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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Indo-European language Trees fit an Agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8,000 – 9,500 years ago?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

My speculations on a likely “Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis”

To me, what I call “Paganism” starts around 12,000 years ago in Turkey/Anatolia in West Aisa. The odd thing is most of the world’s religious myths/fables start or commonly relate to “Siberia” like “Lake Baikal/Golden Mountains of Altai” region and “North China” like “Chertovy Vorota Cave (Devil’s Gate Cave)” area at 8,000/7,000 years ago and they were transferred to the Middle East as well as East Europe/Balkans/Ukraine/Russia.

Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis (by Damien Marie AtHope)

To me, Proto-Indo-European language starts in the steppe after leaving North Asia, then one part heads to #1 Turkey/Anatolia with “Anatolian language” maybe 9,000-8,000 years ago, and the other part to #2 Ukraine/Russia and the rest of Proto-Indo-European. Mythology started 7,000-8,000 or maybe 9,000 to 10,000 years ago in North Asia around the time of Millet agriculture. I think Proto-Indo-European is related to Dené–Caucasian languages, such as Pre/Proto-Yeniseian, or maybe Dené–Yeniseian language family, such as Pre/Proto-Na-Dené. If not that then, I surmise that Proto-Indo-European emerges or is connected with the distribution of the 98 “Transeurasian” languages, also called the Altaic language family, traced to Neolithic Millet farmers who inhabited a region in north-eastern China about 9,000 years ago. ref

“Some of the earliest evidence of Millet cultivation in China was found at Cishan (north), where proso millet husk phytoliths and biomolecular components have been identified around 10,300–8,700 years ago in storage pits along with remains of pit-houses, pottery, and stone tools related to millet cultivation.” ref

“Altaic (also called Transeurasian) is a sprachbund (i.e. a linguistic area) and controversial proposed language family that would include the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic language families and possibly also the Japonic and Koreanic languages. Speakers of these languages are currently scattered over most of Asia north of 35 °N and in some eastern parts of Europe, extending in longitude from Turkey to Japan. The group is named after the Altai mountain range in the center of Asia. The research on their supposedly common linguistics origin has inspired various comparative studies on the folklore and mythology among the Turks, Proto-Mongols and Tungus people.” ref

“Although Neolithic Northeast Asia was characterized by widespread plant cultivation, cereal farming expanded from several centers of domestication, the most important of which for Transeurasian was the West Liao basin, where cultivation of broomcorn millet started by 9000 years ago. In contrast to previously proposed homelands, which range from the Altai to the Yellow River to the Greater Khingan Mountains to the Amur basin, we find support for a Transeurasian origin in the West Liao River region in the Early Neolithic. After a primary break-up of the family in the Neolithic, further dispersals took place in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Common ancestral languages that separated in the Neolithic, such as Proto-Transeurasian, Proto-Altaic, Proto-Mongolo-Tungusic, and Proto-Japano-Koreanic, reflect a small core of inherited words that relate to cultivation (‘field’, ‘sow’, ‘plant’, ‘grow’, ‘cultivate’, ‘spade’); millets but not rice or other crops (‘millet seed’, ‘millet gruel’, ‘barnyard millet’); food production and preservation (‘ferment’, ‘grind’, ‘crush to pulp’, ‘brew’); textile production (‘sew’, ‘weave cloth’, ‘weave with a loom’, ‘spin’, ‘cut cloth’, ‘ramie’, ‘hemp’); and pigs as well as dogs as the only common domesticated animals.” ref

“Some of the earliest evidence of millet cultivation in China was found at Cishan (north), where proso millet husk phytoliths and biomolecular components have been identified around 10,300–8,700 years ago in storage pits along with remains of pit-houses, pottery, and stone tools related to millet cultivation. And as Asian varieties of millet made their way from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 5000 BCE or 7,000 years ago around the time proposed for the earliest Proto-Indo-European language in the same general area.” ref

“PIE is hypothesized to have been spoken as a single language from 4500 to 2500 BCE or 6,522-4,522 years ago just north of the Black Sea region of Europe during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, though estimates vary by more than a thousand years. According to the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of eastern Europe.” ref

“It was recently claimed by  University of Auckland scientists, that Proto-Indo-European is about 8,100 years old, with seven main branches already split off by about 7,000 years ago, claiming better data and methodologies than previous studies.” ref

“Some scholars, including Colin Renfrew, argue that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken about 9,000 years ago in Anatolia (Southern Turkey) and that its speakers spread, bringing farming technology alongside.” ref

I think the emergence of Pre-Proto-Indo-European is around 9,000 to 8,000 years ago. 

It thus seems not unlikely and highly probable that there may be a common connection of “Transeurasian” languages spreading with Millet from China and a new language family Proto-Indo-European emerges, right around the area Millet shows up, and at a similar time as well.

To me, along with this migration of peoples also carried with them a Paganistic-Shamanism with heavy totemism.

To me, paganism starts around 12,00 years ago in Turkey/Anatolia in Western Asia. The odd thing is most of the world’s religious myths/fables start or commonly relate to “Siberia” like “Lake Baikal/Golden Mountains of Altai” region and “North China like Chertovy Vorota Cave (Devil’s Gate Cave) area at about 8,000/7,000 years ago and they were transferred to the middle east and East Europe/Balkans/Ukraine/Russia.”

Neolithic Iran, Pottery, and New People related to Ancient North Eurasians (Pre/Proto-Yeniseian?) from Lake Baikal, and maybe language too that related to/inspired Proto-Indo-European languages.

“The Neolithic began in Iran about 10,000 years ago and ended about 7,500 years ago. The earliest Neolithic occurred before the use of hand-made, chaff-tempered pottery which appeared around 8,500 years ago. The Neolithic ended with the appearance of new styles of pottery, generally with designs painted in black on a buff background.” ref

“The early Neolithic (10,000-9,300 years ago) preceded the use of pottery, and tools were still made exclusively of flint or wood and fiber. Crude figurines of sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, cattle, and people were often made of unbaked clay (Daems). Well after the introduction of agriculture and the building of villages, clay was first used to make chaff-tempered pottery vessels. People sometimes wore bracelets, pendants, and beaded skirts, pierced their lips with labrets, and displayed deliberately deformed skulls. Burials were normally placed under the floors of houses or in an open part of the settlement, usually within the walls of an abandoned house. Tools for harvesting crops, butchering, working hides, and other tasks were made from flint, while grinding stones, mortars, and pestles were made from limestone. Native pure copper from the central Iranian plateau was hammered into beads and pins. Obsidian from central Anatolia, turquoise from Afghanistan, and shells from the Persian Gulf, all are found in Neolithic sites, indicating widespread contacts through trade and other means.” ref

“A human skull dating back to 9,000 years ago (Neolithic period) was found in the archeological site of Abdol-Hosseini hill in Delfan Country, Iran. Characteristics identified in the pelvis and the skull show that the skeleton belongs to a woman in 30s to 40s. The height of the skeleton is estimated to be between 157 to 165 centimeters based on the femur measurement. The most significant characteristic of the skeleton is seen in the skull which is supposed to be deformed by fastening a bandage around it in infancy. This has caused the frontal and occipital parts to become abnormally narrow. The temporal and parietal bones have been depressed and deepened and there is a projection in the frontal part of the skull as a result of the bandage. The practice of deforming the skull has also been seen in other Neolithic sites in Ganj Hill in Kermanshah and Alikosh in Ilam in the same period. Study shows that deformation of the skull was practiced in ancient times with social, ritual, and aesthetic purposes to make distinctions among different sexes or groups of people. Isotope testing on the teeth of skeletons found in Abdol-Hosseini Hill shows that people’s diet in that age was full of cereal. Abdol-Hosseini Hill is the seat of a primitive village dating back to Neolithic period – late 9th millennium BCE to mid-7th millennium BCE. Exploration of the site has found antiquities from both Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic periods.” ref

“Pottery Neolithic (PN), which had varied start-points from c. 6500 BCE or around 8500 years ago, until the beginnings of the Bronze Age towards the end of the 4th millennium (c. 3000 BCE or around 5,000 years ago).” ref

“Neolithic culture and technology were established in the Near East by 7000 BCE or around 9,000 years ago and there is increasing evidence through the millennium of its spread or introduction to Europe and the Far East. In most of the world, however, including north and western Europe, people still lived in scattered Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer communities. The Mehrgarh chalcolithic civilization began around 7000 BCE. “Sheep and goats were domesticated in South West Asia, probably in the region of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria between 8000 and 7500 BCE, and were part of the agricultural package that was transmitted to Greece and the Balkans during the pioneering movements in the seventh millennium. From there the herding of domesticated sheep and goats was gradually taken up by foraging communities in the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the sixth and fifth millennia and became an essential part of the herder economy.” ref

“Neolithic culture and technology reached modern Turkey and Greece c. 7000 BCE; and Crete about the same time. The innovations, including the introduction of farming, spread from the Middle East through Turkey and Egypt. There is evidence of domesticated sheep or goats, pigs, and cattle, together with grains of cultivated bread wheat. The domestication of pigs in Eastern Europe is believed to have begun c. 6800 BCE. The pigs may have descended from European wild boar or were probably introduced by farmers migrating from the Middle East. There is evidence, c. 6200 BCE, of farmers from the Middle East reaching the Danube and moving into Romania and Serbia. Farming gradually spread westward and northward over the next four millennia, finally reaching Great Britain and Scandinavia c. 3000 BCE to complete the transition of Europe from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BCE) began in Mesopotamia, its name derived from Tell al-‘Ubaid where the first significant excavation took place.” ref

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area Migration 1?

Pre-Ancient North Eurasian (Haplogroup R1a and R1b as well as R2 migrations from the Lake Baikal area)-derived admixture from the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area.

ref

Haplogroup migrations related to the Ancient North Eurasians: I added stuff to this map to help explain. 

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. 

To an Animistic Thinker: “Things are not just as they seem, they may have a spirit, or spirit energy relates to them” 

To a Totemistic Thinker: “Things are not just as they seem, they may have a spirit, or spirit energy relates to them; they may have religio-cultural importance.” 

“Ancient North Eurasian population had Haplogroups R, P, U, and Q DNA types: defined by maternal West-Eurasian ancestry components (such as mtDNA haplogroup U) and paternal East-Eurasian ancestry components (such as yDNA haplogroup P1 (R*/Q*).” ref 

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area Migration 2?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

One of which is related to Iran

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

Proto-Yeniseian

“Proto-Yeniseian or Proto-Yeniseic is the unattested reconstructed proto-language from which all Yeniseian languages are thought to descend from. It is uncertain whether Proto-Yeniseian had a similar tone/pitch accent system as Ket. Many studies about Proto-Yeniseian phonology have been done, however there are still many things unclear about Proto-Yeniseian. The probable location of the Yeniseian homeland is proposed on the basis of geographic names and genetic studies, which suggests a homeland in Southern Siberia. According to Vajda, Proto-Yeniseian had the following phonemes, expressed in IPA symbols.” ref

• *xuɬ ‘water’
• *xuše ‘birch tree’
• *am ‘mother’
• *ejn ‘wedge’
• *qed ‘man’
• *bes ‘rabbit’
• *don ‘knife’
• *kus ‘horse’
• *pub ‘son’
• *bus ‘penis’
• *satʳ ‘crucian (fish)’
• *baŋ ‘land’
• *tijk ‘snow’
• *bejx ‘wind’
• *tɬiwdʳ ‘lard’, ‘oil’
• *ɬaɢa ‘star’

Ket language

“The Ket language, or more specifically Imbak and formerly known as Yenisei Ostyak, is a Siberian language long thought to be an isolate, the sole surviving language of a Yeniseian language family. It is spoken along the middle Yenisei basin by the Ket people. Ket has three dialects: Southern, Central, and Northern. All the dialects are very similar to each other and Kets from different groups are able to understand each other. The most common southern dialect was used for the standardized written Ket. The three remaining Ket-majority localities natively speak different dialects. Southern Ket is spoken in Kellog, Central Ket in Surgutikha, and Northern Ket in Maduika. It is one of the few languages to lack both /p/ and /ɡ/, along with Arapaho, Goliath, and Efik, as well as classical Arabic and some modern Arabic dialects. Nouns have nominative basic case (subjects and direct objects) and a system of secondary cases for spatial relations. The three noun classes are: masculine, feminine, and inanimate. Unlike neighboring languages of Siberia, Ket makes use of verbal prefixes. Ket has two verbal declensions, one prefixed with d- and one with b-. The second-person singular prefixes on intransitive verbs are [ku-, ɡu-]. Ket has many loanwords from Russian, such as mora ‘sea’; there are also loanwords from other languages such as Selkup, for example: the word qopta ‘ox’ comes from the Selkup word qobda. Ket also has some Mongolian words, such as saˀj ‘tea’ from Mongolian tsaj. There are also words from Evenki, for example: the word saˀl ‘tobacco’ is possibly borrowed from Evenki sâr ‘tobacco.” ref

I feel that the Yeniseian language connection to proto-indo-european seems more likely to me, but as the Transeurasian languages seem to have started around 9,000 years ago and people from the heartland of transeurasian languages in the West Liao river basin in northeast China area later to involve the Hongshan culture (around 6,700 to 4,900 years ago) known/related for/to spreading the transeurasian languages into Korea and then Japan. This area of the transeurasian languages origin also is related to a migration just a little before 9,000 years ago (Haplogroups N1a2b-P43 and N1a2a-F1101 about 9300 years ago), that went to the Yeniseian languages origin area of Lake Baikal, in South Siberia, and thus it may have taken pre-proto-transeurasian languages. If this happened then there may have been a language transfer of so kind into the Yeniseian languages, there may also have been an influence of pre-proto-Yeniseian languages into the transeurasian languages as well.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

The Dnieper–Donets culture between 7,800/7,200 to 6,400/6,200 years ago, steppe and forest-steppe areas north of the Black Sea

5th—4th millennium BCE Dnieper–Donets culture and East Eurasian lineages (of C haplogroup, like C4a related to Tungusic peoples of Siberia) in ancient mtDNA from the North Pontic Region

“Evenks (Stony Tunguska) C4a2=7, C4a1c=6, C4b1=5, C5d1=4, C4b=3, C4b3=3, C4a1c1a=1, C5b1b=1

Evenks (Yakutia) C4b1=13, C4a1c=11, C4b9=9, C4a2=8, C4b=5, C5b1b=4, C5a2=3, C5d1=2, C4a1=1, C4a1d=1, C4b3a=1, C5a1=1

Evenks (Taimyr) C4a1c=5, C4b1=4, C4a1c1a=1, C4a2=1

Evenks (Nyukzha) C4a2=10, C4b1=3, C4a1c=2, C4a1d=1, C4b1a=1, C5a2=1, C7a1c=1

Evens (Sebjan) C4b=6, C4a1c=3, C5b1b=1

Evens (Tompo) C4a1c=6, C4a2=3, C4b=2, C4b1=2, C5d1=1

Evens (Yakutia) C4a1c=15, C5d1=11, C4a2=4, C4b3a=3, C4b1=2, C4b7=2, C4b9=2, C4b=2, C5a1=2, C7a1c=2, C4b1a=1, C4b2=1, C5a2a=1

Evens (Kamchatka) C4b1=6, C4b3a=3, C4a1c=2, C5a2=1, C5d1=1

Evens (Sakkyryyr) C4a1c=2, C4b=2, C4a1d=1, C4b1=1

Yukaghirs C4a1c=4, C4b3a=2, C4b7=2, C4a2=1, C5a2=1, C5d1=1

Yukaghirs (Yakutia) C4b3a=5, C5d1=3, C4a1c=1, C4a2=1, C4b1=1, C5a2a=1

Yakut (Central) C4a1c=16, C4a2=14, C5b1b=13, C4b1=8, C4a1d=7, C4b=4, C4b1a=3, C5a1=3, C4a1=2, C5b1a=2, C4b3a=1, C5a2=1, C7a1c=1

Yakut (Northern) C4a1c=17, C4b1=16, C4a2=11, C5b1a=4, C5b1b=4, C4b9=3, C4b=2, C5a1=2, C5d1=1

Yakut (Vilyuy) C4a1c=14, C4a2=10, C4b=5, C4b1=4, C4b1a=2, C5a2=2, C5b1b=2, C4a1=1

Dolgans C4a1c=33, C4b1=9, C5b1b=5, C4b3a=3, C4a2=2, C4b1a=2, C5b1a=2, C4b8=1, C4b=1, C5d1=1, C7a1c=1

Udegey C4b1=6, C4a1d=1

Barghut C4a1a1=6, C4a1a2=3, C4a1b2=3, C4a2a1=2, C4b1a=2, C4b1=2, C4=2, C5b=2, C4a1a=1, C4a1a1a2=1, C4a1a2a2=1, C4a2a2=1, C5a1=1, C5a2=1, C5b1a=1, C7=1

Sarikoli C4a1a+A14878G=2, C4a1=2, C4b1=1, C4+T152C!+T4742C+T8602C=1″ ref

“Western steppe herder genetics was a result of mixing between Eastern Hunter-Gatherers from Eastern Europe and Caucasus hunter-gatherers. This mixing happened on the eastern Pontic–Caspian steppe starting around 5,000 BCE or around 7,000 years ago.” ref 

“In archaeogenetics, the term Western Steppe Herders (WSH), or Western Steppe Pastoralists, is the name given to a distinct ancestral component first identified in individuals from the Eneolithic steppe around the turn of the 5th millennium BC, subsequently detected in several genetically similar or directly related ancient populations including the Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog, and Yamnaya cultures, and found in substantial levels in contemporary European, West Asian and South Asian populations. This ancestry is often referred to as Yamnaya Ancestry, Yamnaya-Related Ancestry, Steppe Ancestry, or Steppe-Related Ancestry.” ref

“Western Steppe Herders are considered descended from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs) who reproduced with Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHGs), and the WSH component is analyzed as an admixture of EHG and CHG ancestral components in roughly equal proportions, with the majority of the Y-DNA haplogroup contribution from EHG males. Around 3,000 BCE or around 5,000 years ago, people of the Yamnaya culture or a closely related group, who had high levels of WSH ancestry with some additional Neolithic farmer admixture, embarked on a massive expansion throughout Eurasia, which is considered to be associated with the dispersal of at least some of the Indo-European languages by most contemporary linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists.” ref

“Genomic studies also indicate that the Ancient North Eurasian (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 (10%–20%). Additional ANE ancestry is found in European populations through Paleolithic interactions with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers, which resulted in populations such as Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers. Kozintsev (2020) refers to the Ancient North Eurasians and their closest relatives, specifically Native Americans, Chukchi, Koryaks, Kets, Khakas, and Selkups, as well as the historical Southern Siberian Okunev population, as possessing a distinct craniometric phenotype, which he dubbed “Americanoid”, which represents the variation of the first humans in Siberia. He further argues that “As the geography and chronology of the ANE component show, it is misleading to describe it as Western Eurasian and associate it solely with ancient Caucasoids. To all appearances, it emerged before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split.” 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 and Afontova Gora), but also Ust-Ishim, Sunghir, and to a lesser extent Tianyuan, as well as similarities with the Clovis culture

Shaman Rock, on Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal, Siberia, with a natural rock image that resembles a dragon. And is one of the “Nine Holy Sites of Asia.”

Lake Baikal and Myths of Creation: Primordial waters, Supernatural Creatures of water, and the Mounds of creation

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Ancient North Eurasian

“A 2016 study found that the global maximum of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry occurs in modern-day Kets, Mansi, Native Americans, and Selkups. ANE ancestry has spread throughout Eurasia and the Americas in various migrations since the Upper Paleolithic, and more than half of the world’s population today derives between 5 and 42% of their genomes from the Ancient North Eurasians. Significant ANE ancestry can be found in Native Americans, as well as in regions of northern Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Siberia. It has been suggested that their mythology may have featured narratives shared by both Indo-European and some Native American cultures, such as the existence of a metaphysical world tree and a fable in which a dog guards the path to the afterlife.” ref

Ancient Northern East Asian/ later became Ancient Northeast Asian
Ancient Paleo-Siberian
Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (Mal’ta boy MA-1)

Ancestral Native American, Ancient Beringian

14,000-year-old Ust-Kyakhta-3 (UKY) individual found near Lake Baikal

Amur River Region

Chertovy Vorota Cave/Devil’s Gate Cave

Afanasievo culture

Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex

ref, ref, ref

Mal’ta–Buret’ culture of Siberia and Basal Haplogroup R* or R-M207

“The Mal’ta–Buret‘ culture is an archaeological culture of the Upper Paleolithic (around 24,000 to 15,000 years ago) 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).” ref

“The “Mal’ta Cluster” is composed of three individuals from the Glacial Maximum 24,000-17,000 years ago from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia.” ref

“From about 55,000 years ago to about 15,000 years ago, the mammoth hunters are distinguished by their yurts built of mammoth bones. During that time their physical appearance changed from the rugged Neanderthal type to the more modern type like ourselves. The architecture of the yurts improved until 15,000 years ago, they were neatly constructed with the bones fitted together in patterns. Society seems to have developed too, with larger villages and the yurts arranged along streets. And with a ceremonial lodge as a main feature.” ref

“Blades and Microblades, Percussion and Pressure: Towards the Evolution of Lithic Technologies of the Stone Age Period, Russian Far East around 22,530 to 5,830 years ago. Russian Far East. Cultures and sites locations. 1 Selemja Culture; 2 Gromatukhinskaya and Novopetrovskaya Cultures ; 3 Osipovskaya Culture; 4 Mariinskaya Culture; 5 Ustinovka Culture; 6 Vetka Culture; 7 Ogonki Sites; 8 Ushki Lake sites.” ref

“When the mammoth hunters first arrived in Europe from Siberia, about 30,000 to 35,000 years ago, they brought with them a far more advanced technology and culture to the native Neanderthal population. Although the Neanderthals at the time were not far behind, this new culture was far more advance in so many ways that the European Neanderthals were from that time history. This is referred to as the Aurignacian culture and sites have been across Europe as well as in Siberia. These perhaps represent the first wave of “modern” European settlers as can be traced in the Y chromosomes of European men as originating from South Siberia.” ref

“The next wave of migrants into Europe from Siberia from 28,000 to 22,000 years ago is called the “Gravettian culture”. This is also traceable in the Y chromosome indicating orgins of European men as from South Siberia. Not just more advanced in technology, but also in trading relations and cultural and some kind of political relationship with other peoples. This is shown by the little portable “mother” figurines found at such mammoth hunter sites from across Europe, France, Czech Republic etc. and in South Siberia itself.” ref

The development of this culture can be found in sites in south Siberia such as those of Mal’ta and Buret. Finds from the mammoth-hunter yurts excavated near the Angara River (especally Mal’ta and Buret) sites start at a date of about 24,000 years ago. At Malta, with large and small round houses, partly dug out of the ground (as homes were in the north until into the Iron Age) and built with a low wall of stone and then roofed over with mammoth bones, reindeer antlers etc. – which would have been covered with mammoth hides. At Buret, the people lived together in large dwellings, several families together. There were three hearths in each – one in the center, and one either end.” ref

“Paleolithic art of Europe and Asia falls into two broad categories: mural art and portable art. Mural art is concentrated in southwest France, Spain, and northern Italy. The tradition of portable art, predominantly carvings in ivory and antler, spans the distance across western Europe into North and Central Asia. It is suggested that the broad territory in which the tradition of carving and imagery is shared is evidence of cultural contact and common religious beliefs.” ref

“Female/Mother images have been found right across the mammoth-hunter area. Artistically they vary. Some are very abstract and sophisticated. The mother figurines near the Angara River are mostly naturallistic. They show real women, with braided hair styles, possibly tattoos or body paint, saggy breasts, and in some cases it could represent clothing – a fur onesie or jumpsuit – much as was still worn until recently by the Chukchi and Koryak women in the North Pacific regions. These could be interpreted as protective “mothers” for childbirth, hunting, the home, the tribal territory, the earth and land itself, etc. Clearly many iconic beliefs still held today were already well established some 25,000 years ago.” ref

“Totally there are 39 or 40 known figurines found both on Mal’ta and Buret and although the ancient Siberian Venus figurines ‘are NOT Venuses (not depicting goddesses or gods). At least some if not many are show of ordinary people of seemingly all ages in clothing dating from some 20,000 years ago. Far from being only idealized female forms.  many are seemingly male, and others could represent children. It’s true that in the past some of the woolly mammoth tusk carvings were known to be clothed as well as the different types of hats, hairstyles, shoes and accessories. Notably, these were called alluringly Venus in Furs figurines. They were dressed for protection from the Siberian winter, and are possibly the oldest known images anywhere in the world of sewn fur clothing. Through scientific study traces on the surface of the figurines were seen not visible to the naked eye, due to the ravages of time. These traces showed more details of clothes than we had seen previously: bracelets, hats, shoes, bags and even back packs. ” ref

“At one of the three hearths of the long house, were found “mother” dolls together with bracelets, headbands, pins and spatulas (which could be used for applying makeup). This is easily interpreted as the women’s quarters, especially as at the hearth at the other end, was found weapons, tools, jewellry and small ivory images of phallic looking swans – made to wear as pendants. Such swan pendants were also found in the tombs of men.” ref

“MA-1 is the abbreviation of male child remains found near Mal’ta dated to 24,000 years ago, who belonged to a population related to the genetic ancestors of Siberians, American Indians, and Bronze Age Yamnaya people of the Eurasian steppe. In particular, modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Mansi, Nganasans and Yukaghirs were found to be harbour a lot of ancestry related to MA-1.” ref

“24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians.” ref

“This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World.” ref

“Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. And findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.” ref

“Haplogroup P1 (P-M45), the immediate ancestor of Haplogroup R, likely emerged in Southeast Asia. The SNP M207, which defines Haplogroup R, is believed to have arisen about 27,000 years ago. Only one confirmed example of basal R* has been found, in 24,000 year old remains, known as MA1, found at Mal’ta–Buret’ culture near Lake Baikal in Siberia. R-M207 was found in one out of 132 males from the Kyrgyz people of East Kyrgyzstan who are a Turkic ethnic group native to Central Asia, primarily Kyrgyzstan bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west and southwest, Tajikistan to the southwest, and China to the east. It is possible that neither of the primary branches of R-M207, namely R1 (R-M173) and R2 (R-M479) still exist in their basal, undivergent forms, i.e. R1* and R2*. Despite the rarity of R* and R1*, the relatively rapid expansion – geographically and numerically – of subclades from R1 in particular, has often been noted: both R1a and R1b comprise young, star-like expansions.” ref

‘The earliest publications on R1b described their ancestor R1, entering Europe from central Asia during a warm period about 30,000 – 40,000 years ago.  The last ice age forced R1 to split and take refuge south in Iberia and the Balkans.  Time and separation gave us the mutations R1b in Iberia and R1a in the Balkans.  That split is roughly what we see today in those regions.  That’s clean and simple.  The real world is much more complex.  R1b and R1a were not alone in Europe.  Their interactions with the other major European haplogroups- E, G, I, J and N has to be taken into consideration.” ref

“We know that modern humans survived and flourished in the Iberian refuge during the end of the last ice age, based on mitochondrial DNA studies.  [Could someone please run some y-DNA tests on those samples?]  The tribes in western Europe, whoever they were, had a 1,000 to 2,500 year head start over the tribes in central and eastern Europe on repopulating the continent.  The ice sheets melted and retreated earlier on the west coast than in the rest of Europe.  This gave the inhabitants of the Iberian refuge an advantage – a “first-mover” advantage gained by being the first to move north.  These first-movers gained a land-monopoly.  A tribe with a first-mover advantage and over a 1,000 year head start should have been hard to displace from western Europe.  In other anthropological situations, those original inhabitants are forced into niche locations by invading populations, but very rarely are displaced completely.  What we see on the west coast of Europe, is a very strong R1b presence and no niche haplogroups of a significant age.” ref

“Haplogroup R1 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. Its distribution is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum. Its main subgroups are R1a and R1b.” ref

“The split of R1a (M420) is computed to ca 25,000 years ago or roughly the last glacial maximum. A large study using 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluded that there was compelling evidence that “the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran.” ref

“A subclade of haplogroup R1a (especially haplogroup R1a1) is the most common haplogroup in large parts of South Asia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Western China, and South Siberia.  One subclade of haplogroup R1b (especially R1b1a2), is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe and Bashkortostan which is a federal subject of Russia. It is located between the Volga River and the Ural Mountains.” ref

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

“Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref

“Afontova Gora is a Late Upper Paleolithic Siberian complex of archaeological sites located on the left bank of the Yenisei River near the city of Krasnoyarsk, Russia. Afontova Gora has cultural and genetic links to the people from Mal’ta-Buret’.  Afontova Gora II consists of 7 layers. Layer 3 from Afontova Gora II is the most significant: the layer produced the largest amount of cultural artefacts and is the layer where the human fossil remains were discovered. Over 20,000 artefacts were discovered at layer 3: this layer produced over 450 tools and over 250 osseous artefacts (bone, antler, ivory).  The human fossil remains of Afontova Gora 2  discovered at Afontova Gora II dated to around 16,930-16,490 years ago.  The individual showed close genetic affinities to Mal’ta 1 (Mal’ta boy). Afontova Gora 2 also showed more genetic affinity for the Karitiana people versus Han Chinese. Moreover, human fossil remains  consisting of five lower teeth of a young girl (Afontova Gora 3) estimated to be around 14–15 years old is dated to around 16,130-15,749 BC (14,710±60 BP).” ref

“The great majority of European ancestry derives from three distinct sources. 177 First, there is “hunter-gatherer-related” ancestry that is more closely related 178 to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Europe than to any other population, and that can be 179 further subdivided into “Eastern” (EHG) and “Western” (WHG) hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. 7 180 Second, there is “NW Anatolian Neolithic-related” ancestry related to the Neolithic farmers of northwest Anatolia and tightly linked to the appearance of agriculture.9,10 181 182 The third source, “steppe-related” ancestry, appears in Western Europe during the Late 183 Neolithic to Bronze Age transition and is ultimately derived from a population related to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists. 184 Steppe-related ancestry itself can be modeled as a mixture of 185 EHG-related ancestry, and ancestry related to Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus (CHG) and the first farmers of northern Iran.” ref

Map showing Afontova Gora (27) and Mal’ta (29), both circled. 

“Afontova Gora is an important site has cultural ties with Mal’ta and Buret’, hundreds of kilometres to the south east. It is on a north flowing river, the Yenisei, Енисея.
The settlement is dated to 20,000 – 18,000 years ago.” ref

Haplogroup R1b (R-M343), is the most frequently occurring paternal lineage in Western Europe, as well as some parts of Russia (e.g. the Bashkir minority) and Central Africa (e.g. Chad and Cameroon). The clade is also present at lower frequencies throughout Eastern Europe, Western Asia, as well as parts of North Africa and Central Asia. R1b also reaches high frequencies in the Americas and Australasia, due largely to immigration from Western Europe. There is an ongoing debate regarding the origins of R1b subclades found at significant levels among some indigenous peoples of the Americas, such as speakers of Algic languages in central Canada. It has been found in Bahrain, Bhutan, Ladakh, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Western China. The point of origin of R1b is thought to lie in Western Eurasia, most likely in Western Asia.” ref

“Within haplogroup R1b, there are extremely large subclades, R-U106 and R-P312. While these subclades are important to the overall picture, their size leads tonoise in the analysis of an R1b origin. It isthe minority branches of R1b (R-L278*, R-V88, R-M73*, R-YSC0000072/PF6426 andR-L23-) that provide the resolution required.(While the data from R-V88 supports anIberian origin, and along the Western Atlantic coast, with R-L278 origins south of the Pyrenees. And the  Pyrenees, Spanish Pirineos, French Pyrénées, Catalan Pireneus, mountain chain of southwestern Europe that consists of flat-topped massifs and folded linear ranges. It stretches from the shores of the Mediterranean Sea on the east to the Bay of Biscay on the Atlantic Oceanon the west. The Pyrenees form a high wall between France and Spain that has played a significant role in the history of both countries and of Europe as a whole.” ref, ref

“R1b-V88 originated in Europe about 12 000 years ago and crossed to North Africa by about 8000 years ago; it may formerly have been common in southern Europe, where it has since been replaced by waves of other haplogroups, leaving remnant subclades almost excusively in Sardinia. It first radiated within Africa likely between 7 and 8 000 years ago – at the same time as trans-Saharan expansions within the unrelated haplogroups E-M2 and A-M13 – possibly due to population growth allowed by humid conditions and the adoption of livestock herding in the Sahara. 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

“The majority of modern R1b and R1a would have expanded from the Caspian Sea along with the Indo-European languages.  And genetic studies support the Kurgan hypothesis regarding the Proto-Indo-European homeland. According to those studies, haplogroups R1b and R1a, now the most common in Europe (R1a is also common in South Asia) would have expanded from the West Eurasian Steppe, along with the Indo-European languages; they also detected an autosomal component present in modern Europeans which was not present in Neolithic Europeans, which would have been introduced with paternal lineages R1b and R1a, as well as Indo-European languages.” ref

The oldest human remains found to carry R1b include:

• Villabruna 1 (individual I9030), found in an Epigravettian culture setting in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14,000 years BP and belonged to R1b-L754,
• numerous individuals from the Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the central Danube (modern Romania and Serbia), dating from 10,000 to 8,500 BP – most of them falling into R1b-L754;
• two individuals, dating from circa 7,800–6,800 BP, found at the Zvejnieki burial ground, belonging to the Narva culture of the Baltic neolithic, both determined to belong to the R1b-P297 subclade, and;
• the “Samara hunter-gatherer” (I0124/SVP44), who lived approximately 7,500 BP in the Volga River area and carried R1b-L278. ref

“This burial is from the early Mesolithic stage which is proto-Lepenski Vir. Whereas, the general Lepenski Vir, located in Serbia, Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the Balkans. Around 11,500/9,200–7,900 years ago.” ref,ref, ref

“A particularly important hunter-gatherer population that we report is from the Iron Gates region that straddles the border of present-day Romania and Serbia. This population  (Iron_Gates_HG) is represented in our study by 40 individuals from five sites. Modeling Iron  Gates hunter-gatherers as a mixture of WHG and EHG (Supplementary Table 3) shows that  they are intermediate between WHG (~85%) and EHG (~15%). However, this qpAdm model 244 does not fit well (p=0.0003, Supplementary table 3) and the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers carry mitochondrial haplogroup K1 (7/40) as well as other subclades of haplogroups U (32/40) and H (1/40). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter-gatherers who almost all carry haplogroups U5 or U2. One interpretation is that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers have ancestry that is not present in either WHG or EHG. Possible scenarios include genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split during a reexpansion into Europe from the Southeast after the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref

“A notable finding from the Iron Gates concerns the four individuals from the site of Lepenski Vir, two of whom (I4665 & I5405, 8,200-7,600 years ago), have entirely NW Anatolian Neolithicrelated ancestry. Strontium and Nitrogen isotope data indicate that both these individuals were migrants from outside the Iron Gates, and ate a primarily terrestrial diet. A third individual (I4666, 8,070 years ago) has a mixture of NW Anatolian Neolithic-related and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry and ate a primarily aquatic diet, while a fourth, probably earlier, individual (I5407) had entirely hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. We also identify one individual from Padina (I5232), dated to 7,950 years ago that had a mixture of NW Anatolian Neolithic-related and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. These results demonstrate that the Iron Gates was a region of interaction between groups distinct in both ancestry and subsistence strategy.” ref

“R-M173, also known as R1, has been common throughout Europe and South Asia since pre-history. It is the second most common haplogroup in Indigenous peoples of the Americas following haplogroup Q-M242, especially in the Algonquian peoples of Canada and the United States. There is a great similarity of many R-M173 subclades found in North America to those found in Siberia, suggesting prehistoric immigration from Asia and/or Beringia.” ref

“The Dyuktai culture was defined by Yuri Mochanov in 1967, following the Dyuktai Cave discovery on the Aldan River, Yakutia. In the Pleistocene deposits, at a 2-m depth, lithic tools and Pleistocene animal bones were exposed, radiocarbon dated to 14,000-12,000 BP. Further research in Yakutia resulted in the discovery of other Dyuktai culture sites on the Aldan, Olenyok, and Indigirka rivers. The sites are located along the banks and at the estuary capes of smaller tributaries. The Dyuktai culture tool assemblage is represented by choppers, wedge-shaped cores, microblades, end scrapers on blades, oval bifaces, points, as well as angle, dihedral, and transversal burins on flakes and blades. The emergence of the Dyuktai culture defines the time when the microblade technique first appeared in northeast Asia. Judging by bones found in the same layers with tools, the Dyuktai people used to hunt mammoth, wooly rhino, bison, horse, reindeer, moose, and snow ram. Fishing tools have not been excavated, although a few fish bones were found in the Dyuktai cave Pleistocene cultural levels.” ref

“The cultural materials at the sites were concentrated around small hearths with no special lining. The question of whether the bow and arrow existed in the Dyuktai culture has so far been open, because just a few stone points small enough to be used on arrows were found. Yu. Mochanov associates the Dyuktai culture emergence in Yakutia with the bifacial Paleolithic cultures coming from the southern Urals, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northern China. From Dyuktai materials of some stratified sites, Yu. Mochanov dated the Dyuktai culture to 35,000-11,500 BP. This date was broadly discussed by scholars within the debates on the question of the microblade industry emergence in Siberia and aroused some serious objections. The dates exceeding 25,000 BP are deemed to be erroneous, so the microblade technique appeared in Siberia no earlier than 25,000 BP. A. Derevyanko supposes that the origin of the Dyuktai culture can be found on the Selemja River, tributary of the Amur, in the Selemja culture, by 25000-11000 BP.” ref

“The Dyuktai tradition was spread over all of northeast Asia. In Kamchatka, it has been represented by the materials of the Late Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture in levels V and VI of the Ushki I-V sites. It determines the latest period in the Dyuktai tradition development, 10,800-8800 BP. Its general outlook differs significantly from that of the Dyuktai culture in Yakutia. The sites are located on the bank of a small lake in the valley of Kamchatka’s largest river in its medium flow. The exposed dwellings are represented by surface, teepee-type, 8-16 m2, and semi-subterranean with the corridor, 10-44 m2, with circular stone hearths in the center. Several inhabited horizons exposed on the site and numerous stone tools, burials, and caches found in the dwellings testify to its long-term use, perhaps even as a winter camp.” ref

“Judging by tooth remains in the cultural level, its people hunted for reindeer, bison, and moose. Burned salmon and other fish bones found in the hearths as well as the sites location at the spawning lake confirm the existence of fishing. The tool assemblage of the Ushki culture consisted of small- and medium-sized bifacial projectile points; end scrapers; angle, transversal, and dihedral burins; semilunar and oval bifaces; end scrapers on blades and flakes; microblades and wedge-shaped cores; and grooved pumice shaft straighteners. Ornaments were represented by oval pendants. In the dwellings, a pair and a group (as many as five human bodies) children’s burial were found. The corpses in both graves were in a flexed position and covered with ochre. The bottom of the pair-burial grave was covered with lemming incisors; the group burial was covered with a large animal’s scapula. The rich burial inventory included arrow and spear points, leaf-shaped knives, grinding plates, grooved pumice shaft.” ref

“To help with geography, the following google map shows the following locations: A=the Altai Republic, in Russia, B=Mal’ta, the location of the 24,000-year-old skeletal remains and C=Lake Baikal, the region from where the Native American population originated in Asia.” ref

The genome from Ust’-Ishim (Main Semi-Related Ancestor DNA Branch)

“The Ust’-Ishim DNA was from northern Siberia that dates to 45,000 years ago, from the bank of the Irtysh River, which is in the Siberian plain near Omsk. Its source lies in the Mongolian Altai in Dzungaria (the northern part of Xinjiang, China) close to the border with Mongolia. The Ob-Irtysh system forms a major drainage basin in Asia, encompassing most of Western Siberia and the Altai Mountains.” ref, ref

“Ust’-Ishim is more similar to genomes of non-Africans than it is to sub-Saharan African genomes. Ust’-Ishim is not more like the Mal’ta genome than it is like any other genomes of Asians or Native Americans. It is not like any living population of Asians or Native Americans more than any other.” ref

Link to Enlarge Population history inferences

“The MA-1 sequence compare to that of another 40,000-year-old individual from Tianyuan Cave, China whose genome has been partially sequenced. This Chinese individual has been shown to be ancestral to both modern-day Asians and Native Americans. This comparison was particularly useful, because it showed that MA-1 is not closely related to the Tianyuan Cave individual, and is more closely related to Native Americans. This means that MA-1’s line and Tianyuan Cave’s line had not yet met and admixed into the population that would become the Native Americans. That occurred sometime later than 24,000 years ago and probably before crossing Beringia into North America sometime between about 18,000 and 20,000 years ago.” ref

“A basal Ancestral Native American (ANA) lineage. This lineage was formed by admixture of early East Asian and Ancient North Eurasian lineages prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, ca. 36–25 kya. Basal ANA diverged into an “Ancient Beringian” (AB) lineage at ca. 20 kya. The non-AB lineage further diverged into “Northern Native American” (NNA) and “Southern Native American” (SNA) lineages between about 17.5 and 14.6 kya. Most pre-Columbian lineages are derived from NNA and SNA, except for the American Arctic, where there is evidence of later (after 10kya) admixture from Paleo-Siberian lineages.” ref

“DNA of a 12,500+-year-old infant from Montana was sequenced from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1, found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out that particular individual had any close affinity with European sources (the “Solutrean hypothesis“). The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Amerindian populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta population.” ref

“Native Americans descend of at least three main migrant waves from East Asia. Most of it is traced back to a single ancestral population, called ‘First Americans’. However, those who speak Inuit languages from the Arctic inherited almost half of their ancestry from a second East Asian migrant wave. And those who speak Na-dene, on the other hand, inherited a tenth of their ancestry from a third migrant wave. The initial settling of the Americas was followed by a rapid expansion southwards, by the coast, with little gene flow later, especially in South America. One exception to this are the Chibcha speakers, whose ancestry comes from both North and South America.” ref

“Linguistic studies have backed up genetic studies, with ancient patterns having been found between the languages spoken in Siberia and those spoken in the Americas. Two 2015 autosomal DNA genetic studies confirmed the Siberian origins of the Natives of the Americas. However, an ancient signal of shared ancestry with Australasians (Natives of Australia, Melanesia, and the Andaman Islands) was detected among the Natives of the Amazon region. The migration coming out of Siberia would have happened 23,000 years ago.” ref

“R1 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. R1 (M173) is found predominantly in North American groups like the Ojibwe (50-79%), Seminole (50%), Sioux(50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%), and Tohono O’odham (Papago) (38%). Skeletal remain of a south-central Siberian child carrying R* y-dna (Mal’ta boy-1) “is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Amerindians, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought.” Sequencing of another south-central Siberian (Afontova Gora-2) revealed that “western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Amerindians derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.” It is further theorized if “Mal’ta might be a missing link, a representative of the Asian population that admixed both into Europeans and Native Americans.” ref

Swan Point 15,000 – 14,200 years ago

“It is significant that Swan Point is not only the oldest site (radiocarbon dated between circa 15,000 and 14,200 cal. BP), but also contains microblade technology throughout the multiple components.  This makes the site comparable with the other Tanana Valley sites, yet distinctive- a position that may be advantageous for testing theories on site formation, group mobility, and landscape exploitation patterns.” ref

“Microblade technology, exemplified by the Dyuktai culture of Siberia, has been seen as linked to early cultures in Alaska, e.g., Denali complex and American Paleoarctic tradition. Clovis-like characteristics (e.g., blades, bifaces, scrapers and gravers) found in the Nenana complex, have been argued as evidence for a regional presence of the Paleoindian tradition. Swan Point appears to have aspects of both of these complexes at the earliest levels, as well as multiple occupation levels that range from the terminal Pleistocene to the late Holocene.  Swan Point has the potential to provide information on past life ways that would be of interest locally, regionally, and hemispherically.” ref

“Evidence of charcoal that has been radiocarbon dated to approximately 14,000 years ago. The charcoal dating makes this the oldest known site in the Tanana River Valley.  The mammoth artifacts found in the Latest Pleistocene zone date to approximately 14,000 cal  years ago. With no other mammoth remains found beyond tusk ivory, it is assumed that the people who lived on the site scavenged the ivory rather than hunting the mammoth themselves.” ref

Terminal Pleistocene

“This is the oldest cultural level from approximately 11,660 cal – 10,000 cal years ago. Artifacts found at this level include worked mammoth tusk fragments, microblades, microblade core preparation flakes, blades, dihedral burins, red ochre, pebble hammers, and quartz hammer tools and choppers. The microblades found at this zone are significant as they are the oldest securely dated microblades in eastern Beringia.” ref

Latest Pleistocene

“A variety of bifacial points were found at this level, which dates to approximately 10,230 ± 80 cal years ago, including lanceolate points with convex to straight bases, along with graver spurs, quartz pebble choppers and hammers. The mammoth artifacts found in the Latest Pleistocene zone date to approximately 14,000 cal years ago. With no other mammoth remains found beyond tusk ivory, it is assumed that the people who lived on the site scavenged the ivory rather than hunting the mammoth themselves.” ref

Migration map of Y-haplogroup R1b from the Paleolithic to the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1000BCE) ref

Paleolithic mammoth hunters

“Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years ago). This haplogroup has been identified in the remains of a 24,000 year-old boy from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia. This individual belonged to a tribe of mammoth hunters that may have roamed across Siberia and parts of Europe during the Paleolithic. Autosomally this Paleolithic population appears to have contributed mostly to the ancestry of modern Europeans and South Asians, the two regions where haplogroup R also happens to be the most common nowadays (R1b in Western Europe, R1a in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia, and R2 in South Asia).” ref

“The oldest forms of R1b (M343, P25, L389) are found dispersed at very low frequencies from Western Europe to India, a vast region where could have roamed the nomadic R1b hunter-gatherers during the Ice Age. The three main branches of R1b1 (R1b1a, R1b1b, R1b1c) all seem to have stemmed from the Middle East. The southern branch, R1b1c (V88), is found mostly in the Levant and Africa. The northern branch, R1b1a (P297), seems to have originated around the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia, then to have crossed over the Caucasus, from where they would have invaded Europe and Central Asia. R1b1b (M335) has only been found in Anatolia.” ref

Discussing Ancient North Eurasians migrations: genetics, religion, and rape; (rape 25,000 years ago?) from a lingering patriarchal past, can we find a humanistic secular feminist future?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

“Several linguists and geneticists suggest that the Uralic languages are related to various Siberian languages and possibly also some languages of northern Native Americans. A proposed family is named Uralo-Siberian, it includes Uralic, Yukaghir, Eskimo–Aleut (Inuit), possibly Nivkh, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan. Haplogroup Q is found in nearly all Native Americans and nearly all of the Yeniseian Ket people (90%).” ref, ref

You can find some form of Shamanism, among Uralic, Transeurasian, Dené–Yeniseian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskaleut languages.

My speculations of shamanism are its dispersals, after 24,000 to 4,000 years ago, seem to center on Lake Baikal and related areas. To me, the hotspot of Shamanism goes from west of Lake Baikal in the “Altai Mountains” also encompassing “Lake Baikal” and includes the “Amur Region/Watershed” east of Lake Baikal as the main location Shamanism seems to have radiated out from. 

Shamanism Among the Peoples of the North: Uralic, Transeurasian, Dené–Yeniseian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskaleut languages

The relationship between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Yeniseian

“The Yeniseian language family is native to Central Siberia and consists of one extant language – Ket, and five extinct – Yug, Kottish, Arin, Assan, Pumpokol. These languages share many contact-induced similarities with the South Siberian Turkic languages, Samoyedic languages and Evenki. These include long-distance nasal harmony, the development of former affricates to stops, and the use of postpositions or grammatical enclitics as clausal subordinators. Yeniseian nominal enclitics closely approximate the case systems of geographically contiguous families. Despite these similarities, Yeniseian stands out among the languages of Siberia in a few typological respects, such as the presence of tone, the prefixing verb inflection, and highly complex morphophonology. This language family has highly elaborate verbal morphology and has been described as having up to four tones or no tones at all. To this day no relationship to other language family has been definitively proven, although many attempts were made. One of this attempts, the Dene-Yeniseian family, first proposed by Alfredo Trombetti and supported with evidence by Edward Vajda, has gained massive, but not universal, acclaim.” ref

“The Genetic Evidence The Kets belong predominantly to haplogroup Q (93.8%) (6) and Proto-Indo-Europeans are thought to have mostly belonged to haplogroups R1b and R1a. The Yamnaya culture of Eastern Europe, which mainstream scholars identify with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, was exclusively R1b. This culture was made up of Eastern Hunter Gatherers and Caucasian Hunter Gatherers, the former one being associated with the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture of Central Siberia, which was located west of Lake Baikal and roughly in the same area where historically the Yeniseian languages were spoken. The Mal’ta–Buret’ culture is dated to 24,000 BCE to 15,000 BCE and is known for the only known sample of basal Y-DNA R*.” ref

“The genetic makeup of this culture was found to be very similar to the ones of Yamnaya culture and Ket people. Haplogroup Q and R are siblings and come from the same parent haplogroup – P. It is possible that the languages spoken by the people bearing these two haplogroups were also genetically related. The linguistic evidence No linguist has tried (to my knowledge) until now to connect Proto-Yeniseian and Proto-Indo[1]European and it’s not hard to understand why. Apart from the fact that the homelands of these two language families are so far away from each other geographically and chronologically, they have some important typological differences. Some similarities still exist, for example, both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Yeniseian had an SOV word order. Ket has an active stative alignment while the reconstructed ancestor of Proto-Indo-European, the Pre-Proto-Indo-European language, shows many features known to correlate with active alignment like the animate vs. inanimate distinction, related to the distinction between active and inactive or stative verb arguments.” ref

“Another distinctive feature of Yeniseian is morphological predictability, which enables a linguist to build a form, departing from a root, the known morphological inventory and morphological rules, and get it right without having seen the correct form before. In most of Eurasia the only language family that matches Yeniseian in this respect is Indo[1]European. I didn’t attempt to find sound correspondences because some of the reconstructions on both sides, especially for PY, are uncertain. Sometimes, linguists can’t even agree on the phonemes of some modern Ket words. Nevertheless, one can find at first glance some correspondences, for example intervocalic in PIE corresponds to in PY, final corresponds to, corresponds to and corresponds to. The following list consists of a Proto-Indo-European lemma and a Proto-Yeniseian cognate. Sometimes additional evidence from Indo-European languages is given. For Proto-Yeniseian I used Sergei Starostin’s reconstructions, but also modern Ket words and Heinrich Werner’s reconstructions if available.” ref 

“The abbreviations PIE and PY are used for Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Yeniseian, respectively. ˇ

1. PIE *dʰewh₂- [smoke] = PY *duʔ(χ)- [smoke], Ket: duʔ ; Werner *duʔ
2. PIE *sénos [old] = PY *siń [old, withered], Ket: ś īń / ś i:ń
3. PIE *(s)dʰonu [fir tree] = PY *dɨńe [fir tree], Ket: dɨ̄ń
4. PIE *temH- [dark] = PY *tum- [black], Ket: tūm ; Werner *th um
5. PIE *dʰeh₁- [to do, put, place] = PY *di(j) [to lie down, put down], Ket: dij
6. PIE *ǵenh₁- [to produce, to beget, to give birth] = PY *ǯeʔŋ [people], Ket: dɛʔŋ
7. PIE *gen- [to compress] = PY *ǯǟŋ [to knead, rub], Ket: da:ŋ4 ; Werner *d’aʔǝŋǝ
8. PIE *gel- [to be cold, to freeze] = PY *ǯVr1- (~-l) [cold, frost], Kottish: čal ; Werner *t’al
9. PIE *ǵʰes- [hand; to take] = PY *kas- (~g-) [take], Ket: kɔ:ś i 4
10. PIE *ǵónu [knee] = PY *qōń- (~χ-,-ɔ̄-) [cartilage], Ket: qɔń 4 ; Werner *qɔʔǝn’ǝ
11. PIE *gʷen- [woman] = PY *qVm- (~χ-) [woman], Ket: qīm
12. PIE *gʷṓws [cattle] = PY *kuʔs [horse], Ket: kuʔś[cow] ; Werner *kuʔs
13. PIE *kh₂em- (Latin camur, Iranian *kamarā-) – [to bend, to curve] = PY *gamur- [crooked], Kottish kamur
14. PIE *temp- [to extend, to stretch] = PY *t[e]mbVl-́ [root], Kottish: thempul
15. PIE *ḱi- ~ *ḱe- ~ *ḱo [here, this] = PY *si- / *su- [stem of demonstrative pronouns], Ket ś i:ŋ / ś īŋ [here] ; Werner *si-, *se- / *sǝ-, *so- / *su
16. PIE *só, séh₂, tód [this, that] = PY *tu- [demonstrative stem], Ket tuda6 [this]
17. PIE *kom or *ku, *kʷom [to, towards], which gave Proto-Slavic *kъ(n) = PY *ka- / *kǝ- [demonstrative stem], Ket: kań īŋǝ 1 / kań iŋǝ 6 [(towards) there]
18. PIE *peh₂w- [few, little] = PY *pVl- (~-ŕ-,-r1-) [child], Arin: alpolá t, Pumpokol: phá lla and PY *poʔl [short], Ket: hɔʔĺ; Werner *ph oʔl
19. PIE *seh₂y- [to be fierce, afflict] = PY *s[e]ji [furuncle; wound], Ket: ś ibaŋ6 , ś ivaŋ6 ; Werner *sei
20. PIE *derḱ- [to see] = PY *de-s [eye], Ket: dēś ; Werner *des
21. PIE *ḱers- [to run] = PY *ses [river], Ket: śēśWerner *set / *tet
22. PIE *bʰel-, *bʰelǵʰ- [to swell] = PY *boks[e]ji (~-ɔ-) [pimple], Ket: bɔkśá . Compound with the second component *s[e]ji [wound, sore]
23. PIE *ḱeres- [rough hair, bristle] = PY *sǟs [fur from reindeer’s legs], Ket: śaś 4 Werner *seʔǝsǝ
24. PIE *h₂eHs- [to burn, to glow] = PY *xus- [warm], Ket: ūś ; Werner *usǝ or PY *ʔes [God, sky], Ket: ēś ; Werner *es
25. PIE *sekʷe-, *skʷē- [to tell, talk] = PY *saga- [to say, speak], Ket: sagabet́(Castr.), sáɣa-bet (Werner)
26. PIE *ten- [to stretch, to extend] = PY *ta(ʔ)ŋaj [to pull, stretch], Ket: táŋaj / táŋej
27. PIE *gerh₂- [to cry hoarsely, crane] = PY *guriraK [crane], Kottish: kurīrax
28. PIE *peyH- [fat, milk] = PY*pɔʔɔle ́ [fat], Ket: hōlé ; Werner *ph olǝ
29. PIE *h₁ésh₂r̥[blood] = PY *sur [red, blood], Ket: śūlaḿ 1 ; Werner *suʎ
30. PIE *dʰéǵʰōm [earth, human] = PY *keʔt [man, person], Ket: kɛʔt / kɛʔd
31. PIE *gʷel- [throat] = PY *kǝrVd (~g-,-ʒ) [throat], Ket: kʌlit́ 6 / kʌlat́ 6 ; Werner *kǝrVd (~g-,- ʒ)
32. PIE *dʰegʷʰ- [to burn] = PY *doʔq ( ~ -χ), Ket: -dɔq (-rɔq) to burn (trans.)
33. PIE *h₁es- [to be] = PY *hVs- [to be], Ket: uśeŋ5,6 ; Werner *ǝsǝ(ŋ) / *usǝ(ŋ)
34. PIE *pewḱ- [pine] = PY *pōj [fir tree], Ket: hɔ́j-ɔkś ; Werner *ph oʔǝjǝ
35. PIE *dʰǵʰyes- [yesterday] = PY *qodes (~χ-,-ɔ-) [yesterday], Ket: qɔŕeś 5
36. PIE *bak- [peg, club] = PY *bäk- [log], Ket: bāɣǝ ; Werner *baga
37. PIE *méynos [my, mine] = PY *b- [my], Ket: āp
38. PIE *men- [hand] = PY *biʔŋ [hand], Yug: biʔŋ
39. PIE *keku- (Middle Persian čakuč) [cudgel, hammer shaped stick] = PY *čok [axe], Ket: tōk ; Werner *t’okǝ
40. PIE *(s)kʷálos [large fish, sheatfish] = PY *χol- [a k. of fish], Ket: kɔlgit ́ 5 (Werner: qōlgit) ́ ; Werner *qol
41. PIE *men- [to think, mind] = PY *ʔan[ɨ]ŋ [to think], Ket: aniŋbɛt 6 / ańbɛt 5,6 ; Werner *anǝŋ[1]43. PIE *ḱerh₂- [horn] or PIE *h₁élḱis [elk] = PY *sēr1e [deer], Ket: śɛĺ 4 ; Werner *seʔǝʎǝ
42. PIE *ḱol-bʰo- [half] = PY *χɔlab [half], Ket: qɔlaṕ 5 ; Werner *qolǝp ; The PIE root is uncertain as it has been reconstructed after the only known descendant: Proto-Germanic *halbaz
43. PIE *gʰerdʰ- [belt] = PY *guʔda [girdle, strap, string], Ket: kuʔt ; Werner *kuʔt
44. PIE *gʰreh₁- [to grow] = PY*gVre [grass], Kottish: keri ; Werner *keʎǝ
45. PIE *ǵʰey- [winter] = PY *gǝte [winter], Ket: kъ̄ti1 ; it is unclear to me why Starostin reconstructed , because all cognates in the Yeniseian languages have . Werner also reconstructs *kǝte
46. PIE *wósr̥[spring] = PY *sir1- [summer], Ket: ś īĺi 1 ; Werner *siʎǝ
47. PIE *h₂weh₁- [to blow(of wind)] = PY *bej [wind], Ket: bēj ; Werner *baj
48. PIE *gʷol- [ashes] = PY *qorVn- (~χ-,-ɔ-,-l-) [ashes], Ket: qɔlǝ́ n 6 /qɔllǝn 6 ; Werner *qolǝn
49. PIE *ph₂tḗr [father] = PY *ʔob [father], Ket: ōp ; Werner *ob(ǝ)
50. PIE *(s)ker- [to cut off] = PY *Kar [mountain], Arin: kar
51. PIE *sed- [to sit], PBS *sēstei [to sit down] = PY *sVs- [to sit], Ket: sésete “I sit”
52. PIE *méh₂tēr [mother] = PY *ʔama [mother], Ket: ām
53. PIE *telk- [to thrust, strike, crush] = PY*tokV (~-x-) [mortar], Ket: tō ; Werner *th ophǝ
54. PIE *peh₃- [to drink] = PY *ʔop- ( ~ x-, -b), Ket: d-a-b-ɔp ; Werner *op
55. PIE *tek- [to run, to flow] = PY *teK- [drop, (rain)dropping], Kottish: ur-thekŋ
56. PIE *nu [now] = PY *ʔen [now], Ket: ēn ; Werner *en
57. PIE *swep- [sleep] = PY*sVm- [dream], Kottish: šame
58. PIE *kʷyeh₁- [to rest, peace] = PY *qut ( ~ χ-) [to be finished, end], Ket: -qut / -ʁut
59. PIE *yeh₂- [to go]= PY *hejVŋ [to go], Ket: ējeŋ1 / ɛjeŋ5
60. PIE *h₂éngʷʰis [snake] = PY *ʔɔŋKoj [snake], Kottish: oŋxoi
61. PIE *ne, *me [no, not] = PY *wǝ- [not, there is not], Ket: bъ̄ń ; Werner *bǝ / *bǝn
62. PIE *h₂eys- [to wish, to request] = PY *si-aq- [to ask], Ket: ś ijaq5
63. PIE *splǵʰ-ēn- [spleen] (the exact root remains difficult to reconstruct) = PY *tVpVl-́ (~-b-) [spleen] Kottish: tebolä” ref

“Words with only one reconstructed cognate in PIE or PY:

1. PY *boʔk [fire], Ket: bɔʔk = Latin focus [hearth, fire], Armenian boc’ [fire]
2. PY *deʔG [lake], Ket: dɛʔ ; Werner *degǝ / *deʔǝ = PIE *dʰenh₂- [to set in motion, to flow], *déh₂nu [river goddess]
3. PY *kūń (~g-) [wolverine], Ket: ku:ńe 4 ; Werner *kuʔǝnǝ = PBS *kaunā́ [marten]
4. PY *son- [blue, green], Ket: śon ; Werner *sʌj / *sʌn = PS *siňь [blue], PI *axšáyHnah [blue, green]
5. PY *doʔn [knife], Ket: dɔʔn = PI *dā- [to cut], Old Iranian *dāna-ka-
6. PY *qalVŋ ́ (~χ-) [gull], Ket: qalǝ́ ŋ 5 = PC *wailannā [seagull]
7. Ket ɯ̄ks [bull] = PIE *uksḗn [bull]
8. PY *sip- [rat], Ket: ś iɣ́ -ut = OES соболь (sobol’) [sable], Middle Persian [sable]
9. PY *sib- [to whisper], Ket: siverej-betta (Werner: ś ivé ŕej) ; Werner *siphǝl = PS *šьpъtъ [to whisper]
10. PY *maʔm [breast], Ket: maʔm = Ancient Greek mámmē (breast)
11. PY *χuʔs [tent made of birch bark, house], Ket: quʔś ; Werner *quʔs = PG *hūsą [house], possibly Latin casa
12. Proto-Slavic *tǫxlъ [rotten] = PY: *tul-(x)aʔq [rotten (wood)], Ket: tulaq5″ ref 

“Possible loanwords not mentioned before (to my knowledge):

1. PY *p[u]jm- [neck] – PT *bōjn [neck]
2. PY *kam(a) ( ~ q-, h-) [vessel, dish] – PT *kāp [vessel]
3. PY *senVŋ [shaman] – Evenki samān [shaman]
4. PT *köp- (to swell; foam) – PY *χɔpVr [foam]
5. PY *suŕ- [yellow] – PT *siarïg [yellow,white]
6. PT *sōl [left] – PY *tul (~-l, ́ -r1) [left], Ket: tul;́ Werner *th uĺ/ *sul ́” ref 

Conclusion

“After analyzing the found information and evidence, it is not likely that all these cognates and similarities are coincidences. Apart from the fact that there are too many cognates, they consist of basic vocabulary, and they match exactly (or almost exactly) semantically. Two other possibilities remain: language contact and genetic relationships. For this case language contact seems at best improbable. The last possibility is understandably dubious, but still possible. In order to say something decisively, more research needs to be done on this subject. My hope is that my article will start a wave of questions that will lead to solving this problem and, why not, to asking even more questions.” ref 

Transeurasian as a continuum of diffusion

Abstract: “Intermingling of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic speakers over many centuries left multiple overlapping layers of contact-induced language change in their wake. While the dynamics of pastoralist mobility spread linguistic traits far and wide, it remains unresolved whether contact alone (together with coincidental resemblance) can account for all of the shared features in the families traditionally grouped as “Altaic,” or whether some homologies represent evidence of deeper common ancestry. Without arguing strongly for or against either possibility, this chapter considers how typological parallels may have diffused among pastoral Inner Eurasia’s four autochthonous families—Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic—and also into Yeniseian, Yukaghir, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, Koreanic, and Japonic—families and isolates that interacted less pervasively with steppe and forest pastoralists.” 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. The findings outlined on Wednesday document a shared genetic ancestry for the hundreds of millions of people who speak what the researchers call Transeurasian languages across an area stretching more than 5,000 miles (8,000km).” ref 

“Chaubey and van Driem propose that the dispersal of ancient Altaic language communities is reflected by the early Holocene dissemination of haplogroup C2 (M217): “If the paternal lineage C2 (M217) is correlated with Altaic linguistic affinity, as appears to be the case for Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, then Japanese is no Father Tongue, and neither is Korean. This Y-chromosomal haplogroup accounts for 11% of Korean paternal lineages, and the frequency of the lineage is even more reduced in Japan. Yet this molecular marker may still be a tracer for the introduction of Altaic language to the archipelago, where the paternal lineage has persisted, albeit in a frequency of just 6%.” ref 

Uralo-Siberian languages 

“Fortescue (1998, pp. 60–95) surveys 44 typological markers and argues that a typological profile uniquely identifying the language families proposed to comprise the Uralo-Siberian family can be established. The Uralo-Siberian hypothesis is rooted in the assumption that this distinct typological profile was, rather than an areal profile common to four unrelated language families, the profile of a single language ancestral to all four: Proto-Uralo-Siberian.” ref

“Phonology

• A single, voiceless series of stop consonants.
• Voiced stops such as /d/ occur in the Indo-European, Yeniseian, Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic, Japonic and Sino-Tibetan languages. They have also later arisen in several branches of Uralic.
• Aspirated stops such as /tʰ/ occur in Korean, Nivkh, Na-Dene, Haida, etc.
• Ejective stops such as /tʼ/ occur in Na-Dene, Haida, Salishan, Tsimshian, etc.
• A series of voiced non-sibilant fricatives, including /ð/, which lack voiceless counterparts such as /θ/.
• Original non-sibilant fricatives are absent from most other languages of Eurasia. Voiceless fricatives prevail over voiced ones in most of northern America. Both voiced and voiceless fricatives occur in Nivkh.
• Primary palatal or palatalized consonants such as /ɲ ~ nʲ/, /ʎ ~ lʲ/.
• The occurrence of a rhotic consonant /r/.
• Found in most other language families of northern Eurasia as well; however, widely absent from languages of northern America.
• Consonant clusters are absent word-initially and word-finally, but present word-medially.
• A feature shared with most ‘Altaic’ languages. Contrasts with the presence of abundant consonant clusters in Nivkh, as well as in the Indo-European and Salishan languages.
• Canonically bisyllabic word roots, with the exception of pronouns.
• Contrasts with canonically monosyllabic word roots in Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian, Na-Dene, Haida, Tsimshian, Wakashan, Salishan, etc. Some secondarily monosyllabic word roots have developed in Aleut and multiple Uralic languages, and they predominate in Itelmen.
• Word-initial stress.” ref

“Morphology

• Exclusively suffixal morphology.
• Contrasts particularly with Yeniseian and Na-Dene.
• Accusative case, genitive case and at least three local cases.
• singular, plural and dual number.
• The absence of adjectives and adverbs as morphologically distinct parts of speech.
• Evidentiality marking.
• Indicative markers based on participles.
• Possessive suffixes.” ref

“Syntax

• The presence of a copula, used as an auxiliary verb.
• Negation expressed by an auxiliary verb (known as a negative verb)
• Subordinate clauses based on non-finite verb forms.

None of the four families shows all of these 17 features; ranging from 12 reconstructible in Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan to 16 in Proto-Uralic. Frequently the modern-day descendant languages have diverged further from this profile — particularly Itelmen, for which Fortescue assumes substrate influence from a language typologically more alike to the non-Uralo-Siberian languages of the region.” ref

“Several more widely spread typologically significant features may also instead represent contact influence, according to Fortescue (1998):

• Primary uvular consonants are absent from Uralic, but can be found in Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskaleut. They are also present in Yukaghir, though are likely to be of secondary origin there (as also in the Uralic Selkup, as well as a large number of Turkic languages). They are, however, firmly entrenched in the non-Uralo-Siberian languages of northernmost Eurasia, including Yeniseian, Nivkh, Na-Dene, Haida, Salishan, etc. Fortescue suggests that the presence of uvulars in CK and EA may, then, represent an ancient areal innovation acquired from the earlier, “pre-Na-Dene” languages of Beringia.” ref

Evidence 

Morphology

Apparently shared elements of Uralo-Siberian morphology include the following:

ref

Lexicon

“Fortescue (1998) lists 94 lexical correspondence sets with reflexes in at least three of the four language families, and even more shared by two of the language families. Examples are *ap(p)a ‘grandfather’, *kað’a ‘mountain’, and many others. Below are some lexical items reconstructed to Proto-Uralo-Siberian, along with their reflexes in Proto-Uralic, Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan (sometimes Proto-Chukchi), and Proto-Eskaleut (sometimes Proto-Eskimo or Aleut). (Source: Fortescue 1998:152–158.)  According to Ante Aikio (who does not believe that Yukaghir is related to Uralic), the meanings ‘weave’ and ‘morning’ are most likely unrelated, which means that these are instances of coincidental homonymy, which only very rarely happens by chance, meaning that some kind of contact most likely happened, but exact conclusions cannot be drawn with modern information.” ref 

Grammatical

Fortescue suggested the following grammatical similarities to point to a relationship:

Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskaleut number and case markers: 

Yukaghir and Proto-Eskaleut verbal and nominal inflections

“Some or all of the four Uralo-Siberian families have been included in more extensive groupings of languages (see links below). Fortescue’s hypothesis does not oppose or exclude these various proposals. In particular, he considers that a remote relationship between Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (or some part of Altaic) is likely (see Ural–Altaic languages). However, Fortescue holds that Uralo-Siberian lies within the bounds of the provable, whereas Nostratic may be too remote a grouping to ever be convincingly demonstrated.” ref

“The University of Leiden linguist Frederik Kortlandt (2006:1) asserts that Indo-Uralic (a proposed language family consisting of Uralic and Indo-European) is itself a branch of Uralo-Siberian and that, furthermore, the Nivkh language also belongs to Uralo-Siberian. This would make Uralo-Siberian the proto-language of a much vaster language family. Kortlandt (2006:3) considers that Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (defined by him as consisting of Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese) may be coordinate branches of the Eurasiatic language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg but rejected by most linguists.” ref

Yeniseian languages

“The Yeniseian languages (/ˌjɛnɪˈseɪən/ YEN-ih-SAY-ən; sometimes known as Yeniseic or Yenisei-Ostyak; occasionally spelled with –ss-) are a family of languages that are spoken by the Yeniseian people in the Yenisei River region of central Siberia. As part of the proposed Dené–Yeniseian language family, the Yeniseian languages have been argued to be part of “the first demonstration of a genealogical link between Old World and New World language families that meets the standards of traditional comparative–historical linguistics.” The only surviving language of the group today is Ket. From hydronymic and genetic data, it is suggested that the Yeniseian languages were spoken in a much greater area in ancient times, including parts of northern China and Mongolia. It has been further proposed that the recorded distribution of Yeniseian languages from the 17th century onward represents a relatively recent northward migration, and that the Yeniseian urheimat lies to the south of Lake Baikal.” ref

“The Yeniseians have been connected to the Xiongnu confederation, whose ruling elite may have spoken a southern Yeniseian language similar to the now extinct Pumpokol language. The Jie, who ruled the Later Zhao state of northern China, are likewise believed to have spoken a Pumpokolic language based on linguistic and ethnogeographic data. For those who argue the Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language, the Yeniseian languages are thought to have contributed many ubiquitous loanwords to Turkic and Mongolic vocabulary, such as Khan, Khagan, Tarqan, and the word for ‘god’ and ‘sky’, Tengri. This conclusion has primarily been drawn from the analysis of preserved Xiongnu texts in the form of Chinese characters.” ref

“It has been suggested that the Xiongnu and Hunnic languages were Southern Yeniseian. Only two languages of this family survived into the 20th century: Ket (also known as Imbat Ket), with around 200 speakers, and Yugh (also known as Sym Ket), now extinct. The other known members of this family—Arin, Assan, Pumpokol, and Kott—have been extinct for over two centuries. Other groups—the Buklin, Baikot, Yarin, Yastin, Ash, and Koibal—are identifiable as Yeniseic speaking from tsarist fur-tax records compiled during the 17th century, but nothing remains of their languages except a few proper names.” ref

“Ket, the only extant Yeniseian language, is the northernmost known. Historical sources record a contemporaneous northern expansion of the Ket along the Yenisei during the Russian conquest of Siberia. Today, it is mainly spoken in Turukhansky District of Krasnoyarsk Krai in far northern Siberia, in villages such as Kellog and Sulomay. Yugh, which only recently faced extinction, was spoken from Yeniseysk to Vorogovo, Yartsevo, and the upper Ket River. The early modern distributions of Arin, Pumpokol, Kott, and Assan can be reconstructed. The Arin were north of Krasnoyarsk, whereas the closely related Pumpokol was spoken to the north and west of it, along the upper Ket. Kott and Assan, another pair of closely related languages, occupied the area south of Krasnoyarsk, and east to the Kan River.” ref

“From toponyms it can be seen that Yeniseian populations probably lived in Buryatia, Zabaykalsky, and northern Mongolia. As an example, the toponym ši can be found in Zabaykalsky Krai, which is probably related to the Proto-Yeniseian word sēs ‘river’ and likely derives from an undocumented Yeniseian language. Some toponyms that appear Yeniseian extend as far as Heilongjiang. Václav Blažek argues, based on hydronymic data, that Yeniseians were once spread out even farther into the west. He compares, for example, the word šet, found in more westerly river names, to Proto-Yeniseian sēs ‘river.” ref

“According to a 2016 study, Yeniseian people and their language originated likely somewhere near the Altai Mountains or near Lake Baikal. According to this study, the Yeniseians are linked to Paleo-Eskimo groups. The Yeniseians have also been hypothesized to be representative of a back-migration from Beringia to central Siberia, and the Dené–Yeniseians a result of a radiation of populations out of the Bering land bridge. The spread of ancient Yeniseian languages may be associated with an ancestry component from the Baikal area (Cisbaikal_LNBA), maximized among hunter-gatherers of the local Glazkovo culture. Affinity for this ancestry has been observed among Na-Dene speakers. Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry is inferred to be rich in Ancient Paleo-Siberian ancestry, and also display affinity to Inner Northeast Asian (Yumin-like) groups.” ref

“In Siberia, Edward Vajda observed that Yeniseian hydronyms in the circumpolar region (the recent area of distribution of Yeniseian languages) clearly overlay earlier systems, with the layering of morphemes onto Ugric, Samoyedic, Turkic, and Tungusic place names. It is therefore proposed that the homeland, or dispersal point, of the Yeniseian languages, lies in the boreal region between Lake Baikal, northern Mongolia, and the Upper Yenisei basin, referred to by Vajda as a territory “abandoned” by the original Yeniseian speakers. On the other hand, Václav Blažek (2019) argues that based on hydronomic evidence, Yeneisian languages were originally spoken on the northern slopes of the Tianshan and Pamir mountains before dispersing downstream via the Irtysh River.” ref

“The modern populations of Yeniseians in central and northern Siberia are thus not indigenous and represent a more recent migration northward. This was noted by Russian explorers during the conquest of Siberia: the Ket are recorded to have been expanding northwards along the Yenisei, from the river Yeloguy to the Kureyka, from the 17th century onward. Based on these records, the modern Ket-speaking area appears to represent the very northernmost reaches of Yeniseian migration.” ref

“The origin of this northward migration from the Mongolian steppe has been connected to the fall of the Xiongnu confederation. It appears from Chinese sources that a Yeniseian group might have been a major part of the heterogeneous Xiongnu tribal confederation, who have traditionally been considered the ancestors of the Huns and other Northern Asian groups. However, these suggestions are difficult to substantiate due to the paucity of data. Alexander Vovin argues that at least parts of the Xiongnu, possibly its core or ruling class, spoke a Yeniseian language. Positing a higher degree of similarity of Xiongnu to Yeniseian as compared to Turkic, he also praised Stefan Georg‘s demonstration of how the word Tengri (the Turkic and Mongolic word for ‘sky’ and later ‘god’) originated from Proto-Yeniseian tɨŋVr. It has been further suggested that the Yeniseian-speaking Xiongnu elite underwent a language shift to Oghur Turkic while migrating westward, eventually becoming the Huns.” ref

“However, it has also been suggested that the core of the Hunnic language was a Yeniseian language. Vajda (et al. 2013) proposed that the ruling elite of the Huns spoke a Yeniseian language and influenced other languages in the region. One sentence of the language of the Jie, a Xiongnu tribe who founded the Later Zhao state, appears consistent with being a Yeniseian language. Later study suggests that Jie is closer to Pumpokol than to other Yeniseian languages such as Ket. This has been substantiated with geographical data by Vajda, who states that Yeniseian hydronyms found in northern Mongolia are exclusively Pumpokolic, in the process demonstrating both a linguistic and geographic proximity between Yeniseian and Jie. The decline of the southern Yeniseian languages during and after the Russian conquest of Siberia has been attributed to language shifts of the Arin and Pumpokol to Khakas or Chulym Tatar, and the Kott and Assan to Khakas.” ref

“The Yeniseian languages share many contact-induced similarities with the South Siberian Turkic languages, Samoyedic languages, and Evenki. These include long-distance nasal harmony, the development of former affricates to stops, and the use of postpositions or grammatical enclitics as clausal subordinators. Yeniseic nominal enclitics closely approximate the case systems of geographically contiguous families. Despite these similarities, Yeniseian appears to stand out among the languages of Siberia in several typological respects, such as the presence of tone, the prefixing verb inflection, and highly complex morphophonology. The Yeniseian languages have been described as having up to four tones or no tones at all. The ‘tones’ are concomitant with glottalization, vowel length, and breathy voice, not unlike the situation reconstructed for Old Chinese before the development of true tones in Chinese. The Yeniseian languages have highly elaborate verbal morphology.” ref

“Until 2008, few linguists had accepted connections between Yeniseian and any other language family, though distant connections have been proposed with most of the ergative languages of Eurasia. In 2008, Edward Vajda of Western Washington University presented evidence for a genealogical relation between the Yeniseian languages of Siberia and the Na–Dené languages of North America. At the time of publication (2010), Vajda’s proposals had been favorably reviewed by several specialists of Na-Dené and Yeniseian languages—although at times with caution—including Michael Krauss, Jeff Leer, James Kari, and Heinrich Werner, as well as a number of other respected linguists, such as Bernard Comrie, Johanna Nichols, Victor Golla, Michael Fortescue, Eric Hamp, and Bill Poser (Kari and Potter 2010:12). One significant exception is the critical review of the volume of collected papers by Lyle Campbell and a response by Vajda published in late 2011 that clearly indicate the proposal is not completely settled at the present time. Two other reviews and notices of the volume appeared in 2011 by Keren Rice and Jared Diamond.” ref

“The Karasuk hypothesis, linking Yeniseian to Burushaski, has been proposed by several scholars, notably by A.P. Dulson and V.N. Toporov. George van Driem, the most prominent current advocate of the Karasuk hypothesis, postulates that the Burusho people were part of the migration out of Central Asia, that resulted in the Indo-European conquest of the Indus Valley. As noted by Tailleur and Werner, some of the earliest proposals of genetic relations of Yeniseian, by M.A. Castrén (1856), James Byrne (1892), and G.J. Ramstedt (1907), suggested that Yeniseian was a northern relative of the Sino–Tibetan languages. These ideas were followed much later by Kai Donner and Karl Bouda. A 2008 study found further evidence for a possible relation between Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, citing several possible cognates. Gao Jingyi (2014) identified twelve Sinitic and Yeniseian shared etymologies that belonged to the basic vocabulary, and argued that these Sino-Yeniseian etymologies could not be loans from either language into the other.” ref

The Sino-Caucasian hypothesis of Sergei Starostin posits that the Yeniseian languages form a clade with Sino-Tibetan, which he called Sino-Yeniseian. The Sino-Caucasian hypothesis has been expanded by others to “Dené–Caucasian” to include the Na-Dené languages of North America, Burushaski, Basque and, occasionally, Etruscan. A narrower binary Dené–Yeniseian family has recently been well received. The validity of the rest of the family, however, is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly all historical linguists. A link between the Na–Dené languages and Sino-Tibetan languages, known as Sino–Dené had also been proposed by Edward Sapir. Around 1920 Sapir became convinced that Na-Dené was more closely related to Sino-Tibetan than to other American families. Edward Vadja’s Dené–Yeniseian proposal renewed interest among linguists such as Geoffrey Caveney (2014) to look into support for the Sino–Dené hypothesis. Caveney considered a link between Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dené, and Yeniseian to be plausible but did not support the hypothesis that Sino-Tibetan and Na-Dené were related to the Caucasian languages (Sino–Caucasian and Dené–Caucasian).” ref

“A 2023 analysis by David Bradley using the standard techniques of comparative linguistics supports a distant genetic link between the Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dené, and Yeniseian language families. Bradley argues that any similarities Sino-Tibetan shares with other language families of the East Asia area such as Hmong-Mien, Altaic (which is actually a sprachbund), Austroasiatic, Kra-Dai, Austronesian came through contact; but as there has been no recent contact between Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dené, and Yeniseian language families then any similarities these groups share must be residual.Bouda, in various publications in the 1930s through the 1950s, described a linguistic network that (besides Yeniseian and Sino-Tibetan) also included Caucasian, and Burushaski, some forms of which have gone by the name of Sino-Caucasian. The works of R. Bleichsteiner and O.G. Tailleur, the late Sergei A. Starostin, and Sergei L. Nikolayev have sought to confirm these connections. Others who have developed the hypothesis, often expanded to Dené–Caucasian, include J.D. Bengtson, V. Blažek, J.H. Greenberg (with M. Ruhlen), and M. Ruhlen. George Starostin continues his father’s work in Yeniseian, Sino-Caucasian, and other fields. This theory is very controversial or viewed as obsolete by other linguists.” ref

“Siberia’s once widespread Yeniseian language family probably predates the expansion of reindeer breeders and earlier pastoralists in North and Inner Asia (Dul’zon 1959, 1962, Vajda 2001, 2009, Werner 2005). The Ket language, almost extinct, is the only language of the Yeniseian family that survived into the 21^st century. Most Yeniseian-speaking tribes (Arin, Assan, Baikot, Kott, Pumpokol, Yarin, Yastin) used to live south of the current Ket settlements, many of which were forcefully established in the 1930s during the Soviet rule.” ref

“The Yeniseian languages are first mentioned in a c. 1600 tsarist yasak or fur tax collection (see map below), and are documented from the 18^th and 19^th century. They can be divided into Ket-Yugh, Pumpokol, and Assan-Kott branches, with Arin either connected with Pumpokol or Ket-Yugh, or representing a fourth sub-branch. Today the Yeniseian language family is represented only by the three surviving dialects of Ket.” ref

“All attested dialects appear related to a time depth of ca. 2000 years, with the breakup of Common Yeniseian occurring earlier, possibly coinciding with the expansion of Scythians (ca. 700-200 BCE). Further dispersal of the Ket-Yugh branch to the north might have been triggered by the Xiongnu (ca. 300 BCE – CE 200). If Proto-Yeniseian is dated between 2000 BCE and the beginning of our era (cf. Vajda 2019), widespread Para-Yeniseian hydronymy (see below) suggests that a Pre-Proto-Yeniseian language should be dated to an even earlier period (cf. Peyrot 2019).” ref

“The potential inclusion of Na-Dene in an expanded Dene-Yeniseian language would be represented by an even earlier Neolithic community, but also to a more restricted homeland area for both, closer to Lake Baikal. NOTE. To avoid naming conflicts and artificial divisions, I will use below (Common) Yeniseian for the eastern, well known reconstructible branch, and (Proto-)Yeniseic as an umbrella term for Proto-Yeniseian and possible sister Para-Yeniseian branches inferred from hydronymy. In any case, the time estimates for Proto-Yeniseian and Dene-Yeniseian taken together do not allow for great differences between Yeniseic branches closely related with Common Yeniseian.” ref

 

Evolution and Contacts

“The Dingling hunter-gatherer tribes along China’s northern border – mentioned in Chinese historiography in the 1^st century BC – are arguably the first historically mentioned linguistic forbearers of the Ket (cf. Ket dɛɁŋ ‘people’), according to Vajda (2020). On the other hand, these tribes are considered to have been formed by a majority of Turkic-speaking peoples, due to their incorporation into the Xiongnu Empire and thus likely close relationship with Huns (see below Proto-Turkic Homeland).” ref

“Despite the potentially promising identification of some of the few attested Xiongnu words as Yeniseian (Vovin 2000, 2002), the absence of grammatical or phonological influence of the hugely influential Xiongnu or later Huns suggests that these peoples were not primarily speakers of Yeniseian, but rather speakers of suffixal-agglutinating – i.e. “Turkic-Mongolic-like” – languages (Vajda 2020). Some potential Proto-Turkic loans in Yeniseian, with a few only attested in Ket-Yugh, support the proposed chain of Common Yeniseian migrations of hunter-gatherers along the Yenisei during this period, probably pushed by the expanding Xiongnu, rather than represented by them.” ref

“Yeniseian shows almost exclusive contacts with Siberian Turkic: the earliest layer stemming from contacts with Yenisei Turkic, but most loanwords belonging to a later layer, corresponding to Altai Turkic. A few early Turkic etyma support the described evolution proper of Common Yeniseian; cf. Kott kulʲuk ‘brave’ ← Turkic *külük ← *kǖlüg, or Kott kajax ~ kajag ‘butter’ ← Turkic *qayaq, cf. OT kańak (Khabtagaeva 2015b). Morover, a small number of these corresponds to intermediate loanwords of Mongolian origin, such as Kott šugur ‘one-eyed’ ← Turkic *sogur ← Mongolic *soqor, or Kott keršo ← Turkic *kärsǟ ← Mongolic *kersegü (Khabtagaeva 2015a). These Mongolic terms were also borrowed into other Eurasian languages (such as *soqor into Tundra Yukaghir soquor ‘blind’, Udmurt sukir ‘blind’ ← Tatar suqâr ‘blind’), which points to their role as possible Wanderwörter in the wider Siberian cultural context (Piispanen 2019).” ref

“Modern Yeniseian varieties show what seems like an intricate relatively recent structural hybridization, a typological accomodation of the original Yeniseic prefixing structure to neighbouring Samoyedic and Turkic languages, mimicking their morphological and phonological patterns, not paralleled by grammatical borrowings. This trend seems to have been under way already during the time of Common Yeniseian. For example, the pattern of suffixal agglutination was gradually adopted, but no affixes were borrowed in this process, nor did any change occur in the order or function of the original prefix slots, which took instead simply the appearance of suffixes (Vajda 2020). As another example, the formation of adverbial and relative clauses imitates that of the surrounding (Samoyed, Eastern Khanty) languages, and does not conform to the expected ‘polysynthetic’ pattern (Nefedov 2015).” ref

 

“A clear Yeniseian substrate can be discerned in some well-studied Siberian groups. Some South Siberian Turkic dialects, like Chulym, show an evidence substratal Yeniseic layer, whereas ethnic divisions among northern dialects (Northern Altai, Shor, Khakas, Tuvan), and presumably the actual clans they refer to, originate from Yeniseian. The extinct Southern Samoyed Koibal and Karagas are presumed to be acculturated Yenisean speakers due to the many loanwords attested in their scarce documented vocabulary. Furthermore, the Tofa are believed to have arisen from a deeper Yeniseic substrate (Vainshtein 1961), first shifting to Samoyedic, and later to Turkic, with some groups possibly shifting directly from Yeniseic to Turkic (Anderson & Harrison 2020).” ref

“NOTE. For a critical view of Yeniseic areal contacts, see e.g. Georg (2008). Of all their neighbours in the Yenisei River Basin, the Selkup maintained the closest and most friendly relationships with the Ket, often exchanging marriage partners. This is also seen in the words borrowed between the two peoples for family relations and spiritual culture (cf. Kim-Maloney 2004). Also, some Selkup groups show ethnic autonyms borrowed from Yeniseian (see below Proto-Samoyed Homeland). Yeniseians seem to have maintained adversarial relations with their northern neighbours, like the Enets and Nenets, although Janhunen (1986: 167-168) suggests that the glottal stop in Nenets diffused from Ket, with tribal names adopted by Samoyeds along the Lower Yenisei supporting this substratal or adstratal influence.” ref

“All Turkic loanwords related to kinship terms – including compounds of assimilated amalgamations, hybrid words, or “half-affixes” (Khabtagaeva 2015c) seem to have been incorporated into the already split-up Yeniseian dialects (Khabtagaeva 2018), suggesting that Yeniseians and Turkic peoples intermarried only recently and variably with neighbouring groups. All Tungusic loanwords discernible in Ket come from Northern Tungusic (Evenki) dialects (Khabtagaeva 2017).” ref

 

Hydronymy

“It is well established based on hydrotoponymic evidence that, prior to the 17^th century, speakers of the Yeniseian language family occupied vast territories of Western and Central Siberia, from northern Mongolia in the south to the Middle Yenisei River in the north, and from the Irtysh River in the west to the Angara River in the east (Dul’zon 1959, Maloletko 2000, Vajda 2001). Known Yeniseian daughter languages are distinguishable in the substrate toponymy around the Yenisei River Basin, which suggests that Common Yeniseian might have already broken up into distinct Ketic, Kottic, Arinicic and Pumpolic daughter branches prior to the arrival of pastoralist tribes to the area, roughly 3000 years ago.” ref

“However, how much earlier the breakup of Common Yeniseian predates pastoralism in the Siberian forest-steppes and taiga zones is impossible to ascertain (Vajda 2019). Nevertheless, Vajda (2019) considers the core area containing all Common Yeniseian and other Yeniseic formants to lie to the south, between the Ob and Angara rivers and the Altai-Sayan region, with further dialectal specialization noticed in expansions to the west and north of this area. In fact, river name formants of unknown origin found in sub-Arctic central Siberia – e.g. sɨm or qo’l – support the inferred recent northward expansion of Ket-Yugh.” ref

 

“Further, the diversity of Yeniseian substrate river names* across Western, Southern, and Central Siberia strongly suggests that the family originally had considerable internal depth and variation, and that some primary branches vanished unrecorded (Vajda 2020):

* These refer only to hydronyms that contain evident cognates of Common Yeniseian words for ‘river’ or ‘water’, and not to the arguably much more frequently encountered palce and river names of West Siberia which are potentially etymologizable as Yeniseic.

• Hydronyms in tis, tyš, tas, taš – with the best known one being the Irtysh River – indicates the existence of an additional unattested node of Yeniseian.
• River names in zis, zaš, zes indicate yet another.
• Those in tes and ši also do not correlate well with any known Yeniseian language.
• Rivers in kat (or its substrate phonetic variants ket ~ gat ~ get ~ gyt) were convincingly argued by Werner (2012) to stem from a Proto-Yeniseian root meaning ‘clan’ (cf. Ket kə’t ‘children of the same mother’ and Kott kat ‘children’), which – together with formants Kottic šet or Ket ses (cf. PYen. *sēs river) – are presumed to represent “kin groups who nomadized near the given river, and who met and traded there with other nationalities, thus transferring their clan designation to an alien linguistic community as the name of the given river” (Vajda 2019). In fact, their geographical distribution coincide in general terms with the borders of the Yeniseic hydronymic area (see map below).
• Formants in kul have a closer association with Yeniseian (cf. PYen. *xūl the most prevalent word for ‘water’), despite some potential imitation beyond its core area (e.g. with Turkic achi-). Similarly, given their distribution, formants in šet or man (shared with Na-Dene) might have been spread by Turkic groups, despite their non-Turkic origin (although read below about the multilingual Xiongnu in Proto-Turkic Homeland).
• Many Siberian hydronyms in ur (cf. Yugh ūr ‘water’) are difficult to etymologize, and can be described from the Oka to the Amur river basins. Lacking additional evidence of Yeniseians living that far west of the Urals or east of Lake Baikal, it is tentative at best to identify any of them as Yeniseian (Vajda 2019), unless relevant connecting clusters are found with the core hydronymic area.
• Eastern Khanty dialects also contain Yeniseic loanwords, in line with the presence of Yeniseic toponyms in the Ob’-Irtysh watershed.” ref

“Recognizable Yeniseic formants are thus present in Western Siberia throughout the Ob’ River Basin – including names along the Vakh, Tym, Vasygan, Ket’, Chulym, and Tom river basins – and Irtysh River Basin – including names from the Tobol, Ishim, Tara, and Om river basins – almost up to the eastern slope of the Ural mountains. Blažek (2015: 72) and Vajda (2019) offer a summary with some of the most reliable hydronyms of the Ob-Irtysh system, including those already described by Duľzon (1959: 98-111) and Maloletko (2000: 111-153).” ref

 

Archaeology and population genomics

“More than 90% of Kets sampled to date share Q1b-L330 lineages, a proportion much greater than neighbouring Selkups, who show ca. 66-72% of hg. Q1b-L56. This likely east-to-west cline is in line with a diminishing proportion of hg. Q1b in an apparently south-to-north cline that reaches Nganasans in the lower Yenisei, where N1a-P43 predominates (ca. 92%), with different clades of hg. N1a-L708 and downstream N1a-L1026 appearing in west-to-east clines along the Taiga and Tundra (cf. Karmin et al. 2015, Flegontov et al. 2016, Ilumäe et al. 2016, Tambets et al. 2018).” ref

“Selkup is known to have been used as lingua franca among tribes inhabiting the northwest of the Yeniseian-speaking area (Anderson 2004), with Kets and Selkups having a long-lasting history of intermarriage. Even more important, Ket villages from the Northern Yenisei were settled in the 19^th-20^th centuries from mixed populations (Nenets, Evenks, Selkups, Yakuts), which questions the ancestral origin of many of these haplogroups. Similarly, recent migration and/or language shift events resulted in the emergence of Northern Selkup communities (e.g. Poshekhonova, Zubova & Sleptsova 2020) and Russification of southern ones. In fact, it is impossible to say if the distinctive ancestry of Yeniseian and Selkup speakers survives unadmixed today among modern speakers, since present-day Ket speakers are genetically indistinguishable from Selkup speakers (Flegontov et al. 2016).” ref

 

“Of note, the ancestry of sampled modern Khants – not only Eastern Khants – and many of the modern Mansis sampled to date forms part of the same wide West Siberian cluster. The different Y-DNA bottlenecks partially shared by Ob-Ugrians and the genome-wide data from elite Sargat nomads published in Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. (2021) suggest that this is the result of convergence through admixture with (and/or acculturation of) a population likely also ancestrally formed by Yeniseic speakers (see below Ob-Ugric Homeland).” ref

“In any case, the acculturation of traditionally Yeniseic-speaking territory shifting to Samoyed – and the specific Q1b-L330 found among them (see below Proto-Samoyed Homeland) – supports the historical and linguistic evidence that both modern populations – Selkups and Kets – are reliable proxies for ancient Common Yeniseians, or, alternatively, of more distantly related Yeniseic-speaking peoples that shifted recently to Samoyed (Selkup and Enets) and Common Yeniseian (Ket-Yugh), respectively. Whether other haplogroups (like N1a-Tat subclades) also spread west- and northward with Yeniseic languages through the West Siberian forest-steppes and taiga, is yet unclear.” ref

“The main open question about Proto-Yeniseic expansions discussed below is therefore that modern Kets from the Lower Yenisei could in fact represent an earlier Yeniseic layer instead of the Common Yeniseian one, which might have been associated with further migration waves caused later during the MBA by the arrival of Karasuk (first), and by LBA/IA Altai-related expansions. Whether these population movements caused an expansion of Common Yeniseian speakers from Upper Yenisei populations downstream, or rather a renewed Yeniseic splits and expansions from the hypothetical Cis-Baikal – Altai-Sayan – Ob’ core area, and which ones caused which, is unclear, although the lack of recent southern influences in Ket-Yugh suggests that at least part of splitting Common Yeniseian dialects developed already disconnected from Iron Age and later migrations to the south (see Evolution above).” ref

 

Glazkovo culture

“The emergence of the Early Bronze Age Glazkovo culture shows changes relative to the Late Neolithic Serovo complex, represented mainly by the described mortuary traditions: appearance of copper alloy and polished nephrite artifacts, larger Glazkovo cemeteries, new pottery styles, fewer graves with multiple burials, an increase in exotic and labour-intensive objects, different orientations of individuals in graves, and increased heterogeneity in grave good distribution between Glazkovo individuals (Weber 1995, Weber et al. 2002, Weber & Bettinger 2010).” ref

“Shepard et al. (2016) has proposed that the change from Serovo to Glazkovo mortuary protocols reflects a change in socio-political organization. Specifically, he suggests that the Serovo political economy emphasized corporate strategies involving local resources while the political economy of the Glazkovo shifted to include network-oriented exclusionary strategies that emphasized status distinctions between individuals. Weber (2020) argues the change is due to the introduction of a new form of socioeconomic organization involving any of the following: new mechanisms of land tenure, new patterns of group formation, expanded exchange networks, and/or lower competition between gender and age groups.” ref

“Whatever the case, there is today a general agreement about the presence of non-local individuals in Little Sea EBA-Glazkovo cemeteries. Different scenarios to explain the influx of non-locals include a larger seasonal round, more long-distance ‘macro-regional’ interaction, and/or the prosperity of Little Sea Glazkovo society drawing in individuals from neighbouring groups (Haverkort et al. 2008, Weber & Goriunova 2013, Shepard et al. 2016, Weber 2020).” ref

 

“Glazkovo and related sites from the Cis-Baikal region show a certain variability in terms of Y-chromosome haplogroups, but with an overwhelming majority of Q1b lineages (36 out of 41 analyzed), hence similar to preceding populations of the area. Among them, these are some relevant downstream Q1b-L53 subclades reported (cf. Damgaard et al. Science 2018, Flegontov et al. 2019, Yu et al. 2020, Kılınç et al. 2021):

a. Q1b-L53>YP4010>YP3966>YP3955 (formed ca. 15900, T_MRCA ca. 5300 BC), found in 24 samples, most if not all of them under Q-BZ2197 (formed ca. 5600 BC, T_MRCA ca. 500 AD), in sites from the Angara and Lena river basins. The main subclades found are eight basal BZ2210>BZ2222 (two of them possibly downstream pre-BZ2200), which continue Late Neolithic lineages from the region; and six FT375375 (two of them downstream FTA3955), which has been found to date only in Cis-Baikal EBA.” ref

“A basal upper clade Q1b-L53>YP4010 (T_MRCA ca. 14900 BC) is found in Onnyos-1, belonging to the Bel’kachi culture; and also one step below it Q-YP3966 in Lovelock4, from Nevada, which loosely connects patrilineally the Pre-Proto-Na-Dene and the Athabascan expansion, respectively, with Cis-Baikal Neolithic/EBA groups (see full discussion here). Q-YP3955 subclades are also found later in Okunevo, and much later among early Sargat individuals from the Trans-Urals (see map of ancient Q-YP4010).” ref

 

“Q1b-L53>L54>L330>B287>Y11938 (formed ca. 5800 BC, T_MRCA ca. 4600 BC) found in six samples from the Angara River Basin, probably all belonging to Glazkovo and related Cis-Baikal LN/EBA groups of the second half of the 3^rd millennium*: two from Ust’Ida, one from Ust’Belaya, one from Podostrozhnoe, as well as two with downstream basal Q-Y11236 (T_MRCA ca. 4000 BC): one from Shamanka II, and one from Ust’-Dolgoe.
* Variable radiocarbon dates starting ca. 3083 calBC and ending ca. 1977 calBC seem not to be fully reliable given their common archaeological context, especially due to the lack of assessment of marine calibration.” ref

“Two good-quality modern Ket samples show hg. Q1b-Y11938, one of them Q1b-Y11236. This same lineage is found in Scytho-Siberian Sagly and Berel cultures, and also in a later Hun from the same region. Other related Scytho-Siberian and Hunnic lines continuing Mongolia EBA/IA lineages include Q1b-L53>L54>L330>YP771 lines (Q-BZ180 and Q-BZ433), found first in Okunevo EBA samples (see map of ancient Q-Y11938). Both haplogroups, Q-YP4010 and Q-Y11938, appear among Cis-Baikal Neolithic-EBA lineages, which could link Proto-Na-Dene and Proto-Yeniseic to the area. Some Cis-Baikal Neolithic-EBA lineages probably spread, in turn, as part of Okunevo-like cultures.” ref

 

Okunevo-like cultures

“The Bronze Age Okunevo culture (ca. 2600-1900 BC) is a unique phenomenon due to its complex burial traditions and rich art heritage, proof of the developed spiritual and religious views of its people (Gass 2011). It is represented mainly by burial grounds, with no traces of buildings or hearths found yet. On the other hand, rock art with connections to Tom sites (cf. Ponomareva & Taçon 2018) and stone stellae with complex drawings (Leont’ev et al. 2006) and anthromorphic representations connected to neighbouring steppe cultures like Chemurchek (cf. Bobrov 2021) are characteristic of the culture (Outram et al. 2018).” ref

“The culture has been found mainly in the Minusinsk Basin, a region of the Middle Yenisei isolated by the Sayan mountains on one side and the Kuznetsk Alatau on the other. Different landscapes are found within this area, including steppe, forest-steppe, and taiga environments, which helped its people combine different models of subsistence economy, including cattle breeding and metal production introduced by Afanasievo pastoralists. As such, the Okunevo people likely formed as a mixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers from the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk forest-steppe (to the north of the Minusinsk Basin) and incoming Afanasievo pastoralists.” ref

“It shares elements of material culture, including pottery, with local cultures from adjacent areas, such as the Samus’, Elunino, Karacol, and Krotovo cultures of Western Siberia and the Altai; the Kanay type burials of Eastern Kazakhstan; and the Okunevo-like culture of Tuva. This has been used to link them all as belonging to “the ring of related Okunevo-like cultures” (Molodin 2006; Savinov 1997; Stambulnik and Chugunov 2006).” ref

 

“The earliest Okunevo-like sample known is BZK002, found near the river Bazaikha on the right bank of the Yenisei River, further to the west of the Lake Baikal, in the northern border of the Minusinsk Basin. Due to the lack of context for the skeletal sample, it was first attributed to the LBA Karasuk culture based on surrounding archaeological sites, but its radiocarbon date ca. 2800 BC suggests that it belongs to the EBA hunter-gatherer population immediately preceding Okunevo, and is now labelled “Tenisei_EBA”. Its haplogroup is basal Q1b-BZ433 (T_MRCA ca. 5300 BCE).” ref

“Even though all Okunevo individuals published to date by Damgaard et al. Science (2018) and Hollard et al. (2018) show a fairly consistent Steppe_EMBA (ANE-like) ancestry and a relatively tight cluster, they show a high diversity in terms of Y-chromosome haplogroups, including close family links within local kurgans, consistent with the theorized amalgamation of different populations during the formation of the culture. They show 11 hg. Q1b, 2 R1b-L23, 1 Q1a, and possibly 3 N1a-Tat. In roughly chronological order, following the traditional division into early or Uybat (ca. 2600-2300 BCE) and late or Chernovaya periods (ca. 2200-1900 BCE):

• R1b-Z2103 in two samples from Uybat V (the only radiocarbon-dated one shows a mean ca. 2570 BC). The wide eastern reach of the preceding Afanasievo culture is supported by the Steppe-related admixture reaching sample KPT005, from the Khaptsagay area, belonging to the Glazkovo stage of the Cis-Baikal EBA.
• Basal Q1b-BZ433, coinciding with the earlier Okunevo-like LN BZK002, in three samples: two 1^st/2^nd-degree relatives from Okunev Ulus (common span ca. 2459-1946 calBC), and one from Syda 5, Tumen (ca. 2485 BC). This haplogroup is later found in Scytho-Siberian Sagly from Uvs aimag, Zevakino-Chilikta, and Xiongnu (see map of ancient Q-BZ433).
• NO-M214(xO) in three early samples (archaeological context), one from Uybat V, and one from Itkol’ II, with another one from this site during a late period.” ref

“NOTE. Y-STRs reported in Hollard et al. (2018) are compatible with hg. N-Tat (Nevgen: up to 96% prob. for Itkol’ samples, 21% for Uybat), with unknown subclade within the N branch. For the best coverage one, the early sample from Itkol’ II, it shows 0.5% N-Z1934, 0.04% Z4908.

• Q1b-BZ180, probably basal Q1b-Y146631*, from Syda 5, Tumen, without radiocarbon date. The same haplogroup is found earlier in Cis-Baikal EBA, and later in Mongolia BA (Khövsgöl, Munkh-Khairkan), Slab Grave, Scytho-Siberian Berel, Xiongnu, and Sarmatians (see map of ancient Q-BZ180).
• Q1b-FT377000 in four samples from Verkhni Askiz (mean 2115 and 2010 calBC in the two samples with radiocarbon dates).
• Q1a-FT414149 in one sample from Uybat V (ca 2020 calBC), later found in a Karasuk LBA outlier from the Minusinsk Basin, and in a Scytho-Siberian Sagly from Uvs aimag.” ref

“Haplogroups Q and Q1b are also reported for two individuals from Teleytskiy Vzvoz-I, belonging to the Elunino culture (archaeological context 2300-1700 BCE).” ref

 

Seima-Turbino phenomenon

“Despite the lack of early samples from important Seima-Turbino sites proper, there is evidence that a Steppe_EMBA ancestry close to Okunevo was present from east to west throughout the Eurasian steppes much earlier than this Trans-Eurasian cultural phenomenon (likely dated ca. 2200/2100 BC or later). In fact, the formation and spread of Okunevo-like cultures likely predates that of the Seima-Turbino materials, which appear in the forest-steppes and taiga roughly coincident with the eastward spread of the Srubnaya-Andronovo horizon through the steppes.” ref

“Okunevo-like ancestry is found in two Kazakhstan EBA samples from Damgaard et al. Science (2018): EBA2, from a kurgan in Sjolpan 4 (ca. 2530 BCE), and EBA1, from Gregorievka 2 (ca. 2160 BCE). Both samples, together with the Neolithic representatives of West Siberian hunter-gatherer (WSHG) ancestry from the taiga in the Trans-Urals (Sosnoviy_HG) and Ob’-Irtysh basin (Tyumen_HG), suggest at least partial continuity of clines of Siberian hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Central Asian EBA.” ref

“The impact of Okunevo-related lineages is at least visible in Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from the Tian Shan, the Altai and Krasnoyarsk. However, in line with the multiple ANE-related intrusions, it is clear from the ancient DNA record that different Q1b subclades spread westward from Asia into Eastern Europe associated with different migration waves during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, reaching all biomes from the tundra to the steppes.” ref

 

“Based on the most reasonable estimates for Proto-Yeniseian and Common Yenisean, and the likely connection of Dene-Yeniseian with Cis-Baikal Neolithic populations, none of those early westward migration waves can correspond to the expansion of the Yeniseic branch. The specific migration or migration waves spreading Yeniseic should be visible in Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age population movements throughout South and West Siberia, marked by a similar ancestry and increasing Y-DNA bottlenecks, probably under Q1b-L53 lineages (but possibly also including hg. N1a-Tat) from east to west, ultimately stemming from the Circum-Baikal area.” ref

“In any case, this migration is unlikely to offer support for the often-cited Seima-Turbino migrationist model of Chernykh & Kuzminykh (1989), because the demographic impact of Corded Ware-related R1a-Z93-rich populations spreading eastward through the Eurasian steppes, forest-steppes and southern taiga during the EBA essentially confirms the archaeological model of an Eastern European origin of materials and elites, stemming ultimately from Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo populations. Based on the surviving hydronymy, Yeniseic-speaking peoples probably remained still for hundreds or thousands of years (depending on the region) inhabiting the taiga of the Trans-Urals and West and Central Siberia, between the Ural Mountains and the Irtysh, Ob’, and Yenisei river basins. NOTE. For more on the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and the Andronovo-like Horizon, see below Ob-Ugric Homeland and Proto-Samoyed Homeland.” ref

 

Palaeo-Arctic and Palaeo-Siberian clines

“Complicating any simplistic interpretation of modern and ancient east-west and steppe-tundra clines, samples from Okunevo-like cultures are likely to cluster close to the coeval Bolshoy Olenyi Ostrov samples from the Lovozero culture – 2,000-3,000 km to the north-west, and whose N-L1026 haplogroup is (currently) closest to Kra001 from the Serovo Complex in the Kansk-Rubin basin (neighbouring the Minusinsk Basin), and to N4a1 and N4b1 from Ymyyakhtakh (cf. Kılınç et al. 2021). Such northern vs. southern Baikal_N:WSHG clines are not fully unexpected, assuming an admixture of both – Ymyyakhtakh and Okunevo peoples – with more WSHG-like Comb Ware-related groups of the Northern and Southern Trans-Urals, with their Y-DNA bottlenecks stemming ultimately from the Circum-Baikal area.” ref

 

“The main problem, however, is that the ancestry of modern Siberians of the Taiga and Tundra – including Ob-Ugrians, Yeniseians, and Taiga Yukaghirs, among others – shows a clear shift toward the Neo-Siberian cline that was formed by the Ymyyakhtakh expansion – including Chukotians, Itelmen, Tundra Yukaghirs, or Enets (who are close to the isolated Nganasans). In other words, modern West Siberian taiga-tundra groups that form the ‘western’ part of the so-called “Siberian” or “Ket-Uralic” ancestry cline do not resemble their potential 4,000-year-old predecessors, who apparently formed two different clines connecting Baikal EBA groups to WSHG-like populations, from Okunevo-related peoples close to the steppes to the Lovozero-related populations around the Barents Sea.” ref

“This striking recent convergent shift of both, Arctic and Hypoarctic (N1a-L1026-rich?) and Taiga (Q1b-L330-rich?) populations, is nevertheless restricted to West Siberia. Peoples from North-Eastern Europe – like Estonians, Finns, Northern Russians, and especially Saami – show admixture of Baltic Corded Ware groups with long-isolated Lovozero-like EBA populations, whereas groups like Chuvash, Bashkirs, Tatars, Mari, or Udmurts are apparently within the “Ket-Uralic” cline proper that leads to Enets in the Lower Yenisei.” ref

“This strongly suggests that the Central and Northern Urals were, in general, a barrier to gene flow after the EBA, and that the ancestry changes seen in the Cis-Urals are associated with different waves of Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and medieval nomads expanding westward and admixing with locals from North-Eastern Europe. NOTE. This isolation and the formation of two clearly distinct Corded Ware-related clines among modern Uralic peoples is the main reason why I thought N1a-Z1934 would have accompanied the northern Palaeo-Laplandic (i.e. Lovozero-related) migration, despite the attested, likely basal N-L1026 lineages from Bolshoy Oleniy Ostrov. Recent findings of N-Z1936 from the Trans-Urals have not clarified this extent much (see below Ob-Ugric Homeland).” ref

“The Ancient North Siberian (ANS) ancestry (represented by the 38,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Yana individuals) received gene flow from a post-LGM ancestry – whose best current proxy is 15,000-year-old Khaiyrgas-1 – forming the ancient Palaeo-Siberian (PS) ancestry found in a ca. 7800 BC individual from the Duvanny Yar site, Kolyma River, belonging to the Sunnagin cultural complex. This Kolyma1 sample, of Y-DNA hg. Q1a-pre-Z36017, is in turn the closest representative of northern Native American (NNA) ancestry, as found in the Alaskan Shuhá Káa individual from On Your Knees Cave, of hg. Q1b-L53.” ref

“NOTE. That gene flow forming Proto-American lineages was predicted in Sikora et al. (2019) as a Devil’s Gate-related influx over a mainly ANS-related population, a claim that has been refined in the preprint by Ning et al. (2020) based on their new Houtaomuga transect, showing that Early Neolithic populations (ca. 5600 BC) from the Amur River Basin (ARB) share a similar ancestry with Kolyma1, and that they contributed to the ancestry of a newly reported Upward Sun River 1 (USR1) individual from the Denali tradition, possibly representing a newly described Ancient Beringian ancestry group, which might complicate the previous discussion about ancient intrusions through the Beringia Strait.” ref

“Nevertheless, their tentative assessments of succeeding population (and associated linguistic) movements in North-East Siberia and North America – including Syalakh, Bel’kachi, and Ymyyakhtakh cultures – were based on two Magadan Bronze Age samples and later Iron Age / early medieval individuals. The more recent Circum-Baikal transect from Kılınç et al. (2021) offers much closer proxies for these population movements, and their interpretations supersede those from Ning’s preprint, which need to be reviewed accordingly (although Kılınç et al. could not take into account the findings of Ning et al.). The single reported Houtaomuga Early Neolithic Y-DNA hg., N1b1, also suggests that their relationship is not so close as inferred from formal stats alone.” ref

“A Yakutia-Lena Neolithic ancestry is represented by a ca. 4800 BC Syalakh-related Matta-1, and by a ca. 4200 BC Bel’kachi-related Onnyos-1. This ancestry is intermediate between Khaiyrgas-1 and the later Yakutia-Lena-Kolyma Bronze Age ancestry, and corresponds to the previously described Palaeo-Eskimo ancestry, found widely distributed among North American and Russian Far Eastern populations (see below). The most recent Neolithic representative of the two, Onnyos-1, shows a basal Y-DNA hg. Q1b-YP4010.” ref

“A Yakutia-Kolyma Bronze Age ancestry is represented first by two 2500-2000 BCE Ymyyakhtakh samples recovered from the same grave at Kyordyughen 1: 40/50-year-old Ind 1, N4a1 (ca. 2600 BCE), of basal Y-DNA hg. N-CTS9239 (probably N1a-pre-M2019); and the upper Ind 2, N4b2 (ca. 2250 BCE), of a basal hg. N1a-L1026, splitting the previously defined N-L1026 trunk. They are currently the most ancient representatives of the so-called Neo-Siberian (NS) ancestry, which seems not particularly close to two previously reported female Magadan BA samples from Ol’skaya (ca. 1100 BCE), who display a probable recent admixture with Palaeo-Siberians.” ref

“The Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis regards the Ket language spoken in the Yenisei River Basin as genetically related to the widespread Na-Dene language family in North America. Na-Dene comprises Tlingit and the recently extinct Eyak in Alaska, along with over thirty Athabaskan languages spoken from the western North American Subarctic to pockets in California (Hupa), Oregon (Tolowa) and the American Southwest (Navajo, Apache) (Krauss 1976). Pre-Proto-Na-Dene is believed to have spread from Alaska ca. 3000-2500 BCE.” ref

“Sampled Ancient Athabaskans from Alaska (ca. CE 1200) show a 30-40% contribution from Paleo-Eskimo ancestry – complementing the pre-existing ancestry of Northern First Peoples – in an admixture event estimated to have happened roughly during the formation of the Proto-Na-Dene community. To complicate things, these two Ancient Athabascan samples (together with a 19^th-century one of hg. Q1b-Y4276) suggest a Y-chromosome bottleneck under Q1b-FGC8436 lineages, in common with an ancient sample (ca. CE 880) from a likely Uto-Aztecan-speaking population from San Nicolas Island, in California.” ref

“Their closest patrilineal relatives are represented in ancient DNA by Eskimo-Aleut-speaking early medieval samples from Beringia (ca. CE 700-1000), of hg. Q1b-Z35703, under the same Q-Y4303 branch. Their common connection with parent Q1b-M3, the most widespread Proto-American lineage (and found almost exclusively in that continent), further dilutes any potential patrilineal connection of Ancient Athabascans with the Sialakh and Bel’kachi cultures, traditionally believed to be the ultimate Siberian vectors of Pre-Proto-Na-Dene.” ref

“Still, the finding of Bel’kachi-related hg. Q1b-YP4010 in a 2,000-year-old North American sample from Lovelock Cave, Nevada, is possibly directly linked to the Southern Athabascan expansion, supporting that some Cis-Baikal LN patrilines survived among ancient Na-Dene speakers. Subclades of hg. Q1b-YP4010 shown by Onnyos-1 are later found widespread among Cis-Baikal Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age individuals, most of them attributed to the Glazkovo culture. In fact, their ancestry is shared by Cis-Baikal LN/EBA individuals featuring – among others – hg. Q1b-Y11938, a haplogroup shared with the few sampled modern Kets.” ref

“The population movement represented by Palaeo-Eskimo ancestry is thus probably the most relevant for a hypothetical Dene-Yeniseian connection before the (Pre-)Proto-Na-Dene expansion and eventual admixture with North American First Peoples, since Baikal LN/EBA samples show both Y-DNA lineages – Q1b-Y11938 closely related to modern Kets, and Q1b-YP4010 linked to the Paleo-Eskimo Syalakh/Bel’kachi-related expansions.” ref

“The ancestor of Common Yeniseian (dated earlier than ca. 1000 BCE), Proto-Yeniseic, can be dated to a considerably earlier period (possibly ca. 3000-2000 BCE), and Na-Dene to a roughly similar time (ca. 3500-2500 BCE), which – based on the innovations of the latter – allows for a Dene-Yeniseian split ca. 7000-5000 BCE (cf. Vajda in Flegontov et al. 2017). The Baikal LN/EBA-related split in population genomics is visible ca. 7,000 years ago, showing that a Na-Dene – Yeniseian connection is not far-fetched in terms of reconstructible languages or tight link in population genomics.” ref

“NOTE. For comparison, guesstimates for a reconstructible Indo-Anatolian are ca. 7,000-6,500 years ago, which based on the developments of Khvalynsk implies a potentially much earlier Early PIE achievable through internal reconstruction alone. Despite the lack of direct samples from the relevant cultural groups, Vajda (in Flegontov et al. 2017, from the Reich Lab) believes that the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) is the most likely vector of Na-Dene, and that later steps of the linguistic expansion are likely connected to the spread of “Paleo-Eskimo” groups that brought other elements of North Asian material culture and folklore (Alekseenko 1995; Berezkin 2015), like the bow and arrow technology, thought to have been introduced into California 1,500 years ago by the ancestors of the Hupa and other Pacific Coast Athabaskans (Golla 2011:245).” ref

“Nevertheless, based on the shared ancestry among Northern Pacific groups and the highly variable linguistic guesstimates, it is still possible that the arrival of Proto-Na-Dene was linked to the formation of the Northern Archaic people, as previously proposed (e.g. Esdale 2008, Potter 2008). After all, their Northern Archaic tradition (ca. 5000-4500 BC) probably involved a mixture of Syalakh/Bel’kachi-related population with back-migrating peoples bringing Archaic Cultural Diffusion to Alaska, which would justify the presence of Q1b-M3 among early Athabascans. Further, the role of the recently described USR1-related Ancient Beringian population in these cultural and ethnolinguistic developments is unclear.” ref

“NOTE. Indeed, there is not sufficient data to discard new waves of Q1b-M3 from North-Eastern Siberia to North America. For an interesting but light and illustrated read on potential population movements through Alaska, check e.g. Tremayne (2019). Eskimo-Aleut consists of a branch containing the closely related Eskimoan languages (Yup’ik, Iñiupiaq, etc.), which split probably ca. 500 BC, and the more divergent Aleut branch. The latter shows possible signs of substrate admixture, or at least of rapid phonological and morphological change (Fortescue 1998: 35-37), which could make the estimated separation from the proto-language trunk ca. 2000 BC (Krauss 1980:7) appear older than it actually is.” ref

“Based on those rough linguistic guesstimates, it has been proposed that the original Palaeo-Eskimo founding population spoke Proto-Eskimo-Aleut (Fortescue 2017). Traditionally, the ASTt has been considered closely related to the expansion of the ancestors of modern Eskimo people, due to the partial cultural continuity in archaeology from Palaeo-Eskimos to Neo-Eskimos. On the other hand, the genetic evidence is not so clear, and continuity in subsistence economy and culture is to be expected among Palaeo-Arctic hunter-fishers, as is commonly found in Northern Eurasia, too.” ref

“While there is no ASTt sample from Alaska, an ASTt individual from the Palaeo-Inuit Saqqaq cultural complex in Greenland shows affinities with Russian Far Eastern populations (Rasmussen et al. 2010), which can be more precisely described today as derived ca. 90% from the Yakutia-Lena Neolithic cluster (and 10% from West Eurasians). Furthermore, there seems to be a recent replacement event marked by the spread of the Northern Maritime tradition starting 2,000 years ago, which morphed into the Thule tradition ca. 1,000 years ago, spreading rapidly eastwards in the centuries after that.” ref

“Partially supporting the traditional picture of continuity from Palaeo-Eskimos to Neo-Eskimos, i.e. the back-and-forth population movements of distantly related ‘Proto-Palaeo-Eskimo’ populations despite the clear intrusion of a new ancestry from the west, is the presence of Q1a-Z36017 lineages derived from Kolyma1 in the ancient Saqqaq sample (ca. 2220-1650 BCE), in multiple 2,000-1,000-year-old Beringia Iron Age and early medieval individuals, and also in 1,000-year-old Late Dorset and Thule samples from NE Canada.” ref

“Despite the closely related Palaeo-Eskimo and Neo-Eskimo ancestries, the spread of Paleo-Eskimo ancestry could have accompanied different cultures, and indeed different populations sharing the same simplistically described cultural traits, so it cannot be discarded that the Saqqaq individual merely represented the latest bottleneck in the stepped migration of Bel’kachi-related populations that – at least initially – spoke (Pre-)Proto-Na-Dene. In any case, the population directly ancestral to Yupik- and Inuit-speaking groups probably crossed the Bering Strait some 2,000 years ago.” ref

The Chukotko-Kamchatkan family consists of two divergent branches, Chukotian and Itelmen (i.e. Kamchatkan), whose genetic relationship is generally accepted. Whereas Chukotian is easily reconstructible based on synchronic Chukotian languages (Kassian 2020), 18^th and 19^th c. data on extinct Eastern and Southern Itelmen languages is not very reliable nor consistent. In any case, Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan phonological reconstruction is almost impossible (Kassian 2020).

“Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers show the closest affinity to Palaeo-Eskimos among modern populations, with the split from other present-day Siberian populations happening ca. 4300 BCE, and from Saqqaq estimated ca. 4400-2400 BCE. The split with Eskimo-Aleut is estimated to have occurred ca. 4200-2900 BCE, due to their admixture with a group related to Northern Athabascans (Flegontov et al. Nature 2019).” ref

“Nevertheless, the genetic history of Chukotko-Kamchatkan involves a likely gene backflow from Neo-Eskimos who carried Palaeo-Eskimo and First Peoples ancestry (cf. Flegontov et al. Nature 2019, Ning et al. bioRxiv 2020). In fact, ca. 1,500-year-old (Neo-Eskimo) Uelen IA and Ekven IA samples show marked Y-chromosome bottlenecks under Q1a-Z36017 lineages, also shown by the Saqqaq individual, probably all corresponding to a NE Siberian ‘refuge’ of groups ancestrally (patrilineally) related to Kolyma1 rather than Syalakh, Bel’kachi, or Ymyyakhtakh, which suggests that the spread of ‘Proto-Palaeo-Eskimo’ (PPE) ancestry (including the one found among modern Chukotko-Kamchatkans) – like that of EEF, Steppe, Iran_N, etc. – was later hijacked under bottlenecks of different “local” (Lena-Kolyma?) groups that spread as distinct ethnolinguistic communities.” ref

“Further difficulties assessing ethnolinguistic identities of ancient groups are offered by the potential ancestral relationship of Chukotko-Kamchatkan with Nivkh. Both are polysynthetic languages with verb structures that display typological affinities with certain languages of North America, which are nevertheless absent from the (geographically) intermediate Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut families. Fortescue (2017) has offered some preliminary evidence of lexical cognates, grammatical homologies, and some potential systematic sound correspondences. More hypothesized contacts or genetic relationships with language isolates from North America have been proposed to date, without much success (see Vajda in Ning et al. 2020).” ref

“To complicate things even more, there is a potential Pre-Tanaina substrate formed by 13 words, for 8 of which Kassian (in Ning et al. 2020) finds a potential Chukotko-Kamchatkan phonetic (and sometimes semantic) match, with the two most promising including miɬni, piɬni, vinɬni ‘water’ ~ Proto-Chukotian *mi-məl (partial reducplication), or (ǝ)ɬtʰuʁ ‘eye’ ~ Chukotko-Kamchatkan *lV ‘eye’, reduplicated pl. *lV-lV (→ Chukotian *lǝ-lä ‘eye’, Itelmen *lo- ‘eye’, pl. *lu-l-). In both cases, as in all other described ones, the evidence is scarce and unpromising, although the long chronological distance between Chukotko-Kamchatkan and this potentially related branch is akin to, in Kassian words, the separation of modern Finnish and Proto-Balto-Slavic.” ref

“NOTE. On the other hand, Kassian finds no reliable cognates of the hypothetical Pre-Tanaina substrate with Proto-Nivkh, which would question the relevance of typological assessments of Northern Pacific languages. In any case, the most parsimonious explanation for the current genetic picture, combined with the available (admittedly scarce) linguistic and archaeological descriptions, is that the Ymyyakhtakh cultural horizon – marked by the expansion of Neo-Siberian ancestry – was the initial vector of (Pre-)Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan originating in the Circum-Baikal area, based on its noticeable impact among the scant Far East Siberian ancient and modern DNA samples.” ref

“The large and long-lasting Ymyyakhtakh cultural horizon (ca. 2200-1300 BCE) has its roots in the Cis-Baikal area along the Lena and Yenisei River basins, and is marked by characteristic round-bottomed ceramics with wafer and ridge prints, armour plates, as well as stone and bone arrowheads, spears, and harpoons. The culture spread quickly through East Siberia up to the Chukotka peninsula in the east, but also westward through the Taymyr Peninsula, Bolshezemelskaya, and Malozemelskaya tundra, reaching the Kola Peninsula in North-Eastern Europe. Despite its replacement to the west of the Lena during the LBA, similar cultural traits survived with slight changes in the Russian Far East until the first centuries CE.” ref

“About the two Ymyyakhtakh samples from the grave at Kyordyughen 1, the majority of skeletal remains from the researched grave belongs to Ind 1, whereas only incomplete remains of Ind 2 were found – including the replaced right femur of Ind 1. Ind 2 is thus interpreted as possibly dismembered in a sacrifice, as a treatment proper of captives. Further dates from the burial of these hunter-gatherers – assuming they were roughly simultaneous – suggests that the true date might lie closer to the end of the 3^rd millennium BCE.” ref

“The reinforced shield and armor – consisting of plates made of antler – displayed in Ind 1 suggest that this was a warrior or military leader of the Late Neolithic, bearing witness to the development of military art in the second half of the 3^rd millennium BC. The orientation of the body with feet directed downstream to the Lena River is interpreted by their archaeologists as reflecting a belief in the river as path to the land of the dead, a tradition that was apparently also followed by the preceding Bel’kachi ritual, such as that seen in the Onnyos burial (Stepanov et al. 2012).” ref

“In the findings about the phylogeny of haplogroup N reported in Ilumäe et al. AJHG (2016), modern Chukchi and Koryaks show a strong Y-DNA bottleneck under hg. N-B202, a subclade not found in other populations (see maps of haplogroup N distribution). This subclade finds its closest relatives in the N-P89 spread with Avars and Mongols, and further upstream in the N-CTS2929/VL29 of the Iron Age Baltic region. Also, the ancestry of modern Chukotko-Kamchatkans lies in a cline formed between the Ymyyakhtakh individuals – close to the previously published Magadan BA – reaching up to Ancient Alaskan populations.” ref

“Further, the different ancestry and haplogroup found in the Yana Young individual (ca. CE 1190), a likely medieval Yukaghir or Yakut speaker from the Kolyma region, seem to support that Tundra (i.e. Lower Kolyma) Yukaghirs – radically different in ancestry from Taiga Yukaghirs – are representatives of acculturated ancient Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers, or alternatively of a Yukaghir population heavily admixed with locals. The opposite example is found in the 18^th century Chukotian-assimilated Chuvantsy, in turn likely representing ancestrally acculturated Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers. All this bears witness to the complex population and linguistic replacement events among East Siberian populations, rarely amenable to simplistic interpretations, whether in terms of genome-wide ancestry or linguistic typology.” ref

“Interestingly, the same Yakutia Late Neolithic ancestry – and a haplogroup maybe closest to the ‘sacrificial’ Ind. 2 from Kyordyughen – is also found in a coeval individual, kra001 (ca. 2230 BCE), from the Kansk-Rubyn basin (read more about it). Its EBA group is closely connected to the Serovo cultural complex, in turn likely associated ultimately with the spread of Trans-Baikal N1a-rich populations that gave rise to the Ymyyakhtakh cultural complex, as is now supported by their tight Angara-Lena-Kolyma cluster. The sample shows a basal hg. N1a-CTS6967, immediately below FTDNA’s redefined N-L1026 branch.” ref

“NOTE. Another ancient DNA sample from Serovo published in Yu et al. (2020), STB001, is a cranium labelled “Zh. 1” that comes from a severely destroyed grave. It lacks a reliable archaeological context, and it shares ancestry and subclade with Cis-Baikal EN and LN samples, so it most likely belonged to other Q1b-rich EN/LN/EBA Cis-Baikal groups. Of course, it cannot be a priori discarded that it is an outlier among Serovo-related individuals – or that Kansk-Rubynsk and Ymyyakhtakh are unrelated to the core Sevorovo cultural area – but it seems a priori more likely that it is a mislabelled individual.” ref

“A similar ancestry profile and probably basal N1a-CTS3103 (one step downstream from kra001) is found in slightly later samples of the asbestos-mixed Lovozero ceramics from Bolshoy Olenyi Ostrov, featuring even-based arrowheads introduced in Lapland from ca. 1900 BCE on (cf. Lamnidis et al. 2018). This confirms the quick expansion of Ymyyakhtakh-like populations west and east through the Tundra and Taiga, reaching first the Taymyr peninsula, where the related Vardøy ceramics (ca. 1600-1300 BCE) are found.” ref

“This rapid EBA spread of Neo-Siberian ancestry most likely formed a genetic cline among populations from the North Eurasian Arctic and Hypoarctic, between the Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan-speaking NE Siberia and the Palaeo-Lapplandic-speaking population of the Kola Peninsula, representing – together with their bottlenecked (and recently splitting) N-L1029 lineages – the ‘eastern’ part of the so-called “Siberian” or “Ket-Uralic” ancestry (cf. Flegontov et al. 2016). As the core Palaeo-Arctic ancestry, it represents not only the main component behind modern Chukotko-Kamchaktkans, Taiga Yukaghirs, or Nganasans, but also a variable proportion of modern West Siberian and North-East European populations that admixed more recently with peoples of Palaeo-Arctic ancestry as they spread to the north.” ref

“NOTE. Nganasans in particular show a clearly divergent ancestry that most likely reflects an additional influx from a substratal population (or populations) from North Siberia or, alternatively, a (weirdly recent) marked genetic drift, representing in any case an isolated sink of previous migrations. To equate “Siberian” ancestry with “Nganasan” (whether intended as a true ancestral population, or as a proxy representing some imagined ‘pure’ Uralic-speaking ghost population) expanding beyond its historically attested borders is unjustified under any point of view – since they are clearly a recently acculturated Palaeo-Arctic group – and reveals a sloppy approach to ancient population genomics proper of a time when no ancient samples where available.” ref

“Despite the presence of N1a-rich populations among Cis-Baikal Early Neolithic (Kitoi) cemeteries like Shamanka and Lokomotiv, all pre-EBA subclades were under N-F4309, which suggests that these N-M2005-rich LN/EBA newcomers in the Cis-Baikal area have a recent ultimate patrilineal origin among earlier Trans-Baikal groups, such as those sampled from the Houtaomuga in the Amur River Basin, like M54A (ca. 5400 BCE), of hg. N-Tat; and especially those recently published in Kılınç et al. Sci Adv (2021): from the Kuenga River basin, like brn008 (ca. 5400 BCE), of basal hg. N-L839 (that splits the previous N-L708 trunk); or from the Kadalinka River Basin, like brn003 (ca. 4600 BCE), of a basal lineage currently defining the N-M2005 trunk.” ref

“Therefore, and despite the poor sampling available, there seems to be a marked Y-chromosome bottleneck under a very recently split off N-M2005 haplogroup, supporting that the Cis-Baikal EBA population ancestral to Ymyyakhtakh and Serovo was part of a short-term ‘wedge’ introduced by Trans-Baikal migrants between the Q1b-rich populations found earlier – in Neolithic Kitoi – and later groups – in Bronze Age Glazkovo.” ref

“N1a-Tat subclades are also found later spreading westward throughout the North Eurasian pre-Taiga and Taiga from South Siberia and Altai-Sayan-TianShan populations, accompanying Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and medieval nomads. It is therefore unclear whether there were different westward waves of similar N-rich populations along the Yenisei River Basin directly connected to the Serovo cultural complex – and distinct from the Ymyyakhtakh-related one – but archaeological connections from east to west, as well as Yeniseic developments (see below), suggest that the ultimate origin of the Lovozero population lies in East Siberia.” ref

Yukaghir people

“The Yukaghirs, or Yukagirs (Northern Yukaghir: одул, деткиль (odul, detkil), Russian: юкаги́ры), are a Siberian ethnic group in the Russian Far East, living in the basin of the Kolyma River. Genetically, Yukaghirs exhibit roughly equal frequencies of the Y-DNA haplogroups N1c, Q1, and C2 (formerly C3). According to another study, out of 11 Yukaghir males 3 turned out to belong to the Y-haplogroup N1c (different subclade from the one found in Yakuts), another 4 – to the Y-haplogroup C2 (former C3; for the most part, the same subclade that’s also found in Koryaks), one more – to the Y-haplogroup O, and the rest 3 exhibit apparent Russian genetic influence (two individuals belonging to the Y-haplogroup R1a, and one more – to the Y-haplogroup I2a). The study also found no similarities between Yukaghirs and Chukchis in regards to mitochondrial DNA.” ref

“Modern Yukaghirs are thought to be descendants of the late Neolithic Ymyyakhtakh culture. The 13 tribes that once constituted the Yukaghir group are: Vadul-Alais, Odul, Chuvan, Anaoul, Lavren, Olyuben, Omok, Penjin, Khodynts, Khoromoy, Shoromboy, Yandin, and Yandyr. The head of every clan was an elder called a Ligey Shomorokh. His was the final word in all aspects of life. Hunting leaders were Khangitche, and war leaders were Tonbaia Shomorokh (“the mighty man”). Women and teenagers had equal voices with men. The internal life of the community was under the control of the older women. Their decisions in those matters were indisputable. In the beginning of every summer all clans gathered for the Sakhadzibe festival, where mutual Yukaghir questions were discussed.” ref

“In the Yakut-Sakha Republic there are three nomadic extended family communities. These are Tchaila in Nizhnekolymsky District, Teki Odulok in Verkhnekolymsky District and Ianugail in Ust-Yansky District. The head of Ianugail is I. I. Tomsky. The community’s main activities are deer hunting and fishing. Tchaila is the biggest of the three. Its head is S. I. Kurilov. They have 4000 domesticated reindeer, 200 horses, and 20 cows. The community also hunts deer and polar foxes. There is also a shop where traditional skin and fur garments are made. The head of Teki Odulok is N. I. Shalugin. Their base is the village of Nelemnoe. This community is in the most difficult situation. Due to the “creative interpretation” of various Perestroika and privatization laws by the local and district administration and so-called businessmen, the community has lost all their reindeer, cows and even part of its land. All they have left are about 50 horses. They have no money for supplies for hunting and fishing. 80% of all adult population is de facto unemployed. The highest forum for Yukagir is the all-people gathering Suktuul.” ref

“The main traditional activity is nomadic and semi-nomadic hunting of deer, moose, wild sheep, and sable, as well as fishing. Reindeer are bred mostly for transportation. Horses are known among the Yukaghir as “domestic reindeer of Yakuts” (Yoqod ile in Tundra Yukaghir or Yaqad āçə in Kolyma Yukaghir). A Yukaghir house is called a chum. The decline of traditional economic activities, the unfavorable environmental situation of the Yukaghir’s traditional lands and waters, and the absence of local and federal laws and executive mechanisms protecting indigenous peoples in Russia, have not aided the welfare and continuation of traditional Yukaghir communities. The average life span for men is 45 years, and 54 years for women. Child mortality is the highest in the Yakut-Sakha Republic. In addition, one expedition made to the Yukaghir found that most had no knowledge of traditional Yukaghir culture.” ref

“The Yukaghir languages are a small language family of two closely related languages, Tundra Yukaghir and Kolyma Yukaghir, although there used to be more. They are unclassified languages: their origin and relation to other languages are unknown; some scholars consider them distantly related to the Uralic languages, but this classification is not accepted by the majority of specialists in Uralic linguistics. Alongside Russian Orthodox beliefs, Yukaghirs still practice shamanism. The dominant cults are ancestral spirits, the spirits of Fire, Sun (Pugu), Hunting, Earth, and Water, which can act as protectors or as enemies of people. The most important is the cult of Pugu, the Sun, who is the highest judge in all disputes. The spirits of the dead go to a place called Aibidzi. Every clan had a shaman called an alma. After death every alma was treated as a deity, and the body of the dead alma was dismembered and kept by the clan as relics. The Yukaghir still continue traditions stemming from their origins as nomadic reindeer-hunters: they practice dog sacrifice and have an epic poem based around crows. The animal cult was especially strong in the elk cult. There was a number of rituals and taboos connected with elk and deer hunting.” ref

Another thought is the Uralic languages, which seem to likely relate to Lake Baikal as seen in DNA, and thus could also relate to and/or Transeurasian languages as well as Yeniseian languages, not to mention some connections to Proto-Indo-European language.

“The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian (which alone accounts for approximately 60% of speakers), Finnish, and Estonian. Other languages with speakers above 100,000 are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt, and Komi spoken in the European parts of the Russian Federation. Still, smaller minority languages are Sámi languages of the northern Fennoscandia; other members of the Finnic languages, ranging from Livonian in northern Latvia to Karelian in northwesternmost Russia; and the Samoyedic languages, Mansi and Khanty spoken in Western Siberia.” ref

“Many relationships between Uralic and other language families have been suggested, but none of these is generally accepted by linguists at the present time: All of the following hypotheses are minority views at the present time in Uralic studies. The Uralic–Yukaghir hypothesis identifies Uralic and Yukaghir as independent members of a single language family. It is currently widely accepted that the similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir languages are due to ancient contacts. Regardless, the hypothesis is accepted by a few linguists and viewed as attractive by a somewhat larger number. The Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis associates Uralic with the Eskimo–Aleut languages. This is an old thesis whose antecedents go back to the 18th century. An important restatement of it was made by Bergsland (1959).” ref

“Old (Current) Proposed homelands of the Proto-Uralic language include:

• The vicinity of the Volga River, west of the Urals, close to the Urheimat of the Indo-European languages, or to the east and southeast of the Urals. Historian Gyula László places its origin in the forest zone between the Oka River and central Poland. E. N. Setälä and M.  Zsirai place it between the Volga and Kama Rivers. According to E.  Itkonen, the ancestral area extended to the Baltic Sea. Jaakko Häkkinen identifies Proto-Uralic with Eneolithic Garino-Bor (Turbin) culture 3,000–2,500 YBP located in the Lower Kama Basin.
• Péter Hajdú [hu] has suggested a homeland in western and northwestern Siberia.
• Juha Janhunen suggests a homeland in between the Ob and Yenisei drainage areas in Central Siberia.
• In 2022, a group of scholars, including Janhunen, noted that early Uralic speakers can be associated with hunter-gatherers in Western Siberia. The spread of Uralic languages may be linked with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, but no conclusive evidence exists so far. According to Rasmus G. Bjørn, the Proto-Uralic speakers may be associated with the Okunev culture.” ref

“Uralo-Siberian is an expanded form of the Eskimo–Uralic hypothesis. It associates Uralic with Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded by Michael Fortescue in 1998. Michael Fortescue (2017) presented new evidence in favor of a connection between Uralic and other Paleo-Siberian languages. Theories proposing a close relationship with the Altaic languages 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

“The Indo-Uralic (or “Indo-Euralic”) hypothesis suggests that Uralic and Indo-European are related at a fairly close level or, in its stronger form, that they are more closely related than either is to any other language family. The hypothesis that the Dravidian languages display similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the past, is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of scholars, including Robert Caldwell, Thomas Burrow, Kamil Zvelebil, and Mikhail Andronov. This hypothesis has, however, been rejected by some specialists in Uralic languages, and has in recent times also been criticized by other Dravidian linguists, such as Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.” ref

“Nostratic associates Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic, Dravidian, Afroasiatic, and various other language families of Asia. The Nostratic hypothesis was first propounded by Holger Pedersen in 1903 and subsequently revived by Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aharon Dolgopolsky in the 1960s. Eurasiatic resembles Nostratic in including Uralic, Indo-European, and Altaic, but differs from it in excluding the South Caucasian languages, Dravidian, and Afroasiatic and including Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo–Aleut. It was propounded by Joseph Greenberg in 2000–2002. Similar ideas had earlier been expressed by Heinrich Koppelmann in 1933 and by Björn Collinder in 1965.” ref

“Various unorthodox comparisons have been advanced. These are considered at best spurious fringe-theories by specialists:

• Finno-Basque
• Hungarian-Etruscan
• Sino-Uralic languages
• Cal-Ugrian theory
• Dené-Finnish (Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dené, and Uralic)” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art 

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

“R1b is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe, reaching over 80% of the population in Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, western Wales, the Atlantic fringe of France, the Basque country, and Catalonia. It is also common in Anatolia and around the Caucasus, in parts of Russia, and in Central and South Asia. Besides the Atlantic and North Sea coast of Europe, hotspots include the Po valley in north-central Italy (over 70%), Armenia (35%), the Bashkirs of the Urals region of Russia (50%), Turkmenistan (over 35%), the Hazara people of Afghanistan (35%), the Uyghurs of North-West China (20%) and the Newars of Nepal (11%). R1b-V88, a subclade specific to sub-Saharan Africa, is found in 60 to 95% of men in northern Cameroon.” ref

R1b Origins & History

R1b and Paleolithic mammoth hunters

“Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years ago). This haplogroup has been identified in the remains of a 24,000 year-old boy from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013). This individual belonged to a tribe of mammoth hunters that may have roamed across Siberia and parts of Europe during the Paleolithic. Autosomally this Paleolithic population appears to have contributed mostly to the ancestry of modern Europeans and South Asians, the two regions where haplogroup R also happens to be the most common nowadays (R1b in Western Europe, R1a in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia, and R2 in South Asia).” ref

“The oldest forms of R1b (M343, P25, L389) are found dispersed at very low frequencies from Western Europe to India, a vast region where could have roamed the nomadic R1b hunter-gatherers during the Ice Age. The three main branches of R1b1 (R1b1a, R1b1b, R1b1c) all seem to have stemmed from the Middle East. The southern branch, R1b1c (V88), is found mostly in the Levant and Africa. The northern branch, R1b1a (P297), seems to have originated around the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia, then to have crossed over the Caucasus, from where they would have invaded Europe and Central Asia. R1b1b (M335) has only been found in Anatolia.” ref

R1b and Neolithic cattle herders

“It has been hypothesised that R1b people (perhaps alongside neighboring J2 tribes) were the first to domesticate cattle in northern Mesopotamia some 10,500 years ago. R1b tribes descended from mammoth hunters, and when mammoths went extinct, they started hunting other large game such as bisons and aurochs. With the increase of the human population in the Fertile Crescent from the beginning of the Neolithic (starting 12,000 years ago), selective hunting and culling of herds started replacing the indiscriminate killing of wild animals. The increased involvement of humans in the life of aurochs, wild boars, and goats led to their progressive taming. Cattle herders probably maintained a nomadic or semi-nomadic existence, while other people in the Fertile Crescent (presumably represented by haplogroups E1b1b, G, and T) settled down to cultivate the land or keep smaller domesticates.” ref

“The analysis of bovine DNA has revealed that all the taurine cattle (Bos taurus) alive today descend from a population of only 80 aurochs. The earliest evidence of cattle domestication dates from circa 8,500 BCE in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures in the Taurus Mountains. The two oldest archaeological sites showing signs of cattle domestication are the villages of Çayönü Tepesi in southeastern Turkey and Dja’de el-Mughara in northern Iraq, two sites only 250 km away from each others. This is presumably the area from which R1b lineages started expanding – or in other words the “original homeland” of R1b.” ref

“The early R1b cattle herders would have split in at least three groups. One branch (M335) remained in Anatolia, but judging from its extreme rarity today wasn’t very successful, perhaps due to the heavy competition with other Neolithic populations in Anatolia, or to the scarcity of pastures in this mountainous environment. A second branch migrated south to the Levant, where it became the V88 branch. Some of them searched for new lands south in Africa, first in Egypt, then colonizing most of northern Africa, from the Mediterranean coast to the Sahel.” ref 

“The third branch (P297), crossed the Caucasus into the vast Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which provided ideal grazing grounds for cattle. They split into two factions: R1b1a1 (M73), which went east along the Caspian Sea to Central Asia, and R1b1a2 (M269), which at first remained in the North Caucasus and the Pontic Steppe between the Dnieper and the Volga. It is not yet clear whether M73 actually migrated across the Caucasus and reached Central Asia via Kazakhstan, or if it went south through Iran and Turkmenistan. In any case, M73 would be a pre-Indo-European branch of R1b, just like V88 and M335.” ref

“R1b-M269 (the most common form in Europe) is closely associated with the diffusion of Indo-European languages, as attested by its presence in all regions of the world where Indo-European languages were spoken in ancient times, from the Atlantic coast of Europe to the Indian subcontinent, which comprised almost all Europe (except Finland, Sardinia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina), Anatolia, Armenia, European Russia, southern Siberia, many pockets around Central Asia (notably in Xinjiang, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan), without forgetting Iran, Pakistan, northern India, and Nepal. The history of R1b and R1a are intricately connected to each others.” ref

The Levantine & African branch of R1b (V88)

“Like its northern counterpart (R1b-M269), R1b-V88 is associated with the domestication of cattle in northern Mesopotamia. Both branches of R1b probably split soon after cattle were domesticated, approximately 10,500 years ago (8,500 BCE). R1b-V88 migrated south towards the Levant and Egypt. The migration of R1b people can be followed archeologically through the presence of domesticated cattle, which appear in central Syria around 8,000-7,500 BCE (late Mureybet period), then in the Southern Levant and Egypt around 7,000-6,500 BCE (e.g. at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba). Cattle herders subsequently spread across most of northern and eastern Africa. The Sahara desert would have been more humid during the Neolithic Subpluvial period (c. 7250-3250 BCE), and would have been a vast savannah full of grass, an ideal environment for cattle herding.” ref

“Evidence of cow herding during the Neolithic has shown up at Uan Muhuggiag in central Libya around 5500 BCE, at the Capeletti Cave in northern Algeria around 4500 BCE. But the most compelling evidence that R1b people related to modern Europeans once roamed the Sahara is to be found at Tassili n’Ajjer in southern Algeria, a site famous pyroglyphs (rock art) dating from the Neolithic era. Some painting dating from around 3000 BCE depict fair-skinned and blond or auburn haired women riding on cows. The oldest known R1b-V88 sample in Europe is a 6,200 year-old farmer/herder from Catalonia tested by Haak et al. (2015). Autosomally this individual was a typical Near Eastern farmer, possessing just a little bit of Mesolithic West European admixture.” ref

“After reaching the Maghreb, R1b-V88 cattle herders could have crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to Iberia, probably accompanied by G2 farmers, J1 and T1a goat herders. These North African Neolithic farmers/herders could have been the ones who established the Almagra Pottery culture in Andalusia in the 6th millennium BCE.” ref

“Nowadays small percentages (1 to 4%) of R1b-V88 are found in the Levant, among the Lebanese, the Druze, and the Jews, and almost in every country in Africa north of the equator. Higher frequency in Egypt (5%), among Berbers from the Egypt-Libya border (23%), among the Sudanese Copts (15%), the Hausa people of Sudan (40%), the the Fulani people of the Sahel (54% in Niger and Cameroon), and Chadic tribes of northern Nigeria and northern Cameroon (especially among the Kirdi), where it is observed at a frequency ranging from 30% to 95% of men.” ref 

“According to Cruciani et al. (2010) R1b-V88 would have crossed the Sahara between 9,200 and 5,600 years ago, and is most probably associated with the diffusion of Chadic languages, a branch of the Afroasiatic languages. V88 would have migrated from Egypt to Sudan, then expanded along the Sahel until northern Cameroon and Nigeria. However, R1b-V88 is not only present among Chadic speakers, but also among Senegambian speakers (Fula-Hausa) and Semitic speakers (Berbers, Arabs).” ref

“R1b-V88 is found among the native populations of Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau. The wide distribution of V88 in all parts of Africa, its incidence among herding tribes, and the coalescence age of the haplogroup all support a Neolithic dispersal. In any case, a later migration out of Egypt would be improbable since it would have brought haplogroups that came to Egypt during the Bronze Age, such as J1, J2, R1a, or R1b-L23. The maternal lineages associated with the spread of R1b-V88 in Africa are mtDNA haplogroups J1b, U5, and V, and perhaps also U3 and some H subclades (=> see Retracing the mtDNA haplogroups of the original R1b people).” ref

The North Caucasus and the Pontic-Caspian steppe : the Indo-European link

“Modern linguists have placed the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, a distinct geographic and archeological region extending from the Danube estuary to the Ural mountains to the east and North Caucasus to the south. The Neolithic, Eneolithic, and early Bronze Age cultures in Pontic-Caspian steppe has been called the Kurgan culture (4200-2200 BCE) by Marija Gimbutas, due to the lasting practice of burying the deads under mounds (“kurgan”) among the succession of cultures in that region. It is now known that kurgan-type burials only date from the 4th millenium BCE and almost certainly originated south of the Caucasus. The genetic diversity of R1b being greater around eastern Anatolia, it is hard to deny that R1b evolved there before entering the steppe world.” ref

“Horses were first domesticated around 4600 BCE in the Caspian Steppe, perhaps somewhere around the Don or the lower Volga, and soon became a defining element of steppe culture. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that R1b was already present in the eastern steppes at the time, so the domestication of the horse should be attributed to the indigenous R1a people, or tribes belonging to the older R1b-P297 branch, which settled in eastern Europe during the Late Paleolithic or Mesolithic period. Samples from Mesolithic Samara (Haak 2015) and Latvia (Jones 2017) all belonged to R1b-P297. Autosomally these Mesolithic R1a and R1b individuals were nearly pure Mesolithic East European, sometimes with a bit of Siberian admixture, but lacked the additional Caucasian admixture found in the Chalcolithic Afanasevo, Yamna and Corded Ware samples.” ref

“It is not yet entirely clear when R1b-M269 crossed over from the South Caucasus to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. This might have happened with the appearance of the Dnieper-Donets culture (c. 5100-4300 BCE). This was the first truly Neolithic society in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) were herded throughout the steppes and funeral rituals were elaborate. Sheep wool would play an important role in Indo-European society, notably in the Celtic and Germanic (R1b branches of the Indo-Europeans) clothing traditions up to this day.” ref 

“However, many elements indicate a continuity in the Dnieper-Donets culture with the previous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and at the same time an influence from the Balkans and Carpathians, with regular imports of pottery and copper objects. It is, therefore, more likely that Dnieper-Donets marked the transition of indigenous R1a and/or I2a1b people to early agriculture, perhaps with an influx of Near Eastern farmers from ‘Old Europe’. Over 30 DNA samples from Neolithic Ukraine (5500-4800 BCE) were tested by Mathieson et al. (2017).” ref 

“They belonged to Y-haplogroups I, I2a2, R1a, R1b1a (L754), and one R1b1a2 (L388). None of them belonged to R1b-M269 or R1b-L23 clades, which dominated during the Yamna period. Mitochondrial lineages were also exclusively of Mesolithic European origin (U4a, U4b, U4d, U5a1, U5a2, U5b2, as well as one J2b1 and one U2e1). None of those maternal lineages include typical Indo-European haplogroups, like H2a1, H6, H8, H15, I1a1, J1b1a, W3, W4 or W5 that would later show up in the Yamna, Corded Ware, and Unetice cultures. Indeed, autosomally genomes from Neolithic Ukraine were purely Mesolithic European (about 90% EHG and 10% WHG) and completely lacked the Caucasian (CHG) admxiture later found in Yamna and subsequent Indo-European cultures during the Bronze Age.” ref

“The first clearly Proto-Indo-European cultures were the Khvalynsk (5200-4500 BCE) and Sredny Stog (4600-3900 BCE) cultures in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. This is when small kurgan burials begin to appear, with the distinctive posturing of the dead on the back with knees raised and oriented toward the northeast, which would be found in later steppe cultures as well. There is evidence of population blending from the variety of skull shapes.” ref 

“Towards the end of the 5th millennium, an elite starts to develop with cattle, horses, and copper used as status symbols. It is at the turn of the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog periods that R1b-M269’s main subclade, L23, is thought to have appeared, around 4,500 BCE. 99% of Indo-European R1b descends from this L23 clade. The other branch descended from M269 is PF7562, which is found mostly in the Balkans, Turkey, and Armenia today, and may represent an early Steppe migration to the Balkans dating from the Sredny Stog period.” ref

“Another migration across the Caucasus happened shortly before 3700 BCE, when the Maykop culture, the world’s first Bronze Age society, suddenly materialized in the north-west Caucasus, apparently out of nowhere. The origins of Maykop are still uncertain, but archeologists have linked it to contemporary Chalcolithic cultures in Assyria and western Iran. Archeology also shows a clear diffusion of bronze working and kurgan-type burials from the Maykop culture to the Pontic Steppe, where the Yamna culture developed soon afterwards (from 3500 BCE). Kurgan (a.k.a. tumulus) burials would become a dominant feature of ancient Indo-European societies and were widely used by the Celts, Romans, Germanic tribes, and Scythians, among others.” ref

“The Yamna period (3500-2500 BCE) is the most important one in the creation of Indo-European culture and society. Middle Eastern R1b-M269 people had been living and blending to some extent with the local R1a foragers and herders for over a millennium, perhaps even two or three. The close cultural contact and interactions between R1a and R1b people all over the Pontic-Caspian Steppe resulted in the creation of a common vernacular, a new lingua franca, which linguists have called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). It is pointless to try to assign another region of origin to the PIE language. Linguistic similarities exist between PIE and Caucasian and Hurrian languages in the Middle East on the one hand, and Uralic languages in the Volga-Ural region on the other hand, which makes the Pontic Steppe the perfect intermediary region.” ref

“During the Yamna period, cattle and sheep herders adopted wagons to transport their food and tents, which allowed them to move deeper into the steppe, giving rise to a new mobile lifestyle that would eventually lead to the great Indo-European migrations. This type of mass migration in which whole tribes moved with the help of wagons was still common in Gaul at the time of Julius Caesar, and among Germanic peoples in the late Antiquity.” ref

The Yamna horizon was not a single, unified culture. In the south, along the northern shores of the Black Sea coast until the the north-west Caucasus, was a region of open steppe, expanding eastward until the Caspian Sea, Siberia, and Mongolia (the Eurasian Steppe). The western section, between the Don and Dniester Rivers (and later the Danube), was the one most densely settled by R1b people, with only a minority of R1a people (5-10%). The eastern section, in the Volga basin until the Ural mountains, was inhabited by R1a people with a substantial minority of R1b people (whose descendants can be found among the Bashkirs, Turkmans, Uyghurs, and Hazaras, among others).” ref 

“The northern part of the Yamna horizon was forest-steppe occupied by R1a people, also joined by a small minority of R1b (judging from Corded Ware samples and from modern Russians and Belarussians, whose frequency of R1b is from seven to nine times lower than R1a). The western branch would migrate to the Balkans and Greece, then to Central and Western Europe, and back to their ancestral Anatolia in successive waves (Hittites, Phrygians, Armenians, etc.). The eastern branch would migrate to Central Asia, Xinjiang, Siberia, and South Asia (Iran, Pakistan, India). The northern branch would evolve into the Corded Ware culture and disperse around the Baltic, Poland, Germany, and Scandinavia.” ref

The Maykop culture, the R1b link to the Steppe?

“The Maykop culture (3700-2500 BCE) in the north-west Caucasus was culturally speaking a sort of southern extension of the Yamna horizon. Although not generally considered part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe culture due to its geography, the North Caucasus had close links with the steppes, as attested by numerous ceramics, gold, copper, and bronze weapons and jewelry in the contemporaneous cultures of Mikhaylovka, Sredny Stog, and Kemi Oba. The link between the northern Black Sea coast and the North Caucasus is older than the Maykop period. Its predecessor, the Svobodnoe culture (4400-3700 BCE), already had links to the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka and early Sredny Stog cultures. The even older Nalchik settlement (5000-4500 BCE) in the North Caucasus displayed a similar culture as Khvalynsk in the Caspian Steppe and Volga region. This may be the period when R1b started interracting and blending with the R1a population of the steppes.” ref

“The Yamna and Maykop people both used kurgan burials, placing their deads in a supine position with raised knees and oriented in a north-east/south-west axis. Graves were sprinkled with red ochre on the floor, and sacrificed domestic animal buried alongside humans. They also had in common horses, wagons, a heavily cattle-based economy with a minority of sheep kept for their wool, use of copper/bronze battle-axes (both hammer-axes and sleeved axes), and tanged daggers. In fact, the oldest wagons and bronze artifacts are found in the North Caucasus, and appear to have spread from there to the steppes.” ref

‘Maykop was an advanced Bronze Age culture, actually one of the very first to develop metalworking, and therefore metal weapons. The world’s oldest sword was found at a late Maykop grave in Klady kurgan 31. Its style is reminiscent of the long Celtic swords, though less elaborated. Horse bones and depictions of horses already appear in early Maykop graves, suggesting that the Maykop culture might have been founded by steppe people or by people who had close link with them. However, the presence of cultural elements radically different from the steppe culture in some sites could mean that Maykop had a hybrid population.” ref 

“Without DNA testing it is impossible to say if these two populations were an Anatolian R1b group and a G2a Caucasian group, or whether R1a people had settled there too. The two or three ethnicities might even have cohabited side by side in different settlements. The one typical Caucasian Y-DNA lineage that does follow the pattern of Indo-European migrations is G2a-L13, which is found throughout Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia. In the Balkans, the Danube basin, and Central Europe its frequency is somewhat proportional to the percentage of R1b.” ref

“Maykop people are the ones credited for the introduction of primitive wheeled vehicles (wagons) from Mesopotamia to the Steppe. This would revolutionise the way of life in the steppe, and would later lead to the development of (horse-drawn) war chariots around 2000 BCE. Cavalry and chariots played an vital role in the subsequent Indo-European migrations, allowing them to move quickly and defeat easily anybody they encountered. Combined with advanced bronze weapons and their sea-based culture, the western branch (R1b) of the Indo-Europeans from the Black Sea shores are excellent candidates for being the mysterious Sea Peoples, who raided the eastern shores of the Mediterranean during the second millennium BCE.” ref

“The rise of the IE-speaking Hittites in Central Anatolia happened a few centuries after the disappearance of the Maykop and Yamna cultures. Considering that most Indo-European forms of R1b found in Anatolia today belong to the R1b-Z2103 subclade, it makes little doubt that the Hittites came to Anatolia via the Balkans, after Yamna/Maykop people invaded Southeast Europe. The Maykop and Yamna cultures were succeeded by the Srubna culture (1600-1200 BCE), possibly representing an advance of R1a-Z282 people from the northern steppes towards the Black Sea shores, filling the vacuum left by the R1b tribes who migrated to Southeast Europe and Anatolia.” ref 

The Siberian & Central Asian branch

“When R1b crossed the Caucasus in the Late Neolithic, it split into two main groups. The western one (L51) would settle the eastern and northern of the Black Sea. The eastern one (Z2103) migrated to the Don-Volga region, where horses were domesticated circa 4600 BCE. R1b probably mixed with indigenous R1a people and founded the Repin culture (3700-3300 BCE) a bit before the Yamna culture came into existence in the western Pontic Steppe. R1b would then have migrated with horses along the Great Eurasian Steppe until the Altai mountains in East-Central Asia, where they established the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE). Afanasevo people might be the precursors of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages. In 2014, Clément Hollard of Strasbourg University tested three Y-DNA samples from the Afanasevo culture and all three turned out to belong to haplogroup R1b, including two to R1b-M269.” ref

“The R1b people who stayed in the Volga-Ural region were probably the initiators of the Poltavka culture (2700-2100 BCE), then became integrated into the R1a-dominant Sintashta-Petrovka culture (2100-1750 BCE) linked to the Indo-Aryan conquest of Central and South Asia (=> see R1a for more details).” ref

“Nowadays in Russia R1b is found at higher frequencies among ethnic minorities of the Volga-Ural region (Udmurts, Komi, Mordvins, Tatars) than among Slavic Russians. R1b is also present in many Central Asian populations, the highest percentages being observed among the Uyghurs (20%) of Xinjiang in north-west China, the Yaghnobi people of Tajikistan (32%), and the Bashkirs (47%, or 62.5% in the Abzelilovsky district) of Bashkortostan in Russia (border of Kazakhstan).” ref

“R1b-M73, found primarily in North Asia (Altai, Mongolia), Central Asia, and the North Caucasus is thought to have spread during the Neolithic from the Middle East to Central and North Asia, and therefore can be considered to be pre-Indo-European.” ref

The European & Middle Eastern branch

“The Indo-Europeans’s bronze weapons and the extra mobility provided by horses would have given them a tremendous advantage over the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe, namely the native haplogroup C1a2, F and I (descendants of Cro-Magnon) and the early Neolithic herders and farmers (G2a, H2, E1b1b, and T1a). This allowed R1a and R1b to replace most of the native male lineages (=> see How did R1b come to replace most of the older lineages in Western Europe?), although female lineages seem to have been less affected.” ref

“A comparison with the Indo-Iranian invasion of South Asia shows that 40% of the male linages of northern India are R1a, but less than 10% of the female lineages could be of Indo-European origin. The impact of the Indo-Europeans was more severe in Europe because European society 4,000 years ago was less developed in terms of agriculture, technology (no bronze weapons), and population density than that of the Indus Valley civilization.” ref 

“This is particularly true of the native Western European cultures where farming arrived much later than in the Balkans or Central Europe. Greece, the Balkans, and the Carpathians were the most advanced of European societies at the time and were the least affected in terms of haplogroup replacement. neolithic lineages survived better in regions that were more difficult to reach or less hospitable to horse breeders, like the Alps, the Dinaric Alps, the Apennines, and Sardinia.” ref

The Conquest of “Old Europe” and Central Europe (4200-2500 BCE)

“The first forays of Steppe people into the Balkans happened between 4200 BCE and 3900 BCE, when cattle herders equipped with horse-drawn wagons crossed the Dniester and Danube and apparently destroyed the towns of the Gumelnița, Varna and Karanovo VI cultures in Eastern Romania and Bulgaria. A climatic change resulting in colder winters during this exact period probably pushed steppe herders to seek milder pastures for their stock, while failed crops would have led to famine and internal disturbance within the Danubian and Balkanic communities. The ensuing Cernavodă culture (Copper Age, 4000-3200 BCE), Coțofeni/Usatovo culture (Copper to Bronze Age, 3500-2500 BCE), Ezero culture (Bronze Age, 3300-2700 BCE), in modern Romania, seems to have had a mixed population of steppe immigrants and people from the old tell settlements. These Steppe immigrants were likely a mixture of both R1a and R1b lineages, with a probably higher percentage of R1a than later Yamna-era invasions.” ref

“The Steppe invaders would have forced many Danubian farmers to migrate to the Cucuteni-Trypillian towns in the eastern Carpathians, causing a population boom and a north-eastward expansion until the Dnieper valley, bringing Y-haplogroups G2a, I2a1 (probably the dominant lineage of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture), E1b1b, J2a, and T1a in what is now central Ukraine. This precocious Indo-European advance westward was fairly limited, due to the absence of Bronze weapons and an organized army at the time, and was indeed only possible thanks to climatic catastrophes which reduced the defenses of the towns of Old Europe. The Carphatian, Danubian, and Balkanic cultures were too densely populated and technologically advanced to allow for a massive migration.” ref

“In comparison, the forest-steppe R1a people successfully penetrated into the heart of Europe with little hindrance, due to the absence of developed agrarian societies around Poland and the Baltic. The Corded Ware culture (3200-1800 BCE) was a natural northern and western expansion of the Yamna culture, reaching as far west as Germany and as far north as Sweden and Norway. DNA analysis from the Corded Ware confirmed the presence of R1a and R1b in Poland c. 2700 BCE and R1a central Germany around 2600 BCE. The Corded Ware tribes expanded from the northern fringe of the Yamna culture where R1a lineages were prevalent over R1b ones.” ref

“The expansion of R1b people into Old Europe was slower, but proved inevitable. In 2800 BCE, by the time the Corded Ware had already reached Scandinavia, the Bronze Age R1b cultures had barely moved into the Pannonian Steppe. They established major settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, the most similar habitat to their ancestral Pontic Steppes. Around 2500 BCE, the western branch of Indo-European R1b were poised for their next major expansion into modern Germany and Western Europe. By that time, the R1b immigrants had blended to a great extent with the indigenous Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of the Danubian basin, where they had now lived for 1,700 years.” ref

“The strongly partriarchal Indo-European elite remained almost exclusively R1b on the paternal side, but absorbed a high proportion of non-Indo-European maternal lineages. Hybridised, the new Proto-Indo-European R1b people would have lost most of their remaining Proto-Europoid or Mongolid features inherited from their Caspian origins (which were still clearly visible in numerous individuals from the Yamna period). Their light hair, eye, and skin pigmentation, once interbred with the darker inhabitants of Old Europe, became more like that of modern Southern Europeans.” ref 

“The R1a people of the Corded Ware culture would come across far less populous societies in Northern Europe, mostly descended from the lighter Mesolithic population, and therefore retained more of their original pigmentation (although facial traits evolved considerably in Scandinavia, where the I1 inhabitants were strongly dolicocephalic and long-faced, as opposed to the brachycephalic and broad-faced Steppe people).” ref

The Conquest of Western Europe (2500-1200 BCE)

“The R1b conquest of Europe happened in two phases. For nearly two millennia, starting from circa 4200 BCE, Steppe people limited their conquest to the rich Chalcolithic civilizations of the Carpathians and the Balkans. These societies possessed the world’s largest towns, notably the tell settlements of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. Nothing incited the R1b conquerors to move further into Western Europe at such an early stage, because most of the land north and west of the Alps was still sparsely populated woodland. The Neolithic did not reach the British Isles and Scandinavia before circa 4000 BCE. Even northern France and most of the Alpine region had been farming or herding for less than a millennium and were still quite primitive compared to Southeast Europe and the Middle East.” ref

“North-west Europe remained a tribal society of hunter-gatherers practicing only limited agriculture for centuries after the conquest of the Balkans by the Indo-Europeans. Why would our R1b “conquistadors” leave the comfort of the wealthy and populous Danubian civilizations for the harsh living conditions that lie beyond? Bronze Age people coveted tin, copper, and gold, of which the Balkans had plenty, but that no one had yet discovered in Western Europe.” ref

“R1b-L51 is thought to have arrived in Central Europe (Hungary, Austria, Bohemia) around 2500 BCE, approximately two millennia after the shift to the Neolithic lifestyle in these regions. Agrarian towns had started to develop. Gold and copper had begun to be mined. The prospects of a conquest were now far more appealing.” ref

The archeological and genetic evidence (distribution of R1b subclades) point at several consecutive waves towards eastern and central Germany between 2800 BCE and 2300 BCE. The Unetice culture was probably the first culture in which R1b-L11 lineages played a major role. It is interesting to note that the Unetice period happen to correspond to the end of the Maykop (2500 BCE) and Kemi Oba (2200 BCE) cultures on the northern shores of the Black Sea, and their replacement by cultures descended from the northern steppes.” ref 

“It can therefore be envisaged that the (mostly) R1b population from the northern half of the Black Sea migrated westward due to pressure from other Indo-European people (R1a) from the north, for example that of the burgeoning Proto-Indo-Iranian branch, linked to the contemporary Poltavka and Abashevo cultures.” ref

“It is doubtful that the Bell Beaker culture (2900-1800 BCE) in Western Europe was already Indo-European because its attributes are in perfect continuity with the native Megalithic cultures. The Beaker phenomenon started during the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in Portugal and propagated to the north-east towards Germany. During the same period Bronze Age Steppe cultures spread from Germany in the opposite direction towards Iberia, France, and Britain, progressively bringing R1b lineages into the Bell Beaker territory.” ref 

“It is more likely that the beakers and horses found across Western Europe during that period were the result of trade with neighboring Indo-European cultures, including the first wave of R1b into Central Europe. It is equally possible that the Beaker people were R1b merchants or explorers who traveled across Western Europe and brought back tales of riches poorly defended by Stone Age people waiting to be to be conquered. This would have prompted a full-scale Indo-European (R1b) invasion from about 2500 BCE in Germany, reaching the Atlantic (north of the Pyrenees at least) around 2200 BCE.” ref

“Ancient DNA tests conducted by Lee et al. (2012), Haak et al. (2015), and Allentoft et al. (2015) have all confirmed the presence of R1b-L51 (and deeper subclades such as P312 and U152) in Germany from the Bell Beaker period onwards, but none in earlier cultures. German Bell Beaker R1b samples only had about 50% of Yamna autosomal DNA and often possessed Neolithic non-Steppe mtDNA, which confirms that R1b invaders took local wives as they advanced westward. Another study by Olalde et al. (2017) confirmed that Iberian Bell Beakers were genetically distinct from the previously tested German samples.” ref 

“None of the Spanish or Portuguese individuals associated with Bell Beaker pottery possessed any Steppe admixture, and none belonged to the Indo-European haplogroup R1b-L23 or its subclades. Instead, they belonged to typical Megalithic lineages like G2a, I2a1, I2a2, and the Neolithic R1b-V88. The paper also confirmed a high frequency of R1b-L51 lineages in central Europe during the Beall Beaker period. In Britain, Megalithic individuals belonged exclusively to Y-haplogroup I2 (mostly I2a2 and I2a1b-L161), but were entirely replaced by R1b-L51 (mostly L21 clade) in the Early Bronze Age.” ref 

“This means that the Bell Beaker culture was not associated with one particular ethnic group. Beaker pottery originated in Megalithic Iberia, but then spread to France and central Europe and was used by invading R1b-L51 Steppe people, who brought it with them to the British Isles, while wiping out most of the indigenous Megalithic population. There was, therefore, no ‘Bell Beaker people’, but just various populations trading and using Beaker pots during that period.” ref

“DNA samples from the Unetice culture (2300-1600 BCE) in Germany, which emerged less than two centuries after the appearance of the first R1b-L51 individuals in the late Bell Beaker Germany, had a slightly higher percentage of Yamna ancestry (60~65%) and of Yamna-related mtDNA lineages, which indicates a migration of both Steppe men and women. That would explain why archeological artifacts from the Unetice culture are clearly Yamna-related (i.e. Indo-European), as they abruptly introduced new technologies and a radically different lifestyle, while the Bell Beaker culture was in direct continuity with previous Neolithic or Chalcolithic cultures.” ref 

“R1b men may simply have conquered the Bell Beaker people and overthrown the local rulers without obliterating the old culture due to their limited numbers. Taking the analogy of the Germanic migrations in the Late Antiquity, the R1b invasion of the Bell Beaker period was more alike to that of the Goths, Burgunds and Vandals, who all migrated in small numbers, created new kingdoms within the Roman empire, but adopted Latin language and Roman culture. In contrast, the Corded Ware and Unetice culture involved large-scale migrations of Steppe people, who imposed their Indo-European language and culture and conquered people, just like the Anglo-Saxons or the Bavarians did in the 5th century.” ref

“The cultures that succeeded to Unetice in Central Europe, chronologically the Tumulus culture (1600-1200 BCE), Urnfield culture (1300-1200 BCE), and Hallstatt culture (1200-750 BCE) cultures remained typically Indo-European. The Hallstatt culture, centered around the Alps, is considered the first classical Celtic culture in Europe. It quickly expanded to France, Britain, Iberia, northern Italy, and the Danube valley, probably spreading for the first time Celtic languages, although not bronze technology nor R1b lineages, which had both already spread over much of western Europe during the Bell Beaker period. => See also Metal-mining and stockbreeding explain R1b dominance in Atlantic fringe.” ref

“The linguistic gap between pre-IE vernaculars and IE languages was about as big as between modern English and Chinese. English, Greek, Russian, and Hindi are all related IE languages and therefore easier to learn for IE speakers than non-IE languages like Chinese, Arabic, or Hungarian. From a linguistic point of view, only a wide-scale migration of IE speakers could explain the thorough adoption of IE languages in Western Europe – leaving only Basque as a remnant of the Neolithic languages.” ref

“Besides pottery, archaeology provides ample evidence that the early Bronze Age in Central and Western Europe coincides with a radical shift in food production. Agriculture experiences an abrupt reduction in exchange for an increased emphasis on domesticates. This is also a period when horses become more common and cow milk is being consumed regularly. The overall change mimics the Steppic way of life almost perfectly. Even after the introduction of agriculture around 5200 BCE, the Bug-Dniester culture and later Steppe cultures were characterized by an economy dominated by herding, with only limited farming. This pattern expands into Europe exactly at the same time as bronze working.” ref

“Religious beliefs and arts undergo a complete reversal in Bronze Age Europe. Neolithic societies in the Near East and Europe had always worshipped female figurines as a form of fertility cult. The Steppe cultures, on the contrary, did not manufacture female figurines. As bronze technology spreads from the Danube valley to Western Europe, symbols of fertility and fecundity progressively disappear and are replaced by sculptures of domesticated animals.” ref

“Another clue that Indo-European Steppe people came in great number to Central and Western Europe is to be found in burial practices. Neolithic Europeans either cremated their dead (e.g. Cucuteni-Tripolye culture) or buried them in collective graves (this was the case of Megalithic cultures). In the Steppe, each person was buried individually, and high-ranking graves were placed in a funeral chamber and topped by a circular mound. The body was typically accompanied by weapons (maces, axes, daggers), horse bones, and a dismantled wagon (or later chariot).” ref 

“These characteristic burial mounds are known as kurgans in the Pontic Steppe. Men were given more sumptuous tombs than women, even among children, and differences in hierarchy are obvious between burials. The Indo-Europeans had a strongly hierarchical and patrilinear society, as opposed to the more egalitarian and matrilinear cultures of Old Europe. The proliferation of ststus-conscious male-dominant kurgans (or tumulus) in Central Europe during the Bronze Age is a clear sign that the ruling elite had now become Indo-European.” ref 

“The practice also spread to central Asia and southern Siberia, two regions where R1a and R1b lineages are found nowadays, just like in Central Europe. The ceremony of burial is one of the most emotionally charged and personal aspect of a culture. It is highly doubtful that people would change their ancestral practice “just to do like the neighbours”. In fact, different funerary practices have co-existed side by side during the European Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The ascendancy of yet another constituent of the Pontic Steppe culture in the rest of Europe, and in this case one that does not change easily through contact with neighbours, adds up to the likelihood of a strong Indo-European migration.” ref 

“The adoption of some elements of a foreign culture tends to happen when one civilization overawes the adjacent cultures by its superiority. This process is called ‘acculturation’. However, there is nothing that indicates that the Steppe culture was so culturally superior as to motivate a whole continent, even Atlantic cultures over 2000 km away from the Pontic Steppe, to abandon so many fundamental symbols of their own ancestral culture, and even their own language. In fact, Old Europe was far more refined in its pottery and jewelry than the rough Steppe people. The Indo-European superiority was cultural but military, thanks to horses, bronze weapons, and an ethic code valuing individual heroic feats in war (these ethic values are known from the old IE texts, like the Rig Veda, Avesta, or the Mycenaean and Hittite literature).” ref

“After linguistics and archaeology, the third category of evidence comes from genetics itself. It had first been hypothesized that R1b was native to Western Europe, because this is where it was most prevalent. It has since been proven that R1b haplotypes displayed higher microsatellite diversity in Anatolia and in the Caucasus than in Europe. European subclades are also more recent than Middle Eastern or Central Asian ones. The main European subclade, R-P312/S116, only dates back to approximately 3500 to 3000 BCE.” ref 

“It does not mean that the oldest common ancestor of this lineage arrived in Western Europe during this period, but that the first person who carried the mutation R-P312/S116 lived at least 5,000 years ago, assumably somewhere in the lower Danube valley or around the Black Sea. In any case, this timeframe is far too recent for a Paleolithic origin or a Neolithic arrival of R1b. The discovery of what was thought to be “European lineages” in Central Asia, Pakistan, and India hit the final nail on the coffin of a Paleolithic origin of R1b in Western Europe, and confirmed the Indo-European link.” ref

“All the elements concur in favor of a large scale migration of Indo-European speakers (possibly riding on horses) to Western Europe between 2500 to 2100 BCE, contributing to the replacement of the Neolithic or Chalcolithic lifestyle by an inherently new Bronze Age culture, with simpler pottery, less farming, more herding, new rituals (single graves) and new values (patrilinear society, warrior heroes) that did not evolve from local predecessors.” ref

Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis (by Damien Marie AtHope)

To me, Proto-Indo-European starts in the steppe after leaving North Asia, then one-part heads to #1 Turkey/Anatolia with “Anatolian” and the other part to #2 Ukraine/Russia and the rest of Proto-Indo-European. 

To me, along with this migration of peoples also carried with them a Paganistic-Shamanism with heavy totemism.

To me, paganism starts around 12,00 years ago in Turkey/Anatolia in Western Asia. The odd thing is most of the world’s religious myths/fables start or commonly relate to “Siberia” like “Lake Baikal/Golden Mountains of Altai” region and “North China like Chertovy Vorota Cave (Devil’s Gate Cave) area at about 8,000/7,000 years ago and they were transferred to the middle east and East Europe/Balkans/Ukraine as well.”

ref

Dené–Caucasian languages

“Dené–Caucasian is a discredited language family proposal that includes widely-separated language groups spoken in the Northern Hemisphere: Sino-Tibetan languages, Yeniseian languages, Burushaski and North Caucasian languages in Asia; Na-Dené languages in North America; and the Vasconic languages from Europe (including Basque). A narrower connection specifically between North American Na-Dené and Siberian Yeniseian (the Dené–Yeniseian languages hypothesis) was proposed by Edward Vajda in 2008, and has met with some acceptance within the community of professional linguists. The validity of the rest of the family, however, is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly all historical linguists.” ref

“Several roots can be reconstructed for the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns. This may indicate that there were pronouns with irregular declension (suppletion) in Proto-Dené–Caucasian, like “I” vs “me” throughout Indo-European. In the presumed daughter languages some of the roots are often affixes (such as verb prefixes or possessive noun prefixes) instead of independent pronouns. The Algic, Salishan, Wakashan, and Sumerian comparisons should be regarded as especially tentative because regular sound correspondences between these families and the more often accepted Dené–Caucasian families have not yet been reconstructed. To a lesser degree this also holds for the Na-Dené comparisons, where only a few sound correspondences have yet been published. /V/ means that the vowel in this position has not been successfully reconstructed. /K/ could have been any velar or uvular plosive, /S/ could have been any sibilant or assibilate.” ref

“On Caucasian evidence alone, this word cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Caucasian or even Proto-East Caucasian; it is only found in Lak and Dargwa (Bengtson 2008:94). The final /e/ found in Sumerian pronouns is the ergative ending. The Emesal dialect has /ma(e)/. Proto-Athabaskan */ʃ/, Haida dii /dìː/. Also in Proto-Southern Wakashan. Noun classification occurs in the North Caucasian languages, Burushaski, Yeniseian, and the Na-Dené languages. In Basque and Sino-Tibetan, only fossilized vestiges of the prefixes remain. One of the prefixes, */s/-, seems to be abundant in Haida, though again fossilized.” ref

“John Bengtson (2008) proposes that, within Dené–Caucasian, the Caucasian languages form a branch together with Basque and Burushaski, based on many shared word roots as well as shared grammar such as:

• the Caucasian plural/collective ending *-/rV/ of nouns, which is preserved in many modern Caucasian languages, as well as sometimes fossilized in singular nouns with collective meaning; one of the many Burushaski plural endings for class I and II (masculine and feminine) nouns is -/aro/.
• the consonant –/t/, which is inserted between the components of some Basque compound nouns and can be compared to the East Caucasian element –*/du/ which is inserted between the noun stem and the endings of cases other than the ergative.
• the presence of compound case endings (agglutinated from the suffixes of two different cases) in all three branches.
• case endings” ref

Karasuk: Karasuk languages

“George van Driem has proposed that the Yeniseian languages are the closest known relatives of Burushaski, based on a small number of similarities in grammar and lexicon. The Karasuk theory as proposed by van Driem does not address other language families that are hypothesized to belong to Dené–Caucasian, so whether the Karasuk hypothesis is compatible or not with the Macro-Caucasian hypothesis remains to be investigated.” ref

“The Dené–Caucasian family tree and approximate divergence dates (estimated by modified glottochronology) proposed by S. A. Starostin and his colleagues from the Tower of Babel project:

“In the tree model of historical linguistics, a proto-language is a postulated ancestral language from which a number of attested languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family. Proto-languages are usually unattested, or partially attested at best. They are reconstructed by way of the comparative method. In the family tree metaphor, a proto-language can be called a mother language. In the strict sense, a proto-language is the most recent common ancestor of a language family, immediately before the family started to diverge into the attested daughter languages. It is therefore equivalent with the ancestral language or parental language of a language family. Moreover, a group of languages (such as a dialect cluster) which are not considered separate languages (for whichever reasons) may also be described as descending from a unitary proto-language.” ref

“Typically, the proto-language is not known directly. It is by definition a linguistic reconstruction formulated by applying the comparative method to a group of languages featuring similar characteristics. The tree is a statement of similarity and a hypothesis that the similarity results from descent from a common language. The comparative method, a process of deduction, begins from a set of characteristics, or characters, found in the attested languages. If the entire set can be accounted for by descent from the proto-language, which must contain the proto-forms of them all, the tree, or phylogeny, is regarded as a complete explanation and by Occam’s razor, is given credibility. More recently, such a tree has been termed “perfect,” and the characters labeled “compatible.” ref

“No trees but the smallest branches are ever found to be perfect, in part because languages also evolve through horizontal transfer with their neighbours. Typically, credibility is given to the hypotheses of highest compatibility. The differences in compatibility must be explained by various applications of the wave model. The level of completeness of the reconstruction achieved varies, depending on how complete the evidence is from the descendant languages and on the formulation of the characters by the linguists working on it. Not all characters are suitable for the comparative method. For example, lexical items that are loans from a different language do not reflect the phylogeny to be tested, and, if used, will detract from the compatibility. Getting the right dataset for the comparative method is a major task in historical linguistics.” ref

“Some universally accepted proto-languages are Proto-Afroasiatic, Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, and Proto-Dravidian.” ref

“Normally, the term “Proto-X” refers to the last common ancestor of a group of languages, occasionally attested but most commonly reconstructed through the comparative method, as with Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic. An earlier stage of a single language X, reconstructed through the method of internal reconstruction, is termed “Pre-X”, as in Pre–Old Japanese. It is also possible to apply internal reconstruction to a proto-language, obtaining a pre-proto-language, such as Pre-Proto-Indo-European. Both prefixes are sometimes used for an unattested stage of a language without reference to comparative or internal reconstruction.” ref

“Pre-X” is sometimes also used for a postulated substratum, as in the Pre-Indo-European languages believed to have been spoken in Europe and South Asia before the arrival there of Indo-European languages. When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed “Old X” (e.g. Old English and Old Japanese). In other cases, such as Old Irish and Old Norse, the term refers to the language of the oldest known significant texts. Each of these languages has an older stage (Primitive Irish and Proto-Norse respectively) that is attested only fragmentarily.” ref

Swing of the Mace: the rise of Elite, Forced Authority, and Inequality begin to Emerge 8,500 years ago?

ref

8,000 years ago in Siberia, the World’s oldest known fortress (fortified structure) was constructed by hunter-gatherers.

“Archaeologists have long associated fortresses with permanent agricultural settlements. However, this cluster of fortified structures reveals that prehistoric groups were constructing protective edifices much earlier than originally thought. Located along the Amnya River in western Siberia, remains of the Amnya fort include roughly 20 pit-house depressions scattered across the site, which is divided into two sections: Amnya I and Amnya II. “One of the Amnya fort’s most astonishing aspects is the discovery that approximately 8,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers in the Siberian Taiga built intricate defense structures,” Schreiber said. “This challenges traditional assumptions that monumental constructions were solely the work of agricultural communities.” It’s unknown what triggered the need for these fortified structures in the first place, but the strategic location overlooking the river would have not only been an ideal lookout point for potential threats but also allowed hunter-gatherers to keep tabs on their fishing and hunting grounds, the researchers noted.” ref

“Hunter-gatherers built the oldest known fort in the world about 8,000 years ago in Siberia, a new study finds. “It remains uncertain whether these constructions were commissioned by those in authority or if the entire community collaborated in constructing them for the purpose of protecting people or valuables,” Schreiber said. “Ethnohistorical records offer a nuanced comprehension of these forts, disclosing various potential reasons for fortifying residences.” Ancient forts were built for a number of reasons, according to these records, “such as securing possessions or individuals, handling armed conflicts, addressing imbalances in attacker-defender ratios, thwarting raids and functioning as elaborate signals by influential chiefs,” Schreiber said.” ref

So, this almost 8,000-year-old war evidence is just a little bit before the 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, time of clan violence and World War 0. When it went down to 14 women to 1 man in genetics due to wars.

• “6200 – 6000 BCE or 8,200 to 8,000 years ago: The 8.2-kiloyear event, involved a rapid cooling, it was a sudden decrease of global temperatures, probably caused by the final collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which led to drier conditions in East Africa and Mesopotamia. In West Asia, especially Mesopotamia, the 8.2-kiloyear event was a 300-year aridification and cooling episode, which may have provided the natural force for Mesopotamian irrigation agriculture and surplus production, which were essential for the earliest formation of classes and urban life. Lacustrine sediment records show that Western Siberia underwent humidification and the Tarim Basin shows a major dry spell during the 8.2 ka event.” ref, ref

• “6200 – 5600 BCE or 8,200 to 7,600 years ago: Sudden rise in sea level (Meltwater pulse 1C) by 6.5 m (21 ft) in less than 140 years; this concludes the early Holocene sea level rise and sea level remains largely stable throughout the Neolithic.” ref
• “6100 BCE or 8,100 years ago: Great Britain had become an island.” ref
• “6,000 BCE or 8,000 years ago: Approximately 8,000 years ago (c. 6000 BCE), a massive volcanic landslide off Mount Etna, Sicily, caused a megatsunami that devastated the eastern Mediterranean coastline on the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe.” ref
• “6,000 BCE or 8,000 years ago: Neolithic culture and technology had spread from the Near East and into Eastern Europe by 6000 BC. Its development in the Far East grew apace and there is increasing evidence through the millennium of its presence in prehistoric Egypt and the Far East. In much of the world, however, including Northern and Western Europe, people still lived in scattered Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer communities.” ref
• “6,000 BCE or 8,000 years ago: The oldest fort is in Siberia around 6000 BCE.” ref
• “5500 BCE or 7,500 years ago: Copper smelting in evidence in Pločnik and Belovode, Serbia.” ref

“Four identified cultures starting around 5300 BCE or 7,300 years ago, were the Dnieper-Donets, the Narva (eastern Baltic), the Ertebølle (Denmark and northern Germany), and the Swifterbant (Low Countries). They were linked by a common pottery style that had spread westward from Asia: starting in south China, then the Lake Baikal area of Siberia, then west to Europe and is sometimes called “ceramic Mesolithic“, distinguishable by a point or knob base and flared rims.” ref, ref, ref, ref

“The Baikal area, has a long history of human habitation. Some 160 km northwest of the lake, remains of a young human male known as MA-1 or “Mal’ta Boy” are indications of local habitation by the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture ca. 24,000 years old (who I think were involved in Shamanism and may have by their descendants or those with related DNA spread shamanism all over).” ref

“Siberian cultural identity is closely connected with the mythology and ancient religion of the indigenous peoples of Siberia – shamanism, whose rituals, images, symbols, and motifs are often manifested in the clients’ dreams.” ref

“The earliest Indigenous peoples of Siberia were hunter-gatherers distantly related to modern Europeans, and diverged from a shared ancestral population around 38kya before populating Siberia. In Siberia, they received geneflow from an East-Eurasian population, most closely related to the 40kya old Tianyuan man (c. 22-50%), representing a deep sister lineage of contemporary East Asian people, giving rise to a distinct Siberian lineage known as Ancient North Eurasian (such as the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture), populations carrying Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry were probably widely distributed across northeast Eurasia.” ref

“The earliest known archaeological finds from Siberia date to the Lower Palaeolithic. In various places in West Siberia, the Baikal region and Yakutia, storage places from early Neolithic times have been found, which often remained in use for centuries. Alongside tent settlements which leave no traces in the ground, there were also huts, often dug slightly into the ground, whose walls and roofs were made of animal bone and reindeer antlers. Tools and weapons were mostly made from flint, slate, and bone, with few discernable differences between them despite their immense chronological and geographical scope. In some settlements, early artworks have been found, which consist of human, animal, and abstract sculptures and carvings. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants of Siberia were hunter-gatherers, whose prey consisted of mammoths and reindeer, and occasionally fish as well. In the 6th millennium BCE, pottery spread across the whole of Siberia, which scholars treat as the beginning of the Siberian Neolithic. Unlike Europe and the Near East, this event did not mark a major change in lifestyle, economy, or culture.” ref

“The last historical population movement can be associated with the Neo-Siberian expansion outgoing from Northeast Asia (15,000 years ago), and contributed ancestry to Indigenous groups throughout Siberia as well as to Native Americans, associated with the expansion of Paleo-Eskimo, and Eskimo-Aleut groups. Modern Indigenous peoples of Siberia derive varying degrees of ancestry from these three layers, although the  Ancient North Eurasian-like ancestry has been largely replaced.” ref

“The increase in cases of interpersonal violence from the Mesolithic period is most likely related to better preservation and the much higher number of burials and more complete skeletons. Violence is present not only in recent hunter-gatherers and nomadic groups but also among Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.” ref 

“From the Neolithic or early in the Chalcolithic, sedentary groups in which pastoralism played an important economic role developed in southwestern Siberia. The transition to the new economic system and to sedentarism was very smooth. Subsequently, it spread to the Baikal region, where the influence of northern China may also have played a role. All horse nomad cultures shared the burial of the dead in barrow graves which are known as kurgans.” ref

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

• Globalization and the Emergence of Ceramic-using Hunter-gatherers in Northern Eurasia
• A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Ceramics; agriculture and sedentism
• The transmission of pottery technology among prehistoric European hunter-gatherers

“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 or 7,000 to 6,200 years ago. It has many parallels with the Samara culture, and was succeeded by the Sredny Stog culture. Striking similarities with the Khvalynsk culture have also been detected. The Dnieper–Donets culture was originally a hunter-gatherer culture. David Anthony (2007: 155) dated the beginning of the Dnieper–Donets culture as roughly between 5800/5200 BCE or 7,800/7,200 to 6,200 years ago. It quickly expanded in all directions, eventually absorbing all other local Neolithic groups. According to David W. Anthony, the Indo-European languages were initially spoken by EHGs living in Eastern Europe, such as the Dnieper-Donets people. 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“. The Dnieper–Donets culture produced no female figurines. By 5200 BCE or 7,200 years ago the Dnieper–Donets culture II followed, which ended between 4400/4200 BCE. 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.” 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 the Dnieper–Donets culture complex.” ref 

“The first archaeogenetic analysis involving the Dnieper–Donets culture complex individuals from the Mykilske (Nikols’skoye in Russian) and Yasynuvatka (Yasinovatka) cemeteries held the 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 the northern Lake Baikal area.” ref

“C4a – China (Guangdong, Han from Beijing)

• C4a1 – Mongol from Chifeng and Hulunbuir, Tashkurgan (Kyrgyz, Sarikoli, Wakhi), Czech Republic, Denmark
  • C4a1a – Korea, China, Uyghur, Buryat (South Siberia), Denmark, Sweden, France, Scotland, Canada.” ref

“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. 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.” ref

“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 original homeland of the Indo Europeans’ ancestors in the Palaeolithic, the Northern and Eastern Siberian cultures did not have any agricultural introduction or even pastoralism in Siberia during the central European Neolithic. Its cultures are characterized by characteristic stone production techniques and the presence of pottery of Eastern origin via trade despite West Eurasian genetics. However, the Neolithic cultures of North Asia are distinguished from the preceding Mesolithic cultures and far more visible as a result of the introduction of pottery from Southwards. The Afanasevan population was a mix of people descended from a mother culture of Indo-Europeans in central Russia, and from people who migrated back c. 3700–3300 BCE across the Eurasian Steppe from the pre-Yamnaya Repin culture of the Don–Volga region. Such migrations including early Uralic Eastern migrations, into North Asia from Eurasia started and occurred during the mid-5th millennium.” ref

“Four identified cultures starting around 5300 BCE or 7,300 years ago, were the Dnieper-Donets, the Narva (eastern Baltic), the Ertebølle (Denmark and northern Germany), and the Swifterbant (Low Countries). They were linked by a common pottery style that had spread westward from Asia: starting in south China, then the Lake Baikal area of Siberia, then west to Europe and is sometimes called “ceramic Mesolithic“, distinguishable by a point or knob base and flared rims.” ref, ref, ref, ref

“The Baikal area, has a long history of human habitation. Some 160 km northwest of the lake, remains of a young human male known as MA-1 or “Mal’ta Boy” are indications of local habitation by the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture ca. 24,000 years old (who I think were involved in Shamanism and may have by their descendants or those with related DNA spread shamanism all over).” ref

“Siberian cultural identity is closely connected with the mythology and ancient religion of the indigenous peoples of Siberia – shamanism, whose rituals, images, symbols, and motifs are often manifested in the clients’ dreams.” ref

“The earliest Indigenous peoples of Siberia were hunter-gatherers distantly related to modern Europeans, and diverged from a shared ancestral population around 38kya before populating Siberia. In Siberia, they received geneflow from an East-Eurasian population, most closely related to the 40kya old Tianyuan man (c. 22-50%), representing a deep sister lineage of contemporary East Asian people, giving rise to a distinct Siberian lineage known as Ancient North Eurasian (such as the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture), populations carrying Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry were probably widely distributed across northeast Eurasia.” ref

“The earliest known archaeological finds from Siberia date to the Lower Palaeolithic. In various places in West Siberia, the Baikal region and Yakutia, storage places from early Neolithic times have been found, which often remained in use for centuries. Alongside tent settlements which leave no traces in the ground, there were also huts, often dug slightly into the ground, whose walls and roofs were made of animal bone and reindeer antlers. Tools and weapons were mostly made from flint, slate, and bone, with few discernable differences between them despite their immense chronological and geographical scope. In some settlements, early artworks have been found, which consist of human, animal, and abstract sculptures and carvings. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants of Siberia were hunter-gatherers, whose prey consisted of mammoths and reindeer, and occasionally fish as well. In the 6th millennium BCE, pottery spread across the whole of Siberia, which scholars treat as the beginning of the Siberian Neolithic. Unlike Europe and the Near East, this event did not mark a major change in lifestyle, economy, or culture.” ref

“The last historical population movement can be associated with the Neo-Siberian expansion outgoing from Northeast Asia (15,000 years ago), and contributed ancestry to Indigenous groups throughout Siberia as well as to Native Americans, associated with the expansion of Paleo-Eskimo, and Eskimo-Aleut groups. Modern Indigenous peoples of Siberia derive varying degrees of ancestry from these three layers, although the  Ancient North Eurasian-like ancestry has been largely replaced.” ref

“The increase in cases of interpersonal violence from the Mesolithic period is most likely related to better preservation and the much higher number of burials and more complete skeletons. Violence is present not only in recent hunter-gatherers and nomadic groups but also among Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.” ref 

“From the Neolithic or early in the Chalcolithic, sedentary groups in which pastoralism played an important economic role developed in southwestern Siberia. The transition to the new economic system and to sedentarism was very smooth. Subsequently, it spread to the Baikal region, where the influence of northern China may also have played a role. All horse nomad cultures shared the burial of the dead in barrow graves which are known as kurgans.” ref

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

• Globalization and the Emergence of Ceramic-using Hunter-gatherers in Northern Eurasia
• A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Ceramics; agriculture and sedentism
• The transmission of pottery technology among prehistoric European hunter-gatherers

“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 or 7,000 to 6,200 years ago. It has many parallels with the Samara culture, and was succeeded by the Sredny Stog culture. Striking similarities with the Khvalynsk culture have also been detected. The Dnieper–Donets culture was originally a hunter-gatherer culture. David Anthony (2007: 155) dated the beginning of the Dnieper–Donets culture as roughly between 5800/5200 BCE or 7,800/7,200 to 6,200 years ago. It quickly expanded in all directions, eventually absorbing all other local Neolithic groups. According to David W. Anthony, the Indo-European languages were initially spoken by EHGs living in Eastern Europe, such as the Dnieper-Donets people. 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“. The Dnieper–Donets culture produced no female figurines. By 5200 BCE or 7,200 years ago the Dnieper–Donets culture II followed, which ended between 4400/4200 BCE. 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.” 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 the Dnieper–Donets culture complex.” ref 

“The first archaeogenetic analysis involving the Dnieper–Donets culture complex individuals from the Mykilske (Nikols’skoye in Russian) and Yasynuvatka (Yasinovatka) cemeteries held the 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 the northern Lake Baikal area.” ref

“C4a – China (Guangdong, Han from Beijing)

• C4a1 – Mongol from Chifeng and Hulunbuir, Tashkurgan (Kyrgyz, Sarikoli, Wakhi), Czech Republic, Denmark
  • C4a1a – Korea, China, Uyghur, Buryat (South Siberia), Denmark, Sweden, France, Scotland, Canada.” ref

“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. 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.” ref

“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 original homeland of the Indo Europeans’ ancestors in the Palaeolithic, the Northern and Eastern Siberian cultures did not have any agricultural introduction or even pastoralism in Siberia during the central European Neolithic. Its cultures are characterized by characteristic stone production techniques and the presence of pottery of Eastern origin via trade despite West Eurasian genetics. However, the Neolithic cultures of North Asia are distinguished from the preceding Mesolithic cultures and far more visible as a result of the introduction of pottery from Southwards. The Afanasevan population was a mix of people descended from a mother culture of Indo-Europeans in central Russia, and from people who migrated back c. 3700–3300 BCE across the Eurasian Steppe from the pre-Yamnaya Repin culture of the Don–Volga region. Such migrations including early Uralic Eastern migrations, into North Asia from Eurasia started and occurred during the mid-5th millennium.” ref

Swing of the Mace: the rise of Elite, Forced Authority, and Inequality begin to Emerge 8,500 years ago?

Around 7,000 years ago, dogs from Iran spread all over the Middle East

“In a new study published in the journal Science, an international team of scientists sequenced the genomes of 27 ancient dogs, some of which lived up to nearly 11,000 years ago, across Eurasia. The researchers found that dogs likely arose once from a now-extinct wolf population and that by 11,000 years ago, at least five major ancestry lineages had diversified, demonstrating a deep genetic history of dogs during the Paleolithic. The scientists sequenced 27 ancient dog genomes up to 11,000 years old from Europe, the Near East, and Siberia. “Researchers note a clear link between the movement of people and the introduction of a new type of dog. This is new, and we also don’t see this pattern repeating itself when we have another large population movement.” ref

ref, ref, ref, ref

Kurgan Hypothesis

“The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) or Steppe theory is the most widely accepted proposal to identify the Proto-Indo-European homeland from which the Indo-European languages spread out throughout Europe and parts of Asia. It postulates that the people of a Kurgan culture in the Pontic steppe north of the Black Sea were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE). The term is derived from the Russian kurgan (курга́н), meaning tumulus or burial mound. The Steppe theory was first formulated by Otto Schrader (1883) and V. Gordon Childe (1926), then systematized in the 1950s by Marija Gimbutas, who used the term to group various prehistoric cultures, including the Yamnaya (or Pit Grave) culture and its predecessors. In the 2000s, David Anthony instead used the core Yamnaya culture and its relationship with other cultures as a point of reference.” ref

“Gimbutas defined the Kurgan culture as composed of four successive periods, with the earliest (Kurgan I) including the Samara and Seroglazovo cultures of the Dnieper–Volga region in the Copper Age (early 4th millennium BCE). The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BCE had expanded throughout the Pontic–Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe. Recent genetics studies have demonstrated that populations bearing specific Y-DNA haplogroups and a distinct genetic signature expanded into Europe and South Asia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the third and second millennia BCE. These migrations provide a plausible explanation for the spread of at least some of the Indo-European languages, and suggest that the alternative Anatolian hypothesis, which places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Neolithic Anatolia, is less likely to be correct.” ref

“Cultures that Gimbutas considered as part of the “Kurgan culture”:

• Bug–Dniester (6th millennium)
• Samara (5th millennium)
• Khvalynsk (5th millennium)
• Dnieper–Donets (5th to 4th millennia)
• Sredny Stog (mid-5th to mid-4th millennia)
• Maikop–Dereivka (mid-4th to mid-3rd millennia)
• Yamnaya (Pit Grave): This is itself a varied cultural horizon, spanning the entire Pontic–Caspian steppe from the mid-4th to the 3rd millennium.
• Usatovo culture (late 4th millennium)” ref

Anatolian hypothesis

“The Anatolian hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origin is that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language lived in Anatolia during the Neolithic era. When the Neolithic Revolution took place in the seventh and sixth millennia BC, the speakers spread over Europe. Those who advocate this hypothesis think that the Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia. They believe that the Proto-Indo-Europeans then migrated north to the location north of the Caucasus Mountains. There is an another hypothesis, called the Kurgan hypothesis. The people who support it say the Indo-European languages came from the Caucasus. One of the best-known advocates of the Anatolian hypothesis is Colin Renfrew.” ref

Kurgan hypothesis

“The Kurgan model of Indo-European origins is about both the people and their Proto-Indo-European language. It uses both archaeology and linguistics to show the history of their culture at different stages of the Indo-European expansion. The Kurgan model is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of Indo-European. “The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total. It is the solution one encounters in the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse“. “The single most popular proposal is the Pontic steppes”. When it was first suggested in 1956, Marija Gimbutas‘s answer to the question of Indo-European origins was a pioneering interdisciplinary synthesis of archaeology and linguistics. From the nineties on, new archaeological evidence from Northern European prehistoric cultures was put forward on the influence and expansion of Kurgan cultures.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art