My “Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis” 9,000/8,000-7,000 years ago

ref

Indo-European dialects dispersed across Eurasia in successive waves over the course of 8,000 years.

Word origins and ancient DNA reveal the evolutionary path traveled by the languages spoken by half the world.

ref

“Approximately 7,000 years ago, the Indo-European linguistic lineage had already split into numerous distinct branches, according to the study published in Science. “This would rule out the steppe hypothesis,” said Heggarty. Around 8,120 years ago, the Proto-Indo-European language likely experienced its initial diversification event, give or take a few centuries. Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that farmers from the Caucasus region — between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea — migrated towards Anatolia, which supports the Anatolian theory. Hittite, an extinct language spoken by the Anatolian civilization, is another significant branch of the Indo-European family. For decades, a large group of linguists argued that Hittite was the common ancestor of the other Indo-European languages, with some even considering it to be the direct heir of Proto-Indo-European.” ref

“Ancient DNA, on the other hand, has provided compelling evidence in support of the steppe hypothesis. Since 2015, it has become clear that individuals originating from the Pontic steppe, situated to the south and northeast of present-day Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, migrated to Central Europe approximately 6,000 to 4,500 years ago. Their genetic legacy is evident in both modern Europeans and the indigenous populations of that era. Notably, studies conducted in 2018 and 2019 revealed how these migrant eastern populations replaced a significant proportion of males on the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore, they brought with them Italic, Germanic, and Celtic languages. It is important to note that when they departed from their original homeland, they likely spoke a common or closely related language descended from Proto-Indo-European. However, as their very slow journey progressed (the Celts took centuries to reach present-day Ireland) and they settled in new territories, language diversification began to emerge.” ref

“The Albanians, Greek-speaking Mycenaeans, and Hittites do not have a dominant genetic signal from the steppe.” ref

Paul Heggarty, researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

“Heggarty’s team made a significant contribution by shedding light on this question. By combining phylogenetic analysis of cognates with insights from ancient DNA, they found potentially two distinct origins. Expansion initially originated from the southern Caucasus region, resulting in the separation of five major language families approximately 7,000 years ago. “The Albanians, Greek-speaking Mycenaeans, and Hittites do not have a dominant genetic signal from the steppe,” said Heggarty. Several millennia later, another wave emerged, led by nomadic steppe herders from the north. This wave not only influenced the development of western branches of the language tree, but it also possibly played a role in the evolution of Slavic and Baltic languages. It even extended its influence to the Indian subcontinent, while giving rise to the now-extinct Tocharian languages in what is present-day Tibet.” ref

NE = Proto-North Eurasian/Ancient North Eurasian/Mal’ta–Buret’ culture/Mal’ta Boy “MA-1” 24,000 years old burial

A = Proto-Afroasiatic/Afroasiatic

Y= Proto-Yeniseian/Yeniseian

S = Samara culture

ST = Proto-Sino-Tibetan/Sino-Tibetan

T = Proto-Transeurasian/Altaic

C = Proto-Northwest Caucasus language/Northwest Caucasian/Languages of the Caucasus

I = Proto-Indo-European/Indo-European

IB = Iberomaurusian Culture/Capsian culture

Natufian culture (15,000–11,500 years ago, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Negev desert)

Proto-Uralic/Uralic languages

Nganasan people/Nganasan language

Na-Dene languages/Dené–Yeniseian, Dené–Caucasian

Tlingit language

Proto-Semitic/Semitic languages

Sumerian language

Proto-Basque/Basque language

24,000 years ago, Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) migrations?

My thoughts:

Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) With related Y-DNA R1a, R1b, R2a, and Q Haplogroups.

R1b 22,0000-15,000 years ago in the Middle east creates Proto-Afroasiatic languages moving into Africa around 15,000-10,000 years ago connecting with the Iberomaurusian Culture/Taforalt near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

R2a 10,000 years ago in Iran brings/creates Proto-Indo-European language and also a possibility is R1a in Russia around 9,000 years ago may have had a version of Proto-Indo-European language.

Around 14,000-10,000 years ago??? Proto-North Eurasian Language goes to the Yellow River basin (eventually relating with the Yangshao culture) in China creates Proto-Sino-Tibetan language.

Proto-Sino-Tibetan language then moves to the West Liao River valley (eventually relating with the Hongshan culture) in China creating Proto-Transeurasian (Altaic) language around 9,000 years ago.

N Haplogroups 9,000 years ago with Proto-Transeurasian language possibly moves north to Lake Baikal. Then after living with Proto-North Eurasian Language 24,000-9,000 years ago?/Pre-Proto-Yeniseian language 9,000-7,000 years ago Q Haplogroups (eventually relating with the Ket language and the Ket people) until around 5,500 years ago, then N Haplogroups move north to the Taymyr Peninsula in North Siberia (Nganasan homeland) brings/creates the Proto-Uralic language.

Q Haplogroups with Proto-Yeniseian language /Proto-Na-Dene language likely emerge 8,000/7,000 years ago or so and migrates to the Middle East (either following R2a to Iraq or R1a to Russia (Samara culture) then south to Iraq creates the Sumerian language. It may have also created the Proto-Caucasian languages along the way. And Q Haplogroups with Proto-Yeniseian language to a migration to North America that relates to Na-Dené (and maybe including Haida) languages, of which the first branch was Proto-Tlingit language 5,000 years ago, in the Pacific Northwest.

Sino-Tibetan language then moves more east in China to the Hemudu culture pre-Austronesian culture, next moved to Taiwan creating the Proto-Austronesian language around 6,000-5,500 years ago.

R1b comes to Russia from the Middle East around 7,500 years ago, bringing a version of Proto-Indo-European languages to the (Samara culture), then Q Y-DNA with Proto-Yeniseian language moves south from the (Samara culture) and may have been the language that created the Proto-Caucasian language. And R1b from the (Samara culture) becomes the 4,200 years or so R1b associated with the Basques and Basque language it was taken with R1b, but language similarities with the Proto-Caucasian language implies language ties to Proto-Yeniseian language.

24,000 Years Old Proto-North Eurasian Language (Ancient North Eurasian) migrations? Became: Proto-Afroasiatic, Proto-Sino-Tibetan, Proto-Transeurasian, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Na-Dene, Proto-Caucasian, Sumerian, Proto-Austronesian, and the Basque language

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Japan’s population Origins and Religious Beliefs from around 35,000 to 500 years ago

Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians Reveal Connections with First Americans and across Eurasia

“An Upper Paleolithic Siberian shows a deep link with the First Peoples of the Americas. A 10,000-year continuum of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry in the Lake Baikal region. The Neolithic to Bronze Age population formation occurred through prolonged local admixture.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Early Russian Pottery in Cisbaikal Kitoi culture 7,500 years ago, Samara culture 7,000 years ago, and Yamnaya culture 5,600–4,600 years ago, as well as Proto-Indo-European emergence

“The area east of Lake Baikal in Siberia is one of the few regions in Eurasia where pottery was already used during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Such early pottery complexes were identified in Ust’-Karenga XII, Studenoye 1, Ust’-Menza 1, and Ust’-Khyakhta 3, dated at about 12-000-11,000 years ago. While around 20,000 years ago East Asian hunter-gatherers were already making ceramic pots. (It seems to Damien) that ceramics spread continually from the earliest centers in China, then Japan, and next the Russian Far East, lastly towards the west, all the way to Europe.” ref 

Resource processing, early pottery and the emergence of Kitoi culture in Cis-Baikal: Insights from lipid residue analysis of an Early Neolithic ceramic assemblage from the Gorelyi Les habitation site, Eastern Siberia

Paleolithic to Bronze Age Siberians Reveal Connections with First Americans and across Eurasia

“An Upper Paleolithic Siberian shows a deep link with the First Peoples of the Americas. A 10,000-year continuum of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry in the Lake Baikal region. The Neolithic to Bronze Age population formation occurred through prolonged local admixture.” ref

“Modern humans have inhabited the Lake Baikal region since the Upper Paleolithic, though the precise history of its peoples over this long time span is still largely unknown. Here, we report genome-wide data from 19 Upper Paleolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from this Siberian region. An Upper Paleolithic genome shows a direct link with the First Americans by sharing the admixed ancestry that gave rise to all non-Arctic Native Americans. We also demonstrate the formation of Early Neolithic and Bronze Age Baikal populations as the result of prolonged admixture throughout the eighth to sixth millennium years ago. Moreover, we detect genetic interactions with western Eurasian steppe populations and reconstruct Yersinia pestis genomes from two Early Bronze Age individuals without western Eurasian ancestry. Overall, our study demonstrates the most deeply divergent connection between Upper Paleolithic Siberians and the First Americans and reveals human and pathogen mobility across Eurasia during the Bronze Age.” ref

“The Lake Baikal region in Siberia has been inhabited by modern humans since the Upper Paleolithic and has a rich archaeological record. In the past 5 years, ancient genomic studies have revealed multiple genetic turnovers and admixture events in this region. The 24,000-year-old individual (MA1) from the Mal’ta site represents an ancestry referred to as “Ancient North Eurasian (ANE),” which was widespread across Siberia during the Paleolithic and that contributed to the genetic profile of a vast number of present-day Eurasian populations as well as Native Americans. ANE ancestry was suggested to have been largely replaced in the Lake Baikal region during the Early Neolithic by a gene pool related to present-day northeast Asians, with a limited resurgence of ANE ancestry by the Early Bronze Age.” ref

“Siberia has also been proposed as a source for multiple waves of dispersals into the Americas, the first of which was shown to be driven by a founding population estimated to have formed around 25,000–20,000 years ago. The so-called Ancient Beringian ancestry represented by a 11,500-year-old Alaskan individual (USR1) was shown to be part of this founding population, estimated to have split from other Native Americans around 23,000 years ago. In addition, the recently published 9,800-year-old Kolyma genome from northeastern Siberia was suggested to represent the closest relative to Native American populations outside of the Americas. Moreover, the Paleo-Eskimo ancestry represented by a 4,000-year-old Saqqaq individual from Greenland was also estimated to have split from northeastern Siberian groups and migrated to Arctic America around 6,000–5,000 years ago. Although these waves of migration are generally linked to ancient Siberian populations, their origins in the context of the Siberian genetic history remain poorly understood. Further studies of the Siberian population history using ancient genomes are, therefore, critical for the better understanding of the formation of Native American populations.” ref

“Furthermore, the Neolithic to Bronze Age transition in Eurasia was marked by complex cultural and genetic changes facilitated by extensive population movements, though their impact in the Lake Baikal region is still unclear. Looking to the west, the Early Bronze Age groups from the Pontic-Caspian steppe associated with the Yamnaya complex spread both east and west along with their distinct genetic profile often referred to as “Steppe ancestry”. The eastward expansion of this group is considered to be associated with the Early Bronze Age Afanasievo culture. However, the later Middle Bronze Age Okunevo-related population from the central steppe, as well as the Late Bronze Age Khövsgöl-related population from the eastern steppe, harbor only a limited proportion of Steppe ancestry. Therefore, the effect of steppe migrations in eastern Eurasia, particularly the interactions of Bronze Age Baikal hunter-gatherers with the contemporaneous and geographically proximal Afanasievo population, is still largely unexplored.” ref

“In this study, researchers report 19 newly sequenced ancient hunter-gatherers from the Lake Baikal and its surrounding regions, spanning from the Upper Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Their analyses alongside published data reveal the most deeply divergent ancestry that link Upper Paleolithic Siberians and the First Peoples of the Americas, and more clearly delineate the complex transition between Early Neolithic and Early Bronze Age populations in the Lake Baikal region. We also provide both human and pathogen genomic evidence demonstrating the influence of western Eurasian steppe populations in this region during the Early Bronze Age and discuss the genetic contribution of Lake Baikal hunter-gatherers to Siberian populations through time.” ref

“Most of the Lake Baikal individuals occupied the space on a “ANE-NEA” cline running between “Northeast Asian” (NEA) ancestry represented by Neolithic hunter-gathers from the Devil’s Gate in the Russian Far East, and the ANE ancestry represented by Upper Paleolithic Siberian individuals MA1, AfontovaGora 2 (AG2), and AfontovaGora 3 (AG3), which was first described by. Our newly sequenced Upper Paleolithic genome from the Ust-Kyakhta-3 site (UKY) just south to the Lake Baikal is placed close to the Mesolithic northeastern Siberian Kolyma individual and is shifted toward Native American populations compared to the rest of the ancient Baikal individuals along PC2. All four Early Neolithic individuals cluster with published Early Neolithic groups from the same region (Shamanka_EN, Lokomotiv_EN, UstBelaya_EN) designated as the “Baikal_EN” population. The LNBA individuals were divided into four groups. The major “Baikal_LNBA” group included 10 individuals and clustered with published Late Neolithic to Bronze Age Baikal populations (Shamanka_EBA, Kurma_EBA, UstIda_EBA, UstIda_LN, UstBelaya_BA).” ref

“These individuals were positioned in PCA closer to ANE-related individuals compared with the Early Neolithic individuals from the same region, as well as closer to the Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq individual. Another two individuals (GLZ001 and GLZ002) from the Glazkovskoe predmestie site, unlike the third individual from the same archaeological site (GLZ003), seemed shifted from the main cluster and showed closer genetic affinity to the Devil’s Gate and Early Neolithic Baikal individuals. One of the six individuals from the Kachug site (KPT005) was substantially displaced from the Baikal_LNBA group toward western Eurasians along PC1, not along the ANE-NEA cline but toward later Bronze Age populations, suggesting a potential introgression of the Steppe-related ancestry. Finally, an Early Bronze Age individual (BZK002) from the Bazaikha site in the Yenisei River region further to the west of the Lake Baikal was significantly displaced toward ANE-related individuals and located close to published Bronze Age individuals associated to the Okunevo culture.” ref

“Population clustering with ADMIXTURE based on worldwide populations also showed a similar clustering pattern. When selecting a K value of 16, the published and newly sequenced individuals belonging to main Early Neolithic to Bronze Age Baikal groups all showed genetic profiles composed of a mixture of three major components that were mostly enriched in ANE-related individuals, northeast Asians, and central Siberians represented by the Uralic-speaking Nganasan population. The ANE and central Siberian ancestries were both of higher proportion in most LNBA Baikal individuals than in the Early Neolithic ones, while GLZ001 and GLZ002 showed higher NEA ancestry, similar to the Early Neolithic population. The BZK002 individual presented a profile similar to the published Okunevo group, with a much larger ANE component compared to other Lake Baikal individuals. The KPT005 individual also displayed a substantial contribution derived from European “Western Hunter-Gatherer” (WHG) ancestry, likely acquired through gene flow from the west.” ref

“Researchers estimated the runs of homozygosity (ROH) of selected individuals together with published Baikal individuals and did not identify an inbreeding signal in any individual. The Kolyma individual showed significantly more ROH compared with other individuals, suggesting a smaller population size in Mesolithic northeastern Siberia. The sharing of identity-by-descent (IBD) segments between individuals suggested a close relationship between UKY and Kolyma, supporting our analyses based on genome-wide SNP data, and also revealed that Early Neolithic and LNBA Baikal individuals shared genetic affinity with each other as well as with the older UKY and Kolyma genomes.” ref

ref

The impacts of bronze age in the gene pool of Chinese:

Insights from phylogeographics of Y-chromosomal haplogroup N1a2a-F1101

“A revised phylogenetic tree of haplogroup N1a2a-F1101 were constructed with age estimation (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S1). The haplogroups N1a2b-P43 and N1a2a-F1101 split at about 9300 years ago. There are similarities in the early history of the two haplogroups. They all experienced a very significant expansion after a bottleneck period of nearly 5,000 years and became the dominant paternal lineage of descendant populations. The main downstream branch of N1a2a-F1101 is N1a2a1-F1154, and the main differentiation node time is 4400 and 4000 years ago, and dozens of downstream branches are born. Among them, N1a2a1a1a1a1-F710 has undergone significant expansion after 3,350 years ago, giving birth to more than 70 downstream clades (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S1). This topology suggests that the population expansion experienced by this paternal line around 3,000 years ago was the most significant of all paternal lineages in ancient East Asian populations at the same history period. Previously, ancient DNA studies suggested that this paternal line may be the paternal lineage of the Zhou Dynasty, the third dynasty of ancient China (Ma et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022). The differentiation topology of this study supports the results of ancient DNA findings.” ref

Early history between 9,300 and 4,400 years ago

“As the only two downstream clades of N1a2-L666, the geographical distribution of N1a2a-F1101 and N1a2b-P43 is very different from each other. Ancient DNA studies have identified early branches of N1a2a-F1101 and N1a2b-P43 in sites in the Baikal region (de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018; Kilinc et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2021). The most recent branch of N1a2-L666 is N1a1-M46, the main paternal type of the Uralic population (Ilumäe et al., 2016). The first two early branches under N1a1-M46, N1a1b-Y149447 and N1a1a3-F4065, are mainly distributed in northeast China (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N/) (Hu et al., 2015). Therefore, we speculate that the initial spread of haplogroup N1a2-L666 may have been in the southwestern part of northeastern China (Figure 3). We proposed that this region is also the initial diffusion center of N1a1-M46, while the diffusion of N1a1-M46 (>12 kya) happened earlier than that of N1a2-L666 (<9.3 kya) (Hu et al., 2015). In the early Holocene (about 11.2kya-8kya), with climate change and the rise of early agricultural populations in northern China, a part of the descendants of the ancestor group, representing by sub-lineage N1a2b-P43, spread to the high latitude region of Siberia, eventually becoming part of the Ural-speaking populations. The other part, representing by sub-lineage N1a2a-F1101, remained in the local area and participated in the formation of the northern Chinese populations in the later historical period (Figure 3).” ref

“A bottleneck period of 5,000 years was observed early in the evolution of N1a2a-F1101 (Figure 1, Supplementary Table S1). Similar lengthy bottleneck periods were observed in downstream structures of N1a2b-P43, N1a1-M46, and Q1a1a-M120 (Ilumäe et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019). This evolutionary pattern is very different from the expansion pattern of ancient agricultural populations in East Asia, which continued to expand since the beginning of Neolithic age (Yan et al., 2014). The differentiation of the downstream clades of Q-M242 and N-231 presents a similar structure, i.e., downstream clades with high frequency distribution both in East Asia and Siberia, respectively. Therefore, we speculate that in the bottleneck interval, ancient populations with Q1a1a-M120 and N1a2a-F1101 as the main paternal lineages are likely to exist in the form of prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations in the border between the eastern Eurasian steppe and the northern-northeastern China. The drought and harsh natural environment of this area had a great influence on the evolution of the two paternal lineages in later historical periods.” ref

Expansion during the chalcolithic age and bronze age

“During the Chalcolithic age (about 4.5 kya-4.0 kya) in East Asia, copper, cattle and wheat were introduced to the East Asian heartland (Liu and Chen, 2003; Liu, 2004; Liu and Chen, 2017). Archaeologists have suggested that the elements may have spread from northern boundary of China through the Eurasian steppe. However, the demographic context of this important cultural process is very ambiguous. Around 4,000 years ago, the Bronze culture arose in the agro-pastoral region of northwestern China and later spread across East Asia and Southeast Asia. The mixing of the bronze culture of agriculture and animal husbandry with the people of the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River contributed to the establishment of three dynasties of the Bronze Age in ancient China, namely the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties (Liu and Chen, 2003; Liu, 2004; Liu and Chen, 2017). As discussed above, ancient populations with Q1a1a-M120 and N1a2a-F1101 as the main paternal lineages may have played a mediating role in the spread of the Copper and Bronze cultures from the eastern Eurasian steppe to the central East Asian region, due to their area of activity in the junction zone. Due to the same reason, these two paternal lines experienced a very significant spread during the Bronze Age, becoming important patrilineal lineages that occupied an upper political position in the Bronze Age, and were frequently detected in the tombs of chiefs and nobles of the time (Zhao et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022).” ref

“An interesting thing is that the significant expansion of N1a2a-F1101 occurred after 3,300 years ago, significantly later than the major expansion period of Q1a1a-M120 (4.2 kya-3 kya, Figure 1). Nevertheless, several downstream clades of Q1a1a-M120, like F4759 and F4689, exhibit simultaneous expansion with N1a2a1a1a1a1-F710 (Sun et al., 2019). Ancient DNA data suggest that these two paternal lineages were concentrated in ancient populations in northwest China, and co-occurred in some tombs (Zhao et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022). These ancient DNA studies also suggest that N1a2a-F1101 is likely the paternal lineage of the royal family of the Zhou Dynasty, while Q1a1a-M120 is the main paternal lineage of the Rong-Di populations (Means “Barbarians” in ancient Chinese). Both paternal lineages became the main paternal component of the Chinese group in later generations. In conclusion, we speculate that Q1a1a-M120 and N1a2a-F1101 together constitute the main paternal lineages of the populations that worked as farmers and pastoralists in northwest China during the Copper-Bronze Age. They played a key role in the emergence of bronze culture, early states, and early civilizations in central region of ancient China.” ref

Bronze age globalization in East Asia

“As, discussed in the Introduction section, Bronze age globalization has led to mass replacement and mixing of populations in multiple parts of Eurasia (Allentoft et al., 2015). In East Asia, however, the situation is quite different. Ancient DNA shows that during the Copper-Bronze Age, the populations in the central East Asian region did not experience large-scale replacement, and the genetic components from Indo-Europeans are nearly absent. Based on previous literature and the results of this paper, we suggest that the Gobi Desert on the border between China and Mongolia may have hindered the spread of the Bronze culture and Indo-European-related populations. The hunter-gatherer communities that originally operated in the north and south of the Gobi Desert relied on their familiarity with the environment and long-distance material exchange networks to spread relevant cultural elements as intermediaries.” ref

“In later historical periods, they became the main founders of the bronze culture populations in northwest China. These demographic histories led to the spread of Bronze culture into central East Asia as a form of cultural diffusion, unlike what happened in other parts of Eurasia during the Bronze Age period of globalization. In summary, we constructed a high-resolution phylogeny for Y-chromosome haplogroup N1a2a-F1101, one of main paternal lineages of modern Chinese. We explored the demographic of this paternal haplogroup in the past 9,000 years. We also discussed the activity of ancient populations with this lineage and their role during the appearance of Bronze Age culture, the formation of early state and early civilizations in central region of China. The newly-discovered sub-branches and variants will assist in exploring the formation process of gene pool of Chinese populations and their cultural traditions.” ref

Dnieper–Donets culture

“The Dnieper–Donets culture complex (DDCC) (ca. 5th—4th millennium BCE) was a Mesolithic and later Neolithic culture which flourished north of the Black Sea ca. 5000-4200 BCE. It has many parallels with the Samara culture, and was succeeded by the Sredny Stog culture. The Dnieper–Donets culture complex was defined by the Soviet archaeologist Dmytro Telehin (Dmitriy Telegin) on proposition of another archaeologist Valentyn Danylenko in 1956. At that time Dmytro Telehin worked at the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR (1952 – 1990). David Anthony (2007: 155) dated the beginning of the Dnieper–Donets culture I roughly between 5800/5200 BCE. It quickly expanded in all directions, eventually absorbing all other local Neolithic groups. By 5200 BCE the Dnieper–Donets culture II followed, which ended between 4400/4200 BCE. Note that the unsourced entry in the Ukrainian graphic contradicts both Telegin’s and Anthony’s chronology and geography.” ref

“The Dnieper–Donets culture was distributed in the steppe and forest-steppe areas north of the Black Sea. Throughout its existence, rapid population growth and an expansion towards the steppe is noticeable. There are parallels with the contemporaneous Samara culture to the north. Striking similarities with the Khvalynsk culture and the Sredny Stog culture have also been detected. A much larger horizon from the upper Vistula to the lower half of Dnieper to the mid-to-lower Volga has therefore been drawn. Influences from the DDCC and the Sredny Stog culture on the Funnelbeaker culture have been suggested. An origin of the Funnelbeaker culture from the Dnieper–Donets culture has been suggested, but this is very controversial. The Dnieper–Donets culture was contemporary with the Bug–Dniester culture. It is clearly distinct from the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture.” ref

“The Dnieper–Donets culture was originally a hunter-gatherer culture. The economic evidence from the earliest stages is almost exclusively from hunting and fishing. Among the sources of food hunted and foraged by the Dnieper-Donets people were aurochs, elk, red deer, roe, wild boar, fox, wildcat, hare, bear, and onager. Their diet was primarily high protein, with meat, fish, and nuts being consumed. From around 5200 BCE, the Dnieper-Donets people began keeping cattle, sheep, and goats. Other domestic animals kept included pigs, horses, and dogs. During the following centuries, domestic animals from the Dnieper further and further east towards the Volga–Ural steppes, where they appeared ca. 4700-4600 BCE. Some scholars suggest that from about 4200 BCE, the Dnieper–Donets culture adopted agriculture. Domestic plants that have been recovered include millet, wheat, and pea. At the same time, recent evidence suggests that millet did not arrive in west Eurasia until the Bronze Age. Evidence from skeletal remains suggest that plants were consumed. At the same time, systematic evidence of producing economy in DDCC is currently lacking. The presence of exotic goods in Dnieper-Donets graves indicates exchange relationships with the Caucasus.” ref

“The Dnieper–Donets culture is well known for about thirty of its cemeteries that have been discovered. This includes several large collective cemeteries of the Mariupol type. These contain around 800 individuals. It is evident that funerals were complex events that had several phases. Burials are mostly in large pits where the deceased were periodically placed and covered with ocher. In some cases, the deceased may have been exposed for a time before their bones were collected and buried. In most cases, however, the deceased were buried in the flesh without exposure. Deceased Dnieper-Donets people sometimes had only their skulls buried, but most often the entire bodies. The variants of Dnieper-Donets burial often appear in the same pits. Animal bones has also been found in the graves.” ref

“Certain Dnieper-Donets burials are accompanied with copper, crystal or porphyry ornaments, shell beads, bird-stone tubes, polished stone maces or ornamental plaques made of boar’s tusk. The items, along with the presence of animal bones and sophisticated burial methods, appear to have been a symbol of power. Certain deceased children were buried with such items, which indicates that wealth was inherited in Dnieper-Donets society. Very similar boar-tusk plaques and copper ornaments have been found at contemporary graves of the Samara culture in the middle Volga area. Maces of a different type than those of Dnieper-Donets have also been found. The wide adoption of such a status symbol attests to the existence of the institute of power in DDCC. Individual, double, and triple burials have also been found at DDCC cemeteries. These have been attributed to the earlier period of DDCC. Radiocarbon dates confirm the earlier chronology of individual DDCC burials compared to collective graves in large pits. Dnieper–Donets burials have been found near the settlement of Deriivka, which is associated with the Sredny Stog culture.” ref

“Dnieper-Donets pottery was initially pointed-based, but in later phases flat-based wares emerge. Their pottery is completely different from those made by the nearby Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. The importance of pottery appears to have increased throughout the existence of the Dnieper–Donets culture, which implies a more sedentary lifestyle. The early use of typical point base pottery interrelates with other Mesolithic cultures that are peripheral to the expanse of the Neolithic farmer cultures. The special shape of this pottery has been related to transport by logboat in wetland areas. Especially related are Swifterbant in the Netherlands, Ellerbek and Ertebølle in Northern Germany and Scandinavia, “Ceramic Mesolithic” pottery of Belgium and Northern France (including non-Linear pottery such as La Hoguette, Bliquy, Villeneuve-Saint-Germain), the Roucadour culture in Southwest France and the river and lake areas of Northern Poland and Russia.” ref

“In accordance with the Kurgan hypothesis, J. Mallory (1997) suggested that the Dnieper-Donets people were Pre–Indo-European-speakers who were absorbed by Proto-Indo-Europeans expanding westwards from steppe-lands further east. David Anthony (2007) believes that the Dnieper-Donets people almost certainly spoke a different language from the people of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. The areas of the upper Dniester in which the Dnieper–Donets culture was situated have mostly Baltic river names. That and the close relationship between the Dnieper–Donets culture and contemporary cultures of northeast Europe have caused the Dnieper–Donets culture to be identified with the later Balts. The precise role of the culture and its language to the derivation of the Pontic-Caspian cultures, such as Sredny Stog and Yamnaya culture, is open to debate, but the display of recurrent traits points to longstanding mutual contacts or to underlying genetic relations.” ref

“The physical remains recovered from graves of the Dnieper–Donets culture have been classified as “Proto-Europoid“. They have predominantly characterized as large and more massive features than the gracile Mediterranean peoples of the Balkan Neolithic. Males averaged 172 cm in height, which is much taller than contemporary Neolithic populations. Its rugged physical traits are thought to have genetically influenced later Indo-European peoples. Physical anthropologists have pointed out similarities in the physical type of the Dnieper-Donets people with the Mesolithic peoples of Northern Europe. The peoples of the neighboring Sredny Stog culture, which eventually succeeded the Dnieper–Donets culture, were of a more gracile appearance.” ref

“First archaeogenetic analysis involving DDCC individuals was published by Nikitin et al. in 2012. The authors reported mtDNA haplogroups of two individuals from the Mykilske (Nikols’skoye in Russian) and Yasynuvatka (Yasinovatka) DDCC cemeteries. Haplogroups of west Eurasian (H, U3, U5a1a) and east Eurasian (C, C4a) descent have been identified. The authors linked the appearance of east Eurasian haplogroups with potential influence from northern Lake Baikal area. Mathieson et al. (2018) analyzed 32 individuals from three Eneolithic cemeteries at Deriivka, Vilnyanka and Vovnigi, which Anthony (2019a) ascribed to the Dnieper–Donets culture. These individuals belonged exclusively to the paternal haplogroups R and I (mostly R1b and I2), and almost exclusively to the maternal haplogroup U (mostly U5, U4, and U2). This suggests that the Dnieper-Donets people were “distinct, locally derived population” of mostly of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) descent, with Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) admixture.” ref

“The WHG admixture appears to have increased in the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Unlike the Yamnaya culture, whose genetic cluster is known as Western Steppe Herder (WSH), in the Dnieper–Donets culture no Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) or Early European Farmer (EEF) ancestry has been detected. At the same time, several Eneolithic individuals from the Deriivka I cemetery carried Anatolian Neolithic Farmer (ANF) – derived as well as WSH ancestry. At the Vilnyanka cemetery, all the males belong to the paternal haplogroup I, which is common among WHGs. David W. Anthony suggests that this influx of WHG ancestry might be the result of EEFs pushing WHGs out of their territories to the east, where WHG males might have mated with EHG females. Dnieper-Donets males and Yamnaya males carry the same paternal haplogroups (R1b and I2a), suggesting that the CHG and EEF admixture among the Yamnaya came through EHG and WHG males mixing with EEF and CHG females. According to Anthony, this suggests that the Indo-European languages were initially spoken by EHGs living in Eastern Europe.” ref

“The Dnieper–Donets culture was succeeded by the Sredny Stog culture, its eastern neighbor, with whom it co-existed for a time before being finally absorbed. The Dnieper–Donets culture and the Sredny Stog culture were in turn succeeded by the Yamnaya culture. The Mikhaylovka culture, the Novodanilovka group, and the Kemi Oba culture displays evidence of continuity from the Dnieper–Donets culture.” ref

“Reported mtDNA haplogroups of two individuals from the Mykilske (Nikols’skoye in Russian) and Yasynuvatka (Yasinovatka) Dnieper–Donets culture complex cemeteries. Had haplogroups of west Eurasian (H, U3, U5a1a) and east Eurasian (C, C4a) linked the appearance of east Eurasian haplogroups with potential influence from the northern Lake Baikal area.” ref

“Haak et al. (2015) identified the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) as a distinct genetic cluster in two males only. The EHG male of Samara (dated to ca. 5650-5550 BCE) carried Y-haplogroup R1b1a1a* and mt-haplogroup U5a1d. The other EHG male, buried in Karelia (dated to ca. 5500-5000 BCE) carried Y-haplogroup R1a1 and mt-haplogoup C1g.” ref

• • • • • • • “C1f – Pamiri Tajik (Gorno-Badakhshan), India (Marathi), Scotland, Italy, Mesolithic NW Russia
            • C1g – Mesolithic NW Russia (Karelia) (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer)
          • C4 – Upper Palaeolithic (14050 – 13770 ybp) Ust-Kyakhta (Buryatia), Late Neolithic-Bronze Age Irkutsk Oblast, Late Neolithic-Iron Age Yakutia, Tubalar (Ederbes), Todzhin (Toora-Hem, Iiy, Adir-Kezhig), Yukaghir (Andrushkino), Yukaghir/Chuvan (Markovo), Russian, Myanmar
            • C4a’b’c – Irkutsk Oblast (6815 ybp), India (Jenu Kuruba)
              • C4a – China (Guangdong, Han from Beijing)
                • C4a1 – Tashkurgan (Kyrgyz, Sarikoli, Wakhi), Czech Republic, Denmark
                  • C4a1a – Korea, China, Uyghur, Buryat (South Siberia), Denmark, Sweden, France, Scotland, Canada
                    • C4a1a1
                      • C4a1a1a
                        • C4a1a1a1 – Lepcha, Sherpa (Nepal)
                        • C4a1a1a2 – Lachungpa
                        • C4a1a1a3 – Wancho
                      • C4a1a1b – Poland, Finland (Hamina)
                    • C-T195C! – Ireland, Scotland, England, USA, Hungary (Szeged region), Poland, Belarus, Russia (Russian, Buryat), Turkey, Pakistan (Hazara), India (Jammu and Kashmir), China (Bargut and Mongol in Inner Mongolia, etc.), Korea” ref

Mitochondrial haplogroup C in ancient mitochondrial DNA from Ukraine extends the presence of East Eurasian genetic lineages in Neolithic Central and Eastern Europe

“The finding of East Eurasian lineages in ancient mtDNA from two Neolithic cemeteries of the North Pontic Region (NPR) in Ukraine. In our study, comprehensive haplotyping information was obtained for 7 out of 18 specimens. Although the majority of identified mtDNA haplogroups belonged to the traditional West Eurasian lineages of H and U, three specimens were determined to belong to the lineages of mtDNA haplogroup C. This find extends the presence of East Eurasian lineages in Neolithic Europe from the Carpathian Mountains to the northern shores of the Black Sea and provides the first genetic account of Neolithic mtDNA lineages from the NPR.” ref

“During the Neolithic, the North Pontic Region (NPR) was home to major prehistoric cultural conglomerates, among them—the Dnieper-Donets cultural complex (DD). The DD culture has been studied in approximately 200 sites in Ukraine and Byelorussia, including settlements and large collective cemeteries of the Mariupol-type (M-t). The main feature of M-t cemeteries is inhumation burial in the supine position. This burial rite differs from most local Mesolithic burial traditions and is characteristic of the ‘Euro-Siberian’ zone of extended burials, which are found from Lake Baikal and the forest and forest-steppe zones of the East European Plain to the northern part of Central Europe and Scandinavia.” ref

“Two specimens were designated as members of haplogroup H, two were members of the U clade and three shared the 16223–16298–16327 HVS1 sequence motif characteristic of the root sequence of haplogroup C. Specimen Ya34 carried a transition at 16357, characteristic of the C4a2 subbranch of the C clade.

• • “C4a2
    • C4a2a – Yakut, Evenk (Chumikan)
      • C4a2a1 – Bronze Age (2275 – 2040 cal BCE or 4,298 to 4,063 years ago ) Irkutsk Oblast (specimen irk076 from burial 3 at the Shamanka 2 site, South Baikal), Shor, Chelkan, Teleut, Altai Kizhi, Yakut, Kazakh, Ket, Evenk (Stony Tunguska, Taimyr), Buryat (Irkutsk Oblast, Inner Mongolia), China, Korea
        • C4a2a1a – Yukaghir, Yakut, Evenk (Nyukzha, Iyengra, Nelkan/Dzhigda), Even (Tompo)
        • C4a2a1b – Evenk (Nyukzha), Yakut
          • C4a2a1b1 – Evenk (Nyukzha)
        • C4a2a1c – China (Zhejiang, Uyghurs), Buryat, Todzhin (Iiy), Karanogay (Dagestan)
        • C4a2a1c2 – Uyghurs
        • C4a2a1d – Uyghurs
          • C4a2a1d1 – Udinsk Buryat (Kushun), Tofalar (V. Gutara), Evenk (Central Siberia)
          • C4a2a1d2 – Evenk (Nelkan/Dzhigda), Evenk/Nivkh (Val)
        • C4a2a1e – Bargut (Inner Mongolia), Buryat (Irkutsk Oblast)
        • C4a2a1f – Buryat (South Siberia, Irkutsk Oblast)
        • C4a2a1g – Ket
    • C4a2b – Tibet, Korea
      • C4a2b1 – Wancho
      • C4a2b2 – China (Han from Beijing)
        • C4a2b2a – Tibet (Sherpa)
    • C4a2c – Bargut (Inner Mongolia)
      • C4a2c1 – India (Jenu Kuruba)
      • C4a2c2 – Lepcha
        • C4a2c2a – Ladakh
• C4b – Yukaghir, Altai Kizhi, Ukraine, Slovakia
  • C4b1 – Yukaghir, Buryat
    • C4b1a – Bargut (Inner Mongolia)
    • C4b1b – Evenk (Stony Tunguska), Buryat
  • C4b2 – Koryak
    • C4b2a – Koryak, Chukchi
  • C4b3 – Yakut, Altai Kizhi
    • C4b3a – Yukaghir, Even (Berezovka)
      • C4b3a1 – Yukaghir
    • C4b3b – Buryat, Evenk (Stony Tunguska)
  • C4b5 – Khamnigan, Buryat
  • C4b6 – Altai Kizhi, Tubalar
  • C4b7 – Yukaghir
  • C4b8 – Yakut
    • C4b8a – Nganasan” ref

ref

“MJ-network of mtDNA haplogroup C4a. The North Tungusic haplotypes are colored by population (Evenks and Evens) rather than subgroup. The size of the nodes is proportional to the number of individuals carrying that node, and the number of mutations is indicated along the branches.” ref

“The Tungusic languages /tʊŋˈɡʊsɪk/ (also known as Manchu-Tungus and Tungus) form a language family spoken in Eastern Siberia and Manchuria by Tungusic peoples. Many Tungusic languages are endangered. Some linguists consider Tungusic to be part of the controversial Altaic language family “Transeurasian” along with Turkic, Mongolic, and sometimes Koreanic and Japonic. Wang and Robbeets (2020) place the Proto-Tungusic homeland in the Lake Khanka region, on the border between Primorsky Krai, Russia, and Heilongjiang province, Northeast China. Other theories favor a homeland closer to Lake Baikal in southern Siberia.” ref

“Northern Tungusic (Ewenic languages)

• Ewenic
  • Even (Lamut) (in eastern Siberia)
    • Arman
    • Indigirka
    • Kamchatka
    • Kolyma-Omolon
    • Okhotsk
    • Ola
    • Tompon
    • Upper Kolyma
    • Sakkyryr
    • Lamunkhin
  • Evenki
    • Evenki (obsolete: Tungus), spoken by Evenks in central Siberia and Manchuria
      • Solon (Solon Ewenki)
        • Hihue/Hoy (basis of the standard, but not identical)
        • Haila’er
        • Aoluguya (Olguya)
        • Chenba’erhu (Old Bargu)
        • Morigele (Mergel)
      • Siberian Ewenki / Ewenki of Siberia
        • Northern (spirant)
          • Ilimpeya (subdialects: Ilimpeya, Agata and Bol’shoi, Porog, Tura, Tutonchany, Dudinka/Khantai)
          • Yerbogachen (subdialects: Yerbogachen, Nakanno)
        • Southern (sibilant)
          • Hushing
            • Sym (subdialects: Tokma/Upper Nepa, Upper Lena/Kachug, Angara)
            • Northern Baikal (subdialects: Northern Baikal, Upper Lena)
          • Hissing
            • Stony Tunguska (subdialects: Vanavara, Kuyumba, Poligus, Surinda, Taimura/Chirinda, Uchami, Chemdal’sk)
            • Nepa (subdialects: Nepa, Kirensk)
            • Vitim-Nercha/Baunt-Talocha (subdialects: Baunt, Talocha, Tungukochan, Nercha)
        • Eastern (sibilant-spirant)
          • Vitim-Olyokma (subdialects: Barguzin, Vitim/Kalar, Olyokma, Tungir, Tokko)
          • Upper Aldan (subdialects: Aldan, Upper Amur, Amga, Dzheltulak, Timpton, Tommot, Khingan, Chul’man, Chul’man-Gilyui)
          • Uchur-Zeya (subdialects: Uchur, Zeya)
          • Selemdzha-Bureya-Urmi (subdialects: Selemdzha, Bureya, Urmi)
          • Ayan-Mai (subdialects: Ayan, Aim, Mai, Nel’kan, Totti)
          • Tugur-Chumikan (subdialects: Tugur, Chumikan)
          • Sakhalin (no subdialects)” ref

“Tungusic languages are widely distributed all over Northeast Asia, including Xinjiang, Siberia, Manchuria, and the Russian Far East. In Robbeets and Savelyev, ed. (2020) there was a concerted effort to distinguish “Altaic” as a subgroup of “Transeurasian” consisting only of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, while retaining “Transeurasian” as “Altaic” plus Japonic and Koreanic. The contemporary and historically attested Tungusic languages are spread from the Okhotsk Sea in the east to the Yenisei Basin in the west, and from the Bohai Sea in the south to the Arctic Ocean in the north. Figure 1 shows the distribution of 12 Tungusic languages, Oroch, Udihe, Hezhe, Nanai, Orok, Olcha, Xibo, Even, Solon, Evenki, Negidal, and Oroqen, along with dialectal varieties such as Kamnigan Evenki, Momsky Even, Olsky Even, Najkhin Nanai, Kur-Urmi Nanai, and Bikin Nanai as well as two historical varieties, Jurchen and Manchu.” ref, ref

Evidence for How Languages Spread 10,000 Years Ago?

“The ancestral tongues of Japanese, Korean, and mainland Asian languages may have followed the dissemination of agriculture. The very existence of a Transeurasian language group has been controversial since scholars first proposed that the language groups of Japanese, Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic may stem from a single, ancient language source. While the modern languages found in Mongolia, Korea, and Japan may not have much in common today, evidence drawn from linguistics, archaeology, and genetics have combined to reveal a 10,000-year journey through eastern Asia. Some researchers now say the spread of these languages tracks closely to the development and proliferation of crops like millet and rice. But Alexander Vovin, a linguist at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in France, contends that language doesn’t always spread with agriculture. He points to the case of the Finno-Ugric language group, which includes modern Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian.” ref

“The speakers of these languages, he says, were fishermen who likely spread westward from Eurasia via waterways. Likewise, he says Na-Dene languages like Navajo didn’t spread with agriculture. “Even for Indo-European, it is not universally accepted [that languages spread via agriculture]. Sometimes it does happen, sometimes not,” Vovin says. In Japan, for example, there was a massive gene flow from Korea during the Bronze Age. Prior to this influx, genes there mostly came from Jomon ancestry, a group that predated the Transeurasian spread through the Japanese archipelago. Robbeets says that the Jomons likely spoke a language from the Ainu family — few people from the Ainu ethnicity still speak a descendant of this language in northern Japan.” ref

“From a paternal perspective, Tungusic speakers are associated with the Y chromosomal haplogroup C3/C-M217 (Haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 and previously as C3). The haplogroup C3c-M48 is prevalent in Evenki and Even, as well as in other Tungusic-speaking populations in the Amur River Basin, including Oroqen, Olcha, Negidal, Udehe, and Nanai with frequencies ranging from about 20% to even 100%. The C3/C-M217 type also reaches high frequencies in populations surrounding the Amur River Basin, such as Nivkh (38%) and Ainu (12.5–25%) (Wei Reference Wei2011). The current geographic and genetic diversity distribution pattern suggests that the dispersal of Y chromosomal haplogroup C3-M217 was most likely associated with Tungusic-related population expansion from the Amur River.” ref

“From a genome-wide perspective, we reanalyzed the data of ancient samples from Devil’s Gate (Chertovy Vorota) Cave dating to ~7.7 kya/7,700 years ago in the Primorye Region of the Russian Far East (Siska et al. Reference Siska, Jones, Jeon, Bhak, Kim, Cho, Kim, Lee, Veselovskaya, Balueva, Gallego-Llorente, Hofreiter, Bradley, Eriksson, Pinhasi, Bhak and Manica2017; de Barros Damgaard et al. Reference Damgaard, Marchi, Rasmussen, Peyrot, Renaud, Korneliussen, Moreno-Mayar, Pedersen, Goldberg, Usmanova, Baimukhanov, Loman, Hedeager, Pedersen, Nielsen, Afanasiev, Akmatov, Aldashev, Alpaslan, Baimbetov, Bazaliiskii, Beisenov, Boldbaatar, Boldgiv, Dorzhu, Ellingvag, Erdenebaatar, Dajani, Dmitriev, Evdokimov, Frei, Gromov, Goryachev, Hakonarson, Hegay, Khachatryan, Khaskhanov, Kitov, Kolbina, Kubatbek, Kukushkin, Kukushkin, Lau, Margaryan, Merkyte, Mertz, Mertz, Mijiddorj, Moiyesev, Mukhtarova, Nurmukhanbetov, Orozbekova, Panyushkina, Pieta, Smrčka, Shevnina, Logvin, Sjogren, Štolcova, Taravella, Tashbaeva, Tkachev, Tulegenov, Voyakin, Yepiskoposyan, Undrakhbold, Varfolomeev, Weber, Wilson Sayres, Kradin, Allentoft, Orlando, Nielsen, Sikora, Heyer, Kristiansen and Willerslev2018). We observe that ancient Devil’s Gate samples cluster together with present-day Tungusic-speaking populations and Ulchi in the outgroup, as shown in Figure 3. We find a genetic substructure within Tungusic-speaking populations. The North Tungusic Evenki and Even cluster with surrounding Siberian populations other than with Amur Tungusic groups. The substructure has been caused by the fact that North Tungusic Evenki and Even have received gene flow from West Eurasian-related populations.” ref

“The haplogroup C-M217 is now found at high frequencies among Central Asian peoples, indigenous Siberians, and some Native peoples of North America. In particular, males belonging to peoples such as the Buryats, Evens, Evenks, Itelmens, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Koryaks, Mongolians, Negidals, Nivkhs, Udege, and Ulchi have high levels of M217.” ref

The Tungusic community, which brought us the term “Shaman” ref

“In various periods, “Tungusic” in Russian and Western sources sometimes referred to the Evenks alone, and sometimes to the Evenks and closely related communities, the Evenes, both of which were essentially reindeer breeders and hunters. When referring to the ethnic groups speaking the Tungus-Manchu languages, the term had a more strictly linguistic meaning. In this case, the term, “Tungusic” was the opposite of Turkish and Mongolian as a branch of the Altaic family. The Evenks, the largest Tungus group after the Manchus, were undoubtedly the most spread out and diversified people of Siberia. They settled in small groups on the vast territory stretching from the Yenisei River to the Sea of Okhotsk, and from the Arctic Ocean to the Amur River.” ref

Tungusic Creation Myth?

“The Tungusic creation myths are traditional stories of the creation of the world belonging to the Tungusic peoples of Siberia. In one account of the Tungusic creation myth, Buga, their central deity, set fire to a vast primordial ocean. Following a long struggle, the flames consumed much of the water, exposing dry land. Then Buga created the light and, separated it from darkness, and descended to the newly created land, where he confronted Buninka, the devil, and a dispute arose between them over who had created the world. Buninka was spiteful and tried to injure Buga’s creation.” ref

“Buninka broke Buga’s twelve-stringed lyre, and Buga angrily challenged Buninka to make a fir tree and raise it to stand fast and firm in the middle of the sea. Buga agreed he would bow to Buninka’s powers if he could do so, but if he failed then Buga would subject himself to the same challenge. If Buga were then to succeed, Buninka must concede to Buga that he was the most powerful creator. Buninka agreed to the challenge and commanded a fir tree to rise from the sea. The tree grew, but it was weak and swayed to and fro, whilst Buga’s tree was good. Buninka was forced to acknowledge Buga’s greater power and bowed in homage. Buga put his hand to Buninka’s head and turned it to iron. This caused so much pain in Buninka that he begged Buga for release, and Buga relented, releasing Buninka to be allowed to wander the earth on condition he did no harm to man.” ref

“Buga then collected materials to make mankind. From the east he gathered iron; from the south fire; the west, water; and from the north, earth. From the earth he made flesh and bone; from the iron he made heart; from the water he made blood; and from the fire he gave them vitality, and thus he made two beings, a man and a woman. After they had increased in numbers Buninka he wanted to claim half as his own. Buga refused to give him any of the living but Buninka was granted the vicious men and women after they had died, Buga keeping the virtuous to himself. So after death, the evil join Buninka in hell, which is in the center of the earth. Hell consisted of twelve caves, each with a different form of punishment.” ref

Buga (deity)?

“Buga is a creator god and omnipotent highest power in the mythology of the Tungusic peoples. For the Tungus the term buga (also buya, boya, boga) refers to the greatest, omnipotent, eternal being. The same word also means either “sky”, “universe”, and may also refer to terms corresponding to “world” or “locality”. The word is not taboo and is used in common speech. According to Shirokogoroff the term is an old one, and was not introduced by Christian missionaries. For the eastern Tungus buga is a remote figure whom they have no description of, and nor do their shamans connect with it/him.” ref

“The buga forms an exception in that it is one spirit than cannot be mastered by a shaman. Shirokogoroff states that all Tungus know how to pray/make sacrifices to buga and that activity is done without the intercession of shaman. Furthermore, bugady are a tribe’s sacred places. Equivalent names for a supreme deity are Es (Ket language), Nga (Enc language), and Turum or Torym (Ostyak language). The Tungus term ‘buga’ is similar to the Mongolian term bogdo (holy), Old Persian language baga (god), and the Kassite language bugas (god). The Even language term for the highest deity (the creator) is/was Nalban Omgo Ogyn Buga, the proper name in the same language is Hovky-Sovky; in the Evenk language the god’s name is Shavaky-Savaky. The “upper” and “lower” worlds in those people’s shamanic worldview are also referred to as Dulyn Buga and Harpy Buga.” ref

Altaic Mythology?

“The plains and steppes of Eastern Europe and Central, North, and East Asia are home to plenty of nomadic tribes. While the Mongol people have become more (in)famous historically as fierce conquering barbarian hordes with the help of Genghis Khan, these people like everyone else also have their own religion and culture. This page deals with the mythology of the Altaic people which also includes the Huns, Turks, Xiongnu, and Tungusic peoples. However, while the existence of a genetic Altaic language family is widely discredited, there was clearly a common mythology among the peoples of the steppes, who mingled with one another during the thousands of years in the very long and shared history.” ref

“Worth knowing is that originally the belief practice consisted of totemism, animism, shamanism and ancestor worship, however eventually it incorporated elements from other religions as well such as Daoism, Shinto, Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and even Judeo-Christianity. Good sources of knowledge also provide the pages for the Ainu, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Tibetans in finding out interesting tropes about the religions and mythologies of the other East Asian civilizations, and the Scythians for the religion and mythology of another nomadic group of people which are an older Eastern European and Central Asian culture. See also Siberian Mythology, which might have influenced in some aspects (Turkic and Siberian language groups do share several loanwords).” ref

“Altaic mythology provides examples of:

• The Creator: Bai-Ulgen or Ulgan who created the universe and believed to be without either beginning or end.
• Everybody Hates Hades: Erlik Khan, who was originally a god of death and the underworld, was eventually re-interpreted as a demonic Big Bad to oppose Tengri, Lord of the Eternal Blue Sky.
• Food God: In Pi Shashin, a strain of Tengriism found in parts of Mongolia, the deity Pi is often associated with baked goods.
• God of Good:
  • Bai-Ulgen in Turkic mythology is the god of goodness, welfare, abundance, and plenty.
  • Two of his sons might qualify as well: Karshyt Han and Bakhty Han, the gods of purity and blessing, respectively.
• Heaven Above: The sky is considered the realm of Tengri, whose name literally translated means “heavenly or sky father”.
• Hell: Mongolian shamanism has Kasrygan, where those whose bad deeds in life outweigh their good ones are sent. It is a giant cauldron filled with boiling black tar where sinners float. The worst ones sink to the bottom and suffer there forever, while those who have committed at least some good in their life have a chance to reach the surface. Those in Heaven who benefited from these sinners’ good deeds can send spirits to the surface of Kasrygan to pull them up by the hair and bring them to paradise.
• An Ice Person: Ayaz Baba, whose name literally translates to “frost father” is a god of frost and snow associated with winter seasons, depicted commonly as an old man with a long white beard and the blue-robes of a shaman. Depending on which versions of the myths you read, he is either a son of Tengri (the Thunderer and Top God of Altaic myth), or is simply another aspect of him.
• The Marvelous Deer: The deer is a sacred animal in tengrist religion. Certain people claim that their distant ancestors centuries ago followed a golden elk or a stag with golden antlers into the Carpathian Basin.
• Mother Goddess: Umay is the goddess of nature and the earth, as well as virginity, fertility, child care and motherhood. She looks over and protects all women and children.
• Noble Bird of Prey: The raptorial birds (eagles, hawks and falcons) are all considered sacred animals alongside wolves, tigers, deer, bulls, horses, sheep and boars. The Kazakhs and other nomadic people of Central Asia are experts at hunting wild animals using raptor birds even in the present, explained more in detail here: [1].
• Noble Wolf: In old Turkic mythology, the wolf was the Turkic people’s ancestor and the Turks’ primary symbol throughout the centuries. Even today the gray wolf is Turkey‘s national animal.
• Our Dragons Are Different: While calling them “dragons” is more of a result of a naming convention rather than them being the same creatures, Hunnic dragons are very different from both their eastern and western counterparts, being closer to hydras. They are described as giants with multiple heads. The number of their heads relates to the amount of power they possess as well as several motifs relating to them (the number of towers on their castle, the number of miles distance they can throw their weapons, the number of days it takes for an opponent with equal power to defeat them). They traditionally come in groups of three brothers with three, seven and twelve heads respectively, with the twelve-headed brother being the oldest and most powerful, and undefeatable by conventional means. If there’s only one dragon around, it usually has three or seven heads, and takes the role of the twelve-headed dragon as the major antagonist. The naming is most likely result of their Hunnic name (sárkány) denoting two completely different creatures, one being the above described giant-like being, while the other is a storm-demon that usually hides in clouds and often takes the form of a giant flying snake, which most likely resulted in the word being applied to the western (European) and eastern (Asian) dragons as well.
• Playing with Fire: Alaz is the god of fire. He is also called “Alas Batyr” or sometimes “Alaz Khan”.
• Sand Worm: The Olgoi-Khorkhoi (Mongolian Death Worm), a legendary beast said to inhabit the Gobi Desert, is a 2-4 foot long worm capable of spitting acid and able to electrocute prey.
• Satanic Archetype: Erlik was originally simply the god of death and the afterlife. However, with the introduction of Abrahamic religions and Buddhism, he was eventually turned into a God of Evil.
• Shock and Awe: Some of the deities including Tengri himself are associated with thunder and lightning.
  • The Mongolian Death Worm is often said to be capable of shooting electric volts that can kill livestock. However most scientists and even some cryptozoologists cast heavy doubt on this particular ability.
• Top God: Tengri the Sky Father, to the point that the religion (tengrism) is named after him.
• War God:
  • Turko-Siberian mythologies have Kyzaghan, whose name basically translates to the word for “fury” in most Turkic languages. He’s also described commonly as wielding a spear and riding upon a red horse. This makes him somewhat reminiscent of Odin, who also embodies these aspects of combat.
  • Tengri was often prayed to by Turks and Mongols for success in battle. Some Turkic dastans (sagas, essentially) describe Tengri taking the form of a white wolf in the mortal world, which was heralded as a sign of victory in a coming fight.
• Warrior Heaven: Uchmak, the preferred afterlife for Mongols and pre-Islamic Turks, was said to be a battlefield ruled over by Tengri the Skyfather.
• World Tree: The Világfa, which literally translated means “world tree.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

1. Proto-Transeurasian/Altaic languages
2. Proto-Tungusic-Mongolo
3. Proto-Koreanic-Japano
4. Proto-Tungusic
5. Proto-Turkic
6. Proto-Mongolic
7. Proto-Koreanic
8. Proto-Japonic

“Xinglongwa (6200–5400 BCE), Zhaobaogou (5400–4500 BCE) Hongshan (4700-2900 BCE)  cultures in the West Liao River region.” ref, ref, ref, ref

“Integrating linguistic and archaeological evidence, we support the hypothesis that the expansion of the Transeurasian language system in the Amur River basin is related to the agricultural development and expansion of the southern Hongshan culture.” ref

“The Liao Civilization or Liao River Civilization (Chinese: 遼河文明), named after the Liao River, is an umbrella term for several ancient civilizations that originated in the Liao basin. It is thought to have first formed in 6,200 BCE. This civilization was discovered when the Hongshan culture was discovered. Large-scale pit-type houses, graves and temples with altars were excavated. It is thought that the Liao civilization may have been “a country” of the prehistoric age. A model of the feng shui were excavated from remains of the Hongshan culture. Ball products such as the jade which made the precursors of Chinese dragon were discovered in remains of Xinglongwa culture. In addition, the oldest pit-comb ware and Liaoning bronze dagger (biwa form bronze sword) were excavated. Since it was contemporaneous with the Yellow River civilization and Yangtze civilization, it is thought to have been a part of ancient Chinese culture. This region was thought to have been desert for the past 1 million years. However, a 2015 study found that the region once featured rich aquatic resources and deep lakes and forests that existed from 12,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago. It was changed into desert by climate change which began approximately 4,200 years ago. Therefore, people of the Hongshan culture may have emigrated to the Yellow River in the south approximately 4,000 years ago and later influenced Chinese culture.” ref

“The most ancient populations of the West Liao River valley exhibited a high frequency of Haplogroup N-M231. A study by Yinqiu Cui et al. from 2013 found that 63% of the combined samples from various Hongshan archeological sites belonged to the subclade N1 (xN1a, N1c) of the paternal haplogroup N-M231 and calculated N to have been the predominant haplogroup in the region in the Neolithic period at 89%, its share gradually declining over time. Today, this haplogroup is most common in Finland, the Baltic states, and among northern Siberian ethnicities, such as the Yakuts. Individuals at the Liao civilization were assigned into five different Y sub-haplogroups using diagnostic single nucleotide polymorphisms, namely N1 (xN1a, N1c), N1c, C/C3e, O3a (O3a3) and O3a3c. Ancient samples of the Jinggouzi site situated to the northwest of the Liao civilization were assigned to Haplogroup C-M217. Northern nomads from Jinggouzi might have entered the West Liao River valley, but these Jinggouzi people (closely related to Xianbei and Oroqen) were culturally and genetically distinct from the original people of the West Liao River valley, who carried the characteristic Haplogroup N-M231 lineage. The Haplogroup O-M122 that was observed among Liao individuals is believed to have spread to the Liao civilization from the Yellow River civilization in the southwest. This lineage is most commonly associated with speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages (such as the Han Chinese). However, its frequency only began to rise in the Bronze Age, and the ancient Liao River population was different from the Yellow River population. This means the Liao civilization was occupied by a diverse sequence of human cultures that were originally distinct from both the farming populations of the Yellow River and the nomads of the Eurasian steppe.” ref

“The formation and development of the Lower Xiajiadian culture population was likely a complex process affected by admixture of ethnically different people. The Lower Xiajiadian culture of the West Liao River included people carrying haplogroups from northern Asia, but there was genetic evidence of the migration of millet farming people from the Central Plains (Zhongyuan). The climate of the West Liao River valley was warmer at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, which may be one of the driving forces for the northward migration of the Central Plains farming population. An archaeological study showed that the painted potteries of the Lower Xiajiadian were influenced by the Erlitou culture. The people of the Dadianzi site of Inner Mongolia received the haplogroup O3 from the immigrants of the Central Plains, and a Lower Xiajiadian individual was identified to possess both the maternal lineage of D4 and paternal lineage of O3-M122. Due to a cooling climate, part of the Lower Xiajiadian culture population migrated to the south and influenced the Central Plains. Among the Yin Ruins relics of Shang Dynasty, artefacts with northern cultural influences have been identified. The Upper Xiajiadian culture and Bronze Age West Liao River farmers (WLR_BA) can be modeled as deriving their ancestry from both Amur hunter-gatherers and Yellow River farmers. This particular ancestral lineage has been associated with Proto-Korean-speakers, and the Upper Xiajiadian culture. They displayed primarily subclades of the paternal haplogroups O and C, with a smaller minority of N.” ref

“Various Neolithic cultures have been identified in the Xiliao River / West Liao River region. Broomcorn millet and foxtail millet were the main cereal crops, while pigs and dogs were the main domesticated animals found at Neolithic archaeological sites.

• Xiaohexi culture (9,000-8,500 years ago)
• Xinglongwa culture (8,200-7,400 years ago)
• Zhaobaogou culture (7,500-6,500 years ago)
• Fuhe culture (7,200-7,000 years ago)
• Xinle culture (7,200-6,800 years ago)
• Hongshan culture (6,700-4,900 years ago)
• Xiaoheyan culture (5,000-4,000 years ago)” ref

“Bronze Age cultures of the Xiliao River region are:

• Lower Xiajiadian culture (4,000-3,200 years ago)
• Upper Xiajiadian culture (3,200-2,600 years ago)” ref

ref

Bioarchaeological perspective on the expansion of Transeurasian languages in Neolithic Amur River basin

“Abstract: Owing to the development of sequencing technology, paleogenomics has become an important source of information on human migration and admixture, complementing findings from archaeology and linguistics. In this study, we retrieved the whole genome and Y chromosome lineage from late Neolithic Honghe individuals in the Middle Amur region in order to provide a bioarchaeological perspective on the origin and expansion of Transeurasian languages in the Amur River basin. Our genetic analysis reveals that the population of the Amur River basin has a stable and continuous genetic structure from the Mesolithic Age up to date. Integrating linguistic and archaeological evidence, we support the hypothesis that the expansion of the Transeurasian language system in the Amur River basin is related to the agricultural development and expansion of the southern Hongshan culture. The spread of agricultural technology resulted in the addition of millet cultivation to the original subsistence mode of fishing and hunting. It played a vital role in the expansion of the population of the region, which in its turn has contributed to the spread of language.” ref

“The Russian name Amur comes from the Tungusic term for “river”. Tungusic peoples are an ethno-linguistic group formed by the speakers of Tungusic languages (or Manchu–Tungus languages). They are native to Siberia and Northeast Asia. Historically, it was common to refer to a river simply as “water”. There are similar words for “water” or “river” in a number of Asiatic languages: e.g. 물 mul (“water”) in Korean, muren or mörön (“river”) in Mongolian, and 水 midu > mizu (“water”) in Japanese. The name “Amur” may have evolved from a root word for water, coupled with a size modifier for “Big Water. For many centuries, inhabitants of the Amur Valley comprised the Tungusic (Evenki, Solon, Ducher, Jurchen, Nanai, Ulch), Mongol (Daur) people, some Ainu and, near its mouth, the Nivkhs.” ref

“Northern China harbored the world’s earliest complex societies based on millet farming, in two major centers in the Yellow River and West Liao River basins. Until now, their genetic histories have remained largely unknown. Here we present 55 ancient genomes dating to 7500-1700 years ago from the Yellow River, West Liao River, and Amur River regions. Contrary to the genetic stability in the Amur River, the Yellow River and West Liao River genetic profiles substantially changed over time. The Yellow River populations show a monotonic increase over time in their genetic affinity with present-day southern Chinese and Southeast Asians. In the West Liao River, intensification of farming in the Late Neolithic is correlated with increased Yellow River affinity while the inclusion of a pastoral economy in the Bronze Age was correlated with increased AR affinity. Our results suggest a link between changes in subsistence strategy and human migration, and fuel the debate about archaeolinguistic signatures of past human migration.” ref

“China is one of the earliest independent centers in the world for the domestication of cereal crops, second only to the Near East, with the rainfed rice agriculture in the Yangtze River Basin in southern China, and dryland millet agriculture in northern China. Northern China represents a large geographic region that encompasses the Central Plain in the middle-to-lower Yellow River basin, the birthplace of the well-known Yellow River civilization since the Neolithic period. However, northern China extends far beyond the Central Plain and includes several other major river systems in distinct ecoregions (Fig. 1). Especially, it is now well received that the West Liao River region in northeast China (Fig. 1) played a critical role distinct from the Yellow River region in the adoption and spread of millet farming. Both foxtail (Setaria italica) and broomcorn millets (Panicum miliaceum) were first cultivated in the West Liao River and lower reaches of the Yellow River basins since at least 6000 BCE or 8,000 years ago. In the ensuing five millennia, millets domesticated in northern China spread across east Eurasia and beyond. Millets had served as one of the main staple foods in northeast Asia, particularly until the introduction of maize and sweet potato in the 16–17th centuries.” ref

“Both the Yellow River and the West Liao River are known for rich archeological cultures that relied substantially on millet farming. By the Middle Neolithic (roughly 4000 BCE), complex societies with a substantial reliance on millet farming had developed in the West Liao River (Hongshan culture; 4500–3000 BCE) and in the Yellow River (Yangshao culture; 5000–3000 BCE) basins. For example, excavations of Hongshan societies in the West Liao River yielded public ceremonial platforms with substantial offerings including numerous jade ornaments, among which the “Goddess Temple” at the Niuheliang site is the most famous. The establishment of the Middle Neolithic complex societies appears to have been associated with rapid population growth and cultural innovation, and may have been linked to the dispersal of two major language families, Sino-Tibetan from the Yellow River and Transeurasian from the West Liao River, although some scholars debate the genealogical unity of the latter.” ref

“Compared with the Yellow River region where crop cultivation already took the status of the dominant subsistence strategy by the Middle Neolithic, the level of reliance on crops in the West Liao River region has changed frequently in association with changes in climate and archeological culture. For example, paleobotanical and isotopic evidence suggest that the contribution of millets to the diet of the West Liao River people steadily increased from the Xinglongwa to Hongshan to Lower Xiajiadian (2200–1600 BCE) cultures, but was partially replaced by nomadic pastoralism in the subsequent Upper Xiajiadian culture (1000–600 BCE). Although many archeologists associated this subsistence switch with a response to the climate change, it remains to be investigated whether substantial human migrations mediated these changes. The West Liao River region adjoins the Amur River region to the northeast, in which people continued to rely on hunting, fishing, and animal husbandry combined with some cultivation of millet, barley, and legumes into the historic era. Little is known to what extent contacts and interaction between Yellow River and West Liao River societies affected the dispersal of millet farming over northern China and surrounding regions. More generally, given the limited availability of ancient human genomes so far, prehistoric human migrations and contacts as well as their impact on present-day populations are still poorly understood in this region.” ref

“Wide-ranging datasets from these disciplines, including a comprehensive Transeurasian agropastoral and basic vocabulary; an archaeological database of 255 Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia; and a collection of ancient genomes from Korea, the Ryukyu islands and early cereal farmers in Japan, complementing previously published genomes from East Asia. Challenging the traditional ‘pastoralist hypothesis’, we show that the common ancestry and primary dispersals of Transeurasian languages can be traced back to the first farmers moving across Northeast Asia from the Early Neolithic onwards, but that this shared heritage has been masked by extensive cultural interaction since the Bronze Age. As well as marking considerable progress in the three individual disciplines, by combining their converging evidence we show that the early spread of Transeurasian speakers was driven by agriculture.” ref

“In an attempt to identify the individual homelands of the five families making up the Transeurasian grouping, i.e. the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanicm and Japonic families. Combining various linguistic methods and principles such as the diversity hotspot principle, phylolinguistics, cultural reconstruction, and contact linguistics, researchers propose that the individual speech communities were originally familiar with millet agriculture, while terms for pastoralism or wetrice agriculture entered their vocabularies only at a later stage.” ref

“We further propose that the individual speech communities of Transeurasian grouping, i.e. the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic families were originally familiar with millet agriculture, while terms for pastoralism or wet rice agriculture entered their vocabularies only at a later stage.” ref 

“In this study, we retrieved the whole genome and Y chromosome lineage from late Neolithic Honghe individuals in the Middle Amur region in order to provide a bioarchaeological perspective on the origin and expansion of Transeurasian languages in the Amur River basin. Our genetic analysis reveals that the population of the Amur River basin has a stable and continuous genetic structure from the Mesolithic Age up to date. Integrating linguistic and archaeological evidence, we support the hypothesis that the expansion of the Transeurasian language system in the Amur River basin is related to the agricultural development and expansion of the southern Hongshan culture. The spread of agricultural technology resulted in the addition of millet cultivation to the original subsistence mode of fishing and hunting. It played a vital role in the expansion of the population of the region, which in its turn has contributed to the spread of language.” ref

“To understand the Neolithic farming expansions between the West Liao River Valley and the Yellow River Valley, we analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome of 48 individuals from two archeological sites, Jiangjialiang (>3000 BCE) and Sanguan (~1500 BCE). These two sites are situated between the two farming centers and experienced a subsistence shift from hunting to farming. We did not find a significant difference in the mtDNA, but their genetic variations in the Y chromosome were different. Individuals from the Jiangjialiang belonged to two Y haplogroups, N1 (not N1a or N1c) and N1c. The individuals from the Sanguan are Y haplogroup O3. Two stages of migration are supported. Populations from the West Liao River Valley spread south at about 3000 BCE, and a second northward expansion from the Yellow River Valley occurred later (3000–1500 BCE).” ref

“The Uralic languages form a language family of 42 languages spoken predominantly in Europe and North Asia. Theories proposing a close relationship with the Altaic languages (Transeurasian language) were formerly popular, based on similarities in vocabulary as well as in grammatical and phonological features, in particular the similarities in the Uralic and Altaic pronouns and the presence of agglutination in both sets of languages, as well as vowel harmony in some. For example, the word for “language” is similar in Estonian (keel) and Mongolian (хэл (hel)). These theories are now generally rejected, and most such similarities are attributed to language contact or coincidence.” ref 

“We show that most Uralic speakers share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin, which suggests that the spread of Uralic languages involved at least some demic component. The linguistic landscape of North Eurasia is dominated by three language families—Turkic, Indo-European (IE), and Uralic. It has recently been shown that the spread of Turkic languages was mediated by gene flow from South Siberia. Similarly, ancient DNA evidence of a major episode of gene flow from the Ponto-Caspian Steppe Belt to Central Europe and Central Asia during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (BA) has been interpreted as supporting the ‘Steppe Hypothesis’ of the spread of IE languages. However, while historical linguists have some level of consensus over the origin and spread of the Uralic languages and archaeologists have views about the dynamics of material culture over the relevant time and space, the genetic history of Uralic-speaking populations has remained poorly known. The Uralic family contains 40–50 different languages and covers a vast territory, mainly from the shores of the Baltic Sea in Europe to the West Siberian Plain and the Taymyr Peninsula in Asia (Fig. 1a). According to the classical view, the Uralic languages derive from a protolanguage that split into two major branches—the Finno-Ugric (FU) and the Samoyed. The suggested age of the Uralic language family is 6,000–4,000 years years ago. The most widely accepted hypotheses place the homeland of the Uralic language family into the watershed of river Volga and its tributaries Oka and Kama, while some scholars propose a Siberian homeland. Sampled populations (Estonians, Udmurts or Khanty vs others) with high versus low probability to share their patrilineal ancestry in chrY haplogroup N.” ref

“It is generally considered that N-M231 arose in East Asia approximately 19,400 (±4,800) years ago and populated northern Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. Males carrying the marker apparently moved northwards as the climate warmed in the Holocene, migrating in a counter-clockwise path, to eventually become concentrated in areas as far away as Fennoscandia and the Baltic. The apparent dearth of haplogroup N-M231 amongst Native American peoples indicates that it spread after Beringia was submerged, about 11,000 years ago. It has been found with greatest frequency among indigenous peoples of Russia, including Finnic peoples, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, Khanty, Mansi, Nenets, Nganasans, Turkic peoples (Yakuts, Dolgans, Khakasses, Tuvans, Tatars, Chuvashes, etc.), Buryats, Tungusic peoples (Evenks, Evens, Negidals, Nanais, etc.), Yukaghirs, Luoravetlans (Chukchis, Koryaks), and Siberian Eskimos, but certain subclades are very common in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and other subclades are found at low frequency in China (Yi, Naxi, Lhoba, Han Chinese, etc.). Especially in ethnic Finnic peoples and Baltic-speaking peoples of northern Europe, the Ob-Ugric-speaking and Northern Samoyed peoples of western Siberia, and Turkic-speaking peoples of Russia (especially Yakuts, but also Altaians, Shors, Khakas, Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs).” ref

“Nearly all members of haplogroup N among these populations of northern Eurasia belong to subclades of either haplogroup N-CTS6128/M2048 or haplogroup N-P43. N1(xN1a,N1c) was found in ancient bones of Liao civilization:

• Niuheliang (Hongshan Culture, 6500–5000 years ago) 66.7%
• Halahaigou (Xiaoheyan Culture, 5000–4200 years ago) 100.0%
• Dadianzi (Lower Xiajiadian culture, 4200–3600 years ago) 60.0%” ref

“A sample excavated at the Houtaomuga site in the Yonghe neighborhood of Honggangzi Township, Da’an, Jilin, China dating back to 7430–7320 years ago (Phase II of the Early Neolithic) has been found to belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N and mtDNA haplogroup B4c1a2. This sample is autosomally identical with the Neolithic Amur River Basin populations, of which Nivkh people are the closest modern representative. As the paper detected this ancestry in terminal Pleistocene USR1 specimen in Alaska, it is therefore, postulated that there was gene flow from Amur to America of a population belonging to a hypothetical Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Nivkh linguistic family. N has also been found in many samples of Neolithic human remains exhumed from Liao civilization in northeastern China, and in the circum-Baikal area of southern Siberia. It is suggested that yDNA N, reached southern Siberia from 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. From there it reached southern Europe 8,000-10,000 years ago.” ref

“Haplogroup N1c is found chiefly in north-eastern Europe, particularly in Finland (61%), Lapland (53%), Estonia (34%), Latvia (38%), Lithuania (42%) and northern Russia (30%), and to a lower extent also in central Russia (15%), Belarus (10%), eastern Ukraine (9%), Sweden (7%), Poland (4%) and Turkey (4%). N1c is also prominent among the Uralic speaking ethnicities of the Volga-Ural region, including the Udmurts (67%), Komi (51%), Mari (50%), and Mordvins (20%), but also among their Turkic neighbors like the Chuvashs (28%), Volga Tatars (21%) and Bashkirs (17%), as well as the Nogais (9%) of southern Russia. N1c represents the western extent of haplogroup N, which is found all over the Far East (China, Korea, Japan), Mongolia, and Siberia, especially among Uralic speakers of northern Siberia. Haplogroup N1 reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 95% in the Nenets (40% N1c and 57% N1b) and Nganassans (all N1b), two Uralic tribes of central-northern Siberia, and 90% among the Yakuts (all N1c), a Turkic people who live mainly in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic in central-eastern Siberia.” ref

“Haplogroup N is a descendant of East Asian macro-haplogroup NO. It is believed to have originated in Indochina or southern China approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. Haplogroup N1* and N1c were both found at high frequency (26 out of 70 samples, or 37%) in Neolithic and Bronze Age remains (4500-700 BCE) from the West Liao River valley in Northeast China (Manchuria) by Yinqiu Cui et al. (2013). Among the Neolithic samples, haplogroup N1 made up two thirds of the samples from the Hongshan culture (4700-2900 BCE) and all the samples from the Xiaoheyan culture (3000-2200 BCE), hinting that N1 people played a major role in the diffusion of the Neolithic lifestyle around Northeast China, and probably also to Mongolia and Siberia.” ref

“Ye Zhang et al. 2016 found 100% of Y-DNA N out of 17 samples from the Xueshan culture (Jiangjialiang site) dating from 3600–2900 BCE, and among those 41% belonged to N1c1-Tat. It is therefore extremely likely that the N1c1 subclade found in Europe today has its roots in the Chinese Neolithic. It would have progressively spread across Siberia until north-eastern Europe, possibly reaching the Volga-Ural region around 5500 to 4500 BCE with the Kama culture (5300-3300 BCE), and the eastern Baltic with the Comb Ceramic culture (4200-2000 BCE), the presumed ancestral culture of Proto-Finnic and pre-Baltic people. There is little evidence of agriculture or domesticated animals in Siberia during the Neolithic, but pottery was widely used. In that regard it was the opposite development from the Near East, which first developed agriculture then only pottery from circa 5500 BCE, perhaps through contact with East Asians via Siberia or Central Asia.” ref

“The phylogeny of N1c1 shows that the split between Balto-Finnic and Uralic (including Ugric) peoples took place around 4400 years ago, downstream of the L1026 mutation, almost exactly at the start of the Kiukainen culture. The Uralic branch (Z1934) formed first, around 4200 years ago, followed by the Ugric branch (Y13850) and eventually the Balto-Finnic branch (VL29) 3600 years ago. The latter immediately split between the Chudes (CTS9976), to the east, and the Balto-Finns (L550) to the west. The Fennoscandians (Y4706) and Balts (M2783) bifurcated around 2600 years ago. The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a, and Proto-Uralic N1c1 gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Proto-Uralic and Northeast Indo-European populations.” ref

“The Turkic language family is currently regarded as one of the world’s primary language families. Turkic is one of the main members of the controversial Altaic language family, but Altaic currently lacks support from a majority of linguists. Some linguists suggested a relation to Uralic languages, especially to the Ugric languages. This view is rejected and seen as obsolete by mainstream linguists. Similarities are because of language contact and borrowings mostly from Turkic into Ugric languages. Stachowski (2015) states that any relation between Turkic and Uralic must be a contact one.” ref 

“Proto-Turkic (3000 – c. 500 BCE) is the linguistic reconstruction of the common ancestor of the Turkic languages that was spoken by the Proto-Turks before their divergence into the various Turkic peoples. Proto-Turkic separated into Oghur (western) and Common Turkic (eastern) branches. Candidates for the proto-Turkic homeland range from western Central Asia to Manchuria, with most scholars agreeing that it lay in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe, while one author has postulated that Proto-Turkic originated 2,500 years ago in East Asia.” ref

“Haplogroup N is seen in Yakuts, Turkic People, Liao Civilization, Xinglonggou, Xinglongwa culture, Zhaobaogou culture, Xinle culture, Hongshan culture, Lower Xiajiadian culture, Upper Xiajiadian culture, Yangshao culture, Sino-Tibetan Languages, Cishan culture, Peiligang culture, Jiahu, Beixin culture, Houli culture, Majiayao culture, Qijia culture, Dawenkou culture, Liangzhu culture, and Hemudu culture.” ref

“The Xinglongwa culture (興隆洼文化) (6200–5400 BC) was a Neolithic culture in northeastern China, found mainly around the Inner Mongolia–Liaoning border at the Liao River basin. Xinglongwa pottery was primarily cylindrical and baked at low temperatures. The Xinglongwa culture showed several signs of communal planning. At three Xinglongwa sites, houses were built in rows. Several Xinglongwa sites also featured a large central building. In addition, several Xinglongwa sites were surrounded by ditches.” ref

“The type site at Xinglongwa is located on the southwest side of a hill at Aohan Banner, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia; the site is named after a village 1.3 km to the southeast of the site. 120 pit-houses were discovered at Xinglongwa. Each home had a hearth at its center. Xinglongwa also featured a large building in the center of the village. Xinglongwa is the earliest discovered site in China to be surrounded by a ditch. Xinglongwa also featured an unusual burial custom, as some bodies were buried directly under the houses. Jade objects were also discovered. In the most lavish grave, a man was buried with a pair of pigs, as well as jade objects.” ref

“According to the study of 34 sets of human remains from Xinglongwa in-house burials, male individuals apparently predominate over female individuals at roughly 2:1 ratio (23 males vs. 11 females). Within the male group, no individuals were identified as being over 55 in age, whereas all of females belong to middle-to-old age group (no one younger than 35 years old). The youngest individuals examined were at age 13 or 14, so it’s suspected that children before mature sex-awareness might not have been buried in-house. From examined samples, the average height of males was between 163.8 cm and 168.8 cm, while the average height of females was between 153.4 cm – 159.9 cm. According to some papers, the Xinglongwa are perhaps the distant ancestors of the present-day Northeast Asian peoples that belong to the proposed “Transeurasian” (aka Altaic) language family, but this view has also been criticized. The recently discovered site at Xinglonggou is the only site of the culture to show evidence of any sort of agriculture, with evidence of millet remains. Some of the oldest Comb Ceramic artifacts were found in the Xinglongwa culture. A bone flute with five finger holes was also found at a Xinglongwa site.” ref

“The Zhaobaogou culture (Chinese: 趙宝溝文化) (5400–4500 BCE) was a Neolithic culture in northeast China, found primarily in the Luan River valley in Inner Mongolia and northern Hebei. The culture produced sand-tempered, incised pottery vessels with geometric and zoomorphic designs. The culture also produced stone and clay human figurines. The type site at Zhaobaogou, excavated in 1986, was discovered in Aohan Banner, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia. The site covers an area of around 90,000 m².” ref

“The Hongshan culture (simplified Chinese: 红山文化; traditional Chinese: 紅山文化; pinyin: Hóngshān wénhuà) was a Neolithic culture in the West Liao river basin in northeast China. Hongshan sites have been found in an area stretching from Inner Mongolia to Liaoning, and dated from about 4700 to 2900 BCE. In northeast China, Hongshan culture was preceded by Xinglongwa culture (6200–5400 BCE), Xinle culture (5300–4800 BCE), and Zhaobaogou culture, which may be contemporary with Xinle and a little later. A genetic study by Yinqiu Cui et al. from 2013 analyzed the Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup based N subclade; it found that DNA samples from 63% of the combined samples from various Hongshan archaeological sites belonged to the subclade N1 (xN1a, N1c) of the paternal haplogroup N-M231 and calculated N to have been the predominant haplogroup in the region in the Neolithic period at 89%, with its share gradually declining over time. Today, this haplogroup is found in northern Han, Mongols, Manchu, Oroqen, Xibe and Hezhe at low frequencies. Other paternal haplogroups identified in the study were C and O3a (O3a3), both of which predominate among the present-day inhabitants of the region.” ref

“Nelson et al. 2020 attempts to link the Hongshan culture to a “Transeurasian” (Altaic) linguistic context. According to a study on genetic distance measurements from a large scale genetic study from 2021 titled ‘Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia’, hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the Amur River Basin have ancestry shared by Mongolic and Tungusic language speakers, but they did not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry, contradicting the Transeurasian hypothesis proposed by Martine Robbeets et al. that the expansion of West Liao River farmers spread these proto-languages. A 2020 study discovered substantial genetic changes in the West Liao River region over time. An increase in the reliance on millet farming between the Middle-to-Late Neolithic is associated with higher genetic affinity to the Yellow River basin (generally associated with speakers of the Sino-Tibetan languages), while a partial switch to pastoralism in the Bronze Age Upper Xiajiadian culture is associated with a decrease in this genetic affinity. After the Late Neolithic, there was a sharp transition from Yellow River to Amur River-related genetic profiles (associated with speakers of Tungusic languages) around the West Liao River. This increase in Amur River affinity corresponds with the transition to a pastoral economy during the Bronze Age. A 2021 study found that Yellow River millet farmers from the modern-day provinces of Henan and Shandong had played an important role in the formation of Hongshan people or their descendants via both inland and coastal northward migration routes.” ref

“The Hongshan culture region was thought to have been desert for the past 1 million years. However, a 2015 study found that the region once featured rich aquatic resources and deep lakes and forests that existed from 12,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago. It was changed into desert by climate change which began approximately 4,200 years ago. Therefore, some of the people of the Hongshan culture may have emigrated south to the Yellow River valley approximately 4,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence discovered at the Miaozigou site in Ulanqab, Inner Mongolia, a northern branch of the Yangshao culture from the Yellow River (the Yangshao culture is speculated to be the origin of the Sino-Tibetan languages) demonstrates similarities in the material cultures between the Yellow River and Liao River cultures. Three individuals from the Miaozigou site belonged to haplogroup N1(xN1a, N1c), while the main lineage of Yellow River valley cultures is O3-M122. The existence of N1(xN1a, N1c) among the Miaozigou individuals could serve as evidence for the migration of some of the Hongshan people. Some Chinese archaeologists such as Guo Da-shun see the Hongshan culture as an important stage of early Chinese civilization. Whatever the linguistic affinity of the ancient denizens, Hongshan culture is believed to have exerted an influence on the development of early Chinese civilization. The culture may have also contributed to the development of settlements in ancient Korea. However, the Hongshan culture is also commonly employed in Korean pseudohistory by some Korean scholars, who seek to contest any connections between the Hongshan culture with Chinese civilization and assert that the Hongshan culture is only related to Korean civilization.” ref  

“Chinese shamanism, alternatively called Wuism (Chinese: 巫教; pinyin: wū jiào; lit. ‘wu religion’, ‘shamanism‘, ‘witchcraft‘; alternatively 巫觋宗教 wū xí zōngjiào), refers to the shamanic religious tradition of China. Its features are especially connected to the ancient Neolithic cultures such as the Hongshan culture. Chinese shamanic traditions are intrinsic to Chinese folk religion.” ref

“The archaeological site at Niuheliang is a unique ritual complex associated with the Hongshan culture. Excavators have discovered an underground temple complex—which included an altar—and also cairns in Niuheliang. The temple was constructed of stone platforms, with painted walls. Archaeologists have given it the name “Goddess Temple” (Chinese: 女神庙; pinyin: nüshenmiao) due to the discovery of a clay female head with jade inlaid eyes. It was an underground structure, 1m deep. Included on its walls are mural paintings. Housed inside the Goddess Temple are clay figurines as large as three times the size of real-life humans. The exceedingly large figurines are possibly deities, but for a religion not reflective in any other Chinese culture. The existence of complex trading networks and monumental architecture (such as pyramids and the Goddess Temple) point to the existence of a “chiefdom” in these prehistoric communities. Painted pottery was also discovered within the temple. Over 60 nearby tombs have been unearthed, all constructed of stone and covered by stone mounds, frequently including jade artifacts. Cairns were discovered atop two nearby hills, with either round or square stepped tombs, made of piled limestone. Entombed inside were sculptures of dragons and tortoises. It has been suggested that religious sacrifice might have been performed within the Hongshan culture. Just as suggested by evidence found at early Yangshao culture sites, Hongshan culture sites also provide the earliest evidence for feng shui. The presence of both round and square shapes at Hongshan culture ceremonial centres suggests an early presence of the gaitian cosmography (“round heaven, square earth”). Early feng shui relied on astronomy to find correlations between humans and the universe.” ref

“Recent research indicates a common origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan languages with the Cishan, Yangshao, and/or Majiayao cultures. The Yangshao culture (Chinese: 仰韶文化; pinyin: Yǎngsháo wénhuà) was a Neolithic culture that existed extensively along the middle reaches of the Yellow River in China from around 5000 – 3000 BCE.” ref

“Turkic Shamanism: Tengrism (also known as Tengriism, Tengerism, or Tengrianism) is a religion originating in the Eurasian steppes, based on shamanism and animism. It generally involves the titular sky god Tengri, who is not considered a deity in the usual sense but a personification of the universe. According to some scholars, adherents of Tengrism view the purpose of life to be in harmony with the universe. It was the prevailing religion of the Göktürks, Xianbei, Bulgars, Xiongnu, Yeniseian, and Mongolic peoples and Huns, as well as the state religion of several medieval states such as the First Turkic Khaganate, the Western Turkic Khaganate, the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, Old Great Bulgaria, the First Bulgarian Empire, Volga Bulgaria, Khazaria, and the Mongol Empire. In the Irk Bitig, a ninth century manuscript on divination, Tengri is mentioned as Türük Tängrisi (God of Turks). According to many academics, Tengrism was, and to some extent still is, a predominantly polytheistic religion based on the shamanistic concept of animism, and was first influenced by monotheism during the imperial period, especially by the 12th–13th centuries. Abdulkadir Inan argues that Yakut and Altai shamanism are not entirely equal to the ancient Turkic religion.” ref

“The term tengri (compare with Kami) can refer to the sky deity Tenger Etseg – also Gök Tengri; Sky father, Blue sky – or to other deities. The name Tengri (“the Sky”) is derived from Old Turkic: Tenk (“daybreak”) or Tan (“dawn”). Meanwhile, Stefan Georg proposed that the Turkic Tengri ultimately originates as a loanword from Proto-Yeniseian *tɨŋgɨr- “high”. Mongolia is sometimes poetically called the “Land of Eternal Blue Sky” (Mönkh Khökh Tengeriin Oron) by its inhabitants. According to some scholars, the name of the important deity Dangun (also Tangol) (God of the Mountains) of the Korean folk religion is related to the Siberian Tengri (“Heaven”), while the bear is a symbol of the Big Dipper (Ursa Major).” ref

“The nature of this religion remains debatable. According to many scholars, it was originally polytheistic, but a monotheistic branch with the sky god Kök-Tengri as the supreme being evolved as a dynastical legitimation. It is at least agreed that Tengrism formed from the diverse folk religions of the local people and may have had diverse branches. It is suggested that Tengrism was a monotheistic religion only at the imperial level in aristocratic circles,  and, perhaps, only by the 12th-13th centuries (a late form of development of ancient animistic shamanism in the era of the Mongol empire). Others point out that Tengri itself was never an Absolute, but only one of many gods of the upper world, the sky deity, of polytheistic shamanism, later known as Tengrism.On a scale of complexity Tengrism lies somewhere between the Proto-Indo-European religion (a pre-state form of pastoral shamanism on the western steppe) and its later form the Vedic religion. The chief god Tengri (“Heaven”) is considered strikingly similar to the Indo-European sky god *Dyḗus and the East Asian Tian (Chinese: “Sky; Heaven”). The structure of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion is actually closer to that of the early Turks than to the religion of any people of neolithic European, Near Eastern or Mediterranean antiquity.” ref

“The first time the name Tengri was recorded in Chinese chronicles was from the 4th century BCE as the sky god of the Xiongnu, using the Chinese form 撐犁 (chēnglí, Old Chinese /*rtʰaːŋ.riːl/). Tengrism formed from the various Turkic and Mongolic folk religions, which had a diverse number of deities, spirits and gods. Turkic folk religion was based on Animism and similar to various other religious traditions of Siberia, Central Asia and Northeast Asia. Ancestor worship played an important part in Tengrism. The cult of Heaven-Tengri is fixed by the Orkhon, or Old Turkic script used by the Göktürks (“celestial Turks”) and other early khanates during the 8th to 10th centuries. Tengrism was probably similar with the folk traditions of the Tungusic peoples, such as the Manchu folk religion. Similarities with Korean shamanism and Wuism as well as Japanese Shinto are also evident. Tengrists view their existence as sustained by the eternal blue sky (Tengri), the fertile mother-earth spirit (Eje), and a ruler regarded as the chosen one by the holy spirit of the sky. Heaven, earth, spirits of nature, and ancestors provide for every need and protect all humans. By living an upright, respectful life, a human will keep his world in balance and perfect his personal Wind Horse, or spirit.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

“A study combining linguistic, genetic and archaeological evidence has traced the origins of a family of languages including modern Japanese, Korean, Turkish and Mongolian and the people who speak them to millet farmers who inhabited a region in north-eastern China about 9,000 years ago.” ref

“The Mongolic languages possible precursor to Mongolic is the Xianbei language, heavily influenced by the Proto-Turkic (later, the Lir-Turkic) language. Pre-Proto-Mongolic has borrowed various words from Turkic languages. Pre-Proto-Mongolic, from approximately the 4th century CE until the 12th century CE, influenced by Shaz-Turkic. Proto-Mongolic, from approximately the 13th century, spoken around the time of Chinggis Khan. Middle Mongol, from the 13th century until the early 15th century or late 16th century, depending on classification spoken. (Given the almost entire lack of written sources for the period in between, an exact cutoff point cannot be established.) Again influenced by Turkic.” ref

“The Tungusic languages /tʊŋˈɡʊsɪk/ (also known as Manchu–Tungus and Tungus) form a language family spoken in Eastern Siberia and Manchuria by Tungusic peoples. Some linguists estimate the divergence of the Tungusic languages from a common ancestor spoken somewhere in Eastern Manchuria around 500 BCE to 500 CE. Some linguists believe there are connections between the vowel harmony of Proto-Tungusic and some of the neighboring non-Tungusic languages. For example, there are proposals for an areal or genetic correspondence between the vowel harmonies of Proto-Korean, Proto-Mongolian, and Proto-Tungusic based on an original RTR harmony. Alexander Vovin (2015) notes that Northern Tungusic languages have Eskimo–Aleut loanwords that are not found in Southern Tungusic, implying that Eskimo–Aleut was once much more widely spoken in eastern Siberia. Vovin (2015) estimates that the Eskimo–Aleut loanwords in Northern Tungusic had been borrowed no more than 2,000 years ago, which was when Tungusic was spreading northwards from its homeland in the middle reaches of the Amur River. Liu et al. (2020)  revealed that Haplogroup C-F5484 and its subclades are the genetic markers of Tungusic-speaking peoples. C-F5484 emerged 3,300 years ago and began to diverge 1,900 years ago, indicating the approximate age of differentiation of Tungusic languages. Tungusic is today considered a primary language family. Especially in the past, some linguists linked Tungusic with Turkic and Mongolic languages, among others, in either the Altaic or the Transeurasian language family. However, the proposal that there are genetic rather than merely areal links remains highly controversial.” ref

“Broomcorn and foxtail millets were being cultivated in the West Liao River basin in Northeast China by at least the sixth millennium BCE. However, when and how millet agriculture spread from there to the north and east remains poorly understood. Here, we trace the dispersal of millet agriculture from Northeast China to the Russian Far East and weigh demic against cultural diffusion as mechanisms for that dispersal. We compare two routes for the spread of millet into the Russian Far East discussed in previous research—an inland route across Manchuria, and a coastal/inland route initially following the Liaodong Peninsula and Yalu River—using an archaeological dataset including millet remains, pottery, stone tools, spindle whorls, jade and figurines. We then integrate the archaeological evidence with linguistic and genetic findings in an approach we term ‘triangulation’. We conclude that an expansion of agricultural societies in northeast China during the Middle to Late Hongshan (4000-3000 BCE) coincided with the arrival of millet cultivation in eastern Heilongjiang and the Primorye province of the Russian Far East. Our findings support the inland, Manchuria route for the dispersal of millet to the Primorye and suggest that, as well as long-distance cultural exchange, demic diffusion was also involved. Our results are broadly compatible with the farming/language dispersal hypothesis and consistent with a link between the spread of millet farming and proto-Tungusic, the language ancestral to the contemporary Tungusic languages, in late Neolithic Northeast Asia.” ref

“A long history of material exchanges between the two regions led Kuzmin to suggest cultural diffusion as the most likely explanation for this process. Kuzmin (2013: 5) shows three possible routes for millet dispersals from Northeast China to the Russian Far East but does not discuss details. Vostretsov (2005) outlined two routes of millet dispersal with population migrations from Northeast China to the Primorye: the first along the valley of the Tumen river (southern route) and the second along the Razdol’naya (Suifen) river (northern route). Vostretsov linked these migrations to the appearance and expansion of the Zaisanovka culture or Zaisanovka cultural tradition.” ref

“There is currently no standard interpretation of the ‘Zaisanovka culture’ in the archaeology of the Russian Far East. There are three main terms in use for this phenomenon: ‘Zaisanovka culture’; ‘Zaisanovka Neolithic (cultural) community’. Although the latter two terms are not commonly used, the debate over terminology seems to be the result of the complicated nature of the archaeological phenomenon itself, as well as the incomplete process of analysis and systematisation. Zaisanovka was certainly a cultural community prolonged in time and space. All specialists agree that the sites belonging to this ‘culture’, or ‘cultural tradition/community’, show some variability of artifact typology, while certain permanent, stable features are also noted. However, a common explanation of this variability has not yet been adopted. In general, it is widely assumed that this cultural/archaeological phenomenon was the result of wave-like processes of population migration from Northeast China. However, concrete details of this migration and the formation of new cultural unities in the Primorye region are not yet clear. In this article we use the term ‘Zaisanovka culture’, taking into account the obvious temporal and spatial variability of this ‘culture’.” ref

“Most scholars believe that Japonic was brought to northern Kyushu from the Korean peninsula around 700 to 300 BC by wet-rice farmers of the Yayoi culture and spread throughout the Japanese archipelago, replacing indigenous languages. Proto-Japonic, Proto-Japanese, or Proto-Japanese–Ryukyuan is the reconstructed language ancestral to the Japonic language family.” ref 

“There are 98 Transeurasian languages, including Korean, Japanese, various Turkic languages in parts of Europe, Anatolia, Central Asia and Siberia, various Mongolic languages and various Tungusic languages in Manchuria and Siberia. This language family’s beginnings were traced to Neolithic millet farmers in the Liao River valley, an area encompassing parts of the Chinese provinces of Liaoning and Jilin and the region of Inner Mongolia. As these farmers moved across north-eastern Asia over thousands of years, the descendant languages spread north and west into Siberia and the steppes and east into the Korean peninsula and over the sea to the Japanese archipelago.” ref

“The Cishan culture (6500–5000 BCE) was a Neolithic culture in northern China, on the eastern foothills of the Taihang Mountains. The Cishan culture was based on the farming of broomcorn millet, the cultivation of which on one site has been dated back 10,000 years. The people at Cishan also began to cultivate foxtail millet around 8700 years ago. However, these early dates have been questioned by some archaeologists due to sampling issues and lack of systematic surveying. Common artifacts from the Cishan culture include stone grinders, stone sickles and tripod pottery. The sickle blades feature fairly uniform serrations, which made the harvesting of grain easier. Cord markings, used as decorations on the pottery, was more common compared to neighboring cultures. Also, the Cishan potters created a broader variety of pottery forms such as basins, pot supports, serving stands, and drinking cups. Since the culture shared many similarities with its southern neighbor, the Peiligang culture, both cultures were sometimes previously referred to together as the Cishan-Peiligang culture or Peiligang-Cishan culture. The Cishan culture also shared several similarities with its eastern neighbor, the Beixin culture. However, the contemporary consensus among archaeologists is that the Cishan people were members of a distinct culture that shared many characteristics with its neighbors. This culture has been linked to the origin of the Sino-Tibetan language family.” ref

Millet agriculture dispersed from Northeast China to the Russian Far East: Integrating archaeology, genetics, and linguistics

“Abstract: Broomcorn and foxtail millets were being cultivated in the West Liao River basin in Northeast China by at least the sixth millennium BCE. However, when and how millet agriculture spread from there to the north and east remains poorly understood. Here, we trace the dispersal of millet agriculture from Northeast China to the Russian Far East and weigh demic against cultural diffusion as mechanisms for that dispersal. We compare two routes for the spread of millet into the Russian Far East discussed in previous research—an inland route across Manchuria, and a coastal/inland route initially following the Liaodong Peninsula and Yalu River—using an archaeological dataset including millet remains, pottery, stone tools, spindle whorls, jade and figurines. We then integrate the archaeological evidence with linguistic and genetic findings in an approach we term ‘triangulation’. We conclude that an expansion of agricultural societies in Northeast China during the Middle to Late Hongshan (40003000 BCE) coincided with the arrival of millet cultivation in eastern Heilongjiang and the Primorye province of the Russian Far East. Our findings support the inland, Manchuria route for the dispersal of millet to the Primorye and suggest that, as well as long-distance cultural exchange, demic diffusion was also involved. Our results are broadly compatible with the farming/language dispersal hypothesis and consistent with a link between the spread of millet farming and proto-Tungusic, the language ancestral to the contemporary Tungusic languages, in late Neolithic Northeast Asia.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

32,000-21,000 years ago, Yana Culture, at the Yana Woolly Rhinoceros Horn Site in Siberia, with genetic proximity to Ancient North Eurasian populations (Mal’ta, Afontova Gora), but also Ust-Ishim, Sunghir, and to a lesser extent Tianyuan, as well as similarities with the Clovis culture

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

People may have first seen the Shaman Rock with the natural brown rock formation resembling a dragon between 30,000 to 25,000 years ago.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

People reached Lake Baikal Siberia around 25,000 years ago. They (to Damien) were likely Animistic Shamanists who were also heavily totemistic as well. Being animistic thinkers they likely viewed amazing things in nature as a part of or related to something supernatural/spiritual (not just natural as explained by science): spirit-filled, a sprit-being relates to or with it, it is a sprit-being, it is a supernatural/spiritual creature, or it is a great spirit/tutelary deity/goddess-god. From there comes mythology and faith in things not seen but are believed to somehow relate or interact with this “real world” we know exists.

Both areas of Lake Baikal, one on the west side with Ancient North Eurasian culture and one on the east side with Ancient Northern East Asian culture (later to become: Ancient Northeast Asian culture) areas are the connected areas that (to Damien) are the origin ancestry religion area for many mythologies and religious ideas of the world by means of a few main migrations and many smaller ones leading to a distribution of religious ideas that even though are vast in distance are commonly related to and centering on Lake Baikal and its surrounding areas like the Amur region and Altai Mountains region.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Here are my thoughts/speculations on where I believe is the possible origin of shamanism, which may have begun sometime around 35,000 to 30,000 years ago seen in the emergence of the Gravettian culture, just to outline his thinking, on what thousands of years later led to evolved Asian shamanism, in general, and thus WU shamanism as well. In both Europe-related “shamanism-possible burials” and in Gravettian mitochondrial DNA is a seeming connection to Haplogroup U. And the first believed Shaman proposed burial belonged to Eastern Gravettians/Pavlovian culture at Dolní Věstonice in southern Moravia in the Czech Republic, which is the oldest permanent human settlement that has ever been found. It is at Dolní Věstonice where approximately 27,000-25,000 years ago a seeming female shaman was buried and also there was an ivory totem portrait figure, seemingly of her.

And my thoughts on how cultural/ritual aspects were influenced in the area of Göbekli Tepe. I think it relates to a few different cultures starting in the area before the Neolithic. Two different groups of Siberians first from northwest Siberia with U6 haplogroup 40,000 to 30,000 or so. Then R Haplogroup (mainly haplogroup R1b but also some possible R1a both related to the Ancient North Eurasians). This second group added its “R1b” DNA of around 50% to the two cultures Natufian and Trialetian. To me, it is likely both of these cultures helped create Göbekli Tepe. Then I think the female art or graffiti seen at Göbekli Tepe to me possibly relates to the Epigravettians that made it into Turkey and have similar art in North Italy. I speculate that possibly the Totem pole figurines seen first at Kostenki, next went to Mal’ta in Siberia as seen in their figurines that also seem “Totem-pole-like”, and then with the migrations of R1a it may have inspired the Shigir idol in Russia and the migrations of R1b may have inspired Göbekli Tepe.

Seeming Connections: Totem poles, Ceremonial poles, Spirit poles, Sacred poles, Deity poles, Deities with poles, Pole star, Axis Mundi, Sacred trees, World tree, Maypole, Sun Dance with poles, etc.

Göbekli Tepe Shamanism

Shamanism at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey. Methodological contributions to an archaeology of belief

by Oliver Dietrich

From the journal Praehistorische Zeitschrift

“Abstract: The term shamanism is widely used in archaeology to describe early belief systems. Sometimes, this has taken the form of a one-size-fits-all-explanation, without a discussion of the concept or the cultural contexts it was applied to. Recently, the Early Neolithic (9600–7000 BCE) of southwestern Asia has become a focal point of this discussion. Sites like Nevalı Çori, Göbekli Tepe, Jerf el Ahmar, Körtik Tepe, Tell Abr’3, Tell Qaramel, Wadi Faynan 16, Karahantepe and Sayburç have produced rich evidence, mostly of an iconographical nature, that seems to offer direct insights into early belief systems. The current contribution uses one of the best-researched sites, Göbekli Tepe, as a case study to develop criteria for the identification of shamanism in the archaeological record.” ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)

Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American (AB/ANA)

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)

Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)

Western Steppe Herders (WSH)

Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG)

Early European Farmers (EEF)

Jōmon people (Ainu people OF Hokkaido Island) 

Neolithic Iranian farmers (Iran_N) (Iran Neolithic)

Amur Culture (Amur watershed)

Haplogroup R possible time of origin about 27,000 years in Central Asia, South Asia, or Siberia:

• Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (24,000-15,000 years ago)
• Afontova Gora culture (21,000-12,000 years ago)
• Trialetian culture (16,000–8000 years ago)
• Samara culture (7,000-6,500 years ago)
• Khvalynsk culture (7,000-6,500 years ago)
• Afanasievo culture (5,300-4,500 years ago)
• Yamna/Yamnaya Culture (5,300-4,500 years ago)
• Andronovo culture (4,000–2,900 years ago) ref

Ancient North Eurasian  

“In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (often abbreviated as ANE) is the name given to an ancestral West Eurasian component that represents descent from the people similar to the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture and populations closely related to them, such as from Afontova Gora and the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site. Significant ANE ancestry are found in some modern populations, including Europeans and Native Americans.” ref   

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy“, the remains of an individual who lived during the Last Glacial Maximum, 24,000 years ago in central Siberia, Ancient North Eurasians are described as a lineage “which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe,” meaning that they diverged from Paleolithic Europeans a long time ago.” ref  

“The ANE population has also been described as having been “basal to modern-day Europeans” but not especially related to East Asians, and is suggested to have perhaps originated in Europe or Western Asia or the Eurasian Steppe of Central Asia. However, some samples associated with Ancient North Eurasians also carried ancestry from an ancient East Asian population, such as Tianyuan Man. Sikora et al. (2019) found that the Yana RHS sample (31,600 years ago) in Northern Siberia “can be modeled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians.” ref  

“Populations genetically similar to MA-1 were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance. Lazaridis et al. (2016:10) note “a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia.” The ancient Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were found to have a noteworthy ANE component at ~50%.” ref  

“According to Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018 between 14% and 38% of Native American ancestry may originate from gene flow from the Mal’ta–Buret’ people (ANE). This difference is caused by the penetration of posterior Siberian migrations into the Americas, with the lowest percentages of ANE ancestry found in Eskimos and Alaskan Natives, as these groups are the result of migrations into the Americas roughly 5,000 years ago.” ref   

“Estimates for ANE ancestry among first wave Native Americans show higher percentages, such as 42% for those belonging to the Andean region in South America. The other gene flow in Native Americans (the remainder of their ancestry) was of East Asian origin. Gene sequencing of another south-central Siberian people (Afontova Gora-2) dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures to that of Mal’ta boy-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref  

“The earliest known individual with a genetic mutation associated with blonde hair in modern Europeans is an Ancient North Eurasian female dating to around 16000 BCE or around 18,000 years ago from the Afontova Gora 3 site in Siberia. It has been suggested that their mythology may have included a narrative, found in both Indo-European and some Native American fables, in which a dog guards the path to the afterlife.” ref  

“Genomic studies also indicate that the ANE component was introduced to Western Europe by people related to the Yamnaya culture, long after the Paleolithic. It is reported in modern-day Europeans (7%–25%), but not of Europeans before the Bronze Age. Additional ANE ancestry is found in European populations through paleolithic interactions with Eastern Hunter-Gatherers, which resulted in populations such as Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers.” ref  

“The Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) split from the ancestors of European peoples somewhere in the Middle East or South-central Asia, and used a northern dispersal route through Central Asia into Northern Asia and Siberia. Genetic analyses show that all ANE samples (Afontova Gora 3, Mal’ta 1, and Yana-RHS) show evidence for minor gene flow from an East Asian-related group (simplified by the Amis, Han, or Tianyuan). In contrast, no evidence for ANE-related geneflow into East Asians (Amis, Han, Tianyuan), except the Ainu, was found.” ref  

“Genetic data suggests that the ANE formed during the Terminal Upper-Paleolithic (36,000 years ago) period from a deeply European-related population, which was once widespread in Northern Eurasia, and from an early East Asian-related group, which migrated northwards into Central Asia and Siberia, merging with this deeply European-related population. These population dynamics and constant northwards geneflow of East Asian-related ancestry would later gave rise to the “Ancestral Native Americans” and Paleosiberians, which replaced the ANE as dominant population of Siberia.” ref  

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians  

“Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly (75%) from ANE. It is represented by two individuals from Karelia, one of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, dated c. 8,400 years ago, the other of Y-haplogroup J, dated c. 7,200 years ago; and one individual from Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297, dated c. 7,600 years ago. This lineage is closely related to the ANE sample from Afontova Gora, dated c. 18 years ago. After the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, the Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) and EHG lineages merged in Eastern Europe, accounting for early presence of ANE-derived ancestry in Mesolithic Europe. Evidence suggests that as Ancient North Eurasians migrated West from Eastern Siberia, they absorbed Western Hunter-Gatherers and other West Eurasian populations as well.” ref  

“Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) is represented by the Satsurblia individual dated ~13,000 years ago (from the Satsurblia cave in Georgia), and carried 36% ANE-derived admixture. While the rest of their ancestry is derived from the Dzudzuana cave individual dated ~26,000 years ago, which lacked ANE-admixture, Dzudzuana affinity in the Caucasus decreased with the arrival of ANE at ~13,000 years ago Satsurblia.” ref  

“Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG) is represented by several individuals buried at Motala, Sweden ca. 6000 BCE or around 8,000 years ago. They were descended from Western Hunter-Gatherers who initially settled Scandinavia from the south, and later populations of EHG who entered Scandinavia from the north through the coast of Norway.” ref  

“Iran Neolithic (Iran_N) individuals dated ~8,500 years ago carried 50% ANE-derived admixture and 50% Dzudzuana-related admixture, marking them as different from other Near-Eastern and Anatolian Neolithics who didn’t have ANE admixture. Iran Neolithics were later replaced by Iran Chalcolithics, who were a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Near Eastern Levant Neolithic.” ref  

“Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American are specific archaeogenetic lineages, based on the genome of an infant found at the Upward Sun River site (dubbed USR1), dated to 11,500 years ago. The AB lineage diverged from the Ancestral Native American (ANA) lineage about 20,000 years ago.” ref 

“West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG) are a specific archaeogenetic lineage, first reported in a genetic study published in Science in September 2019. WSGs were found to be of about 30% EHG ancestry, 50% ANE ancestry, and 20% to 38% East Asian ancestry.” ref 

 “Western Steppe Herders (WSH) is the name given to a distinct ancestral component that represents descent closely related to the Yamnaya culture of the Pontic–Caspian steppe. This ancestry is often referred to as Yamnaya ancestry or Steppe ancestry.” ref  

“Late Upper Paeolithic Lake Baikal – Ust’Kyakhta-3 (UKY) 14,050-13,770 years ago were mixture of 30% ANE ancestry and 70% East Asian ancestry.” ref 

“Lake Baikal Holocene – Baikal Eneolithic (Baikal_EN) and Baikal Early Bronze Age (Baikal_EBA) derived 6.4% to 20.1% ancestry from ANE, while rest of their ancestry was derived from East Asians. Fofonovo_EN near by Lake Baikal were mixture of 12-17% ANE ancestry and 83-87% East Asian ancestry.” ref  

“Hokkaido Jōmon people specifically refers to the Jōmon period population of Hokkaido in northernmost Japan. Though the Jōmon people themselves descended mainly from East Asian lineages, one study found an affinity between Hokkaido Jōmon with the Northern Eurasian Yana sample (an ANE-related group, related to Mal’ta), and suggest as an explanation the possibility of minor Yana gene flow into the Hokkaido Jōmon population (as well as other possibilities). A more recent study by Cooke et al. 2021, confirmed ANE-related geneflow among the Jōmon people, partially ancestral to the Ainu people. ANE ancestry among Jōmon people is estimated at 21%, however, there is a North to South cline within the Japanese archipelago, with the highest amount of ANE ancestry in Hokkaido and Tohoku.” ref

ref

“MA-1 genetic affinities of Mal’ta–Buret’ culture.” ref

Mal’ta–Buret’ culture of Siberia near Lake Baikal

“The Mal’ta–Buret’ culture is an archaeological culture of c. 24,000 to 15,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic on the upper Angara River in the area west of Lake Baikal in the Irkutsk Oblast, Siberia, Russian Federation. The type sites are named for the villages of Mal’ta, Usolsky District, and Buret’, Bokhansky District (both in Irkutsk Oblast). And a buried boy whose remains were found near Mal’ta is usually known by the abbreviation MA-1, remains have been dated to 24,000 years ago. According to research published since 2013, MA-1 belonged to a population related to the genetic ancestors of Siberians, American Indians, and Bronze Age Yamnaya and Botai people of the Eurasian steppe. In particular, modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Mansi, and Selkup have been found to harbor a significant amount of ancestry related to MA-1.” ref

“MA-1 is the only known example of basal Y-DNA R* (R-M207*) – that is, the only member of haplogroup R* that did not belong to haplogroups R1, R2, or secondary subclades of these. The mitochondrial DNA of MA-1 belonged to an unresolved subclade of haplogroup U. The term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) has been given in genetic literature to an ancestral component that represents descent from the people similar to the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture or a population closely related to them. A people similar to MA1 and Afontova Gora were important genetic contributors to Native Americans, Siberians, Northeastern Europeans, Caucasians, Central Asians, with smaller contributions to Middle Easterners and some East Asians. Lazaridis et al. (2016) notes “a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia.” MA1 is also related to two older Upper Paleolithic Siberian individuals found at the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site called Ancient North Siberians (ANS).” ref

“The arrival of haplogroup R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, and the east-west diffusion of pottery through North Eurasia.” https://indo-european.eu/2018/02/the-arrival-of-haplogroup-r1a-m417-in-eastern-europe-and-the-east-west-diffusion-of-pottery-through-north-eurasia/

Ancient North Eurasian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian

Ancient North Eurasian/Mal’ta–Buret’ culture haplogroup R* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta%E2%80%93Buret%27_culture

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“The arrival of haplogroup R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, and the east-west diffusion of pottery through North Eurasia.” ref 

ref

“Indo-Uralic (or Early PIE and Pre-Uralic near each other, for those who don’t support a genetic relationship of Indo-European and Uralic) must have been spoken in Eastern Europe before ca. 5000 BCE. The development of that loose community in Eastern Europe after the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic transition may have accompanied the formation of EHG ancestry, and thus potentially the westward expansion of haplogroup R1a-M17, the eastward expansion of haplogroup R1b-P297, or both. The spread of Elshanian pottery from the east, then the Middle Eastern Neolithisation wave spreading from the west, as well as the in situ formation of an early Khvalynsk – Sredni Stog cultural-historical community from an admixture with local cultures in the Pontic-Caspian steppe offers the most likely ethnolinguistic community to be associated with Indo-Uralic speakers.” ref

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer

“In archaeogenetics, the term Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG), sometimes East European Hunter-Gatherer, or Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer is the name given to a distinct ancestral component that represents Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe. The Eastern Hunter Gatherer genetic profile is mainly derived from Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry, which was introduced from Siberia, with a secondary and smaller admixture of European Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG). Still, the relationship between the ANE and EHG ancestral components is not yet well understood due to lack of samples that could bridge the spatiotemporal gap.” ref

“During the Mesolithic, the EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Along with Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHG) and Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), the EHGs constituted one of the three main genetic groups in the postglacial period of early Holocene Europe. The border between WHGs and EHGs ran roughly from the lower Danube, northward along the western forests of the Dnieper towards the western Baltic Sea. During the Neolithic and early Eneolithic, likely during the 4th millennium BC EHGs on the Pontic–Caspian steppe mixed with Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHGs) with the resulting population, almost half-EHG and half-CHG, forming the genetic cluster known as Western Steppe Herder (WSH). WSH populations closely related to the people of the Yamnaya culture are supposed to have embarked on a massive migration leading to the spread of Indo-European languages throughout large parts of Eurasia.” ref

“Haak et al. (2015) identified the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) as a distinct genetic cluster in two males only. The EHG male of Samara (dated to ca. 5650-5550 BCE) carried Y-haplogroup R1b1a1a* and mt-haplogroup U5a1d. The other EHG male, buried in Karelia (dated to ca. 5500-5000 BCE) carried Y-haplogroup R1a1 and mt-haplogoup C1g. The authors of the study also identified a Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) cluster and a Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG) cluster, intermediate between WHG and EHG. They suggested that EHGs harbored mixed ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians (ANEs) and WHGs. Researchers have proposed various admixture proportion models for EHGs from WHGs and ANEs.  Posth et al. (2023) found that most EHG indivduals carried 70% ANE ancestry and 30% WHG ancestry. The high contribution from Ancient North Eurasians is also visible in a subtle affinity of the EHG to the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan man from Northern China, which can be explained by geneflow from a Tianyuan-related source into the ANE lineage (represented by Malta and Afontova Gora 3), which later substantially contributed to the formation of the EHG.” ref

“EHGs may have mixed with “an Armenian-like Near Eastern source”, which formed the Yamnaya culture, as early as the Eneolithic (5200-4000 BCE). The people of the Yamnaya culture were found to be a mix of EHG and a “Near Eastern related population”. During the 3rd millennium BC, the Yamnaya people embarked on a massive expansion throughout Europe, which significantly altered the genetic landscape of the continent. The expansion gave rise to cultures such as Corded Ware, and was possibly the source of the distribution of Indo-European languages in Europe. The people of the Mesolithic Kunda culture and the Narva culture of the eastern Baltic were a mix of WHG and EHG, showing the closest affinity with WHG. Samples from the Ukrainian Mesolithic and Neolithic were found to cluster tightly together between WHG and EHG, suggesting genetic continuity in the Dnieper Rapids for a period of 4,000 years. The Ukrainian samples belonged exclusively to the maternal haplogroup U, which is found in around 80% of all European hunter-gatherer samples.” ref

“The people of the Pit–Comb Ware culture (PCW/CCC) of the eastern Baltic bear 65% EHG ancestry. This is in contrast to earlier hunter-gatherers in the area, who were more closely related to WHG. This was demonstrated using a sample of Y-DNA extracted from a Pit–Comb Ware individual. This belonged to R1a15-YP172. The four samples of mtDNA extracted constituted two samples of U5b1d1, one sample of U5a2d, and one sample of U4a. Günther et al. (2018) analyzed 13 SHGs and found all of them to be of EHG ancestry. Generally, SHGs from western and northern Scandinavia had more EHG ancestry (ca 49%) than individuals from eastern Scandinavia (ca. 38%). The authors suggested that the SHGs were a mix of WHGs who had migrated into Scandinavia from the south, and EHGs who had later migrated into Scandinavia from the northeast along the Norwegian coast. SHGs displayed higher frequences of genetic variants that cause light skin (SLC45A2 and SLC24A5), and light eyes (OCA/Herc2), than WHGs and EHGs.” ref

“Members of the Kunda culture and Narva culture were also found to be more closely related with WHG, while the Pit–Comb Ware culture was more closely related to EHG. Northern and eastern areas of the eastern Baltic were found to be more closely related to EHG than southern areas. The study noted that EHGs, like SHGs and Baltic hunter-gatherers, carried high frequencies of the derived alleles for SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, which are codings for light skin. Mathieson et al. (2018) analyzed the genetics of a large number of skeletons of prehistoric Eastern Europe. Thirty-seven samples were from Mesolithic and Neolithic Ukraine (9500-6000 BCE). These were classified as intermediate between EHG and SHG. The males belonged exclusively to R haplotypes (particularly subclades of R1b1 and R1a) and I haplotypes (particularly subclades of I2). Mitochondrial DNA belonged almost exclusively to U (particularly subclades of U5 and U4).” ref

“A large number of individuals from the Zvejnieki burial ground, which mostly belonged to the Kunda culture and Narva culture in the eastern Baltic, were analyzed. These individuals were mostly of WHG descent in the earlier phases, but over time EHG ancestry became predominant. The Y-DNA of this site belonged almost exclusively to haplotypes of haplogroup R1b1a1a and I2a1. The mtDNA belonged exclusively to haplogroup U (particularly subclades of U2, U4 and U5). Forty individuals from three sites of the Iron Gates Mesolithic in the Balkans were estimated to be of 85% WHG and 15% EHG descent. The males at these sites carried exclusively R1b1a and I (mostly subclades of I2a) haplotypes. mtDNA belonged mostly to U (particularly subclades of U5 and U4). People of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture were found to harbor about 20% hunter-gatherer ancestry, which was intermediate between EHG and WHG.” ref

“Narasimshan et al. (2019) coined a new ancestral component, West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG). WSHGs contained about 20% EHG ancestry, 73% ANE ancestry, and 6% East Asian ancestry. Unlike the Yamnaya culture, in the Dnieper–Donets culture no Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) or Early European Farmer (EEF) ancestry has been detected. Dnieper-Donets males and Yamnaya males carry the same paternal haplogroups (R1b and I2a), suggesting that the CHG and EEF admixture among the Yamnaya came through EHG males mixing with EEF and CHG females. According to David W. Anthony, this suggests that the Indo-European languages were initially spoken by EHGs living in Eastern Europe. Other studies have suggested that the Indo-European language family may have originated not in Eastern Europe, but among West Asian populations.” ref

“The EHGs are suggested to have had mostly brown eyes and light skin,  with “intermediate frequencies of the blue-eye variants” and “high frequencies of the light-skin variants.”  An EHG from Karelia was determined by Günther (2018) to have high probabilities of being brown-eyed and dark haired, with a predicted intermediate skin tone. Another EHG from Samara was predicted to be light skinned, and was determined to have a high probability of being blue-eyed with a light hair shade, with a 75% calculated probability of being blond-haired. The rs12821256 allele of the KITLG gene that controls melanocyte development and melanin synthesis, which is associated with blond hair and first found in an individual from Siberia dated to around 17,000 years ago, is found in three Eastern Hunter-Gatherers from Samara, Motala and Ukraine c. 10,000 years ago, suggesting that this allele originated in the Ancient North Eurasian population, before spreading to western Eurasia.” ref

“Many remains of East Hunter-Gatherers dated to circa 8,100 years ago (6,100 BCE) have also been excavated at Yuzhny Oleny island in Lake Onega. The Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry is by far the main component of the Yuzhny Oleny group, and is among the highest within the rest of the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG). As hunter-gatherers, the EHGs initially relied on stone tools and artifacts derived from ivory, horns or antlers. From circa 5,900 BCE, they started to adopt pottery in the area of the northern Caspian Sea, or possibly from beyond the Ural. In barely three or four centuries, pottery spread over a distance of about 3,000 kilometers, reaching as far as the Baltic sea. This technological spread was much faster than the spread of agriculture itself, and mainly occurred through technology transfer between hunter-gatherer groups, rather than through the demic diffusion of agriculturalist.” ref

Pic ref, ref

Bridging the Boreal Forest: Siberian Archaeology and the Emergence of Pottery among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia

ref

Haplogroup N

“Haplogroup N (M231) is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup defined by the presence of the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker M231.^{[Phylogenetics 1]} It is most commonly found in males originating from northern Eurasia. It also has been observed at lower frequencies in populations native to other regions, including parts of the Balkans, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Haplogroup NO-M214 – its most recent common ancestor with its sibling, haplogroup O-M175 – is estimated to have existed about 36,800–44,700 years ago. It is generally considered that N-M231 arose in East Asia approximately 19,400 (±4,800) years ago and populated northern Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. Males carrying the marker apparently moved northwards as the climate warmed in the Holocene, migrating in a counter-clockwise path, to eventually become concentrated in areas as far away as Fennoscandia and the Baltic (Rootsi et al. 2006). The apparent dearth of haplogroup N-M231 amongst Native American peoples indicates that it spread after Beringia was submerged (Chiaroni, Underhill & Cavalli-Sforza 2009), about 11,000 years ago.” ref

“Haplogroup N has a wide geographic distribution throughout northern Eurasia, and it also has been observed occasionally in other areas, including Central Asia and the Balkans. It has been found with greatest frequency among indigenous peoples of Russia, including Finnic peoples, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, Khanty, Mansi, Nenets, Nganasans, Turkic peoples (Yakuts, Dolgans, Khakasses, Tuvans, Tatars, Chuvashes, etc.), Buryats, Tungusic peoples (Evenks, Evens, Negidals, Nanais, etc.), Yukaghirs, Luoravetlans (Chukchis, Koryaks), and Siberian Eskimos, but certain subclades are very common in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and other subclades are found at low frequency in China (Yi, Naxi, Lhoba, Han Chinese, etc.). Especially in ethnic Finnic peoples and Baltic-speaking peoples of northern Europe, the Ob-Ugric-speaking and Northern Samoyed peoples of western Siberia, and Turkic-speaking peoples of Russia (especially Yakuts, but also Altaians, Shors, Khakas, Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs). Nearly all members of haplogroup N among these populations of northern Eurasia belong to subclades of either haplogroup N-Tat or haplogroup N-P43.” ref

“N1(xN1a,N1c) was found in ancient bones of Liao civilization:

• Niuheliang (Hongshan Culture, 6500–5000 BP) 66.7%(=4/6)
• Halahaigou (Xiaoheyan Culture, 5000–4200 BP) 100.0%(=12/12)
• Dadianzi (Lower Xiajiadian culture, 4200–3600 BP) 60.0%(=3/5).” ref

Y-chromosome haplogroup N dispersals from south Siberia to Europe

“Subclusters of haplogroups N3a, N3a1, and N3a2, are characterized by different genetic histories. Age calculation of subcluster N3a1 indicated that its first expansion occurred in south Siberia [approximately 10,000 years ago] and then this subcluster spread into Eastern Europe where its age was around 8,000 years ago. Meanwhile, younger subcluster N3a2 originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region) approximately 4,000 years ago and suggests that south Siberian N3a2 haplotypes spread further into the Volga-Ural region (a historical region in Eastern Europe, in what is today Russia) undergoing serial bottlenecks.” ref

Mt-chromosome haplogroup N in Africa

“Our research reveals that the Neolithic Saharan individuals from Takarkori present a haplotype not previously identified in Africa, that belongs to a basal branch of haplogroup N. Ancestral mitochondrial N lineage from the Neolithic ‘green’ Sahara. ~7000-year-old individuals from Takarkori Rockshelter seen in the Mitochondrial genomes from two individuals from Takarkori rockshelter, Libya, representing the earliest and first genetic data for the Sahara region. These individuals carry a novel mutation motif linked to the haplogroup N root. Our result demonstrates the presence of an ancestral lineage of the N haplogroup in the Holocene “Green Sahara”, associated with a Middle Pastoral (Neolithic) context. The Arabian Peninsula represents a possible area where this occurred and a cradle from which the new branches spread toward Eurasia and back to Africa, including N1a and R0a, both of which are found in East Africa.” ref

“Individuals carrying a N haplogroup basal lineage could have followed the same dispersion pattern as U6: their legacy could have been survived up to ∼7000 years ago in the central Sahara thanks to the climatic conditions previously described, but replaced and disappeared in other parts of North Africa. Genomic data for seven 15,000-year-old individuals attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture in Taforalt (Morocco) suggest a connection with Epipaleolithic Natufians around 15,000–11,500 years ago (present-day Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) from the Near East, while seem to exclude a possible gene flow from Upper Paleolithic Europe. Our samples postdate the Taforalt individuals by up to 8,000 years and belong to Neolithic pastoral cultures of the Middle Holocene. It is known that livestock was introduced from Southwest Asia and early pastoralist connections between Northeast Africa and Arabia are indicated by a few sites along the Red Sea with sheep/goat dated to ~8,100–7,500  years ago. Thus, the spread of pastoralism from the Levant to Northeast Africa could probably represent the context for the introgression of the N haplogroup into the central Sahara, even if it is commonly associated with derivative lineages (N1). It is worth noting, however, that when geometric morphometric analysis of the skull of TK RS H1 is compared with a large published dataset it shows closer affinities with sub-Saharan contests, such as Gobero in Niger whose occupation is dated from ~9,600–4,800 years ago. Unfortunately, no genetic data are available for this region that could help understanding the possible origin of the haplotype found at Takarkori.” ref

“N1a originated in the Near East 12,000 to 32,000 years ago. Specifically, the Arabian Peninsula is postulated as the geographic origin of N1a. This supposition is based on the relatively high frequency and genetic diversity of N1a in modern populations of the peninsula. The exact origins and migration patterns of this haplogroup are still the subject of some debate. Haplogroup N1a is widely distributed throughout Europe, Northeast Africa, the Near East, and Central Asia. It is divided into the European/Central Asian and African/South Asian branches based on specific genetic markers. The tree of N1a has two distinct branches: Africa/South Asia and Europe with a Central Asian subcluster. However, the African branch has members in southern Europe, and the European branch has members in Egypt and the Near East. The Africa/South Asia branch is characterized by the 16147G mutation, whereas the European branch is characterized by 16147A, 3336, and 16320. The Central Asian subcluster is an offshoot of the European branch that is characterized by marker 16189. Subclade N1a1 is associated with mutation 16147A. Palanichamy calculates N1a1 to have emerged between 8,900 and 22,400 years ago. Subclade N1a1a is denoted by marker 16320, and is therefore associated with the European N1a branch. Petraglia estimates that N1a1a arose between 11,000 and 25,000 years ago.” ref

Natufian culture DNA

“A sub-Saharan African component in Natufians that localizes to present-day southern Ethiopia.” ref

“An estimation for Holocene-era Near Easterners (e.g., Mesolithic Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Mesolithic and Neolithic Iranians, and Natufians) suggests that they formed from up to 70% Basal Eurasian ancestry (mean average 50% Basal and 50% ‘unknown hunter-gatherer’), with the remainder being closer to Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) and or Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). The Mesolithic and Neolithic Iranian lineage is inferred to derived around 66% (66±13%) and 62% ancestry from Basal Eurasians respectively, with the remainder of ancestry being made up by Ancient North Eurasian or Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) like ancestry, while Natufians derived between 60-70% ancestry from Basal Eurasians, with the remainder ancestry being closer to Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG). The Ancient North African Iberomaurusian (Taforalt) individuals were found to have harbored ~65% West Eurasian-like ancestry and were considered likely direct descendants of such “Basal Eurasian” population. However, they were shown to be genetically closer to Holocene-era Iranians and Levantine populations, which already harbored increased archaic (Neanderthal) admixture. Early European Farmers (EEFs), who had some Western European Hunter-Gatherer-related ancestry and originated in the Near East, also derive approximately 30% (to up to 44%) of their ancestry from this hypothetical Basal Eurasian lineage. An Upper Paleolithic specimen from Kotias Klde cave in the Caucasus (Caucasus_25,000BP) had around 24% Basal Eurasian and 76% Upper Paleolithic European ancestry.” ref

“Ancient DNA analysis has confirmed the genetic relationship between Natufians and other ancient and modern Middle Easterners and the broader West Eurasian meta-population (i.e. Europeans and South-Central Asians). The Natufian population displays also ancestral ties to Paleolithic Taforalt samples, the makers of the Epipaleolithic Iberomaurusian culture of the Maghreb, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture of the Levant, the Early Neolithic Ifri N’Amr Ou Moussa culture of the Maghreb, the Late Neolithic Kelif el Boroud culture of the Maghreb, with samples associated with these early cultures all sharing a common genomic component dubbed the “Natufian component”, which diverged from other West Eurasian lineages ~26,000 years ago, and is most closely linked to the Arabian lineage.” ref

“Individuals associated with the Natufian culture have been found to cluster with other West Eurasian populations, but also have substantial higher ancestry that can be traced back to the hypothetical “Basal Eurasian” lineage, which contributed in varying degrees to all West Eurasian lineages, except the Ancient North Eurasians, and peaks among modern Gulf Arabs. The Natufians were already differentiated from other West Eurasian lineages, such as the Anatolian farmers north of the Levant, that contributed to the peopling of Europe in significant amounts, and who had some Western Hunter Gatherer-like (WHG) inferred ancestry, in contrast to Natufians who lacked this component (similar to Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros mountains). This might suggest that different strains of West Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers, as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers. Contact between Natufians, other Neolithic Levantines, Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (CHG), Anatolian, and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreased genetic variability among later populations in the Middle East.” ref

“Migrations from the Near-East also occurred towards Africa, and the West Eurasian geneflow into the Horn of Africa is best represented by the Levant Neolithic, and may be associated with the spread of Afroasiatic languages. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along the associated ancestral components. Alexander Militarev, Vitaly Shevoroshkin and others have linked the Natufian culture to the proto-Afroasiatic language, which they in turn believe has a Levantine origin. Some scholars, for example, Christopher Ehret, Roger Blench, and others, contend that the Afroasiatic Urheimat is to be found in North Africa or Northeast Africa, probably in the area of Egypt, the Sahara, Horn of Africa, or Sudan. Within this group, Ehret, who like Militarev believes Afroasiatic may already have been in existence in the Natufian period, would associate Natufians only with the Near Eastern Proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic.” ref

“According to ancient DNA analyses conducted in 2016 by Iosif Lazaridis et al. and discussed in two articles “The Genetic Structure of the World’s First Farmers” (June 2016) and “Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East (July 2016) on Natufian skeletal remains in the Raqefet Cave from present-day northern Israel, the remains of 5 Natufians carried the following paternal haplgroups:

Y-DNA

• E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b) – meaning an unspecified branch of E1b1b1b2
• E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) – i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1.
• E1b1b1 – originally classified as CT but further defined as E1b1b1 by Martiniano et al. 2020.” ref

“Daniel Shriner (2018) reported the following maternal haplogroups recovered from three of the same six males at the Raqefet Cave:

Mitochondrial DNA

• J2a2
• J2a2
• N1b

using modern populations as a reference, Shriner et al. also showed indicated Natufians carried 61.2% Arabian, 21.2% Northern African, 10.9% Western Asian, and a small amount of Eastern African ancestry at 6.8% which is associated with the modern Omotic-speaking groups of southern Ethiopia. The study also suggested that this component may be the source of Haplogroup E-M96 (particularly Y-haplogroup E-M215, also known as “E1b1b”) among Natufians.” ref

“Loosedrecht et al. (2018) argues that the Natufians had contributed genetically to the Iberomaurusian peoples of Paleolithic and Mesolithic northwest Africa, with the Iberomaurusians’ other ancestral component being a unique one of sub-Saharan Africa origin (having both West African-like and Hadza-like affinities). The Sub-Saharan African DNA in Taforalt individuals has the closest affinity, most of all, to that of modern West Africans (e.g., Yoruba, or Mende). In addition to having similarity with the remnant of a more basal Sub-Saharan African lineage (e.g., a basal West African lineage shared between Yoruba and Mende peoples), the Sub-Saharan African DNA in the Taforalt individuals of the Iberomaurusian culture may be best represented by modern West Africans.” ref

“Iosif Lazaridis et al. (2018), as summarized by Rosa Fregel (2021), contested the conclusion of Loosdrecht (2018) and argued instead that the Iberomaurusian population of Upper Paleolithic North Africa, represented by the Taforalt sample, can be better modeled as an admixture between a Dzudzuana-like [West-Eurasian] component and an “Ancient North African” component, “that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.” Iosif Lazaridis et al. (2018) also argued that an Iberomaurusian/Taforalt-like population contributed to the genetic composition of Natufians “and not the other way around”, and that this Iberomaurusian/Taforalt lineage also contributed around 13% ancestry to modern West Africans “rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source”. Fregel (2021) summarized: “More evidence will be needed to determine the specific origin of the North African Upper Paleolithic populations.” ref

Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck

“In human populations, changes in genetic variation are driven not only by genetic processes, but can also arise from cultural or social changes. An abrupt population bottleneck specific to human males has been inferred across several Old World (Africa, Europe, Asia) populations 5000–7000 years ago. Here, bringing together anthropological theory, recent population genomic studies, and mathematical models, we propose a sociocultural hypothesis, involving the formation of patrilineal kin groups and intergroup competition among these groups. Our analysis shows that this sociocultural hypothesis can explain the inference of a population bottleneck. We also show that our hypothesis is consistent with current findings from the archaeogenetics of Old World Eurasia, and is important for conceptions of cultural and social evolution in prehistory. Poznik et al. constructed a phylogenetic tree and observed star-like expansions of Y-chromosome lineages in the proposed bottleneck period; compare the clades indicated in Fig. 2 with the tree shape in Fig. 3, particularly under the O, R1a, and R1b Y-haplogroups.” ref

“In other words, social hierarchy and differences in material wealth show an increasing trend as one enters the Late Neolithic, up to the emergence of political complexity in the Old World, and we should therefore expect the bottleneck to increase in intensity, with the rising impact of wealth and social status on reproductive success in large-scale, stratified societies. However, the bottleneck lifts in each part of the Old World during precisely the period that coincides with the rise of regional polities, chiefdoms, and states. Therefore, trends in material and social inequality, which may increase male reproductive variance, do not appear to track changes in bottleneck intensity, and some other factor must have been responsible for the depression of Y-chromosomal diversity during the bottleneck period.” ref

“According to ancient DNA studies, most R1a and R1b lineages would have expanded from the Pontic Steppe along with the Indo-European languages. The age of R1 was estimated by Tatiana Karafet et al. (2008) at between 12,500 and 25,700 years ago, and most probably occurred about 18,500 years ago. Since the earliest known example has been dated at circa 14,000 years ago, and belongs to R1b1 (R-L754), R1b must have arisen relatively soon after the emergence of R1. Karafet T. et al. (2014) suggested that a “rapid diversification process of K-M526 likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q“. However the oldest example of R* has been found in an Ancient North Eurasian sample from Siberia (Mal’ta boy, 24,000 years ago), and its precursor P1 has been found in another Ancient North Eurasian sample from northern Siberia (Yana RHS) dating from c. 31,600 years ago.” ref

“R-V1636 (R1b1a2) is rare, but has been found in China, Bulgaria, Belarus, Southern Finland, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Russia (including a Tomsk Tatar), Italy (including one from the Province of Salerno), Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Canada, Germany, Valais, Israel, and Armenia.” ref

“R-V1636 ‘s paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-L389 and the rest of mankind around 15,000 BCE.” ref

“R1b1b (PF6279/V88; previously R1b1a2) is defined by the presence of SNP marker V88, the discovery of which was announced in 2010 by Cruciani et al. Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in the Sahel, especially among populations speaking Afroasiatic languages of the Chadic branch. Based on a detailed phylogenic analysis, D’Atanasio et al. (2018) proposed that R1b-V88 originated in Europe about 12,000 years ago and crossed to North Africa between 8000 and 7000 years ago, during the ‘Green Sahara‘ period. R1b-V1589, the main subclade within R1b-V88, underwent a further expansion around 5500 years ago, likely in the Lake Chad Basin region, from which some lines recrossed the Sahara to North Africa.” ref 

“Marcus et al. (2020) provide strong evidence for this proposed model of North to South trans-Saharan movement: The earliest basal R1b-V88 haplogroups are found in several Eastern European Hunter Gatherers close to 11,000 years ago. The haplogroup then seemingly spread with the expansion of Neolithic farmers, who established agriculture in the Western Mediterranean by around 7500 years ago. R1b-V88 haplogroups were identified in ancient Neolithic individuals in Germany, central Italy, Iberia, and, at a particularly high frequency, in Sardinia. A part of the branch leading to present-day African haplogroups (V2197) was already derived in Neolithic European individuals from Spain and Sardinia, providing further support for a North to South trans-Saharan movement.” ref

“European autosomal ancestry, mtDNA haplogroups, and lactase persistence alleles have also been identified in African populations that carry R1b-V88 at a high frequency, such as the Fulani and Toubou. The presence of European Neolithic farmers in Africa is further attested by samples from Morocco dating from c. 5400 BCE. Studies in 2005–08 reported “R1b*” at high levels in Jordan, Egypt and Sudan. Subsequent research by Myres et al. (2011) indicates that the samples concerned most likely belong to the subclade R-V88. According to Myres et al. (2011), this may be explained by a back-migration from Asia into Africa by R1b-carrying people. As can be seen in the above data table, R-V88 is found in northern Cameroon in west central Africa at a very high frequency, where it is considered to be caused by a pre-Islamic movement of people from Eurasia.” ref

 “Many linguists believe that Egyptian and Semitic are in the same Northern sub-branch of Afroasiatic (along with Berber), although even when they first appear they are very distinct (e.g. Blench, 2006). This, in turn, means that they shared a common ancestor a long time before they first appear, and that this common ancestor was a long time after the common ancestor of all Afroasiatic languages. For this reason, it is not controversial to propose that Afroasiatic languages may have
even began dispersing in the period 7,000-10,000 years ago, which brings us to the period of the Natufian culture in the Levant, a culture that preceded the first Neolithic farming technologies in the Middle East.” ref

“Linguistics and archaeology have a track record of at least some multi-disciplinary debate between the two fields, and there is, therefore, a body of literature that covers their joint efforts and disputes. As it happens, archaeologists tend to try to explain languages in terms of the material cultures they study, the most obvious one being the Neolithic technology “package.” Linguists tend to approach from another direction, comparing reconstructed vocabularies (concerning things like plants, animals, tools, traditions, etc) to archaeological evidence. This is a useful approach to trying to squeeze
more conclusions out of the little evidence available. From this material, we can summarize two broad options most prominently proposed by linguists concerning Afroasiatic, as championed by the linguists who have most addressed themselves to the archaeological question.” ref

1. “Alexander Militarev (2002, 2005) argues that Afroasiatic did not disperse from Africa, but rather the Levant. This is a minority position amongst linguists. He would equate proto-Afroasiatic with the pre-Neolithic Natufian culture, making it
approximately 10,000 years old, and he would associate its expansion with the later spread of farming technology to Africa. One distinctive aspect of this theory for linguists is the argument that Militarev sees evidence for a very ancient linguistic connection between Afroasiatic ( in his work, following Diakonoff) and some languages of Eurasia, for example in the Caucasus. Militarev works in the linguistic tradition of trying to find the faint signs of language connections going back before the recognized language families, to an ancient proposed language referred to as “Nostratic.” This approach is
controversial in linguistics because the seeming links which can be found between different language groups in this way are often so faint that many alternative theories can be found to fit the reconstructions.” ref

“Furthermore, Martin Bernal (1987) for example apparently accepts this Nostratic connection, but explains it as a language
dispersed from Africa, and similarly Keita (2005) proposes that Afroasiatic and Nostratic may be sibling language groups. Other linguists, apparently less convinced about Nostratic, are more willing to consider connections between Afroasiatic
and Elamite, in ancient Persia, and even Dravidian, in the Indian sub-continent (e.g. Blench, 2006). Most generally, even if there is strong evidence linking Afroasiatic to Asian languages, why should the very ancient implied language “super family” not have dispersed from Africa to Asia, rather than the other way around? Perhaps more importantly, Militarev (2005) also claims that Afroasiatic animal and plant words imply that the language originated in the Levant. In the archaeological field, Militarev finds favor with authors like Peter Bellwood (Diamond and Bellwood, 2003; Bellwood, 2004, 2005) who, in the tradition of Colin Renfrew, see a link between modern languages and the spread of Neolithic early farming and pottery technologies. This is the so called “farming/language dispersal hypothesis” (Bellwood and Renfrew, 2005 eds).” ref

2. “Christopher Ehret similarly equates an early Afroasiatic ( in his work) language with the Natufian culture was studied by archaeology, but he believes that this was a proto-Semitic branch of the language family, and that Afroasiatic as a whole had already been in existence long before the Natufian, at least as far back as 15,000 years ago (see Militarev, 2005 for his perspective on these ideas). In this scenario, Afroasiatic originates in (or near) the Horn of Africa, and was the carrier of a new and more intensive use of plant foods found in the wild, eventually including grass seeds. This way of life was an essential prior step to the Natufian, and in turn to true farming. Pastoralism, a minority proposes, may also have begun very early in Northern Africa, in what is now the Sahara (e.g. Barker, 2002). In terms of archaeological cultures Ehret has a clear proposal, apparently receiving support in comments published by Bar-Yosef (1987) and Keita and Boyce (2005): he believes the Natufian comes out of a mixing of the Mushabian culture, of the Negev and Sinai, with the related Kebaran culture, both of which preceded the Natufian in the Levant (Ehret, 2002, p.38). That the Mashubian blended with the Kebaran, and that the Natufian is descended from this mixture, is not particularly controversial, but it is not unanimously agreed upon within archaeology that either the Natufian or the Mashubian cultures are best explained as being wholly or partly from Africa as Ehret proposes. This is the theory presented in, for example, Bar-Yosef (1987) based upon lithic technologies.” ref

“Bar-Yosef (personal communication) also believes that evidence for the early introduction of the Sycamore Fig, into the Levant around the time of the Natufian gives additional strength to this theory. Coming to linguistic evidence, Ehret points out that Militarev’s reconstructed proto-Afroasiatic contains no indisputable common vocabulary for farming itself, while the major branches do. He believes that this shows that farming originated after Afroasiatic started to disperse from its original homeland. So the linguistics literature raises a range of possibilities about the connections of Afroasiatic to the early Neolithic archaeological cultures. All versions of them obviously allow room for at least some branches of Afroasiatic to have played a role in the spread of the very first farming technologies in the Neolithic of both the Levant and Africa. In the Ehret scenario, Afroasiatic was already old when a branch of it entered the Levant, along with people who helped trigger the slow changes which led to the Middle Eastern Neolithic.” ref

“Militarev makes Afroasiatic younger, but still significantly older than Neolithic technology. What other scenarios might be worth considering, if any, apart from the two most commonly cited categories above? The majority of linguists accept an African origin for Afroasiatic, but Militarev and Ehret both believe in a relatively old age for Afroasiatic. See, for example, Fakri Hassan (2002) for a cautious summary of the evidence. If we were to doubt this great age postulated by authors like Militarev and Ehret, but accept that proto-Afroasiatic was both pre-agricultural, and African, then the implication would be that Afroasiatic was a hitchhiker that entered very effectively into the whole complex of peoples involved in what became the Neolithic revolution and then proceeded to spread with them, especially in Africa, but also to a significant extent in parts of the Middle East. Is this a realistic scenario? We shall consider below what genetics could add to such a consideration.” ref

“At first sight, the relatively young field of population genetics seems to offer only limited assistance. However, turning to the latest chronology of E-M35 presented in Cruciani et al. (2004, 2007) the above two theories can both be made to fit with varying degrees of success. The following scenarios are attempts to show multidisciplinary correspondences by the present author. E-M35 spread northwards from the Horn of Africa, or nearby, at the right time to be involved in many phases of dispersion of new technologies in Northern and Eastern Africa, certainly at least including technologies which had crossed the Sinai from outside Africa. This implies that it was certainly near the Sinai at an early date, close to the Levant. By the time true farming arrived in Egypt, for example, E-M35 is likely to have been present there for a long time already. Cruciani et al. (2007) propose that its sub-clade E-M78 was founded somewhere near Egypt, very roughly 10,000 – 20,000 years ago. Afroasiatic languages could conceivably have begun to disperse much later than E-M35, and from a different homeland, only later entering into the E-M35 areas of Africa. Such a language expansion would not necessarily require a true migration of significant proportions of the population (“demicdiffusion”) which would perhaps involve the replacement of E-M35 male lines. Ethnic groups and regions can take up new languages more easily than they take up whole new sets of male lines.” ref

“In the simplest such scenario then, Afroasiatic languages first entered Africa in a region with a high E-M35 population, then integrated with that population, before dispersing further. In particular, Afroasiatic languages in Africa could have come from the Levant into Egypt, and then started to disperse together further with E-M35 lineages, including E-M78 lineages, from this starting point, more-or-less independently of Semitic languages dispersing outside Africa. Despite its large impact, the founding population that brought E-M35 lineages might have been established long before Afroasiatic languages arrived, with the Afroasiatic in this particular region bringing a new language, and possibly new technologies, but not the particular E-M81 lineage that has become so prevalent in the area. In summary, when we look at the siblings and “cousins” of E-M35 in its “family tree” we see very little evidence of origins to the north of the Sahara at all. The Horn of Africa seems to have had stronger prehistoric links with the regions west of it, towards the Nile and the southern edge of the Sahara, than to the Levant. It appears possible that it was only after E-M35 came into being that the E clade became involved in migrations both to the north, to the south. There also of course appears to be a history of constant but small links with the southern extremities of the Arabian peninsula, across the Red Sea to the East from the Horn of Africa, but these do not seem to be as large as connections within Africa, and there is little evidence that these lineages in the southern Arabian Peninsula are in any way parallel with other parts of the Middle East.” ref  

“By the time of the Natufian, E-M35 had dispersed at least as far as Egypt, which means it was at least in contact with the Natufian culture across the Sinai, possibly along the Mediterranean coast. It even seems very likely that both E-M35 and Afroasiatic languages were already in the Levant, and had come from Africa earlier. There is little doubt about some aspects of what happened next. With the development of farming technologies both Afroasiatic languages and E-M35 spread together from this Nile-delta/Levant “hub.” In one direction, the Middle East, they developed as one part of greater Fertile Crescent complex of cultures where Semitic languages only eventually attained their later prominence (Zarins 1990). In the other direction lay Africa, the homeland of E-M35, and probably also of Afroasiatic.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric

mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages

Abstract

“The North Eurasian forest and forest-steppe zones have sustained millennia of sociocultural connections among northern peoples. We present genome-wide ancient DNA data for 181 individuals from this region spanning the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age. We find that Early to Mid-Holocene hunter-gatherer populations from across the southern forest and forest-steppes of Northern Eurasia can be characterized by a continuous gradient of ancestry that remained stable for millennia, ranging from fully West Eurasian in the Baltic region to fully East Asian in the Transbaikal region. In contrast, cotemporaneous groups in far Northeast Siberia were genetically distinct, retaining high levels of continuity from a population that was the primary source of ancestry for Native Americans. By the mid-Holocene, admixture between this early Northeastern Siberian population and groups from Inland East Asia and the Amur River Basin produced two distinctive populations in eastern Siberia that played an important role in the genetic formation of later people. Ancestry from the first population, Cis-Baikal Late Neolithic-Bronze Age (Cisbaikal_LNBA), is found substantially only among Yeniseian-speaking groups and those known to have admixed with them. Ancestry from the second, Yakutian Late Neolithic-Bronze Age (Yakutia_LNBA), is strongly associated with present-day Uralic speakers. We show how Yakutia_LNBA ancestry spread from an east Siberian origin ~4.5kya, along with subclades of Y-chromosome haplogroup N occurring at high frequencies among present-day Uralic speakers, into Western and Central Siberia in communities associated with Seima-Turbino metallurgy: a suite of advanced bronze casting techniques that spread explosively across an enormous region of Northern Eurasia ~4.0kya. However, the ancestry of the 16 Seima-Turbino-period individuals–the first reported from sites with this metallurgy–was otherwise extraordinarily diverse, with partial descent from Indo-Iranian-speaking pastoralists and multiple hunter-gatherer populations from widely separated regions of Eurasia. Our results provide support for theories suggesting that early Uralic speakers at the beginning of their westward dispersal where involved in the expansion of Seima-Turbino metallurgical traditions, and suggests that both cultural transmission and migration were important in the spread of Seima-Turbino material culture.” ref

Ancient mDNA “N1a1a1” and Pottery from Turkey to Europe? People likely descended from central Anatolian populations with Pottery and mDNA “N1a1a1” such as Boncuklu/Çatalhöyük, spread to central Europe through NW Anatolia thousands of years later?