Haplogroup N from China to Fennoscandia: Migrations and Relationship of Language (Dene-Yeniseian and Uralic), DNA, and Cultures

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric

mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages

Abstract

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

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

Ancient mDNA “N1a1a1” and Pottery?

Bon005 – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 10,220 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

Bon004 – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 10,076 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

ZHAG – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 9,900 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

People who lived in ancient settlement in central Turkey migrated to Europe: archaeologists

“10,300-year-old Boncuklu Höyük settlement in Turkey revealed that the people who lived in the settlement migrated to Europe. And the Boncuklu Höyük settlement was established a thousand years before Çatalhöyük, so is the ancestor of later Çatalhöyük.” ref

Ash040 – Aşıklı Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 9,875 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

CCH144 – Çatalhöyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,808 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

I1096 – Barcın Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,300 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Bar25 – Barcın Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,295 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Tep004 – Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,237 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Tep006 – Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,099 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

I0725 – Mentese mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,950 years ago Turkey – South-Western corner, on the Aegean Sea ref

I0174 – Alsonyek-Bataszek mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,558 years ago Hungary – Starcevo ref (Starčevo–Körös–Criș culture: 6,200 – 4,500 BCE or around 8,223-6,523 years ago)

“Starčevo culture of Southeastern Europe originates in the spread of the Neolithic package of peoples and technological innovations including farming and ceramics from Anatolia to the area of Sesklo. The Starčevo culture marks its spread to the inland Balkan peninsula as the Cardial ware culture did along the Adriatic coastline. It forms part of the wider Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture which gave rise to the central European Linear Pottery culture c. 700 years after the initial spread of Neolithic farmers towards the northern Balkans.” ref

Klein1 – Kleinhadersd mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,500 years ago Austria – LBK/AVK ref (Linear Pottery culture *LBK*: 5,500–4,500 BCE or around 7,523-6,523 years ago)

UZZ74 – Grotta dell’Uzzo, Sicily mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,223 years ago Italy – Stentinello I ref (Stentinello culture: dated to the 5th millennium BCE: 5000 to 4000 BCE or around 7,023-6,023 years ago)

I0412 – Els Trocs, Bisaurri, Huesca, Aragón mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,177 years ago Spain – Epicardial ref (Cardium/Cardial–Epicardial pottery culture: 6400 – 5500 BCE or around 8,423-7,023 years ago)

A Common Genetic Origin for Early Farmers from Mediterranean Cardial and Central European LBK Cultures

“Fernández et al. 2014 found traces of maternal genetic affinity between people of the Linear Pottery Culture and Cardium pottery with earlier peoples of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, including the rare mtDNA (maternal) basal haplogroup N*, and suggested that Neolithic period was initiated by seafaring colonists from the Near East. Mathieson et al. 2018 examined three Cardials buried at the Zemunica Cave near Bisko in modern-day Croatia c. 5800 BCE the three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the maternal haplogroups H1, K1b1a, and N1a1.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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

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

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

Haplogroup N-M231 (Y-DNA)

“It is generally considered that N-M231 arose in East Asia approximately 19,400 (±4,800) years ago and populated northern Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. Males carrying the marker apparently moved northwards as the climate warmed in the Holocene, migrating in a counter-clockwise path, to eventually become concentrated in areas as far away as Fennoscandia and the Baltic. The apparent dearth of haplogroup N-M231 amongst Native American peoples indicates that it spread after Beringia was submerged, about 11,000 years ago. Y-chromosomes belonging to N1b-F2930/M1881/V3743, or N1*-CTS11499/L735/M2291(xN1a-F1206/M2013/S11466), have been found in China and sporadically throughout other parts of Eurasia. N1a-F1206/M2013/S11466 is found in high numbers in Northern Eurasia.” ref

“N-M231* has been found at low levels in China. Out of a sample of 165 Han males from China, two individuals (1.2%) were found to belong to N*. One originated from Guangzhou and one from Xi’an. Among the ancient samples from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, Early Neolithic Kitoi culture, one of the Shamanka II samples (DA250), dated to c. 6500 years ago, was analyzed as NO1-M214 in the original study. However, this same specimen (DA250 or Shamanka 250) has subsequently been found to belong to N-FT210118, the same clade as the other haplogroup N specimens from the same site (besides DA247, who belongs to N-Y147969). N-FT210118 is derived from N-L666/N-F2199 but basal to N-CTS6380, this latter being the most recent common ancestor of present-day N-P43 (found mainly among Maris, Udmurts, Komis, Chuvashes, Tatars, Nenets, Nganasans, Khanty, Mansi, Khakas, Tuvans, etc.) and N-F1101 (found mainly among East Asians). Furthermore, N-FT210118 has not been found in any living individual who has had his Y-DNA tested to date, and the estimated TMRCA of N-CTS6380 exceeds the estimated date of deposition of any of the specimens from the Shamanka site associated with the Kitoi culture, so it appears that the representatives of the Kitoi culture at Shamanka (or at least their Y-DNA) have gone extinct rather than being direct ancestors of any living people.” ref

“Haplogroup N-P43 is defined by the presence of the marker P43. Additionally, haplogroup N-P43 is defined by a marker Y3214, which is shared with a younger yDNA O1b2-K14, distributed in Japan (YFull). It has been estimated to be approximately 4,000 to 5,500 years old (TMRCA 4,510 years, TMRCA 4,700 [95% CI 3,800 <-> 5,600] years ago, or 4,727 [95% CI 3,824 <-> 5,693] years ago). It has been found very frequently among Northern Samoyedic peoples, speakers of Ob-Ugric languages, and northern Khakassians, and it also has been observed with low to moderate frequency among speakers of some other Uralic languages, Turkic peoples, Mongolic peoples, Tungusic peoples, and Siberian Yupik people. Haplogroup N-P43 forms two distinctive subclusters of STR haplotypes, Asian and European, the latter mostly distributed among Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples and related populations.” ref 

Asian origin hypothesis for Haplogroup N (mtDNA)

“The hypothesis of Asia as the place of origin of haplogroup N is supported by the following:

1. Haplogroup N is found in all parts of the world but has low frequencies in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to a number of studies, the presence of Haplogroup N in Africa is most likely the result of back migration from Eurasia.
2. The oldest clades of macrohaplogroup N are found in Asia and Australia.
3. It would be paradoxical that haplogroup N had traveled all the distance to Australia or New World yet failed to affect other populations within Africa besides North Africans and Horn Africans.
4. The mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated “relict” populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa. The distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania provides additional evidence for a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa. These findings also highlight the importance of Indian subcontinent in the early genetic history of human settlement and expansion. Therefore, N’s history is similar to M and R which have their most probable origin in South Asia.” ref

• “Haplogroup N1’5
  • Haplogroup N1 – found in Africa .
    • Haplogroup N1b – found in Middle East, Egypt (Gurna), Caucasus and Europe.
    • N1a’c’d’e’I
      • Haplogroup N1c – Northern Saudi Arabia, Turkey 
      • N1a’d’e’I
        • Haplogroup N1d – India
        • N1a’e’I
          • Haplogroup N1a – Arabian Peninsula and Northeast Africa. It is also found in Central Asia and Southern Siberia. This branch is well attested in ancient people from various cultures of Neolithic Europe, from Hungary to Spain, and among the earliest farmers of Anatolia.
          • N1e’I
            • Haplogroup N1e – found in Balochs, Burushos, and Buryats
            • Haplogroup I – West Eurasia and South Asia.
  • Haplogroup N5 – found in India.
• Haplogroup N2
  • Haplogroup N2a – small clade found in West Europe.
  • Haplogroup W – found in Western Eurasia and South Asia
• Haplogroup N3 – all subgroups have so far only been found in Belarus
  • • Haplogroup N3a
    • Haplogroup N3a1
  • Haplogroup N3b
• Haplogroup N7 – all subgroups have so far only been found in Cambodia
  • Haplogroup N7a
    • Haplogroup N7a1
    • Haplogroup N7a2
  • Haplogroup N7b
• Haplogroup N8 – found in China.
• Haplogroup N9 – found in Far East. [TMRCA 45,709.7 ± 7,931.5 years ago; CI=95%]
  • Haplogroup N9a [TMRCA 17,520.4 ± 4,389.8 years ago; CI=95%]
    • Haplogroup N9a12 – Khon Mueang (Pai District)
    • Haplogroup N9a-C16261T
      • Haplogroup N9a-C16261T* – Vietnam (Kinh)
      • Haplogroup N9a-A4129G-A4913G-T12354C-A12612G-C12636T-T16311C!!! – Tashkurgan (Kyrgyz)
      • Haplogroup N9a1’3 [TMRCA 15,007.4 ± 6,060.1 years ago; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup N9a1 – Chinese (Hakka in Taiwan, etc.), She, Tu, Uyghur, Tuvan, Mongolia, Khamnigan, Korea, Japan [TMRCA 9,200 (95% CI 7,100 <-> 11,600) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a1a – Chinese (Sichuan, Zhanjiang, etc.) [TMRCA 7,300 (95% CI 3,800 <-> 12,800) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a1b – Kyrgyz (Tashkurgan)
          • Haplogroup N9a1c – Vietnam (Tay people), Thailand (Khon Mueang from Chiang Mai Province, Lao Isan from Loei Province)
        • Haplogroup N9a3 – China [TMRCA 11,500 (95% CI 7,500 <-> 16,800) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a3a – Japan, Korean (Seoul), Taiwan (incl. Paiwan), Thailand (Mon from Lopburi Province and Kanchanaburi Province), China, Uyghur, Kyrgyz (Tashkurgan), Kazakhstan, Buryat, Russia (Belgorod, Chechen Republic, etc.), Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Czech (West Bohemia), Hungary, Austria, Germany [TMRCA 8,280.9 ± 5,124.4 years ago; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup N9a2’4’5’11 [TMRCA 15,305.4 ± 4,022.6 years ago; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup N9a2 – Japan, Korea, China (Barghut in Hulunbuir, Uyghur, etc.) [TMRCA 10,700 (95% CI 8,200 <-> 13,800) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a2a – Japan, Korea, Uyghur [TMRCA 8,100 (95% CI 6,500 <-> 10,000) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a2a1 – Japan [TMRCA 4,200 (95% CI 1,850 <-> 8,400) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a2a2 – Japan, Korea, Volga-Ural region (Tatar) [TMRCA 5,700 (95% CI 3,500 <-> 8,900) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a2a3 – Japan, Hulun-Buir region (Barghut) [TMRCA 4,700 (95% CI 2,400 <-> 8,400) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a2a4 – Japan [TMRCA 2,800 (95% CI 600 <-> 7,900) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a2b – China
          • Haplogroup N9a2c [TMRCA 7,200 (95% CI 3,600 <-> 12,700) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a2c* – Japan
            • Haplogroup N9a2c1 – Japan, Korea, Uyghur [TMRCA 2,600 (95% CI 1,250 <-> 4,900) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a2d – Japan, Korea [TMRCA 5,200 (95% CI 1,800 <-> 12,000) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a2e – China
        • Haplogroup N9a4 – Malaysia [TMRCA 7,900 (95% CI 3,900 <-> 14,300) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a4a – Japan [TMRCA 4,400 (95% CI 1,500 <-> 10,200) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a4b [TMRCA 5,700 (95% CI 2,400 <-> 11,400) years ago]
            • Haplogroup N9a4b* – Japan
            • Haplogroup N9a4b1 – China (Minnan in Taiwan, etc.)
            • Haplogroup N9a4b2 – China
        • Haplogroup N9a5 [TMRCA 8,700 (95% CI 4,700 <-> 15,000) years ago]
          • Haplogroup N9a5* – Korea
          • Haplogroup N9a5a – Japan
          • Haplogroup N9a5b – Japan [TMRCA 5,300 (95% CI 1,150 <-> 15,300) years ago]
        • Haplogroup N9a11 – Taiwan (Hakka, Minnan), Laos (Lao from Luang Prabang)
      • Haplogroup N9a6 – Thailand (Phuan from Lopburi Province, Khon Mueang from Lamphun Province, Phutai from Sakon Nakhon Province, Lawa from Mae Hong Son Province, Soa from Sakon Nakhon Province), Vietnam, Sumatra [TMRCA 11,972.5 ± 5,491.7 years ago; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup N9a6a – Cambodia (Khmer), Malaysia (Bidayuh, Jehai, Temuan, Kensiu), Sumatra, Sundanese
        • Haplogroup N9a6b – Malaysia (Seletar)
      • Haplogroup N9a7 – Japan
      • Haplogroup N9a8 – Japan, China, Buryat
      • Haplogroup N9a9 – Chelkans (Biyka, Turochak), Tubalar (North-East Altai), Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan), China, Ukraine (Vinnytsia Oblast), Romania (10th century AD Dobruja)
      • Haplogroup N9a10 – Thailand (Khon Mueang from Mae Hong Son Province, Chiang Mai Province, Lamphun Province, and Lampang Province, Shan from Mae Hong Son Province, Lao Isan from Loei Province, Black Tai from Kanchanaburi Province, Phuan from Sukhothai Province and Phichit Province, Mon from Kanchanaburi Province), Laos (Lao from Luang Prabang, Hmong), Vietnam (Tay Nung), China (incl. Han in Chongqing)
        • Haplogroup N9a10a – China, Taiwan (Ami)
          • Haplogroup N9a10a1 – Chinese (Suzhou)
          • Haplogroup N9a10a2 – Philippines (Ivatan), Taiwan (Ami)
            • Haplogroup N9a10a2a – Taiwan (Atayal, Tsou)
        • Haplogroup N9a10b – China
  • Haplogroup N9b – Japan, Udegey, Nanai, Korea [TMRCA 14,885.6 ± 4,092.5 ybp; CI=95%]
    • Haplogroup N9b1 – Japan [TMRCA 11,859.3 ± 3,760.2 ybp; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup N9b1a – Japan [TMRCA 10,645.2 ± 3,690.3 ybp; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup N9b1b – Japan [TMRCA 2,746.5 ± 2,947.0 ybp; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup N9b1c – Japan [TMRCA 6,987.8 ± 4,967.0 ybp; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup N9b1c1 – Japan
    • Haplogroup N9b2 – Japan [TMRCA 13,369.7 ± 4,110.0 ybp; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup N9b2a – Japan
    • Haplogroup N9b3 – Japan [TMRCA 7,629.8 ± 6,007.6 ybp; CI=95%]
    • Haplogroup N9b4 – Japan, Ulchi
  • Haplogroup Y – found especially among Nivkhs, Ulchs, Nanais, Negidals, Ainus, and the population of Nias Island, with a moderate frequency among other Tungusic peoples, Koreans, Mongols, Koryaks, Itelmens, Chinese, Japanese, Tajiks, Island Southeast Asians (including Taiwanese aborigines), and some Turkic peoples [TMRCA 24,576.4 ± 7,083.2 years ago; CI=95%]
    • Haplogroup Y1 – Korea, Taiwan (Minnan), Thailand (Iu Mien from Phayao Province), Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic [TMRCA 14,689.5 ± 5,264.3 ybp; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup Y1a – Nivkh, Ulchi, Hezhen, Udegey, Even, Zabaikal Buryat, Mongolian, Daur, Korea, Han, Tibet, Ukraine [TMRCA 7,467.5 ± 5,526.7 years ago; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup Y1a1 – Uyghur, Kyrgyz, Yakut, Buryat, Hezhen, Udegey, Evenk (Taimyr), Ket, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Turkey
        • Haplogroup Y1a2 – Koryak, Even (Kamchatka)
      • Haplogroup Y1b – Volga Tatar [TMRCA 9,222.8 ± 4,967.0 ybp; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup Y1b1 – Chinese (Han from Lanzhou, etc.), Japanese, Korea, Russia
      • Haplogroup Y1c – Korea (especially Jeju Island), Khamnigan, Uyghur, Canada
    • Haplogroup Y2 – Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Khamnigan, South Africa (Cape Coloured) [TMRCA 7,279.3 ± 2,894.5 years ago; CI=95%]
      • Haplogroup Y2a – Taiwan (Atayal, Saisiyat, Tsou), Philippines (Maranao), Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hawaii, USA (Hispanic), Spain, Ireland [TMRCA 4,929.5 ± 2,789.6 years ago; CI=95%]
        • Haplogroup Y2a1 – Philippines (Bugkalot, Ivatan, Surigaonon, Manobo, Mamanwa, etc.), Malaysia (Sabah, Acheh Malay from Kedah, Banjar from Perak), Indonesia (Besemah [id] from Sumatra, Medan, Bangka, Mandar from Sulawesi, etc.)
          • Haplogroup Y2a1a – Philippines (Kankanaey, Ifugao), USA (Hispanic)
      • Haplogroup Y2b – Japan, South Korea, Buryat [TMRCA 1,741.8 ± 3,454.2 years ago; CI=95%]
• Haplogroup N10 – found in China (Han from Shanghai, Jiangsu, Fujian, Guangdong, and Yunnan, Hani and Yi from Yunnan, She from Guizhou, Uzbek from Xinjiang) and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia).
• Haplogroup N11 – Mainland China & Philippines: Han Chinese (Yunnan, Sichuan, and Hubei), Tibetan (Xizang), Dongxiang (Gansu), Oroqen (Inner Mongolia) and Mamanwa (Philippines).
  • N11a
    • N11a1
      • N11a1a – ethnicity unknown, Zhejiang (eastern China)
      • N11a1b – Uyghur, Xinjiang (western China)
    • N11a2 – ethnicity unknown, China
  • N11b – Mamanwa, Philippines
• Haplogroup O or N12- found among Indigenous Australians and the Floresians of Indonesia.
• Haplogroup N13 – Aboriginal Australians
• Haplogroup N14 – Aboriginal Australians
• Haplogroup N21 – Temuan, Semelai, Thailand, Khmer, ethnic Malays from Malaysia and Indonesia.
• Haplogroup N22 – Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, India, Japan
• Haplogroup A – found in Central and East Asia, as well as among Native Americans.
• Haplogroup S– extended among Aboriginal Australians.
• Haplogroup X– found most often in Western Eurasia, but also present in the Americas.
  • Haplogroup X1 – found primarily in North Africa as well as in some populations of the Levant, notably among the Druze
  • Haplogroup X2 – found in Western Eurasia, Siberia, and among Native Americans
• Haplogroup R – a very extended and diversified macro-haplogroup.” ref

ref, ref

Ymyyakhtakh culture

“The Ymyyakhtakh culture (ɯm-mɯ-yakh-takh, Russian: Ымыяхтахская культура, romanized: Ymyyakhtakhskaya kul’tura) was a Late Neolithic culture of Siberia, with a very large archaeological horizon, dating to c. 2200–1300 BCE. Its origins seem to be in the Lena river basin of Yakutia, and also along the Yenisei river. From there it spread to the east and west. Individual sites were also found in Taymyr. It is named after Ymyyakhtakh, a settlement in the Sakha Republic, Russia.” ref

A. Golovnev discusses Ymyyakhtakh culture in the context of a “circumpolar syndrome”:

“… some features of the East Siberian Ymyyakhtakh culture spread amazingly quickly as far as Scandinavia. Ceramics with wafer prints are found at the Late Bronze Age monuments of the Taimyr Peninsula, Yamal Peninsula, Bolshezemelskaya and Malozemelskaya tundra, the Kola Peninsula, and Finland (not to mention East Siberia and North-East Asia).” ref

“The Ymyyakhtakh made round-bottomed ceramics with waffle and ridge prints on the outer surface. Stone and bone arrowheads, spears, and harpoons are richly represented. Armour plates were also used in warfare. Finds of bronze ware are frequent in the burial grounds. The culture was formed by the tribes migrating from the shores of Lake Baikal to the north, merging with the local substrate of the Bel’kachi culture. The carriers of culture are identified either with the Yukaghirs ethnic group, or perhaps with the Chukchi and Koryaks. The Ymyyakhtakh culture continued at least until the first centuries of our era. It was later replaced by the Ust-Mil culture.” ref

“After 1,700 BCE, the Ymyyakhtakh culture is believed to have spread to the east as far as the Chukotka peninsula, where it was in cultural contact with the Eskimo–Aleut language speakers, and the Paleo-Eskimos. A ceramic complex comparable to the Ymyyakhtakh culture (typified by pottery with an admixture of wool) is also found in northern Fennoscandia near the end of the second millennium BCE.” ref

Syalakh culture

“Syalakh culture is an early Neolithic culture of Yakutia and Eastern Siberia. It formed in the middle Lena river basin in the V — IV millenniums BCE as a result of the migration of tribes from Transbaikalia, which assimilated the local Sumnagin culture (10,500-6,500 years ago) that was preceramic. The culture got its name from Lake Syalakh, located 90 km from the town of Zhigansk in Yakutia (Saha). The first archaeological excavations in this area were conducted under the direction of A. P. Okladnikov in the 1940s. The sites of the carriers of Syalakh culture are marked by the first appearance of polished stone tools, as well as the earliest ceramics (fired clay pottery with a characteristic mesh pattern). Bone harpoons, and bow and arrows have also been found. More than 50 sites of the Syalakh culture are known. In the decorative arts, a central place is occupied by the images of moose, which reflect mythological representation. The Syalakh culture was followed by the Belkachi culture. The ancient Paleo-Eskimo peoples were probably involved in these migrations. According to the linguists, the most likely hypothesis is that representatives of this culture spoke one of the Dené–Yeniseian languages.” ref

According to Pavel Flegontov et al.,

“The new wave of population from northeastern Asia that arrived in Alaska at least 4,800 years ago displays clear archaeological precedents leading back to Central Siberia. … the Syalakh culture peoples, spreading across Siberia after 6,500 YBP, might represent the “ghost population” that split off around 6,500-7,000 YBP, and later gave rise to migrants into America.” ref

ref, ref

Comb Ceramic culture’s Comb Ceramics had its origin from North China

Comb Ceramic culture

“The Comb Ceramic culture or Pit-Comb Ware culture, often abbreviated as CCC or PCW, was a northeast European culture characterised by its Pit–Comb Ware. It existed from around 4200 BCE to around 2000 BCE. The bearers of the Comb Ceramic culture are thought to have still mostly followed the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) lifestyle, with traces of early agriculture. The distribution of the artifacts found includes Finnmark (Norway) in the north, the Kalix River (Sweden) and the Gulf of Bothnia (Finland) in the west and the Vistula River (Poland) in the south. It would include the Narva culture of Estonia and the Sperrings culture in Finland, among others. They are thought to have been essentially hunter-gatherers, though e.g. the Narva culture in Estonia shows some evidence of agriculture. Some of this region was absorbed by the later Corded Ware horizon. The Pit–Comb Ware culture is one of the few exceptions to the rule that pottery and farming coexist in Europe. In the Near East farming appeared before pottery, then when farming spread into Europe from the Near East, pottery-making came with it. However, in Asia, where the oldest pottery has been found, pottery was made long before farming. It appears that the Comb Ceramic Culture reflects influences from Siberia and distant China.” ref

“By dating according to the elevation of land, the ceramics have traditionally (Äyräpää 1930) been divided into the following periods: early (Ka I, c. 4200 BC – 3300 BC), typical (Ka II, c. 3300 BC – 2700 BC) and late Comb Ceramic (Ka III, c. 2800 BC – 2000 BC). However, calibrated radiocarbon dates for the comb-ware fragments found (e.g., in the Karelian isthmus), give a total interval of 5600 BC – 2300 BC (Geochronometria Vol. 23, pp 93–99, 2004). The settlements were located at sea shores or beside lakes and the economy was based on hunting, fishing, and the gathering of plants. In Finland, it was a maritime culture that became more and more specialized in hunting seals. The dominant dwelling was probably a teepee of about 30 square meters where some 15 people could live. Also, rectangular houses made of timber became popular in Finland from 4000 BC cal. Graves were dug at the settlements and the dead were covered with red ochre. The typical Comb Ceramic age shows an extensive use of objects made of flint and amber as grave offerings.” ref

“The stone tools changed very little over time. They were made of local materials such as slate and quartz. Finds suggest a fairly extensive exchange network: red slate originating from northern Scandinavia, asbestos from Lake Saimaa, green slate from Lake Onega, amber from the southern shores of the Baltic Sea, and flint from the Valdai area in northwestern Russia. The culture was characterized by small figurines of burnt clay and animal heads made of stone. The animal heads usually depict moose and bears and were derived from the art of the Mesolithic. There were also many rock paintings. There are sources noting that the typical comb ceramic pottery had a sense of luxury and that its makers knew how to wear precious amber pendants. The great westward dispersal of the Uralic languages is suggested to have happened long after the demise of the Comb Ceramic culture, perhaps in the 1st millennium BC.” ref

“Saag et al. (2017) analyzed three CCC individuals buried at Kudruküla as belonging to Y-hg R1a5-YP1272 (R1a1b~ after ISOGG 2020), along with three mtDNA samples of mt-hg U5b1d1, U4a and U2e1. Mittnik (2018) analyzed two CCC individuals. The male carried R1 (2021: R1b-M343) and U4d2, while the female carried U5a1d2b. Generally, the CCC individuals were mostly of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) descent, with even more EHG than people of the Narva culture. Lamnidis et al. (2018) found 15% Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry, 65% Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) – higher than among earlier cultures of the eastern Baltic, and 20% Western Steppe Herder (WSH).” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Finland’s Horned Shaman and Pre-Horned-God at least 4,500 years ago?

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

Sacred Snakes or Dragons and Rivers, Lakes, and Seas?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art 

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

ref

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

Insights from phylogeographics of Y-chromosomal haplogroup N1a2a-F1101

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

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

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

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

Expansion during the chalcolithic age and bronze age

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

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

Bronze age globalization in East Asia

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“Dené–Yeniseian language, Old Copper Complex, and Pre-Columbian Mound Builders? 

Dené–Yeniseian languages

“Dené–Yeniseian is a proposed language family consisting of the Yeniseian languages of central Siberia and the Na-Dené languages of northwestern North America. Reception among experts has been somewhat favorable; thus, Dené–Yeniseian has been called “the first demonstration of a genealogical link between Old World and New World language families that meets the standards of traditional comparative–historical linguistics“, besides the Eskaleut languages spoken in far eastern Siberia and North America.” ref

“In his 2012 presentation, Vajda also addressed non-linguistic evidence, including analyses of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, which are passed unchanged down the male and female lines, respectively, except for mutations. His most compelling DNA evidence is the Q1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup subclade, which he notes arose c. 15,000 years ago and is found in nearly all Native Americans and nearly all of the Yeniseian Ket people (90%), but almost nowhere else in Eurasia except for the Selkup people (65%), who have intermarried with the Ket people for centuries. In his 2012 reply to George Starostin, Vajda clarifies that Dené-Yeniseian “as it currently stands is a hypothesis of language relatedness but not yet a proper hypothesis of language taxonomy”. He leaves “open the possibility that either Yeniseian or ND (or both) might have a closer relative elsewhere in Eurasia.” ref

“Using this and other evidence, he proposes a Proto-Dené-Yeniseian homeland located in eastern Siberia around the Amur and Aldan Rivers. These people would have been hunter-gatherers, as are the modern Yeniseians, but unlike, as Vajda incorrectly claims, nearly all other Siberian groups (except for some Paleosiberian peoples located around the Pacific Rim of far eastern Siberia, who appear genetically unrelated to the Yeniseians). Eventually all descendants in Eurasia were eliminated by the spread of reindeer-breeding pastoralist peoples (e.g. the speakers of the so-called Altaic languages) except for the modern Yeniseians, who were able to survive in swampy refuges far to the west along the Yenisei River because it is too mosquito-infested for reindeer to survive easily. Contrarily, the caribou (the North American reindeer population) were never domesticated, and thus the modern Na-Dené people were not similarly threatened. In fact, reindeer herding spread throughout Siberia rather recently and there were many other hunter-gatherer peoples in Siberia in modern times.” ref

“Instead of forming a separate family, Starostin believes that both Yeniseian and Na-Dené are part of a much larger grouping called Dene-Caucasian. Starostin states that the two families are related in a large sense, but there is no special relationship between them that would suffice to create a separate family between these two language families. In 2015, linguist Paul Kiparsky endorsed Dené–Yeniseian, saying that “the morphological parallelism and phonological similarities among corresponding affixes is most suggestive, but most compelling evidence for actual relationship comes from those sound correspondences which can be accounted for by independently motivated regular sound changes.” ref

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

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

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

ref, ref, ref

I tried to put all the DNA migrations, that together help explain Sami DNA, and thus some of their cultural influences.

Sami People

Uralic languages

Ancient North Eurasian

Eastern Hunter Gatherer 

Western Hunter-Gatherer

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)

Ancient Beringian/Ancestral Native American (AB/ANA)

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)

Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)

Western Steppe Herders (WSH)

Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG)

Early European Farmers (EEF)

Jōmon people (Ainu people OF Hokkaido Island) 

Neolithic Iranian farmers (Iran_N) (Iran Neolithic)

Amur Culture (Amur watershed)

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

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

Ancient North Eurasian  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

ref

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

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic ref, ref

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

ref

Haplogroup N

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

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

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

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

Y-chromosome haplogroup N dispersals from south Siberia to Europe

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

Mt-chromosome haplogroup N in Africa

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

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

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

Natufian culture DNA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y-DNA

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

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

Mitochondrial DNA

• J2a2
• J2a2
• N1b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref, ref

“The expansion of R1b-L754 through Anatolia/Turkey to form part of the Villabruna cluster “Epigravettian, 14,000 years ago with Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a-L754* (xL389,V88)” in Belluno, Italy and also the Iron Gates HG  between Serbia and Romania  “Iron Gates mesolithic culture,” of the central Danube region circa 13,000 to 5,000 years ago, such as Lepenski Vir, the oldest planned settlement in Europe, both seems perfectly possible with this data R1b related peoples.” ref, ref, ref 

Gobekli Tepe: First Temple, Early Paganism Themes, Sky Burial, Skull Cult, T-pillar Site Similarities, Obsidian Trade, Agriculture Revolution, and Megalith Cultures

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

U6 Haplogroup

R1b Haplogroup

R1b-V88 Haplogroup

Cardium pottery

Austronesian-speaking peoples

African Back Migrations and the Status of Shamanism Origins as well as its Spreading 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

“The shaman is, above all, a connecting figure, bridging several worlds for his people, traveling between this world, the underworld, and the heavens. He transforms himself into an animal and talks with ghosts, the dead, the deities, and the ancestors. He dies and revives. He brings back knowledge from the shadow realm, thus linking his people to the spirits and places which were once mythically accessible to all.–anthropologist Barbara Meyerhoff” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Nganasan people

“The Nganasans (/əŋˈɡænəsæn/; Nganasan: ӈәнә”са(нә”) ŋənəhsa(nəh), ня(“) ńæh) are a Uralic people of the Samoyedic branch native to the Taymyr Peninsula in north Siberia. In the Russian Federation, they are recognized as one of the Indigenous peoples of the Russian North. They reside primarily in the settlements of Ust-Avam, Volochanka, and Novaya in the Taymyrsky Dolgano-Nenetsky District of Krasnoyarsk Krai, with smaller populations residing in the towns of Dudinka and Norilsk as well. The Nganasans are thought to be the direct descendants of proto-Uralic peoples. However, there is some evidence that they absorbed local Paleo-Siberian population. The Nganasans were traditionally a semi-nomadic people whose main form of subsistence was wild reindeer hunting, in contrast to the Nenets, who herded reindeer. Beginning in the early 17th century, the Nganasans were subjected to the yasak system of Czarist Russia. They lived relatively independently, until the 1970s, when they were settled in the villages they live in today, which are at the southern edges of the Nganasans’ historical nomadic routes.” ref

“There is no certainty as to the exact number of Nganasans living in Russia today. The 2002 Russian census counted 862 Nganasans living in Russia, 766 of whom lived in the former Taymyr Autonomous Okrug. However, those who study the Nganasan estimate their population to comprise approximately 1000 people. Historically, the Nganasan language and a Taymyr Pidgin Russian were the only languages spoken among the Nganasan, but with increased education and village settlement, Russian has become the first language of many Nganasans. Some Nganasans live in villages with a Dolgan majority, such as Ust’-Avam. The Nganasan language is considered seriously endangered and it is estimated that at most 500 Nganasan can speak the Nganasan language, with very limited proficiency among those eighteen and younger.” ref

“The Nganasans first referred to themselves in Russian as Samoyeds, but they would also often use this term when referring to the Enets people and instead refer to themselves as “Avam people.” For the Nganasans, the term signified ngano-nganasana, which means “real people” in the Nganasan language, and referred to both themselves and the neighboring Madu Enets. However, in their own language, the Avam Nganasans refer to themselves as nya-tansa, which translates as “comrade tribe,” whereas the Vadeyev Nganasans to the East prefer to refer to themselves as a’sa which means “brother,” but also Evenk or Dolgan. The Nganasans were also formerly called Tavgi Samoyeds or Tavgis initially by the Russians, which derives from the word tavgy in the Nenets language. Following the Russian Revolution, the Nganasans adopted their current appellation.” ref

“The homeland of the Proto-Uralic peoples, including the Samoyeds, is suggested to be somewhere near the Ob and Yenisey river drainage areas of Central Siberia or near Lake Baikal. The Nganasan are considered by most ethnographers who study them to have arisen as an ethnic group when Samoyedic peoples migrated to the Taymyr Peninsula from the south, encountering Paleo-Siberian peoples living there who they then assimilated into their culture. One group of Samoyedic people intermarried with Paleo-Siberian peoples living between the Taz and Yenisei rivers, forming a group that the Soviet ethnographer B.O. Dolgikh refers to as the Samoyed-Ravens. Another group intermarried with the Paleo-Siberian inhabitants of the Pyasina River and formed another group which he called the Samoyed-Eagles.” ref

“Subsequently, a group of Tungusic people migrated to the region near Lake Pyasino and the Avam River, where they were absorbed into Samoyed culture, forming a new group called the Tidiris. There was another group of Tungusic peoples called the Tavgs who lived along the basins of the Khatanga and Anabar rivers and came into contact with the aforementioned Samoyedic peoples, absorbing their language and creating their own Tavg Samoyedic dialect. It is known that the ancestors of the Nganasan previously inhabited territory further south from a book in the city Mangazeya that lists yasak (fur tribute) payments by the Nganasan which were made in sable, an animal that does not inhabit the tundra where the Nganasan now live.” ref

“By the middle of the 17th century, Tungusic peoples began to push the Samoyedic peoples northward towards the tundra Taymyr Peninsula, where they merged into one tribe called “Avam Nganasans”. As the Tavgs were the largest Samoyedic group at the time of this merger, their dialect formed the basis of the present-day Nganasan language. In the late 19th century, a Tungusic group called the Vanyadyrs also moved to the Eastern Taymyr peninsula, where they were absorbed by the Avam Nganasans, resulting in the tribe that is now called Vadeyev Nganasans. In the 19th century, a member of the Dolgans, a Turkic people who lived east of the Nganasans, was also absorbed by the Nganasans, and his descendants formed an eponymous clan, which today, though linguistically fully Samoyedic, is still acknowledged as being Dolgan in origin.” ref

“The traditional religion of the Nganasans is animistic and shamanistic. Their religion is a particularly well-preserved example of Siberian Shamanism, which remained relatively free of foreign influence due to the Nganasans’ geographic isolation until recent history. Because of their isolation, shamanism was a living phenomenon in the lives of the Nganasans, even into the beginning of the 20th century. The last notable Nganasan shaman’s seances were recorded on film by anthropologists in the 1970s.” ref

“The characteristic genetic marker of the Nganasans and most other Uralic-speakers is haplogroup N1c-Tat (Y-DNA). Other Samoyedic peoples mainly have more N1b-P43, rather than N1c, suggesting a bottleneck event. Haplogroup N originated in the northern part of China in 20,000–25,000 years ago and spread to Northern Eurasia, through Siberia to Northern Europe. Subgroup N1c1 is frequently seen in non-Samoyedic peoples, N1c2 in Samoyedic peoples. In addition, haplogroup Z (mtDNA), found with low frequency in Saami, Finns, and Siberians, is related to the migration of people speaking Uralic languages.” ref

“Nganasans are linked to “Neo-Siberian” ancestry, which is estimated to have expanded from the Northern East Asian region into Siberia about ~11,000 years ago BCE. In 2019, a study based on genetics, archaeology and linguistics found that Uralic speakers arrived in the Baltic region from the East, specifically from Siberia, at the beginning of the Iron Age some 2,500 years ago, together with a Nganasan-related component, possibly linked to the spread of Uralic languages. In another genetic study in 2019, published in the European Journal for Human Genetics Nature, it was found that the Nganasans represent a possible source population for the Proto-Uralic people the best. Nganasan-like ancestry is found in every group of modern Uralic-speakers in varying degrees.” ref

Haplogroup N1c (Y-DNA)

“Note that N1c was known as N3 and N1c1 as N3a in the official phylogeny prior to 2008. Haplogroup N1c is found chiefly in north-eastern Europe, particularly in Finland (61%), Lapland (53%), Estonia (34%), Latvia (38%), Lithuania (42%) and northern Russia (30%), and to a lower extent also in central Russia (15%), Belarus (10%), eastern Ukraine (9%), Sweden (7%), Poland (4%) and Turkey (4%). N1c is also prominent among the Uralic-speaking ethnicities of the Volga-Ural region, including the Udmurts (67%), Komi (51%), Mari (50%) and Mordvins (20%), but also among their Turkic neighbors like the Chuvashs (28%), Volga Tatars (21%) and Bashkirs (17%), as well as the Nogais (9%) of southern Russia. N1c represents the western extent of haplogroup N, which is found all over the Far East (China, Korea, Japan), Mongolia and Siberia, especially among Uralic speakers of northern Siberia. Haplogroup N1 reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 95% in the Nenets (40% N1c and 57% N1b) and Nganassans (all N1b), two Uralic tribes of central-northern Siberia, and 90% among the Yakuts (all N1c), a Turkic people who live mainly in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic in central-eastern Siberia.” ref

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

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

“Mazurkevich et al. 2014 confirmed the presence of N1c in the Comb Ceramic culture with a sample from the Late Neolithic site of Serteya II in the Smolensk region of Russia, near the Belarussian border, which dates from the middle of 3rd millenium BCE. The Bronze Age Indo-European Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (3200-2300 BCE) progressively took over the Baltic region and southern Finland from 2,500 BCE (see History of haplogroup R1a). The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Proto-Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Proto-Uralic and Northeast Indo-European populations.” ref

“Lamnidis et al. 2018 tested six 3500 year-old individuals from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia and identified the two male samples as members of N1c-L392. They were all autosomally close to modern Uralic people from the Volga-Ural region and possessed typically Uralic mtDNA lineages (C4b, D4e4, T2d1b1, U4a1, U5a1d, Z1a1a). Another study by Saag et al. 2019 reveals that Siberian autosomal DNA and Y-haplogroup N1c were absent from Bronze Age Estonia and did not arrive there until the Iron Age, around 500 BCE. This shows that N1c tribes first expanded to Belarus then Finland and the Kola peninsula before eventually moving into Estonia several millennia later.” ref

“The phylogeny of N1c1 shows that the split between Balto-Finnic and Uralic (including Ugric) peoples took place around 4400 years ago, downstream of the L1026 mutation, almost exactly at the start of the Kiukainen culture. The Uralic branch (Z1934) formed first, around 4200 years ago, followed by the Ugric branch (Y13850) and eventually the Balto-Finnic branch (VL29) 3600 years ago. The latter immediately split between the Chudes (CTS9976), to the east, and the Balto-Finns (L550) to the west. The Fennoscandians (Y4706) and Balts (M2783) bifurcated around 2600 years ago.” ref

“A small percentage of N1c1 is found among all Slavic, Scandinavian populations, as well as in most of Germany (except the north-west). Its origin is uncertain at present, but it most probably spread with the Iron Age and early Medieval (Proto-)Slavic tribes from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine toward East Germany. The Scandinavian N1c1 has three potential sources:

• 1. Progressive assimilation of the northern Sami populations by Scandinavian/Germanic people since the Iron Age
• 2. Immigration from Germany and Poland in the last two millennia.
• 3. Population exchange with Finland and the Baltic countries when these came under Scandinavian rule, particularly during the eight centuries of political union between Sweden and Finland.” ref

Uralic N1c1

“Haplogroup N1c1 is strongly associated with Uralic peoples, whis is divided in the following families.

• • • Samoyedic (Nganasans, Enets, Nenets and Selkups)
    • Finno-Ugric
      • Finno-Permic
        • Baltic Finnic (Finnish, Karelian, Estonia, etc.)
        • Permic (Komi, Udmurt)
        • Saamic (Saami)
        • Volgaic (Mari, Mordvin)
      • Ugric
        • Hungarian
        • Ob-Ugric (Khanty, Mansi)” ref

“The Samoyedic branch on northern Siberia split the earliest and corresponds to the N1c1* and N1c1a* subclades. Permic and Volgaic speakers have a wide diversity of N1c subclades, including N1c1a1 (L708), N1c1a1a (L1026), N1c1a1a1 (VL29), N1c1a1a2a (Z1935), and N1c2b (P43). The Baltic Finnic branch appears to have evolved from the migration of the N1c1a1a1 (VL29) subclade from the Volga-Ural region to Karelia, Finland and Estonia. VL29 and its subclades are also the variety of N1c1 found in Balto-Slavic populations, confirming that the R1a branch of Indo-Europeans absorbed and later spread N1c1 lineages around central and eastern Europe. The Ugric branch, which comprises Hungarian, as well as the Khanty and Mansi languages of western Siberia, corresponds to the N1c1a1a2b (L1034) subclade.” ref

Did Ural-Altaic languages originate with haplogroup N in the Manchurian Neolithic?

“If haplogroup N1c, found mainly among Uralic speakers today, did originate in the Manchurian Neolithic, together with other subclades of haplogroup N, it would explain that Uralic languages are related to Altaic languages like Turkic and Mongolic languages and, more distantly also Korean, Japanese and Ainu, as Y-haplogroup N is indeed the unifying factor between all these populations. Some linguists have argued that Korean, Japanese and Ainu are language isolates, as they only vaguely resemble other Altaic languages. Tellingly, these populations also have the lowest percentages of Y-haplogroup N – only 3% for the Koreans and 2% for the Japanese, as opposed to 10 to 25% for the Mongols and Buryats, and frequencies between 30% and 90% for most Turkic-speaking Siberians.” ref

Sámi people

“ Sámi-speaking people inhabiting the region of Sápmi, which today encompasses large northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and of the Kola Peninsula in Russia. Their traditional languages are the Sámi languages, which are classified as a branch of the Uralic language family. The word Sámi has at least one cognate word in Finnish: Proto-Baltic *žēmē was also borrowed into Proto-Finnic, as *šämä. This word became modern Finnish Häme (Finnish for the region of Tavastia; the second ä of *šämä is still found in the adjective Hämäläinen). The Finnish word for Finland, Suomi, is also thought probably to derive ultimately from Proto-Baltic *žēmē, though the precise route is debated and proposals usually involve complex processes of borrowing and reborrowing. Suomi and its adjectival form suomalainen must come from *sōme-/sōma-. In one proposal, this Finnish word comes from a Proto-Germanic word *sōma-, itself from Proto-Baltic *sāma-, in turn borrowed from Proto-Finnic *šämä, which was borrowed from *žēmē.” ref

“The western Uralic languages are believed to spread from the region along the Volga, which is the longest river in Europe. The speakers of Finnic and Sámi languages have their roots in the middle and upper Volga region in the Corded Ware culture. These groups presumably started to move to the northwest from the early home region of the Uralic peoples in the second and third quarters of the 2nd millennium BC. On their journey, they used the ancient river routes of northern Russia. Some of these peoples, who may have originally spoken the same western Uralic language, stopped and stayed in the regions between Karelia, Ladoga and Lake Ilmen, and even further to the east and to the southeast. The groups of these peoples that ended up in the Finnish Lakeland from 1600 to 1500 BCE later “became” the Sámi. The Sámi people arrived in their current homeland some time after the beginning of the Common Era.” ref

“The Sámi language first developed on the southern side of Lake Onega and Lake Ladoga and spread from there. When the speakers of this language extended to the area of modern-day Finland, they encountered groups of peoples who spoke a number of smaller ancient languages (Paleo-Laplandic languages), which later became extinct. However, these languages left traces in the Sámi language (Pre-Finnic substrate). As the language spread further, it became segmented into dialects. The geographical distribution of the Sámi has evolved over the course of history. From the Bronze Age, the Sámi occupied the area along the coast of Finnmark and the Kola Peninsula. This coincides with the arrival of the Siberian genome to Estonia and Finland, which may correspond with the introduction of the Finno-Ugric languages in the region.” ref

“Petroglyphs and archeological findings such as settlements, dating from about 10,000 BCE can be found in Lapland and Finnmark, although these have not been demonstrated to be related to the Sámi people. These hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic and early Mesolithic were named Komsa by the researchers. The Sámi have a complex relationship with the Scandinavians (known as Norse people in the medieval era), the dominant peoples of Scandinavia, who speak Scandinavian languages and who founded and thus dominated the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden in which most Sámi people live.” ref

“While the Sámi have lived in Fennoscandia for around 3,500 years, Sámi settlement of Scandinavia does not predate Norse/Scandinavian settlement of Scandinavia, as sometimes popularly assumed. The migration of Germanic-speaking peoples to Southern Scandinavia happened independently and separate from the later Sámi migrations into the northern regions. For centuries, the Sámi and the Scandinavians had relatively little contact; the Sámi primarily lived in the inland of northern Fennoscandia, while Scandinavians lived in southern Scandinavia and gradually colonized the Norwegian coast; from the 18th and especially the 19th century, the governments of Norway and Sweden started to assert sovereignty more aggressively in the north, and targeted the Sámi with Scandinavization policies aimed at forced assimilation from the 19th century.” ref

“Before the era of forced Scandinavization policies, the Norwegian and Swedish authorities had largely ignored the Sámi and did not interfere much in their way of life. While Norwegians moved north to gradually colonise the coast of modern-day Troms og Finnmark to engage in an export-driven fisheries industry prior to the 19th century, they showed little interest in the harsh and non-arable inland populated by reindeer-herding Sámi. Unlike the Norwegians on the coast who were strongly dependent on their trade with the south, the Sámi in the inland lived off the land. From the 19th century Norwegian and Swedish authorities started to regard the Sámi as a “backward” and “primitive” people in need of being “civilized”, imposing the Scandinavian languages as the only valid languages of the kingdoms and effectively banning Sámi language and culture in many contexts, particularly schools.” ref

“Indigenous Sámi religion is a type of polytheism. (See Sámi deities.) There is some diversity due to the wide area that is Sápmi, allowing for the evolution of variations in beliefs and practices between tribes. The beliefs are closely connected to the land, animism, and the supernatural. Sámi spirituality is often characterized by pantheism, a strong emphasis on the importance of personal spirituality and its interconnectivity with one’s own daily life, and a deep connection between the natural and spiritual “worlds”. Among other roles, the Noaidi, or Sámi shaman, enables ritual communication with the supernatural through the use of tools such as drums, Joik, Fadno, chants, sacred objects, and fly agaric. Some practices within the Sámi religion include natural sacred sites such as mountains, springs, land formations, Sieidi, as well as man-made ones such as petroglyphs and labyrinths.” ref

“Sámi cosmology divides the universe into three worlds. The upper world is related to the South, warmth, life, and the color white. It is also the dwelling of the gods. The middle world is like the Norse Midgard, it is the dwelling of humans and it is associated with the color red. The third world is the underworld and it is associated with the color black, it represents the north, the cold and it is inhabited by otters, loons, and seals and mythical animals. Sámi religion shares some elements with Norse mythology, possibly from early contacts with trading Vikings (or vice versa).” ref

“They were the last worshippers of Thor, as late as the 18th century according to contemporary ethnographers. Through a mainly French initiative from Joseph Paul Gaimard as part of his La Recherche Expedition, Lars Levi Læstadius began research on Sámi mythology. His work resulted in Fragments of Lappish Mythology, since by his own admission, they contained only a small percentage of what had existed. The fragments were termed Theory of Gods, Theory of Sacrifice, Theory of Prophecy, or short reports about rumorous Sami magic and Sami sagas. Generally, he claims to have filtered out the Norse influence and derived common elements between the South, North, and Eastern Sámi groups.^{[citation needed]} The mythology has common elements with other indigenous religions as well—such as those of indigenous peoples in Siberia and North America.” ref

“Anthropologists have been studying the Sámi people for hundreds of years for their assumed physical and cultural differences from the rest of the Europeans. Recent genetic studies have indicated that the two most frequent maternal lineages of the Sámi people are the haplogroups V (Neolithic in Europe and not found in Finland 1500 years ago) and U5b (ancient in Europe). Y-chromosome haplogroup N-VL29 makes up 20%, came from Siberia 3500 years ago. Y-chromosome N-Z1936 makes up similarly about 20%, and likely came from Siberia with the Sámi language, but slightly later than N-VL29. This tallies with archeological evidence suggesting that several different cultural groups made their way to the core area of Sámi from 8000 to 6000 BCE, presumably including some of the ancestors of present-day Sámi. The Sámi have been found to be genetically unrelated to people of the Pitted Ware culture. The Pitted Ware culture are in turn genetically continuous with the original Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers.” ref

Uralic languages

“The Uralic languages (/jʊəˈrælɪk/; sometimes called Uralian languages /jʊəˈreɪliən/) form a language family of 38 languages spoken natively by approximately 25 million people, predominantly in Europe (over 99% of the family’s speakers) and northern Asia (less than 1%). The Uralic languages with the most native speakers are Hungarian (which alone accounts for nearly 60% of speakers), Finnish, and Estonian. Other significant languages with fewer speakers are Erzya, Moksha, Mari, Udmurt, Sami, Komi, and Karelian, all of which are spoken in northern regions of Scandinavia and the Russian Federation. The name “Uralic” derives from the family’s purported “original homeland” (Urheimat) hypothesized to have been somewhere in the vicinity of the Ural Mountains. Finno-Ugric is sometimes used as a synonym for Uralic, though Finno-Ugric is widely understood to exclude the Samoyedic languages. Scholars who do not accept the traditional notion that Samoyedic split first from the rest of the Uralic family may treat the terms as synonymous.” ref

“Proposed homelands of the Proto-Uralic language include:

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

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

Seima-Turbino phenomenon

“The Seima-Turbino phenomenon is a pattern of burial sites with similar bronze artifacts dated to c. 2300–1700 BCE (2017 dated from 2100–1900 BCE, 2007 dated to 1650 bce onwards) found across northern Eurasia, particularly Siberia and Central Asia, maybe from Fennoscandia to Mongolia, Northeast China, Russian Far East, Korea, and Japan. The homeland is considered to be the Altai Mountains. These findings have suggested a common point of cultural origin, possession of advanced metal working technology, and unexplained rapid migration. The buried were nomadic warriors and metal-workers, traveling on horseback or two-wheeled carts.” ref

“Seima-Turbino (ST) weapons contain tin bronze ore originating from the Altai Mountains region (central Mongolia and southern Siberia), with further ST discoveries pointing more specifically to the southeastern portions of the Altai and Xinjiang. These sites have been identified with the origin of the mysterious ST culture. The bronzes found were technologically advanced for the time, including lost wax casting, and showed high degree of artist input in their design. Horses were the most common shapes for the hilts of blades. Weapons such as spearheads with hooks, single-bladed knives and socketed axes with geometric designs traveled west and east from Xinjiang.” ref

“The culture spread from the Altai mountains to the west and to the east. These cultures are noted for being nomadic forest and steppe societies with metal working, sometimes without having first developed agricultural methods. The development of this metalworking ability appears to have occurred quite quickly. ST bronzes have been discovered as far west as the Baltic Sea and the Borodino treasure in Moldavia.” ref

“It has been conjectured that changes in climate in this region around 2000 bce and the ensuing ecological, economic and political changes triggered a rapid and massive migration westward into northeast Europe, eastward into Korea, and southward into Southeast Asia (Vietnam and Thailand) across a frontier of some 4,000 miles. Supposedly this migration took place in just five to six generations and enabled people from Finland in the west to Thailand in the east to employ the same metalworking technology and in some areas, horse breeding and riding.” ref

“However, further excavations and research in Ban Chiang and Ban Non Wat (both Thailand) argue the idea that Seima-Turbino brought metal workings into southeast Asia is based on inaccurate and unreliable radiocarbon dating at the site of Ban Chiang. It is now agreed by virtually every specialist in Southeast Asian prehistory that the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia occurred too late to be related to ST, and the cast bronzes are quite different. The same authors conjectured that the same migrations spread the Uralic languages across Europe and Asia.” ref

“The existence of Uralic Samoyedic and Ob-Ugrian groups like the Nenets, Mansi and Khanty, anchor the Uralic languages in Asia. Notable is the similarity between the range of haplogroup N3a3’6, especially in the western part of Eurasia, and the distribution of the Seima-Turbino trans-cultural phenomenon during the interval of 4,200–3,700 years ago. Carriers of N3a1-B211, the early branch of N3a, could have migrated to the eastern fringes of Europe by the same Seima-Turbino groups. However, earlier migrations cannot be ruled out either; a study of ancient DNA revealed a 7,500 year-old influx from Siberia to northeast Europe.” ref

“Another subclade of Y haplogroup N, N1a2b-P43 (TMRCA 4,700 years ago 95% CI 3,800 ⟷ 5,600 years ago), reaches some of its highest frequencies among the Uralic-speaking Nenets, Nganasan, Khanty, and Mansi peoples in western Siberia. Haplogroup N1a2b-P43 is also often observed among the members of many Uralic- or Turkic-speaking ethnic minorities of European Russia, but it is very rare among the Baltic Finnic and Samic peoples of Northern Europe. Estimated to be approximately 4,700 years old, N1b spread north and westwards from its original locus in Southern Siberia, exactly as Seima-Turbino migration did.” 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

Andronovo culture

“The Andronovo culture is a collection of similar local Late Bronze Age cultures that flourished c. 2000–1150 BCE, spanning from the southern Urals to the upper Yenisei River in central Siberia. Some researchers have preferred to term it an archaeological complex or archaeological horizon. The slightly older Sintashta culture (c. 2200–1900 BCE), formerly included within the Andronovo culture, is now considered separately to Early Andronovo cultures. New research shows Andronovo culture’s first stage could have begun at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, with cattle grazing, as natural fodder was by no means difficult to find in the pastures close to dwellings. Most researchers associate the Andronovo horizon with early Indo-Iranian languages, though it may have overlapped the early Uralic-speaking area at its northern fringe. Allentoft et al. (2015) concluded from their genetic studies that the Andronovo culture and the preceding Sintashta culture should be partially derived from the Corded Ware culture, given the higher proportion of ancestry matching the earlier farmers of Europe, similar to the admixture found in the genomes of the Corded Ware population.” ref

“The geographical extent of the culture is vast and difficult to delineate exactly. On its western fringes, it overlaps with the approximately contemporaneous, but distinct, Srubna culture in the Volga–Ural interfluvial. To the east, it reaches into the Minusinsk depression, with some sites as far west as the southern Ural Mountains, overlapping with the area of the earlier Afanasevo culture. Additional sites are scattered as far south as the Koppet Dag (Turkmenistan), the Pamir (Tajikistan) and the Tian Shan (Kyrgyzstan). The northern boundary vaguely corresponds to the beginning of the Taiga. More recently, evidence for the presence of the culture in Xinjiang in far-western China has also been found, mainly concentrated in the area comprising Tashkurgan, Ili, Bortala, and Tacheng area. In the Volga basin, interaction with the Srubna culture was the most intense and prolonged, and Federovo style pottery is found as far west as Volgograd. Mallory notes that the Tazabagyab culture south of Andronovo could be an offshoot of the former (or Srubna), alternatively the result of an amalgamation of steppe cultures and the Central Asian oasis cultures (Bishkent culture and Vakhsh culture).” ref

“In the initial Sintashta-Petrovka phase, the Andronovo culture is limited to the northern and western steppes in the southern Urals-Kazakhstan. Since then, at the 2nd millennium, in the Alakul Phase (2000–1700 BCE), the Fedorovo Phase (1850–1450 BCE), and the final Alekseyevka Phase (1400–1000 BCE), the Andronovo cultures move intensively eastwards, expanding as far east as the Upper Yenisei River, succeeding the non-Indo-European Okunev culture. In southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, the Andronovo culture was succeeded by the Karasuk culture (1500–800 BCE). On its western border, it is roughly contemporaneous with the Srubna culture, which partly derives from the Abashevo culture. The earliest historical peoples associated with the area are the Cimmerians and Saka/Scythians, appearing in Assyrian records after the decline of the Alekseyevka culture, migrating into Ukraine from ca. the 9th century BCE (see also Ukrainian stone stela), and across the Caucasus into Anatolia and Assyria in the late 8th century BCE, and possibly also west into Europe as the Thracians (see Thraco-Cimmerian), and the Sigynnae, located by Herodotus beyond the Danube, north of the Thracians, and by Strabo near the Caspian Sea. Both Herodotus and Strabo identify them as Iranian.” ref

“One of the characteristics of Andronovo culture is its pottery, especially in campsites located in Central Asia, some of them very close to settlements of Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex in the south. This pottery is called Incised Coarse Ware (ICW), which is handmade and grey to brown in color, as well as incised with geometrical decoration, spread over much of Eurasian region, from Southern Urals to Kashgar, a pottery made by late Bronze Age nomads. The Andronovo culture is notable for regional advances in metallurgy. They mined deposits of copper ore in the Altai Mountains from around the 14th century BCE. Bronze objects were numerous, and workshops existed for working copper.” ref

“It is likely that the militarized elite, whose power was based on the physical control of fellow tribesmen and neighbors with the help of riding and fighting skills, was buried in the Novoilinovsky-2 burial ground. The rider has a significant advantage over the infantryman. There may be another explanation: These elites fulfilled the function of mediating conflicts within the collective, and therefore had power and high social status. Metaphorically, this kind of elite can be called Sheriffs of the Bronze Age” said Igor Chechushkov. The Andronovo dead were buried in timber or stone chambers under both round and rectangular kurgans (tumuli). Burials were accompanied by livestock, wheeled vehicles, cheek-pieces for horses, and weapons, ceramics and ornaments. Among the most notable remains are the burials of chariots, dating from around 2000 BC and possibly earlier. The chariots are found with paired horse-teams, and the ritual burial of the horse in a “head and hooves” cult has also been found. Some Andronovo dead were buried in pairs, of adults or adult and child.” ref

“It is almost universally agreed among scholars that the Andronovo culture was Indo-Iranian. It is credited with the invention of the spoke-wheeled chariot around 2000 BCE, if we include the Sintashta culture where the oldest known chariots have been found. The association between the Andronovo culture and the Indo-Iranians is corroborated by the distribution of Iranian place-names across the Andronovo horizon and by the historical evidence of dominance by various Iranian peoples, including Saka (Scythians), Sarmatians, and Alans, throughout the Andronovo horizon during the 1st millennium BCE. Sintashta on the upper Ural River, noted for its chariot burials and kurgans containing horse burials, is considered the type site of the Sintashta culture, forming one of the earliest parts of the “Andronovo horizon”. It is conjectured that the language spoken was still in the Proto-Indo-Iranian stage.” ref

“Comparisons between the archaeological evidence of the Andronovo and textual evidence of Indo-Iranians (i. e. the Vedas and the Avesta) are frequently made to support the Indo-Iranian identity of the Andronovo. The modern explanations for the Indo-Iranianization of Greater Iran and the Indian subcontinent rely heavily on the supposition that the Andronovo expanded southwards into Central Asia or at least achieved linguistic dominance across the Bronze Age urban centers of the region, such as the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex. While the earliest phases of the Andronovo culture are regarded as co-ordinate with the late period of Indo-Iranian linguistic unity, it is likely that in the later period, they constituted a branch of the Iranians. According to Narasimhan et al. (2019), the expansion of the Andronovo culture towards the BMAC took place via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.” ref

“Eugene Helimski has suggested that the Andronovo people spoke a separate branch of the Indo-Iranian group of languages. He claims that borrowings in the Finno-Ugric languages support this view. Vladimir Napolskikh has proposed that borrowings in Finno-Ugric indicate that the language was specifically of the Indo-Aryan type. Since older forms of Indo-Iranian words have been taken over in Uralic and Proto-Yeniseian, occupation by some other languages (also lost ones) cannot be ruled out altogether, at least for part of the Andronovo area, i. e., Uralic and Yeniseian. In studies from the mid-2000s, the Andronovo have been described by archaeologists as having cranial features similar to ancient and modern European populations. Andronovo skulls are similar to those of the Srubnaya culture and Sintashta culture, exhibiting features such as dolicocephaly. Through Iranian and Indo-Aryan migrations, this physical type expanded southwards and mixed with aboriginal peoples, contributing to the formation of modern populations of India.” ref

“Fox et al. (2004) established that, during the Bronze and Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age) was of West Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.” ref

“Keyser et al. (2009) published a study of the ancient Siberian cultures, the Andronovo culture, the Karasuk culture, the Tagar culture, and the Tashtyk culture. Ten individuals of the Andronovo horizon in southern Siberia from 1800 BC to 1400 BC were surveyed. Extractions of mtDNA from nine individuals were determined to represent two samples of haplogroup U4 and single samples of Z1, T1, U2e, T4, H, K2b, and U5a1. Extractions of Y-DNA from one individual was determined to belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C (but not C3), while the other two extractions were determined to belong to haplogroup R1a1a, which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Of the individuals surveyed, only two (or 22%) were determined to be of Asian ancestry, while seven (or 78%) were determined to be of European ancestry, with the majority being light-skinned with predominantly light eyes and light hair.” ref

^{“In a June 2015 study published in Nature, one male and three female individuals of Andronovo culture were surveyed. Extraction of Y-DNA from the male was determined to belong to R1a1a1b. Extractions of mtDNA were determined to represent two samples of U4 and two samples of U2e. The people of the Andronovo culture were found to be closely genetically related to the preceding Sintashta culture, which was in turn closely genetically related to the Corded Ware culture, suggesting that the Sintashta culture represented an eastward expansion of Corded Ware peoples. The Corded Ware peoples were in turn found to be closely genetically related to the Beaker culture, the Unetice culture and particularly the peoples of the Nordic Bronze Age. Numerous cultural similarities between the Sintashta/Andronovo culture, the Nordic Bronze Age and the peoples of the Rigveda have been detected.} A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined the remains of an Andronovo female buried c. 1200 BCE. She was found to be a carrier of the maternal haplogroup U2e1h.” ref

“In a genetic study published in Science in September 2019, a large number of remains from the Andronovo horizon was examined. The vast majority of Y-DNA extracted belonged to R1a1a1b or various subclades of it (particularly R1a1a1b2a2a). The majority of mtDNA samples extracted belonged to U, although other haplogroups also occurred. The people of the Andronovo culture were found to be closely genetically related to the people of the Corded Ware culture, the Potapovka culture, the Sintashta culture and Srubnaya culture. These were found to harbor mixed ancestry from the Yamnaya culture and peoples of the Central European Middle Neolithic. People in the northwestern areas of Andronovo were found to be “genetically largely homogeneous” and “genetically almost indistinguishable” from Sintashta people. The genetic data suggested that the Andronovo culture and its Sintastha predecessor were ultimately derived of a remigration of Central European peoples with steppe ancestry back into the steppe. This is in particular defined by the majority (n=12) of R-Z93 SNPs.” ref

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.

My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion: from Animism to Paganism

Haplogroup N (mtDNA)

“Haplogroup N is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) clade. A macrohaplogroup, its descendant lineages are distributed across many continents. Like its sibling macrohaplogroup M, macrohaplogroup N is a descendant of the haplogroup L3. All mtDNA haplogroups found outside of Africa are descendants of either haplogroup N or its sibling haplogroup M. M and N are the signature maternal haplogroups that define the theory of the recent African origin of modern humans and subsequent early human migrations around the world. The global distribution of haplogroups N and M indicates that there was likely at least one major prehistoric migration of humans out of Africa, with both N and M later evolving outside the continent.” ref

“There is widespread agreement in the scientific community concerning the African ancestry of haplogroup L3 (haplogroup N’s parent clade). However, whether or not the mutations which define haplogroup N itself first occurred within Asia or Africa has been a subject for ongoing discussion and study. The out-of-Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. However, the mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated “relict” populations in southeast Asia and among Indigenous Australians supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa. Southeast Asian populations and Indigenous Australians all possess deep-rooted clades of both haplogroups M and N. The distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania therefore supports a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa. These findings also highlight the importance of Indian subcontinent in the early genetic history of human settlement and expansion.” ref

“According to Toomas Kivisild “the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the Horn of Africa. Haplogroup N’s derived clades include the macro-haplogroup R and its descendants, and haplogroups A, I, S, W, X, and Y. Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria. Haplogroup N1 – found in Africa. Haplogroup N1a – Arabian Peninsula, Northeast Africa, Central Asia, and Southern Siberia. This branch is well attested in ancient people from various cultures of Neolithic Europe, from Hungary to Spain, and among the earliest farmers of Anatolia. Haplogroup N1b – found in Middle East, Egypt (Gurna), Caucasus and Europe.” ref

Haplogroup N (mtDNA) Asian origin hypothesis 

“A study (Vai et al. 2019), finds a basal branch of maternal haplogroup N in early Neolithic North African remains from the Libyan site of Takarkori. The authors propose that N most likely split from L3 in the Arabian peninsula and later migrated back to North Africa, with its sister haplogroup M also likely splitting from L3 in the Middle East, but also suggest that N may have possibly diverged in North Africa, and state that more information is necessary to be certain.” ref

“The hypothesis of Asia as the place of origin of haplogroup N is supported by the following:

1. Haplogroup N is found in all parts of the world but has low frequencies in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to a number of studies, the presence of Haplogroup N in Africa is most likely the result of back migration from Eurasia.
2. The oldest clades of macrohaplogroup N are found in Asia and Australia.
3. It would be paradoxical that haplogroup N had traveled all the distance to Australia or New World yet failed to affect other populations within Africa besides North Africans and Horn Africans.
4. The mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated “relict” populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa. The distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania provides additional evidence for a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa. These findings also highlight the importance of Indian subcontinent in the early genetic history of human settlement and expansion. Therefore, N’s history is similar to M and R which have their most probable origin in South Asia.” 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

This is my thoughts/speculations on the origins of Totemism

Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture

• Pre-Aurignacian “Châtelperronian” (Western Europe, mainly Spain and France, possible transitional/cultural diffusion between Neanderthals and humans around 50,000-40,000 years ago)
• Archaic–Aurignacian/Proto-Aurignacian (Europe around 46,000-35,000) 
• Aurignacian “classical/early to late” (Europe and other areas around 38,000 – 26,000 years ago)

“In the realm of culture, the archeological evidence also supports a Neandertal contribution to Europe’s earliest modern human societies, which feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are characteristic of such Neandertal-associated archeological entities as the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian.” – (PDF) Neandertals and Moderns Mixed, and It Matters: Link

Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture

ref

Shamanistic and Animistic Cultures map by “The Shamanism Magazine” (http://SacredHoop.org)

https://sacredhoop.org/Free-Guide-To-Shamanism/Sacred-Hoop-Free-Guide-To-Shamanism.pdf

https://vebuka.com/print/171116090613-9bd8504b25af4f7e2fe52d3cfe620241/quotSACRED_HOOPquot_GUIDE_TO_SHAMANISM

ref

“The Paleolithic dog was a Late Pleistocene canine. They were directly associated with human hunting camps in Europe over 30,000 years ago and it is proposed that these were domesticated. They are further proposed to be either a proto-dog and the ancestor of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population. There are a number of recently discovered specimens which are proposed as being Paleolithic dogs, however, their taxonomy is debated. These have been found in either Europe or Siberia and date 40,000–17,000 years ago. They include Hohle Fels in Germany, Goyet Caves in Belgium, Predmosti in the Czech Republic, and four sites in Russia: Razboinichya Cave in the Altai Republic, Kostyonki-8, Ulakhan Sular in the Sakha Republic, and Eliseevichi 1 on the Russian plain.” ref

1. 40,000–35,500 years ago Hohle Fels, Schelklingen, Germany
2. 36,500 years ago Goyet Caves, Samson River Valley, Belgium
3. 33,500 years ago Razboinichya Cave,  Altai Mountains, (Russia/Siberia)
4. 33,500–26,500 years ago Kostyonki-Borshchyovo archaeological complex, (Kostenki site) Voronezh, Russia
5. 31,000 years ago Predmostí, Moravia, Czech Republic
6. 26,000 years ago Chauvet Cave, Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche region, France
7. 17,300–14,100 years ago Dyuktai Cave, northern Yakutia, Siberia
8. 17,000–16,000 years ago Eliseevichi-I site, Bryansk Region, Russian Plain, Russia
9. 16,900 years ago Afontova Gora-1, Yenisei River, southern Siberia
10. 14,223 years ago Bonn–Oberkassel, Germany
11. 13,500 years ago Mezine, Chernigov region, Ukraine
12. 13,000 years ago Palegawra, (Zarzian culture) Iraq
13. 12,800 years ago Ushki I, Kamchatka, eastern Siberia
14. 12,790 years ago Nanzhuangtou, China
15. 12,300 years ago Ust’-Khaita site, Baikal region, Siberia
16. 12,000 years ago Ain Mallaha (Eynan) and HaYonim terrace, Israel
17. 10,150 years ago Lawyer’s Cave, Alaska, USA
18. 9,000 years ago Jiahu site, China
19. 8,000 years ago Svaerdborg site, Denmark
20. 7,425 years ago Lake Baikal region, Siberia
21. 7,000 years ago Tianluoshan archaeological site, Zhejiang province, China ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Based on the seeming evidence, I speculate that around 14,000 years ago, it could be possible Siberian Shamanism (along with dogs and a bird carving, different but yet possibly related to the bird carvings in Siberia dating from 24,000 to 15,000 years ago) was transferred to China, after “N” DNA reached Siberia bringing them pottery. Bird sculptures through ethnographic comparison at 24,000–15,000 years old Mal’ta with objects used by Siberian shamans, suggest a fully developed shamanism.

Ritual, Religion, Elites, Language, and Civilization relating to Neolithic and Ancient China

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

34,000 years old Paleolithic dog or wolf dog hybrid skulls found in Razboinichya Cave, Siberia

Dog Domestication, Shamanism, and Emerging “Sacred Companion” Mortuary Rituals between 33,000 to 12,000 years ago?

The Mytheme of Ancient North Eurasian Sacred-Dog belief and similar motifs are found in Indo-European, Native American, and Siberian comparative mythology

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

ref, ref, ref, ref 

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.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref