Gemini (constellation)

Gemini is one of the constellations of the zodiac and is located in the northern celestial hemisphere. It was one of the 48 constellations described by the 2nd century CE astronomer Ptolemy, and it remains one of the 88 modern constellations today. Its name is Latin for twins, and it is associated with the twins Castor and Pollux in Greek mythology. Its old astronomical symbol is  (♊︎). Gemini lies between Taurus to the west and Cancer to the east, with Auriga and Lynx to the north, Monoceros and Canis Minor to the south, and Orion to the south-west.” ref

“In classical antiquity, Cancer was the location of the Sun on the northern solstice (June 21). During the first century CE, axial precession shifted it into Gemini. In 1990, the location of the Sun at the northern solstice moved from Gemini into Taurus, where it will remain until the 27th century CE and then move into Aries. The Sun will move through Gemini, next, from June 21 to July 20 through 2062.” ref

“Gemini is prominent in the winter skies of the northern Hemisphere and is visible the entire night in December–January. The easiest way to locate the constellation is to find its two brightest stars Castor and Pollux eastward from the familiar V-shaped asterism (the open cluster Hyades) of Taurus and the three stars of Orion’s Belt (Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka). Another way is to mentally draw a line from the Pleiades star cluster located in Taurus and the brightest star in Leo, Regulus. In doing so, an imaginary line that is relatively close to the ecliptic is drawn, a line which intersects Gemini roughly at the midpoint of the constellation, just below Castor and Pollux. When the Moon moves through Gemini, its motion can easily be observed in a single night as it appears first west of Castor and Pollux, then aligns, and finally appears east of them.” ref

“In Babylonian astronomy, the stars Castor and Pollux were known as the Great Twins. The Twins were regarded as minor gods and were called Meshlamtaea and Lugalirra, meaning respectively ‘The One who has arisen from the Underworld’ and the ‘Mighty King’. Both names can be understood as titles of Nergal, the major Babylonian god of plague and pestilence, who was king of the Underworld.” ref

“In Greek mythology, Gemini was associated with the myth of Castor and Pollux, the children of Leda and Argonauts both. Pollux was the son of Zeus, who seduced Leda, while Castor was the son of Tyndareus, king of Sparta and Leda’s husband. Castor and Pollux were also mythologically associated with St. Elmo’s fire in their role as the protectors of sailors. When Castor died, because he was mortal, Pollux begged his father Zeus to give Castor immortality, and he did, by uniting them together in the heavens.” ref

“Gemini is dominated by Castor and Pollux, two bright stars that appear relatively very closely together forming an o shape, encouraging the mythological link between the constellation and twinship. The twin above and to the right (as seen from the Northern Hemisphere) is Castor, whose brightest star is α Gem; it is a second-magnitude star and represents Castor’s head. The twin below and to the left is Pollux, whose brightest star is β Gem (more commonly called Pollux); it is of the first magnitude and represents Pollux’s head. Furthermore, the other stars can be visualized as two parallel lines descending from the two main stars, making it look like two figures. H. A. Rey has suggested an alternative to the traditional visualization that connected the stars of Gemini to show twins holding hands.” ref

“In Chinese astronomy, the stars that correspond to Gemini are located in two areas: the White Tiger of the West (西方白虎, Xī Fāng Bái Hǔ) and the Vermillion Bird of the South (南方朱雀, Nán Fāng Zhū Què). In some cultures, the twin in Gemini refers to ‘the unborn twin’ and represents a spiritual or dual self that exists within. The modern constellation Gemini lies across two of the quadrants, symbolized by the White Tiger of the West (西方白虎, Xī Fāng Bái Hǔ) and the Vermilion Bird of the South (南方朱雀, Nán Fāng Zhū Què), that divide the sky in traditional Chinese uranography. The name of the western constellation in modern Chinese is 雙子座 (shuāng zǐ zuò), meaning “the twin constellation.” ref, ref

The Divine Twins

Gemini, the sign of The Divine Twins. We can find the concept of The Divine Twins around the world. It is a powerful concept that, like its astrological equivalent, Gemini, takes on many forms. The Twins are depicted as two beings. Men, women. A man and woman. Two figures with multiple genders, or are beyond gender. Moreover, they are often interchangeable, with interchangeable genders, roles, and powers. I cannot say with any certainty which of these concepts was “first,” but it doesn’t matter, as they all illuminate facets in each other.” ref

Nearly all ancient civilizations recognized biologically occurring twins as holy, unique, blessed, or cursed.

“Whether identical, fraternal or conjoined, the birth of a set of twins was a significant occasion. There are many superstitions around twins. Many groups see twins as “astral” in nature, coming from or affiliated with “the stars.” However, as Holy archetypes go, the Twins are almost always closer in their behavior and habits to humanity than many many other deities.” ref

“There are some nearly universal consistencies among the holy Twins we see in various myths and religions around the planet. Duality and multiplicity are at the heart of much of our Twin symbolism. Further, almost all Twins represent polarities, and two sides of the same coin; light/dark, good/evil, mortal/divine, male/female, etc.” ref

Another symbol connected to Gemini and the Divine Twins is the horse.

“Even the Pegasus and the Unicorn connect to the Twins. The famous Greek twins that the constellation Gemini depicts, Castor and Pollux, were known far and wide for their horsemanship. Other twins have mothers or fathers associated with horses. Epona, for example, is a Gaulish/Celtic Horse Goddess who ran a race against horses and won. She then died on the finish line as She gave birth to twins. The good folks of Mackinac Island in Michigan still worship Her every year in late Spring. The island allows no cars. Horses are still the main form of transportation.” ref

Many Divine Twins have split parentage.

“Many myths feature one mother and two fathers. Or, the twins are born in two different ways, with one born naturally and one coming from an egg or some other unusual source. This split parentage speaks directly to the duality nature of these archetypes. Even from their genesis they are the same but different. Often their Holy parent is a Sky-Related Deity, like storm, air, lightning, wind, thunder, and in particularly Sun Deities. Many Twins are the natural siblings and dual protectors of Solar Maidens in particular.” ref

The Mayan Hero Twins

The Mayan Hero Twins are named Hunahpu (One-Blowgunner) and Xbalanque (Jaguar-Sun, Jaguar-Deer, or Hidden-Sun). These Twins are a great example of twins that include many symbols of this archetype. They represent complimentary forces – life/death, sky/earth, day/night, sun/moon, male/female. Also, the twins experienced a harsh pregnancy and upbringing. They often use cleverness or trickery to solve their problems.” ref

“The twins are bird hunters and known for their hypnotic dances. While fighting the God Seven Macaw (Vucub Caquix), Hunahpu loses an arm (Gemini rules arms). At one point in their myth, they challenge the Gods to a game to retrieve the head and body of their father. All in all, the Gods pull many tricks on them, including attempting to kill the twins. The Gods succeed, but the twins are brought back to life in a river. At another point in the myth, one twin loses his head but continues to play ball. Ultimately, the twins win; they retrieve their father’s body and kill the Gods.” ref

Yoruba Divine Twins

“In Yoruba land pantheons, the Orishas Ibeji are the Holy Twins. In the diaspora Yoruba of Latin America, these twins are equal to same as Saints Cosmas and Saint Damian. Yoruba land peoples believe twins are magical. And the great ancestor God-Father Shango, who oversees thunder, lightning, justice, dance, and virility guards them. In these communities, if one twin dies, it is a bad omen, not only for the family but for the community as well. The family will ask a Babalawo (an Ifa Priest) to carve a wooden replacement for the lost twin. The family then dresses it and cares for it as a member of the family. In their myth, the 1st twin is Taiwo, 2nd is Kehinde (Omokehinde), the elder. The 2nd twin is the older twin. Taiwo goes first to make sure the world is fit for Kehinde.” ref

“For the Dahomey people, this was Lisa and Mawu, the twin/lovers who birthed the universe together over four days as the androgynous figure Mawu-Lisa. And the Dogon Tribe sees them as the Nummo Twins, who are both androgynous and hermaphroditic. Both figures express any, all and no genders, in turn. The Nummo Twins are Shapeshifters and connected to the Serpent. They are usually depicted as Conjoined twins and are described as the Mothers of the Earth.” ref

“In Haitian Vodoun, these twins are Marassa Jumeaux. They are polygendered children, but more ancient than any Loa. They represent and govern issues concerning astronomical and astrological learning, divine power vs. human impotence, justice, truth, reason, and mystery.” ref

The European world also has its Divine Twins 

  • “The Latvian Dieva dēli, who were the sons of God
  • Sicilian Palici; one legend claims the Palici are the sons of Zeus, or possibly Hephaestus, but another story insists the Palici were the sons of the Sicilian deity Adrianus.Ancients associated them with geysers and the underworld.
  • Germanic Gods Alcis, a pair of young male brothers worshiped by the Naharvali.
  • Italian Wolf-Gods Romulus and Remus, whose story tells the events that led to the founding of Rome.
  • Anglo-Saxon warrior brothers Hengist and Horsa, who’s names mean “Stallion” and “Horse” respectively.
    From Wikipedia: “On farmhouses in Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, horse-head gables were referred to as “Hengst und Hors” as late as around 1875. 
    Rudolf Simeknotes that these horse-head gables can still be seen today, and says that the horse-head gables confirm that Hengist and Horsa were originally considered mythological, horse-shaped beings. Martin Litchfield West comments that the horse heads may have been remnants of pagan religious practices in the area.”
  • Norse Freyr and Freyjawere the twin son and daughter of the Sea God, Njord. Both were deities of fertility.
  • Slavic Lada and Lado, female and male personifications of beauty and fertility who were seen as twins, and as mother and son.
  • Welsh Lleu Llaw Gyffes and Dylan ail Don, twin brothers who are born when Arianrhod is tested for virginity. Dylan takes on the nature of a sea creature when he comes into contact with water, while Lleu is related to the pan-Celtic plural hero god Lugus. In the related Irish story of the birth of Lugh Lámfada, one version indicates that Lugh was a surviving triplet, whose twin brothers were drowned. Some interpreters of the legend view Dylan as representing darkness and Llew connected to light.” ref

The Solar connection is essential and oft repeated.

“Many, many religions and myth cycles have an image of The Sun being pulled across the sky by a chariot drawn by two horses. Often the horses are twins or exact opposites from each other. For example, the Chariot card from Tarot depicts this image nicely. Interestingly, the Chariot card connects to Cancer, the sign directly after Gemini.” ref

“In particular, The Twins have some specific roles they play in nearly every myth around the world: 

-Protectors at Sea

-Battle Protectors

-Protecting Oaths and Contracts

-Magical Healers

-Fertility

-Assisting at Birth

-Dances and Dancing

-Founding Cities

Ultimately, in true Gemini style, The Divine Twins stand for multifold experiences.” ref

“The Divine Twins represent the duality and multiplicity we experience as we shed old forms of ourselves. We are that person, but they are dying. We are the new person, but they’re not quite here yet. And we are the beings in between, shapeshifting and shedding skins.” ref

“They express the camaraderie we feel when we find our “twin” in a stranger, who suddenly becomes a best friend, a best Judy, a “sister from another mister” or “a brother from another mother.” Maybe we actually look alike, but often what we mean by this phrase is that this person feels that close to us, like someone who knows us better than we know ourselves, knows us from the inside out, and thinks about and sees the world just like us.” ref

“You share clothes, you share lovers, you share passwords. These are our “ride or die bitches,” and we often get into some of our craziest capers with them. We might feel like we would sacrifice a lot for them. We might even face (or tempt) death with them. They see our struggles, they see where we screw up, they see our messy, and they are here for all of it.” ref

The Divine Twins are also two people after union. They became a single being, and now have parted again, but with an intimate knowledge of each other.

“There is the experience of seeing ourselves in other people, and there is also the experience of seeing other people in ourselves. The Divine Twins represent the duality and multiplicity we experience as we shed old forms of self and reveal new ones during personal growth work like self-care, cord-cutting, and other profoundly altering ritual forms. There is our current self, but they are changing. Also, we’re the new person forming, but they’re not quite here yet. And we are the beings in between, shapeshifting and shedding skins.” ref

The Divine Twins also represent a profoundly holy concept. As above, so below.

“One twin divine, one twin mortal. These are the polarities of ourselves. Our mundane, extremely faulty mortal self is, in fact, the twin of our divine self, our soul, the Holy Guardian Angel, the Ka, etc. These are the same, but different, but the same. And, as it is expressed in spiritual practices stretching back through time, if you affect the spiritual body the mortal body will feel it, but also that the inverse is true. If you affect the mortal body, the spiritual twin will react.” ref

“And in the rhythmic pulse of infinite phases experienced while moving between these two extremes – mortal and holy – we discover our lives. Who we are. What we are. How we deal with and integrate the blessings and hardships introduced by our spiritual battles and our mortal experiences. The Sun, balanced between to spinning wheels. Along with the Chariot card, we can work with The Lovers card, as it is ruled by Gemini, and is a fantastic magical image for all these ideas.” ref

“This is the deep magical teaching of working with the Divine Twins as we leave Spring and Beltane season and head into Summer. Finally, we are getting some feedback on our full immersion of the real world. Being born unto the Earth plane, we are married to the consequences of our actions. We are married to reality. And now we are meeting our real world self, and learning to love them.” ref

“Most of the old Pagan religions in Europe were part of an original source: Proto-Indo-European religion. We can discover how the primordial religion looked like by comparing myths of different cultures and ethnic groups. Through this method, scholars have been able to reconstruct the entire pantheon of the primeval gods and goddesses.” ref

“One of the central figures in the Indo-European pantheon is the Sky Father. He is also known by his reconstructed Proto-Indo-European term, *Dyeus. The patriarch of the gods has an intricate web of family relatives — as it is well evinced, for example, through both Vedic and Greek mythologies. Among these relatives, the sons of *Dyeus are probably the most relevant ones. They are the divine Twins.” ref

“There is an unusual academic consensus around the ancient Indo-European origins of the divine Twins. It is considered one of the few original myths within the primordial Proto-Indo-European pantheon. We can find the same divine Twin figures in Greek, Vedic, Roman and Baltic mythology. They are the original “Sons of God.” ref

Creation Myth of Twins

“Key figures in Dogon religion are the twins Nummo and Nommo, primal spirits of Dogon ancestors, sometimes seen as deities. These are hermaphroditic water creatures, seen similarly to water deities (to-vodun) in West African vodun; they can be depicted with a human body and a fish tail. Nommo is supposed to be the first living creature created by the supreme god Amma. Shortly after his creation, Nommo spawned into four pairs of twins, with one pair defying the order established by creator Amma. To restore order, the god Amma sacrificed another creature, whose body he cut up and scattered throughout creation. A shrine for the god Amma was to be built at each place where a fragment of the body landed.” ref

“The cult of the god Amma – like the entire Dogon religion – is closely tied to the Bandiagara cliff where the Dogon live. The cult of the god Amma is geographically defined by this cliff, it is not practiced elsewhere. The Bandiagara cliff is a sandstone terrain fault approximately 150 km long, reaching a height of up to 500 m in some places. The Dogon inhabit mud villages built on the upper edge of the cliff, villages directly attached to the cliff at its lower edge, but also at various heights in the wall, also villages scattered under the cliff, and a labyrinth of caves right in the cliff. The architecture of the villages and the religiously motivated urban arrangement of mud houses centered on the hogon priestly building is unique in the context of the whole of Africa. The Dogon language forms an independent branch of the Niger-Congo language family and is not closely related to any other language.” ref

“Legend says that a long time ago in China there were immortal twins, one who brought harmony and the other, union. So artists made figurines showing the twin brothers, called ”He-He. ” They often were pictured and given to brides, because it was thought they brought a happy marriage.” ref

He-He Er Xian, translated as the Immortals of Harmony and Union and as the Two gods of Harmony and Union, are two Taoist immortals. They are popularly associated with happy marriages. He and He are typically depicted as boys holding a lotus flower () and a box (). There are a number of legendary tales behind two celestial beings of He and Ho, among them there is one regarding the two monks living a secluded life in Tiantai Mountain in the Tang dynasty by the name of Hanshan and Shide and no one know about their subsequent whereabouts. The story is based on Poems of Hanshan and Shide composed by Lv Qiuyin. They were officially canonized as the God of Harmony and the God of Good Union in the first year of Yongzheng rule in the Qing dynasty. They are widely regarded as gods who bless love between husband and wife.” ref

“The Divine Twins are youthful horsemen, either gods or demigods, who serve as rescuers and healers in Proto-Indo-European mythology. Like other Proto-Indo-European divinities, the Divine Twins are not directly attested by archaeological or written materials, but scholars of comparative mythology and Indo-European studies generally agree on the motifs they have reconstructed by way of the comparative method.” ref

Common traits

“Scholar Donald Ward proposed a set of common traits that pertain to divine twin pairs of Indo-European mythologies:

  • dual paternity;
  • mention of a female figure (their mother or their sister);
  • deities of fertility;
  • known by a single dual name or having rhymed/alliterative names;
  • associated with horses;
  • saviours at sea;
  • of astral nature;
  • protectors of oaths;
  • providers of divine aid in battle; and
  • magic healers.” ref

“Although the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) name of the Divine Twins cannot be reconstructed with certainty based on the available linguistic evidence, the most frequent epithets associated with the two brothers in liturgic and poetic traditions are the “Youthful” and the “Descendants” (sons or grandsons) of the Sky-God (Dyēus). Two well-accepted reflexes of the Divine Twins, the Vedic Aśvins and the Lithuanian Ašvieniai, are linguistic cognates ultimately deriving from the Proto-Indo-European word for the horse*h1éḱwos. They are related to Sanskrit áśva and Avestan aspā (both from Indo-Iranian *Haćwa), and to Old Lithuanian ašva, which all share the meaning of “mare“. This may point to an original PIE divine name *h1éḱw-n-, although this form could also have emerged from later contacts between Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers, which are known to have occurred in prehistoric times.” ref

“Represented as young men rescuing mortals from peril in battle or at sea, the Divine Twins rode the steeds that pull the sun across the sky and were sometimes depicted as horses themselves. They shared a sister, the Dawn (*H2éwsōs), who is also portrayed as the daughter of the Sky-God (*Dyēus) in Indo-European myths. The two brothers are generally depicted as healers and helpers, travelling in miraculous vehicles to save shipwrecked mortals. They are often differentiated: one is represented as a physically strong and aggressive warrior, while the other is seen as a healer who rather gives attention to domestic duties, agrarian pursuits, or romantic adventures.” ref

“In the Vedic, Greek and Baltic traditions, the Divine Twins similarly appear as the personifications of the morning and evening star. They are depicted as the lovers or the companions of a solar female deity, preferably the Sun’s daughter but sometimes also the Dawn. In the majority of the stories where they appear, the Divine Twins rescue the Dawn from a watery peril, a theme that emerged from their role as the solar steeds. During the night, the Divine Twins were said to return to the east in a golden boat, where they traversed a sea to bring back the rising sun each morning. During the day, they crossed the nocturnal sky in pursuit of their consort, the morning star. In what seems to be a later addition confined to Europe, they were said to take a rest at the end of the day on the “Isles of the Blessed”, a land seating in the western sea which possessed magical apple orchards. By the Bronze Age, the Divine Twins were also represented as the coachmen of horse-driven solar chariots.” ref

“The Gaulish Divanno [de] and Dinomogetimarus are said to be protective deities and “the Gallic equivalents” of the Greek Dioskouroi. They seem to be represented in monuments and reliefs in France flanked by horses, which would make them comparable to Gaulish Martes and the Germanic Alcis. Scholars suggest that the numerous Gallo-Roman dedicatory epigraphs to Castor and Pollux, more than any other region of the Roman Empire, attest a cult of the Dioskoroi. Greek historian Timaeus mentions that Atlantic Celts venerated the “Dioskouroi” above all other gods and that they [Dioskouroi] had visited them from across the Ocean. Historian Diodorus Siculus, in the fourth book of Bibliotheca historica, writes that the Celts who dwelt along the ocean worshipped the Dioscuroi “more than the other gods”. The conjecture that it refers to the Gallic gods Divanno and Dinomogetimarus has no firm support.” ref

“In one of the Irish myths involving Macha (the Dindsenchas of Ard Macha), she is forced to race against the horses of King of Ulster while in late pregnancy. As a talented rider, she wins the race but starts giving birth to Fír and Fial immediately after crossing the finish line. The archetype is also partly matched by figures such as the Gallic sun god Belenus, whose epithet Atepomarus meant “having good horses”; Grannus, who is associated with the healing goddess Sirona (her name means “star”); Maponos (“Son of God”), considered in Irish mythology as the son of Dagda, associated with healing, The Welsh Brân and Manawydan may also be reflexes of the Divine Twins.” ref

“Comparative mythologist Alexander Haggerty Krappe suggested that two heroes, Feradach and Foltlebar, brothers and sons of the king of Innia, are expressions of the mytheme. These heroes help the expedition of the Fianna into Tir fa Thuinn (a realm on the other side of the sea), in a Orphean mission to rescue some of their members, in the tale The pursuit of the Gilla Decair and his horse. Both are expert navigators: one can build a ship and the other can follow the wild birds. Other possible candidates are members of Lugh‘s retinue, Atepomarus and Momorus (fr). Atepomarus is presumed to mean “Great Horseman” or “having great horses”, based on the possible presence of Celtic stem -epo- ‘horse’ in his name. Both appear as a pair of Celtic kings and founders of Lugdunum. They escape from Sereroneus and arrive at a hill. Momorus, who had skills in augury, sees a murder of crows and names the hill Lougodunum, after the crows. This myth is reported in the works of Klitophon of Rhodes and in Pseudo-Plutarch‘s De fluviis.” ref

“The Polish deities Lel and Polel, first mentioned by Maciej Miechowita in 1519, are presented as the equivalents of Castor and Pollux, the sons of the goddess Łada (counterpart of the Greek Leda) and an unknown male god. An idol was found in 1969 on the Fischerinsel island, where the cult centres of the Slavic tribe of Veleti was located, depicting two male figures joined with their heads. Scholars believe it may represent Lel and Polel. Lelek means “strong youth” in Russian dialect. The brightest stars of the Gemini constellation, α Gem and β Gem, are thought to have been originally named Lele and Polele in Belarusian tradition, after the twin characters. According to Polish professor of medieval history, Jacek Banaszkiewicz, the two Polabian gods, Porevit and Porenut, manifest dioscuric characteristics. According to him, the first part of their names derives from a Proto-Slavic root -por meaning “strength,” with first being “Lord of strength” – the stronger one, and the other “Lord in need of support (strength)” – the weaker one. They both have five faces each and appear alongside Rugiaevit, the chief god.” ref

“During childbirth, the mother of the Polish hero twins Waligóra (“Mountain Beater”) and Wyrwidąb (“Oak Tearer”) died in the forest, where wild animals took care of them. Waligóra was raised of by a she-wolf and Wyrwidąb by a she-bear, who fed them with their own milk. Together, they defeated the dragon who tormented the kingdom, for which the grateful king gave each of them half of the kingdom and one of his two daughters as a wife. The sons of KrakKrak II and Lech II also appear in Polish legends as the killers of the Wawel dragonAmphion and Zethus, another pair of twins fathered by Zeus and Antiope, are portrayed as the legendary founders of Thebes. They are called “Dioskouroi, riders of white horses” (λευκόπωλοι) by Euripides in his play The Phoenician Women (the same epithet is used in Heracles and in the lost play Antiope). In keeping with the theme of distinction between the twins, Amphion was said to be the more contemplative, sensitive one, whereas Zethus was more masculine and tied to physical pursuits, like hunting and cattle-breeding.” ref

“The mother of Romulus and Remus, Rhea Silvia, placed them in a basket before her death, which she put in the river to protect them from murder, before they were found by the she-wolf who raised them. The Palici, a pair of Sicilian twin deities fathered by Zeus in one account, may also be a reflex of the original mytheme. Greek rhetorician and grammar Athenaeus of Naucratis, in his work Deipnosophistae, Book II, cited that poet Ibycus, in his Melodies, described twins Eurytus and Cteatus as “λευκίππους κόρους” (“white-horsed youths”) and said they were born from a silver egg, a story that recalls the myth of Greek divine twins Castor and Pollux and their mother Leda. This pair of twins was said to have been fathered by sea god Poseidon and a human mother, Molione.” ref

“Another possible reflex may be found in Nakula and Sahadeva. Mothered by Princess Madri, who summoned the Aśvins themselves in a prayer to beget her sons (thus them being called Ashvineya (आश्विनेय)), the twins are two of the five Pandava brothers, married to the same woman, Draupadi. In the Mahabharata epic, Nakula is described in terms of his exceptional beauty, warriorship and martial prowess, while Sahadeva is depicted as patient, wise, intelligent and a “learned man”. Nakula takes great interest in Virata’s horses, and his brother Sahadeva become Virata’s cowherd. Scholarship also points out that the Vedic Ashvins had an Avestic counterpart called Aspinas. The pair of heroic brothers and main characters of the Albanian legendary epic cycle Kângë Kreshnikësh – Muji and Halili – are considered to bear common traits of the Indo-European divine twins.” ref

“The Armenian heroes Sanasar and Baldasar appear as twins in the epic tradition, born of princess Tsovinar (as depicted in Daredevils of Sassoun); Sanasar finds a “fiery horse”, is more warlike than his brother, and becomes the progenitor of a dynasty of heroes. In an alternate account, their mother is named princess Saṙan, who drinks water from a horse’s footprint and gives birth to both heroes. Scholar Armen Petrosyan also sees possible reflexes of the divine twins in other pairs of heroic brothers in Armenian epic tradition, e.g., Ar(a)maneak and Ar(a)mayis; Eruand (Yervant) and Eruaz (Yervaz). In the same vein, Sargis Haroutyunian argues that the Armenian heroes, as well as twins Izzadin (or Izaddin) and Zyaddin (mentioned in the Kurdish Sharafnama), underlie the myth of divine twins: pairs of brother-founders of divine origin.” ref

“The mytheme of the Divine Twins was widely popular in the Indo-European traditions; evidence for their worship can be found from Scandinavia to the Near East as early as the Bronze Age. The motif was also adopted in non-Indo-European cultures, as attested by the Etruscan Tinas Clenar, the “sons of Jupiter”. There might also have been a worship of twin deities in Myceanean times, based on the presence of myths and stories about pairs of brothers or male twins in Attica and Boeotia. The most prevalent functions associated with the twins in later myths are magic healers and physicians, sailors and saviours at sea, warriors and providers of divine aid in battle, controllers of weather and keepers of the wind, assistants at birth with a connection to fertility, divinities of dance, protectors of the oath, and founders of cities, sometimes related to swans. Scholarship suggests that the mytheme of twins has echoes in the medieval legend of Amicus and Amelius. In Belarusian folklore, Saints George and Nicholas are paired up together, associated with horses, and have a dual nature as healers. The veneration of the Slavic saint brothers Boris and Gleb may also be related.” ref

Lugal-irra (𒀭𒈗𒄊𒊏) and Meslamta-ea (𒀭𒈩𒇴𒋫𒌓𒁺𒀀) were a pair of Mesopotamian gods who typically appear together in cuneiform texts and were described as the “divine twins” (Maštabba). There were regarded as warrior gods and as protectors of doors, possibly due to their role as the gatekeepers of the underworld. In Mesopotamian astronomy they came to be associated with a pair of stars known as the “Great Twins”, Alpha Geminorum and Beta Geminorum. They were both closely associated with Nergal, and could be either regarded as members of his court or equated with him. Their cult centers were Kisiga and Dūrum. While no major sanctuaries dedicated to them are attested elsewhere, they were nonetheless worshiped in multiple other cities. Lugal-irra’s name was most commonly written in cuneiform as dLugalGÌR-ra. It can be romanized as Lugalirra as well. It has Sumerian origin and can be translated as “the strong lord”. The variant Lugal-girra, dLugal-gír-ra, reflects a late reinterpretation of the name as “lord of the dagger” and is no longer considered an indication that dLugal-GÌR-ra was ever read as Lugal-girra. Despite the phonetic similarity, the second half of Lugal-irra’s name is most likely unrelated to the theonym Erra (variant: Irra), and its Akkadian translation was gašru according to lexical lists.” ref

“Twin deities manifested integrating or opposite natural elements in ancient Egypt. Two identical falcons represented Horus and Seth. Isis and Nephtys were also a divine twin of the same gender. Shu and Tefnut were an example for unlike-sexed divine twins. The souls of Osiris and Re were the twin children of Horus. This research studies the Egyptian divine twins beside the Greek twin deities which appeared in Egypt on a limited scale. Some of them had an Egyptian origin such as; the sign of Gemini which was inspired from Shu and Tefnut. Apollo and Artemis were also venerated in Egypt.” ref

Twins in mythology are in many cultures around the world. In some cultures they are seen as ominous, and in others they are seen as auspicious. Twins in mythology are often cast as two halves of the same whole, sharing a bond deeper than that of ordinary siblings, or seen as fierce rivals. They can be seen as representations of a dualistic worldview. They can represent another aspect of the self, a doppelgänger, or a shadow.” ref

“Twins are often depicted with special powers. This applies to both mortal and immortal sets of twins, and often is related to power over the weather. Twins in mythology also often share deep bonds. In Greek mythology, Castor and Pollux share a bond so strong that when mortal Castor dies, Pollux gives up half of his immortality to be with his brother. Castor and Pollux are the Dioscuri twin brothers. Their mother is Leda, a being who was seduced by Zeus who had taken the form of a swan. Even though the brothers are twins, they have two different fathers. This phenomenon is a very common interpretation of twin births across different mythological cultures. Castor’s father is Tyndareus, the king of Sparta (hence the mortal form). Pollux is the son of Zeus (demigod).” ref

“This brothers were said to be born from an egg along with either sister Helen and Clytemnestra. This etymologically explains why their constellation, the Dioskouroi or Gemini, is only seen during one half of the year, as the twins split their time between the underworld and Mount Olympus. In an aboriginal tale, the same constellation represents the twin lizards who created the plants and animals and saved women from evil spirits. Another example of this strong bond shared between twins is the Ibeji twins from African mythology. Ibeji twins are viewed as one soul shared between two bodies. If one of the twins dies, the parents then create a doll that portrays the body of the deceased child, so the soul of the deceased can remain intact for the living twin.” ref

“Without the creation of the doll, the living twin is almost destined for death because it is believed to be missing half of its soul. Twins in mythology are often associated with healing. They are also often gifted with the ability of divination or insight into the future. Divine twins in twin mythology are identical to either one or both place of a god. The Feri gods are not separated entities but are unified into one center. These divine twins can function alone in one body, either functioning as a male or as male and female as they desire. Divine twins represent a polarity in the world. This polarity may be great or small and at times can be opposition. Twins are often seen to be rivals or adversaries.” ref

Africa

Egyptian

  • Nut and Geb, Dualistic twins. God of Earth (Geb) and Goddess of the sky (Nut)
  • Osiris – Isis’ twin and husband. Lord of the underworld. First born of Geb and Nut. One of the most important gods of ancient Egypt.
  • Isis – Daughter of Geb and Nut; twin of Osiris.
  • Ausar – (also known by Macedonian Greeks as Osiris) twin of Set. Set tricked his brother at a banquet he organized so as to take his life.

West African

  • Mawu-Lisa – Twins representing moon and sun, respectively. Ewe-Fon culture.
  • Yemaja – Mother of all life on earth. Yoruba culture.
  • Aganju – Twin and husband of Yemaja
  • Ibeji – Twins of joy and happiness. Children of Shango and Oshun.

Amerindian

See also: Hero Twins in Native American culture

Ancient Mesopotamian religion

Greek and Roman mythology

Ancient Syria

  • Arsu and Azizos – Gods of the evening star and morning star.

Norse mythology

  • Freyr and Freyja – God and goddess, children of Njörðr
  • Baldr and Hodr – “The Shining One” and “The Blind God”, Children of Odin and Frigg
  • Móði and Magni – Courage/Bravery and Strength. Although not Twins in every Source, they often come in a pair. In some iterations, Twin sons of Thor and Sif.

Hinduism

Jewish

Christian

Thomas the apostle and his unnamed twin brother.

Zoroastrian

Ossetian mythology

Afro-Caribbean cosmologies

East Asian

Cain and Abel, the First Human Brothers in the Bible 

“In the biblical Book of GenesisCain and Abel are the first two sons of Adam and Eve. Cain, the firstborn, was a farmer, and his brother Abel was a shepherd. The brothers made sacrifices, each from his own fields, to God. God had regard for Abel’s offering, but had no regardfor Cain’s. Cain killed Abel, and God cursed Cain, sentencing him to a life of transience. Cain then dwelt in the land of Nod (נוֹד, ‘wandering’), where he built a city and fathered the line of descendants beginning with Enoch.” ref

“The story of Cain‘s murder of Abel and its consequences is told in Genesis 4:1–18:

Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.” Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain,

“Why are you angry,
and why has your countenance fallen?
If you do well,
will you not be accepted?
And if you do not do well,
sin is lurking at the door;
its desire is for you,
but you must master it.”

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” And the Lord said, “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.” Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.” — Book of Genesis, 4:1–18

“Since they cannot be linked together to a common linguistic origin, other reflexes found in the Indo-European myths are less secure, although their motifs can be compared to that of the Divine Twins. Three Indo-European traditions (Greek, Indic and Baltic) attest the mytheme of equestrian twins, all associated with the dawn or the sun’s daughter. Although their names do not form a complete group of cognates, they nonetheless share a similar epithet leading to a possible ancestral name or epithet: the ‘sons or descendants of Dyēus‘, the sky-god.” ref

  • (?) PIE*diwós suHnū́ (‘sons of Dyēus’), or *diwós népoth1e (‘descendants of Dyēus’),
  • Vedic: the Divó nápātā (the Aśvins), the “sons of Dyaús“, the sky-god, always referred to in dual in the Rigveda, without individual names,
  • Lithuanian: the Dievo sūneliai (the Ašvieniai), the “sons of Dievas“, pulling the carriage of Saulė (the Sun) through the sky,
  • Latvian: the Dieva dēli, the “sons of Dievs”, the sky-god,
  • Greek: the Diós-kouroi (Castor and Pollux), the “boys of Zeus“, the sky-god.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_twins
  • Italic: both Paelignian Ioviois Pvclois and Marsian Ioveis Pvcles are interpreted as a calque of the Greek theonym Diós-kouroi.” ref

“Comparative mythologist Alexander Haggerty Krappe suggested that two heroes, Feradach and Foltlebar, brothers and sons of the king of Innia, are expressions of the mytheme. These heroes help the expedition of the Fianna into Tir fa Thuinn (a realm on the other side of the sea), in a Orphean mission to rescue some of their members, in the tale The pursuit of the Gilla Decair and his horse. Both are expert navigators: one can build a ship and the other can follow the wild birds. Other possible candidates are members of Lugh‘s retinue, Atepomarus and Momorus (fr). Atepomarus is presumed to mean “Great Horseman” or “having great horses”, based on the possible presence of Celtic stem -epo- ‘horse’ in his name. Both appear as a pair of Celtic kings and founders of Lugdunum. They escape from Sereroneus and arrive at a hill. Momorus, who had skills in augury, sees a murder of crows and names the hill Lougodunum, after the crows. This myth is reported in the works of Klitophon of Rhodes and in Pseudo-Plutarch‘s De fluviis.” ref

“There is possibility that Ūsiņš (alternately, Ūsinis), a Baltic god mentioned in the dainas, is a reflex of the mytheme in Latvian tradition. He is associated with horses, the light and sun, and possibly one of the sons of Dievs. Historical linguist Václav Blažek argues he is “a functional and etymological counterpart” of a minor Vedic character Auśijá- (a servant of the Vedic twins and related to bees) and the Aśvins themselves. Also, according to David Leeming, Usins appears as a charioteer, conducting a chariot pulled by two horses across the sky.” ref

“It has also been argued that Auseklis is the other reflex of the mytheme in Latvian. Auseklis is referred to as male in the context of the dainas (folksong), and is seen as the groom of Saules meita (“daughter of the sun”), who came all the way to Germany to court her. In addition, according to scholar Elza Kokare, Auseklis belongs to a group of heavenly deities that take part in a mythological drama about a “celestial wedding”. Auseklis is seen as a groom of Saules meita, a daughter of Saule, the female Baltic sun. Sometimes, he is deprived of his bride (Ausekļa līgaviņa and variations) because of Meness’s quarreling. In other accounts, he is a guest or member of the bridal cortege at the wedding of Saules meita with another character. He is also said to own a horse, bought by him or for him. According to Marija Gimbutas‘s analysis, Auseklis is a “dievaitis” (‘little god’) that appears with a horse the Sun gave him, and falls in love with the daughter of the (female) Sun (“Saules dukterims”).” ref

Dualism or dualistic cosmology is the moral or belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. It is an umbrella term that covers a diversity of views from various religions, including both traditional religions and scriptural religions. Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be “moral” and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview that has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast, duotheismbitheism or ditheism implies (at least) two gods.” ref

“While bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, or light and dark, or summer and winter. For example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator and the other a destroyer. In theology, dualism can also refer to the relationship between the deity and creation or the deity and the universe (see theistic dualism). That form of dualism is a belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism. Alternatively, in ontological dualism, the world is divided into two overarching categories. Within Chinese culture and philosophy the opposition and combination of the universe’s two basic principles are expressed as yin and yang and are traditionally foundational doctrine of TaoismConfucianism and some Chinese Buddhist Schools.” ref

“Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. The motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurgesculture heroes, or other mythological beings, who compete with each other or have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the world. There is a huge diversity of such cosmologies. In some cases, such as among the Chukchi, the beings collaborate rather than compete, and they contribute to the creation in a coequal way. In many other instances the two beings are not of the same importance or power (sometimes, one of them is even characterized as gullible). Sometimes they can be contrasted as good versus evil.” ref 

“They may be often believed to be twins or at least brothers. Dualistic motifs in mythologies can be observed in all inhabited continents. Zolotarjov concludes that they cannot be explained by diffusion or borrowing but are rather of convergent origin. They are related to a dualistic organization of society (moieties); in some cultures, the social organization may have ceased to exist, but mythology preserves the memory in more and more disguised ways. Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. Like ditheism/bitheism (see below), moral dualism does not imply the absence of monist or monotheistic principles. Moral dualism simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be “moral” and—unlike ditheism/bitheism—independent of how these may be represented.” ref

“For example, Mazdaism (Mazdean Zoroastrianism) is both dualistic and monotheistic (but not monist by definition) since in that philosophy God—the Creator—is purely good, and the antithesis—which is also uncreated–is an absolute one. Mandaeism is monotheistic and Gnostic, and in its cosmology, the World of Light (alma d-nhūra) that is good, is contrasted with the World of Darkness or underworld (alma d-hšuka) that is evil. Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism) and Manichaeism are representative of dualistic and monist philosophies since each has a supreme and transcendental First Principle from which the two equal-but-opposite entities then emanate. This is also true for the suppressed Christian gnostic religions, such as BogomilsCatharism, and so on. More complex forms of monist dualism also exist, for instance in Hermeticism, where Nous “thought”—that is described to have created man—brings forth both good and evil, dependent on interpretation, whether it receives prompting from the God or from the Demon. Duality with pluralism is considered a logical fallacy.” ref

“Moral dualism began as a theological belief. Dualism was first seen implicitly in Egyptian religious beliefs by the contrast of the gods Set (disorder, death) and Osiris (order, life). The first explicit conception of dualism came from the Ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism around the mid-fifth century BC. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion that believes that Ahura Mazda is the eternal creator of all good things. Any violations of Ahura Mazda’s order arise from druj, which is everything uncreated. From this comes a significant choice for humans to make. Either they fully participate in human life for Ahura Mazda or they do not and give druj power. Personal dualism is even more distinct in the beliefs of later religions. The religious dualism of Christianity between good and evil is not a perfect dualism as God (good) will inevitably destroy Satan (evil). Early Christian dualism is largely based on Platonic Dualism (See: Neoplatonism and Christianity). There is also a personal dualism in Christianity with a soul-body distinction based on the idea of an immaterial Christian soul.” ref

“When used with regards to multiple gods, dualism may refer to duotheism, bitheism, or ditheism. Although ditheism/bitheism imply moral dualism, they are not equivalent: ditheism/bitheism implies (at least) two gods, while moral dualism does not necessarily imply theism (theos = god) at all. Both bitheism and ditheism imply a belief in two equally powerful gods with complementary or antonymous properties; however, while bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, bright and dark, or summer and winter. For example, a ditheistic system would be one in which one god is creative, the other is destructive (cf. theodicy). In the original conception of Zoroastrianism, for example, Ahura Mazda was the spirit of ultimate good, while Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) was the spirit of ultimate evil.” ref

“In a bitheistic system, by contrast, where the two deities are not in conflict or opposition, one could be male and the other female (cf. duotheism[clarification needed]). One well-known example of a bitheistic or duotheistic theology based on gender polarity is found in the neopagan religion of Wicca. In Wicca, dualism is represented in the belief of a god and a goddess as a dual partnership in ruling the universe. This is centered on the worship of a divine couple, the Moon Goddess and the Horned God, who are regarded as lovers. However, there is also a ditheistic theme within traditional Wicca, as the Horned God has dual aspects of bright and dark – relating to day/night, summer/winter – expressed as the Oak King and the Holly King, who in Wiccan myth and ritual are said to engage in battle twice a year for the hand of the Goddess, resulting in the changing seasons. (Within Wicca, bright and dark do not correspond to notions of “good” and “evil” but are aspects of the natural world, much like yin and yang in Taoism.)” ref

Divine couples in religion

“One of the most ancient concepts in religion is that of the divine couple. In Sumeria the divine couple appears as part of perhaps the earliest notion of Trinity. God the Father was symbolized as the Sun, his consort was symbolized alternately as either the Moon or the Earth, and the king was viewed as their offspring: the Son of the Sun; a living representative (or emanation) of God on Earth. In many traditions the gods and goddesses who comprise the divine couple are not seen as being separate or distinct entities, but rather as differing aspects of one another, or even emanations of one another. In this we see traces of an even more ancient tradition, God as the primordial androgyne. Such a notion has been part of many theologies, although the idea has largely been forgotten or (perhaps) ignored.” ref

Yin and yang

Yin and yang (English: /jɪn//jæŋ/), also yinyang or yin-yang, is a concept that originated in Chinese philosophy, describing an opposite but interconnected, self-perpetuating cycle. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary and at the same time opposing forces that interact to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the assembled parts and the parts are important for cohesion of the whole.” ref

“In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang form and matter. ‘Yin’ is retractive, passive and contractive while ‘yang’ is repelling, active and expansive; in principle, this dichotomy in some form, is seen in all things in nature—patterns of change and difference, such as biological and seasonal cycles, evolution of the landscape over days, weeks, and eons (with the original meaning of the words being the north-facing shade and the south-facing brightness of a hill), gender (female and male), as well as the formation of the character of individuals and the grand arc of sociopolitical history in disorder and order.” ref

Taiji is a Chinese cosmological term for the “Supreme Ultimate” state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the oneness before duality, from which yin and yang originate. It can be contrasted with the older wuji (無極; ‘without pole’). In the cosmology pertaining to yin and yang, the material energy which this universe was created from is known as qi. It is believed that the organization of qi in this cosmology of yin and yang has formed many things. Included among these forms are humans. Many natural dualities (such as light and dark, fire and water, expanding and contracting) are thought of as physical manifestations of the duality symbolized by yin and yang. This duality, as a unity of opposites, lies at the origins of many branches of classical Chinese sciencetechnology and philosophy, as well as being a primary guideline of traditional Chinese medicine, and a central principle of different forms of Chinese martial arts and exercise, such as baguazhangtai chidaoyin and qigong, as well as appearing in the pages of the I Ching.” ref

“The notion of duality can be found in many areas, such as Communities of Practice. The term “dualistic-monism” or dialectical monism has been coined in an attempt to express this fruitful paradox of simultaneous unity and duality. According to this philosophy, everything has both yin and yang aspects (for instance, shadow cannot exist without light). Either of the two major aspects may manifest more strongly in a particular object, depending on the criterion of the observation. The yin and yang symbol (or taijitu) shows a balance between two opposites with a portion of the opposite element in each section.” ref

“In Taoist metaphysics, distinctions between good and bad, along with other dichotomous moral judgments, are perceptual, not real; so, the duality of yin and yang is an indivisible whole. In the ethics of Confucianism on the other hand, most notably in the philosophy of Dong Zhongshu (c. 2nd century BC), a moral dimension is attached to the idea of yin and yang. The Ahom philosophy of duality of the individual self han and pu is quite similar to yin and yang of Taoism. The tradition was originated in YunnanChina and followed by some Ahom, descendants of Dai ethnic Minority. The Chinese characters  and  are both considered to be phono-semantic compounds, with semantic component  ‘mound’, ‘hill’, a graphical variant of —with the phonetic components 今; jīn (and the added semantic component 云; yún; ‘cloud’) and 昜; yáng. In the latter, 昜; yáng; ‘bright’ features 日; ‘the Sun’ + 示 + 彡; ‘sunbeam’.” ref

Fuxi and Nüwa in Chinese Creation Mythology

Fuxi or Fu Hsi (伏羲) is a culture hero in Chinese mythology, credited along with his sister and wife Nüwa with creating humanity and the invention of music, hunting, fishing, domestication, and cooking, as well as the Cangjie system of writing Chinese characters around 2900 or 2000 BCE or around 4,900 to 4,000 years ago. Fuxi was counted as the first mythical emperor of China, “a divine being with a serpent’s body” who was miraculously born, a Taoist deity, and/or a member of the Three Sovereigns at the beginning of the Chinese dynastic period. Some representations show him as a human with snake-like characteristics, “a leaf-wreathed head growing out of a mountain”, “or as a man clothed with animal skins.” ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

This art above explains my thinking from my life of investigation

I am an anarchist (Social anarchism, Left-wing anarchism, or Socialist anarchism) trying to explain prehistory as I see it after studying it on my own starting 2006. Anarchists are for truth and believe in teaching the plain truth; misinformation is against this, and we would and should fight misinformation and disinformation.

I see anarchism as a social justice issue not limited to some political issue or monetary persuasion. People own themselves, have self/human rights, and deserve freedoms. All humanity is owed respect for its dignity; we are all born equal in dignity and human rights, and no plot of dirt we currently reside on changes this.

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

I am an Axiological Atheist, Philosopher & Autodidact Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Anarcho Humanist, LGBTQI, Race, & Class equality. I am not an academic, I am a revolutionary sharing education and reason to inspire more deep thinking. I do value and appreciate Academics, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Historians as they provide us with great knowledge, informing us about our shared humanity.

I am a servant leader, as I serve the people, not myself, not my ego, and not some desire for money, but rather a caring teacher’s heart to help all I can with all I am. From such thoughtfulness may we all see the need for humanism and secularism, respecting all as helpful servant leaders assisting others as often as we can to navigate truth and the beauty of reality.

‘Reality’ ie. real/external world things, facts/evidence such as that confirmed by science, or events taken as a whole documented understanding of what occurred/is likely to have occurred; the accurate state of affairs. “Reason” is not from a mind devoid of “unreason” but rather demonstrates the potential ability to overcome bad thinking. An honest mind, enjoys just correction. Nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge.

I don’t believe in gods or ghosts, and nor souls either. I don’t believe in heavens or hells, nor any supernatural anything. I don’t believe in Aliens, Bigfoot, nor Atlantis. I strive to follow reason and be a rationalist. Reason is my only master and may we all master reason. Thinking can be random, but reason is organized and sound in its Thinking. Right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, and right logic can be used in math and other scientific methods. I don’t see religious terms Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, or Paganism as primitive but original or core elements that are different parts of world views and their supernatural/non-natural beliefs or thinking.

I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology, and grounded by science that religion claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but dogmatic propaganda, myths, and lies. To me, religions can be summed up as conspiracy theories about reality, a reality mind you is only natural and devoid of magic anything. And to me, when people talk as if Atlantis is anything real, I stop taking them seriously. Like asking about the reality of Superman or Batman just because they seem to involve metropolitan cities in their stores. Or if Mother Goose actually lived in a shoe? You got to be kidding.

We are made great in our many acts of kindness, because we rise by helping each other.

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

A = Proto-Afroasiatic/Afroasiatic

Y= Proto-Yeniseian/Yeniseian

S = Samara culture

ST = Proto-Sino-Tibetan/Sino-Tibetan

T = Proto-Transeurasian/Altaic

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

I = Proto-Indo-European/Indo-European

IB = Iberomaurusian Culture/Capsian culture

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

Proto-Uralic/Uralic languages

Nganasan people/Nganasan language

Na-Dene languages/Dené–YeniseianDené–Caucasian

Tlingit language

Proto-Semitic/Semitic languages

Sumerian language

Proto-Basque/Basque language

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

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twins as the Sacrifice?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Sungir Grave 2 had two adolescent children placed head-to-head, together with an adult femur filled with red ochre, and were all adorned with elaborate grave goods that included ivory-beaded jewelryclothing, and spears. The children are considered a twin burial, thought to have ritual purpose, possibly sacrifice. The findings of such complete skeletons are rare in late Stone Age, and indicate the high status of the male adult and children. The children had the same mtDNA, which may indicate the same maternal lineage, but new analyses determined they were not siblings. The site is one of the earliest examples of ritual burials and constitutes important evidence of the antiquity of human religious practices. The extraordinary collection of grave goods, the position of the bodies, and other factors all indicate it was a burial of high importance.” ref

In 2017, researchers successfully sequenced the DNA of multiple individuals from Sungir (c. 34,000 years BP), including one from Burial 1 (Sunghir I) and three from Burial 2: the two adolescent burials (Sunghir II and Sunghir III) and the adult femur accompanying the burial (Sunghir IV). The younger adolescent from Burial 2, Sunghir III, yielded high coverage genomes. Sungir III was previously thought to be female; however, genetic analysis shows that all four of the tested individuals at Sungir were male. Contrary to previous interpretations of the burials, genetic analysis shows that none of the individuals are closely related (none of the individuals were third-degree relatives or closer).ref

“However, when compared against other populations, the individuals at Sungir are genetically closest to each other. The individuals at Sungir show closest genetic affinity to the individuals from Kostenki, with closer affinity to the individual from Kostenki 12 than to the individual from Kostenki 14. The closer affinity between Kostenki 12 and Sungir individuals was mutual, with Kostenki 12 being closer to the Sungir remains than to Kostenki 14. The Sungir individuals are inferred to have descended from a lineage that was forming a sister branch to Kostenki 14.ref

“The Sungir individuals also show close genetic affinity to various individuals belonging to Vestonice Cluster buried in a Gravettian context, such as those excavated from Dolní Věstonice. In terms of their Y-chromosome, they all belonged to a subclade of haplogroup C1 (C1a2), which was common among early West Eurasian specimens, such as the ones in Kostenki (C1b*), but today rare among Europeans. The maternal haplogroups of S I belonged to U8c, while S II, S III, and S IV belonged to a subclade of U2, which is close to the ones observed among the Kostenki specimens. DNA analysis on a medieval individual from the Sungir 6 site (730-850 cal BP) showed it to belong to the mtDNA haplogroup W3a1, and Y-DNA haplogroup I2a1b2 (I-A16681).ref

ref

Native American “fake twin babies” died 11,500 years ago in Alaska.

DNA analysis of an infant and a pre-term fetus buried together in central Alaska 11,500 years ago provides a clearer picture of the genetic diversity present in the ancestors of Native Americans. The findings are significant because the date of the burials is only a few thousand years after the initial dispersal of people from Beringia into the Americas and there are few individuals dating prior to 8,000 years ago from which scientists have genetic data, Raff said.” ref

“The research fills a gap into the genetic record of populations that migrated from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge before eventually spreading south across the Americas. The analysis of the two children’s mitochondrial genomes, which reveals a person’s lineage from the mother, revealed the children belonged to mitochondrial haplogroups C1b and B2, both of which are rare or absent in contemporary Alaskan populations in the region.” ref

“This shows us that not only was genetic diversity greater in this region in the past but is also consistent with predictions from the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis, a model that posits that a stable resident population containing the ancestors of contemporary Native Americans lived in Beringia for a period of time variously estimated at less than 8,000 years or as high as 15,000 years,” Raff said.” ref

“Archaeological and genetic records have consistently indicating the Bering Land Bridge served as the primary entry point from Asia to the Americas during the Late Pleistocene era; however, there are gaps in our knowledge. Rising sea levels have separated Alaska from Siberia and covered the land bridge, inundating likely sites of human occupation or burial or both. The two individuals were buried in a residential feature at the Upward Sun River site near the confluence of the Little Delta and Tanana rivers in central Alaska. A third individual — from whom DNA was not obtained for this study — was cremated at the site. Because the two children’s DNA belonged to separate mitochondrial haplogroups, they did not share the same mother.” ref

“This is the first time we’ve been able to look at DNA from multiple burials in such an early context in the Americas,” Raff said. “And these results give us an important insight into mortuary practices and ceremonial behavior. Namely, that children buried together didn’t necessarily have to be full siblings.” ref

“Future genetic testing would shed more insight into the infants’ biological relationships, including whether they shared the same father, she said. Raff added the identification of the two haplogroups are significant from burials dating so close to migration into Beringia because both groups, B2 and C1b, are commonly found in Native Americans populations that settled to the south across North and South America, though not present-day Alaska populations.  “We are very sure of where the ancestral gene pool of ancient Native Americans came from, but this is letting us get at some of the more fine details of the migration, such as timing,” she said.” ref

“Native Americans descend from people who first left Siberia and crossed the Bering Strait when sea levels were lower and the region formed a land bridge, sometime between 23,000 and 30,000 years ago. But the details and timing of that process are up for debate. During the last ice age, the Laurentide Ice Sheet covered all of Canada and blocked the entrance to North America as recently as 20,000 years ago. Many geneticists and archaeologists have suggested that the ancestors of Native Americans were stuck and therefore lingered in the region between Siberia and Southern Alaska, called Beringia for millennia — a theory called the Beringia standstill hypothesis.” ref

“Though northern Alaska is now an extremely forbidding environment, at that time, “there were pockets of tundra, and maybe even forests, that large mammals and humans could actually live in, and it wasn’t as harsh as it is nowadays,” Tackney said. “People could eat, find food and find freshwater and survive for thousands of years.” But archaeologists and geneticists don’t agree on just how long people were stuck in Beringia. And some have even argued that people came to North and South America in multiple migration waves, some of which didn’t pass through Beringia.” ref

“One reason for the uncertainty is that there are no human remains that date to the probable time of the migration, and no ancient human remains from anywhere near Beringia. The earliest human remains in North America come from a child, known as the Anzick Boy, who died 12,600 years ago in what is now Montana. Other ancient remains, such as those of the Kennewick Man found in Washington, are thousands of years younger.” ref

Ancient surprises

“The recently discovered remains, which are 11,600 years old, were uncovered deep in Alaska’s interior, at a site known as Upward Sun River. “This is the oldest human remain we’ve found so far north,” Tackney said. The site contained the burials of three children; a cremated 3-year-old; a premature baby; and a 6-week-old infant. The researchers analyzed the little ones’ mitochondrial DNA (DNA that is passed on from mothers to their children). It turned out that the two babies, originally believed to be twins, had different mothers. (The cremated baby had no usable DNA.) One of the babies had a genetic lineage, or haplogroup, known as C1b, whereas the other had a B2 lineage, the researchers reported today (Oct. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Both lineages appear in modern Native Americans, but B2 has previously been found only in tribes that currently live farther south, such as the Navajo and the Anasazi of the American Southwest.” ref

“Because the B2 lineage is common in Native Americans but has never been found in modern-day northern Siberians or North American Indians at high latitudes, some researchers have proposed that one wave of migrants from Siberia colonized the Americas, while a second colonization wave carried the B2 lineage, said Connie Mulligan, a genetics professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who was not involved in the study. But the new findings nix that notion, she said. The new result “really solidifies the argument for a single migration by showing that all major New World mitochondrial haplogroups can be found in ancient populations in the New World at the right time and in the right place,” Mulligan told Live Science.” ref

“The genetic data suggests that the ancestors of modern people with the B2 lineage came across the Bering Strait, whereas their ancestral population in Siberia died out, she added. Still, the new study can’t settle the debate about how long people hung out in Beringia, Tackney said. Native Americans reached a site in southern Chile, called Monte Verde, 14,800 years ago, meaning the migration out of Beringia occurred at least 3,000 years before these ancient babies died. Completing the timeline for the settlement of the Americas would require finding older human remains in the Beringia heartland — which is unlikely, given that most of that territory is now covered by ocean, he said.” ref

ref, ref

Two Neolithic figurines a female and male (9000–7000 BCE or 11,00 to 9,000 years ago), gypsum with bitumen and stone inlays, excavated in Tell Fekheriye, in Syria, on/near the border of Turkey.” ref

“Téviec or Théviec is an island situated to the west of the isthmus of the peninsula of Quiberon, near Saint-Pierre-Quiberon in BrittanyFrance. The island is an important archaeological site due to its occupation during the Mesolithic period. Many archaeological finds have been made dating back to over 6,700 years before the present day, including the remains of over 20 people. One of the most remarkable finds was that of the grave of two young women who had apparently died violently but had received an elaborate burial under a “roof” of antlers, their bodies decorated with jewellery made from shells.” ref

The island is one of only a few known Mesolithic sites in Brittany, along with Pointe de la Torche, Hoëdic and Beg er Vil on the Quiberon peninsula. During the Mesolithic period, the sea level was much lower – it was possible to walk from France to England – and Téviec was situated in a lagoon. Extensive middens were found near places of habitation on the island, containing the remains of shellfish, crustaceans, squid, fish, birds, cetaceans and terrestrial mammals including wild boar, red deer, roe deer, dogs and so on. The hunter-gatherers of Téviec buried their own dead in the middens. This helped to preserve the graves, as the carbonates from the shells in the middens insulated human bones from the acid soil. Many tools made of bone and antler were found along with numerous flint microliths. They were originally believed to date to 6575 years ago (± 350 years) but have now been dated to between 6740 and 5680 years ago. This indicates a longer occupation than previously thought, with its end coming at the beginning of the Neolithic period.ref

“Ten multiple graves were discovered at Téviec containing a total of 23 individuals, including adults and children. Some of the remains were scattered between different locations. Several of those interred appear to have died violent deaths. One individual was found to have a flint arrowhead stuck in a vertebra. In another grave, the skeletons of two women aged 25–35, dubbed the “ladies of Téviec”, were found with signs of violence on both. One had sustained five blows to the head, two of which would have been fatal, and had received at least one arrow shot between the eyes. The other had also traces of injuries. However, this diagnosis is disputed by some archaeologists, who have suggested that the weight of earth above the grave may have been responsible for damaging the skeletons.ref

“The bodies had been buried with great care in a pit that was partly dug into the ground and covered over with debris from the midden. They had been protected by a roof made of antlers and provided with a number of grave goods including pieces of flint and boar bones, and jewellery made of sea shells drilled and assembled into necklaces, bracelets and ringlets for the legs. The grave assemblage was excavated from the site in one piece and is now on display at the Muséum de Toulouse, where its restoration in 2010 earned a national award.ref

31,000-27,000 Years Ago

Burials

“A mammoth shoulder blade was uncovered in the south-eastern part of the excavation area, on the underside of which clear traces of processing could be seen: the shoulder bone had been removed by several evenly executed blows with a tool. Supported laterally on a chip of mammoth ivory, this shoulder blade formed the cover of an oval burial pit, in which the skeletal remains of two infants, some of which were three-dimensional, were found (burial 1). These were probably twins who had died during or shortly after birth. Both were placed in a squatting position with their legs sharply bent, skulls facing north, faces facing east. At least 35 ivory beads, which could have been part of a necklace or a belt, lay in the pelvic area of
the infant lying to the west. The ocher scattering typical of Gravettian burials was also found here, the sharply defined color boundaries in the surrounding sediment also suggest that the children were wrapped in leather or fur before they were deposited. Of the more than 2,200 lithic artifacts, only 209 pieces could be unequivocally assigned with estimates that the majority of them were mixed with the Aurignacian -era Krems-Hundsteig finds cannot be ruled out. After an intensive examination of all parts, even if in addition to scrapers, the knives and gravers, which are often microlithic, and the micro saws typical of Pavlovia, a number of Dufour lamellas were found were.” ref

“In addition to several thousand stone artifacts and faunal remains, two clay objects, one rib and tusk fragment painted with red chalk, and two infant graves were recovered. After a 3D model was created using a structured light scanner, work began to uncover the 32,000-year-old bones and artifacts from the burial block. Another burial pit (burial 2) was uncovered. At a distance of 1.5 m from burial 1, the bones of an approximately 3-month-old infant were found on the same horizon (AH 4.3). Since no cover had been used here, burial 2 was found to be in a less good state of preservation, but the identical type of placement with bent legs, ocher scattering, and a face pointing east could be proven beyond any doubt. In contrast to burial 1, the skull here was oriented to the south. A 7 cm long ivory pin uncovered in the head area could have been used to close the hide or leather case.” ref

31,000-27,000 Years Ago – (Austria), Krems-Wachtberg in Lower Austria, Two separate pits, one containing the remains of two infants and the other of a single baby, were discovered at the same Stone Age camp. Infants may have been considered equal members of prehistoric society, according to an analysis of burial pits, as Both graves were decorated with beads and covered in red ochre, a pigment commonly used by prehistoric peoples as a grave offering when they buried adults. From Pavlovian, in ven tories we know numerous pendants made of animal teeth, most frequently discovered in burials. They also occur in graves of small children, as this burial from Krems-Wachtberg. Pendants made from the teeth of other species, such as reindeer or bear, are rarely found. refref, ref 

26,000 years ago

26,000 years ago – “Although there were many burials at Balzi Rossi or Grimaldi Caves (Liguria, Italy) the grave with the woman (left) and a teenager (right) dated to around 26,000 years ago –  from Grotto of Children cave.” ref 

“Balzi Rossi is a popular prehistoric site due to the significant findings. It’s a few meters from shore at the bottom of a red limestone wall with caves and grottos. From these caves have been recovered manufacturers made of bones and stone, fireplaces, burials, and animal remains dating from Lower Paleolithic to latest Prehistory.” ref  

“The Balzi Rossi complex, also known as Grimaldi Caves, includes more than ten sites that yielded abundant archaeological remains spanning a wide chronological range from the Middle Pleistocene to the Early Holocene.” ref  

“The several burials, are of the Cro-Magnon type or European early modern humans, Epigravettian (like the children highlighted by Rivière and the female skeleton discovered in the upper layers of the children’s cave), and Gravettian as well as Aurignacian.” ref 

European early modern humans (EEMH) in the context of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe refers to the early presence of anatomically modern humans in Europe. The term “early modern” is usually taken to include fossils of the Bohunician, Ahmarian, Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian, extending throughout the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), covering the period of roughly 48,000 to 15,000 years ago, usually referred to as the Cro-Magnon. The earliest sites in Europe dated 48,000 years ago are Riparo Mochi (Italy), Geissenklösterle (Germany), and Isturitz (France).” ref 

20,000 years ago

20,000 years ago – “In the Grotta dei Fanciulli at the Balzi Rossi complex, instead, the bodies of two children aged between 2 and 3 years were found. The skeletons are arranged next to each other and at the level of the hip and femur many pierced marine shells ( Nassa neritea ) have been found that probably were part of a funerary ornament.” ref 

“The triple burial, consisting of three skeletons found in the large Barma, holding an adult male, a young man, and a teenager are arranged in parallel in the same trench from east to west, and buried with a rich grave outfit including sea shells, flint blades and deer canines; the dating of the burial dates to about 20,000 years ago.”  ref 

“Also characteristic is the Triple Burial, in which three individuals were buried in the same pit, one next to the other, sprinkled with red ocher and with a rich funerary outfit. It seems that of the three two are younger, while the third is considerably older. The same anatomical peculiarities found on the right side of the frontal bone of all three skulls suggest a genetic relationship between individuals. The oldest individual was about six feet high and possessed a skeletal structure of considerable strength. The funeral outfit was instead made up of large onesstone blades, necklaces, spines of fish, canines of deer, pendants in ivory decorated with hollow lines and perforated shells (still Nassa neritea ).” ref 

“Detail of the funeral kit of the Triple Burial, and among the various discoveries, the most interesting and recent is that of the discovery of the so-called Negroids of Grimaldi, or a couple of individuals (a teenager and an adult woman) having somatic traits different from those of other individuals. The adolescent had his head adorned with marine shells ( Nassa neritea ), and the woman had the same shells near her wrist and left elbow, perhaps originally bracelets. The burials took place at two different times.” ref 

“All the burials can be dated back to the period called Gravettian or Epigravettian, a temporal gap from 29,000 to 19,000 years ago.” ref 

12,000 years ago

12,707–12,556-year-old child remains at a burial site in North America. Anzick-1 is the name given to the remains of Paleo-Indian male infant found in western Montana, remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central and South America. These findings support the hypothesis that modern Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago. buried under numerous tools: 100 stone tools and 15 remnants of tools made of bone. The site contained hundreds of stone projectile points, blades, and bifaces, as well as the remains of two juveniles. Some of the artifacts were covered in red ocher. The stone points were identified as part of the Clovis Complex because of their distinct shape and size. ref

11,000 years ago

11,500-year-old child remains of a six-week-old baby girl in a burial pit in central Alaska whos DNA indicated there was just a single wave of migration into the Americas across a land bridge, now submerged, that spanned the Bering Strait and connected Siberia to Alaska during the Ice Age. The girl was found alongside remains of an even-younger female infant, possibly a first cousin, whose genome the researchers could not sequence. Both were covered in red ochre and next to decorated antler rods. ref

11,000 years ago

11,200 years ago – “(Jordan) from Wadi Feynan in southern Jordan, human burials found, come from the early Neolithic site of WF16 dates to between 11,500 and 10,200 and these burials include infants and children whose bodies were buried into graves cut through the floors of houses and then sealed with mud plaster. most in a sleeping position, on their side with their knees tucked up and their heads resting on their hands. Furthermore, some of the graves were opened for a second burial to be inserted, and, in some occasions, bones were removed, (could this express early skull cult behaviors).” ref  

“Moreover, to further this thinking is also found in how there is evidence that skulls were displayed within some of the houses, according to the scholar, who said that, in some cases, the dead were brought to WF16 for burial as researchers discovered packages of bones that had been wrapped in gypsum plaster and textiles made from vegetable fibres. Likewise, in some cases, large flint blades were positioned on the chest, and, in others, shell beads appear to have been with the bones, possibly from necklaces of bracelets that had been worn.” ref

9,000 years ago

9,000 years ago – “(Isreal) site discovered in Motza, at the foot of the Jerusalem hills. The site, features dozens of stone houses, grander buildings that may have been temples, and skeletal remains. Domestic houses in which the hoi polloi lived didn’t have particularly invested flooring beyond dirt or basic plaster. The public places in prehistoric Motza had better plastering, colored red. one thing they ate that may allude to cultural connections is sheep, which were only domesticated around 10,000 to 11,000 years ago and not exactly next door, but in Anatolia.” ref 

“The floors of the houses were made of tightly-packed plaster and underneath was least 10 people were found buried, lying in fetal positions. A third were men. A third were women. And, a third were children and babies. Which shows, Khalaily explains, that for the first known time in human history, children were considered something other than disposable. “During the transitional time between hunting and gathering to settlement, the attitude towards children, in life and death, changed,” he explains the theory. No earlier burials of children have been found in the ariea.” ref

7,000 years ago

“7,630 and 7,725 years old burial of a woman In Siberia, who appears to have died with her twins during childbirth. The woman appeared to be between 20 and 25 at the time of her death and part ceremonies of the Swifterbant people.” ref

6,000 years ago

“6,000-year-old grave of an infant between newborn and six months old in the arms of a woman 20 to 30-year-old likely its mother in the Netherlands. hunter-gatherers who lived along the banks of the river Vecht.” ref

“The skeleton of a woman from the Ertebølle culture woman with a child from the settlement on Bøgebakken in Vedbæk, Denmark. The woman was about 18 years old, when she died. The child was laid to rest on a spread out swan’s wing. A flint knife at the hip indicates that it was a boy. The red soil around the mother’s head and hips and around the dead child may be due ocher-colored clothing. Attached to these were many tooth beads, which are seen as an irregular lump on the left of the woman’s head. Other tooth beads can be glimpsed in the ground around her hips – Gammel Holtegård Museum north of Copenhagen. Photo Gyros.” ref

“The Ertebølle culture (7,400-5,900 years ago) is of a general type called Late Mesolithic, of which other examples can be found in Swifterbant cultureZedmar cultureNarva culture and in Russia. Some would include the Nøstvet culture and Lihult culture to the north as well. The various locations seem fragmented and isolated, but that characteristic may be an accident of discovery. Perhaps if all the submarine sites were known, a continuous coastal culture would appear from the Netherlands to the likes of Russia. The Ertebølle population settled on promontories, near or on beaches, on islands and along rivers and estuaries away from the dense forests. The environment most like the then range of the Ertebølle is the Wadden Sea region of the North Sea from the Netherlands to Denmark.” ref 

“Due to chance fluctuations in the sea level during Ertebølle occupation of the coast and subsequently, many of the Ertebølle cultural sites are currently under 3m-4m of water. Cemeteries, such as the ones at Vedbæk and Skateholm, give a “sedentary” character to the settlements. Red ochre and deer antlers were placed in some graves, but not others. Some social distinctions may, therefore, have been made. There was some appreciation of sexual dimorphism: the women wore necklaces and belts of animal teeth and shells. No special body position was used. Both burial and cremation were practiced. At Møllegabet, an individual was buried in a dugout, which some see as the beginning of Scandinavian boat burials.” ref

4,000 years ago

“4,600-year-old, Group burial of a 4,600-year-old nuclear family, in Germany with the children (a boy of 8-9 and a boy of 5-4 years) buried facing their parents. The burials, discovered and excavated at Eulau, Saxony-Anhalt, were also unusual for the great care taken in the treatment of the dead. The remains of thirteen individuals were found in total, all of whom had been interned simultaneously. Intriguingly, the arrangement of the dead seemed to mirror their relations in life. Several pairs of individuals were buried face-to-face with arms and hands interlinked in many cases. All the burials contained children ranging from newborns up to 10 years of age and adults of around 30 years or older. Interestingly, there were no adolescents or young adults. Many showed injuries that indicated they were the victims of a violent raid.” ref

4,000 years ago

Grave oareaerian noblewoman with a child up to 4,500 years old, remains of a ‘noblewoman’ from the ancient Okunev Culture was made in the Republic of Khakassia. The Okunev people are seen as the Siberian ethnic grouping most closely related to Native Americans. The mysterious ancient culture was ‘unparalleled’ in Siberia in terms of its artistic richness and diversity, according to experts. Undisturbed by pillaging grave robbers, the burial site of the woman, also containing the remains of a child, offers a wealth of clues about the life of these ancient people. ref

3,000 years ago

“Around 3,950-3,539 years ago, at Sidon, Lebanon. From 19 discrete burial units a total of 31 individuals, included ‘warrior’ burials in constructed graves containing bronze weapons, with high mortality during infancy and early childhood and a peak in adult mortality during early adulthood. There is a conspicuous occurrence of unusual dental traits. Jar burials, all found with remains of sub-adult individuals, represent a burial practice applied to children of a wide age range. Many burials are associated with faunal remains, mostly of sheep or goats, but also of large ungulates. The burial jars found in copper-age Sidon had all contained adults. However, there is burial of a child that had been interred with a necklace around its neck. The fact of the child’s burial, with a funerary vessel and jewelry, could be indicative of status, or of the value attributed to children.” refref

Jar burial: burials where the corpse is placed into a large earthenware and then is interred. Jar burial can be traced to various regions, including IndiaIndonesiaLebanonPalestineTaiwanJapanCambodiaIranSyriaSumatraEgyptMalaysia, the PhilippinesTaiwanThailandVanuatu, and Vietnam. These differing locations call for different methods, accouterments, and/or rationale behind the jar burial practices.” ref

3,000 years ago

3,500-Year-Old Child Burials Unearthed at Ancient Egyptian, four ancient child graves at Gebel el-Silsila, the site of a former Egyptian quarry that dates back 3,500 years. The finding provides new insights on what life may have been like at this ancient work site.” ref

3,000 years ago

3000-year-old burial of child discovered in Northern Bulgaria, near Novgrad, Tsenovo, in the central part of Northern Bulgaria, was a tomb pit with a small human skeleton of a 7-year-old child (living with health problems). in a strange position: on their belly, with their legs bent and there was ceramics found as well that helped in dating. There are organic traces of tape on his skull – a possible dressing or decoration. The place was chosen not by accident – there is a long-standing study (still by an international team) Roman castle Jatrus at the mouth of Yantra river. The main purpose of the expedition is now to trace what has happened to these lands since the 1st millennium BCE. The period covers the life of the Thracian tribes and the establishment of the Roman power, as well as the transition to the early Middle Ages and the creation of the Bulgarian state.” 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.

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

The genetic prehistory of humans in Asia, based on research using sequence data from humans who lived in Asia as early as 45,000 years ago. Genetic studies comparing present-day Australasians and Asians show that they likely derived from a single dispersal out of Africa, rapidly differentiating into three main lineages: one that persists partially in South Asia, one that is primarily found today in Australasia, and one that is widely represented across Siberia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Studies of ancient DNA from human remains in Asia dating from as far back as 45,000 years have greatly increased our understanding of the population dynamics leading to the current Asian populations.” ref

Ust’-Ishim manY-DNA haplogroupK2 and mt-DNA haplogroupR*

Tianyuan man: Y-DNA haplogroup K2b and mt-DNA haplogroup B

Yana Rhinoceros Horn SiteY-DNA haplogroup P1 and mt-DNA haplogroup U

Sungir/Gravettian burials: Y-DNA haplogroup C1 and mt-DNA haplogroups U8c & U2

Ancient North Eurasians: Y-chromosome haplogroups P and its subclades R and Q and mt-DNA haplogroups U and R

Mal’ta–Buret’ culture: basalY-DNA haplogroup R* and mt-DNA haplogroup U

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 R1R2 or secondary subclades of these. The mitochondrial DNA of MA-1 belonged to an unresolved subclade of haplogroup U.” ref

“ANE ancestry has spread throughout Eurasia and the Americas in various migrations since the Upper Paleolithic, and more than half of the world’s population today derives between 5 and 42% of their genomes from the Ancient North Eurasians. Significant ANE ancestry can be found in Native Americans, as well as in EuropeSouth AsiaCentral Asia, and Siberia. It has been suggested that their mythology may have featured narratives shared by both Indo-European and some Native American cultures, such as the existence of a metaphysical world tree and a fable in which a dog guards the path to the afterlife.” ref

 Afontova Gora cultureY-DNA haplogroup R and mt-DNA haplogroup R1b

“The bodies of two individuals, known as Afontova Gora 2 (AG2) and Afontova Gora 3 (AG3) were discovered within the complex (the name Afontova Gora 1 refers to the remains of a candid).” ref

Afontova Gora 2 “human remains”

“The human fossil remains of Afontova Gora 2 were discovered in the 1920s at Afontova Gora II and stored at the Hermitage Museum. The remains are dated to around 17,000 years ago (16,930-16,490 years ago). In 2009, researchers visited the Hermitage Museum and extracted DNA from the humerus of Afontova Gora 2. Despite significant contamination, researchers succeeded in extracting low coverage genomes. DNA analysis confirmed that the individual was male. The individual showed close genetic affinities to Mal’ta 1 (Mal’ta boy). Afontova Gora 2 also showed greater genetic affinity for the Karitiana people than for the Han Chinese. Around 1.9-2.7% of the genome was Neanderthal in origin.” ref

Afontova Gora 3 “human remains”

“In 2014, more human fossil remains were discovered at Afontova Gora II during salvage excavation before the construction of a new bridge over the Yenesei River. The remains belonged to two different females: the atlas of an adult female and the mandible and five lower teeth of a teenage girl (Afontova Gora 3), estimated to be around 14–15 years old. Initially, the new findings were presumed to be roughly contemporaneous with Afontova Gora 2. In 2017, direct AMS dating revealed that Afontova Gora 3 is dated to around 16,090 cal BCE. The mandible of Afontova Gora 3 was described as being gracile. Researchers analyzing the dental morphology of Afontova Gora 3 concluded that the teeth showed distinct characteristics with most similarities to another fossil (the Listvenka child) from the Altai-Sayan region and were neither western nor eastern. Afontova Gora 3 and Listvenka showed distinct dental characteristics that were also different from other Siberian fossils, including those from Mal’ta.” ref

“DNA was extracted from one of the teeth of Afontova Gora 3 and analyzed. Compared to Afontova Gora 2, researchers were able to obtain higher coverage genomes from Afontova Gora 3. DNA analysis confirmed that the individual was female. mtDNA analysis revealed that Afontova Gora 3 belonged to the mitochondrial Haplogroup R1b. Around 2.9-3.7% of the genome was Neanderthal in origin. In a 2016 study, researchers determined that Afontova Gora 2, Afontova Gora 3, and Mal’ta 1 (Mal’ta boy) shared common descent and were clustered together in a Mal’ta cluster. Genetically, Afontova Gora 3 is not closer to Afontova Gora 2 when compared to Mal’ta 1. When compared to Mal’ta 1, the Afontova Gora 3 lineage apparently contributed more to modern humans and is genetically closer to Native Americans.” ref

 

Afontova Gora 3 with Blond hair?

Phenotypic analysis shows that Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with, and likely causal for, blond hair color, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele. The allele was found in three later members of the largely ANE-derived Eastern Hunter-Gatherers populations from Samara, Motala and Ukraine c. 10,000 years ago, suggesting that it originated in the Ancient North Eurasian population before spreading to western Eurasia. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutated alelle (a single-nucleotide polymorphism) are at the root of the classic European blond hair mutation, as massive population migrations from the Eurasian steppe, by a people who had substantial Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, entered continental Europe.” ref

The genetic proximity of Afontova Gora 3 with the Tarim mummies?

“A 2021 genetic study on the Tarim mummies found that they were primarily descended from a population represented by the Afontova Gora 3 specimen (AG3), genetically displaying “high affinity” with it. The genetic profile of the Afontova Gora 3 individual represented about 72% of the ancestry of the Tarim mummies, while the remaining 28% of their ancestry was derived from Baikal EBA (Early Bronze Age Baikal populations). The Tarim mummies are thus one of the rare Holocene populations who derive most of their ancestry from the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE, specifically the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora populations), despite their distance in time (around 14,000 years). More than any other ancient populations, they can be considered as “the best representatives” of the Ancient North Eurasians.” 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

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

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

Göbekli Tepe Shamanism

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

by Oliver Dietrich

From the journal Praehistorische Zeitschrift

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, 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 

A 23,000-year-old southern Iberian individual links human groups that lived in Western Europe before and after the Last Glacial Maximum

“Following the Bølling/Allerød warming interstadial (14,000 years ago), the Goyet Q2 cluster was replaced by the Villabruna cluster in central Europe, named for its oldest Epigravettian-associated individual from northern Italy, but which also includes most of the Epipalaeolithic- and Mesolithic-associated groups from central and western Europe, all of which are also known as western hunter-gatherers (WHG). In this genetic landscape, Iberian hunter-gatherers (HG) stood out as they retained higher proportions of the Goyet Q2-like ancestry during the Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic periods and thus are often considered separate.” ref

Human populations underwent range contractions during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) which had lasting and dramatic effects on their genetic variation. The genetic ancestry of individuals associated with the post-LGM Magdalenian technocomplex has been interpreted as being derived from groups associated with the pre-LGM Aurignacian. However, both these ancestries differ from that of central European individuals associated with the chronologically intermediate Gravettian. Thus, the genomic transition from pre- to post-LGM remains unclear also in western Europe, where we lack genomic data associated with the intermediate Solutrean, which spans the height of the LGM. Here we present genome-wide data from sites in Andalusia in southern Spain, including from a Solutrean-associated individual from Cueva del Malalmuerzo, directly dated to ~23,000 years ago.” ref

“The Malalmuerzo individual carried genetic ancestry that directly connects earlier Aurignacian-associated individuals with post-LGM Magdalenian-associated ancestry in western Europe. This scenario differs from Italy, where individuals associated with the transition from pre- and post-LGM carry different genetic ancestries. This suggests different dynamics in the proposed southern refugia of Ice Age Europe and posits Iberia as a potential refugium for western European pre-LGM ancestry. Moreover, individuals from Cueva Ardales, which were thought to be of Palaeolithic origin, date younger than expected and, together with individuals from the Andalusian sites Caserones and Aguilillas, fall within the genetic variation of the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age individuals from southern Iberia.” ref

The recognition of death and grief: An evolutionary perspective. Its relations with the most ancient rituals and burials of humanity

Abstract: The concept of grief, the metamorphosis of the deceased into the departed, a subject recreated and rethought by the psyche, is crucial for understanding the significance of the grave and funeral rites. We can divide the funeral rites into three phases: seeing the dead person presented socialized, hiding him to begin the mourning process, and finally metamorphosing him into the deceased. Moreover, these three phases typically require the involvement of several community members, some of whom may be less affected by sorrow — a factor that hinders action — compared to close relatives. Considering these factors, it becomes apparent that grief and, consequently, the tomb are more fundamentally social phenomena than cultural ones. The cultural aspect is an overlay, as beliefs and religions facilitate the mourning process by providing guidelines for conduct and contemplation. An evolutionary perspective on the recognition of death and griefs considers these definitions, cognitive developments during human growth, and the cognitive evolution of hominids. Recognizing another’s death without integrating the concept of one’s mortality could have emerged early in human evolution and been a factor in developing consciousness in a feedback loop. Moreover, the funerary rites and tombs are probably older than is commonly accepted by many researchers to date.” ref

Ancient North Eurasian

In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) is the name given to an ancestral component that represents the lineage of the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture (c. 24,000 years ago) and populations closely related to them, such as the Upper Paleolithic individuals from Afontova Gora in Siberia. Genetic studies also revealed that the ANE are closely related to the remains of the preceding Yana Culture (c. 32,000 years ago), which were dubbed as ‘Ancient North Siberians‘ (ANS). Ancient North Eurasians are predominantly of West Eurasian ancestry (related to European Cro-Magnons and ancient and modern peoples in West Asia) who arrived in Siberia via the “northern route,” but also derive a significant amount of their ancestry (c. 1/3) from an East Eurasian source, having arrived to Siberia via the “southern route.” ref

“Around 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, a branch of Ancient North Eurasian people mixed with Ancient East Asians, which led to the emergence of Ancestral Native American, Ancient Beringian, and Ancient Paleo-Siberian populations. It is unknown exactly where this population admixture took place, and two opposing theories have put forth different migratory scenarios that united the Ancient North Eurasians with ancient East Asian populations. Later, ANE populations migrated westward into Europe and admixed with European Western hunter-gatherer (WHG)-related groups to form the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) group, which later admixed with Caucasus hunter-gatherers to form the Western Steppe Herder group, which became widely dispersed across Eurasia during the Bronze Age.” ref

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

Genetic Relations to Ancient North Eurasians: Zagros/Iranian, Anatolian, Eastern, Caucasus, Western, Scandinavian, and Iberian hunter-gatherers

 

ref

ref, ref, refref, ref, ref, ref

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

R1b Origins & History

R1b and Paleolithic mammoth hunters

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

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

R1b and Neolithic cattle herders

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

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

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

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

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

The Levantine & African branch of R1b (V88)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Maykop culture, the R1b link to the Steppe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Siberian & Central Asian branch

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

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

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

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

The European & Middle Eastern branch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conquest of Western Europe (2500-1200 BCE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref, ref, ref

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

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

DNA-researcher: It’s not ‘woke’ to portray prehistoric Europeans with dark skin.

“It’s evolution. Ancient DNA analyses suggest that prehistoric Europeans looked different from modern Europeans today, but some people find that hard to accept. There was an artistic picture of an almost 6,000-year-old, girl who was walking along Lolland’s south coast and spits a piece of birch tar into the reeds. It didn’t taste great, but it helped to soothe her toothache. Fast forward 6,000 years, Danish archaeologists working on the Fehmarnbelt project stumble across the piece and recognize it for what it is: an almost 6,000-year-old piece of chewing gum. This ancient piece of gum is now on display at the Museum Lolland-Falster in southern Denmark among an amazing collection of Stone Age artifacts uncovered during the excavations. If you have not been, it is well worth a visit. In 2019, my research team at the University of Copenhagen managed something quite remarkable: We succeeded in extracting DNA from the gum and used it to reconstruct the girl’s entire genome — the first time anyone had sequenced an ancient human genome from anything other than skeletal remains. As the gum had been found on Lolland, we affectionately nicknamed her ‘Lola’.” ref

Stone-age girl in social media ‘shitstorm’ 

“The story of Lola and her chewing gum made headlines around the world when we published the genome in 2019 and then, suddenly, in the summer of 2023, Lola was back in the news, caught up in a media ‘shitstorm’. The ‘shitstorm’ first gathered pace on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and escalated to the point where the museum had to defend itself on national TV. Even the Danish newspaper ‘Ekstrabladet’ felt they had to comment and gave their opinion in a passionate editorial. So, what happened? These things are difficult to reconstruct, but evidently some people who had seen the image of Lola thought that she looked “way too dark” and accused us—and the museum—of ‘blackwashing’ the past. I suppose this episode says more about our own biases than anything else, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we portrayed Lola the way we did and what this tells us about the evolution of skin color in this part of the world.” ref

What we know about Lola

“First a disclaimer, we do not know exactly how old Lola was when she spat that chewing gum into the water. But based on her genome and other DNA trapped in the gum, we learned a lot of other things about her and her world. For example, we learned that she was a hunter-gatherer who lived off wild resources like fish, nuts, and wild game. At the time, small farming communities started to appear in other parts of Europe, but from what we can tell Lola and her kin still lived — as her ancestors had done for thousands of years before her — as hunter-gatherers. We also learned that she likely had dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes. But how do we know that?” ref

The genetics of human skin pigmentation

“Skin color is a highly heritable and polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by multiple genes and their interactions with one another. One of the most well-known genes associated with skin pigmentation is the melanocortin 1 receptor gene (MC1R), but there are dozens more that have been reported to be involved in the pigmentation process. Most of these genes influence skin color by regulating the production of melanin, a dark pigment that protects from the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Basically, the more melanin you have in your skin, the darker it will be, and the more sun your skin can tolerate before you get sunburn. Eye and hair color are determined in a similar way, but the mechanisms that control the production of melanin in the eyes and hair are quite complex and independent processes. That is why it is possible to end up with different combinations of traits, such as the dark hair and blue eyes that are often seen in Europeans today, or the light hair and brown eyes that are common for Solomon Islanders, for example.” ref

How do we know what Lola looked like?

“Because the genes involved in pigmentation have been well studied, it is possible to predict the skin, eye, and hair color of an individual based on their genotype with a certain probability, something that is routinely done in forensic investigations. In practice, this works by checking which variants of a gene are present and what phenotype they are associated with. The more genes we can include in this analysis, the more confident we can be that our prediction is correct. In Lola’s case, we studied 41 gene variants across her genome that have been associated with skin, hair, and eye color in humans, and concluded that she likely had this unusual (at least for today) combination of dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes.” ref

A common look in prehistoric Europe

“It is difficult to know exactly what people looked like 10,000 years ago. But based on ancient DNA studies, it appears that Lola’s ‘look’ was much more common in prehistoric Europe than it is today. Thanks to advances in ancient DNA sequencing, we now have the genomes of dozens of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (i.e. the period between around 50,000 and 5,000 years before present in Europe) individuals from Western Europe. And interestingly they all seem to lack the skin-lightening variants that are so common in Europeans today, indicating that they had dark skin. This is true for ‘Cheddar Man’ who lived around 10,000 years ago in southern England, as well as dozens of other Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer individuals from France, northern Italy, Spain, the Baltic, and other parts of Europe. Like skin color, eye color is also a fairly complex trait, involving the interaction of many different genes. Therefore, eye color is fairly difficult to predict, but it looks like Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Western Europe often had blue eyes, just like Lola. Overall, it looks like Lola’s phenotype—the combination of dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes—was much more common in prehistoric Europe than it is today.” ref

How Europeans got their lighter skin

“So, why did people in prehistoric Europe look so different from northern Europeans today? The answer to this question lies in a complex interplay between our genes, our changing diets, population movements, and the environment. It has been theorized for some time that lighter skin emerged as an adaptive trait to light poor environments as it allows you to absorb sunlight more effectively, which is essential for the production of vitamin D. However, it was unclear when this happened. Early studies suggested that we first may have evolved lighter skin as our ancestors moved out of Africa and into Europe c. 50,000 years ago, but we now believe that this happened much later in European prehistory. In fact, there is evidence that lighter skin only evolved within the last 5,000 years or so, as a result of genetic admixture from Neolithic farming populations (who carried the skin-lightening variant) and strong selection favoring lighter skin.” ref

Our changing diet also played a part

“In addition, it looks like our changing diets also played a part. During most of European prehistory people relied on wild resources like nuts, game, and fish that are all rich in vitamin D, which is essential to our health. That changed dramatically during the Neolithic when people started to rely on a farmer’s diet that was rich in carbohydrates, but poor in vitamin D. Interestingly, this is exactly the period when we see lighter skin tones evolve in Western Europe and we think that the lack of vitamin D in the diet may have increased the selection pressures favouring lighter skin. All in all, there is solid evidence to suggest that lighter skin tones only evolved in Europe within the last 5,000 years or so, and that people who lived in Europe before then typically had darker skin. It is not that surprising, then, that Lola had darker skin. It simply reflects the fact that she lived at a time when Europeans had not yet evolved their lighter skin.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refrefref

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

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

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

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

Ancient North Eurasian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Ancient North Eurasian

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

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

The Kolyma Shaitans: Legends and Reality (I only use just a small part)

“A unique “shaitan” burial was discovered on the bank of Omuk-Kuel Lake in the Middle-Kolyma ulus in Yakutia. According to the legends, buried in it are mummified remains of a shaman woman who died during a devastating smallpox epidemics in the 18th c. In an attempt to overcome the deadly disease, the shaman’s relatives used her remains as an emeget fetish. The author believes that these legends reflect the real events of those far-away years. The Arabic word “shaitan” came to the Russian language from Turkic languages. According to Islamic tradition, a shaitan is a genie, an evil spirit, a demon. During Russian colonization and Christianization of Siberia, all sacred things used by the aborigines as fetishes, patron spirits of the family, and the tribe, grew to be called “shaitans.” There are various facts, dating to the 18th and 19th cc., confirming that this word also referred to the mummified remains of outstanding shamans.” ref

“In the 1740s, a member of the Second Kamchatka Expedition Yakov Lindenau wrote, “Meat is scratched off the [shaman’s] bones and the bones are put together to form a skeleton, which is dressed in human’s clothes and worshipped as a deity. The Yukagirs place such dressed bones…in their yurts, their number can sometimes reach 10 or 15. If somebody commits even a minor sacrilege with respect to these bones, he stirs up rancor on the part of the Yukagirs… While traveling and hunting, the Yukagirs carry these bones in their sledges, and moreover, in their best sledges pulled by their best deer. When the Yukagirs are going to undertake something really important, they tell fortune using these skeletons: lift a skeleton up, and if it seems light, it means that their enterprise will have a favorable outcome. The Yukagirs call these skeletons stariks (old men), endow them with their best furs, and sit them on beds covered with deer hides, in a circle, as though they are alive.” (Lindenau, 1983, p. 155)” ref

“In the late 19th c., a famous explorer of aboriginal culture V. I. Jochelson noted the changes that occurred in the ritual in the last century and a half. So, the Yukagirs divided among themselves the shaman’s meat dried in the sun and then put it in separate tents. The dead bodies of killed dogs were left there as well. “After that,” V. I. Jochelson writes, “they would divide the shaman’s bones, dry them and wrap in clothes. The skull was an object of worshipping. It was put on top of a trunk (body) cut out of wood. A caftan and two hats – a winter and a summer one – were sewn for the idol. The caftan was all embroidered. On the skull, a special mask was put, with holes for the eyes and the mouth… The figure was placed in the front corner of the home. Before a meal, a piece of food was thrown into the fire and the idol was held above it. This feeding of the idol… was committed before each meal.” (V. I. Jochelson, 2005, pp. 236—237)” ref

“The idol was kept by the children of the dead shaman. One of them was inducted into the shamanism mysteries while his father was still alive. The idol was carried in a wooden box. Sometimes, in line with the air burial ritual, the box was erected on poles or trees, and the idol was taken out only before hunting or a long journey so that the outcome of the enterprise planned could be predicted. With time, the Yukagirs began using wooden idols as charms. V. I. Jochelson notes that by the late 19th c. the Yukagirs had developed a skeptical attitude towards idols and referred to them as “shaitans.” In this way, under the influence of Christianity, the worshipped ancestor’s spirit turned into its opposite – an evil spirit, a devil, a Satan.” ref

Ancestral Native AmericanAncient Beringian

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

Amur River Region

Chertovy Vorota Cave/Devil’s Gate Cave

Afanasievo culture

Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex

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

“Ganj Dareh is important in the study of Neolithic Iran ceramics in Luristan and Kurdistan. This is a period beginning in the late 8th millennium, and continuing to the middle of the 6th millennium BCE.” ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref

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

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

The fact that this Stone Age fort was built by hunter-gatherers is transforming our understanding of ancient human societies. Hunter-gatherers built the oldest known fort in the world about 8,000 years ago in Siberia, a new study finds. Archaeologists have long associated fortresses with permanent agricultural settlements. However, this cluster of fortified structures reveals that prehistoric groups were constructing protective edifices much earlier than originally thought.” ref

“These hunter-gatherers “defy conventional stereotypes that depict such societies as basic and nomadic, unveiling their capacity to construct intricate structures,” study co-author Tanja Schreiber, an archaeologist at Free University of Berlin, told Live Science in an email. Located along the Amnya River in western Siberia, remains of the Amnya fort include roughly 20 pit-house depressions scattered across the site, which is divided into two sections: Amnya I and Amnya II. Radiocarbon dating confirmed that the settlement was first inhabited during the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age, according to the study. When constructed, each pit house would have been protected by earthen walls and wooden palisades — two construction elements that suggest “advanced agricultural and defensive capabilities” by the inhabitants, the archaeologists said in a statement.” ref

“One of the Amnya fort’s most astonishing aspects is the discovery that approximately 8,000 years ago, hunter-gatherers in the Siberian Taiga built intricate defense structures,” Schreiber said. “This challenges traditional assumptions that monumental constructions were solely the work of agricultural communities.” It’s unknown what triggered the need for these fortified structures in the first place, but the strategic location overlooking the river would have not only been an ideal lookout point for potential threats but also allowed hunter-gatherers to keep tabs on their fishing and hunting grounds, the researchers noted.” ref

Samara culture

The Samara culture was an Eneolithic (Copper Age) culture that flourished around the turn of the 5th millennium BCE, at the Samara Bend of the Volga River (modern Russia). The Samara culture is regarded as related to contemporaneous or subsequent prehistoric cultures of the Pontic–Caspian steppe, such as the KhvalynskRepin, and Yamna (or Yamnaya) cultures.” ref

“Genetic analyses of a male buried at Lebyazhinka, radiocarbon dated to 5640-5555 BCE, found that he belonged to a population often referred to as “Samara hunter-gatherers”, a group closely associated with Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. The male sample carried Y-haplogroup R1b1a1a and mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1d.” ref

“Pottery consists mainly of egg-shaped beakers with pronounced rims. They were not able to stand on a flat surface, suggesting that some method of supporting or carrying must have been in use, perhaps basketry or slings, for which the rims would have been a useful point of support. The carrier slung the pots over the shoulder or onto an animal. The decoration consists of circumferential motifs: lines, bands, zig-zags, or wavy lines, incised, stabbed, or impressed with a comb. These patterns are best understood when seen from the top. They appear then to be a solar motif, with the mouth of the pot as the sun. Later developments of this theme show that in fact the sun is being represented.” ref

“The culture is characterized by the remains of animal sacrifice, which occur over most of the sites. There is no indisputable evidence of riding, but there were horse burials, the earliest in the Old World. Typically the head and hooves of cattle, sheep, and horses are placed in shallow bowls over the human grave, smothered with ochre. Some have seen the beginning of the horse sacrifice in these remains, but this interpretation has not been more definitely substantiated. We know that the Indo-Europeans sacrificed both animals and people, like many other cultures.” ref

“The graves found are shallow pits for single individuals, but two or three individuals might be placed there. Some of the graves are covered with a stone cairn or a low earthen mound, the very first predecessor of the kurgan. The later, fully developed kurgan was a hill on which the deceased chief might ascend to the sky god, but whether these early mounds had that significance is doubtful.” ref

“Grave offerings included ornaments depicting horses. The graves also had an overburden of horse remains; it cannot yet be determined decisively if these horses were domesticated and ridden or not, but they were certainly used as a meat-animal. Most controversial are bone plaques of horses or double oxen heads, which were pierced. The graves yield well-made daggers of flint and bone, placed at the arm or head of the deceased, one in the grave of a small boy. Weapons in the graves of children are common later. Other weapons are bone spearheads and flint arrowheads. Other carved bone figurines and pendants were found in the graves.” ref

Yamnaya culture

“The Yamnaya culture or the Yamna culture, also known as the Pit Grave culture or Ochre Grave culture, was a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the region between the Southern Bug, Dniester, and Ural rivers (the Pontic–Caspian steppe), dating to 3300–2600 BCE or around 5,300 to 4,600 years ago. It was discovered by Vasily Gorodtsov following his archaeological excavations near the Donets River in 1901–1903. Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: yamnaya) is a Russian adjective that means ‘related to pits (yama)’, as these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers.” ref

“The Yamnaya economy was based upon animal husbandry, fishing, and foraging, and the manufacture of ceramics, tools, and weapons. The people of the Yamnaya culture lived primarily as nomads, with a chiefdom system and wheeled carts and wagons that allowed them to manage large herds. They are also closely connected to Final Neolithic cultures, which later spread throughout Europe and Central Asia, especially the Corded Ware people and the Bell Beaker culture, as well as the peoples of the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Srubnaya cultures.” ref

“Back migration from Corded Ware also contributed to Sintashta and Andronovo. In these groups, several aspects of the Yamnaya culture are present. Yamnaya material culture was very similar to the Afanasevo culture of South Siberia, and the populations of both cultures are genetically indistinguishable. This suggests that the Afanasevo culture may have originated from the migration of Yamnaya groups to the Altai region or, alternatively, that both cultures developed from an earlier shared cultural source.” ref

“Genetic studies have suggested that the people of the Yamnaya culture can be modelled as a genetic admixture between a population related to Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG) in roughly equal proportions, an ancestral component which is often named “Steppe ancestry”, with additional admixture from Anatolian, Levantine, or Early European farmers. Genetic studies also indicate that populations associated with the Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Sintashta, and Andronovo cultures derived large parts of their ancestry from the Yamnaya or a closely related population.” ref

“The origin of the Yamnaya culture continues to be debated, with proposals for its origins pointing to both the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures. The Khvalynsk culture (4700–3800 BCE) (middle Volga) and the Don-based Repin culture (c. 3950–3300 BCE) in the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe, and the closely related Sredny Stog culture (c. 4500–3500 BCE) in the western Pontic-Caspian steppe, preceded the Yamnaya culture (3300–2500 BCE). The Yamnaya culture was succeeded in its western range by the Catacomb culture (2800–2200 BCE); in the east, by the Poltavka culture (2700–2100 BCE) at the middle Volga. These two cultures were followed by the Srubnaya culture (18th–12th century BCE).” ref

“Further efforts to pinpoint the location came from Anthony (2007), who suggested that the Yamnaya culture (3300–2600 BCE) originated in the DonVolga area at c. 3400 BCE, preceded by the middle Volga-based Khvalynsk culture and the Don-based Repin culture (c. 3950–3300 BCE), arguing that late pottery from these two cultures can barely be distinguished from early Yamnaya pottery. Earlier continuity from eneolithic but largely hunter-gatherer Samara culture and influences from the more agricultural Dnieper–Donets II are apparent.” ref

He argues that the early Yamnaya horizon spread quickly across the Pontic–Caspian steppes between c. 3400 and 3200 BCE:

The spread of the Yamnaya horizon was the material expression of the spread of late Proto-Indo-European across the Pontic–Caspian steppes.
[…] The Yamnaya horizon is the visible archaeological expression of a social adjustment to high mobility – the invention of the political infrastructure to manage larger herds from mobile homes based in the steppes.” ref

“Alternatively, Parpola (2015) relates both the Corded ware culture and the Yamnaya culture to the late Trypillia (Tripolye) culture. He hypothesizes that “the Tripolye culture was taken over by PIE speakers by c. 4000 BCE,” and that in its final phase the Trypillian culture expanded to the steppes, morphing into various regional cultures which fused with the late Sredny Stog (Serednii Stih) pastoralist cultures, which, he suggests, gave rise to the Yamnaya culture. Dmytro Telegin viewed Sredny Stog and Yamna as one cultural continuum and considered Sredny Stog to be the genetic foundation of the Yamna.” ref

“The Yamnaya culture was nomadic or semi-nomadic, with some agriculture practiced near rivers, and a few fortified sites, the largest of which is Mikhaylivka. Characteristic for the culture are the burials in pit graves under kurgans (tumuli), often accompanied by animal offerings. Some graves contain large anthropomorphic stelae, with carved human heads, arms, hands, belts, and weapons. The dead bodies were placed in a supine position with bent knees and covered in ochre. Some kurgans contained “stratified sequences of graves.” ref

“Kurgan burials may have been rare, and were perhaps reserved for special adults, who were predominantly, but not necessarily, male. Status and gender are marked by grave goods and position, and in some areas, elite individuals are buried with complete wooden wagons. Grave goods are more common in eastern Yamnaya burials, which are also characterized by a higher proportion of male burials and more male-centred rituals than western areas.” ref

“The Yamnaya culture had and used two-wheeled carts and four-wheeled wagons, which are thought to have been oxen-drawn at this time, and there is evidence that they rode horses. For instance, several Yamnaya skeletons exhibit specific characteristics in their bone morphology that may have been caused by long-term horseriding. Metallurgists and other craftsmen are given a special status in Yamnaya society, and metal objects are sometimes found in large quantities in elite graves.” ref

“New metalworking technologies and weapon designs are used. Stable isotope ratios of Yamna individuals from the Dnipro Valley suggest the Yamnaya diet was terrestrial protein based with insignificant contribution from freshwater or aquatic resources. Anthony speculates that the Yamnaya ate meat, milk, yogurt, cheese, and soups made from seeds and wild vegetables, and probably consumed mead.” ref

“Mallory and Adams suggest that Yamnaya society may have had a tripartite structure of three differentiated social classes, although the evidence available does not demonstrate the existence of specific classes such as priests, warriors, and farmers.” ref

“According to Jones et al. (2015) and Haak et al. (2015), autosomal tests indicate that the Yamnaya people were the result of a genetic admixture between two different hunter-gatherer populations: distinctive “Eastern Hunter-Gatherers” (EHG), from Eastern Europe, with high affinity to the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture or other, closely related people from Siberia and a population of “Caucasus hunter-gatherers” (CHG) who probably arrived from the Caucasus or Iran. Each of those two populations contributed about half the Yamnaya DNA. This admixture is referred to in archaeogenetics as Western Steppe Herder (WSH) ancestry.” ref

“Admixture between EHGs and CHGs is believed to have occurred on the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe starting around 5,000 BCE, while admixture with Early European Farmers (EEF) happened in the southern parts of the Pontic-Caspian steppe sometime later. More recent genetic studies have found that the Yamnaya were a mixture of EHGs, CHGs, and to a lesser degree Anatolian farmers and Levantine farmers, but not EEFs from Europe due to lack of WHG DNA in the Yamnaya. This occurred in two distinct admixture events from West Asia into the Pontic-Caspian steppe.” ref

Haplogroup R1b, specifically the Z2103 subclade of R1b-L23, is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among the Yamnaya specimens. This haplogroup is rare in Western Europe and mainly exists in Southeastern Europe today. Additionally, a minority are found to belong to haplogroup I2. They are found to belong to a wider variety of West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups, including U, T, and haplogroups associated with Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers and Early European Farmers. A small but significant number of Yamnaya kurgan specimens from Northern Ukraine carried the East Asian mtDNA haplogroup C4.” ref

“In 2014, a study discovered a new mtDNA subclade C1f from the remains of 3 people found in north-western Russia and dated to 7,500 years ago. The subclades C1b, C1c, C1d, and C4c are found in the first people of the Americas. C1a is found only in Asia.” ref

“C4 – Upper Palaeolithic (14050 – 13770 years ago) Ust-Kyakhta (Buryatia), Late Neolithic-Bronze Age Irkutsk Oblast, Late Neolithic-Iron Age Yakutia, Tubalar (Ederbes), Todzhin (Toora-Hem, Iiy, Adir-Kezhig), Yukaghir (Andrushkino), Yukaghir/Chuvan (Markovo), Russian, Myanmar

    • C4a’b’c – Irkutsk Oblast (6815 years ago), India (Jenu Kuruba)
      • C4a – China (Guangdong, Han from Beijing)
        • C4a1 – Mongol from Chifeng and Hulunbuir, Tashkurgan (Kyrgyz, Sarikoli, Wakhi), Czech Republic, Denmark
          • C4a1a – Korea, China, Uyghur, Buryat (South Siberia), Denmark, Sweden, France, Scotland, Canada
            • C4a1a1
              • C4a1a1a
                • C4a1a1a1 – Lepcha, Sherpa (Nepal)
                • C4a1a1a2 – Lachungpa
                • C4a1a1a3 – Wancho
              • C4a1a1b – Poland, Finland (Hamina)
            • C-T195C! – Ireland, Scotland, England, USA, Hungary (Szeged region), Poland, Belarus, Russia (Russian, Buryat), Turkey, Pakistan (Hazara), India (Jammu and Kashmir), China (Bargut and Mongol in Inner Mongolia, etc.), Korea
              • C4a1a2 – China
                • C4a1a2a – China (Han from Ili, Han from Henan, etc.)
                • C4a1a2b
                  • C4a1a2b1 – China
                  • C4a1a2b2 – Uyghur
              • C4a1a3 – Bronze Age Irkutsk Oblast (Ust’-Belaya, Khaptsagai, Silinskij, Chastaja Padi), Russian (Kemerovo Oblast), Koryak, Yukaghir, Yakut, Evenk (Nyukzha, Chumikan, Nelkan/Dzhigda), Even (Sakkyryyr, Sebjan, Tompo, Markovo, Kamchatka), Udinsk Buryat (Kushun), Todzhin (Toora-Hem, Adir-Kezhig), Altai Kizhi, Iran (Qashqai), Sweden
                • C4a1a3a – Yakut, Buryat (Buryat Republic, Irkutsk Oblast), Bargut, Nentsi
                  • C4a1a3a1 – Yakut, Nganasan (Vadei of Taimyr Peninsula)
                    • C4a1a3a1a – Evenk (Taimyr, Stony Tunguska)
                    • C4a1a3a1b – Tofalar
                • C4a1a3b – Bargut, Uyghur
                  • C4a1a3b1 – Chelkan, Tubalar
                • C4a1a3c – Evenk (Taimyr Peninsula, Stony Tunguska)
                • C4a1a3d – Yakut
              • C4a1a4 – Buryat, Kazakhstan
                • C4a1a4a – Evenk (Okhotsk region), Shor
            • C4a1a5 – Teleut, Ladakh
            • C4a1a6
              • C4a1a6a – Russia (Bashkortostan, Khamnigan), Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyz), Inner Mongolia (Bargut, Buryat)
              • C4a1a6b – Buryat (South Siberia, Inner Mongolia), Uyghur
            • C4a1a7 – Denmark
          • C4a1b – China, Thailand (Palaung)
          • C4a1c – Russia (Bashkortostan, Adygei), Iran (Azerbaijanian), China (Xibo, Mongol from Tianjin)
        • C4a2
          • C4a2a – Yakut, Evenk (Chumikan)
            • C4a2a1 – Bronze Age (2275 – 2040 cal BCE or around 4,275 to 4,040 years ago) Irkutsk Oblast (specimen irk076 from burial 3 at the Shamanka 2 site, South Baikal), Shor, Chelkan, Teleut, Altai Kizhi, Yakut, Kazakh, Ket, Evenk (Stony Tunguska, Taimyr), Buryat (Irkutsk Oblast, Inner Mongolia), China, Korea
              • C4a2a1a – Yukaghir, Yakut, Evenk (Nyukzha, Iyengra, Nelkan/Dzhigda), Even (Tompo)
              • C4a2a1b – Evenk (Nyukzha), Yakut
                • C4a2a1b1 – Evenk (Nyukzha)
              • C4a2a1c – China (Zhejiang, Uyghurs), Buryat, Todzhin (Iiy), Karanogay (Dagestan)
                • C4a2a1c1 – Tofalar (Alygdzher, Nerkha, V. Gutara), Khamnigan
                • C4a2a1c2 – Uyghurs
              • C4a2a1d – Uyghurs
                • C4a2a1d1 – Udinsk Buryat (Kushun), Tofalar (V. Gutara), Evenk (Central Siberia)
                • C4a2a1d2 – Evenk (Nelkan/Dzhigda), Evenk/Nivkh (Val)
              • C4a2a1e – Bargut (Inner Mongolia), Buryat (Irkutsk Oblast)
              • C4a2a1f – Buryat (South Siberia, Irkutsk Oblast)
              • C4a2a1g – Ket
          • C4a2b – Tibet, Korea
            • C4a2b1 – Wancho
            • C4a2b2 – China (Han from Beijing)
              • C4a2b2a – Tibet (Sherpa)
          • C4a2c – Bargut (Inner Mongolia)
            • C4a2c1 – India (Jenu Kuruba)
            • C4a2c2 – Lepcha
              • C4a2c2a – Ladakh
      • C4b – Mongol from Jilin and Hulunbuir, Yukaghir, Altai Kizhi, Ukraine, Slovakia
        • C4b1 – Yukaghir, Buryat, Mongol from Jilin
          • C4b1a – Bargut (Inner Mongolia)
          • C4b1b – Evenk (Stony Tunguska), Buryat
        • C4b2 – Koryak
          • C4b2a – Koryak, Chukchi
        • C4b3 – Yakut, Altai Kizhi
          • C4b3a – Yukaghir, Even (Berezovka), Mongol from Xilingol
            • C4b3a1 – Yukaghir
          • C4b3b – Buryat, Evenk (Stony Tunguska)
        • C4b5 – Khamnigan, Buryat
        • C4b6 – Altai Kizhi, Tubalar
        • C4b7 – Yukaghir
        • C4b8 – Yakut
          • C4b8a – Nganasan
      • C4c – Ijka
        • C4c1 – Sioux (Carson County of South Dakota), Shuswap, Canada, USA, France, Spain
          • C4c1a – Cherokee (Flint District of Oklahoma)
          • C4c1b – Chippewa (Trempealeau in Wisconsin), Ottawa or Chippewa (Sault Saint Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan), Canada
        • C4c2 – Métis (Red River, Manitoba), USA
    • C4-T152C! – Russia (Bashkortostan), England
      • C4-T152C!-A12780G – Uyghur
        • C4d – Turkey, Tibet (Chamdo, Nyingchi, Shannan, Lhoba), Thailand (Khon Mueang from Chiang Mai Province), Han from Beijing, Mongol from Tongliao
      • C4-T152C!-T4742C – Altai Republic (ancient DNA), Uyghur
      • C4e – Teleut, Shor” ref

“People of the Yamnaya culture are believed to have had mostly brown eye colour, light to intermediate skin, and brown hair colour, with some variation.” ref

“Some Yamnaya individuals are believed to have carried a mutation to the KITLG gene associated with blond hair, as several individuals with Steppe ancestry are later found to carry this mutation. The Ancient North Eurasian Afontova Gora group, who contributed significant ancestry to Western Steppe Herders, are believed to be the source of this mutation. A study in 2015 found that Yamnaya had the highest ever calculated genetic selection for height of any of the ancient populations tested. It has been hypothesized that an allele associated with lactase persistence (conferring lactose tolerance into adulthood) was brought to Europe from the steppe by Yamnaya-related migrations.” ref

“A 2022 study by Lazaridis et al. found that the typical phenotype among the Yamnaya population was brown eyes, brown hair, and intermediate skin colour. None of their Yamnaya samples were predicted to have either blue eyes or blond hair, in contrast with later Steppe groups in Russia and Central Asia, as well as the Bell Beaker culture in Europe, who did carry these phenotypes in high proportions.” ref

“The geneticist David Reich has argued that the genetic data supports the likelihood that the people of the Yamnaya culture were a “single, genetically coherent group” who were responsible for spreading many Indo-European languages. Reich’s group recently suggested that the source of Anatolian and Indo-European subfamilies of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language may have been in west Asia and the Yamna were responsible for the dissemination of the latter. Reich also argues that the genetic evidence shows that Yamnaya society was an oligarchy dominated by a small number of elite males.” ref

“The genetic evidence for the extent of the role of the Yamnaya culture in the spread of Indo-European languages has been questioned by Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn and Balanovsky et al., who note a lack of male haplogroup continuity between the people of the Yamnaya culture and the contemporary populations of Europe. Klejn has also suggested that the autosomal evidence does not support a Yamnaya migration, arguing that Western Steppe Herder ancestry in both contemporary and Bronze Age samples is lowest around the Danube in Hungary, near the western limits of the Yamnaya culture, and highest in Northern Europe, which Klejn argues is the opposite of what would be expected if the geneticists’ hypothesis is correct.” ref

Yamnaya culture and the Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) Language

Marija Gimbutas identified the Yamnaya culture with the late Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) in her Kurgan hypothesis. In the view of David Anthony, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the strongest candidate for the Urheimat (original homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language, citing evidence from linguistics and genetics which suggests that the Yamnaya culture may be the homeland of the Indo-European languages, with the possible exception of the Anatolian languages. On the other hand, Colin Renfrew has argued for a Near Eastern origin of the earliest Indo-European speakers.” ref

“According to David W. Anthony, the genetic evidence suggests that the leading clans of the Yamnaya were of EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherer) and WHG (Western European hunter-gatherer) paternal origin and implies that the Indo-European languages were the result of “a dominant language spoken by EHGs that absorbed Caucasus-like elements in phonology, morphology, and lexicon.” It has also been suggested that the PIE language evolved through trade interactions in the circum-Pontic area in the 4th millennium BCE, mediated by the Yamna predecessors in the North Pontic steppe.” ref

“Guus Kroonen et al. 2022 found that the “basal Indo-European stage”, also known as Indo-Anatolian or Pre-Proto-Indo-European language, largely but not totally, lacked agricultural-related vocabulary, and only the later “core Indo-European languages” saw an increase in agriculture-associated words. According to them, this fits a homeland of early core Indo-European within the westernmost Yamnaya horizon, around and west of the Dnieper, while its basal stage, Indo-Anatolian, may have originated in the Sredny Stog culture, as opposed to the eastern Yamnaya horizon.” ref

“The Corded Ware culture may have acted as major source for the spread of later Indo-European languages, including Indo-Iranian, while Tocharian languages may have been mediated via the Catacomb culture. They also argue that this new data contradicts a possible earlier origin of Pre-Proto-Indo-European among agricultural societies South of the Caucasus, rather “this may support a scenario of linguistic continuity of local non-mobile herders in the Lower Dnieper region and their genetic persistence after their integration into the successive and expansive Yamnaya horizon”. Furthermore the authors mention that this scenario can explain the difference in paternal haplogroup frequency between the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures, while both sharing similar autosomal DNA ancestry.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, refref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

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

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

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

(ANA) Ancient Northeast Asian ancestry today

“Genetically, ANA/Amur ancestry peaks among modern TungusicMongolic, and Nivkh-speaking populations of Northeast Asia. ANA ancestry (represented by the Tungusic-speaking Ulchi people) overall forms the main ancestry of the early and contemporary speakers of TurkicMongolic, and Tungusic languages, which supports their spread from Northeast Asia westwards, discernable in the Lake Baikal region since at least 6,000 years ago. An earlier wave of Northern East Asian ancestry into Siberia is associated with “Neo-Siberians” (represented by Uralic-speaking Nganasans), which may be associated with the expansion of Yukaghir and Uralic languages, and the partial displacement of Paleo-Siberians, starting around 11,000 years ago.” ref

ref

Ancient mitogenomes from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Central Anatolia and the effects of a Late Neolithic bottleneck in sheep

“Abstract: Occupied between ~10,300 and 9300 years ago, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Aşıklı Höyük in Central Anatolia went through early phases of sheep domestication. Analysis of 629 mitochondrial genomes from this and numerous sites in Anatolia, southwest Asia, Europe, and Africa produced a phylogenetic tree with excessive coalescences (nodes) around the Neolithic, a potential signature of a domestication bottleneck. This is consistent with archeological evidence of sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük which transitioned from residential stabling to open pasturing over a millennium of site occupation. However, unexpectedly, we detected high genetic diversity throughout Aşıklı Höyük’s occupation rather than a bottleneck. Instead, we detected a tenfold demographic bottleneck later in the Neolithic, which caused the fixation of mitochondrial haplogroup B in southwestern Anatolia. The mitochondrial genetic makeup that emerged was carried from the core region of early Neolithic sheep management into Europe and dominates the matrilineal diversity of both its ancient and the billion-strong modern sheep populations.” ref

“The establishment of Neolithic sedentary societies in southwest Asia was associated with the development of farming practices between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Those practices included the cultivation of cereals and legumes and the management of sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs, which ultimately resulted in their domestication. Crop-livestock subsistence strategies started gaining ground around 10,500 years ago in the northern “Fertile Crescent,” and by 9,500 years ago, this mode of subsistence had replaced the foraging lifestyle in parts of southwest Asia and Cyprus. Archaeobotanical and zooarcheological analyses showed that these millennia-long practices of crop cultivation and ungulate management led to phenotypic changes in both plants and animals. To understand these changes, it is often necessary to integrate the evidence of multiple sites and millennia. However, only a few Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites preserved a sufficiently long occupation history and representative faunal assemblages to track morphological, biometric, and demographic changes related to early livestock management at a single location. The list of such exceptional sites in Anatolia includes Çayönü, Cafer Höyük, and Nevalı Çori in Southeastern Anatolia and Aşıklı Höyük in Central Anatolia.” ref

“Aşıklı Höyük is situated on the bank of the Melendiz River. Here, large numbers of caprine bones (i.e., sheep and goats) have been excavated from occupational phases spanning over a thousand years, between ~10,300 and 9,300 years ago. The importance of small livestock management at the site was such that, during the thousand-years occupation, the composition of animal remains identified as sheep and goat increased from ~50% to 87%. Analyses of this extraordinary assemblage provided a unique glimpse into early strategies of sheep management. This includes mortality curves that are indicative of the culling of juvenile males, which in turn reflects exploitation for meat, and spatial patterns of skeletal distribution that imply that slaughtering took place near the living quarters. Further analyses of intra-articular joint pathologies suggested restricted mobility close to the village, including residential stabling, which led to the accumulation of dung and urine salts in the sediments.” ref

“By 9,700 years ago, however, sheep management strategies apparently shifted toward extensive herding. Evidence for this includes a decrease in urine salt and dung concentrations in residential areas, an increase in carcass size (table S2), an improvement in joint health implying greater mobility, and shifts in phytolith and stable isotope profiles that imply more extensive grazing. Together, the evidence obtained at Aşıklı Höyük demonstrates that sheep management in early Neolithic communities was a dynamic process of learning by doing. Although management strategies at Aşıklı Höyük likely affected the phenotype of sheep populations, it is not clear whether they initiated evolutionary changes that ultimately led to the strong genetic differentiation between wild and domestic populations that we observe today.” ref

“A common assumption is that capture and spatial isolation of a subset of a wild population induced a “domestication bottleneck,” provoking the general reduction of genetic diversity evident in modern domestic sheep populations. Here, to address whether the initial management of sheep at Aşıklı Höyük caused shifts in their genetic makeup, we analyzed 629 whole mitogenomes sourced from 15 countries, including 62 from Aşıklı Höyük, spanning a period of over 10,000 years. This allowed us to infer the mitochondrial phylogeography and maternal demographic history of Anatolian and European sheep, and the contribution of the Aşıklı Höyük community to the formation of the Neolithic package dispersing across north and southwestern Anatolia between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, and subsequently into Europe.” ref

“When we tested the temporal changes in haplogroup frequencies, we found, in general, significant differences between, but not within, groups. The western group included Africa, Europe (modern and ancient), and Neolithic southwestern Anatolia, while the eastern group included Neolithic Aşıklı Höyük, Chalcolithic Güvercinkayası, Caucasus, Levant, and eastern Asia. This pattern was true when the tests were performed with effective population sizes (Ne) between 104 and 106 (we refrained from writing P values here because of the numerous combinations of Ne used in these analyses; see table S6 for the exact values and fig. S2 for a graphical summary of these results). The whole pattern of significance makes sense of the patterns of diversity/neutrality indexes and leads to an important observation that the divergence between eastern and western groups seems to have originated between central and southwestern Anatolia, during the Neolithic. In addition, the temporal tests detected no significant changes in haplogroup frequencies across Aşıklı Höyük’s occupation layers (P = 0.28 to 0.97).” ref

Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes

Genetic kinship estimated from co-buried individuals’ genomes in Neolithic Anatolia. Close relatives are common among co-burials in Aşıklı and Boncuklu. Many unrelated infants were found buried in the same building in Çatalhöyük and Barcın. Neolithic societies in Southwest Asia may have held diverse concepts of kinship. The social organization of the first fully sedentary societies that emerged during the Neolithic period in Southwest Asia remains enigmatic, mainly because material culture studies provide limited insight into this issue.” ref

“However, because Neolithic Anatolian communities often buried their dead beneath domestic buildings, household composition and social structure can be studied through these human remains. Here, we describe genetic relatedness among co-burials associated with domestic buildings in Neolithic Anatolia using 59 ancient genomes, including 22 new genomes from Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük. We infer pedigree relationships by simultaneously analyzing multiple types of information, including autosomal and X chromosome kinship coefficients, maternal markers, and radiocarbon dating.” ref

“In two early Neolithic villages dating to the 9th and 8th millennia BCE, Aşıklı Höyük and Boncuklu, we discover that siblings and parent-offspring pairings were frequent within domestic structures, which provides the first direct indication of close genetic relationships among co-burials. In contrast, in the 7th millennium BCE sites of Çatalhöyük and Barcın, where we study subadults interred within and around houses, we find close genetic relatives to be rare. Hence, genetic relatedness may not have played a major role in the choice of burial location at these latter two sites, at least for subadults. This supports the hypothesis that in Çatalhöyük and possibly in some other Neolithic communities, domestic structures may have served as burial location for social units incorporating biologically unrelated individuals. Our results underscore the diversity of kin structures in Neolithic communities during this important phase of sociocultural development.” ref

“This study focuses on social organization across two Neolithic periods. The Aceramic period is represented by Aşıklı Höyük (c. 8,350–7,300 cal BCE) and Boncuklu (c. 8,300–7,600 cal BCE) (Figure 1A), which are among the earliest sedentary communities in Central Anatolia. During the 9th millennium these sites were characterized by small curvilinear buildings, and both maintained mainly forager subsistence practices. The subsequent Ceramic Neolithic period communities were increasingly reliant on food production, and they lived in larger settlements characterized by rectilinear, clustered architecture. In our study, this later period is represented by Çatalhöyük (c. 7,100–5,950 cal BCE), Tepecik-Çiftlik (c. 7,500–5,800 cal BCE), and Barcın Höyük (c. 6,600–6,000 cal BCE). For this study, we screened Neolithic period human remains from Aşıklı Höyük (n = 30) and Çatalhöyük (n = 60) by shotgun DNA sequencing. Owing to adverse conditions and the antiquity of the material, only n = 8 (26%) and n = 14 (23%) skeletons (all petrous bones), respectively, contained ≥0.1% human DNA.” ref

Increased genetic diversity from the Aceramic to the Ceramic period

“We first analyzed genetic relationships at the population level. Principal components analysis (Figure 1B), ADMIXTURE analysis, as well as FST, f3– and D-statistics (Figures S2A) showed that Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük people belonged to the Central and West Anatolian early Holocene gene pool, represented by Boncuklu Höyük, Tepecik-Çiftlik, and Barcın Höyük individuals, as well as an Epipalaeolithic Central Anatolian individual from Pınarbaşı. Within this regional group, we discern genetically distinct communities, such that individuals from these sites (except for Tepecik-Çiftlik) tended to share more recent common ancestry with individuals from the same settlement compared with those of other settlements (among 576–11,780 D-tests per site, 84%–93% were nominally significant in this direction; Figures S3D). FST, f3– and D-statistics also showed that residents of the two Aceramic Neolithic settlements, Aşıklı Höyük and Boncuklu Höyük, were genetically highly similar to each other (Figures 1C, S2A, S2B, and S2D–S2F) relative to Ceramic Neolithic-period populations.” ref

“Aceramic Neolithic-period populations had lower within-group genetic diversity (measured using the f3-statistic) than did Ceramic Neolithic groups (Figures 1D and S2C, and Tables Z8 and Z9) and carried a higher fraction of short runs of homozygosity (ROH) than most Ceramic Neolithic genomes (Figure S3G). This temporal increase in diversity, also noted in earlier studies, could be explained by two non-exclusive scenarios, namely population growth and genetic admixture. By testing D(Outgroup, X; Aceramic Anatolian, Ceramic Anatolian), where X represents an early Holocene Zagros or Levantine population, we found results compatible with southern and eastern gene flow into Central and West Anatolia between roughly 7,500 and 6,500 cal BCE (Figure 1E and Table Z4) as previously suggested. Using qpAdm, we could also model Ceramic Neolithic Anatolian populations as mixtures of c.90% Aceramic Neolithic Anatolian ancestry (estimate ± 1 standard error: 89%–92% ± 2%–4%) and c.10% Levantine ancestry (8%–11% ± 2%–4%) (models that included Zagros or Caucasus populations were not supported) (Table Z10). Notably, the timing of increased population mobility is contemporaneous with a stronger reliance on agriculture and animal husbandry as food sources, a shift to larger buildings, likely population growth, and possible shifts in patterns of social organization, as we describe below.” ref

Estimating pedigree relationships among Neolithic co-burials

“Neolithic Southwest Asian settlements contain structures that are usually interpreted as domestic dwellings that served as focal points for the socialization of household members. These societies frequently interred their dead, including subadults and adults of both sexes, beneath the floors of these buildings while they were inhabited by the living. A common assumption has been that these burials were of household members who were related in some way, possibly genetically or through social kinship.However, it is not yet clear if individuals buried under house floors necessarily lived in those structures as part of a single co-resident group. The extent of dietary similarity among individuals interred within the same building, for instance, is currently ambiguous. Nevertheless, the assemblage of burials within or around domestic structures is expected to carry information about household composition and/or burial practices, and it may shed light on the relative importance of genetic relatedness as an organizing principle within these early Neolithic communities. In previous studies at Çatalhöyük, analyses of dental morphometrics and of mitochondrial DNA have suggested that individuals interred within the same building are often not genetically closely related. The question has remained unresolved, however, due to the inability of either data type to sufficiently identify exact pedigree relationships on any one site.” ref

“Here, we re-address the question of co-burial relationships using genome data from Neolithic Anatolian communities. In order to infer reliable pedigree relationships, we used different sources of information simultaneously. First, we employed three allele frequency-based methods to infer genetic kinship coefficients: NgsRelate, lcMLkin, and READ (Figures 2, S4A, and S4B). Second, to distinguish different pedigree relationships among putative first-degree pairs (e.g., siblings, mother-son, father-daughter), we used the probabilities of sharing 0, 1, or 2 alleles identical-by-descent (Cotterman coefficients; k0, k1, k2), although the low coverage of our genome data constrained the utility of this latter approach. Therefore, for inferring pedigree relationships we combined (a) kinship coefficients (θ) estimated from autosomal and from X chromosomal loci, (b) mitochondrial haplotype sharing, (c) osteological age-at-death estimates, and (d) radiocarbon dates. Finally, we performed pedigree simulations to determine the power of kinship coefficient estimation using low coverage data (Figure S4C). In addition, we studied the performance of the kinship estimation algorithms on negative controls, that is, real data from pairs of individuals who could historically not be close relatives. We hence limited the kinship tests to pairs of individuals sharing a minimum of 5,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (Figure S1B). This permits reliable estimations of genetic relatedness up to the 3rd degree (e.g., cousins). Pairs related beyond the 3rd degree are here referred to as “unrelated.” ref

“The final dataset included a total of 223 pairs of individuals buried within the same sites, who were broadly contemporaneous, and who had sufficient genomic data for reliably inferring genetic relatedness (Tables S1S3, and Z11). Of these, co-burials comprised 32 individuals and 50 pairs, including 2–6 burials associated with the same building or building clusters (i.e., co-burials). In Çatalhöyük and Barcın, co-buried individuals who could be genetically sampled only included subadults. Importantly, all these buildings either had evidence of domestic use (e.g., hearths) or lacked evidence of systematic non-domestic use (e.g., use as animal penning), and did not deviate from others of the same layer in terms of structure or elaboration.” ref

Co-buried pairs in Aceramic period sites frequently include relatives

“The data from Aşıklı Höyük included genomes of five individuals from the same stratigraphic layer who produced statistically consistent radiocarbon ages (χ2 = 7.6, χ 2(5%) = 9.5, n = 4; Table Z2) and could have lived at the same time. These individuals, all females, were interred in two buildings in close proximity and that shared a workspace, likely used by a single household (Figure 3A). All three methods identified two pairs of first-degree relatives (Figure 2A, and Tables S3 and Z11). One pair buried in the same building included an adult and child (individuals 136 and 131). The other pair, buried in separate but proximate buildings, included an old adult and child (individual 133 and 128). The genetic and skeletal evidence indicated both pairs to be sisters (Figures 2A–2C and Tables S3 and Z11). However, we cannot exclude parent-offspring relationships. An adult female (individual 129), buried in the same building as individual 128, had no genetically close relatives among the other four individuals. Thus, although only a minority of studied individual pairs (2 of 10 pairs) were closely related, the majority of individuals studied (4 out of 5) had one close relative identified in the same or adjacent building (Figure 2D and Table S1).” ref

“The Boncuklu Höyük data comprised nine genomes of individuals who were buried in three buildings or in external spaces. Five individuals formed a co-burial cluster in two adjacent consecutive buildings (Figure 3B). Among these, two pairs of first-degree relatives were identified (Figures 2A–2C; Tables S3 and Z11) (also reported earlier). The first was a possible mother and her adult son (individuals ZHF and ZHJ), who were buried in the same building (B14). Their radiocarbon results were different at the 1% significance level (χ2 = 8.8, χ2 (5%) = 3.8, n = 1; Table Z2), and suggested that the woman (ZHJ) died first with 90% probability. The second included a possible pair of adult male and female siblings (individuals ZHBJ and ZHAF). These individuals were buried in the proximate consecutive buildings (B12 and B14). Thus, as at Aşıklı Höyük, we could identify close relatives across the majority of individuals (4 out of 5) associated with neighboring building pairs (Figure 2D and Table S1). The only exception was a perinatal infant (individual ZHAG). Intriguingly, this infant was buried in the same grave with an adult female (individual ZHAF). The infant also shared the woman’s mitochondrial haplotype but was closely related to neither the woman nor any other individual studied. Other individuals also lacked close relatives in this dataset.” ref

Relatives are rare among Çatalhöyük and Barcın intramural burials

“The Çatalhöyük data contained genomes of 14 individuals from multiple stratigraphic levels. All except one individual were subadults; 10 and 4 were genetically determined to have been females and males, respectively. Ten subadults, buried in three buildings dating to the mid-7th millennium BCE, constituted three co-burial clusters (Figure 3C). We identified a single pair of female siblings (individuals 2728 and 2842), an infant and a child, buried within the same building (Building 50) (Figures 2A–2C, and Tables S3, Z2, and Z11). The pair produced statistically consistent radiocarbon measurements (χ2 = 0.0, χ2 (5%) = 3.8, n = 1). None of the other pairs of individuals tested were closely related. Hence, among Çatalhöyük individuals co-buried in these three buildings and tested genetically, only 2 out of 10 had genetic kin identified (Figure 2D and Table S1).” ref

“The Barcın Höyük data included genomes of 23 individuals from multiple phases (VIa, VIb and VIc or VId2/3) (Figure 3D). Ten of these individuals were inserted into three or possibly four buildings (Table Z2). We determined two pairs of relatives, including a pair of subadult sisters (associated with Building 5) and a pair of subadult males who were second- or third-degree relatives (associated with Buildings 14/15) (Figures 2A–2C and Tables S3 and Z11). Both pairs were buried in close proximity to each other and produced statistically consistent radiocarbon measurements (L11 213 & 215, χ2 = 0.7; M10 271 & 275, χ2 = 0.2, χ2 (5%) = 3.8, n = 1 for both; Table Z2). None of the other individuals had close relatives identified, including four infants buried in Building 4. Hence, among co-buried individuals we could identify relatives for only 4 out of 10 (Figure 2D and Table S1).” ref

“The Tepecik-Çiftlik data included genomes of a total of five individuals from two strata. We identified a probable pair of a mother and her adult son (individuals 37 and 21) buried in different parts of the same building (Building AY/AK) (Tables S3 and Z11). These individuals produced radiocarbon results that are different at the 1% significance level (χ2 = 8.0, χ2 (5%) = 3.8, n = 1), which suggests that it is 96% probable that the woman (individual 37) died first (Table Z2).” ref

Temporal or age-dependent variability in co-burial kinship patterns

“The identification of multiple instances of close genetic relatedness among co-burials across all Neolithic Anatolian settlements studied suggests that early Neolithic social arrangements and possibly household composition were to some extent linked to genetic ties. Although long assumed, genetic relatedness within Neolithic house-related social groups is documented here directly for the first time. This is particularly salient in the evidence from 9th and early 8th-millennium BCE Aşıklı Höyük and Boncuklu Höyük and could be considered suggestive of elements of close genetic kin relationships among groups buried together within Aceramic Neolithic houses.” ref

“Nevertheless, a notable fraction of our sample also contained individuals (nearly all subadults) buried in buildings together with genetically unrelated individuals (50% of 32 individuals; Figure 3). Genetic relatedness among co-burials was especially low in the 7th-millennium BCE Çatalhöyük and Barcın Höyük, with the majority of co-burials lacking identifiable genetically related kin (the sample size from Tepecik-Çiftlik is too small to reach a general conclusion). Indeed, the combined frequencies of individuals among co-burials with and without identified relatives appeared different between Aşıklı and Boncuklu versus Çatalhöyük and Barcın Höyük (odds ratio = 8.6, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.019; Figure 2D and Table S1). However, the difference becomes non-significant when including the co-buried adult pair from Tepecik-Çiftlik in the temporal comparison between Aceramic and Ceramic period sites (odds ratio = 6.6 and p = 0.054).” ref

“Two points need further mention. First, although all age groups are represented archaeologically among Çatalhöyük and Barcın Höyük burials, among samples with sufficient DNA data we had high proportions of subadults (13/14 and 16/23, respectively). This effect appears to be caused by better DNA preservation in subadult bones, at least at Çatalhöyük (Figure S1C; STAR Methods), possibly as a result of age-based differences in burial treatment. As a consequence, in our study, no adult co-burials could be genetically examined from these two sites. Second, Çatalhöyük and Barcın Höyük buildings were significantly larger and contained more burials than those of the Aceramic Neolithic sites (Figure 3).” ref

“The infrequency of close relatives among subadults buried together in relatively large structures at Çatalhöyük and Barcın Höyük is intriguing. It raises the question of whether these buildings may have been used by extended families, such that the co-buried subadults could be distant cousins who were not identified by the methods employed. We thus tested whether individuals buried in closer proximity shared greater genetic similarity, using genetic distances based on the f3-statistic (STAR Methods). After excluding close relatives, we found no correlation between genetic distance and spatial distance across burial pairs in either Çatalhöyük or Barcın Höyük (Pearson r < 0.02, Mantel test p > 0.3; Table S4).” ref

“Researchers also tested the hypothesis that overall genetic similarity among co-burials might be higher within buildings than between buildings. Again, we found no evidence for this (one-sided permutation test p > 0.8; Table S4). These results corroborate previous analyses that found no significant correlation between burial location and dental similarities in Neolithic Çatalhöyük adults and also a lack of mitochondrial DNA shared among co-burials. We note that we do not expect all individuals associated with these buildings to have been buried within those structures. Also, not all individuals interred in these buildings could be sampled in this study. Still, the presence of individuals without identified relatives implies that the choice of the same structure for the burial of community members may be motivated, among other factors, by additional forms of social connectedness.” ref

“For instance, co-burials, including juveniles, may have included “adoptive, foster or fictive kin held together by memory and history-making.” Accordingly, co-burial and perhaps household composition in these later Neolithic settlements may have included—but also extended beyond—close genetic kin. It is also possible that the practice of co-burying subadults with genetically unrelated individuals was already present in the Aceramic period in Anatolia, but we did not sample these sufficiently in Aşıklı and Boncuklu. Indeed, the Boncuklu adult female-infant pair sharing a grave, found to be unrelated, may reflect such a tradition. It, therefore, remains unclear, yet, whether the difference among sites in co-burial patterns reflects a temporal shift or differential treatment of adults versus subadults in Neolithic Anatolia.” ref

Varying traditions linking sex and space

“Another set of observations involves burial patterns with respect to sex. First, we find co-burial of closely related adults of both sexes at Boncuklu Höyük and possible adult-child sister pairs at Aşıklı Höyük. Although our sample size is limited to reach a definitive conclusion, it is worth noting that the pattern is consistent with adult females retaining close ties to their natal households, symbolically or residentially, over significant periods of their lives. This scenario, at least at Boncuklu Höyük, could equally have applied to the males. Second, the sex patterning observed in Anatolian Neolithic burials appear distinct from those described for Neolithic and Bronze Age cemeteries in Europe, where male burials predominate, and patrilocality is evident.” ref

“For instance, in a study of multiple cemeteries, Mittnik and colleagues identified only 2 first-degree related female pairs out of 21 first-degree relationships. This proportion is different in our data, which reveals 4 first-degree related female pairs out of 7 first-degree relationships (odds ratio = 11.1, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.02). This result, as well as the contrast between co-burial of related adult females in the Aceramic period buildings and the stark patrilocal patterns in 6th-3rd millennium European cemeteries, are consistent with the notion that sex role differences intensified following the initial adoption of agriculture. Meanwhile, both sister pairs we identified at Barcın and Çatalhöyük were subadults. In this regard, patrilocal traditions in Ceramic period Anatolian sites remain a possibility (as suggested earlier based on dental and mtDNA data).” ref

“In summary, in addition to evidence for the existence of close genetic ties among putative households in the Aceramic period, we find that genetic relatedness among subadult co-burials was infrequent at Ceramic period Çatalhöyük and Barcın. Although we cannot yet pinpoint when and where this latter practice emerged, it appears plausible that during the transition from the Aceramic to the Ceramic Neolithic period in Anatolia, in parallel with changes in subsistence and population mobility, genetic relatedness may have become less important in the structuring of intramural burial traditions.” ref

Neolithic buildings and households

“The concept of “house” refers to a social institution through which societies define a particular type of membership group, i.e., the “household.” What defines a household is based upon the cooperating individuals’ criteria for relatedness, task-orientation, and co-residence. These criteria are socio-culturally constructed and, therefore, highly variable across societies. For example, household members can be genetically related, as in genetic kin-based family organizations, but a household can also be composed of individuals who co-reside and share tasks with reference to relatedness criteria other than genetic ties. Nevertheless, these criteria of relatedness, genetic or otherwise, are considered legitimate only if they express continuity through successful invention and manipulation of concepts such as descent, belonging and other social differences based on age, sex and skill, all of which are also actively employed in terminologies of kinship or affinity. Within this context, long-lasting architecture has been the most potent embodiment of inclusion and relatedness, through which a household membership and its history can be represented via a variety of symbolic activities.” ref

“Some of the earliest long-lasting residential architecture, considered to be the primary context for the socialization of household members, is found in early Neolithic SW Asia, c. 10th-7th millennia cal BCE. The criteria that define relatedness among the household members of these societies, however, have long been debated: were the co-residents genetic kin, or did other factors determine household membership? Based on the size and form of the buildings, it has been suggested that the earlier curvilinear structures of the c.10th-9th millennium cal BCE were used by extended families, perhaps related to polygamous social structures, whereas the adoption of larger rectilinear and compartmentalized buildings of 8th-7th millennium cal BCE reflects a shift to close genetic kin-based organization.” ref 

“Alternatively, given the relatively small size of most Neolithic residential structures, regardless of shape, it has been postulated that these buildings were mostly used by nuclear families. Other researchers hold that the transition from some form of nuclear family household to increasingly autonomous family households occurred during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). Yet others argue that the increasingly autonomous households only occurred in the Late Neolithic as an element of multiscalar transformations of Neolithic communities in this period. Research on mortuary practices also underlines the broad regional changes through time, including suggested shifts from community membership to increasingly separate and autonomous household organizations in the PPNB. Meanwhile, the repeated construction of mudbrick buildings at the same location over multiple generations, sometimes even maintaining the position of internal structures such as hearths, implies the presence of distinct household identities in these societies.” ref

Do co-burials represent households?

“One potential source of information that could help resolve the nature of Neolithic household composition and social organization comes from burials within buildings during their occupancy. Neolithic SW Asian societies frequently practiced the burial of individuals beneath the floors of domestic buildings, usually during the time these structures were inhabited. A common assumption has been that these burials were of household members and were related in some way, possibly genetically or through kinship based on other factors. This could include households composed of families of closely genetically related individuals, extended families, multi-family households, or social units where genetic relatedness had little role. In reality, however, it remains unclear whether individuals buried under house floors lived in the same building as part of a co-resident group, i.e., whether they represented households.” ref

“If co-burials were indeed household members, we may expect them to share specific attributes more with each other than with other co-burial groups; most notably, elements of their diet. Evidence on dietary similarity among Neolithic Anatolian households is currently equivocal. A 2015 study reported no dietary differentiation among Çatalhöyük co-burials in different buildings. A 2020 study using a wider dataset again from Çatalhöyük reported statistically significant differentiation in carbon and nitrogen isotope values among buildings. This same work further reported significant dietary differences among neonates buried in different buildings. Still, possible confounding factors that could influence stable isotope profiles (age and sex for adults, pathological conditions for neonates) were not explicitly controlled for in these analyses, and we therefore consider these results as preliminary.” ref

“There exist additional arguments against the hypothesis that co-burials represent households. It appears that the average number of burials per residential structure is generally too small to represent full households. For instance, in Aşıklı Höyük, only 90 burials have been discovered from more than 400 rooms excavated. This suggests additional factors influenced the choice of burial locations and type of funerary treatments of individuals. Furthermore, an apparent excess of burials in some residential buildings, in sites such as Çatalhöyük, and occasionally at other sites such as Abu Hureyra and Bestansur (although the relevant buildings here may not be ordinary residential structures), implies a special role of some residential buildings for burial of individuals who probably had originally lived in other residences. Düring and Marciniak’s (2005) analysis of Çatalhöyük houses also indicates that human burials in buildings may have served to advertise the temporal continuity (history) of the buildings, which thus ensured the continuity and success of the household, regardless of their genetic ties.” ref

“If co-burials do not represent household members, their interment in the same buildings could be driven by at least two distinct traditions. First, individuals may be buried together because they died at the same time. This could also include mass burials following disease outbreaks. However, in the case of co-burials in Neolithic Anatolian settlements, the mortuary context and mortality profiles do not indicate mass burials. The evidence overall suggests these were collective burials, where individuals were buried sequentially, as is prevalent at Neolithic Çatalhöyük as well as other sites.” ref

“Second, co-burial patterns may reflect local traditions stipulating specific burial arrangements of individuals who do not belong to the same household. Such traditions could involve burying individuals of specific status or social backgrounds together. The motivation behind these traditions may be to maintain social and economic ties among groups and to “consolidate community membership”. For instance, it has been suggested that the emergence of cemeteries during the Natufian period could have represented “the establishment or strengthening of special interest groups, inheritance of corporate property, and territorial ownerships”. Another example could be traditions such as described for Aboriginal Australian groups where the corpses of deceased young children were retained by the mothers to be interred with an adult male who dies next (Musgrave 1930, cited in). If such arrangements were in place also in Neolithic Anatolian settlements, we might expect no direct social or genetic connection among co-burials.” ref

Relatedness among co-burials

“Studies on genetic relatedness among co-burials in Neolithic SW Asia have yet been limited. Most work to date relies on dental metric and non-metric traits as proxies for genetics, and one recent study used mitochondrial DNA. These studies have reported patterns consistent with endogamy or with matrilocality in Neolithic Levantine sites, and with patrilocality at Çatalhöyük. Meanwhile, the Çatalhöyük studies, based either on dental analysis or mitochondrial DNA, found no evidence for individuals buried in the same building being more closely related to each other than to individuals buried in other buildings.” ref 

“Still, owing to the inability to estimate the degree of kinship using dental traits and mitochondrial data, the question of kinship among co-burials in Neolithic SW Asia has remained largely unresolved. Ancient genomics, in turn, can be used as a powerful tool to determine genetic relatedness and kinship among households of the dead, allowing further consideration of how burial locations might have structured relationships between households of the living and the construction of kinship, as well as social memory and social traditions in general. With some temporal depth to our study we are also able to consider if there might be temporal trends in these social practices over the long term.” ref

Description of archaeological sites

Description of Aşıklı Höyük 

“Aşıklı Höyük, located in the Volcanic Cappadocia Region in eastern Central Anatolia is one of the earliest sedentary communities of the region, radiocarbon dated to the mid-9th and 8th millennium BCE (8350-7300 cal BCE). Excavations at the site started in 1989 as salvage excavations under the direction of Prof. Ufuk Esin (İstanbul University). Since 2010, the research and excavation project has been led by Prof. Mihriban Özbaşaran (İstanbul University) and Güneş Duru (Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University) in collaboration with an international team from various universities and institutions.” ref

“The first inhabitants of Aşıklı settled near the western bank of the Melendiz River. The river, flowing from the Ihlara Valley, and the volcanic landscape provided a rich habitat for various animal and plant species. A warm climate and park-woodland vegetation was dominant in the region during the beginning of the Holocene. The mid-9th millennium BCE inhabitants of the site lived in semi-subterranean, oval mudbrick buildings that were reconstructed and renewed periodically at the same location. Characteristics of these buildings include hearths, a small platform, grinding stones and burial pits. Daily life was organized outside the buildings, in open activity areas, where many of the daily tasks were conducted.” ref

“Archaeozoological data attest to broad spectrum hunting during the 9th millennium BCE, including a variety of small prey animals, birds and fish, although the main focus was always on sheep/goat. Analyses of micromorphology and soil chemistry, and the presence of primary dung layers attest to the fact that animals were kept on-site, inside wattle and daub enclosures. Archaeozoological data, as well as isotope analysis show that caprines, specifically sheep, were kept in the settlement from the earliest levels; management and the domestication process continued all through the sequence. The community had the knowledge and the experience of growing plants and cultivating wild and domestic cereals. Wild plants, legumes and fruits were among the gathered plants.” ref

“With the start of the 8th millennium BCE, changes took place in architecture and settlement patterns. Rectangular structures replaced the oval and semi-subterranean buildings. These rectangular buildings were mostly single-roomed. Although few in number, buildings with two or three-room buildings are also present. Toward the end of the settlement occupation, buildings started to cluster. Building clusters, generating neighborhoods, were separated by narrow spaces or passages with access to communal middens. Separated by a “gravel street” from the residential area, to the southwest of the present mound, lies a building complex distinguished from domestic buildings in terms of its plan, size, construction material, internal architectural features and floor and wall treatment. The architectural features and the characteristics of the archaeological material (i.e., the dominance of wild cattle) permit interpretation of this area as a “public area” where communal consumption and certain ceremonies took place. Evidence of communal activities in this area indicates the continuity of the collective way of living, while the daily activities in the residential area most probably took place on the flat roofs and inside the dwellings. During this period, hunting and gathering continued, though with less importance, and subsistence was based mainly on sheep and goat, but these animals were no longer kept within the settlement.” ref

“Two concepts, a communal way of life and continuity, characterized the social organization of the Aşıklı community. Interaction with other regions and communities had a certain tempo during the mid-9th millennium BCE, as evidenced by the material culture. However, simultaneous with the increasing focus on the full establishment of sedentism and caprine management, the pace of interaction decreased, only to increase again during the last 200-300 years of site occupation, corresponding roughly to the second half of the 8th millennium BCE. This is well illustrated by the sudden appearance of non-local materials and technologies during this period. In contrast with this pattern of temporal change, continuity of certain elements, such as the location of the buildings and interior architectural features, constant renewal and maintenance of the floors and walls of buildings, and the transferring of objects and know-how was another factor that characterized the social fabric of the community. The inhabitants managed to live in cohesion throughout the occupation sequence and the communal way of life was maintained with new solutions, but also continuity through temporal changes and transformations was the main characteristic of the newly established Neolithic way of life at Aşıklı Höyük.” ref

“The burial customs consist of intramural, single sub-floor inhumations. The deceased were buried in pits under the floors of the buildings in a flexed position. To date, 90 burials have been found in 400 rooms. Although this tradition was not subject to change for hundreds of years, new practices arose during the latest levels of the occupation at the site. The dead were not buried with any items of personal adornment during the mid-9th millennium BCE. However, changes can be observed toward the mid-8th millennium when some individuals are found buried with ornaments. Of the 82 individuals subjected to bioarchaeological analysis, adults constitute 60% while children make up 40%. Of the 46 adults for whom sex can be determined, females constitute 65% while males constitute 35%, a marginally significant difference (binomial test p = 0.054). In terms of the daily activities conducted by the Aşıklı Höyük individuals, task-related pathologies of adults show that the shoulders, hips, ankles, elbows and knees were affected by osteoarthritis, possibly stemming from habitual stress. Males exhibit significant degrees of shoulder osteoarthritis, followed by their elbows and hips; for females the ankles were most affected by this disease, followed by the shoulders and hips. This may suggest that males were routinely engaged in activities such as carrying heavy loads, throwing, walking and kneeling, and females were probably engaged in activities that involved walking and squatting.” ref

“Five of these burials genetically studied here were interred in Building 1 and Building 3 of Aşıklı Höyük Layer 4 (Figure 3A). These are buildings in direct proximity with less than 1 m between them, which showed temporal overlap in their periods of use, and which shared a common open workspace between them. We therefore treated the individuals from both buildings as a cluster of co-burials, who might represent members of the same household.” ref

 

Description of Boncuklu Höyük

“Boncuklu is situated in the middle of the SW Konya basin (37°45’N 32°52’E) and lies 33.4 km northwest of the site of Pınarbaşı and 9.5 km northeast from Çatalhöyük. The site was discovered during the archaeological survey under the direction of Prof. Douglas Baird from the University of Liverpool, UK. Excavations directed by Baird began in 2006 and continue at the present time. Baird was joined by co-directors, Prof. Andrew Fairbairn of University of Queensland, Australia and Dr. Gökhan Mustafaoğlu of Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University, Turkey, since 2011. Occupation of the site is documented from 8300-7600 cal BCE directly through radiocarbon dating. However, stratigraphic and material evidence suggest a slightly longer span of occupation.” ref

“The exploitation of wild resources seems to have predominated, especially wild cattle and boar, fish and wetland birds, along with nuts and fruits from surrounding hill areas. Small-scale cultivation of wheat, lentils and peas was an additional modest component of subsistence activities. The chipped stone industry was microlithic, in significant contrast to broadly contemporary Levantine PPNB and northern Fertile Crescent assemblages and thus shows significant continuities with the earlier, local Epipalaeolithic and the earlier 10th/early 9th millennium BC community at Pınarbaşı in technology and raw material. Continuities between Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene forager communities and the community at Boncuklu are clear. This evidence is supported by significant genetic continuity. By 8300 cal BCE it appears local foragers adopted domestic plants from areas to the south and east, incorporating them into their traditional wetland exploitation practices. They were probably introduced to the region as a consequence of the far-reaching and continuous interactions with neighboring regions from the Epipalaeolithic through the 10th-early 9th millennia cal BCE, as also documented at earlier and contemporary Pınarbaşı.” ref

“The site possessed a number of sunken-floored sub-oval domestic buildings with mudbrick walls. The households display highly structured use of internal house space, divided into a ‘clean’ area presumably for sleeping, socializing and food consumption and a ‘dirty’ kitchen area. The houses were very regularly refurbished, plastered and modified, especially the hearth areas, showing the intensity of domestic use. The floor area of these houses is small and modeling shows small intimate household units with intensive and repetitive domestic practices. Evidence of ritual and symbolism in the ‘clean’ areas, including burials, is regular and differentiated from house to house suggesting creation and maintenance of distinctive household identities. The Boncuklu houses were also repeatedly and continuously reconstructed over multiple generations in the same location, a practice at some other 10th-7th millennia cal BCE sites in the surrounding regions, for example to the northeast at Aşıklı from 8300 cal BCE, just to the south at Çatalhöyük from 7100 cal BCE, in the Levant at PPNA Jericho and in PPNB Tell Halula. This seems to be a symbolic statement of household continuity. This expression of continuity and identity suggests small tight-knit households in continuous occupation of these domestic structures, whatever the nature and dynamism of their composition, which we can start to grasp through aDNA evidence. Nevertheless, there seems evidence that some broader corporate social practices cross-cut households, including some practices involved in food and resource exploitation in the wider landscape.” ref

“Primary inhumations were placed under the ‘clean’ area of the houses during their occupation. It seems the dead ‘ancestors’, whether biologically related or not, were kept close to the living. In the case of Boncuklu the modest numbers of burials under house floors, maximum 5 and more usually 1-3, per house, suggest many of these could easily be members of the household that lived in these buildings, although we certainly cannot assume that to be so. Nevertheless, reflecting the fact they occurred within the houses while still in use and that these were small-sized buildings with very intimate spaces, presumably means the co-burial of the dead expressed some type of relationship to the households of the living, and thus represented a symbolic statement of connection between the dead and the living. Indeed, evidence attests to ongoing attention to burials and knowledge of their location.” ref

“There were also primary burials and burials of deliberately disarticulated human remains, including human crania, in open areas between buildings in areas of midden accumulation. More than 37 Neolithic burials, plus a minimum of 274 individual bones and 129 isolated finds of human remains have been studied, although more have been excavated. Nine skeletal samples from securely stratified 9th-8th millennia cal BCE burials in Areas H, K, and M provided sufficient aDNA preservation for genetic analysis (Table Z2), and thus genomic data. Boncuklu human remains do not reflect significant disproportionate representation of males or females and there is an even spread across most age categories, including children and young, middle and old adults, with a slight, but not unusual, lesser presence of older children/adolescents.” ref

“Five of these burials (ZHF – Grave 14, ZHJ – Grave 15, ZHAF – Grave 18, ZHAG – Grave 18 and ZHBJ – Grave 30), including 2 pairs of individuals with first-degree genetic relationships were all articulated primary inhumations stratified within a sequence of 2 buildings in Area H, Building 12 and Building 14. Building 12 predates Building 14 and, indeed, the foundation cut for Building 14 removed the northern edge of Building 12 (Figure 3B). Building 14 seemed a direct replacement for Building 12, an example of the continuous reconstruction of the buildings in the same locations, although in this case with some shift of the house to the north. ZHBJ, the likely brother of ZHAF, was buried in the northern part of Building 12 (Figure 3B). ZHAF, his likely sister, was buried in the southern part of Building 14 (Figure 3B). This seems a deliberate attempt to keep these individuals close at death and points to the close connections between the living and dead in these households. Both these burials had similar orientations, approximately west-east/northwest-southeast with heads at the West. It is thus tempting to think this might also reflect their close relationship.” ref

“It may well have done, but these are the most common burial orientations at Boncuklu, among c. 70% of the analyzed burials and so might simply reflect these broader patterns. ZHAG, a female perinatal child that likely died at birth, was placed directly against the pelvis of ZHAF, but was genetically unrelated to that adult female ZHAF and also unrelated to ZHF and ZHJ in the same building. It is, of course, possible her mother lived in Building 14 but was genetically unrelated to the other adults buried there, or that as a result of some form of connection to the child and/or her mother she was buried with ZHAF, albeit from a household who lived elsewhere. ZHF and ZHJ, most likely adult son and mother respectively, were located in the more eastern parts of Building 14 (Figure 3B). The orientation of their bodies was not dissimilar, ZHF had the common northwest-southeast and ZHJ a north-south orientation. However, their heads were at opposite ends of the grave-cut, ZHF to the northwest and ZHJ to the south. It is, therefore, difficult to suggest that orientation at Boncuklu was a direct expression of close family relationships.” ref

“ZHAJ was a primary inhumation burial of an adult male that predated Building 14 and seems to have been located in an open area. ZHB was the burial of an adult female burial post-dating Building 14. Overlying stratigraphy was eroded so it was unclear whether the grave for ZHB was cut through the floor of a building or was placed in an external area. These two burials do not show any close genetic relationships to the other sampled individuals. The other burials analyzed, genetically unrelated to any of these burials in Area H, was one adult male primary inhumation, ZKO, buried in Building 9 in Area K, broadly contemporary but c. 15 m from the cluster in Area H. ZMOJ was a primary inhumation in an external area in the middens of Area M, located c. 25 m from the cluster in Area H. Although well stratified in Neolithic deposits the chronological relationship with the Area H cluster and ZMOJ is not clear.” ref

 

Description of Çatalhöyük

 

“Located 9 km to the south of Boncuklu Höyük on the Konya Plain in Central Anatolia, the site of Çatalhöyük was discovered and first excavated between 1961-1965 by James Mellaart (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara), and later between 1995-2015 by Ian Hodder (Stanford University). Çatalhöyük was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012. The site consists of two separate mounds or “tells.” The larger East Mound covers an area of 13 ha and has been dated to c. 7100-5950 cal BCE, corresponding roughly to the Ceramic Neolithic period. The smaller West Mound dates to the Early Chalcolithic and was occupied until the middle of the 6th millennium BCE. The Neolithic East Mound, until c. 6300 cal BCE, is characterized by dense clusters of mudbrick domestic structures interspersed with external spaces used for refuse disposal, animal penning and other daily activities.” ref

“To date, large-scale, clearly identifiable public structures have not been documented at the site. Instead, individual houses at Çatalhöyük appear to have served as the focal point not only for domestic activities such as craft production, food storage and processing, but also ritual behaviors such as burials, wall paintings and other architectural embellishments associated with an elaborate symbolic repertoire and reflecting a complex socio-cultural environment. There is ample evidence for the cultivation of domesticated cereal crops and the keeping of domesticated sheep and goats at the site. Wild animal species, including aurochs, also formed part of the diet, and in the later occupation phases (6500-5950 cal BCE) there is evidence for the herding of domesticated cattle.” ref

“Between 1993 and 2017 the skeletal remains of over 700 individuals had been recovered from stratified Neolithic contexts at Çatalhöyük. Primary inhumations (n = 471 individuals) placed beneath the floors of houses are the dominant burial type at the site. Individuals were typically buried in narrow oval pits under the eastern and northern platforms of the central room, although prenates, neonates and infants were also recovered from within side rooms and near ovens and hearths. Secondary burials of loose or partially articulated skeletal remains, often in association with primary burials, are also observed, although less frequently. Intramural burials became increasingly rare toward the end of the occupation of Çatalhöyük East, while burials are almost completely absent within the settlement on the Chalcolithic West Mound.” ref

“Of the 471 individuals from primary burial contexts, there are 178 adults (20+ years), 29 adolescents (12-20 years), 90 children (3-12 years), 67 infants (2 months-3 years), 85 neonates (0-2 months), and 22 prenates (> 38 weeks in utero). Among the adults and adolescents whose sex could be determined (n = 155), 89 individuals (57%) were assessed as females or possible females, while 66 individuals (43%) were assessed as males or possible males, a marginally significant difference (binomial test p = 0.077).” ref

 

Description of Barcın Höyük

 

“Located in the Yenişehir Valley in the province of Bursa in northwestern Turkey, the site of Barcın Höyük yielded an uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence from 6600 to 6000 cal BCE. The settlement was built on a low natural elevation in what would have been a marshland valley. The Neolithic levels at Barcın Höyük, which lie beneath a relatively thin deposit of later levels dating to the Chalcolithic, Bronze Ages and the Byzantine period, are thick and exceed 4.5 m in most places at the site. Called level VI, the Neolithic phase is divided into seven subphases: VIe (earliest level) through VIa. The VIe levels of the site represent the earliest farming community known to date in the Marmara Region. The initial pioneer communities who arrived here around 6600 cal BCE brought with them crops to cultivate and animals to herd. With regards to plants, domesticated varieties of cereals and pulses were plentiful. Sheep and cattle were the preferred herd animals although goats were also present while hunting only contributed a minor part of the diet. Extensive organic residue analyses on pottery demonstrate that the inhabitants of Barcın Höyük relied heavily on dairy products. This observation confirms those made by Evershed and colleagues for later sites in the Marmara Region.” ref

“The initial settlers in the region were accomplished potters even though pottery use was initially limited and indirect methods of heating foods were preferred. Within a century however, thin-walled finely made burnished pots become plentiful. Building on a consistent tradition, recipes of manufacture and temper changed over the ensuing centuries. The residents of Barcın Höyük lived in rectilinear timber frame houses with wood and mud walls. Houses tended to be in rows, surrounded by courtyard areas where a variety of activities were carried out. Burials associated with the settlement were placed within and near structures. Interestingly, many infants were buried within the house proper beneath floors while adults were typically placed in the courtyard areas. Children often tended to be buried outside but closer to the structures, sometimes beneath the floors of the verandas in front of the houses.” ref

“Although intensively analyzed for DNA, the Barcın Höyük skeletons await final anthropological analyses. Based on preliminary data, adults appear to comprise 38% (46 burials) of the 121 burials that come from primary burial contexts. Of the skeletons that can be identified based on sexual characteristics, nearly two thirds of these appear to be females or possibly females. Subadults including adolescents, children, infants and neonates comprise the remaining 62% of the assemblage.” ref

 

Description of Tepecik-Çiftlik

 

“Tepecik-Çiftlik is located in the Volcanic Cappadocia region of Central Anatolia in the Melendiz/Çiftlik Plain. The excavators suggest it was occupied from the end of the Aceramic Neolithic Period until the early Chalcolithic Period, between c.7500-5800 cal BCE. The Pottery Neolithic levels show evidence of agriculture and animal breeding, as well as continued hunting and gathering. The site is in close proximity to major obsidian ore beds in the region and is notable for its large amount of obsidian tool remains. Further information about the site may be found at. A 2016 report on Tepecik-Çiftlik indicated that over 170 individuals’ remains dating to the Neolithic levels, buried inside buildings and in open areas had been excavated. A collective burial was also found, and is thought to have been used for successive burials, both primary and secondary. It includes at least 42 individuals of both sexes and various ages.” ref

 

Description of archaeological material

 

“This section describes bioarchaeological characteristics of the individuals from Aşıklı Höyük, Çatalhöyük and Boncuklu Höyük. Some of this data are unpublished. Barcın Höyük and Tepecik-Çiftlik individuals included in this study have been described in the supplementary material of Mathieson et al. and Kılınç et al., respectively. Sex was estimated using dimorphic markers, and individual ages-at-death were estimated using standard methods such as human growth and epiphyseal fusion, dental calcification, and bone maturity/size. The sex of subadult individuals listed below have been determined based on genetic data produced in this study.” ref

 

Description of Aşıklı Höyük individuals

 

“SK2 (Level 1/2A; Building AB): the burial of a young adult female. Double burial. SK2 was buried in the same burial pit of a male, slightly later. The pit is located in a one-room rectangular building of the mid-8th millennium BCE settlement. Radiocarbon dating places the individual to 7585-7475 cal BCE (Table Z2). SK33 (Level 2C, Building C): the burial of a child, buried under the floor of a rectangular planned kerpiç (mudbrick) building. Radiocarbon dating places the individual to 7945–7890 cal BCE (9%) or 7870–7595 cal BCE (86%). Building C was renewed 10 times at the same location (Figure 3A), where this child’s burial was contemporary with its eighth renewal phase. Excavated in 1991. SK40 (Level 2B, Building BH): the burial of an old adult female. Sub-floor inhumation in a rectangular kerpiç building of the 8th millennium BCE settlement. One of the three individuals buried in the same building: a one-month old infant and a middle adult female. Radiocarbon dating places the individual at 7935–7915 cal BCE (1%) or 7825–7590 cal BCE (94%).” ref

“SK128 (Level 4, Building 3): the burial of a female child. She is one of the two individuals buried in the same building. Radiocarbon dated to 8225–7955 cal BCE (95%). SK129 (Level 4, Building 3): the burial of a young adult female, buried in a semi-subterranean oval building. She is one of the two individuals buried in the same building. Excavated in 2011; primary burial; radiocarbon dated to 8170–8115 cal BCE (6%), 8060–8045 cal BCE (1%), 8010–7985 cal BCE (1%), 7970–7735 cal BCE (86%). SK131 (Level 3E/4, Building 1): the burial of a female child, exposed lying on the pavement of a hearth in a semi-subterranean oval building. This is an exceptional burial, in position and in location. Four more individuals were buried in the same building. The burial was exposed in 2012. She was radiocarbon dated to 8200–8110 cal BCE (16%) or 8095–8035 cal BCE (7%) or 8015–7740 cal BCE (72%).

“SK133 (Level 3E/4, Building 1): the burial of an old adult female, the oldest member of the community thus far excavated. She was one of the five individuals buried in the same oval, semi-subterranean building, B.1. She was a primary burial and was radiocarbon dated to 8170–8115 cal BCE (8%), 8060–8040 cal BCE (1%), 8010–7980 cal BCE (2%), 7975–7735 cal BCE (84%). Excavated in 2012. SK136 (Level 3E/4, Building 1): the burial of a young adult female, one of the five individuals from Building 1. She was a primary burial, and was radiocarbon dated to 8175–8110 cal BCE (7%) or 8090–8075 cal BCE (1%) or 8065–8040 cal BCE (1%) or 8015–7705 cal BCE (84%) or 7695–7655 cal BCE (2%). Excavated in 2015.” ref

 

Description of Çatalhöyük individuals

 

“Sk.5357 (burial feature 576, Level South K, Early period, Building 17): primary burial of a male infant. He was 9 months ± 3 months at death based on dental development. It was buried in a flexed position along the east wall of B.17 in association with red pigment and traces of reed basketry. The burial was excavated in 1999. Radiocarbon dating places this individual between 7035–6680 cal BCE (93%) or 6670–6650 cal BCE (2%). Sk.21855 (burial feature 8214, Level South K, Early period, Building 17): the primary burial of a female child. She was 4 years ± 1yr at death based on dental development. It was placed in a flexed position in a burial cut along the west wall of B.17. The burial was excavated in 2016.” ref

“Sk.1885 (burial feature 84, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): the primary flexed burial of a male child. He was 7 years ± 2yrs at death, excavated in 1995. This individual was interred directly above Sk.2033 (see below) in the southwest corner of B.50. Radiocarbon dating places this individual between 6905–6885 cal BCE (1%) or 6825–6635 cal BCE (92%) or 6625–6600 cal BCE (2%). Sk.2033 (burial feature 84, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): the primary flexed burial of a male child 3 years ± 1yr at death, excavated in 1995. This individual was interred directly below Sk.1885 (see previous) in the southwest corner of B.50. Radiocarbon dating places this individual between 6690-6590 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“Sk.2017 (burial feature 96, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): the primary burial of a female neonate (0-2 months at death based on measurements of the basi-occipital bone), excavated in 1997. The burial was located near the oven along the southern wall of B.50. The bones of this individual were scorched as a result of the burial’s proximity to the oven. Radiocarbon dating places this individual between 6815–6790 cal BCE (2%) or 6775–6595 cal BCE (93%) (Table Z2). Sk.2728 (burial feature 258, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): an undisturbed primary burial of a female infant aged 9 months (±3 months) at death based on dental development. It was excavated in 1997 from Building 50, located in the South Area of the site. The body was placed in a small pit near the eastern wall of the main room. Radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone places this individual between 6695-6505 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“Sk.2779.1 (burial feature 265, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): the primary burial of a male neonate (0-2 months at death based on measurements of the basi-occipital bone), excavated in 1997. The burial was heavily disturbed by Mellaart’s earlier excavations in this building during the 1960s. Sk.2842 (burial feature 274, Level South M, Middle period, Building 50): a disturbed primary burial of a female infant aged 18 months (±6 months) at death based on dental development. It was excavated in 1998 from Building 50, located in the South Area of the site. The body was placed in a small pit near the center of the main room and was partially disturbed by a later burial. Radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone places this individual between 6690-6505 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“Sk.21981 (burial feature 8153, Level South N, Middle period, Building 89): a disturbed primary burial of a female infant/child aged 3 years (±1 year) at death based on dental development. It was excavated in 2015 from Building 89, located in the South Area of the site. The body was placed in a small pit within the north platform of the main room and was subsequently truncated by the digging of a post retrieval pit. Sk.5747 (burial feature 1064, Level South M, Middle period, Building 91): a primary burial of a female infant aged 18 months (±6 months) at death based on dental development. It was excavated in 2002 from Building 91, located in the South Area of the site. The body was placed in a small pit located in the northeast corner of B.91. Radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone places this individual between 6640-6490 cal BCE (95%) (Table Z2).” ref

“Sk.30006 (burial feature 7615, Level North G, Middle period, Building 114): a primary burial of a female infant aged 9 months (±3 months) at death based on dental development. It was excavated in 2015. The body was interred with a middle adult female in an oval pit along the south wall of the main room. Radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone places this individual between 6645–6495 cal BCE (94%) or 6490–6480 cal BCE (1%). Sk.8587 (burial feature 1013), Level North G, Middle period, Building 114): a primary burial of a female neonate (0-2 months at death – based on long bone length) excavated in 2002 and located under the southeast platform. The burial was partially disturbed by subsequent burials in this location, and likely also by rodent burrowing.” ref

“Sk.11739 (burial feature 1912, Level TP Q-R, Final period): a heavily disturbed set of human remains belonging to a middle adult (35-50 years of age-at-death) based on dental occlusal wear. The individual was assessed as a possible male based on cranial morphology, although aDNA suggested the individual was genetically female. These remains, potentially representing a secondary burial, were excavated in 2005 from Space 411, located in the TP Area of the site. Radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone places this individual between 6235-6075 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“Sk.20217 (burial feature 3931, Level TP Q-R, Final period?): a female child aged 6 years (±2 years) at death based on dental development. This individual, excavated in 2012, is one of three individuals recovered from burial feature 3931 in the TPC Area. The burial was badly damaged as it was found directly beneath the surface. Hence, it could not be associated with any Neolithic buildings or spaces. Its stratigraphic position indicates that it post-dates B.122 from the Late period, which implies it most likely comes from the Final period. However, this is not corroborated by radiocarbon dating of the petrous bone that places this individual significantly earlier, between 6415-6240 cal BCE (95%).” ref

 

 

“ZHAJ (Area H, Grave 27): this is a primary single inhumation of a middle adult female (as determined by aDNA) buried in a sub-oval cut. The individual was found lying tightly flexed on her left side, positioned east-west with the head toward the west and facing north. ZHAG and ZHAF (Area H, Grave 18): grave 18 contained a double inhumation of a middle adult female (ZHAF) and a perinatal infant (ZHAG) found in an oval cut larger than average. The adult (ZHAF) was found lying tightly flexed on her left side and positioned with a northwest-southeast orientation with the head toward the northwest. The perinate was articulated and found with the head on top of the adult pelvis.” ref

“The female sex of the adult could be confirmed by ancient DNA. The sex of the perinate was determined as a female by aDNA, and it can be ruled out that ZHAF and ZHAG were first or second-degree related. Skeleton ZHAF has been radiocarbon dated to 8285–8175 cal BCE (83%) or 8115–8090 cal BCE (4%) or 8040–8010 cal BCE (8%). ZHB (Area H, Grave 9): a single inhumation of an adolescent-young adult female. The sex of the individual has been confirmed by ancient DNA analysis. The individual was found lying on her right side/partially prone, in a semi-flexed position. The body was orientated east-west with head to the east and facing northeast, and has been radiocarbon dated to between 8280–8165 cal BCE (57%) or 8120–7960 cal BCE (38%).” ref

“ZHF (Area H, Grave 14): single inhumation of an adult male buried in a sub-oval cut. The age-at-death of the individual was difficult to estimate accurately because both the skull and pelvis were highly fragmented. The sex has been confirmed by ancient DNA. The body was found lying on the left side and orientated northwest-southeast with the head orientated toward the northwest and facing northeast. The upper limbs were flexed at the elbow with the palms of the hands together and placed immediately in front of the face. The long bones were highly fragmented and animal burrowing had destroyed much of the skull, most of the axial elements and the feet. The skeleton has been radiocarbon dated to 8225–7940 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“ZHJ (Area H, Grave 15): this is a primary single old adult inhumation found in a sub-oval cut. The individual was found in a flexed position lying on its right side and positioned north-south with the head orientated toward the south. The bones were relatively well preserved compared with other graves, although burrowing animals had destroyed parts of the skull and axial skeleton, including the left foot. Morphological sex determination was difficult because the remains were gracile, probably as a result of the aging process. Ancient DNA analyses demonstrated that this individual was female. She has been radiocarbon dated to 8295–8240 cal BCE (95%).” ref

“ZHBJ (Area H Grave 30): single inhumation of a middle/old adult male in a suboval cut. Sex has been confirmed by ancient DNA. The individual was found lying tightly flexed on his right side, although it should be noted that there was considerable damage from bioturbation that disturbed much of the skeleton and destroyed most of the thorax and skull. The body was positioned east-west with the head toward the west, but the facing direction could not be ascertained due to the aforementioned disturbance. ZKO (Area K, Grave 12): this is a single inhumation of an old adult male in an oval cut. The individual was found lying tightly flexed on his left side and orientated east-west with the head toward the east. The bones were generally well preserved, but rodent burrowing activity caused significant disturbance of the ribs, scapulae and vertebrae. Sex was confirmed through aDNA analysis as male.” ref

“ZMOJ (Area M, Grave 49): a primary but heavily disturbed burial of a young adult male (determined by aDNA) in a sub-circular grave. The individual was orientated east-west with head to the west and facing north. The skull was found at one end of the grave and many of the other bones had been moved by animal action, so their anatomical position was not maintained. Ancient DNA indicates that this individual was male.” ref

Aşıklı Höyük

Aşıklı Höyük is a settlement mound located nearly 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) south of Kızılkaya village on the bank of the Melendiz brook, and 25 km (16 mi) southeast of Aksaray, Turkey. Aşıklı Höyük is located in an area covered by the volcanic tuff of central Cappadocia, in Aksaray Province. The archaeological site of Aşıklı Höyük was first settled in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, around 8,200 BCE. It is situated 1,119.5 metres (3,673 ft) above sea level, a little higher than the region’s average of c. 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). The site itself is about 4 hectares (9.9 acres), considerably smaller than the closely situated site of Çatalhöyük (13 ha (32 acres)). The surrounding landscape is formed by erosion of river valleys into tuff deposits. The Melendiz Valley, where the Aşıklı Höyük is located, constitutes a favourable, fertile, and diverse habitat. The proximity to an obsidian source did become the base of a trade with the material supplying areas as far away as today’s Cyprus and Iraq.” ref

Aşıklı Höyük was first investigated by Professor Ian A. Todd when he visited the site in the summer of 1964. Todd emphasised the importance of the obsidian in the area, based on over 6,000 obsidian pieces collected from the surface layer alone. The site was classified as a medium sized mound and partly destroyed by the river situated next to it. On the basis of the lithics and animal bones located in the surface layers the site became known as a contemporary to the Palestine PPNB, which later was reinforced by 14C dates (based on five unstratified radiocarbon dates going from 7008 ± 130 to 6661 ± 108). The first comprehensive excavations took place relatively late: first when the government launched a plan that would result in the rise of the waters of the Mamasın Lake located close to Aşıklı Höyük, Professor Ufuk Esin (University of Istanbul) started the salvage excavations in 1989. Nine excavations have been undertaken up to 2003, uncovering approximately 4,200 square metres (45,000 sq ft) on the horizontal plain, making it one of the largest scale excavations in the region.” ref

“The newest dates for Aşıklı Höyük show that the occupational period was from 8200 to 7400 BCE or around 10,200 to 9,400 years ago, extracted from 3 layers with a total of 13 phases; which places it in phase ECA II (correlating with the E/MPPNB in the Levant). It is known as one of the earliest Aceramic Neolithic sites on the Anatolian plateau, and the prior mentioned extraction of the obsidian source was likely to be frequented as far back as the Paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers. Due to its date and structural organization Aşıklı Höyük is known to be “a prime example of a first foray into sedentism.” ref

After more than 400 rooms had been excavated, the total number of individual found to have been buried within the settlement did not surpass 70. All these burials were under building floors. The dead were placed in pits cut through the floor during the occupation of the building. The buried are people of both sexes and all ages. There is a variety of skeletal body postures, from burials in a hocker (fetal) position to extended skeletons facing upwards. Others are lying on one side, occasionally with the legs bent at the knees. The orientation of the burials varies within the buildings, as does the number of individuals buried inside them.” ref

“The male population had individuals up to the age of 55–57 years of age, while the majority of females died between the ages of 20 and 25. The skeletal remains of these women show spinal deformities indicating that they had to carry heavy loads. This does not itself prove that there was a division of labour between the sexes. The fact that the men seem to have outlived the women might be interpreted as sign that the women were subject to more strenuous physical labour than their male counterparts. From Natufian Abu Hureyra there are similar osteological signs, such as pathologies in metatarsals, phalanges, arm, and shoulder joints, being specific to females resulting from habitual kneeling in the use of saddle querns (grinding stones). The Neolithic evidence show indications of increased physical workload in the osteological material on both genders, where the male skeletons show signs of joint disease and trauma arguably caused by cutting timber and tilling.” ref

“Children represent 37.8% of the deceased, with 43.7% mortality within a year of birth. The skeletal remains are complete and with articulations intact, indicating that the burials have been primary. The graves contain either single or double burials. On one occasion two graves were found under the floor of room AB, belonging to an adjacent court (HG) with a large domed mudbrick oven paved with blocks of basalt. In one of the graves were the skeletons of a young woman and an elderly man; in the other a young woman buried together with her baby. The young woman had apparently undergone trepanation and survived only a few days after the operation.” ref

“All skeletons were buried in the hocker position, a fetal-like positioning were the arms are embracing the lower limbs. From a different grave a woman shows signs of being scalped immediately after her death, according to the cut marks on her skull. As many as 55% of the skeletons show signs of being burned. The burial under the floor AB is accommodated by walls with the interior side were painted in a purplish red colour. The oven in HG indicates that this was indeed “special individuals of an elite class”, claiming it can be compared to the “Terrazzo” Building at Çayönü and the “Temple” Building at Nevalı Çori and therefore have been a shrine used for religious ceremonies. Many of the burials contain burial goods consisting of necklaces and bracelets made of beads of various sorts.” ref

“70 burials in over 400 rooms suggest that some form of selection took place of who was buried at the site, implying that AB indeed could be the residence or resting place of people influential in terms of both economy and political power. Rooms containing hearths are more likely to contain burials; as many as 77%. It has been argued that the number of burials could be an underrepresentation inhered at the site, since a large part of the settlement remain unexcavated beneath the baulks. Later excavations which have been published suggest on the other hand that burials were not a general feature at Aşıklı Höyük and therefore the suggestions of burials being a privilege of the elite class do seem plausible. There has not been found a cemetery or any other sign of where the rest of the population might have been disposed of post mortem. This issue is not only limited to Aşıklı Höyük: there is also a lack of cemeteries on the PPNB “mega-sites” in the Levant, such ‘Ain Ghazal in the Jordan Valley.” ref

“It seems that in Aşıklı Höyük, as in the rest of the Anatolian and Levantine area, the burial and any other post mortem treatment was arguably an “upper class” phenomenon. This interpretation has been opposed, referring to the diversity of individuals in both sex and age in the graves. The burials including such a wide range of individuals do not directly coherent with the image of an “upper class” phenomenon. Burials could have been removed or replaced over time, giving a wrong image of the burials as belonging to the elite. An alternative perspective has been suggested: “the Neolithic dead are not under-represented: rather, it is the architecture in settlements that are over-represented”, meaning that in many cases archaeologists have drastically overestimated the extent to which all areas of Neolithic sites were occupied simultaneously. As for Aşıklı Höyük and other sites in the area: low numbers of burials in comparison with occupation span does not directly indicate a cult of the elite.” ref

At Aşıklı Höyük the hearths are rectangular and usually placed in one of the corners of the rooms, ranging in size from 2.97 to 0.48 square metres (32.0 to 5.2 sq ft). Large stones with a suitable flat shape were used to create an upright edge that stood approximately 20 cm (7.9 in) above the level of the floor. On the short side of the hearth the upright edge is missing to make a fire mouth. It is also here the ash is the most concentrated. Pebbles along the edges and base of the hearth seem to have been covered by a thin layer of plaster. Only in a few cases there is a trace of something recognized as a flue. An estimated 30–40% of all the rooms at Aşıklı Höyük have hearths. This estimate is based on partially damaged and eroded structures possibly giving a number lower than accurate. Based on a limited group of fully exposed buildings 54% of single room units contained a hearth, while only 29% of the multiple room units. The average percentage on base of these building units is 47%, probably a more realistic estimate for the site in total.” ref

“Hearths do not occur in a courtyard context, and are more represented in single room dwellings than multiple room units. Still, multiple room units do have a substantial number of hearths. It has been suggested that the “multiroom dwellings may have functioned as ‘incomplete’ houses for new families still heavily dependent on the larger extended group”. The buildings containing the hearths do not show particular characteristics that distinguish them from structures without hearths; neither do they differ in size or special orientation. Even the hearth itself does not follow an apparent norm in terms of size or location. The position varies considerably, but it always has one side to the wall. The positioning of the hearth does not seem to be determined by general macro-ecological factors, such as prevailing wind directions, nor determined by cultural norms regarding spatial features within buildings.” ref

“The hearth does not seem to be subject to a random placement inside the buildings: it is consistently located at the same spot throughout a very long building sequence. This indicates that their positions were not chosen arbitrarily. When a location for the hearth was chosen it was important that the placement did not change in later rebuilding sequences of the structure (see picture: Deep sounding). There is no evidence for ladderpost scars due to the assumed use of freestanding ladders, making the location of the entrance uncertain. Aşıklı Höyük does not seem to have any evidence for ovens. Aşıklı Höyük had a tradition to reconstruct or rebuild earlier structures. It followed a pattern where the structures were built “exactly on the same spot and with the same alignment as earlier buildings, using older walls as a foundation.” ref 

“The structural continuity at Aşıklı Höyük is outstanding, but there is no information to how long the use-life of a building was. If one estimates the same lifespan for a structure at Aşıklı Höyük as it was in Çatalhöyük, one could look at an age of 30 to 60 years before reconstruction occurred. If this assumption is correct, the deep sounding 4H/G from phases 2I up to 2B (eight layers in total) show that the time span of a structure could be from 240 to 480 years. Looking outside of Central Anatolian Neolithic, this type of building continuity is unparalleled both in ethnography and archaeology. This remarkable structural continuity may suggest a social system in which buildings were not privately owned, since one would expect them to be modified on a regular basis. It can be assumed that the rooms were distributed amongst the community members according to the change in both needs and statuses.” ref

“The building practices maintained their characteristics throughout the centuries. It has been claimed that the building continuity is a self-evident feature, since it is deriving from a particular set of foundation practices that can be explained in a functionalistic way. It has otherwise been argued that the extreme degree of continuity is inadequately explained by functionalism alone, since the structures located adjacent to open spaces could have easily been expanded or shrunk according to the specific needs, but instead remained identical. These functionalist parameters can also not explain the continued rebuilding of the hearths, which are always built on the same spot. Individual hearth sequences are often separated with 40 cm (16 in) of soil, and therefore there is no apparent reason (unlike the buildings) why the hearths should consistently be constructed in the same corner as in the successive buildings. In many cases neighbouring buildings do place their respective hearths in different corners. Micro-cosmological special codes or wind direction does not seem to be decisive for the positioning of the hearth. The structural and material remains indicate that the buildings were continuous entities with some form of fixed special identity where the special organization could not be changed by the temporary occupant.” ref

Structural continuity was of great importance to the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük. The reason for this has partly been explained because they (the people) had a rigid adherence to traditions in terms of structural reproduction. The “traditional view” has been disputed because “[In short,] labelling a society as conservative does not answer the question why the people under consideration were conservative”. An alternative approach refers to the historical dimension of the building to be of such great importance that “people came to be bound between walls, metaphorically domesticated”. The interpretation is that the walls are giving historical associations to the people living within them, giving a collective conscience lasting through time. The difference between this interpretation and the “conservative approach” is the potential explanation to why structural reproduction could have been important for the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük. The identities of the inhabitants were projected to the structural outcome of the buildings. The generality of this position is not meaningful on its own. It is not certain that the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük were aware of the total amount of building there was in the sequence in total. Perhaps the history of a building did not concern them in the same way as archaeologists like to think.” ref

The lack of change over time suggests that the inhabitants of Aşıklı Höyük had a view of the past as a precedent for the present: a vital part of society that was ‘reborn’ in each reproduction, manifested in its building continuity. The structural reconstruction is a regional feature for Central Anatolia. With the exception of Jericho, most of the evidence from PPNB sites in the Levant indicates that structures were not reconstructed in the same loci, and some location structures differ in dates by several hundred years. The buildings at Aşıklı Höyük are clustered into what has been interpreted as neighbourhoods. As this is a vague perception of the structural outlay of the community it describes them as clustered single and multiroom houses forming compounds, apparently sharing courtyard space for production activities and practising joint cooking and food consumption. Little can be said on the food storage, since there were no remains after storage bins, although storage rooms may be identified due to comparing structures on other sites (e.g. Çatalhöyük).” ref

“The average room size is 12 m2 (130 sq ft) (at this time humans were 1.5 to 1.7 metres (4 ft 11 in to 5 ft 7 in) tall). From two or three up to five or six clustered dwellings formed a ‘neighborhood’ or compound. The interpretation of the borders of these ‘neighbourhoods’ is problematic, since much of the site still lies under the baulks, is in situ or eroded. The distribution of single- and multi-room buildings does not seem to follow a pattern other than that the residential clusters seem to be divided by narrow alleys 0.5–1.0 m (1 ft 8 in – 3 ft 3 in) wide, or open courtyard areas up to a diameter of 4 m (13 ft). The interior of multiroom buildings had openings in the partitioned walls, providing access to the individual rooms. Between the one building and the next there seems to be no communication, since there was no indication of doors in the exterior mudbrick walls. Since the buildings themselves do not have an entrance that can be traced archaeologically on the base of the walls, access had to be provided either through window-like openings high on the walls or from the flat roofs. Roof access is also known from Çatalhöyük, making this entrance more plausible.” ref

“Aşıklı Höyük does also have buildings that are bigger in size but without hearths. These are interpreted as public buildings or ‘building complexes’. These are seen as some of the most enigmatic buildings found at the site, and diverge both in size and spatial organization. One of them (complex HV) being at up to 20 times larger than the largest loam buildings (i.e. 25 m × 20 m (82 ft × 66 ft) = 500 m2 (5,400 sq ft)). They have a multitude of rooms and encompass elaborate and large internal courts; something that is not found in any other buildings. The walls are more robust and massive than other buildings, in some cases being referred to as “monumental walls”, accompanied by parallel outer walls with relatively narrow space in between.” ref

“The interpretation of these buildings is difficult. The fact that they clearly differentiate from the domestic loam buildings indicates that they had special value in the society. They also do not incorporated into the clustered ‘neighbourhoods’, indicating that they served several neighbourhoods or the local community at large. With 500 m2 (5,400 sq ft) the range of activities that could have taken place in this space could easily incorporate several hundred people. Yet, given that the estimated population of Aşıklı Höyük may have run into the thousands, only a selected group in the total population could have used the building at a given occasion. There is a variety of hypotheses regarding the nature of these monumental structures. There are other examples of these restricted monumental spaces on other sites in the Levantine PPNB (such as Nevali Çori, Behida, ‘Ain Ghazal), suggesting that they were used by an elite or for practising different social initiation rites.” ref

“There are no finds of any artefacts carrying religious connotations, symbolic or imagery, at Aşıklı Höyük, in the buildings, courtyards, dumps or open-workshop areas. The only finds include flint tools, which are counted as imports. Other than this there is found one single animal figurine made of clay that can hardly tell us anything of the religious belief of the inhabitants. The limited amount of burials compared to the estimated population makes it very likely that there may have been a cemetery where the deceased were buried, but it has not been found. There is also an absence of storage bins, making the distinction on autonomous households difficult.” ref

Samara, Russia 7,500 years ago carried R1b1a1a

“An EHG buried near Samara, Russia 7,500 years ago carried R1b1a1a. An Eneolithic male buried at Khvalynsk, Russia 7,200-6,000 years ago carried R1b1a.” ref

R1a was not found in Yamnaya remains

The most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among the Yamnaya specimens was Haplogroup R1b, specifically the Z2103 subclade of R1b-L23. Additionally, a minority are found to belong to haplogroup I2. Autosomal tests also indicate that the Yamnaya are the vector for “Ancient North Eurasian” admixture into Europe. “Ancient North Eurasian” is the name given in literature to a genetic component that represents descent from the people of the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture or a population closely related to them. That genetic component is visible in tests of the Yamnaya people as well as modern-day Europeans.” refrefref

Mascarenhas et al. (2015) proposed that the roots of Z93 lie in West Asia, and proposed that “Z93 and L342.2 expanded in a southeasterly direction from Transcaucasia into South Asia“, noting that such an expansion is compatible with “the archeological records of eastward expansion of West Asian populations in the 4th millennium BCE culminating in the so-called Kura-Araxes migrations in the post-Uruk IV period.” Yet, Lazaridis noted that sample I1635 of Lazaridis et al. (2016), their Armenian Kura-Araxes sample, carried Y-haplogroup R1b1-M415(xM269) (also called R1b1a1b-CTS3187). A number of studies from 2006 to 2010 concluded that South Asian populations have the highest STR diversity within R1a1a, and subsequent older TMRCA datings. R1a1a is present among both higher (Brahmin) castes and lower castes, and while the frequency is higher among Brahmin castes, the oldest TMRCA datings of the R1a haplogroup occur in the Saharia tribe, a scheduled caste of the Bundelkhand region of Central India.” refrefref

“According to archaeologist David Anthony, the paternal R1a-Z93 was found at the Oskol river near a no longer existing kolkhoz “Alexandria,” Ukraine c. 4000 BCE, “the earliest known sample to show the genetic adaptation to lactase persistence (13910-T).” R1a has been found in the Corded Ware culture, in which it is predominant. Examined males of the Bronze Age Fatyanovo culture belong entirely to R1a, specifically subclade R1a-Z93. Haplogroup R1a has later been found in ancient fossils associated with the Urnfield culture; as well as the burial of the remains of the Sintashta, Andronovo, the Pazyryk, Tagar, Tashtyk, and Srubnaya cultures, the inhabitants of ancient Tanais, in the Tarim mummies, and the aristocracy of Xiongnu.” refrefref
 
“R1a1a has been found in various forms, in most parts of Western Asia, in widely varying concentrations, from almost no presence in areas such as Jordan, to much higher levels in parts of Kuwait and Iran. The Shimar (Shammar) Bedouin tribe in Kuwait show the highest frequency in the Middle East at 43%. Wells 2001, noted that in the western part of the country, Iranians show low R1a1a levels, while males of eastern parts of Iran carried up to 35% R1a1a. Nasidze et al. 2004 found R1a1a in approximately 20% of Iranian males from the cities of Tehran and IsfahanRegueiro 2006 in a study of Iran, noted much higher frequencies in the south than the north. A newer study has found 20.3% R-M17* among Kurdish samples which were taken in the Kurdistan Province in western Iran, 19% among Azerbaijanis in West Azerbaijan, 9.7% among Mazandaranis in North Iran in the province of Mazandaran, 9.4% among Gilaks in province of Gilan, 12.8% among Persian and 17.6% among Zoroastrians in Yazd, 18.2% among Persians in Isfahan, 20.3% among Persians in Khorasan, 16.7% Afro-Iranians, 18.4% Qeshmi “Gheshmi”, 21.4% among Persian Bandari people in Hormozgan and 25% among the Baloch people in Sistan and Baluchestan ProvinceFurther to the north of these Western Asian regions on the other hand, R1a1a levels start to increase in the Caucasus, once again in an uneven way. Several populations studied have shown no sign of R1a1a, while highest levels so far discovered in the region appears to belong to speakers of the Karachay-Balkar language among whom about one quarter of men tested so far are in haplogroup R1a1a.” refrefref

The First Nations of Saskatchewan are: Nêhiyawak (Plains Cree), Nahkawininiwak (Saulteaux), Nakota (Assiniboine), Dakota and Lakota (Sioux), and Denesuline (Dene/Chipewyan).” ref

Native Americans in Florida are: Ais, Apalachee, Calusa, Creek, Miccosukee, Seminole, Timucua, and Yemassee.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref

My favorite “Graham Hancock” Quote?

“In what archaeologists have studied, yes, we can say there is NO Evidence of an advanced civilization.” – (Time 1:27) Joe Rogan Experience #2136 – Graham Hancock & Flint Dibble

Help the Valentine fight against pseudoarchaeology!!!
 
In a world of “Hancocks” supporting evidence lacking claims, be a “John Hoopes” supporting what evidence explains.
 
#SupportEvidenceNotWishfullThinking
 
Graham Hancock: @Graham__Hancock
John Hoopes: @KUHoopes

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

refrefrefref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding Religion Evolution:

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

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

 

Quick Evolution of Religion?

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

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

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

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

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefref 

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tutelary deity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

refrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefref

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

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

Sky Father/Sky God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

refrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefref 

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

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

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Knowledge to Ponder: 

Stars/Astrology:

  • Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
  • The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
  • Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the “Kurgan phenomenon” of below-ground “mound” stone/wood burial structures and “Dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures.
  • Around 6,500–5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
  • “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.

“Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the HindusChinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient GreeceRome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.” ref 

Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref

Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref

Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled “He who Saw the Deep” (Sha naqba īmuru) or “Surpassing All Other Kings” (Shūtur eli sharrī) were written. ref

Hinduism:

  • 3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
  • 3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Judaism:

  • around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew”
  • around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed

Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths

  • Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianity’s bible.
  • Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
  • Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
  • Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
  • The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
  • The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
  • The poetic and proposed “Wisdom books” dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
  • The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
  • Henotheism:
  • Exodus 20:23 “You shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.”
  • Polytheism:
  • Judges 10:6 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.”
  • 1 Corinthians 8:5 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”
  • Monotheism:
  • Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

  • Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
  • Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
  • Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
  • Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
  • Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
  • Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

How do they even know if there was nothing as a start outside our universe, could there not be other universes outside our own?
 
For all, we know there may have always been something past the supposed Big Bang we can’t see beyond, like our universe as one part of a mega system.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

Gods?
 
“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
 
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or QuotesMy YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This