Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, cult archaeology, and spooky archaeology—is the interpretation of the past from outside the archaeological science community, which rejects the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites, or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists’ claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of fallacy, and fabrication of evidence. Academic critics have pointed out that pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect to use the scientific method. Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudoarchaeologists “press-gang” the archaeological data to fit a “favored conclusion” that is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma.ref

“There is no unified pseudoarchaeological theory or approach, but rather many different interpretations of the past that are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community. These include religious approaches such as creationism or “creation science” that applies to the archaeology of historic periods such as those that would have included the Tower of Babel, Noah’s Ark and the Genesis flood narrative, and the supposed worldwide flood myth. Some pseudoarchaeological theories revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Italian author Peter Kolosimo, French authors Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in The Morning of the Magicians (1963), and Swiss author Erich von Däniken in Chariots of the Gods? (1968). Others instead hold that there were human societies in the ancient period that were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his Fingerprints of the Gods (1995). Pseudoarchaeology has also been manifest in Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.” ref

“Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such as archaeocryptography and pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from the British Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those that have been adopted by members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems. Academic archaeologists have heavily criticized pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterizing it as relying on “sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of the scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments”. The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.” ref

Graham Hancock

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands. Hancock speculates that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors passed on their knowledge to hunter-gatherers, giving rise to the earliest known civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica. Reviews of Hancock’s interpretations of archaeological evidence and historic documents have identified them as a form of pseudoarchaeology or pseudohistory that fit a preconceived conclusion by ignoring context, cherry picking or misinterpreting evidence, and withholding critical countervailing data. His writings have neither undergone scholarly peer review nor been published in academic journals.” ref

“Born in Edinburgh, Hancock studied sociology at Durham University before working as a journalist, writing for a number of British newspapers and magazines. His first three books dealt with international development, including Lords of Poverty (1989), a well-received critique of corruption in the aid system. Beginning with The Sign and the Seal in 1992, he shifted focus to speculative accounts of human prehistory and ancient civilisations, on which he has written a dozen books, most notably Fingerprints of the Gods, The Message of the Sphinx, and Magicians of the Gods. His ideas have been the subject of several films, including the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse (2022), and Hancock makes regular appearances on the podcast The Joe Rogan Experience to discuss them. He has also written two fantasy novels and in 2013 delivered a controversial TEDx talk promoting the use of ayahuasca.” ref

“Hancock does not agree with archaeologists that the earliest known civilizations arose independently. He speculates that there was an advanced civilization during the last ice age; that it was destroyed in a natural cataclysm during the Younger Dryas; and that its few survivors traveled the world introducing agriculture, monumental architecture, and astronomy to hunter-gatherers, giving rise to civilizations like ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica. Hancock argues that evidence is found in ancient monuments, which he believes are much older than archaeologists say, and also in myths like Atlantis. He recycles the ideas American congressman Ignatius Donnelly put forward in his book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882), which have been long discredited. Archaeologist Flint Dibble says Hancock’s claims “reinforce white supremacist ideas, stripping Indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead giving credit to aliens or white people.” ref

“Hancock’s claims and methods are regarded as pseudoarchaeology. In Archaeological Fantasies Garrett G. Fagan points out that pseudoarchaeologists cherry pick evidence and misrepresent known facts. When apparently factual claims in their works are investigated it turns out that “quotes are presented out of context, critical countervailing data is withheld, the state of understanding is misrepresented, or critical archaeological information about context is ignored”. Fagan gives two typical examples from Hancock’s book Fingerprints of the Gods (1995):

  • Hancock wrote that “the best recent evidence suggests that” large regions of Antarctica may have been ice-free until about 6,000 years ago, referring to the Piri Reis map and Hapgood‘s work from the 1960s. What is left entirely unmentioned are the extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old.
  • When discussing the ancient Bolivian city of Tiwanaku, Hancock presents it as a “mysterious site about which very little is known” and that “minimal archaeology has been done over the years”, suggesting that it may date to 17,000 years ago. Yet in the years prior to these statements dozens of studies had been published, major excavations were conducted and the site was radiocarbon dated by three sets of samples to around 1500 BCE.” ref

Ancient Apocalypse (2022)

Ancient Apocalypse is a 2022 documentary series about the pseudoarchaeological theories of British writer Graham Hancock.” ref

“Hancock’s theories are the basis of Ancient Apocalypse, a 2022 documentary series produced by Netflix, where Hancock’s son Sean is “senior manager of unscripted originals”. In the series, Hancock argues that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors introduced agriculture, monumental architecture, and astronomy to hunter-gatherers around the world. He attempts to show how several ancient monuments are evidence of this, and claims that archaeologists are ignoring or covering-up this alleged evidence. It incorporates ideas from the Comet Research Group (CRG), including the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.” ref

“Archaeologists and other experts have described the theories presented in the series as lacking in evidence and easily disproven. It has been criticized for failing to present alternative hypotheses or contradicting evidence, and for unfounded accusations that “mainstream archaeology” conspires against Hancock’s ideas. Archaeologists have linked Hancock’s claims to “racist” and “white supremacist” ideologies from the 19th century, which they say are insulting to the ancestors of indigenous peoples who built the monuments. A Maltese archaeologist who appeared in the episode said that her interview had been manipulated. The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) objected to the classification of the series as a documentary and requested that Netflix reclassify it as science fiction. The SAA also stated that the series:

repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye; … the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.” ref

Ancient Apocalypse Synopsis

“In the series, Hancock argues that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors introduced agriculture, monumental architecture, and astronomy to hunter-gatherers around the world. He attempts to show how several ancient monuments are evidence of this, and claims that archaeologists are ignoring or covering-up this alleged evidence. It incorporates ideas from the Comet Research Group, including the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which attributes climate change at the end of the Pleistocene to a massive meteor bombardment.ref

Ancient Apocalypse Reception

“Experts in Pacific geography and archaeology, such as Patrick Nunn, from the University of the Sunshine Coast; Mark McCoy, from the Southern Methodist University; and Augustine Kohler, the acting director of the Federated States of Micronesia Office of National Archives and Cultural and Historic Preservation, have variously characterized Hancock’s claims in Ancient Apocalypse as misleading and founded on 19th century “racist” and “white supremacist” ideologies, and as “incredibly insulting to the ancestors of the Pohnpeian [islanders] that did create these structures.ref

“Archaeologist Flint Dibble said the show is “lacking in evidence to support Hancock’s theory”, while there is “a plethora of evidence” which contradicts the dates Hancock gives. In one episode, Hancock says the Megalithic Temples of Malta, built in 3600–2500 BC, were actually built during the last ice age. Maltese archaeologists dismissed these claims; one, who briefly appeared in the episode, implied her interview had been manipulated. John Hoopes, an archaeologist who has written about pseudoarcheology, said the series fails to present alternative interpretations or evidence contradicting Hancock. Answering Hancock’s claims of a coverup, an article in Slate noted that archaeologists would be thrilled to uncover an ice age civilization, if the evidence really existed.ref

“In the same vein, the archaeologist Julien Riel-Salvatore argues that it is rather simple, from a scientific point of view, to demonstrate that the main theses of Ancient Apocalypse are false. He also believes that the series impairs the ability to discern the true from the biased, the credible from the false. Likewise, Courrier international calls it dubious that Hancock’s assertions are never questioned on screen: in Ancient Apocalypse, he calls the archaeologists “pseudo-experts” and repeats that they treat him patronizingly, but he never quotes their names nor their arguments. Writing in The Spectator, James Delingpole described himself as a “huge fan of Hancock” who finds his ideas plausible, but criticised the series’ production for “continually reminding [the viewer] that this is niche, crazy stuff that respectable ‘experts’ shun” and for portraying Hancock as “slippery and unreliable”.ref

“On 30 November 2022, the Society for American Archaeology objected to the classification of the series as a documentary and requested Netflix to reclassify the series as science fiction. The SAA also stated that the series

repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye; … the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.ref


Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often by employing methods resembling those used in scholarly historical research. The related term cryptohistory is applied to pseudohistory derived from the superstitions intrinsic to occultism. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology, and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap. Although pseudohistory comes in many forms, scholars have identified many features that tend to be common in pseudohistorical works; one example is that the use of pseudohistory is almost always motivated by a contemporary political, religious, or personal agenda. Pseudohistory also frequently presents sensational claims or a big lie about historical facts which would require unwarranted revision of the historical record.” ref

“A common feature of pseudohistory is an underlying premise that there is a conspiracy among scholars to promote so-called “mainstream history” over “true” history, an assertion commonly corroborated by elaborate conspiracy theories. Works of pseudohistory often point exclusively to unreliable sources—including myths and legends, often treated as literal historical truth—to support the thesis being promoted while ignoring valid sources that contradict it. Sometimes a work of pseudohistory will adopt a position of historical relativism, insisting that there is really no such thing as historical truth and that any hypothesis is just as good as any other. Many works of pseudohistory conflate mere possibility with actuality, assuming that if something could have happened, then it did.” ref

“The following are some common categories of pseudohistorical theory, with examples. Note that not all theories in a listed category are necessarily pseudohistorical; they are rather categories that seem to attract pseudohistorians. The term pseudohistory was coined in the early nineteenth century, which makes the word older than the related terms pseudo-scholarship and pseudoscience.” ref

Robert Todd Carroll has developed a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. He states that:

Pseudohistory is purported history which:

  • Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth
  • Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients
  • Is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth about the past
  • Often denies that there is such a thing as historical truth, clinging to the extreme skeptical notion that only what is absolutely certain can be called ‘true’ and nothing is absolutely certain, so nothing is true
  • Often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness or honesty, but on moral or political grounds
  • Is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which do not fit
  • Considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one’s agenda
  • Often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda.” ref

The author Graham Hancock has sold over four million copies of books promoting the pseudohistorical thesis that all the major monuments of the ancient world, including Stonehenge, the Egyptian pyramids, and the moai of Easter Island, were built by a single ancient supercivilization, which Hancock claims thrived from 15,000 to 10,000 BCE and possessed technological and scientific knowledge equal to or surpassing that of modern civilization. He first advanced the full form of this argument in his 1995 bestseller Fingerprints of the Gods, which won popular acclaim, but scholarly disdain. Christopher Knight has published numerous books, including Uriel’s Machine (2000), expounding pseudohistorical assertions that ancient civilizations possessed technology far more advanced than the technology of today.” ref

I feel like Hancock knows he is lying. I have looked at lots of similar things in archaeology, anthropology, ethnography, genetics/DNA, and comparative mythology and it doesn’t support what Hancock claims at all. Or I could say Hancock has ideas that are clearly wrong, especially regarding his claims that ancient seafarers (r1b DNA migration stated in his blog) taught Native Americans advanced cultures such as building and mathematics. His ideas are wrong even if he believes them and saying wild things geared to selling books seems believable.

Graham Hancock @Graham__Hancock, pushes conspiracy theories, I make reasonable speculations on prehistory all the time about all kinds of things, yet only Hancock, not me, seems to have problems with academics. The nonsense Hancock pushes is the problem, don’t blame the science community for Hancock’s deserved rejection.

I asked David Miano @DrDavidMiano to address this, to debunk its claims, and not that I believe this claim. It is not a valid claim, believing Caucasians were the ruling nobility in all ancient civilizations.


Proto-Indo-European language

Dené–Yeniseian languages

Dené–Caucasian languages

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

According to ancient DNA studies, most R1a and R1b lineages would have expanded from the Pontic Steppe along with the Indo-European languages. Genetic studies performed since 2015 have revealed that the Yamna culture, thought to have spoken some stage of Proto-Indo-European, carried R1b-L23.” ref

“Analysis of ancient Y-DNA from the remains from early Neolithic Central and North European Linear Pottery culture settlements have not yet found males belonging to haplogroup R1b-M269. Olalde et al. (2017) trace the spread of haplogroup R1b-M269 in western Europe, particularly Britain, to the spread of the Beaker culture, with a sudden appearance of many R1b-M269 haplogroups in Western Europe ca. 5000–4500 years years ago during the early Bronze Age.” ref

Proto-Indo-European languages, likely emerge out of the general areas of the northeastern regions of the Middle East area, such as from eastern Turkey to western Iran and the Caucus mountains. I speculate Proto-Indo-European relates to or was influenced by Dene-Yeniseian which relates to or is similar to the so-called the Dené–Caucasian hypothesis but I would add Proto-Indo-European languages as related.

“The relationship between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Yeniseian, 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 relationship. 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.” ref

As for the Aztecs: “The Mayan, Incan, and Aztec civilizations never had contact with each other.”,their%20region%20into%20northern%20Mesoamerica.

“The haplogroup frequencies found in Aztecs resemble other present-day Central and Southern Mexican and Central American populations, suggesting a great antiquity to this pattern of regional continuity.”

“Native Mexican Y chromosome diversity has been greatly understudied. To further elucidate their genetic history, we conducted a high-resolution Y chromosome analysis with Chichimecas, Nahuas, Otomies, Popolocas, Tepehuas, and Totonacas using 19 Y-short tandem repeat and 21 single nucleotide polymorphism loci. We detected enormous paternal genetic diversity in these groups, with haplogroups Q-MEH2, Q-M3, Q-Z768, Q-L663, Q-Z780, and Q-PV3 being identified. These data affirmed the southward colonization of the Americas via Beringia and connected Native Mexicans with indigenous populations from South-Central Siberia and Canada. They also suggested that multiple population dispersals gave rise to Y chromosome diversity in these populations.” ref

As for India, “Three different paternal Y-DNA lineages are found among North Indians: 1. Central Asian origin R1 and R2. 2. Middle-Eastern origin J2*, Shia-specific E1b1b1, and to some extent G* and L*. 3. indigenous Indian H1*, F*, C*, and O*. Results revealed that a substantial part of North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants.””

The term Caucasian relates to the thinking of a proposed “Caucasian race.”
“The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.”

It was indigenous peoples, not aliens, nor advanced ancient white people either.

‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Netflix series unfounded, experts say

“A popular new show on Netflix claims that survivors of an ancient civilization spread their wisdom to hunter-gatherers across the globe. Scientists say the show is promoting unfounded conspiracy theories.” – Michael Hartlep

‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Netflix series: 

“Once upon a time, some 12,000 years ago, an ancient, sophisticated Ice Age-era civilization flourished. Its people pursued astronomy, science, art, and architecture. Until, that is, disaster struck: A huge comet crashed into Earth, triggering violent floods. As the glaciers melted and sea levels rose, the waters erased every trace of the advanced, global civilization. Only a lucky few survived. Those survivors, the story goes, scattered across the globe, seeking out hunter-gatherers to share their ancient wisdom with. In turn, the pupils started building gigantic temples and observatories to watch the stars and warn future generations of the dangers that might strike from above.  That is the narrative promoted by “Ancient Apocalypse,”, a popular Netflix docuseries that, since airing in mid-November, has found itself among the platform’s most-watched shows.” ref

Archaeologists call the series a conspiracy theory 

“But there’s a problem: According to scientists, the show’s thesis is, to quote one commentator, “bunk.” Other critics call it an eight-part conspiracy theory set to dramatic music. In late November, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) sent an open letter to Netflix executives, urging the platform to replace the show’s “docuseries” classification with “science fiction.” The group also urged Netflix to add disclaimers labeling the show’s content “unfounded.” The company hasn’t responded to the letter, a spokesman for the Society of American Archaeologists told DW. Flint Dibble, an archaeologist at Cardiff University in the UK, told DW he was “annoyed, surprised and dismayed” when he watched the show, prompting him to write a long Twitter thread debunking it. He says the show’s producer, Graham Hancock, a British journalist with a degree in sociology, was appealing to “conspiracy theory crowds by attacking a sort of mainstream archaeology, as he puts it.” In fact, throughout the series, Hancock clearly shows a contempt of what he calls “mainstream archaeologists,” who he says are unwilling to engage with his theory, or worse, are hiding key evidence from the wider public.” ref

Simply no evidence, archaeologists say  

“But the theory, Dibble and many others say, is purely false: There is simply no evidence to hide. Dibble says there have been “hundreds, if not thousands” of excavation sites dating back to the period Hancock references in “Ancient Apocalypse.” “None of them show any evidence of some sort of advanced global connectivity or something like that,” he says.” ref

Underwater evidence?

“Dibble’s research specializes in the Iron and Bronze Ages, and he has taken part in numerous excavations in Greece. In a recent call with DW, his annoyance was palpable. He addressed several of Hancock’s claims: First, that key evidence might have disappeared underwater. That, Dibble says, could easily be debunked, “because there’s a lot of underwater archaeology. We have a good understanding of what’s going on underwater.” Archaeologists have, for example, examined Doggerland, an area that once connected the UK and the European continent. Arrowheads and spear points from bone and antler were analyzed. Off the Egyptian coast, archaeologists have excavated the ancient port of Pharos, famous for its monumental lighthouse.” ref

Domesticated plants and animals introduced by survivors

“Next, the series claims that survivors of the doomed civilization introduced hunter-gatherers across the globe to agriculture, as well as domesticated plants and animals. Again, false, Dibble says. “Why do we have different domesticated plants and animals, for example, in the Americas versus in the Near East?” he asks. “If it was a global civilization, there would be the same set of crops and animals.” And, he says, Hancock’s hypothesis is nothing new. The idea of some mythical pre-flood global civilization dates back to a story about Atlantis that has been floating around for nearly 200 years. But that theory has been disproven over and over again, he says. “It’s not like archaeologists are just ignoring this; we’ve investigated all these sites,” he says, adding that archaeologists have “millions of artifacts that date to that time.” There’s also no evidence of megalithic architecture and monumental structures like the ones mentioned by Hancock suddenly appearing at a similar time, he says. Rather, excavations have proven that the pyramids, for example, developed over a period of time — in some cases, even over generations.” ref

Ice Age hunter-gatherers were complex

“Archaeologists also bristle at Hancock’s implication that Ice Age hunter-gatherers were “simple” and incapable of architecture and science. Rather, they say, in order to survive in the Ice Age, people needed to develop complex survival strategies, depending on the regions and climate they inhabited.” ref  

Why get involved?

“Why are professional archaeologists like Dibble or the SAA even engaging in this one-sided debate? Because they’re worried. Polls conducted by Chapman University in the US show an increase in paranormal beliefs, ranging from aliens visiting Earth to haunted houses. The polls also show an increase in beliefs that ancient civilizations such as Atlantis existed. These beliefs, experts say, can feed into a wider, growing skepticism — if not outright rejection — of established scientific wisdom. That is why Dibble is worried — and speaking out against “Ancient Apocalypse.” ”Once you start thinking that archaeologists are wrong, then you think doctors are wrong. Then you think politicians are lying, and so you can’t trust anything,” he says. And soon, experts worry, people are lost to ever more violent conspiracy theories, ever more difficult to reason with. Netflix hasn’t responded to requests for comment.” ref

“A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits – and it seems to exist solely for conspiracy theorists. Why has this been allowed? At the time of writing, Ancient Apocalypse has been comfortably sitting in Netflix’s Top 10 list for several days. This presents something of a mystery, because the show closely resembles the sort of half-baked filler documentary that one of the lesser Discovery channels would slap up at 3am between shows about plane crashes and fascist architecture. Ancient Apocalypse obviously has an audience, but who on Earth is it?” ref

“Fortunately, you don’t have to watch for long to find out. In quick succession, during the pre-show sizzle reel, we are treated to a clip of the show’s host Graham Hancock being interviewed by Joe Rogan. Finally, we have an answer: Ancient Apocalypse must be a TV program made exclusively for people who like to shout at you on Twitter. Of course, it is. These people are Hancock’s bread and butter; the “free thinkers” who, through some bizarre quirk of nature, are often more perennially outraged than anyone else on Earth. They’re drawn to Ancient Apocalypse, thanks in part to Hancock’s loud and persistent claims that his life’s work is being suppressed by Big Archaeology.ref

“The thrust of the Ancient Apocalypse is as follows: Hancock believes that an advanced ice-age civilization – responsible for teaching humanity concepts such as maths, architecture, and agriculture – was wiped out in a giant flood brought about by multiple comet strikes about 12,000 years ago. There are signs everywhere you look, he says. To prove this, he spends an entire television series looking everywhere. Hancock travels to Malta, to Mexico, to Indonesia, and to the US, purely so he can look at remnants of old structures and insist that they prove his theory. Which isn’t to say that is all he does, of course, because a great deal of every episode is spent railing at the buttoned-up archeological institutions that fail to listen to him (because, according to them, the whole theory doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever).ref

“The result – sadly, given it’s about an intelligent life form being exploded off the planet in a hail of cometfire – is preposterously boring. Hancock goes to a place and says: “They want you to think it’s this, but actually it’s that,” over and over again. I once got trapped at a party with a Flat Earther. It was a very similar experience to watching this. Which isn’t to say we should dismiss Hancock’s theory out of hand, of course. Because if he’s right, and the history of humanity really is just the first five minutes of Prometheus, it would change everything we know about ourselves. But we certainly shouldn’t treat his hodgepodge of mysteries and coincidences as fact.ref

“That’s the danger of a show like this. It whispers to the conspiracy theorist in all of us. And Hancock is such a compelling host that he’s bound to create a few more in his wake. Believing that ultra-intelligent creatures helped to build the pyramids is one thing, but where does it end? Believing that election fraud is real? Believing 9/11 was an inside job? Worse? If you were feeling particularly mean-spirited, you could suggest that Netflix knows this, and has gone out of its way to court the conspiracy theorists. But, hey, not all conspiracy theories are bad. If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilization being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?ref

I suffered through the ‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Netflix series and was amazed at how the talk of this ancient culture was so limited in explanation. Especially, when it was central to what the show was about, he never addressed in detail the proposed facts needed to give his ancient culture theory of this “ancient culture” meaning, and no talk about ancient DNA. What the hell, when he does address it in a blog post? This seems like the behavior of untruthfulness in the video series to not fully address the who, where, how, and what is the evidence of this “ancient culture.”

Here is the blog with his exposed thinking than what was provided in the video series:

“9,000 years ago the “Nordic race,” was not white and blond. Rather, these people had black skin, black straight hair, and blue eyes.”

With Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse, Graham Hancock has declared war on archaeologists
LIES told by Atlantis Proponents (Video)
Netflix, archeology and obscurantism
In this final review of Graham Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse science fiction series on Netflix, we look at episodes 7 and 8 along with a summary of the series as a whole.
In Digging up Ancient Aliens, our host Fredrik uses his background in archaeology to discover what is genuine, fake, and somewhere in between on the TV show Ancient Aliens. We explore Obsidian hydration dating, the rise of the Manatura cult on Easter island, and much more. Also how we don’t need aliens to explain sacred places.
Anthropology Graduate REACTS To Ancient Apocalypse | Responding To Graham Hancock’s New Netflix Show (Video)

My thoughts on how cultural/ritual was influenced in the area of Göbekli Tepe. I think it relates to a few different cultures starting in the area before the Neolithic. Two different groups of Siberians first from northwest Siberia with U6 haplogroup 40,000 to 30,000 or so. Then R Haplogroup (mainly haplogroup R1b but also some possible R1a both related to the Ancient North Eurasians). This second group added its “R” DNA of around 50% to the two cultures Natufian and Trialetian. To me, it is likely both of these cultures helped create Göbekli Tepe. Then I think the female art or graffiti seen at Göbekli Tepe to me possibly relates to the Epigravettians that made it into Turkey and have similar art in North Italy. I will also show you my art explaining this to help show my thoughts. I also have lots of links if interested to validate all this.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refref, ref

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)

Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American (AB/ANA)

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)

Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)

Western Steppe Herders (WSH) 

Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG)

Early European Farmers (EEF)

Jōmon people (Ainu people OF Hokkaido Island) 

Neolithic Iranian farmers (Iran_N) (Iran Neolithic)

Amur Culture (Amur watershed)

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

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago. The Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) samples (Afontova Gora 3, Mal’ta 1, and Yana-RHS) show evidence for minor gene flow from an East Asian-related group (simplified by the Amis, Han, or Tianyuan) but no evidence for ANE-related geneflow into East Asians (Amis, Han, Tianyuan), except the Ainu, of North Japan.” ref 

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago “basal to modern-day Europeans”. Some Ancient North Eurasians also carried East Asian populations, such as Tianyuan Man.” ref

“Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were ANE at around 50% and Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) at around 75% ANE. Karelia culture: Y-DNA R1a-M417 8,400 years ago, Y-DNA J, 7,200 years ago, and Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297 7,600 years ago is closely related to ANE from Afontova Gora, 18,000 years ago around the time of blond hair first seen there.” ref 

Ancient North Eurasian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Genetic data suggests that the ANE formed during the Terminal Upper-Paleolithic (36+-1,5ka) period from a deeply European-related population, which was once widespread in Northern Eurasia, and from an early East Asian-related group, which migrated northwards into Central Asia and Siberia, merging with this deeply European-related population. These population dynamics and constant northwards geneflow of East Asian-related ancestry would later gave rise to the “Ancestral Native Americans” and Paleosiberians, which replaced the ANE as dominant population of Siberia.” ref

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly (75%) from ANE. It is represented by two individuals from Karelia, one of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, dated c. 8.4 kya, the other of Y-haplogroup J, dated c. 7.2 kya; and one individual from Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297, dated c. 7.6 kya. This lineage is closely related to the ANE sample from Afontova Gora, dated c. 18 kya. After the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, the Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) and EHG lineages merged in Eastern Europe, accounting for early presence of ANE-derived ancestry in Mesolithic Europe. Evidence suggests that as Ancient North Eurasians migrated West from Eastern Siberia, they absorbed Western Hunter-Gatherers and other West Eurasian populations as well.” ref

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

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

“Iran Neolithic (Iran_N) individuals dated ~8.5 kya carried 50% ANE-derived admixture and 50% Dzudzuana-related admixture, marking them as different from other Near-Eastern and Anatolian Neolithics who didn’t have ANE admixture. Iran Neolithics were later replaced by Iran Chalcolithics, who were a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Near Eastern Levant Neolithic.” ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refrefrefrefrefref, ref

Trialetian culture (16,000–8000 years ago) the Caucasus, Iran, and Turkey, likely involved in Göbekli Tepe. Migration 1?


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

Trialetian sites

Caucasus and Transcaucasia:

Eastern Anatolia:

Trialetian influences can also be found in:

Southeast of the Caspian Sea:

  • Hotu (Iran)
  • Ali Tepe (Iran) (from cal. 10,500  to 8,870 BCE)
  • Belt Cave (Iran), layers 28-11 (the last remains date from ca. 6,000 BCE)
  • Dam-Dam-Cheshme II (Turkmenistan), layers7,000-3,000 BCE)” ref

“The belonging of these Caspian Mesolithic sites to the Trialetian has been questioned. Little is known about the end of the Trialetian. 6k BC has been proposed as the time on which the decline phase took place. From this date are the first evidence of the Jeitunian, an industry that has probably evolved from the Trialetian. Also from this date are the first pieces of evidence of Neolithic materials in the Belt cave.” ref

“In the southwest corner of the Trialetian region it has been proposed that this culture evolved towards a local version of the PPNB around 7,000 BCE, in sites as Cafer Höyük. Kozłowski suggests that the Trialetian does not seem to have continuation in the Neolithic of Georgia (as for example in Paluri and Kobuleti). Although in the 5,000 BCE certain microliths similar to those of the Trialetian reappear in Shulaveris Gora (see Shulaveri-Shomu) and Irmis Gora.” ref

“The genome of a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer individual found at the layer A2 of the Kotias Klde rock shelter in Georgia (labeled KK1), dating from 9,700 years ago, has been analyzed. This individual forms a genetic cluster with another hunter-gatherer from the Satsurblia Cave, the so-called Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) cluster. KK1 belongs to the Y-chromosome haplogruoup J2a (an independent analysis has assigned him J2a1b-Y12379*).” ref

“Although the belonging of the Caspian Mesolithic to the Trialetian has been questioned, it is worth noting that genetic similarities have been found between an Mesolithic hunther-gatherer from the Hotu cave (labeled Iran_HotuIIIb) dating from 9,100-8,600 BCE and the CHG from Kotias Klde. The Iran_HotuIIIb individual belongs to the Y-chromosome haplogroup J (xJ2a1b3, J2b2a1a1) (an independent analysis yields J2a-CTS1085(xCTS11251,PF5073) -probably J2a2-). Then, both KK1 and Iran_HotuIIIb individuals share a paternal ancestor that lived approximately 18.7k years ago (according to the estimates of full). At the autosomal level, it falls in the cluster of the CHG’s and the Iranian Neolithic Farmers.” ref

Göbekli Tepe (“Potbelly Hill”) is a Neolithic archaeological site near the city of Şanlıurfa in Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey. Dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, between c. 9500 and 8000 BCE, the site comprises a number of large circular structures supported by massive stone pillars – the world’s oldest known megaliths. Many of these pillars are richly decorated with abstract anthropomorphic details, clothing, and reliefs of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into prehistoric religion and the particular iconography of the period..” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


12,000-year-old Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made pagan temple”

Just think of the kind and amount of religious faith one would need to build such a site as this. Speaking of building, one of the most fascinating facts about this site is that they didn’t have the wheel nor metal tools. All they had were stone tools and little else.

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

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


ref, ref, ref

“Lighter skin and blond hair evolved in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. The SLC24A5 gene’s derived threonine or Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in the light skin tone of Europeans. Possibly originating as long as 19,000 years ago, it has been the subject of selection in the ancestors of Europeans as recently as within the last 5,000 years, and is fixed in modern European populations.” refref

I don’t see it as white skin being more evolved than those with dark skin, as bigots could see it, but rather it is just one of many factors that happen when the evolutionary pressures on a region like Siberia have on evolutionary changes that would not have happened if not for the different climate pressures the far north have that is not experienced in lower latitudes.

“Migration from Siberia behind the formation of Göbeklitepe: Expert states. People who migrated from Siberia formed the Göbeklitepe, and those in Göbeklitepe migrated in five other ways to spread to the world, said experts about the 12,000-year-old Neolithic archaeological site in the southwestern province of Şanlıurfa.“ The upper paleolithic migrations between Siberia and the Near East is a process that has been confirmed by material culture documents,” he said.” ref

“Semih Güneri, a retired professor from Caucasia and Central Asia Archaeology Research Center of Dokuz Eylül University, and his colleague, Professor Ekaterine Lipnina, presented the Siberia-Göbeklitepe hypothesis they have developed in recent years at the congress held in Istanbul between June 11 and 13. There was a migration that started from Siberia 30,000 years ago and spread to all of Asia and then to Eastern and Northern Europe, Güneri said at the international congress.” ref

“The relationship of Göbeklitepe high culture with the carriers of Siberian microblade stone tool technology is no longer a secret,” he said while emphasizing that the most important branch of the migrations extended to the Near East. “The results of the genetic analyzes of Iraq’s Zagros region confirm the traces of the Siberian/North Asian indigenous people, who arrived at Zagros via the Central Asian mountainous corridor and met with the Göbeklitepe culture via Northern Iraq,” he added.” ref

“Emphasizing that the stone tool technology was transported approximately 7,000 kilometers from east to west, he said, “It is not clear whether this technology is transmitted directly to long distances by people speaking the Turkish language at the earliest, or it travels this long-distance through using way stations.” According to the archaeological documents, it is known that the Siberian people had reached the Zagros region, he said. “There seems to be a relationship between Siberian hunter-gatherers and native Zagros hunter-gatherers,” Güneri said, adding that the results of genetic studies show that Siberian people reached as far as the Zagros.” ref

“There were three waves of migration of Turkish tribes from the Southern Siberia to Europe,” said Osman Karatay, a professor from Ege University. He added that most of the groups in the third wave, which took place between 2600-2400 BCE, assimilated and entered the Germanic tribes and that there was a genetic kinship between their tribes and the Turks. The professor also pointed out that there are indications that there is a technology and tool transfer from Siberia to the Göbeklitepe region and that it is not known whether people came, and if any, whether they were Turkish.” ref

“Around 12,000 years ago, there would be no ‘Turks’ as we know it today. However, there may have been tribes that we could call our ‘common ancestors,’” he added. “Talking about 30,000 years ago, it is impossible to identify and classify nations in today’s terms,” said Murat Öztürk, associate professor from İnönü University. He also said that it is not possible to determine who came to where during the migrations that were accepted to have been made thousands of years ago from Siberia. On the other hand, Mehmet Özdoğan, an academic from Istanbul University, has an idea of where “the people of Göbeklitepe migrated to.” ref

“According to Özdoğan, “the people of Göbeklitepe turned into farmers, and they could not stand the pressure of the overwhelming clergy and started to migrate to five ways.” “Migrations take place primarily in groups. One of the five routes extends to the Caucasus, another from Iran to Central Asia, the Mediterranean coast to Spain, Thrace and [the northwestern province of] Kırklareli to Europe and England, and one route is to Istanbul via [Istanbul’s neighboring province of] Sakarya and stops,” Özdoğan said. In a very short time after the migration of farmers in Göbeklitepe, 300 settlements were established only around northern Greece, Bulgaria, and Thrace. “Those who remained in Göbeklitepe pulled the trigger of Mesopotamian civilization in the following periods, and those who migrated to Mesopotamia started irrigated agriculture before the Sumerians,” he said.” ref



“The new study appears to align with the spread of Indo-European languages and was closely tied to the diffusion of agriculture from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) around 8,000 to 9,500 years ago.” ref

World’s oldest known fort was constructed by hunter-gatherers 8,000 years ago in Siberia

The fact that this Stone Age fort was built by hunter-gatherers is transforming our understanding of ancient human societies. Hunter-gatherers built the oldest known fort in the world about 8,000 years ago in Siberia, a new study finds. 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.” ref

“These hunter-gatherers “defy conventional stereotypes that depict such societies as basic and nomadic, unveiling their capacity to construct intricate structures,” study co-author Tanja Schreiber, an archaeologist at Free University of Berlin, told Live Science in an email. 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. Radiocarbon dating confirmed that the settlement was first inhabited during the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age, according to the study. When constructed, each pit house would have been protected by earthen walls and wooden palisades — two construction elements that suggest “advanced agricultural and defensive capabilities” by the inhabitants, the archaeologists said in a statement.” ref

“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


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

“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:

“John D. Bengtson groups Basque, Caucasian and Burushaski together in a Macro-Caucasian (earlier Vasco-Caucasian) family (see the section on Macro-Caucasian below). According to him, it is as yet premature to propose other nodes or subgroupings, but he notes that Sumerian seems to share the same number of isoglosses with the (geographically) western branches as with the eastern ones:

  • Dené–Caucasian
    • The Macro-Caucasian family
      • Basque
      • North Caucasian
      • Burushaski
    • Sumerian
    • Sino-Tibetan
    • Yeniseian
    • Na-Dené” ref

“It has been conjectured that the North-West Caucasian languages may be genetically related to the Indo-European family, at a time depth of perhaps 12,000 years before the present. This hypothesized proto-language is called Proto-Pontic, but is not widely accepted. There does at least appear to have been extensive contact between the two proto-languages, and the resemblances may be due to this influence. A few linguists have proposed even broader relationships, of which the Dene–Caucasian hypothesis is perhaps the most popular. Dene–Caucasian links the North Caucasian (including Northwest Caucasian), BasqueBurushaskiYeniseianSino-Tibetan, and Na–Dene families. However, this is an even more tentative hypothesis than Nostratic, which attempts to relate KartvelianIndo-EuropeanUralic, and Altaic, etc., and which is widely considered to be undemonstrated.” ref

Nostratic is a hypothetical language macrofamily including many of the language families of northern Eurasia. Though a historically important proposal, in a contemporary context it is typically considered a fringe theory. Although the exact composition varies based on proponent, it typically comprises KartvelianIndo-European and Uralic languages; some languages from the similarly controversial Altaic family; the Afroasiatic languages; as well as the Dravidian languages (sometimes also Elamo-Dravidian).” ref

“Iran Neolithic (Iran_N) individuals dated ~8,500 years ago carried 50% Ancient North Eurasian-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

I speculate that possibly this “Iran Neolithic” difference is a later migration relating to Ancient North Eurasian admixture, with the source languages from Siberia (pre-proto-indo-europeain, like some kind of pre/proto-Yeniseian, or Dené–Yeniseian languages/or Dené–Caucasian) that then merged into proto-indo-European languages seen just west of Iran in the Caucasus and East Turkey areas. Also, I speculate that the idea of pottery was likewise brought by these peoples and they, to me could have influenced the creation of the earliest pottery in Tell Hassuna and Jarmo (Iraq). 

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 people, who practiced Shamanism and connected to Tengrism. 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.” ref

Tengri (Old Turkic: 𐰚𐰇𐰚:𐱅𐰭𐰼𐰃, romanized: Kök Teŋri/Teŋirilit. ’Blue Heaven’; Old Uyghur tängriMiddle Turkic: تآنغرِ; Ottoman Turkish: تڭری; Kyrgyz: Теңир; Kazakh: Тәңір; TurkishTanrıAzerbaijaniTanrıBulgarian: Тангра; Proto-Turkic *teŋri / *taŋrɨMongolian script: ᠲᠩᠷᠢ, T’ngriMongolian: Тэнгэр, TengerUyghur: تەڭرى tengri ) is the all-encompassing God of Heaven in the traditional TurkicYeniseianMongolic, and various other nomadic Altaic religious beliefs. Tengri is not considered a deity in the usual sense, but a personification of the universe. However, some qualities associated with Tengri as the judge and source of life, and being eternal and supreme, led European and Muslim writers to identify Tengri as a deity of Turkic and Mongolic peoples. According to Mongolian belief, Tengri’s will (jayayan) may break its own usual laws and intervene by sending a chosen person to earth. It is also one of the terms used for the primary chief deity of the early Turkic and Mongolic peoples. Worship surrounding Tengri is called Tengrism. The core beings in Tengrism are the Sky Father (Tenger Etseg) and the Earth Mother (Umay Ana). It involves ancestor worship, as Tengri was thought to have been the ancestral progenitor of mankind in Turkic regions and Mongoliashamanismanimism, and totemism.” ref

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

“The term also describes several contemporary Turkic and Mongolic native religious movements and teachings. All modern adherents of “political” Tengrism are monotheists. Tengrism has been advocated for in intellectual circles of the Turkic nations of Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan with Kazakhstan) and Russia (TatarstanBashkortostan) since the dissolution of the Soviet Union during the 1990s. Still practiced, it is undergoing an organized revival in BuryatiaSakha (Yakutia)KhakassiaTuva and other Turkic nations in SiberiaAltaian Burkhanism and Chuvash Vattisen Yaly are contemporary movements similar to Tengrism. The term tengri (compare with Kami) can refer to the sky deity Tenger Etseg – also Gök TengriSky fatherBlue sky – or to other deities. While Tengrism includes the worship of personified gods (tngri) such as Ülgen and Kaira,Tengri is considered an “abstract phenomenon”. In Mongolian folk religion, Genghis Khan is considered one of the embodiments, if not the main embodiment, of Tengri’s will. The forms of the name Tengri (Old Turkic: Täŋri) among the ancient and modern Turkic and Mongolic are TengeriTangaraTangriTanriTangreTegriTingirTenkriTangraTeriTer, and Ture. The name Tengri (“the Sky”) is derived from Old Turkic: Tenk (“daybreak”) or Tan (“dawn”). Meanwhile, Stefan Georg proposed that the Turkic Tengri ultimately originates as a loanword from Proto-Yeniseian *tɨŋgɨr- “high”. Mongolia is sometimes poetically called the “Land of Eternal Blue Sky” (Mönkh Khökh Tengeriin Oron) by its inhabitants. According to some scholars, the name of the important deity Dangun (also Tangol) (God of the Mountains) of the Korean folk religion is related to the Siberian Tengri (“Heaven”), while the bear is a symbol of the Big Dipper (Ursa Major).” ref

Tiān () is one of the oldest Chinese terms for heaven and a key concept in Chinese mythologyphilosophy, and religion. During the Shang dynasty (17th―11th century BCE), the Chinese referred to their highest god as Shàngdì (上帝, “Lord Above”) or  (, “Lord”). During the following Zhou dynastyTiān became synonymous with this figure. Before the 20th century, worship of Tiān was an orthodox state religion of China. In Chinese culture, heaven tends to be “synonymous with order”, “containing the blueprints for creation”, “the mandate by which earthly rulers govern, and the standards by which to measure beauty, goodness, and truth.” Zhou dynasty nobles made the worship of heaven a major part of their political philosophy and viewed it as “many gods” who embodied order and kingship, as well as the mandate of heaven. For the etymology of tiān, Schuessler links it with the Mongolian word tengri “sky, heaven, heavenly deity” or the Tibeto-Burman words taleŋ (Adi) and tǎ-lyaŋ (Lepcha), both meaning “sky”. He also suggests a likely connection between Chinese tiān 天, diān 巔 “summit, mountaintop”, and diān 顛 “summit, top of the head, forehead”, which have cognates such as Zemeic Naga tiŋ “sky”. However, other reconstructions of 天’s OC pronunciation *qʰl’iːn  or *l̥ˤi[n]  reconstructed a voiceless lateral onset, either a cluster or a single consonant, respectively. Baxter & Sagart pointed to attested dialectal differences in Eastern Han Chinese, the use of 天 as a phonetic component in phono-semantic compound Chinese characters, and the choice of 天 to transcribe foreign syllables, all of which prompted them to conclude that, around 200 CE, 天’s onset had two pronunciations: coronal * & dorsal *x, both of which likely originated from an earlier voiceless lateral *l̥ˤ.” ref

“In Taoism and ConfucianismTiān (the celestial aspect of the cosmos, often translated as “Heaven“) is mentioned in relationship to its complementary aspect of  (, often translated as “Earth“). They are thought to maintain the two poles of the Three Realms (三界) of reality, with the middle realm occupied by Humanity (, rén), and the lower world occupied by demons (魔, ) and “ghosts”, the damned, (鬼, guǐ). Tiān was variously thought as a “supreme power reigning over lesser gods and human beings” that brought “order and calm…or catastrophe and punishment”, a goddestiny, an “impersonal” natural force that controlled various events, a holy world or afterlife containing other worlds or afterlives, or one or more of these. “Confucianism has a religious side with a deep reverence for Heaven and Earth (Di), whose powers regulate the flow of nature and influence human events.” Yin and yang are also thought to be integral to this relationship and permeate both, as well as humans and man-made constructs. This “cosmos” and its “principles” is something that “[t]he ways of man should conform to, or else” frustration will result. Many Confucianists, both historically and in current times, use the I Ching to divine events through the changes of Tiān and other “natural forces”. Historical and current Confucianists were/are often environmentalists out of their respect for Heaven and the other aspects of nature and the “Principle” that comes from their unity and, more generally, harmony as a whole, which is “the basis for a sincere mind.” The Emperor of China as Tianzi was formerly vital to Confucianism. Mount Tai is seen as a sacred place in Confucianism and was traditionally the most revered place where Chinese emperors offered sacrifices to heaven and earth. Some tiān in Chinese folk religion were thought to be many different or a hierarchy of multiple, sphere-like realms that contained morally ambiguous creatures and spirits such as huli jing and fire-breathing dragons. ” ref

Paleo-Siberian languages, languages spoken in Asian Russia (Siberia) that belong to four genetically unrelated groups—YeniseianLuorawetlanYukaghir, and Nivkh.” ref

Proto-Indo-European mythology

Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and deities associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, speakers of the hypothesized Proto-Indo-European language. Although the mythological motifs are not directly attested – since Proto-Indo-European speakers lived in preliterate societies – scholars of comparative mythology have reconstructed details from inherited similarities found among Indo-European languages, based on the assumption that parts of the Proto-Indo-Europeans’ original belief systems survived in the daughter traditions. The Proto-Indo-European pantheon includes a number of securely reconstructed deities, since they are both cognates – linguistic siblings from a common origin – and associated with similar attributes and body of myths: such as *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, the daylight-sky god; his consort *Dʰéǵʰōm, the earth mother; his daughter *H₂éwsōs, the dawn goddess; his sons the Divine Twins; and *Seh₂ul and *Meh₁not, a solar goddess and moon god, respectively. Some deities, like the weather god *Perkʷunos or the herding-god *Péh₂usōn, are only attested in a limited number of traditions – Western (i.e. European) and Graeco-Aryan, respectively – and could therefore represent late additions that did not spread throughout the various Indo-European dialects.” ref

“Some myths are also securely dated to Proto-Indo-European times, since they feature both linguistic and thematic evidence of an inherited motif: a story portraying a mythical figure associated with thunder and slaying a multi-headed serpent to release torrents of water that had previously been pent up; a creation myth involving two brothers, one of whom sacrifices the other in order to create the world; and probably the belief that the Otherworld was guarded by a watchdog and could only be reached by crossing a river. Various schools of thought exist regarding possible interpretations of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology. The main mythologies used in comparative reconstruction are Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Roman, and Norse, often supported with evidence from the Celtic, Greek, Slavic, Hittite, Armenian, Illyrian, and Albanian traditions as well.” ref

“Early agricultural communities such as Chogha Golan in 10,000 BCE or around 12,000 years ago, along with settlements such as Chogha Bonut (the earliest village in Elam) in 8000 BCE or around 10,000 years ago, began to flourish in and around the Zagros Mountains region in western Iran. Around about the same time, the earliest-known clay vessels and modeled human and animal terracotta figurines were produced at Ganj Dareh, also in western Iran. There are also 10,000-year-old human and animal figurines from Tepe Sarab in Kermanshah Province among many other ancient artifacts.” ref

I also speculate that there may be a connection with this to the earliest pottery in Turkey from Boncuklu Höyük as well.

“12 fired clay samples and an unfired marl sample from the late 9th and early 8th-millennium BCE site of Boncuklu Höyük (8300–7800 cal BCE or around 10,300 to 9,800 years ago) in the Konya Plain, Turkey. The clay vessels from Boncuklu Höyük, an early Neolithic site in central Anatolia, are much earlier than the accepted date for the introduction of pottery in Anatolia, c. 7000 cal BCE or around 9,000 years ago.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family:


“Western Iran was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe. While some degree of cultural diffusion between Anatolia, Western Iran, and other neighboring regions is possible, the genetic dissimilarity between early Anatolian farmers and the inhabitants of Ganj Dareh supports a model in which Neolithic societies in these areas were distinct. The genome of an early Neolithic female from Ganj Dareh, GD13a, from the Central Zagros (Western Iran), dated to 10000-9700 cal years ago, a region located at the eastern edge of the Near East. Ganj Dareh is well known for providing the earliest evidence of herd management of goats beginning at 9,900 years ago. The mitochondrion of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2, which has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia, Hungary, and Germany. GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers.” ref

“Subclade X2 appears to have undergone extensive population expansion and dispersal around or soon after the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 20,000 years ago. It is more strongly represented in the Near East, the Caucasus, and southern Europe, and somewhat less strongly present in the rest of Europe. The highest concentrations are found in the Ojibwe (25%), Sioux (15%), Nuu-Chah-Nulth (12%), Georgia (8%), Orkney (7%), and amongst the Druze Assyrian community in Israel (27%). Subclades of X2 are not present in South Americans Amerindian populations. The oldest known human associated with X2 is Kennewick Man, whose c. 9000-year old remains were discovered in Washington State. The lineage of haplogroup X in the Americas is not derived from a European subclade, but rather represents an independent subclade, labeled X2a. The X2a subclade has not been found in Eurasia, and has most likely arisen within the early Paleo-Indian population, at roughly 13,000 years ago. A basal variant of X2a was found in the Kennewick Man fossil (ca. 9,000 years ago). No presence of mt-DNA ancestral to X2a has been found in Europe or the Near East. New World lineages X2a and X2g are not derived from the Old World lineages X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e, and X2f, indicating an early origin of the New World lineages “likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East.” ref

Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a bigger haplogroup in northern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types. It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area—among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-chah-nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakama (5%). In Latin America, Haplotype X6 was present in the Tarahumara 1.8% (1/53) and Huichol 20% (3/15) X6 and X7 was also found in 12% in Yanomani people. Unlike the four main Native American mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, D), X is not strongly associated with East Asia. The main occurrence of X in Asia discovered so far is in the Altai people in Siberia. One theory of how the X Haplogroup ended up in North America is that the people carrying it migrated from central Asia along with haplogroups A, B, C, and D, from an ancestor from the Altai Region of Central Asia. Two sequences of haplogroup X2 were sampled further east of Altai among the Evenks of Central Siberia. These two sequences belong to X2* and X2b. It is uncertain if they represent a remnant of the migration of X2 through Siberia or a more recent input.” ref

“Haplogroup X has been found in various other bone specimens that were analysed for ancient DNA, including specimens associated with the Alföld Linear Pottery (X2b-T226C, Garadna-Elkerülő út site 2, 1/1 or 100%), Linearbandkeramik (X2d1, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, 1/22 or ~5%), and Iberia Chalcolithic (X2b, La Chabola de la Hechicera, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Sotillo, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Mirador Cave, 1/12 or ~8%) cultures. Abel-beth-maachah 2201 was a man who lived between 1014 and 836 BCE during the Levant Iron Age and was found in the region now known as Abel Beth Maacah, Metula, Israel. He was associated with the Galilean cultural group. His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup X2b. Haplogroup X has been found in ancient Assyria and ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the late New Kingdom and Roman periods. Fossils excavated at the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud in Morocco, which have been dated to around 5,000 years old, have also been found to carry the X2 subclade.” ref

So, there are academics that may take issue with the terms used in the blog and the ideas connected with them and racist thinking or scientific racism of the past that held similar thinking for bigoted reasons, not science. These may not be fully known or understood by the general public that like 

Caucasoid: denoting, relating to, or belonging to the lighter-complexioned supposed racial group of mankind

“The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or Europid, Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of AfricaFirst introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history, the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (those three being Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid). In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, without regard to skin tone.” ref 

“Ancient and modern “Caucasoid” populations were thus not exclusively “white”, but ranged in complexion from white-skinned to dark brown. Besides its use in anthropology and related fields, the term “Caucasian” has often been used in the United States in a different, social context to describe a group commonly called “white people“. There was no universal consensus of the validity of the “Caucasoid” grouping within those who attempted to categorize human variation. After discussing various criteria used in biology to define subspecies or races, Alan R. Templeton concludes in 2016: “[T]he answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no.” ref 

Time to Phase Out “Caucasian”

“Words matter and play an important role in shaping our worldview. Precision in language is a critical aspect of communicating what we really mean, which is even more true as we navigate the murky waters of race and racial classification in the United States. As we move toward antiracist action in our department and in our lives, we need to be clear about racial terminology and the history behind it.” ref

“Racial classifications are ill-defined and have changed over time. They are essentially biologically meaningless, except as markers of systemic oppression and the effects of racism on the body. Racial classifications provide value in understanding the historical stratified allocation of resources and power and the experience of being coded in society as one race or another based on external characteristics. And they are based on the logic that there is a meaningful difference between peoples with different external characteristics and that sharply defined classifications can provide some valuable insight, which they cannot. Continuing to use outdated or imprecise terminology in our research, education, or clinical practice has real and tangible negative effects by perpetuating racism.” ref

“The term “Caucasian” elicits different interpretations, depending on perspective and context, which further muddies the waters. Literally speaking, “Caucasian” refers to people from the Caucasus mountain region, which includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, parts of north Iran, and central southern Russia. This is a geographical ancestry term, which could have implications for genetics if used precisely. However, “Caucasian” today typically refers broadly to people coded as White by society, the majority of whom are actually not from the area of the Caucasus mountains. Additionally, classifying those coded as White by society as “Caucasian” is a throwback to the racist classification system defined by German anatomist Johann Blumenbach in the late 1700s. Blumenbach differentiated five human races, which he also stratified by perceived beauty (and thus value): Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, American, and Ethiopian. Eugenicists in the 1920s further divided the “Caucasian” group into subraces: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic. In this framing, “Caucasian” is inherently imprecise and inaccurate, as it encompasses a huge breadth of possible genetic ancestry and cultural influences.” ref

“Carol Mukhopadhyay’s paper “Getting Rid of the Word Caucasian” from 2008 is an excellent summary of the problematic implications of continuing to use “Caucasian” when we mean White or European-American or whatever we actually mean. Additionally, in 1998, the American Journal of Public Health published this article, “White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health,” discussing why we need to be more specific when we are using these terms in research.” ref

“Using a blanket term like Caucasian when you are actually referring to people of Scandinavian descent or Euro-Americans, for example, is not helpful either in the context of genetic or ancestral research. However, if we are discussing something like the impacts of racism, geographic origin and genetic ancestry are not particularly relevant. Here the term “White” is most appropriate, since the differential allocation of resources to people coded as White in society is similar regardless of their geographic or genetic background.” ref

“This brings me to my next point, the other, more insidious, problem with continuing to use “Caucasian” when we actually mean “White”: prioritizing comfort of White people. This article by Susana Rinderle, “6 Reasons to Not Say ‘Caucasian,'” discusses part of why we have a hard time letting go of the word “Caucasian.” To be frank, White people are uncomfortable with naming themselves as White. It is uncomfortable to consider that an entire group of people can be referred to in a general way, and that is a topic or an idea that is more completely fleshed out in other articles, books, podcasts, and scholarship, so I won’t elaborate on it here.” ref

“I also want to be clear: If one uses the word Caucasian, that does not say anything about who they are as a person, and it does not make them inherently a racist or a white supremacist. This is not a value judgment. That being said, there is an opportunity for every one of us to commit to antiracist action. It is important to consider the implications and effects of the language we use, and the word Caucasian used indiscriminately when not rooted in historical context or impact does further racist assumptions and obstructs antiracist discourse.” ref

“Finally, I want to introduce the concept of “white supremacy” as one that needs to be confronted in medicine in particular and in society as a whole. This definition of “white supremacy culture” from Showing Up for Racial Justice expresses that white supremacy doesn’t just refer to believing that White ideas, ideals, culture and values are superior to those of people of color, but also that these values, ideas, culture, and ideals are the “standard” or the “norm.” While these themes are often amplified in people racialized as White, “whiteness” and “white supremacy” are part of American history and persist in society today, affecting everyone. Showing Up for Racial Justice states, “Culture is powerful precisely because it is so present and at the same time so very difficult to name or identify. The characteristics listed below are damaging because they are used as norms and standards without being proactively named or chosen by the group. They are damaging because they promote white supremacy thinking. They are damaging to both people of color and to White people.” Please read this excellent summary of some prominent themes and elements of “white supremacy” culture, here curated in a document by Tema Okun on” ref

“Reflecting on the ways that a culture of white supremacy affects our relationships to ourselves, each other, communities, society at large, evidence and research, etc. is an important step to making a more inclusive and integrated culture and climate in which to live, learn, work, and thrive.” ref

Early European modern humans?

Early European modern humans (EEMH), or Cro-Magnons, were the first early modern humans (Homo sapiens) to settle in Europe, migrating from Western Asia, continuously occupying the continent possibly from as early as 56,800 years ago. They interacted and interbred with the indigenous Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) of Europe and Western Asia, who went extinct 40,000 to 35,000 years ago; and from 37,000 years ago onwards all EEMH descended from a single founder population which contributes ancestry to present-day Europeans. Early European modern humans (EEMH) produced Upper Palaeolithic cultures, the first major one being the Aurignacian, which was succeeded by the Gravettian by 30,000 years ago. The Gravettian split into the Epi-Gravettian in the east and Solutrean in the west, due to major climate degradation during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), peaking 21,000 years ago. As Europe warmed, the Solutrean evolved into the Magdalenian by 20,000 years ago, and these peoples recolonised Europe. The Magdalenian and Epi-Gravettian gave way to Mesolithic cultures as big game animals were dying out and the Last Glacial Period drew to a close.” ref

“EEMH were anatomically similar to present-day Europeans, but were more robust, having broader faces, more prominent brow ridges, and bigger teeth. The earliest EEMH specimens also exhibit features that are reminiscent of those found in Neanderthals, as well as modern day African, European and aboriginal Australian populations. The first EEMH would have had darker skin; natural selection for lighter skin would not begin until 30,000 years ago. Before the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum), EEMH had an overall low population density, tall stature similar to post-industrial humans, expansive trade routes stretching as long as 900 km (560 mi), and hunted big game animals. EEMH had much higher populations than the Neanderthals, possibly due to higher fertility rates; life expectancy for both species was typically under 40 years. Following the LGM, population density increased as communities travelled less frequently (though for longer distances), and the need to feed so many more people in tandem with the increasing scarcity of big game caused them to rely more heavily on small or aquatic game, and more frequently participate in game drive systems and slaughter whole herds at a time. The EEMH arsenal included spears, spear-throwers, harpoons, and possibly throwing sticks and Palaeolithic dogs. EEMH likely commonly constructed temporary huts while moving around, and Gravettian peoples notably made large huts on the East European Plain out of mammoth bones.” ref

“EEMH are well renowned for creating a diverse array of artistic works, including cave paintings, Venus figurines, perforated batons, animal figurines, and geometric patterns. They may have decorated their bodies with ochre crayons and perhaps tattoos, scarification, and piercings. The exact symbolism of these works remains enigmatic, but EEMH are generally (though not universally) thought to have practiced shamanism, in which cave art — specifically of those depicting human/animal hybrids — played a central part. They also wore decorative beads, and plant-fibre clothes dyed with various plant-based dyes, which were possibly used as status symbols. For music, they produced bone flutes and whistles, and possibly also bullroarers, rasps, drums, idiophones, and other instruments. They buried their dead, though possibly only people which had achieved or were born into high status received burial.” ref

Remains of Palaeolithic cultures have been known for centuries, but they were initially interpreted in a creationist model, wherein they represented antediluvian peoples which were wiped out by the Great Flood. Following the conception and popularisation of evolution in the mid-to-late 19th century, EEMH became the subject of much scientific racism, with early race theories allying with Nordicism and Pan-Germanism. Such historical race concepts were overturned by the mid-20th century. During the first wave feminism movement, the Venus figurines were notably interpreted as evidence of some matriarchal religion, though such claims had mostly died down in academia by the 1970s.” ref

Now let us address the blogs offer of R1b DNA

The claim is this was a sea-faring Haplogroup even to the Americans in the Ice Age is just wrong!

Haplogroup R1b (R-M343), is a human Y-chromosome haplogroup. It is the most frequently occurring paternal lineage in Western Europe, as well as some parts of Russia (e.g. the Bashkirs) and pockets of Central Africa (e.g. parts of Chad and among the Chadic-speaking minority ethnic groups of Cameroon). The clade is also present at lower frequencies throughout Eastern Europe, Western Asia, as well as parts of North Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia. The age of R1 was estimated by Tatiana Karafet et al. (2008) at between 12,500 and 25,700 years ago, and most probably occurred about 18,500 years ago. Since the earliest known example has been dated at circa 14,000 years ago, and belongs to R1b1 (R-L754), R1b must have arisen relatively soon after the emergence of R1.” ref

“R1b has two primary branches: R1b1-L754 and R1b2-PH155. R1b1-L754 has two major subclades: R1b1a1b-M269, which predominates in Western Europe, and R1b1b-V88, which is today common in parts of Central Africa. The other branch, R1b2-PH155, is so rare and widely dispersed that it is difficult to draw any conclusions about its origins. It has been found in Bahrain, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Ladakh, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Western China. According to ancient DNA studies, most R1a and R1b lineages would have expanded from the Caspian Sea along with the Indo-European languages. Analysis of ancient Y-DNA from the remains from early Neolithic Central and North European Linear Pottery culture settlements have not yet found males belonging to haplogroup R1b-M269.” ref

Early human remains found to carry R1b include:

  • Villabruna 1 (individual I9030), a Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), found in an Epigravettian culture setting in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14000 years ago and belonged to R1b1a.
  • Several males of the Iron Gates Mesolithic in the Balkans buried between 11200 and 8200 years ago carried R1b1a1a. These individuals were determined to be largely of WHG ancestry, with slight Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) admixture.
  • Several males of the Mesolithic Kunda culture and Neolithic Narva culture buried in the Zvejnieki burial ground in modern-day Latvia c. 9500–6000 years ago carried R1b1b. These individuals were determined to be largely of WHG ancestry, with slight EHG admixture.
  • Several Mesolithic and Neolithic males buried at Deriivka and Vasil’evka in modern-day Ukraine c. 9500-7000 years ago carried R1b1a. These individuals were largely of EHG ancestry, with significant WHG admixture.
  • A WHG male buried at Ostrovul Corbuli, Romania c. 8700 years ago carried R1b1c.
  • A male buried at Lepenski Vir, Serbia c. 8200-7900 years ago carried R1b1a.
  • An EHG buried near Samara, Russia 7500 years ago carried R1b1a1a.
  • An Eneolithic male buried at Khvalynsk, Russia c. 7200-6000 years ago carried R1b1a.
  • A Neolithic male buried at Els Trocs, Spain c. 7178-7066 years ago, who may have belonged to the Epi-Cardial culture, was found to be a carrier of R1b1.
  • A Late Chalcolithic male buried in Smyadovo, Bulgaria c. 6500 years ago carried R1b1a.
  • An Early Copper Age male buried in Cannas di Sotto, Carbonia, Sardinia c. 6450 years ago carried R1b1b2.
  • A male of the Baalberge group in Central Europe buried c. 5600 years ago carried R1b1a.
  • A male of the Botai culture in Central Asia buried c. 5500 years ago carried R1b1a1 (R1b-M478).
  • 7 males that were tested of the Yamnaya culture were all found to belong to the M269 subclade of haplogroup R1b.” ref


Native American Gene Flow – Europe?, Asia and the Americas

Let me be very clear about this, there is no evidence, none, that mitochondrial haplogroup U is found in the Native American population today that is NOT a result of post-contact admixture.  In other words, in the burials that have been DNA tested, there is not one example in either North or South America of a burial carrying mitochondrial haplogroup U, or for that matter, male Y haplogroup R.  Native American haplogroups found in the Americas remain subsets of mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, D and X, and Y DNA haplogroups C and Q.  Mitochondrial haplogroup M has potentially been found in one Canadian burial.  No other haplogroups have been found.  Until pre-contact remains are found with base haplogroups other than the ones listed above, no one can ethically claim that other haplogroups are of Native American origin.  Finding any haplogroup in a contemporary Native population does not mean that it was originally Native, or that it should be counted as such.  Admixture and adoption have been commonplace since Europeans first set foot on the soil of the Americas.” ref

Genetic history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas

The genetic history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas (also named Amerindians or Amerinds by physical anthropologists) is divided into two distinct episodes: the initial peopling of the Americas during about 20,000 to 14,000 years ago (20–14 kya), and European contact, after about 500 years ago. The former is the determinant factor for the number of genetic lineages, zygosity mutations, and founding haplotypes present in today’s Indigenous Amerindian populations. Most Amerindian groups are derived from two ancestral lineages, which formed in Siberia prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 36,000 and 25,000 years ago, East Eurasian and Ancient North Eurasian. They later dispersed throughout the Americas after about 16,000 years ago (exceptions being the Na Dene and Eskimo–Aleut speaking groups, which are derived partially from Siberian populations which entered the Americas at a later time). A “Central Siberian” origin has been postulated for the paternal lineage of the source populations of the original migration into the Americas. Membership in haplogroups Q and C3b implies indigenous American patrilineal descent.” ref

“A 2018 study analysed 11,500 BCE old indigenous samples. The genetic evidence suggests that all Native Americans ultimately descended from a single founding population that initially split from a Basal-East Asian source population in Mainland Southeast Asia around 36,000 years ago, the same time at which the proper Jōmon people divided from Basal-East Asians, either together with Ancestral Native Americans or during a separate expansion wave. The authors also provided evidence that the basal northern and southern Native American branches, to which all other Indigenous peoples belong, diverged around 16,000 years ago. An indigenous American sample from 16,000 BCE in Idaho, which is craniometrically similar to modern Native Americans as well as Paleosiberias, was found to have been largely East-Eurasian genetically, and showed high affinity with contemporary East Asians, as well as Jōmon period samples of Japan, confirming that Ancestral Native Americans split from an East-Eurasian source population somewhere in eastern Siberia.” ref

“A study published in the Nature journal in 2018 concluded that Native Americans descended from a single founding population which initially divided from East Asians about ~36,000 BCE, with geneflow between Ancestral Native Americans and Siberians persisting until ~25,000 BCE, before becoming isolated in the Americas at ~22,000 BCE. Northern and Southern American Native sub-populations split from each other at ~17,500 BCE. There is also some evidence for a back-migration from the Americas into Siberia after ~11,500 BCE. A study published in the Cell journal in 2019, analyzed 49 ancient Native American samples from all over North and South America, and concluded that all Native American populations descended from a single ancestral source population which divided from Siberians and East Asians, and gave rise to the Ancestral Native Americans, which later diverged into the various indigenous groups. The authors further dismissed previous claims for the possibility of two distinct population groups among the peopling of the Americas. Both, Northern and Southern Native Americans are closest to each other, and do not show evidence of admixture with hypothetical previous populations.” ref

“A review article published in the Nature journal in 2021, which summarized the results of previous genomic studies, similarly concluded that all Native Americans descended from the movement of people from Northeast Asia into the Americas. These Ancestral Americans, once south of the continental ice sheets, spread and expanded rapidly, and branched into multiple groups, which later gave rise to the major subgroups of Native American populations. The study also dismissed the existence of an hypothetical distinct non-Native American population (suggested to have been related to Indigenous Australians and Papuans), sometimes called “Paleoamerican”. The authors explained that these previous claims were based on a misinterpreted genetic echo, which was revealed to represent early East-Eurasian geneflow (close but distinct to the 40,000 BCE old Tianyuan lineage) into Aboriginal Australians and Papuans.” ref

The presence of haplogroup R1 among Indigenous Americansgroups is a matter of controversy. 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%). Some authorities point to the greater similarity between haplogroup R1 subclades found in North America and those found in Siberia (e.g. Lell and Raghavan), suggesting prehistoric immigration from Asia and/or Beringia. 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. One subclade of haplogroup R1b (especially R1b1a2), is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe and Bashkortostan (Lobov 2009), while a subclade of haplogroup R1a (especially haplogroup R1a1) is the most common haplogroup in large parts of South AsiaEastern EuropeCentral AsiaWestern China, and South Siberia.” ref, ref

I truly think Graham Hancock knows he is making stuff up and that makes me really not like him or his ideas.

I do know some info on DNA and R haplogroup is found in Ancient North Eurasians who did have migration into the Americas. They are from Lake Baikal in Siberia. Traveled from Asia to Alaska and then largely through the center of the United States.

Ancient North Eurasians


Ancient Beringians/Ancestral Native Americans (AB/ANA)? 

“The Ancient Beringians (AB) is a specific archaeogenetic lineage, based on the genome of an infant found at the Upward Sun River site (dubbed USR1), dated to 11,500 years ago. The AB lineage diverged from the Ancestral Native American (ANA) lineage about 20,000 years ago. The ANA lineage was estimated as having been formed between 20,000 and 25,000 years ago by a mixture of East Asian and Ancient North Eurasian lineages, consistent with the model of the peopling of the Americas via Beringia during the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref 

“In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (generally abbreviated as ANE) is the name given to an ancestral component that represents a lineage ancestral to the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture and populations closely related to them, such as the Upper Palaeolithic individuals from Afontova Gora. ANE ancestry developed from a West Eurasian lineage, with varying degrees of admixture from early East Eurasians. 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 to 40% of their genomes from the Ancient North Eurasians. Significant ANE ancestry can be found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as in regions of Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Siberia. It has been suggested that their mythology may have included a narrative, found in both Indo-European and some Native American fables, in which a dog guards the path to the afterlife.” ref

Ancient North Eurasian associated samples also had varying degrees of admixture from early East Eurasian population, such as the Ust’-Ishim man and Tianyuan man. Sikora et al. (2019) found that the oldest ANE-associated Yana RHS sample (31,600 years ago) in Northeastern Siberia “can be modeled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians” suggesting early contact in Northeastern Siberia. Populations genetically similar to MA-1 were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Ancient Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance.” ref

“The genetic history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas (also named Amerindians or Amerinds by physical anthropologists) is divided into two distinct episodes: the initial peopling of the Americas during about 20,000 to 14,000 years ago (20–14 kya), and European contact, after about 500 years ago. The former is the determinant factor for the number of genetic lineages, zygosity mutations, and founding haplotypes present in today’s Indigenous Amerindian populations. Most Amerindian groups are derived from two ancestral lineages, which formed in Siberia prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 36,000 and 25,000 years ago, East Eurasian and Ancient North Eurasian. They later dispersed throughout the Americas after about 16,000 years ago (exceptions being the Na Dene and Eskimo–Aleut speaking groups, which are derived partially from Siberian populations which entered the Americas at a later time).” ref

“Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American are specific archaeogenetic lineages, related to Ancient North Eurasians split from the Ancestral Native American lineage about 20,000 years ago.” ref

Lighter skin tones evolved independently in ancestral populations of north-west and north-east Eurasia, with the two populations diverging around 40,000 years ago. Studies have suggested that the two genes most associated with lighter skin colour in modern Europeans originated in the Middle East and the Caucasus about 22,000 to 28,000 years ago, and were present in Anatolia by 9,000 years ago, where their carriers became associated with the Neolithic Revolution and the spread of Neolithic farming across Europe. Lighter skin and blond hair also evolved in the Ancient North Eurasian population.” ref 

“A further wave of lighter-skinned populations across Europe (and elsewhere) is associated with the Yamnaya culture and the Indo-European migrations bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry and the KITLG allele for blond hair. Furthermore, the SLC24A5 gene linked with light pigmentation in Europeans was introduced into East Africa from Europe over five thousand years ago. These alleles can now be found in the San, Ethiopians, and Tanzanian populations with Afro-Asiatic ancestry. In the San people, it was acquired from interactions with Eastern African pastoralists. Meanwhile, in the case of north-east Asia and the Americas, a variation of the MFSD12 gene is responsible for lighter skin colour. The modern association between skin tone and latitude is thus a relatively recent development.” ref 


“The basal East Eurasians (bEE) are an ancient population that had no divergence among the ancestors of East Asians, Northeast Asians/East Siberian, and Native Americans. NA-ES-NA presents another ancient population that had no split between the ancestors of Northeast Asians/East Siberian and Native Americans.” ref

Schematic of peopling history in Southeast and East Asians, Northeast Asian/East Siberians and Native Americans.” ref


Sample locations and MA-1 genetic affinities. Geographical locations of  Mal’ta–Buret’ culture and Afontova Gora-2 in south-central Siberia.” ref

“According to research published since 2013, MA-1 belonged to a population related to the genetic ancestors of SiberiansAmerican Indians, and Bronze Age Yamnaya and Botai people of the Eurasian steppe. In particular, modern-day Native AmericansKetsMansi, and Selkup have been found to harbor a significant amount of ancestry related to MA-1. MA-1 is the only known example of basal Y-DNA R* (R-M207*) – that is, the only member of haplogroup R* that did not belong to haplogroups R1, R2 or secondary subclades of these. The mitochondrial DNA of MA-1 belonged to an unresolved subclade of haplogroup UThe term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) has been given in genetic literature to an ancestral component that represents descent from the people similar to the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture or a population closely related to them.” ref

Group Language Place n C Q R1 Others Reference
Chippewa Algic Eastern North America 97 4.1 15.9  50.5 29.9 Bolnick 2006
Seminole Muskogean Eastern North America 20 45.0 50.0 5.0 Malhi 2008
Sioux Macro-Siouan Central North America 44 11 25 50 14 Zegura 2004
Cherokee Iroquoian Eastern North America 30 50.0 46.7 3.3 Malhi 2008
Wayúu Arawakan Guajira Peninsula 25 8 36 44 12 Zegura 2004
Dogrib Na-Dené Canada 15 33 27 40 Malhi 2008
Papago Uto-Aztecan SW United States 13 61.5 38.5 Malhi 2008
Algonquian Algic Northeast North America 155 7.7 33.5  38.1 20.6 Bolnick 2006
Cherokee Iroquoian SE United States 62 1.6 50.0  37.1 11.3 Bolnick 2006
Inuvialuit Eskimo–Aleut Canada 56 1.8 55.1 33.9 8.9 Dulik 2012
Native Americans
(United States)
United States 398 9.0 58.1 22.2 10.7 Hammer 2005
Wayúu Arawakan Guajira Peninsula 19 69 21 10 Bortoloni 2003
Athabaskan Na-Dené Western North America 243 11.5 70.4 18.1 Malhi 2008
Cheyenne Algic United States 44 16 61 16 7 Zegura 2004


Mayan Mesoamerica 71   87.3   12.7 Zegura 2004
Native North Americans North America 530 6.0 77.2 12.5 4.3 Zegura 2004
Inuit Eskimo–Aleut North American Arctic 60 80.0 11.7 8.3 Zegura 2004
Muskogean Muskogean SE United States 36   2.8   75 11.1 11.1 Bolnick 2006
Inga Quechua Colombia 11 78 11 11 Bortoloni 2003
Guaraní Tupian Paraguay 59 86  9 5 Bortoloni 2003
Dogrib Na-Dené Canada 37 35.1 45.9 8.1 10.8 Dulik 2012

Macro-Jê Brazil 51 92 8 Bortoloni 2003
Tanana Na-Dené Northwest North America 12 42 42 8 8 Zegura 2004
Mixtec Oto-Manguean Mexico 28 93 7 Zegura 2004
Uto-Aztecan Uto-Aztecan Mexico, Arizona 167 93.4 6.0 Malhi 2008
Zapotec Oto-Manguean Mexico 16 75 6 19 Zegura 2004
Apache Na-Dené SW United States 96 14.6 78.1 5.2 2.1 Zegura 2004
South America Amerindian South America 390 92  4 4 Bortoloni 2003
Navajo Na-Dené SW United States 78 1.3 92.3 2.6 3.8 Zegura 2004

“One theory was that all R-haplogroups were introduced during European colonization. Raghavan et al. 2014 found that autosomal evidence indicates that skeletal remains 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.” DNA analysis confirmed that the individual was female. mtDNA analysis revealed that Afontova Gora 3 (dated to around 16,090 cal BCE) belonged to the mitochondrial Haplogroup R1b. 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. When compared to Mal’ta 1, the Afontova Gora 3 (Phenotypic analysis shows that Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair colorlineage) apparently contributed more to modern humans and is genetically closer to Native Americans. On FTDNA public tree, out of 626 US indigenous Americans K-YSC0000186, all are Q, R1b-M269, R1a-M198, R2-M479, and 2 most likely not tested further than R1b-M343.” ref, ref

If so the presence of haplogroup R1 among Indigenous Americans groups, even if some came in the ice age, that was not by mass seafaring routes but mostly by landlock traveling routes to the midwest, which would not seem to support the beliefs of mass seafaring held by Graham Hancock.

Graham Hancock seems to attach his believed “ancient culture” to ancient Haplogroup R1b people: “In fact, if we allow that ancient R1b carrying people had the navigational skills and maritime technology to sail open oceans, they may have been able to follow prevailing ocean currents all the way to the Americas and beyond. There is anthropological and archaeological evidence to suggest they did just that.” ref


The impact of haplogroup R1b-DF27 in Hispanic admixed populations from Latin America

The study of Y-chromosome SNPs allows to link haplogroups to paternal biogeographical ancestry. The analysis of haplogroup R1b-M269 and its subhaplogroups in Latin American populations can help to assess the European paternal contribution. The objective of this work was to study the presence of R1b-DF27 in Latin American Mestizo populations. The obtained results reveal an average frequency of 29–35% with a north-south increasing pattern, seeming to agree with the influence of the Spanish commerce routes with America in the colonial era. Thus, the finding of DF27 in a forensic context could be due to individuals of both European and Latin American ancestry. In summary, the present work highlights the interest to further analyze R1b- DF27 in Latin America.” ref

“The populations of Latin America have been influenced historically by male-mediated migrations during the colonial period stemming mainly from the European countries of Spain and Portugal, and Africa. The admixture of the local populations of Amerindians and Europeans gave rise to admixed populations known as Mestizos, characterized by a European-Native American mixed ancestry where the paternal lineage is usually of European origin. The analysis of Y-chromosome SNPs (Y-SNPs) allows to stablish haplogroups and paternal biogeographical ancestry. R1b-M269, and its subhaploproup R1b-S116, are among the most common West European paternal lineages. The R1b-S116 sublineage R1b-DF27 has been found to be near-specific of the Iberian Peninsula and its analysis could contribute to deepen the paternal the European/Iberian introgression in Latin America. The objective of the present work is to study the presence of R1b-DF27 in Latin American Mestizo populations from five countries, Panamá, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.” ref

New insights on intercontinental origins of paternal lineages in Northeast Brazil

“Primary multiplex results allowed the identification of six major haplogroups, four of which were screened for downstream SNPs and enabled the observation of 19 additional lineages. Results reveal a majority of Western European haplogroups, among which R1b-S116* was the most common (63.9%), corroborating historical records of colonizations by Iberian populations. Nonetheless, FST genetic distances show similarities between Northeast Brazil and several other European populations, indicating multiple origins of settlers. Regarding Native American ancestry, our findings confirm a strong sexual bias against such haplogroups, which represented only 2.5% of individuals, highly contrasting previous results for maternal lineages. Furthermore, we document the presence of several Middle Eastern and African haplogroups, supporting a complex historical formation of this population and highlighting its uniqueness among other Brazilian regions.” ref


“We performed a comprehensive analysis of the major Y-chromosome lineages that form the most dynamic migratory region from the Brazilian colonial period. This evidence suggests that the ongoing entry of European, Middle Eastern, and African males in the Brazilian Northeast, since at least 500 years, was significantly responsible for the present-day genetic architecture of this population.” ref

Haplogroup R1b Y-DNA

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

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

“It has been hypothesized 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. 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

“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 petroglyphs (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. 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 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. 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

“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. 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. 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 materialised 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). 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 (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. 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 revolutionize 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

Here are the Human Migrations from Asia into Alaska (North America)


Human Migration from Asia into Alaska (North America) (14,000 to 10,000 years ago)

“likely relates to the Ancient North Eurasians described as an R DNA lineage”

Lithic stage: before 8500 BCE


Human Migration from Asia into Alaska (North America) (11,000 to 6,000 years ago)

“likely relates to the Na-Dene languages described as C-M217/C2/C3/C-M130 DNA lineage”

Archaic period: 8000 BC– 1000 BCE

This C-M217/C2/C3/C-M130 DNA lineage is also in the Mound Builders (some of which are pyramid-like) such as the Adena (800 BCE–100 CE), Hopewell (200 BCE–500 CE), and the Maya civilization with pyramids.

Mound Builders

A number of pre-Columbian cultures are collectively termed “Mound Builders“. The term does not refer to a specific people or archaeological culture, but refers to the characteristic mound earthworks erected for an extended period of more than 5,000 years. The “Mound Builder” cultures span the period of roughly 3500 BCE (the construction of Watson Brake) to the 16th century CE, including the Archaic period, Woodland period (Calusa culture, Adena and Hopewell cultures), and Mississippian period. Geographically, the cultures were present in the region of the Great Lakes, the Ohio River Valley, and the Mississippi River valley and its tributary waters.ref

“The first mound building was an early marker of political and social complexity among the cultures in the Eastern United States. Watson Brake in Louisiana, constructed about 3500 BCE during the Middle Archaic period, is currently the oldest known and dated mound complex in North America. It is one of 11 mound complexes from this period found in the Lower Mississippi Valley. These cultures generally had developed hierarchical societies that had an elite. These commanded hundreds or even thousands of workers to dig up tons of earth with the hand tools available, move the soil long distances, and finally, workers to create the shape with layers of soil as directed by the builders.ref

“From about 800 CE, the mound building cultures were dominated by the Mississippian culture, a large archaeological horizon, whose youngest descendants, the Plaquemine culture and the Fort Ancient culture, were still active at the time of European contact in the 16th century. One tribe of the Fort Ancient culture has been identified as the Mosopelea, presumably of southeast Ohio, who were speakers of an Ohio Valley Siouan language. The bearers of the Plaquemine culture were presumably speakers of the Natchez language isolate. The first description of these cultures is due to Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto, written between 1540 and 1542.ref


“Males carrying C-M130 are believed to have migrated to the Americas some 6,000-8,000 years ago, and was carried by Na-Dené-speaking peoples into the northwest Pacific coast of North America.” ref 

Pic ref

Ancient Women Found in a Russian Cave Turn Out to Be Closely Related to The Modern Population


“Ancient genomes have revolutionized our understanding of Holocene prehistory and, particularly, the Neolithic transition in western Eurasia. In contrast, East Asia has so far received little attention, despite representing a core region at which the Neolithic transition took place independently ~3 millennia after its onset in the Near East. We report genome-wide data from two hunter-gatherers from Devil’s Gate, an early Neolithic cave site (dated to ~7.7 thousand years ago) located in East Asia, on the border between Russia and Korea. Both of these individuals are genetically most similar to geographically close modern populations from the Amur Basin, all speaking Tungusic languages, and, in particular, to the Ulchi. The similarity to nearby modern populations and the low levels of additional genetic material in the Ulchi imply a high level of genetic continuity in this region during the Holocene, a pattern that markedly contrasts with that reported for Europe.” ref

“Six of seven individuals whose remains have been recovered from the cave have been DNA tested. Originally, three of the specimens were thought to be adult males, two were thought to be adult females, one was thought to be a sub-adult of about 12-13 years of age, and one was thought to be a juvenile of about 6-7 years of age based on the skeletal morphology of the remains. Results of genetic analysis of the sub-adult individual have not yet been published. However, two specimens, NEO236 (Skull B, DevilsGate2) and NEO235 (Skull G), who had been presumed to be adult males according to a forensic morphological assessment of their remains, were discovered through genetic analysis to actually be females. The juvenile specimen also has been determined to be female through genetic analysis. Three of the specimens (including the only adult male plus NEO235/Skull G and another adult female, labeled as Skull Е, DevilsGate1, or NEO240, who has been genetically determined to be a first-degree relative of NEO235/Skull G) have been assigned to mtDNA haplogroup D4m; a previous genetic analysis of one of these adult female specimens determined her mtDNA haplogroup to be D4. Another three specimens (including the juvenile female, the DevilsGate2 specimen, and another adult female; both the juvenile female and the DevilsGate2 specimen have been determined to be first-degree relatives of the other adult female, and the juvenile female and the DevilsGate2 specimen also have been determined to be second-degree relatives of each other) have been assigned to haplogroup D4; a previous genetic analysis of the DevilsGate2 specimen determined her mtDNA haplogroup to be MThe only specimen from the cave who has been confirmed to be male through genetic analysis has been assigned to Y-DNAhaplogroup C2b-F6273/Y6704/Y6708, equivalent to C2b-L1373, the northern (Central Asian, Siberian, and indigenous American) branch of haplogroup C2-M217.ref

“The haplogroup C-M217 is now found at high frequencies among Central Asian peoples, indigenous Siberians, and some Native peoples of North America. Haplogroup C-M217 is the modal haplogroup among Mongolians and most indigenous populations of the Russian Far East, such as the Buryats, Northern Tungusic peoplesNivkhsKoryaks, and Itelmens. The subclade C-P39 is common among males of the indigenous North American peoples whose languages belong to the Na-Dené phylum. C2b1a1a P39 Canada,USA(Found in several indigenous peoples of North America, including some Na-Dené-,Algonquian-, orSiouan-speaking populations).” ref

“Males carrying C-M130 are believed to have migrated to the Americas some 6,000-8,000 years ago, and was carried by Na-Dené-speaking peoples into the northwest Pacific coast of North America. The distribution of Haplogroup C-M130 is generally limited to populations of Siberia, parts of East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Haplogroup C2 (M217) – the most numerous and widely dispersed C lineage – was once believed to have originated in Central Asia, spread from there into Northern Asia and the Americas while other theory it originated from East Asia. C-M217 stretches longitudinally from Central Europe and Turkey, to the Wayuu people of Colombia and Venezuela, and latitudinally from the Athabaskan peoples of Alaska to Vietnam to the Malay Archipelago. The highest frequencies of Haplogroup C-M217 are found among the populations of Mongolia and Far East Russia, where it is the modal haplogroup. Haplogroup C-M217 is the only variety of Haplogroup C-M130 to be found among Native Americans, among whom it reaches its highest frequency in Na-Dené populations.” ref

“Y DNA projects for C-M217 here, C-P39 here, and the main C project here.  Please note that on the latest version of the ISOGG tree, M217, P44, and Z1453 are now listed as C2, not C3.  In the Messavilla study (1962), fourteen individuals from the Kichwa and Waorani populations of South America were discovered to carry haplogroup C3* (M217).  Most of the individuals within these populations carry variants of expected haplogroup Q, with the balance of 26% of the Kichwa samples and 7.5% of the Waorani samples carrying C3* (M217).  MRCA estimates between the groups are estimated to be between 5.0-6.2 years ago, or years before the present.” ref

In the paper, the authors state that:

“We set out to test whether or not the haplogroup C3* (M217) Y chromosomes found at a mean frequency of 17% in two Ecuadorian populations could have been introduced by migration from East Asia, where this haplogroup is common. We considered recent admixture in the last few generations and, based on an archaeological link between the middle Jōmon culture in Japan and the Valdivia culture in Ecuador, a specific example of ancient admixture between Japan and Ecuador 6 Kya. In a paper, written by Estrada et all, titled “Possible Transpacific Contact on the Cost of Ecuador”, Estrada states that the earliest pottery-producing culture on the coast of Ecuador, the Valdivia culture, shows many striking similarities in decoration and vessel shape to the pottery of eastern Asia. In Japan, resemblances are closest to the Middle Jomon period. Both early Valdivia and Middle Jomon are dated between 2000 and 3000 BCE. A transpacific contact from Asia to Ecuador during this time is postulated.” ref

The conclusions from the 1962 paper states that:

Three different hypotheses to explain the presence of C3* Y chromosomes in Ecuador but not elsewhere in the Americas were tested: recent admixture, ancient admixture ∼6 Kya, or entry as a founder haplogroup 15–20 Kya with subsequent loss by drift elsewhere. We can convincingly exclude the recent admixture model, and find no support for the ancient admixture scenario, although cannot completely exclude it. Overall, our analyses support the hypothesis that C3* (M217) Y chromosomes were present in the “First American” ancestral population, and have been lost by drift from most modern populations except the Ecuadorians.

At the time not having the understanding of C-M217 (C3*) as we have now, the 1962 paper stated that:

“Other than one C3* individual in Alaska, C3* is unknown in the rest of the Native world including all of North American and the balance of Central and South America, but is common and widespread in East Asia.” ref

Some not all Mayan DNA shows C haplogroup. Genetic Overview of the Maya Populations: Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups ref

Native American founding lineages of Y chromosomes, called C-M217 (C3*), within a restricted area of Ecuador in North-Western South America. ref
“Mound Builder people of the Hopewell culture were the descendants of people of the Adena culture (circa 800 BC to AD 1) who were, in turn, descended from the local Archaic cultures (circa 3000-500 BCE). Comparisons between the mtDNA from individuals from the Hopewell site and a database of mtDNA from groups from all over the world, demonstrated that these ancient Native Americans shared close ties with Asia especially, China, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia.” ref
“Monks Mound by the Mississippian culture began about 900–950 CE, in Illinois, United States. Monks Mound roughly the same size at its base as the Great Pyramid of Giza. The perimeter of its base is larger than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. As a platform mound, the earthwork supported a wooden structure on the summit.” ref

Haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 (and previously as C3), is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup.

“131 relations: Abazins, Adygea, African admixture in Europe, Ainu people, Aisin Gioro, Algonquian languages, Altai people, Anhui, Apache, Armenians, Bai people, Bangladesh, Beijing, Bhutan, Burusho people, Buryatia, Buryats, Cambodia, Central Asia, Chams, Chechnya, Cheyenne, China, Chukchi people, Crimean Tatars, Dai people, Daur people, Descent from Genghis Khan, Dungan people, East Asia, Evenks, Evens, Fujian, Gansu, Garo Hills, Garo people, Genetic genealogy, Genographic Project, Guangxi, Hamnigan, Han Chinese, Hani people, Haplogroup, Haplogroup C-M130, Haplogroup C-M217, Haplogroup C-M48, Haplogroup C-M8, Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA), Haplogroup CT, Haplotype, Hazaras, Hui people, Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, Indigenous peoples of Siberia, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Itelmens, Japanese people, Java, Jilin, Jishou, Kalmyks, Karakalpaks, Kazakhs, Khasic languages, Korea, Koreans, Koryaks, Kyrgyz people, Language family, List of Y-chromosome haplogroups in populations of the world, Lu people, Lyngngam language, Manchu people, Maritime Southeast Asia, Meghalaya, Miao people, Molecular phylogenetics, Mongols, Muong people, Na-Dene languages, Nanai people, National Geographic, Nepal, Nivkh people, Nogais, Northern Thai people, Northern Thailand, Oirats, Oroqen people, Outer Mongolia, Pakistan, Paragroup, Pashtuns, Patrilineality, Saga Prefecture, Shandong, Shanxi, She people, Sibe people, Siouan languages, Sioux, Southeast Asia, Soyot, Subclade, Tabasaran people, Taiwanese indigenous peoples, Tajiks, Tanana Athabaskans, Teleuts, Thailand, Tibetan people, Tibeto-Burman languages, Tujia people, Tungusic peoples, Turkic peoples, Tuvans, Udege people, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Vietnam, Vietnamese people, Wayuu people, Xi’an, Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group, Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of East and Southeast Asia, Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Oceania, Yakuts, Yao people, Yukaghir people, Yunnan, 1000 Genomes Project.” ref

“Several studies of the peopling of the Americas have made use of Native American variants. South American C-M217 (or C3), 17 which is defined by marker M21721 and is derived from haplogroup C, which is in turn defined by markers M216 and M130.22 This latter haplogroup is also found among various ethnic groups from northeast Asia, Australasia, and Oceania. The five haplogroup C (C-M130) individuals originated from two Ecuadorian communities, and one from Peru. All five individuals were Quechua speakers (Supplementary Table 4), and displayed also the derived allele for SNP M217; thus, these South American natives belong to the C-M217 lineage, as previously reported.” ref

Prevalence of Y-SNP haplogroup C-M217 (C3*) around the Pacific Ocean. Light blue: previous studies; dark blue: present study; yellow: relative frequency of C-M217 (C3*) carriers.

Dene-Yeniseian and Na-Dene

“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. 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 Ket people (a tribe of Yeniseian-speaking people in Siberia).” 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. 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

“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 BCE) 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. 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

Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo“Story of the People”), the Navajo creation myth, describes the prehistoric emergence of the Navajo as a part of the Navajo religious beliefs. It centers on the area known as the Dinétah, the traditional homeland of the Navajo, and forms the basis of the traditional Navajo way of life and ceremony.” ref

The Union of Two Worlds: Reconstructing Elements of Proto-Athabaskan Folklore and Religion

This study reconstructs elements of proto-Athabaskan folklore and religion, challenging received wisdom about the character of Southern Athabaskan culture. Detailed parallelism between Athabaskan and Old World folklore traditions, especially Inner Asian ones, means we must now consider that Southern Athabaskan cultures may retain significant elements of proto-Athabaskan belief systems originating in Asia.” ref

“Reconstruction of Proto-Na-Dene (= Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, PAET in Jeff Leer’s terms)is based on comparison of three groups of languages: 1) Tlingit dialects (Tl), 2) Eyak (E) and3) Athabaskan languages (PA = Proto-Athabaskan)1. Eyak and the Athabaskan languages are close to each other and are traced back to an intermediate Proto-Eyak-Athabakan language(PEA = PAE of Jeff Leer). The regular phonetic correspondences between Eyak and PA were interpreted by Michael E. Krauss and Jeffrey Leer, including very complicated correspondences of sonorants (Krauss & Leer 1981). Leer (1992; 2008; 2008a) has proposed a PND reconstruction, explaining most of the regular sound correspondences between the Na-Dene languages.” ref

Every Dene nation has its own creation story about how the Earth came to be, and how the Dene people and language were created. All of these tales often feature a Creator who forms the waters and lands of Denendeh. Dene oral traditions are records of history, known as þqtú hoghena nüsí hotßü honü, as well as spiritual legends, called üæqhzé. Every Dene nation has its own creation story about how the Earth came to be, and how the Dene people and language were created. All of these tales often feature a Creator who forms the waters and lands of Denendeh. They also feature common characters such as Raven and Yamǫǫ̀zha. Raven is a trickster figure who can transform into different forms. Raven’s behaviors and errors are meant to teach the Dene right from wrong. (See also Raven Symbolism.) Another well-known shape-shifter is Yamǫǫ̀zha (also known as Yamǫ́ria to some people; for others, Yamǫ́ria is a different being). Yamǫǫ̀zha is a medicine man who transforms from human to animal, and helps the Dene solve problems. In some tales, Yamǫǫ̀zha is half-animal/half-human. These legends are significant to Dene culture and spirituality, as they transmit lore and lessons to younger generations. (See also Indigenous Peoples: Religion and Spirituality.)” ref

“Ravens appear as stock characters in several traditional Serbian epic poems. Like in many other cultures, the raven is associated with death – more specifically with an aftermath of a bloody or significant battle. Ravens often appear in pairs and play the role of harbingers of tragic news, usually announcing the death of a hero or a group of heroes. They tend to appear in combination with female characters as receivers of the news. Usually, a mother or a wife of a hero will be notified about the hero’s death by a visit from a pair of ravens. Sometimes, these are treated as supernatural creatures capable of communicating with humans that report about events directly. Alternatively, these are ordinary birds bringing along scavenged body parts, such as a hand or a finger with a ring, by which the fate of the hero will be recognized. The most notable examples of this pattern are found in the songs “Car Lazar i Carica Milica” (Tsar Lazar and Tsarina Militsa) and “Boj na Mišaru” (Battle of Mishar).” ref

Kutkh (also KutkhaKootkhaKutq, Kutcha and other variants, RussianКутх) is a Raven spirit traditionally revered in various forms by various indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East. Kutkh appears in many legends: as a key figure in creation, as a fertile ancestor of mankind, as a mighty shaman and as a trickster. He is a popular subject of the animist stories of the Chukchi people and plays a central role in the mythology of the Koryaks and Itelmens of Kamchatka. Many of the stories regarding Kutkh are similar to those of the Raven among the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, suggesting a long history of indirect cultural contact between Asian and North American peoples.” ref

“Koryaks believe in a Supreme Being whom they call by various names: ŋajŋənen (Universe/World), ineɣitelʔən (Supervisor), ɣət͡ɕɣoletənvəlʔən (Master-of-the-Upper-World), ɣət͡ɕɣolʔən (One-on-High), etc. He is considered to reside in Heaven with his family and when he wishes to punish mankind for immoral acts, he falls asleep and thus leaves man vulnerable to unsuccessful hunting and other ills. Koryak mythology centers on the supernatural shaman Quikil (Big-Raven), who was created by the Supreme Being as the first man and protector of the Koryak. Big Raven myths are also found in Southeast Alaska in the Tlingit culture, and among the HaidaTsimshian, and other natives of the Pacific Northwest Coast Amerindians.” ref

California DNA to Brazil and the Andes around 4,200 years ago?

“Based on current evidence, says Tábita Hünemeier, a population and evolutionary geneticist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil who conducts genetic studies of indigenous Brazilian groups, present-day Andeans seem to have descended from the wave of migrants that replaced the Clovis-related population, together with a more recent wave that occurred around 4,000 BP. After the highland and lowland populations divided around 9,000 years ago, the highland population further split into northern and southern populations around 5,800 BP, a study led by Reich and Fehren-Schmitz recently suggested.” ref

From Stone Darts to Dismembered Bodies, New Study Reveals 5,000 Years of Violence in Central California
California DNA (Chumash)

“Historically, the northern islands were occupied by the island Chumash, while the southern islands were occupied by the Tongva. The earliest known Chumash village site has been discovered on Santa Rosa Island. It belongs to the period around 7,500 BP. Soon after, the population density on the islands begins to rise. A significant increase in fish and marine mammal exploitation has been observed.” ref

Considering regions within California, the area surrounding San Francisco Bay in Northern California, extensive investigation of the region’s dense archaeology has produced a trans-Holocene record, revealing that intensive sedentary or semisedentary habitation extends back >5,000 years ago. The highest levels of IBS sharing occur along the diagonal between individuals from the same population. The analysis suggests four clusters—Nevada, San Francisco Bay Area, North Channel Islands together with Santa Barbara, and South Channel Islands—for which pairs within a cluster possess elevated IBS sharing relative to pairs from distinct clusters. The individuals from Lovelock Cave in Nevada, who are close in age to those from the Rummey Ta Kuččuwiš Tiprectak and Santa Barbara sites, fall above the main cluster. The ancient individuals from the San Francisco Bay Area cluster with the ancient individuals from Southern California. Ancient individuals from Southern California separate into two groups: Individuals from San Nicolas and the Southern Channel Islands have membership primarily in a single component, whereas individuals from Santa Barbara and the North Channel Islands have more substantial membership in a second component as well. As was seen by Moreno-Mayar et al., we find that the individuals from Lovelock Cave in Nevada have noticeable membership in a component shared with those from the Pacific Northwest.” ref

Ancient DNA from a burial in California with A01 dated to 5,200 years old and utilized 90 percent marine resources in the coastal areas of Monterey County, located on the Pacific coast in the U.S. state of California. ref 

“Humans utilized the cave starting around 2580 BCE but it was not intensively used until 1000 BCE. The burials from Lovelock Cave do not appear to be similar to the earlier burials from Spirit Cave or to the later burials from Stillwater Marsh. The eight burials from Lovelock Cave were buried at various times between 4,500 and 900 years ago.” ref

“Channel Islands (Bright and Bright 1976; Kroeber 1953), although there is considerable disagreement when this migratory event may have occurred. The most often cited date is about 2,000 years ago (Moratto 1984:559); however, some researchers have suggested a much earlier period, perhaps 5,000 years ago, noting the geographic distribution of certain distinctive items of material culture throughout much of the range known to have been occupied historically by Uto-Aztecan speakers (Raab and Howard 2002).” ref

“DNA studies are tantalizing clues that link some of today’s Chumash with settlers of coastal regions from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego more than 10,000 years ago. A number of scientists believe some may have trudged from Asia and then built boats that, over hundreds of generations, took them to spots where they put down roots along the length of the Pacific Coast. More than half were from the Cayapa tribe of Ecuador. Others were from tribes in Mexico and the southern reaches of Chile. Four matching samples, it would turn out, were from Chumash descendants living along California’s Central Coast. “This confirms a lot of Native American stories about origins,” Cordero said. “The Aztecs, for instance, say their ancestors came from the north, and this is certainly consistent with that. Chumash, link to an ancient tooth in Alaska and tribesmen in an Ecuadoran village.” ref

“North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. This area has 18 language families comprising 74 languages (compared to four families in Europe: Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, and Afroasiatic, and one isolate, Basque).” ref

Gene flow across linguistic boundaries in Native North American populations

“Geneticists and anthropologists often expect that human language groups and gene pools will share a common structure. It is noted that both language and genes are passed from parents to children, mating tends to be endogamous with respect to linguistic groups, and splits in linguistic communities usually occur with splits in breeding populations. Cavalli-Sforza et al. have reported that genetic trees of major geographic populations correlate well with language families. They argue that a process consisting of population fissions, expansion into new territories, and isolation between ancestral and descendant groups will produced a tree-like structure common to both genes and languages. Linguists agree that population fissions and range expansions play an important role in the generation of linguistic diversity.” ref

“The potential correspondence between gene pools and language groups in Native North American populations is particularly interesting for several reasons. Early investigations of the correspondence between genetic groups and linguistic groups in Native North Americans produced equivocal results. On the one hand, average genetic distances between populations in different language families were greater than average genetic distances between populations within language families. On the other hand, genetic distances were not significantly correlated with glottochronological distances. In the three language families, the average nucleotide diversity within populations is low in Eskimo-Aleut populations and high in Amerind populations. However, nucleotide diversity varies considerably among the populations classified as Na-Dene-speaking. The Alaskan Athabascan and Haida populations, who reside in the North, have low nucleotide diversities, in the range of nucleotide diversities in the Eskimo-Aleut-speaking populations. The Navajo and Apache, who reside in the Southwest, have high nucleotide diversities, in the range of nucleotide diversities in populations classified as Amerind speaking.” ref 

“Several patterns that depart from the tree structure are apparent upon close examination. For example, the GLC expected distances consistently overestimate the realized genetic distances for several populations, including the Navajo, Aleut, and Siberian Yupik populations. This relationship means that these populations are genetically similar to populations with distantly related languages. Similarly, the GLC tree consistently underestimates the genetic distance between three Eskimo populations (Central Yupik, Canadian Inuit, and Inupaiq) and all other populations. First, none of Greenberg’s major language groups (Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, or Amerind) forms a unique cluster. The most exclusive cluster that contains all Eskimo-Aleut populations (defined by branch a) also includes all four Na-Dene-speaking populations and the Amerind-speaking Cheyenne, Bella Coola, and Nuu Chah Nulth populations.” ref

“The most exclusive cluster with all Na-Dene-speaking populations (defined by branch b) also includes six Eskimo-Aleut-speaking populations (Siberian Yupik, Greenland Inuit, Central Yupik, Canadian Inuit, and Inupiaq) and the Amerind-speaking Bella Coola. The most exclusive cluster with all Amerind-speaking populations (defined by branch c) includes the Eskimo-Aleut-speaking Aleuts and the Na-Dene-speaking Navajo. Second, there is a strong North-South geographic pattern to the clustering pattern. An Arctic-Pacific Northwest cluster that includes all Aleut-Eskimo populations, all Na-Dene populations, and the Amerind Nuu Chah Nulth and Bella Coola populations originates on one side of branch a, whereas a more Southern group includes the Pima, Cherokee, Sioux, and Chippewa Amerind-speaking population forms to the other side of branch a. The Southwestern Athabascan-speaking populations, Navajo and Apache, defy the geographic groupings, but this result is consistent with the archaeological record.” ref

“Anthropologists agree that circa anno Domini 1400 the ancestors of Navajos and Apaches migrated from the Mackenzie Basin of Canada to the Southwest region, where they came into contact with Amerind-speaking populations who had been living there for thousands of years. The occurrence of haplogroup A differs markedly between the far Northern and the Southwestern samples. With only few exceptions, mtDNA lineages observed in the northern Na-Dene classified populations (Haida and Alaskan Athabascans) belong to haplogroup A. Haplogroup A is also common in Eskimos and Aleuts. Outside of the far North, the only samples in which haplogroup A appears commonly are the Southwestern Athabascan-speaking populations (Navajo and Apache). mtDNA sequences belonging to haplogroups B and C are frequent primarily in the Amerind-classified populations, including the Bella Coola, and Nuu Chah Nulth populations on the Northwest Coast. The Navajo and Apache are the only Na-Dene-classified populations with substantial frequencies of B- and C-group haplotypes, although haplogroup C is observed in the Haida and Alaskan Athabascan samples.” ref 


Human Migration from Asia into Alaska (North America) (5,000 to 3,500 years ago)


Human Migration from Asia into Alaska (North America) (in the last 2,000 years ago)

Periods in North American Prehistory

Lithic stage: before 8500 BCE

Archaic period: 8000 BC– 1000 BCE

Formative stage: 1000 BCE– CE 500

Woodland period1000 BCE– CE 1000

Classic stage: CE 500–1200

Post-Classic stage: after CE 1200

Lithic stage: before 8500 BCE

“The Lithic stage was the earliest period of human occupation in the Americas, as post-glacial hunter-gatherers spread through the Americas. The stage derived its name from the first appearance of Lithic flaked stone tools. The term Paleo-Indian is an alternative, generally indicating much the same period. This stage was conceived as embracing two major categories of stone technology: (1) unspecialized and largely unformulated core and flake industries, with percussion the dominant and perhaps only technique employed, and (2) industries exhibiting more advanced “blade” techniques of stoneworking, with specialized fluted or unfluted lanceolate points the most characteristic artifact types. Throughout South America, there are stone tool traditions of the lithic stage, such as the “fluted fishtail”, that reflect localized adaptations to the diverse habitats of the continent. In North America, the time encompasses the Paleo-Indian period, which subsequently is divided into more specific time terms, such as Early Lithic stage or Early Paleo-Indians, and Middle Paleo-Indians or Middle Lithic stage. Examples include the Clovis culture and Folsom tradition groups.” ref

Archaic period: 8000 BC– 1000 BCE

“The Archaic stage is characterized by subsistence economies supported through the exploitation of nutsseeds, and shellfish. As its ending is defined by the adoption of sedentary farming, this date can vary significantly across the Americas. The use of textiles, fired pottery, and start of the gradual replacement of hunter gatherer lifestyles with agriculture and domesticated animals would all be factors. End dates vary, but are around 5,000 to 3,000 BCE in many areas. The Archaic stage is the most widely used term for the succeeding stage, but in the periodization of pre-Columbian Peru, the Cotton Pre-Ceramic may be used. As in the Norte Chico civilization, cultivated cotton seems to have been very important in economic and power relations, from around 3,200 BCE.” ref, ref

Early Archaic

  • 8000 BCE: The last glacial period ends, causing sea levels to rise and flood the Beringia land bridge, closing the primary migration route from Siberia.
  • 8000 BCE: Sufficient rain falls on the American Southwest to support many large mammal species – mammoth, mastodon, and a bison species – that soon go extinct.
  • 8000 BCE: Hunters in the American Southwest use the atlatl.
  • 7500 BCE: Early basketry.[citation needed]
  • 7560—7370 BCE: Kennewick Man dies along the shore of the Columbia River in Washington State, leaving one of the most complete early Native American skeletons.
  • 7000 BCE: Northeastern peoples depend increasingly on deer, nuts, and wild grains as the climate warms.
  • 7000 BCE: Native Americans in Lahontan Basin, Nevada mummify their dead to give them honor and respect, evidencing deep concern about their treatment and condition. ref

Middle Archaic

Late Archaic

Global Flood?

When @Graham Hancock talks about a global cataclysm flooding, his ideas relate to slow flooding as that is what ice melt actually did. I think Hancock missed that part in thinking about his global flooding beliefs. Sea level by about 60 m (197 ft) during the early Holocene, between about 12,000 and 7,000 years ago, thus a long time not all at once. Something close to about 4 inches per century or less. Some “global” cataclysm flooding threat. lol

Ice sheet retreat initiated ca. 19,000 years ago and accelerated after ca. 15,000 years ago. The Holocene, starting with abrupt warming 11,700 years ago, resulted in rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets of North America and Europe. The early Holocene sea level rise (EHSLR) was a significant jump in sea level by about 60 m (197 ft) during the early Holocene, between about 12,000 and 7,000 years ago, spanning the Eurasian Mesolithic. The rapid rise in sea level and associated climate change, notably the 8.2 ka cooling event (8,200 years ago), and the loss of coastal land favored by early farmers, may have contributed to the spread of the Neolithic Revolution to Europe in its Neolithic period.” ref

“During the rest of the early Holocene, the rate of sea level rise varied from a low of about 6.0–9.9 mm (0.2–0.4 in)/yr to as high as 30–60 mm (1.2–2.4 in)/yr during brief periods of accelerated sea level rise. Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for three major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation. The first, Meltwater pulse 1A, lasted between c. 14.6–14.3 ka and was a 13.5 m (44 ft) rise over about 290 years centered at 14.2 ka.ref

“The early Holocene sea level rise spans Meltwater pulses 1B and 1C, between 12,000 and 7,000 years ago:

  • Meltwater pulse 1B between c. 11.4–11.1 ka, a 7.5 m (25 ft) rise over about 160 years centered at 11.1 ka, which includes the end of Younger Dryas interval of reduced sea level rise at about 6.0–9.9 mm (0.2–0.4 in)/yr;
  • Meltwater pulse 1C between c. 8.2–7.6 ka, centered at 8.0 ka, a rise of 6.5 m (21 ft) in less than 140 years.ref

The Ancient Absurdities of Ancient Apocalypse

“Netflix’s new hit Ancient Apocalypse is an odd duck: a docuseries filmed in many gorgeous and historic locations (Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia, … uh, Ohio) that advances a provocative thesis aimed furiously at a single academic discipline. The argument is essentially this: The authorities who study human prehistory are ignoring—or covering up—the true foundations of the world as we know it today. And the consequences could be catastrophic.” ref

“Graham Hancock, the journalist who hosts the series, returns again and again to his anger at this state of affairs and his status as an outsider to “mainstream archaeology,” his assessment of how terrible “mainstream archaeology” is about accepting new theories, and his insistence that there’s all this evidence out there but “mainstream archaeologists” just won’t look for it. His bitter disposition, I’m sure, accounts for some of the interest in this show. Hancock, a fascinating figure with an interesting past as a left-leaning foreign correspondent, has for decades been elaborating variations on this thinking: Humans, as he says in the docuseries, have “amnesia” about our past. An “advanced” society that existed around 12,000 years ago was extinguished when the climate changed drastically in a period scientists call the Younger Dryas. Before dying out completely, this civilization sent out emissaries to the corners of the world, spreading knowledge, including building techniques that can be found in use at many ancient sites, and sparking the creation of mythologies that are oddly similar the world over. It’s important for us to think about this history, Hancock adds, because we also face impending cataclysm. It is a warning.” ref

“Netflix’s new hit Ancient Apocalypse is an odd duck: a docuseries filmed in many gorgeous and historic locations (Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia, … uh, Ohio) that advances a provocative thesis aimed furiously at a single academic discipline. The argument is essentially this: The authorities who study human prehistory are ignoring—or covering up—the true foundations of the world as we know it today. And the consequences could be catastrophic.” ref

“Graham Hancock, the journalist who hosts the series, returns again and again to his anger at this state of affairs and his status as an outsider to “mainstream archaeology,” his assessment of how terrible “mainstream archaeology” is about accepting new theories, and his insistence that there’s all this evidence out there but “mainstream archaeologists” just won’t look for it. His bitter disposition, I’m sure, accounts for some of the interest in this show. Hancock, a fascinating figure with an interesting past as a left-leaning foreign correspondent, has for decades been elaborating variations on this thinking: Humans, as he says in the docuseries, have “amnesia” about our past. An “advanced” society that existed around 12,000 years ago was extinguished when the climate changed drastically in a period scientists call the Younger Dryas. Before dying out completely, this civilization sent out emissaries to the corners of the world, spreading knowledge, including building techniques that can be found in use at many ancient sites, and sparking the creation of mythologies that are oddly similar the world over. It’s important for us to think about this history, Hancock adds, because we also face impending cataclysm. It is a warning.” ref

“Scientists, Hancock says, don’t want to believe any of this because they don’t like to think about mythology or astronomy, both of which he often uses to prove his points. Coming to terms with this paradigm shift would also rock the foundations of their discipline. Hancock, scientists say, doesn’t understand how eagerly they’d leap at this evidence if it really existed, in an empirical and reproducible form. (As archaeologist Carl Feagans writes in a review of Ancient Apocalypse, “Every single archaeologist I know would be elated to discover any previously unknown civilization of the Ice Age. Or any age for that matter.”)” ref

“One of the oddest aspects of Ancient Apocalypse is how largely absent these nasty mainstream archaeologists are from its run time. Joe Rogan, who has had Hancock on his podcast multiple times, makes a few appearances, lauding Hancock’s free-thinking ways. The other talking heads are either pro-Hancock or edited to look that way. Michael Shermer, of Skeptic magazine, who debated Hancock on Rogan’s show in 2017, merits a 20-second appearance in which he manages to get across one single argument against Hancock’s theory: “If this civilization existed, where are their trash heaps, where are their homes, where are their stone tools or metal tools, where is the writing?” That’s it—then back to Hancock, the “just asking questions,” the rancor.” ref

John Hoopes, an archaeologist at the University of Kansas, is one of the mainstream archaeologist naysayers of the kind Hancock targets without naming. Hoopes has often written about the history of alternative and pseudoarchaeology, and about Hancock himself; his Twitter feed has been full, over the past week, with conversation between academic archaeologists about the specific claims in Ancient Apocalypse. I called him to ask what people who aren’t up to speed with Hancock’s work should know if they watch this show. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.” ref

Rebecca Onion: What can you say about the difference between the way academic archaeology approaches evidence and how Graham Hancock does?

John Hoopes: Graham Hancock is not and does not want to be seen as a scientist or a historian. He is coming from a metaphysical place. He’s inspired by Western esoterica. For him, the significance of a lot of this information is sort of intuitive and is confirmed to him through his personal revelatory experiences.” ref

“There’s a TEDx presentation he did back in 2013, called “The War on Consciousness,” in which he explained that he had been smoking cannabis daily for 25 years and finally stopped using it because he had an ayahuasca experience and found that it was a more meaningful and revelatory experience than his daily use of cannabis. [This TEDx talk sparked controversy within the TED organization after it went up on YouTube, described here.] So, if it seems like, in watching the show, his perspective has been influenced by drugs, it’s because it has.” ref

“It’s important to understand that it’s coming from a very subjective place. It’s kind of the opposite of what science strives to do. It’s coming from his personal conviction of what reality and the truth are. Problem is, he often frames it in such a way that people think he’s presenting something scientific when he’s not. But once you realize that he’s got a metaphysical goal, not a scientific one, it’s easier to place.” ref

He says throughout Ancient Apocalypse that he doesn’t want to be thought of as a scientist but an “investigative journalist.”

“Something that you would know, as a journalist, is that he is doing the opposite of what journalists have been accused of, which is both-sidesing things. He is definitely one-sidesing this. He’s not even trying to present alternative interpretations, or what the experts disagree on, or any information that contradicts what his own personal subjective belief is. And in that respect, it’s much more like religious discourse. He’s coming from a position of New Age spirituality, which is not something we recognize as a formal religion, but it is a very real thing in American society.” ref

“It feels like the anger toward what Hancock calls “mainstream archaeology” in Ancient Apocalypse is intense. In the episode on Serpent Mound, near where I live in Ohio, he had himself filmed standing in the parking lot, outside the closed gates, reading the email from the people who manage the site and who declined to allow the project to be filmed there because of Hancock’s association with it. The music behind that scene is so dramatic. Has this animosity toward the mainstream always been part of his work?” ref

“Yes, and this is what authors in alternative archaeology have done since the 19th century, when the Theosophical Society was founded. One of the founders, Helena Blavatsky, goes on and on about the scientists and the establishment. Hancock draws from that literature of 100 years ago or more; that’s been present in his work since at least his book Fingerprints of the Gods, which is from 1995.” ref

“Something else that I noticed is that in the second episode, there’s an archaeologist named Geoffrey McCafferty, the one who gives Graham Hancock a tour of the Cholula pyramid in Mexico. Geoff is a former graduate student of mine. I’ve known him since 1988. He’s an amazing archaeologist, and Geoff has, for as long as I’ve known him, for over 30 years, been absolutely passionate about Cholula. If you pay careful attention to how they edited what he was saying in the second episode, his enthusiasm for Cholula is actually kind of shifted into what seems like an enthusiasm for what Hancock is saying.” ref

“Here’s something else that happens in the second episode. The first person he talks to is Geoff, on this tour of Cholula, but the second person who he talks to, who takes him to a couple of different sites? This is a guy named Marco Vigato, who last year published a book on the lost continent of Atlantis called The Empires of Atlantis, which is one of the most white supremacist, racist books that I have ever seen. He’s not an archaeologist; he’s not a historian. He’s sort of an entrepreneur who has been able to get some permits to work at archaeological sites in Mexico. You could not have a more stark contrast between Geoff McCafferty, who is a highly respected qualified archaeologist, and Marco Vigato, who is basically a hack who writes very bizarre things, including this Atlantis book.” ref

“In reading up on him, I saw that Hancock once was a bit more explicit about the idea that these figures, who supposedly spread across the world to disseminate their ideas as their own civilization was dying, were white. In this series, that’s not part of things. Has he adjusted the way he presents this?” ref

“If you research Graham Hancock and look at his books over time, as I have, one of the things that you discover about him is that he self-edits. He doesn’t use the word Atlantis now except very sparingly. He has also edited himself since 1995, when, in Fingerprints of the Gods, he came out and said that it was an ancient white civilization. He no longer says the “white” part in the series. If you pay careful attention, he does talk about “heavily bearded Quetzalcoatl” who arrives, according to myth, to give the gift of knowledge, but he doesn’t mention the other part of that trope, which all of us know about, which is that this visitor supposedly had white skin.” ref

“It’s similar to the way that Donald Trump operates. He will get to the edge of something, but he won’t say it, because he knows that his followers already know it. He can say, “I didn’t say that,” and he didn’t say it, but everyone knew what he said because it was already known, right?” ref

What’s interesting to me about this series getting super popular on Netflix is that I’m not sure what percentage of the people who are watching it know that the theory of Atlantis used to be, or sometimes still is, that kind of a theory. I think I can imagine the answer to this question:What are the stakes of this show being popular on Netflix for what our sense of what science is?It’s just more disinformation, more distrust of expertise.ref

North America Area (with Deities/paganism and Shamanism/or “medicine people”)

  1. Eskimo–Aleut or Inuit–Yupik–Unangan languages
  2. Na-Dené, Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit languages
  3. The Algic: Algonquian–Wiyot–Yurok languages
  4. Siouan–Catawban languages
  5. Uto-Aztecan languages
  6. Salishan languages
  7. Muskogean languages

Mesoamerica Aera (with Deities/paganism and Shamanism/or “medicine people”)

5. Uto-Aztecan languages

8. Mayan languages

9. Chibchan languages

South America Area (with Deities/paganism and Shamanism/or “medicine people”)

  1. Chibchan languages
  2. Cariban languages
  3. Quechuan languages
  4. Arawakan languages
  5. Tupian languages
  6. Macro-Jê languages
  7. Chonan languages

Pre-contact: distribution of North, Central, and South American language families and their Deities/Paganism or Religious/Spiritual beliefs like Shamanism/or “medicine people”

“Q-M242 carriers migrated through the Altai/Baikal region of Siberia into the Americas. Q* has been dated to 17,700 years ago in South Siberia and 15,400 years ago in Mongolia.ref


Dispersals of the Siberian Y-chromosome haplogroup Q in Eurasia

Worldwide distribution of haplogroup Q-M242. The blue star is the original place of haplogroup Q-M242, around Central Asia and Siberia. The brown number one is Russian sample location in the Krasnoyarsk Region. The brown number two is Chinese sample location in Gansu province. The brown number three is Chinese sample location in Zhejiang province. The red arrows are the expansion routes of haplogroup Q-M242. The purple words show the locations of subclades of haplogroup Q used in this study.” ref

Abstract: The human Y-chromosome has proven to be a powerful tool for tracing the paternal history of human populations and genealogical ancestors. The human Y-chromosome haplogroup Q is the most frequent haplogroup in the Americas. Previous studies have traced the origin of haplogroup Q to the region around Central Asia and Southern Siberia. Although the diversity of haplogroup Q in the Americas has been studied in detail, investigations on the diffusion of haplogroup Q in Eurasia and Africa are still limited. In this study, we collected 39 samples from China and Russia, investigated 432 samples from previous studies of haplogroup Q, and analyzed the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) subclades Q1a1a1-M120, Q1a2a1-L54, Q1a1b-M25, Q1a2-M346, Q1a2a1a2-L804, Q1a2b2-F1161, Q1b1a-M378, and Q1b1a1-L245. Through NETWORK and BATWING analyses, we found that the subclades of haplogroup Q continued to disperse from Central Asia and Southern Siberia during the past 10,000 years. Apart from its migration through the Beringia to the Americas, haplogroup Q also moved from Asia to the south and to the west during the Neolithic period, and subsequently to the whole of Eurasia and part of Africa.ref

Y-chromosome haplogroup Q

Haplogroup Q-M242 is one of the two branches of P-P226 (M45), the other being R-M207Q-M242 is believed to have arisen around the Altai Mountains area (or South Central Siberia), approximately 17,000 to 31,700 years ago. However, the matter remains unclear due to limited sample sizes and changing definitions of Haplogroup Q: early definitions used a combination of the SNPs M242, P36.2, and MEH2 as defining mutations. Q-M242 is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans and several peoples of Central Asia and Northern Siberia.” ref

Highest frequencies Kets 93.8%, Indigenous peoples of South America 92%, Turkmens from Karakalpakstan (mainly Yomut) 73%, Selkups 66.4%., Altaians 63.6%., Tuvans (from Xinjiang) 62.5%., Chelkans 60.0%., Greenlandic Inuit 54%, Tubalar 41%, Siberian Tatars (Ishtyak-Tokuz Tatars) 38%, Inuit, the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Akha people of northern Thailand, Mon-Khmer people and some tribes of Assam
  • Q1a (L472, MEH2) : found among the Koryaks of eastern Siberia
    • Q1a1 (F1096)
      • Q1a1a (F746)
        • Q1a1a1 (M120) : observed in Mongolia, Japan and India
      • Q1a1b (M25) : observed in Mongolia, Siberia, northern India, the Middle East, Italy and Ireland
        • Q1a1b1 (L712): found in Central & Eastern Europe (probably Hunnic and/or Mongolian)
          • Q1a1b1a (L713)
    • Q1a2 (L56, M346): found in Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Hungary
      • Q1a2a (L53): found among the Mongols
        • Q1a2a1 (L54): found in Mesolthic western Russia
          • Q1a2a1a (CTS11969)
            • Q1a2a1a1 (M3): the main subclade of Native Americans
            • Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain
              • Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain
            • Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico
            • Q1a2a1c (L330): the main subclade of the Mongols, also found among the Kazakhs and Uzbeks, as well as in Ukraine, Turkey and Greece (probably Mongolian and Turkic)
      • Q1a2b (L940): found in Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Russia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland and Germany
        • Q1a2b1 (L527): found almost exclusively in Scandinavia and places settled by the Vikings
        • Q1a2b2 (L938): observed in Anatolia, Lithuania, Britain and Portugal
          • Q1a2b2a (L939): observed in Britain
      • Q1a2c (M323)
  • Q1b (L275): found among the Tatars of Russia, in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan
    • Q1b1 (M378): observed in Kazakhstan, India and Germany
      • Q1b1a (L245): found in the Middle East, among the Jews, in Central Europe and in Sicily
        • Q1b1a1 (L272.1): found in Sicily (probably Phoenician) ref

“Haplogroup Q is thought to have originated in Central Asia or North Asia during of shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 26,000 to 19,000 years ago). Q descends from haplogroup P, which is also the ancestor of haplogroups R1a and R1b. Haplogroup Q quickly split into two main branches: Q1a and Q1b. The northern Q1a tribes expanded over Siberia as the climate warmed up after the LGM. Some Q1a crossed the still frozen Bering Strait to the American continent some time between 16,500 and 13,000 years ago. Q1b tribes stayed in Central Asia and later migrated south towards the Middle East.” ref

“Q1a is also the main paternal lineage of Native Americans. The testing of the genome of 12,600 year-old boy (known as Anzick-1) from Clovis culture in the USA confirmed that haplogroup Q1a2a1 (L54) was already present on the American continent before the end of the Last Glaciation. The vast maority of modern Native Americans belong to the Q1a2a1a1 (M3) subclade. As this subclade is exclusive to the American continent and the Anzick boy was negative for the M3 mutation, it is likely that M3 appeared after Q1a2a1 reached America.” ref

“The maternal equivalents of that Siberian Q1a2 in prehistoric Eastern Europe are probably mtDNA haplogroups C4a and C5, which have been found Mesolithic Karelia (north-western Russia), in the Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture in Ukraine, and in the Bronze Age Catacomb culture in the Pontic Steppe. Nowadays mtDNA C is mostly found among Siberians, Mongols, and Native Americans, who happen to share Y-haplogroup Q1a2 on the paternal side. The analysis of prehistoric genomes from Eastern Europe did confirm the presence of a small percentage of Amerindian-related autosomal admixture. In contrast with Q1b1, Q1b2 (Y1150) is found almost exclusively in the Indian subcontinent. The two Q1b branch split from each others some 15,000 years ago, during the Late Paleolithic period. Data is still sparse about this subclade, but is it reasonable to assume that it has been in South Asia at least since the end of the last Ice Age, long before the Indo-European migrations.” ref

“Oddly enough, the L804 branch, which descends from the same Northeast Siberian branch as the Native American M3, is now found exclusively in Germanic countries, including Scandinavia, Germany, Britain, and northern France. Like the other Scandinavian branch (L527>Y4827), its genetic diversity suggests that this lineage expanded from a single ancestor living approximately 3,000 years ago, presumably in Scandinavia, in what would have been the Nordic Bronze Age. At present it remains unclear when and how Q1a2-L804 reached Europe in the first place, but it might have been a very long time ago, during the late glacial period or the Mesolithic period. It may well have arrived at the same time as Q-Y4827. Alternatively, L804 might have come as a minor lineage accompanying haplogroup N1c1 from Mongolia until it reached Northeast Europe during the Neolithic period, some 7,000 years ago.” ref

“Several branches of haplogroup Q-M242 have been predominant pre-Columbian male lineages in indigenous peoples of the Americas. Most of them are descendants of the major founding groups who migrated from Asia into the Americas by crossing the Bering Strait. These small groups of founders must have included men from the Q-M346, Q-L54, Q-Z780, and Q-M3 lineages. In North America, two other Q-lineages also have been found. These are Q-P89.1 (under Q-MEH2) and Q-NWT01. They may have not been from the Beringia Crossings but instead come from later immigrants who traveled along the shoreline of Far East Asia and then the Americas using boats. It is unclear whether the current frequency of Q-M242 lineages represents their frequency at the time of immigration or is the result of the shifts in a small founder population over time. Regardless, Q-M242 came to dominate the paternal lineages in the Americas.” ref

 “Q-M242 originated in Asia (Altai region), and is widely distributed across it. Q-M242 is found in RussiaSiberia (Kets, SelkupsSiberian Yupik peopleNivkhsChukchi people, YukaghirsTuvans, Altai people, Koryaks, etc.), Mongolia, China, Uyghurs, Tibet, KoreaJapanIndonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, AfghanistanIran, IraqSaudi ArabiaTurkmenistanUzbekistan, and so on.” ref 

“In Siberia, the regions between Altai and Lake Baikal, which are famous for many prehistoric cultures and as the most likely birthplace of haplogroup Q, exhibit high frequencies of Q-M242. In a study (Dulik 2012), Q-M242 (mostly Q-M346 including some Q-M3) has been found in 24.3% (46/189: 45 Q-M346, 1 Q-M25) of all Altaian samples. Among them, Chelkans show the highest frequency at 60.0% (15/25: all Q-M346), followed by Tubalars at 41% (11/27: 1 Q-M25, 10 Q-M346) and Altaians-Kizhi at 17% (20/120). In a former study, Q-M242 is found in 4.2% of southern Altaians and 32.0% of northern Altaians with the highest frequency of 63.6% in Kurmach-Baigol (Baygol). The frequency reaches 13.7% (20/146) in the whole samples. In another study, the frequency rises up to 25.8% (23/89: all Q-M346) in Altaians. Based on the results of these studies, the average frequency of Q-M242 in Altaians is about 21%.” ref

Tuva, which is located on the east side of Altai Republic and west of Lake Baikal as well as on the north side of Mongolia, shows higher frequency of Q-M242. It is found in 14%~38.0% (41/108) of Tuvans. Also, Todjins (Tozhu Tuvans) in eastern Tuva show the frequency at ≤22.2% (8/36 P(xR1))~38.5% (10/26, all Q-M346(xM3)). So, the average frequency of Q-M242 among Tuvans-Todjins in Tuva Republic is about 25%. Haplogroup Q-M242 has been found in 5.9% (3/51) of a sample of Tuvans from the village of Kanasi, 9.8% (5/51) of a sample of Tuvans from the village of Hemu, and 62.5% (30/48) of a sample of Tuvans from the village of Baihaba in northern Xinjiang near the international border with Altai Republic.” ref

“In Siberian Tatars, the Ishtyako-Tokuz sub-group of Tobol-Irtysh group has a frequency of Q-M242 at 38%. The highest frequencies of Q-M242 in Eurasia are witnessed in Kets (central Siberia) at 93.8% (45/48) and in Selkups (north Siberia) at 66.4% (87/131). Russian ethnographers believe that their ancient places were farther south, in the area of the Altai and Sayan Mountains (Altai-Sayan region). Their populations are currently small in number, being just under 1,500 and 5,000 respectively. In linguistic anthropology, the Ket language is significant as it is currently the only surviving one in the Yeniseian language family which has been linked by some scholars to the Native American Na-Dené languages and, more controversially, the language of the Huns. (See: L. Lieti, E. Pulleybank, E. Vajda, A. Vovin, etc.) Q-M346 is also found at lower rates in Sojots (7.1%, Q-M346), Khakassians (6.3%, Q-M346), Kalmyks (3.4%, Q-M25, Q-M346), Khanty, and so on.” ref

“In far eastern Siberia, Q-M242 is found in 35.3% of Nivkhs (Gilyaks) in the lower Amur River, and 33.3% of Chukchi people and 39.2% of Siberian Yupik people in Chukotka (Chukchi Peninsula). It is found in 30.8% of Yukaghirs who live in the basin of the Kolyma River, which is located northwest of Kamchatka. It is also found in 15% (Q1a* 9%, Q-M3 6%) of Koryaks in Kamchatka.” ref

Haplogroup Q in North America

“In the indigenous people of North America, Q-M242 is found in Na-Dené speakers at an average rate of 68%. The highest frequency is 92.3% in Navajo, followed by 78.1% in Apache, 87% in SC Apache, and about 80% in North American Eskimo (Inuit, Yupik)–Aleut populations. (Q-M3 occupies 46% among Q in North America). On the other hand, a 4000-year-old Saqqaq individual belonging to Q1a-MEH2* has been found in Greenland. Surprisingly, he turned out to be genetically more closely related to Far East Siberians such as Koryaks and Chukchi people rather than Native Americans. Today, the frequency of Q runs at 53.7% (122/227: 70 Q-NWT01, 52 Q-M3) in Greenland, showing the highest in east Sermersooq at 82% and the lowest in Qeqqata at 30%.” ref

Haplogroup Q in Mesoamerica & South America

“Haplogroup Q-M242 has been found in approximately 94% of Indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica and South America. The frequencies of Q among the whole male population of each country reach as follows:

  • 61% in Bolivia.
  • 51% in Guatemala,
  • 40.1% (159/397) to 50% in Peru
  • 37.6% in Ecuador,
  • 37.3% (181/485) in Mexico (30.8% (203/659) among the specifically Mestizo segment)
  • 31.2% (50/160) in El Salvador,
  • 15.3% (37/242) to 21.8% (89/408) in Panama,
  • 16.1% in Colombia,
  • 15.2% (25/165) in Nicaragua,
  • 9.7% (20/206) in Chile,
  • 5.3% (13/246 in 8 provinces in northeastern, central, southern regions) to 23.4% (181/775 in 8 provinces in central-west, central, northwest regions) in Argentina,
  • 5% in Costa Rica,
  • 3.95% in Brazil, and so on.” ref

Y-DNA Q samples from ancient sites

  • South Central Siberia (near Altai)
    • Afontova-Gora-2, Yenisei River Bank, Krasnoyarsk (South Central Siberia of Russia), 17000YBP: Q1a1-F1215 (mtDNA R)
  • North America
  • Altai (West Mongolia)
    • Tsagaan Asga and Takhilgat Uzuur-5 Kurgan sites, westernmost Mongolian Altai, 2900YBP-4800YBP: 4 R1a1a1b2-Z93 (B.C. 10C, B.C. 14C, 2 period unknown), 3 Q1a2a1-L54 (period unknown), 1 Q-M242 (B.C. 28C), 1 C-M130 (B.C. 10C)
  • Greenland
  • China
    • Hengbei site (Peng kingdom cemetery of Western Zhou period), Jiang County, Shanxi, 2800-3000YBP: 9 Q1a1-M120, 2 O2a-M95, 1 N, 4 O3a2-P201, 2 O3, 4 O*
      • In another paper, the social status of those human remains of ancient Peng kingdom(倗国) are analyzed. aristocrats: 3 Q1a1 (prostrate 2, supine 1), 2 O3a (supine 2), 1 N (prostrate) / commoners : 8 Q1a1 (prostrate 4, supine 4), 3 O3a (prostrate 1, supine 2), 3 O* (supine 3) / slaves: 3 O3a, 2 O2a, 1 O*
      • (cf) Pengbo (倗伯), Monarch of Peng Kingdom is estimated as Q-M120.
    • Pengyang County, Ningxia, 2500YBP: all 4 Q1a1-M120 (with a lot of animal bones and bronze swords and other weapons, etc.)
    • Heigouliang, Xinjiang, 2200YBP: 6 Q1a* (not Q1a1-M120, not Q1a1b-M25, not Q1a2-M3), 4 Q1b-M378, 2 Q* (not Q1a, not Q1b: unable to determine subclades):
      • In a paper (Lihongjie 2012), the author analyzed the Y-DNAs of the ancient male samples from the 2nd or 1st century BCE cemetery at Heigouliang in Xinjiang – which is also believed to be the site of a summer palace for Xiongnu kings – which is east of the Barkol basin and near the city of Hami. The Y-DNA of 12 men excavated from the site belonged to Q-MEH2 (Q1a) or Q-M378 (Q1b). The Q-M378 men among them were regarded as hosts of the tombs; half of the Q-MEH2 men appeared to be hosts and the other half as sacrificial victims.
    • Xiongnu site in Barkol, Xinjiang, all 3 Q-M3
      • In L. L. Kang et al. (2013), three samples from a Xiongnu) site in Barkol, Xinjiang were found to be Q-M3 (Q1a2a1a1). And, as Q-M3 is mostly found in Yeniseians and Native Americans, the authors suggest that the Xiongnu had connections to speakers of the Yeniseian languages. These discoveries from the above papers (Li 2012, Kang et al., 2013) have some positive implications on the not as yet clearly verified theory that the Xiongnu were precursors of the Huns.
    • Mongolian noble burials in the Yuan dynasty, Shuzhuanglou Site, northernmost Hebei China, 700YBP: all 3 Q (not analysed subclade, the principal occupant Gaodangwang Korguz (高唐王=趙王 阔里吉思)’s mtDNA=D4m2, two others mtDNA=A)
      • (cf) Korguz was a son of a princess of Kublai Khan (元 世祖), and was the king of the Ongud tribe. He died in 1298 and was reburied in Shuzhuanglou in 1311 by his son. (Do not confuse this man with the Uyghur governor, Korguz who died in 1242.) The Ongud tribe (汪古部) was a descendant of the Shatuo tribe (沙陀族) which was a tribe of Göktürks (Western Turkic Khaganate) and was prominent in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period of China, building three dynasties. His two queens were all princesses of the Yuan dynasty (Kublai Khan’s granddaughters). It was very important for the Yuan dynasty to maintain a marriage alliance with Ongud tribe which had been a principal assistant since Genghis Khan‘s period. About 16 princesses of the Yuan dynasty married kings of the Ongud tribe.” ref

“In recent decades, the human Y-chromosome has proven to be a powerful tool for tracing the paternal history of human populations and genealogical ancestors. The human Y-chromosome haplogroup Q (also named Q-M242 in accordance with its defining mutation) probably originated in Central Asia and Southern Siberia during the time period of 15–25 KYA (1000 years ago), then subsequently diffused in the eastward, westward, and southward directions. Haplogroup Q has several subclades defined by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and it reaches its highest frequency of 70–100% in the Americas. Although the diversity of haplogroup Q in the Americas has been studied in detail, investigations on the diffusion of haplogroup Q in Eurasia and Africa are still limited. Consequently, we studied samples of haplogroup Q in Eurasia to explore how it expanded from Central Asia and Southern Siberia during the Neolithic period.” ref

“The ancestors of present-day Native Americans migrated to the Americas from Siberia via the Beringia around 16 KYA. Q1a2a1-L54 and its subclade Q1a2a1a1-M3 are the two predominant subclades of haplogroup Q found on both sides of the Bering Strait. Q1a2a1-L54 has spread throughout Northern Asia, the Americas, and Western and Central Europe. An ancient individual of the Clovis culture belonged to Q1a2a1-L54 (xQ1a2a1a1-M3). Q1a2a1a1-M3, one of the most thoroughly studied subclades within haplogroup Q, is frequent both in the Chukotka Peninsula of Siberia (close to Alaska) and the Americas. Previous studies indicated that Q1a2a1a1-M3 migrated from Siberia to the Americas and partially returned to Siberia. The estimated time of Q1a2a1a1-M3 is 13-22 KYA. Q1a2a1a1a-M19, a subclade of Q1a2a1a1-M3, remained in Southern America and has a similarly diversified pattern with its upstream lineage. The age of Q1a2a1a1a-M19 is approximately 7–8 KYA.” ref

“The frequencies of haplogroup Q range from 0 to 94% in Eurasia (approximately 5% on average). Haplogroup Q reaches its highest frequencies in Siberia, especially in Kets (90–94%) and Selkups (66–71%), and is rarely seen in Western, Southern and South-eastern Asia. Subclade Q1a1a1-M120 appears almost only in Eastern Asia, and its diversity implies that haplogroup Q has migrated from north to south with the ancestors of current Han Chinese during the Neolithic period. Subclades Q1a1b-M25 and Q1a2-M346 have spread widely in Eurasia. Q1a1b-M25 reaches its highest frequency in Turkmen (34–43%) and shows low frequencies in other Eurasian populations, while Q1a2-M346 appears in Central, Western, and Southern Asia, and most parts of Europe.” ref

“Haplogroup Q has also appeared in other parts of the world. For instance, an ancient DNA study of a Saqqaq individual in Greenland suggests that haplogroup Q1a-MEH2 was frequent in Siberian and Native American populations. A few subclades of haplogroup Q have been identified in the Comoros population in Africa (Q1a2-M346) and the Polynesian islands in Oceania (Q1a2a1a1c-M199). Nowadays, the distribution of haplogroup Q in the Americas has been studied thoroughly, but we know little about its dispersals on western and southern routes. In this study, we present an analysis of some SNP subclades of haplogroup Q, including Q1a1a1-M120, Q1a2a1-L54, Q1a1b-M25, Q1a2-M346, Q1a2a1a2-L804, Q1a2b2-F1161, Q1b1a-M378, and Q1b1a1-L245. Based on NETWORK and BATWING analyses of haplogroup Q, we were able to better understand its dispersals on western and southern routes, and their impacts on Eurasian populations.” ref

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

“By c. 32kya, populations carrying Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)-related ancestry were probably widely distributed across northeast Eurasia. They may have expanded as far as Alaska and the Yukon, but were forced to abandon high latitude regions following the onset of harsher climatic conditions that came with the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref

“In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) is the name given to an ancestral component that represents the lineage of the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (c. 24,000 BP) and populations closely related to them, such as the Upper Paleolithic individuals from Afontova Gora in Siberia. The ANE lineage is defined by association with the “Mal’ta boy” (MA-1), the remains of an individual who lived during the Last Glacial Maximum, 24,000 years ago in central Siberia, discovered in the 1920s. Together with the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site samples, and Afontova Gora individuals, they are collectively referred to as ‘Ancient North Siberians’. The Ancient North Eurasians represent a distinct cluster of genetic diversity within the larger Eurasian gene pool, forming an early Siberian variation of modern humans. It is suggested that the ANE ancestry found among modern human populations was largely contributed from a population linked to Afontova Gora (AG-3), rather than Malta (MA-1) or Yana.” ref

“Populations genetically similar to MA-1 and Afontova Gora were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Ancient Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance. Lazaridis et al. (2016:10) note “a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia”. A 2016 study found that the global maximum of ANE ancestry occurs in modern-day Kets, Mansi, Native Americans, and Selkups. Around 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, a branch of Ancient North Eurasian people mixed with Ancient East Asians, which led to the emergence of Ancestral Native American, Ancient Beringian, and Ancient Paleo-Siberian populations. It is unknown exactly where this population admixture took place, and two opposing theories have put forth different migratory scenarios that united the Ancient North Eurasians with ancient East Asian populations.” ref

“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

“According to Jennifer Raff, the Ancient North Eurasian population mixed with a daughter population of ancient East Asians, who they encountered around 25,000 years ago, which lead to the emergence of Native American ancestral populations. However, the exact location where the admixture took place is unknown, and the migratory movements that united the two populations are a matter of debate. One theory supposes that Ancient North Eurasians migrated south to East Asia, or Southern Siberia, where they would have encountered and mixed with ancient East Asians. Genetic evidence from Lake Baikal in Mongolia supports this area as the location where the admixture took place.” ref

“However, a third theory, the “Beringian standstill hypothesis”, suggests that East Asians instead migrated north to Northeastern Siberia, where they mixed with ANE, and later diverged in Beringia, where distinct Native American lineages formed. This theory is supported by maternal and nuclear DNA evidence. According to Grebenyuk, after 20,000 BP, a branch of Ancient East Asians migrated to Northeastern Siberia, and mixed with descendants of the ANE, leading to the emergence of Ancient Paleo-Siberian and Native American populations in Extreme Northeastern Asia. However, the Beringian standstill hypothesis is not supported by paternal DNA evidence, which may reflect different population histories for paternal and maternal lineages in Native Americans, which is not uncommon and has been observed in other populations.” ref

“The descendants of admixture between ANE and ancient East Asians include Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American, which are specific archaeogenetic lineages, based on the genome of an infant found at the Upward Sun River site (dubbed USR1), dated to 11,500 years ago. The AB and the Ancestral Native American (ANA) lineage formed about 25,000 years ago, and subsequently diverged from each other, with the AB staying in the Beringian region, while the Ancestral Native Americans populated the Americas. The ANE genetic contribution to late-Paeolithic Ancestral Native Americans (USR1 specimen, dated to 11,500 BP in Alaska, and Clovis specimen, dated to 12,600 BP in Montana) is estimated at around 36.8%. There are also the Ancient Paleo-Siberians, populations represented by the Late Upper Paeolithic Lake Baikal Ust’Kyakhta-3 (UKY) 14,050-13,770 BP. They carried 30% ANE ancestry and 70% East Asian ancestry.” ref

“The ancient Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were found to have a significant ANE component at c. 50%. According to Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018 between 14% and 38% of Native American ancestry may originate from gene flow from the Mal’ta–Buret’ (ANE) population. This difference is caused by the penetration of posterior “Neo-Siberian” migrations into the Americas, with the lowest percentages of ANE ancestry found in Inuit and Alaskan Natives, as these groups are the result of migrations into the Americas roughly 5,000 years ago. Estimates for ANE ancestry among first wave Native Americans show higher percentages, such as 42% for those belonging to the Andean region in South America. The other gene flow in Native Americans (the remainder of their ancestry) was of an East Asian-related origin, specifically diverged from other East Asians c. 30,000 years ago. Gene sequencing of another south-central Siberian people (Afontova Gora-2) dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures to that of Mal’ta boy-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref

“Genomic studies also indicate that the ANE component was brought to Western Europe by people related to the Yamnaya culture, long after the Paleolithic. It is reported in modern-day Europeans (10%–20%). Earlier ANE ancestry is found in European hunter-gatherer populations through Paleolithic interactions with Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers, which resulted in populations such as Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers. Western Hunter-Gatherers of the Villabruna cluster also carried the Y-haplogroup R1b, derived from the Ancient North Eurasian haplogroup R*, indicating “an early link between Europe and the western edge of the Steppe Belt of Eurasia.” A deer tooth pendant impregnated with the genetic material of an ANE woman was found in the Denisova Cave, and dated to circa 24,700 years before present. She is closely related to Mal’ta and Afontova Gora specimens, found further east.” ref

“An early Neolithic Central Asian specimen (Tutkaul1) from Tajikistan was found to be primarily derived from Ancient North Eurasians with some additional Neolithic Iranian-related inputs. The sample is closely related to Afontova Gora 3 (AG3) and Mal’ta 1, as well as to the West Siberian hunter-gatherers (Tyumen and Sosnoviy). While the sample also displays affinity for Eastern hunter-gatherers (EHGs), AG3 was found to be closer to EHGs than Tutkaul1, who instead may be a good proxy for ANE-related ancestry among ancient populations from the Iran and the Turan region. The Ancient Tianyuan Man and modern East/Southeast Asian populations were found to lack Upper Paleolithic Western Eurasian or ANE-related admixture, suggesting “resistance of those groups to the incoming UP population movements”, or alternatively a subsequent reexpansion from a genetically East Asian-like population reservoir.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refref, ref

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago. The Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) samples (Afontova Gora 3, Mal’ta 1, and Yana-RHS) show evidence for minor gene flow from an East Asian-related group (simplified by the Amis, Han, or Tianyuan) but no evidence for ANE-related geneflow into East Asians (Amis, Han, Tianyuan), except the Ainu, of North Japan.” ref 

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago “basal to modern-day Europeans”. Some Ancient North Eurasians also carried East Asian populations, such as Tianyuan Man.” ref

“Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were ANE at around 50% and Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) at around 75% ANE. Karelia culture: Y-DNA R1a-M417 8,400 years ago, Y-DNA J, 7,200 years ago, and Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297 7,600 years ago is closely related to ANE from Afontova Gora, 18,000 years ago around the time of blond hair first seen there.” ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

My Speculations are in Comparative Mythologies?

For instance, the mytheme of an ancient belief that is seemingly shared though changed and adapted, a fundamental generic unit of narrative structure seems to be shared a common relation with mountains/ancestors/gods or sacred animals with Sacred Mounds, Mountains, Kurgans, and Pyramids

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


In the video: Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians), I talk about Graham Hancock both at the beginning for around 30 min, then several times in the video after that.

I barely knew about Graham Hancock, people started telling me science/archaeology was not trustable and were inspired by Hancock. Then once I learned more, I started really not liking Hancock. Hancock states archaeologists hate him, no most don’t but do think he is very wrong.

First off I reject the unsupported beliefs of Graham Hancock. I hear some academic thinkers, especially archaeologists hold a view that “similarly in myths around the world are best explained by calling it convergent evolution.” This is a speculation and a nonepistemic claim. Against DNA migration and linguistic relationships along with myth similarly that has been shown with some myths, thus not simply limited to only unrelated similarities due to a “Convergent evolution claim.” When challenging a global claim it often only takes one established counterclaim to show it in error.  This is not any support of the unsupported beliefs of Graham Hancock it is my thoughts on the statements given by academics to Graham Hancock.

I appreciate archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians a lot. And I hate how Graham Hancock unjustifiably undermines trust in them. I feel more negative about Graham Hancock because of his negative relation to archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians who deserve better.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.


Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)  with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Animism starts in Southern Africa, then to West Europe, and becomes Totemism. Another split goes near the Russia and Siberia border becoming Shamanism, which heads into Central Europe meeting up with Totemism, which also had moved there, mixing the two which then heads to Lake Baikal in Siberia. From there this Shamanism-Totemism heads to Turkey where it becomes Paganism.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


Not all “Religions” or “Religious Persuasions” have a god(s) but

All can be said to believe in some imaginary beings or imaginary things like spirits, afterlives, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworldKi and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religionEgyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of naturemotherhoodfertilitycreationdestruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

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

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) iKorean shamanismjangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the SeonangdangIn Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (KawiSundaneseJavanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythologyTiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and UrAncient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as AthensSpartaThebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as FlorenceSienaFerraraMilan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen ItzaTikalCopán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coastRagusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyus/Dyus phtr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Plethwih) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*



Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.