns, Miquel Molist, Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo, and Daniel Turbón. PLOS GENETICS, Published: June 05, 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-mitochondr ... d.html#jCp

For people interested by genetic history.

[Shirko]

Very good report. Europe is not a seprate continent, and European culture and people are not foriegn. Motly decendents of Fertile Crecent men mixed with deep highland forest blond woman who seduced them :) but at one point it looks like the men also brought some woman with them too. In NW Europe, think the Brithish especially, have many near eastern features, just less pigmentation.

[Anthea]

I followed the link at the bottom of the report and found that extremely interesting and informative:

Genetic study pushes back timeline for first significant human population expansion

Using new genetic tools, the authors conclude that the first significant expansion of human populations appears to be much older than the emergence of farming and herding, dating back to the Paleolithic (60,000-80,000 years ago) rather than Neolithic age (10,000 years ago). They also suggest that strong Paleolithic expansions may have favored the emergence of sedentary farming in some populations during the Neolithic.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-genetic-ti ... .html#nRlv

[Piling]

Very good report. Europe is not a seprate continent, and European culture and people are not foriegn. Motly decendents of Fertile Crecent men mixed with deep highland forest blond woman who seduced them but at one point it looks like the men also brought some woman with them too. In NW Europe, think the Brithish especially, have many near eastern features, just less pigmentation.

Then if you think like me (but I di not based my beliefs on genetics) you can join the debate here :

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=15238

Until tuesday I have no time to argue more about my position : that what so-called Westerners name 'Other-Eastern civilisation' begins with India.

[KabirKuhi]

Very good report. Europe is not a seprate continent, and European culture and people are not foriegn. Motly decendents of Fertile Crecent men mixed with deep highland forest blond woman who seduced them but at one point it looks like the men also brought some woman with them too. In NW Europe, think the Brithish especially, have many near eastern features, just less pigmentation.

You're wrong. Europeans are separate and their culture is definitely foreign. They're not mostly descendents of fertile crescent men. They're descendents of eurasian paleolithic hunter-gatherers specific to europe, whose genetic imprint is absent outside of europe. They also have neolithic and paleolithic north Siberian ancestry. The neolithic in this case is a heavily admixtured with european hunter-gatherers, while the majority of their genome is pure european hunter-gatherers(South-europeans have the most neolithic ancestry, it's found highest in European Mediterranean island populations). But I think people overstate neolithic ancestry in Europeans, once you go north of Greece-italy-spain, the rate of neolithic ancestry diminishes quickly. They also derive 10-18% of their ancestry from paleolithic age Siberians, which they share with middle-easterners, south-asians, central-asians and south-central asians. But in overall they're distant. Most of their lineages are absent in middle-easterners and vice versa. Their commonality with us is that they're west-eurasians, that's the end of it. When you use genetics tools to probe for common heritage, there is none. We have as much common with them, as we have with japanese or siberians or south-asians. You'll never find an ethnic german/french/english who are genetically west-asian to any significant degree(unless they have a recent ashkenazi or jewish ancestor). And whatever links you find is from 12 000+ or more years ago.

The reason why europeans look a little bit closer to middle-easterners, is because they're west-eurasians, and west-eurasian ancestors diverged a few thousands later than with other Eurasian groups, they also have some ancient common ancestry.

[Shirko]

Very good report. Europe is not a seprate continent, and European culture and people are not foriegn. Motly decendents of Fertile Crecent men mixed with deep highland forest blond woman who seduced them but at one point it looks like the men also brought some woman with them too. In NW Europe, think the Brithish especially, have many near eastern features, just less pigmentation.

You're wrong. Europeans are separate and their culture is definitely foreign. They're not mostly descendents of fertile crescent men. They're descendents of eurasian paleolithic hunter-gatherers specific to europe, whose genetic imprint is absent outside of europe. They also have neolithic and paleolithic north Siberian ancestry. The neolithic in this case is a heavily admixtured with european hunter-gatherers, while the majority of their genome is pure european hunter-gatherers(South-europeans have the most neolithic ancestry, it's found highest in European Mediterranean island populations). But I think people overstate neolithic ancestry in Europeans, once you go north of Greece-italy-spain, the rate of neolithic ancestry diminishes quickly. They also derive 10-18% of their ancestry from paleolithic age Siberians, which they share with middle-easterners, south-asians, central-asians and south-central asians. But in overall they're distant. Most of their lineages are absent in middle-easterners and vice versa. Their commonality with us is that they're west-eurasians, that's the end of it. When you use genetics tools to probe for common heritage, there is none. We have as much common with them, as we have with japanese or siberians or south-asians. You'll never find an ethnic german/french/english who are genetically west-asian to any significant degree(unless they have a recent ashkenazi or jewish ancestor). And whatever links you find is from 12 000+ or more years ago.

The reason why europeans look a little bit closer to middle-easterners, is because they're west-eurasians, and west-eurasian ancestors diverged a few thousands later than with other Eurasian groups, they also have some ancient common ancestry.

Heval min, I really like what you wrote, it makes sense and is academicly fashioned. But i disagree with somecif your conclusions. especually about Europeans being foriegn in DNA and culture.

- what is Europe? You can't just draw an imagenaryl line and separate the land eurasian land mass. So it imaginary not real.

- people who mostly live in this imaginary continent are caucasians who have adapted to have less pigmehtation but alsi mixed with central Asians.

Mankind is all related, the out of Africa theory doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve populated the earth in a few isolated areas. And these people adapted evolved into seperate races (breeds) at first. Then these breeds starred mixung sbd creating new breeds. Three main races evolved , Caucasions, Asians, Africans, and aboriginy. Caucasions are decendents of Noah, the flood killed most of the other breeds in rhe general area. But thats why distant breeds survived. Maybe the flood didn't effect the entire world. Yes I am making this up, but it makes more sense then what your trying to say.

- Caucasians, in my view are centered around the Fertile Crescent and they spread out from there. They all share similar physical features, language, and cultures.
- Indians are Caucasians and Aboriginb mix (the fatter SE you go the darker and more aboriginy they get).
- North Africans, Caucasians mixed with Africans.
- Europeans (should be three separate regions in regions and sub-breeds), isolated Caucasians who have lost pigmentation, but with some Siberian mix. ( a) maybe original fertile cresent people where lighter like the Europeans? Or b) there was a a race, that lived in the Nordic areas or Iceland, but almost completely mixed with caucasians and Asians)

Ok im done for now, hope I cleared it up sorry for the typos, I'm onto phone. I'll do some editing later, so keep that in mind (for excessive quoters out there)

[KabirKuhi]

Very good report. Europe is not a seprate continent, and European culture and people are not foriegn. Motly decendents of Fertile Crecent men mixed with deep highland forest blond woman who seduced them but at one point it looks like the men also brought some woman with them too. In NW Europe, think the Brithish especially, have many near eastern features, just less pigmentation.

You're wrong. Europeans are separate and their culture is definitely foreign. They're not mostly descendents of fertile crescent men. They're descendents of eurasian paleolithic hunter-gatherers specific to europe, whose genetic imprint is absent outside of europe. They also have neolithic and paleolithic north Siberian ancestry. The neolithic in this case is a heavily admixtured with european hunter-gatherers, while the majority of their genome is pure european hunter-gatherers(South-europeans have the most neolithic ancestry, it's found highest in European Mediterranean island populations). But I think people overstate neolithic ancestry in Europeans, once you go north of Greece-italy-spain, the rate of neolithic ancestry diminishes quickly. They also derive 10-18% of their ancestry from paleolithic age Siberians, which they share with middle-easterners, south-asians, central-asians and south-central asians. But in overall they're distant. Most of their lineages are absent in middle-easterners and vice versa. Their commonality with us is that they're west-eurasians, that's the end of it. When you use genetics tools to probe for common heritage, there is none. We have as much common with them, as we have with japanese or siberians or south-asians. You'll never find an ethnic german/french/english who are genetically west-asian to any significant degree(unless they have a recent ashkenazi or jewish ancestor). And whatever links you find is from 12 000+ or more years ago.

The reason why europeans look a little bit closer to middle-easterners, is because they're west-eurasians, and west-eurasian ancestors diverged a few thousands later than with other Eurasian groups, they also have some ancient common ancestry.

Heval min, I really like what you wrote, it makes sense and is academicly fashioned. But i disagree with somecif your conclusions. especually about Europeans being foriegn in DNA and culture.

- what is Europe? You can't just draw an imagenaryl line and separate the land eurasian land mass. So it imaginary not real.

- people who mostly live in this imaginary continent are caucasians who have adapted to have less pigmehtation but alsi mixed with central Asians.

Mankind is all related, the out of Africa theory doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve populated the earth in a few isolated areas. And these people adapted evolved into seperate races (breeds) at first. Then these breeds starred mixung sbd creating new breeds. Three main races evolved , Caucasions, Asians, Africans, and aboriginy. Caucasions are decendents of Noah, the flood killed most of the other breeds in rhe general area. But thats why distant breeds survived. Maybe the flood didn't effect the entire world. Yes I am making this up, but it makes more sense then what your trying to say.

- Caucasians, in my view are centered around the Fertile Crescent and they spread out from there. They all share similar physical features, language, and cultures.
- Indians are Caucasians and Aboriginb mix (the fatter SE you go the darker and more aboriginy they get).
- North Africans, Caucasians mixed with Africans.
- Europeans (should be three separate regions in regions and sub-breeds), isolated Caucasians who have lost pigmentation, but with some Siberian mix. ( a) maybe original fertile cresent people where lighter like the Europeans? Or b) there was a a race, that lived in the Nordic areas or Iceland, but almost completely mixed with caucasians and Asians)

Ok im done for now, hope I cleared it up sorry for the typos, I'm onto phone. I'll do some editing later, so keep that in mind (for excessive quoters out there)

Don't take my word for it heval, read this study on europeans from harvard: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552, I can link you the entire study if you want.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

The entire study is huge (193 pages), but you only need to read page 4-8 to get the idea( it's only a few paragraphs)

europeans are an entirely different population. We're only related because we seperated more recently than other populations. Now if you have an philosphical or ideological ideas, it's different. Also I don't understand why anyone would empathize these abstract "similarities". All i have to say to pilling is this, on a biological, social, cultural level, we're different, deal with it. Last time European characters talked this "we're similar" talk, it was usually in bad contexts. Not out of any real solidarity cultural and religious solidarity which they have with their neighbours. Ask any european whether they think they're closer to kurds or turks, or chinese/japanese, they'll say japanese without a hesitation. I personally feel closer to pathans, indians and north-africans(more geographically distant than europeans) that I've meet, more than I'd ever relate to the Europeans I've meet. I'm sure most kurds feel the same way. Piling is just colored by her academic conceptualizations , her extensive oriental literature and political interaction. It doesn't correspond with what majority demographics feel. Or how they experience cultural differences or how they identify to other groups. I tend to base my opinions on subjective matters on external opinions aswell as science, rather than abstract academia and "philosphy" which doesn't translate much into social relations in real life. With the french public identifying everyone outside of europe with the word "boughnoules", get real.

[Shirko]

Ok basically north western Europeans have ancestry that is separate, but it also said that the near eastern groups shares common ancestory.

Again, "Europe" is diverse, where do you really draw the line? Istanbul? I personally feel a close relationship with the East Meditereans Europeans, than I do with most other Mid Easterners, I think we feel a connection with other mid easterners and asians because of religion but we over look our other rejstions. But if you look at the Greeks especially, but even other Southern Europeans too, you will realize that we are very similar.
(Btw, look at the Kurnanji Kurds Khorasan, the woman still use the old long skirt type of clothes, looks similar to a lot of European clothes)

Maybe because I'm from central Anetolia & Levant (Rojava Kurdistan). Like our food is very similar, physical appearance, dance, musics, geographic location, and even old Christianity originated near by. Really the true ancestors of Europeans are the Greeks and Romans, not the Germans and Norwegians. That's where you have it wrong, Azizm.

[KabirKuhi]

Ok basically north western Europeans have ancestry that is separate, but it also said that the near eastern groups shares common ancestory.

Not just north-western europeans, entire europe.

Again, "Europe" is diverse, where do you really draw the line? Istanbul?

I draw the line where, where i stop seeing people who significantly differentiate themselves from west-Asians. culturally, ethnically, scientifically, philosphically, behavior-wise. That would include greece and sicily.

I personally feel a close relationship with the East Meditereans Europeans, than I do with most other Mid Easterners

You can't be serious bira, we're a west-Iranian population, who speak a north-western Iranian language. When you look at our original homeland, from ilam to kermanshah to iranian kurdistan, the people there are mountaineers and farmers from zagros, they have nothing to do with european mediterraneans or greeks. Their food, clothing, mentality is entirely west-asian, similar to other iranic mountaineers. Like the lurs, half of whom consider themselves kurdish, while laks are kurdish tribes.

As much as we hate to admit it, turkified "turks" and azeris, "arabized" arabs from iraq and other west-asian populations are our cousins. The only ones not related to us I can think of is gulf Arabs, Jordanians, egyptians because of their bedouin-najd-hejaz-north-african culture and their different outlook and biology. All west-asians(including south-central asians like pathans and tajiks) are our cousins. On a political and ideological level we don't get along with all our neighbors, this is true, we have alot of problems and struggles. Lots of our neighbours ignored us and attacked us. But on issues culture, heritage and behavior we're all quite similar. We have similar roots, similar cultural and civilizational genesis. The pathans have songs, traditions, and ways of life-style(pashtunwali f.ex) quite similar to mountaineer west-iranians . When European travellers visited afghanistan, they called them "Iranic highwaymen", similarly to Kurds.

I think we feel a connection with other mid easterners and asians because of religion but we over look our other rejstions. But if you look at the Greeks especially, but even other Southern Europeans too, you will realize that we are very similar.
(Btw, look at the Kurnanji Kurds Khorasan, the woman still use the old long skirt type of clothes, looks similar to a lot of European clothes)

We feel a connection to middle-easterners and Asians, because that's what we are, both culturally and scientifically. You cannot honestly believe that even before Islam, we were more related to mainland Greeks and Italians, and Serbs and Romanians. It didn't begin with Islam. Islam only served to unite, the peoples already there, and it brought new identities, and some new blood(From the south). Before islam, the land was full of Iranics, Assyrians, Anatolians, and Caucasians, Hebrews, Aramaic-speakers, Egyptians and various other tribes. None of them were affiliated with Europeans, and their civilizations existed long before European civilizations developed and existed.

Maybe because I'm from central Anetolia & Levant (Rojava Kurdistan). Like our food is very similar, physical appearance, dance, musics, geographic location, and even old Christianity originated near by. Really the true ancestors of Europeans are the Greeks and Romans, not the Germans and Norwegians. That's where you have it wrong, Azizm.

Trust me, you'll have to talk to Greeks and other south-east Europeans like Romanians, Serbs, Bosnian and Albanians in real life, and see how they act towards and think of kurds and other west-Asians, before you make up your mind(I talked and interacted with many of them in school, and i see them everyday). They're contemptuous and think anyone outside of Europe is inferior to them. Don't be fooled by the academic narcissism of European historians who celebrate Hellenism and the Byzantines.

They were both colonialist ventures imposed by Greeks and Romans who wanted new lands to exploit, usually to the detriment of their colonial subjects. If you read about how Mesopotamian, indigenous Anatolian and Syrians were treated(as labor-force for roman and Greek land-owners who confiscated their lands) you'd not be as willing to associate yourself with Europeans. Even indigenous west-Asian writers from antiquity who lived under Hellenism and the roman and byzantine empire, talked about how they were treated as an indigenous underclass by Romans and Greeks, who took over the cities. This is why there were only a small part of Romans or Greeks left after the Islamic conquest. Because all the indigenous west-Asians(Kurds, Assyrians, Anatolians, Syrians, Hebrews, North-Iranians,Persians) and north-africans, had retained their identity and languages, despite nearly 500-600 years of Roman and Greek rule and colonization. Christianity didn't make west-asians closer to europeans.

Just look at the rhetoric of Greek, Serb, Romanian and Bulgarian nationalists, and what they think of west-Asians, to see where their real identity and affinities lies. And it's definitely not with Kurds or any other Iranian people.
Don't look to Europe for identity brother, you're not welcome there, don't admire people who don't respect you. You shouldn't dismiss other west-Asians, only because west-Asian identity politics is full of scumbags and criminals like the Baath and young Turks, or Saddam and Ata-turk. Or other delusional nationalists who hate us. That is political and identity issues by political people. Average people don't care about that stuff.

[Shirko]

Ok basically north western Europeans have ancestry that is separate, but it also said that the near eastern groups shares common ancestory.

Not just north-western europeans, entire europe.

Again, "Europe" is diverse, where do you really draw the line? Istanbul?

I draw the line where, where i stop seeing people who significantly differentiate themselves from west-Asians. culturally, ethnically, scientifically, philosphically, behavior-wise. That would include greece and sicily.

I personally feel a close relationship with the East Meditereans Europeans, than I do with most other Mid Easterners

You can't be serious bira, we're a west-Iranian population, who speak a north-western Iranian language. When you look at our original homeland, from ilam to kermanshah to iranian kurdistan, the people there are mountaineers and farmers from zagros, they have nothing to do with european mediterraneans or greeks. Their food, clothing, mentality is entirely west-asian, similar to other iranic mountaineers. Like the lurs, half of whom consider themselves kurdish, while laks are kurdish tribes.

As much as we hate to admit it, turkified "turks" and azeris, "arabized" arabs from iraq and other west-asian populations are our cousins. The only ones not related to us I can think of is gulf Arabs, Jordanians, egyptians because of their bedouin-najd-hejaz-north-african culture and their different outlook and biology. All west-asians(including south-central asians like pathans and tajiks) are our cousins. On a political and ideological level we don't get along with all our neighbors, this is true, we have alot of problems and struggles. Lots of our neighbours ignored us and attacked us. But on issues culture, heritage and behavior we're all quite similar. We have similar roots, similar cultural and civilizational genesis. The pathans have songs, traditions, and ways of life-style(pashtunwali f.ex) quite similar to mountaineer west-iranians . When European travellers visited afghanistan, they called them "Iranic highwaymen", similarly to Kurds.

I think we feel a connection with other mid easterners and asians because of religion but we over look our other rejstions. But if you look at the Greeks especially, but even other Southern Europeans too, you will realize that we are very similar.
(Btw, look at the Kurnanji Kurds Khorasan, the woman still use the old long skirt type of clothes, looks similar to a lot of European clothes)

We feel a connection to middle-easterners and Asians, because that's what we are, both culturally and scientifically. You cannot honestly believe that even before Islam, we were more related to mainland Greeks and Italians, and Serbs and Romanians. It didn't begin with Islam. Islam only served to unite, the peoples already there, and it brought new identities, and some new blood(From the south). Before islam, the land was full of Iranics, Assyrians, Anatolians, and Caucasians, Hebrews, Aramaic-speakers, Egyptians and various other tribes. None of them were affiliated with Europeans, and their civilizations existed long before European civilizations developed and existed.

Maybe because I'm from central Anetolia & Levant (Rojava Kurdistan). Like our food is very similar, physical appearance, dance, musics, geographic location, and even old Christianity originated near by. Really the true ancestors of Europeans are the Greeks and Romans, not the Germans and Norwegians. That's where you have it wrong, Azizm.

Trust me, you'll have to talk to Greeks and other south-east Europeans like Romanians, Serbs, Bosnian and Albanians in real life, and see how they act towards and think of kurds and other west-Asians, before you make up your mind(I talked and interacted with many of them in school, and i see them everyday). They're contemptuous and think anyone outside of Europe is inferior to them. Don't be fooled by the academic narcissism of European historians who celebrate Hellenism and the Byzantines.

They were both colonialist ventures imposed by Greeks and Romans who wanted new lands to exploit, usually to the detriment of their colonial subjects. If you read about how Mesopotamian, indigenous Anatolian and Syrians were treated(as labor-force for roman and Greek land-owners who confiscated their lands) you'd not be as willing to associate yourself with Europeans. Even indigenous west-Asian writers from antiquity who lived under Hellenism and the roman and byzantine empire, talked about how they were treated as an indigenous underclass by Romans and Greeks, who took over the cities. This is why there were only a small part of Romans or Greeks left after the Islamic conquest. Because all the indigenous west-Asians(Kurds, Assyrians, Anatolians, Syrians, Hebrews, North-Iranians,Persians) and north-africans, had retained their identity and languages, despite nearly 500-600 years of Roman and Greek rule and colonization. Christianity didn't make west-asians closer to europeans.

Just look at the rhetoric of Greek, Serb, Romanian and Bulgarian nationalists, and what they think of west-Asians, to see where their real identity and affinities lies. And it's definitely not with Kurds or any other Iranian people.
Don't look to Europe for identity brother, you're not welcome there, don't admire people who don't respect you. You shouldn't dismiss other west-Asians, only because west-Asian identity politics is full of scumbags and criminals like the Baath and young Turks, or Saddam and Ata-turk. Or other delusional nationalists who hate us. That is political and identity issues by political people. Average people don't care about that stuff.

That's very informative heval thank you. You're right, since I never lived and hardly visted Europe, I don't really know how they feel about Kurds and other mid Easterners, I know they don't like Muslims, but don't think tjatbtkeyvdont want to even acknowledge and or even respect the true origins a of their civilization.

Yes I knew of how awful the Romans and Byzantinians where, maybe a reason of the reasons why Kurds embrassed Islam (an argument against Kurds being forcibly islamized). And I did not mean that I don't feel a connection especially with other Iranic or arabized populations either.

Really western civilization is ridding piggy back on the Mid Eastern civilization.