My thoughts on Dolmen origins and migrations, as well as Snail Shell Middens or Snail Burials/Turtle Shell Burials, and links from “Y-DNA R (R1a, R1b, and R2a)” migrations

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

Earth diver mythology or something similar??? Could be. In a way, snails are a kind of mound shape, thus similar to turtle shells, both may represent a mound of creation in the earth-diver myth. In Peru, there were snail shells, and snail shells are also used in the earth diver.

My thoughts on Dolmen origins and migrations, as well as Snail Shell Middens or Snail Burials/Turtle Shell Burials, and links from “Y-DNA R (R1a, R1b, and R2a)” migrations, maybe R2a leading to Proto-Indo-European, transferring it to R1b, taking it to the steppe 7,500 years ago.

Religion is a cultural product. So, it has been part of the human experience, similar to languages, from before we left Africa, spreading humanity across the world.

Dolmen origins and migrations, as well as links from “Y-DNA R (R1a, R1b, and R2a)” migrations (VIDEO)

Dolmens, to me, like other types of mounds, may have cosmic ocean, primordial waters, or celestial river mythological motifs connected, such as Mound of Creation emerging out of the water, World Turtle, or Earth Diver type of mythological thinking.

Dolmen migrations at first seem related with MtDNA X2, going to Canada with X2a making a 7,700-year-old Dolmen as well as shell mounds and to France with X2b making a 7,000-year-old Dolmen as well as shell mounds.

Dolmen

“A dolmen (/ˈdɒlmɛn/) or portal tomb is a type of single-chamber megalithic tomb, usually consisting of two or more upright megaliths supporting a large flat horizontal capstone or “table”. Most date from the Late Neolithic period (4000–3000 BCE) and were sometimes covered with earth or smaller stones to form a tumulus (burial mound). Small pad-stones may be wedged between the cap and supporting stones to achieve a level appearance. In many instances, the covering has eroded away, leaving only the stone “skeleton.” In Sumba (Indonesia), dolmens are still commonly built (about 100 dolmens each year) for collective graves according to lineage. The traditional village of Wainyapu has some 1,400 dolmens.” ref

“It remains unclear when, why and by whom the earliest dolmens were made. The oldest known are found in Western Europe, dating from c. 7,000 years ago. Archaeologists still do not know who erected these dolmens, which makes it difficult to know why they did it. They are generally all regarded as tombs or burial chambers, despite the absence of clear evidence for this. Human remains, sometimes accompanied by artefacts, have been found in or close to the dolmens which could be scientifically dated using radiocarbon dating. However, it has been impossible to prove that these remains date from the time when the stones were originally set in place.” ref

“Early in the 20th century, before the advent of scientific dating, it was proposed by Harold Peake that the dolmens of western Europe were evidence of cultural diffusion from the eastern Mediterranean. This “prospector theory” surmised that Aegean-origin prospectors had moved westward in search of metal ores, starting before 2200 BCE, and had taken the concept of megalithic architecture with them. Dolmens can be found in the Levant, some along the Jordan Rift Valley (Upper Galilee in Israel, the Golan Heights, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and southeast Turkey.” ref

“Dolmens in the Levant belong to a different, unrelated tradition to that of Europe, although they are often treated “as part of a trans-regional phenomenon that spanned the Taurus Mountains to the Arabian Peninsula.” In the Levant, they are of Early Bronze rather than Late Neolithic age. They are mostly found along the Jordan Rift Valley’s eastern escarpment, and in the hills of the Galilee, in clusters near Early Bronze I proto-urban settlements (3700–3000 BCE), additionally restricted by geology to areas allowing the quarrying of slabs of megalithic size. In the Levant, geological constraints led to a local burial tradition with a variety of tomb forms, dolmens being one of them.” ref

Dolmens of the North Caucasus

“Concentrations of megaliths, dolmens (Adyghe: исп-унэ) and stone labyrinths dating between the end of the 4th millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE have been found (but little studied) throughout the Caucasus Mountains, including Abkhazia. Most of them are represented by rectangular structures made of stone slabs or cut in rocks with holes in their facade. These dolmens cover the Western Caucasus on both sides of the mountain ridge, in an area of approximately 12,000 square kilometres of Russia and Abkhazia.” ref

“The Caucasian dolmens represent a unique type of prehistoric architecture, built with precisely dressed large stone blocks. The stones were, for example, shaped into 90-degree angles, to be used as corners or were curved to make a circle. While generally unknown in the rest of Eurasia, these structures are equal to the great megaliths of Eurasia in terms of age and quality of architecture, but are still of an unknown origin. In spite of the variety of Caucasian monuments, they show strong similarities with megaliths from different parts of Eurasia, like the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Iran and India.” ref 

“A range of hypotheses has been put forward to explain these similarities and the building of megaliths on the whole, but still it remains unclear. Approximately 3,000 of these megalithic monuments are known in the Western Caucasus, but more are constantly being found, while some are being destroyed. Today, many are in great disrepair and will be completely lost if they are not protected from vandals and general neglect. The North Caucasus Dolmens make up a lost city by the shore of the Black Sea. The dolmens could have been vaults of metal objects or jewelry that the invading Scythians pillaged around the first millennium BCE. The dolmens could have been of spiritual significance, and are becoming cherished again today.” ref

“The dolmens have a limited variety in their architecture. The floor plans are square, trapezoidal, rectangular and round. All of the dolmens are punctuated with a portal in the center of the facade. While round portholes are the most common, square ones are also found. In front of the facade is a court that usually splays out, creating an area where rituals possibly took place. The court is usually outlined by large stone walls, sometimes over a meter high, which enclose the court. It is in this area that Bronze and Iron Age pottery has been found – which helped date these sites -, along with human remains, bronze tools and silver, gold and semi-precious stone ornaments.” ref

“The repertoire of decoration for these megalithic structures is not extensive. Vertical and horizontal zigzags, hanging triangles and concentric circles are the most common motifs. One decorative motif that is quite common is found across the top of the porthole slab. It can best be described as a lintel held up by two columns. Pairs of breasts, done in relief, have also been found on a few dolmens. These breasts usually appear above the two columns of the porthole decoration. Perhaps related to these are the stone plugs, which were used to block the porthole, and are found with almost every tomb. They are sometimes phallic-shaped. Some unusual items associated with dolmens are big round stone balls, double balls and animal sculptures.” ref

“One of the most interesting megalithic complexes – group of three dolmens – stands in a row on a hill above Zhane River on the Black Sea coast in the Krasnodar area near Gelendzhik, Russia. In this area there is a great concentration of all types of megalithic sites including settlements and dolmen cemeteries. Large stone mounds surrounded the two monuments. The central dolmen is rectangular in plan, 4 x 4 meters, while the two flanking dolmens are circular, 4 and 5 meters in diameter. The two round dolmens had been bulldozed – probably in the 1950s – in order to harvest the surrounding trees, but the main structure of the central dolmen had not been damaged.
Another (fourth) dolmen near the Zhane River has a secret entrance at the back of the chamber, and a façade, dummy entrance and courtyard at the front of the dolmen. There in addition to these pristine dolmens were some ruined dolmens.” ref

“The Caucasus dolmens are associated with the Klin-Yar community and the Koban culture. A genetic study in 2020 analysing samples from Klin-Yar communities, including the Koban culture, found one sample of paternal Haplogroup D-Z27276, which is associated with the modern Tibetan people. Other haplogroups were Haplogroup J1 and Haplogroup G-M285. Other important megalithic sites of Russia have been found along Russia’s northern shores with the White Sea and the Barents Sea as well as at Vera Island.” ref

“The Dolmen Pyramid of Mamedovo Gorge is an ancient megalithic structure located in the Caucasus region of Russia. It is a unique and impressive pyramid-shaped dolmen that stands approximately 4 meters tall and is made up of massive stone slabs that weigh several tons each. The dolmen is thought to date back to the Bronze Age, approximately 3,500 to 4,000 years ago, and is believed to have served as a burial chamber or religious site for the people who built it. The Dolmen Pyramid of Mamedovo Gorge is unique in its design, with its pyramid shape and the massive size of its stones making it one of the most impressive megalithic structures in the region.” ref

“The dolmen is made up of five massive stone slabs, with the largest weighing approximately 50 tons. The purpose of the Dolmen Pyramid of Mamedovo Gorge remains a mystery, although it is believed to have had significant religious or spiritual significance for the people who built it. Some theories suggest that it may have served as a site for astronomical observations, as the stones are aligned with the movements of the sun and stars.” ref

• Great dolmen – Type of dolmen in Nordic megalith architecture
• Inuksuk – Inuit built stone landmark or cairn
• Polygonal dolmen – Type of dolmen with five to nine supporting stones
• Rectangular dolmen – Rectangular, enlarged or extended dolmen
• Simple dolmen – Early form of dolmen or megalithic tomb

A survey of the Dolmen of Menga suggests that the stone tomb’s Neolithic builders had an understanding of science

“The Neolithic farmers and herders who built a massive stone chamber in southern Spain nearly 6,000 years ago possessed a good rudimentary grasp of physics, geometry, geology and architectural principles, finds a detailed study of the site. Using data from a high-resolution laser scan, as well as unpublished photos and diagrams from earlier excavations, archaeologists pieced together a probable construction process for the monument known as the Dolmen of Menga. Their findings, published on 23 August in Science Advances, reveal new insights into the structure and its Neolithic builders’ technical abilities. The dolmen pre-dates the main stone circle at Stonehenge in the United Kingdom by about 1,000 years, but the construction process described in the study would have involved similar techniques and demanded a similar level of engineering. “These people had no blueprints to work with, nor, as far as we know, any previous experience at building something like this,” says study co-author Leonardo García Sanjuán, an archaeologist at the University of Seville in Spain. “And yet, they understood how to fit together huge blocks of stone” with “a precision that would keep the monument intact for nearly 6,000 years”. “There’s no way you could do that without at least a basic working knowledge of science,” he adds.” ref

“To construct the dolmen, its builders transported 32 giant stone blocks from a quarry around one kilometre away and used them to form the walls, pillars and roof of a massive chamber measuring around 28 metres long, 6 metres wide and 3.5 metres high. The largest of these blocks, one of the capstones that forms part of the roof, is 8 metres long and weighs an estimated 150 tonnes. By comparison, the biggest stone used to build Stonehenge weighs about 30 tonnes. Transporting these huge slabs from the quarry to the site without breaking them would have required particular care, the researchers say, particularly with the soft sandstone used for the roof. They suggest that this could have been done using specially built wooden tracks to reduce friction as the stones were dragged along, much as the builders of Stonehenge are thought to have done. Another task that demanded precision and skill was finessing the upright slabs into sockets carved 1.5 metres deep into the bedrock.” ref

“The laser scans revealed that the builders used counterweights and ramps to move the uprights carefully into the sockets, tilting them at precise, millimetre-scale angles. The stones were carved into facets that meant they locked against their neighbors when the weights and ramps were removed. Parker Pearson adds that the prehistoric engineers’ understanding of physics and geometry resulted in a ‘super-solid monument’. “It’s the sort of thing we see at Stonehenge a thousand years later, with the mortise and tenon joining of uprights and lintels.” But unlike Stonehenge, the Dolmen of Menga is in a seismically active, earthquake-prone area. Despite this, after nearly 6,000 years, the stonework is still snug and secure, says García Sanjuán. “These people really knew what they were doing.” ref

Kurgan

“A kurgan is a type of tumulus constructed over a grave, often characterized by containing a single human body along with grave vessels, weapons and horses. Originally in use on the Pontic–Caspian steppe, kurgans spread into much of Central Asia and Eastern, Southeast, Western and Northern Europe during the 3rd millennium BCE.” ref

“A tumulus (pl.: tumuli) is a mound of earth and stones raised over a grave or graves. Tumuli are also known as barrows, burial mounds or (in Siberia and Central Asia) kurgans, and may be found throughout much of the world. A cairn, which is a mound of stones built for various purposes, may also originally have been a tumulus. Tumuli are often categorised according to their external apparent shape. In this respect, a long barrow is a long tumulus, usually constructed on top of several burials, such as passage graves. A round barrow is a round tumulus, also commonly constructed on top of burials. The internal structure and architecture of both long and round barrows have a broad range; the categorization only refers to the external apparent shape. The method of inhumation may involve a dolmen, a cist, a mortuary enclosure, a mortuary house, or a chamber tomb. Examples of barrows include Duggleby Howe and Maeshowe.” ref

“Some of the earliest kurgans date to the 4th millennium BC in the Caucasus, and some researchers associate these with the Indo-Europeans. Kurgans were built in the Eneolithic, Bronze, Iron, Antiquity, and Middle Ages, with ancient traditions still active in Southern Siberia and Central Asia. According to the Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language the word “kurhan” is borrowed directly from the “Polovtsian” language (Kipchak, part of the Turkic languages) and means: fortress, embankment, high grave. The word has two possible etymologies, either from the Old Turkic root qori- “to close, to block, to guard, to protect”, or qur- “to build, to erect, furnish or stur”. According to Vasily Radlov it may be a cognate to qorγan, meaning “fortification, fortress or a castle.” ref

“The Russian noun, already attested in Old East Slavic, comes from an unidentified Turkic language. Kurgans are mounds of earth and stones raised over a grave or graves. Popularised by its use in Soviet archaeology, the word is now widely used for tumuli in the context of Eastern European and Central Asian archaeology. Some sceptre graves could have been covered with a tumulus, placing the first kurgans as early as the 5th millennium BCE in eastern Europe. However, this hypothesis is not unanimous. Kurgans were used in Ukrainian and Russian steppes, their use spreading with migration into southern, central, and northern Europe in the 3rd millennium BCE. Later, Kurgan barrows became characteristic of Bronze Age peoples, and have been found from Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria (Thracians, Getae, etc) and Romania (Getae, Dacians), the Caucasus, Russia, to Kazakhstan, Mongolia and the Altay Mountains.” ref

“The Kurgan hypothesis is that Proto-Indo-Europeans were the bearers of the Kurgan culture of the Black Sea and the Caucasus and west of the Urals. Introduced by Marija Gimbutas in 1956, it combines kurgan archaeology with linguistics to locate the origins of the peoples who spoke the Proto-Indo-European language. She tentatively named the culture “Kurgan” after its distinctive burial mounds and traced its diffusion into Europe. The hypothesis has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies. Scholars who follow Gimbutas identify a “Kurgan culture” as reflecting an early Proto-Indo-European ethnicity that existed in the steppes and in southeastern Europe from the 5th millennium to the 3rd millennium BC. In Kurgan cultures, most burials were in kurgans, either clan or individual. Most prominent leaders were buried in individual kurgans, now called “royal kurgans.” More elaborate than clan kurgans and containing grave goods, royal kurgans have attracted the most attention and publicity.” ref

“Burial mounds are complex structures with internal chambers. Within the burial chamber at the heart of the kurgan, elite individuals were buried with grave goods and sacrificial offerings, sometimes including horses and chariots. The structures of the earlier Neolithic period from the 4th to the 3rd millenniums BCE, and Bronze Age until the 1st millennium BC, display continuity of the archaic forming methods. They were inspired by common ritual-mythological ideas. The monuments of these cultures coincide with the Scytho-Siberian world (Saka) monuments. Scytho-Siberian monuments have common features, and sometimes common genetic roots.” ref

“Also associated with these spectacular burial mounds are the Pazyryk, an ancient people who lived in the Altai Mountains lying in Siberian Russia on the Ukok Plateau, near the borders with China, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. The archaeological site on the Ukok Plateau associated with the Pazyryk culture is included in the Golden Mountains of Altai UNESCO World Heritage Site. Scytho-Siberian classification includes monuments from the 8th to the 3rd century BCE. This period is called the Early or Ancient Nomads epoch. “Hunnic” monuments date from the 3rd century BCE to the 6th century CE, and Turkic ones from the 6th century CE to the 13th century CE, leading up to the Mongolian epoch.” ref

“In all periods, the development of the kurgan structure tradition in the various ethnocultural zones is revealed by common components or typical features in the construction of the monuments. They include:

Depending on the combination of these elements, each historical and cultural nomadic zone has certain architectural distinctions.” 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 

Q Haplogroup

“Q-M242 is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans and several peoples of Central Asia and Northern Siberia. Q-M242 is believed to have arisen around the Altai Mountains area (or South Central Siberia), approximately 17,000 to 31,700 years ago (approximately 24,500 years ago). Several branches of haplogroup Q-M242 have been predominant pre-Columbian male lineages in indigenous peoples of the Americas. Most of them are descendants of the major founding groups who migrated from Asia into the Americas by crossing the Bering Strait. These small groups of founders must have included men from the Q-M346, Q-L54, Q-Z780, and Q-M3 lineages.” ref

“In North America, two other Q-lineages also have been found. These are Q-P89.1 (under Q-MEH2) and Q-NWT01. They may have not been from the Beringia Crossings but instead come from later immigrants who traveled along the shoreline of Far East Asia and then the Americas using boats. It is unclear whether the current frequency of Q-M242 lineages represents their frequency at the time of immigration or is the result of the shifts in a small founder population over time. Regardless, Q-M242 came to dominate the paternal lineages in the Americas.” ref

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

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

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

Prehistoric edible land snails in the circum-Mediterranean : the archaeological evidence

“Edible land snails are often abundant in late Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sites (around 10,000  to 6,000 years ago) throughout the Mediterranean region. This chapter, the first attempt to summarize the evidence, argues that in almost every instance the land snails found in occupational deposits are the remains of prehistoric meals.” ref

“Land snails are a frequent, often abundant, component in Late Pleistocene and early- to mid-Holocene archaeological sites throughout the circum-Mediterranean region. The most spectacular examples are the thousands of Capsian escargotières of eastern Algeria and southern Tunisia, but hundreds of other archaeological sites containing abundant land snail shells are known from Cantabria, the Pyrenees, southern France, Italy, south-eastern Europe, Cyprus and the Levant, the Zagros region, Ukraine and Cyrenaica.” ref

“These land snails represent remains of prehistoric meals. What is their significance? My long-term interest in this question has been brought recently to the fore by Fernández-Armesto who suggests that land snails were the first domesticated animal and that their importance has been ignored by archaeologists. I do not think that archaeologists have ignored the issue, but it is certainly true that most of the interest has been on the palaeo-environmental information that can be obtained from study of land snail assemblages, rather than on their role in human subsistence.” ref

“There have been only a few studies with a different emphasis: Lubell et al. attempted to test the ideas of Pond et al. on the contribution of land snails to prehistoric diet in the Holocene Maghreb; Bahn constructed an interesting argument in favor of Mesolithic snail farming in the Pyrenees; Waselkov provided encyclopedic global coverage of the pre-1980s literature on (primarily marine) molluscs as food in prehistory; Chenorkian examined possible dietary contributions of molluscs; and Girod discussed some of the implications of using land snails as food in prehistory.” ref

“In this paper, I will discuss the archaeological evidence for the occurrence of land snails in the prehistoric record of the circum-Mediterranean. In a complementary paper (Lubell, 2004) I will build on these data to investigate whether or not this pattern represents a signature for the « broad spectrum revolution » and if the presence of edible land snails in late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites signals a hitherto unrealized link in the transition to a diet based on herded animals and cultivated plants.” ref

“Archaeologists recently identified the remains of four human funerary burials from approximately 3,800 years ago in a space in northern Peru associated with a water cult. The bundled funeral remains belong to two children, a teenager, and an adult. They were buried facing the Andean mountains and interred with symbolic offerings, such as stone pendants and snail shells. The remains were found nestled between mud and stone walls near a valley in Peru’s dry, coastal Viru province by the Virú Valley Archaeological Research Project (PAVI) of the National University of Trujillo (UNT). “It also shows the importance of the space. People have for a long time wanted to be buried in temples because these are very sacred spaces to them,” Castillo Luján told Reuters, noting that the remains and the walls were likely between 3,100 and 3,800 years old. “In addition, fragments of early pottery found at the site are similar to those observed in other important settlements such as Gramalote, in the Moche Valley, and Huaca Negra, near the coast in the Virú Valley,” Castillo Luján told the University of Trujillo.” ref 

Earth diver mythology or something similar??? Could be. In a way, snails are a kind of mound shape, thus similar to turtle shells, both may represent a mound of creation in the earth-diver myth. 

Earth Diver

“The earth diver is a character used in creation myths that is sent by a supreme being as an animal into water or muddy land to make it habitable. These stories and origins are used often in the Eastern Asiatic costal region. Often the earth dives is the first to exist and make a world manageable for others to live in. There are many failed attempts explained before one remains in a state of living.” ref

The Yoruba Creation Myth

The Yoruba Creation Story- The Golden Chain

“Long ago, well before there were any people, all life existed in the sky. Olorun lived in the sky, and with Olorun were many orishas. There were both male and female orishas, but Olorun transcended male and female and was the all-powerful supreme being. Olorun and the orishas lived around a young baobab tree. Around the baobab tree the orishas found everything they needed for their lives, and in fact they wore beautiful clothes and gold jewelry. Olorun told them that all the vast sky was theirs to explore. All the orishas save one, however, were content to stay near the baobab tree.” ref

“Obatala was the curious orisha who wasn’t content to live blissfully by the baobab tree. Like all orishas, he had certain powers, and he wanted to put them to use. As he pondered what to do, he looked far down through the mists below the sky. As he looked and looked, he began to realize that there was a vast empty ocean below the mist. Obatala went to Olorun and asked Olorun to let him make something solid in the waters below. That way there could be beings that Obatala and the orishas could help with their powers.” ref

“Touched by Obatala’s desire to do something constructive, Olorun agreed to send Obatala to the watery world below. Obatala then asked Orunmila, the orisha who knows the future, what he should do to prepare for his mission. Orunmila brought out a sacred tray and sprinkled the powder of baobab roots on it. He tossed sixteen palm kernels onto the tray and studied the marks and tracks they made on the powder. He did this eight times, each time carefully observing the patterns. Finally, he told Obatala to prepare a chain of gold and to gather sand, palm nuts, and maize. He also told Obatala to get the sacred egg carrying the personalities of all the orishas.” ref

“Obatala went to his fellow orishas to ask for their gold, and they all gave him all the gold they had. He took this to the goldsmith, who melted all the jewelry to make the links of the golden chain. When Obatala realized that the goldsmith had made all the gold into links, he had the goldsmith melt a few of them back down to make a hook for the end of the chain. 
Meanwhile, as Orunmila had told him, Obatala gathered all the sand in the sky and put it in an empty snail shell, and in with it he added a little baobab powder. He put that in his pack, along with palm nuts, maize, and other seeds that he found around the baobab tree. He wrapped the egg in his shirt, close to his chest so that it would be warm during his journey.” ref

“Obatala hooked the chain into the sky, and he began to climb down the chain. For seven days he went down and down, until finally he reached the end of the chain. He hung at its end, not sure what to do, and he looked and listened for any clue. Finally he heard Orunmila, the seer, calling to him to use the sand. He took the shell from his pack and poured out the sand into the water below. The sand hit the water, and to his surprise it spread and solidified to make a vast land. Still unsure what to do, Obatala hung from the end of the chain until his heart pounded so much that the egg cracked. From it flew Sankofa, the bird bearing the sprits of all the orishas. Like a storm, they blew the sand to make dunes and hills and lowlands, giving it character just as the orishas themselves have character.” ref

“Finally, Obatala let go of the chain and dropped to this new land, which he called “Ife”, the place that divides the waters. Soon he began to explore this land, and as he did so he scattered the seeds from his pack, and as he walked the seeds began to grow behind him, so that the land turned green in his wake. After walking a long time, Obatala grew thirsty and stopped at a small pond. As he bent over the water, he saw his reflection and was pleased. He took some clay from the edge of the pond and began to mold it into the shape he had seen in the reflection.” ref

“He finished that one and began another, and before long he had made many of these bodies from the dark earth at the pond’s side. By then he was even thirstier than before, and he took juice from the newly-grown palm trees and it fermented into palm wine. He drank this, and drank some more, and soon he was intoxicated. He returned to his work of making more forms from the edge of the pond, but now he wasn’t careful and made some without eyes or some with misshapen limbs. He thought they all were beautiful, although later he realized that he had erred in drinking the wine and vowed to not do so again.” ref

“Before long, Olorun dispatched Chameleon down the golden chain to check on Obatala’s progress. Chameleon reported Obatala’s disappointment at making figures that had form but no life. Gathering gasses from the space beyond the sky, Olorun sparked the gasses into an explosion that he shaped into a fireball. He sent that fireball to Ife, where it dried the lands that were still wet and began to bake the clay figures that Obatala had made. The fireball even set the earth to spinning, as it still does today. Olorun then blew his breath across Ife, and Obatala’s figures slowly came to life as the first people of Ife.” ref 

In Peru, there were snail shells, and snail shells are also used in the earth diver.

Buried with snails? What animal bones tell us about the rise and fall of the Maya in Guatemala| Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

“Tens of thousands of tiny bone fragments reveal eating habits, ceremonial practices and the development of animal domestication during more than 2000 years of history. More than 35,000 bone and shell fragments from a Maya settlement in Ceibal, Guatemala tell the tale of animal use through the ups and downs of a great civilization according to a new report in the journal PLOS One by Ashley Sharpe, staff archaeologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, with colleagues from the University of Arizona, the University of Ibaraki, Japan and Guatemala’s Institute of Anthropology and History and Universidad de San Carlos. One of the first Maya communities to build large monuments, the site of Ceibal was occupied nearly continuously for more than 2000 years, from about 1000 BCE until 1200 CE.” ref

“Ceibal was one of the first Maya sites in Guatemala where ceremonial structures were built. The patterns we see, such as dramatic shifts in diet and ceremonial uses of animals, are not flukes, but likely represent the way the Maya were using resources both at Ceibal and are comparable with other reports across the region,” Sharpe said. Bones decay quickly in the humid tropics. To recover such an exceptional number of well-preserved remains, members of the Ceibal-Petexbatun Archaeological Project suspended soil from the excavations in water and collected bone fragments as they floated to the top. They classified the fragments by comparing them to collections of identified animal bones.” ref

“Apple snail shells. One of the human burials at the site was accompanied by hundreds of apple snail shells, perhaps from a burial feast. One of the most important findings in this study was a dramatic shift in the Maya diet from apple snails and other mollusks, to vertebrate.” ref

“From the earliest remains almost three thousand years ago, we see many different dogs throughout the community, which at the time were the only domestic animals in Central America,” Sharpe said. “It is possible some were pets or used for hunting, but a few bones with cut marks could indicate that some were eaten.”  The team also discovered that the early residents of Ceibal were eating thousands of snails and mussels from the nearby river and wetlands. In one residential area dated to roughly 700-450 BCE they found an adult male buried with hundreds of apple snails: perhaps evidence of his burial feast.” ref  

“In fact, our most intriguing result was a major shift around 2000 years ago from huge quantities of apple snails and mussel shells to far more fish, turtle and deer bones,” Sharpe said. “We are really curious to find out if this was just a shift in food preferences, or the result of habitat loss. There is evidence from sediment cores in northern Guatemala that there was a lot of deforestation and erosion during the Preclassic-Classic transition around 200 CE, which perhaps destroyed wetland habitats.” Another interesting pattern was the increase in river turtle (Dermatemys mawii) bones after 200 CE. The largest freshwater turtle in the region, this critically endangered species is still considered a delicacy. In another Smithsonian study, zoologists suggested that the ancient Maya imported turtles from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Although this has yet to be confirmed by genetic analysis, the Ceibal results support this possibility.” ref

Headless vulture. Because bird bones are fragile, few were found at the site. Most were water birds from nearby wetlands. This skeleton was probably a ceremonial offering. 

Evidence of another imported species was identified from the few fragile bird bones that remained at the site: turkeys. Turkey bones appear at Ceibal after the Preclassic period, supporting the idea that people were bringing early domesticated turkeys from Central Mexico south into Guatemala. Sharpe’s isotope analysis on the turkey bones shows that by the end of the transition turkeys were eating corn, confirming that they were likely domesticated. “Bones of both white-tailed and brocket deer were common throughout the history of the site but as Ceibal became an important political center and society became more socially stratified, we start finding more deer — sometimes a dozen in a single trash deposit,” Sharpe said. “Deer appear to be a favorite food of the Classic period elites and may have played a special role during feasts.” ref

“This study is important because it draws on more than 35,000 pieces of bone and shell from a huge archaeological site in Guatemala. Excavations at the Ceibal and Caobal sites included both areas near monuments and areas further from the center of the settlement. This map shows the region, including other sites mentioned in the article.” ref

Number of identified specimens (NISP) at Ceibal over time. From the research article.

“There was other evidence for social stratification as well. Ceibal elites wore feline paws and skins on stelae. In a trash heap behind the royal palace, researchers discovered margay and kinkajou mandibles, the arm of an anteater, a bull shark tooth, and sea urchin spines, perhaps also the remains of costumes or other royal paraphernalia. By comparison, the middle class had a more varied diet of local fauna, including rabbits, pacas, agoutis, possums, raccoons, weasels and armadillos, anteaters and even an occasional peccary or tapir. “Then suddenly everything stopped around 950 CE during the famous ’Maya Collapse’ when all the cities were abandoned,” Sharpe said.” ref

“Only a few people occasionally returned to the edges of the site in the centuries after that.”  Identifying the bones in this massive collection was just the first step. In the future, they hope to fine-tune their identifications of the numerous tiny fish at the site, use DNA to examine Maya dog breeds, and learn more about the lives of non-elites. “The focus of Maya archaeology up until now has been large monumental sites, and especially the royal elites during the Classic period,” Sharpe said. “We hope to excavate residences and older sites to get a better idea of what society was like for the majority of the Maya people.” ref

The funereal snails

“Les Leftovers: The funereal snails This rite of the presence of snails may be related, either to a funereal meal, or to a symbolic significance: the abbé Martigny, following Salin, thinks it concerns a symbol of the Resurrection, the shell being the tomb which Man must one day leave.” ref

“On March 26, 1872, Emile Rivière discovered a complete skeleton in the grotto of Cavillon, near Menton. This was not the first prehistoric skeleton found in the area, but this one had a particular importance: the way in which it had been buried was sufficiently sophisticated to answer a much-disputed question: did intentional burial already exist in the Paleolithic period? Notably, the skull was covered with over two hundred pierced sea-snails (Nassa neritea) which, along with stag canines, had been part of a fishnet-style headdress. An ankle bracelet of forty-one sea-snails was also found on a tibia bone.” ref

“A few years later, two children’s bodies were found in the same area with almost a thousand of these same sea-snails, again pierced and probably used for the children’s loincloths. Sea-snails are not the same as the familiar culinary snail, which is a land mollusk  Nor is their presence here very mysterious, especially since it has been discovered that Rivière’s find, long known as “the man of Menton”, was in fact a woman; shells were among the earliest form of jewelry.” ref

“More mysterious, however, are land snails found in various later tombs. Three dozen snail shells were found in a Gallo-Roman tomb at Pardines in Auvergne. Edouard Salin, the great researcher on the Merovingians, found three shells under the pelvis of a late Gallo-Roman skeleton under the St. Denis Basilica. Snails were found in twenty-six early Christian (II-Vth century) tombs at Beaulieu-sur-Mer; one tightly sealed tomb contained a “veritable deposit of helix aspera (garden snails)”. (The fact that these were Christian tombs may mean that the mollusk had a particular meaning in early Christian iconography; but pagan practices also survived even among some Christians.)” ref

“Early medieval pits at Carvin, in the Nord department, have been tentatively identified as funeral pits and include snails with the remains of shellfish and small rodents. At Noiron-sur-Gevrey, Salin noted numerous shells of varied types of snails found mixed with bones of small animals and frogs in funerary pits; in this case, these may have been the remains of funerary meals. But in the same area, a ring of snail shells set fifteen to twenty centimeters apart formed a ring around a Merovingian skeleton. Similar rings have been found in Merovingian tombs at Lorleau, Villey-Saint-Etienne, Bertheleming, Templeux-la-Fosse and Hardenthum.In the Ardennes, “veritable beds of snails” were found in Merovingian tombs; there and in the Aisne, about thirty snails surrounded some skulls.” ref

“Most touchingly, in one of six Gallo-Roman tombs of newborns at Lyons-la-Foret (in Normandy), Guyot and Dollfus found, on and beside one child’s body, “nine snail shells… Two shells were found at neck level, at the base of the skull, the other six essentially symmetrical to either side of the thorax and pelvis and one between the lower limbs.” About thirty centimeters to the north of this tomb was a pile of almost one hundred shells in a pile about 20 centimeters in diameter. “These were no doubt brought intentionally, in relation to a funerary rite.” But what rite? And what was the significance of the various snails placed so carefully around certain skeletons? Or of those simply piled into mounds or beds?” ref

“This rite of the presence of snails may be related, either to a funereal meal, or to a symbolic significance: the abbé Martigny, following Salin, thinks it concerns a symbol of the Resurrection, the shell being the tomb which Man must one day leave. One thing is certain: the parents who carefully placed – or had placed – nine snail shells at specific points around their newborn’s body had, in their grief, a clear and heartfelt intention, expressed, in its way, as eloquently as the poignant epitaphs found on later graves. But we may never know what that was.” ref

“Snails were widely noted and used in divination. The Greek poet Hesiod wrote that snails signified the time to harvest by climbing the stalks, while the Aztec moon god Tecciztecatl bore a snail shell on his back. This symbolized rebirth; the snail’s penchant for appearing and disappearing was analogized with the moon. In Mayan mythology, the snail is associated with sexual desire, being personified by the god Uayeb.” ref

“In the Mayan calendar … of 5 “nameless” days, called Uayeb. The nameless days were considered extremely unlucky, causing the Maya to observe them with fasting and sacrifices to deities.” ref

“The Haabʼ (Mayan pronunciation: [haːɓ]) is part of the Maya calendric system. It was a 365-day calendar used by many of the pre-Columbian cultures of Mesoamerica. The Haabʼ comprises eighteen months of twenty days each, plus an additional period of five days (“nameless days”) at the end of the year known as Wayeb’ (or Uayeb in 16th-century orthography). Bricker (1982) estimates that the Haabʼ was first used around 500 BCE with a starting point of the winter solstice.

5 unlucky days

“The five nameless days at the end of the calendar, called Wayebʼ, was thought to be a dangerous time. Foster (2002) writes “During Wayeb, portals between the mortal realm and the Underworld dissolved. No boundaries prevented the ill-intending deities from causing disasters.” To ward off these evil spirits, the Mayans had customs and rituals they practiced during Wayebʼ. For example, the Mayans would not leave their homes and wash their hair.” ref 

WAYEB (Also known as Uayayab, Uayeb) Maya Bad Luck God

“He is the God of Five Unlucky Days. These occur on a regular basis but only once per year. Every week would be a bit over the top. The Maya Calendar was a marvel of mathematical creation, but to ensure it worked correctly, they needed to add a few extra blank days to the end to pad it out. Because, although Maya mathematics was more or less flawless, the Universe is not. So, just as we use leap years nowadays, the Maya popped an extra 5-day period at the end of the year. This extra time was a period of notorious uncertainty, as you might imagine, and had a reputation for being a time of bad luck and inauspicious happenings. Hence Wayeb, the God of this period, was regarded as a very unlucky figure. Basically, he got the blame for whatever terrible things might be about to happen.” ref

“As a precaution, statues of him would be carried out of towns and villages to minimize the chances. We have it on some kind of authority that Wayeb is portrayed as a drunken sex-maniac. We presume there were a lot of wild parties going on during those fatal Five Blank Days. The thought uppermost in everyone’s minds was surely “well, no-one will notice – these days don’t really exist, do they?” Plus, on the unluckiest days of the year, what’s the worst that could happen? We are not sure how involved Wayeb was in any of this. But we do understand he may also be the first God to wear a shell suit, as a snail shell seems to be his principle abode. Thanks to the Godchecker Holy Snail, we know snail shells are capable of containing much holiness. Presumably he spends the whole year hiding in his shell and only comes out during his Five Days.” ref

Similar to Earth Diver/world Turtle?

“From the earliest times, snails have been part of myths and legends, some even depicting the creation of the world.” Snails in Human Culture. Land snails have featured in the human culture from ancient times. From the earliest times, snails have been part of myths and legends, some even depicting the creation of the world. Snails are often symbolized by their spiral shape or their slowness linked to laziness.” ref

“From Nauru only 3500 km from eastern Australia, comes the creation myth that at the beginning, the only things in existence were Areop-Enap (a spider) and the sea. Areop-Enap searched for food in the darkness and found an enormous clam which swallowed him. He used two snails and a worm to find a way to open the clam. Areop-Enap made the lower clam shell into Earth and the upper shell into the sky and sent the smaller snail west of the sky-shell where it became the Moon. The second snail was sent to the east and became the Sun.” ref 

“Another creation myth from the Yoruba people of Nigeria tells that in the beginning, the universe consisted only of the sky, the water, and the wild marshlands. The God Obatala believed that the world needed more so he went to Olorun, ruler of the sky and creator of the sun, asking for permission to create mountains, valleys, forests, and fields. Obatala descends onto Earth to a place called Ife, carrying a snail shell filled with sand, a white hen, a black cat, and a palm nut. When he reached the earth, Obatala spread the sand and planted the nut. After a while, he decided to fashion human beings to keep him company because his task was quite lonely. Humans created by Obatala come together to form the first Yoruba Village in Ife.” ref 

“A Navajo Indian tale from northern America tells that long ago, there was a mighty flood, and the People left their world, the Fourth World, the Underworld, and came up into the Fifth World, the world lived in today. They found themselves on the shore of a great ocean. The People broke into groups by clan and went out to find new homes. But at the end of four days, they came back to the place by the ocean as there was no fresh water to drink. First Woman stood in front of the People and said that someone would have to go back down to the old world below to find some fresh water. She sent several strong animals to find it but all were unsuccessful. A thin little girl called ‘snail girl’ offered to search though most thought she could not do this.” ref

“First woman tied a bottle to the girl’s back and she set off slowly. After a long time, she found her way to the underworld and there she found some pure water. She filled the bottle and carried it back but it opened and spilled leaving a silvery trail. This created a large river. Snail girl was thanked and honoured by the People. First Woman declared that from that day on, the snail will carry the water bottle on her back as a symbol of her great journey. Snails will leave a trail of moisture behind at every place travelled as a message to everyone that our pure water is precious and must be taken care of. At present, the Giant African Snail (Achatina fulica) is part of traditional religious ceremonies of Candomblé in Brazil where it is used as an offering to the deity called Oxalá.” ref 

Snails in ancient cultures

“Snails have been used since prehistoric times to craft jewellery. Shell ornaments were very common from 50–40,000 years ago onwards. The first known examples of shell jewellery originated in Africa. The spiral to many ancient cultures not only represented the cycle of life, death, and rebirth but represented the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. The spiral was considered the essence of the Universe and of time itself. The Sumerians and Babylonians considered the snails immortal, making them a symbol of eternity.” ref 

“Prehistoric shell heaps, or midens (e.g. sambaquis in Brazil from 6000 BCE or Køkkenmøddinger from Denmark from 5000 BCE), bear witness to the amounts of shells processed by tribes through time. In Australia, shell midens created by coastal Indigenous Australian tribes often feature in Dreamtime stories. The Burarra people of Arnhem Land, also referred to as the Gidjingali, regard their midens as sacred sites.” ref

“In ancient Japanese times, snails were considered the most fertile of all animals and gods of water. Snails symbolised tolerance and perseverance and being hermaphrodite, had a duality symbol as in the process of mating they use both, male and female characteristics of their body. The snail was a symbol in ancient Mesoamerican cultures. The Maya are probably the best-known of the classical civilizations of Mesoamerica. Originating in the Yucatán around 2600 BCE, they rose to prominence around CE 250 in present-day southern Mexico, Guatemala, northern Belize and western Honduras. The Mayan earth God, Pauahtan, the patron of scribes and of group of 5 unlucky days known as the Uayeb, emerges from a spiral shell. The ancient cultural centre of Mayans has stone building in the form of cylinder, the observatory for looking at Venus.  The observatory is titled El  Caracol, meaning ‘snail’. In Mayan mythology, the snail was associated with sexual desire.” ref

“The Aztecs were a Mesoamerican culture that flourished in central Mexico in the post-classic period from CE 1300 to 1521. At its greatest extent, the Aztec empire covered most of northern Mesoamerica. The ancient Aztecs saw the snail as a sacred being because its shell represented the cycle of life. To the Aztecs, the snail was symbolic of time, transition, and even fertility. Their beliefs are seen in ancient paintings, drawings, and carvings of the spiral snail shell. Their mythological story tells that when creating the Sun and the Moon, the gods let two different powers Tēcciztēcatl who started off as a lowly God of Snails and Worms, and Nanahuatzin, compete against each other. Their task was sacrifice by fire and they were to leap into the flames of a burning pyre.” ref

“After Tēcciztēcatl hesitated, Nanahuatzin was first to sacrifice himself in the fire. Two suns then appeared in the sky but the gods who were angry with Tēcciztēcatl’s hesitation, threw a rabbit into Tēcciztēcatl’s face to reduce his luminosity. Subsequently, Nanahuatzin became the sun god Tonatiuh and Tēcciztēcatl was only awarded the status of moon god. Tēcciztēcatl carried a snail shell on his back. Just as the snail retreats into its shell, the moon retreats into the depths of the ocean. In this culture, the spiral snail shell is also symbolic of the moon, and its phases.” ref

“Quetzalcoatl is another Aztec god associated with the snail. He wore the spiral shell as a symbol on his chest. Therefore, he it was believed that he knew the secrets of reincarnation and the cycles of the Universe and of the gods. The Temple of Quetzalcoatl is decorated with snails and shells which are considered symbols of water. In ancient Peru around 100 to 700 CE, the Mocha, an agriculturally based society, celebrated mountain sacrifices at the beginning of the rainy season which was marked by the appearance of snails in large numbers.” ref

“To the ancient Greeks, snails represented fertility and fruition of hard work. The presence of snails indicated when crops were ready to harvest. Hesiod, a poet who lived around the time of Homer, documented this noting that it was harvest time when snails climbed the stems of plants. Aristotle described the snail in detail and invented a spoon that allowed the snail’s body to be removed intact from the shell. Hippocrates studied the properties of slime mucus and praised its effectiveness in hydrating the skin, relieving skin irritations and redness, wound healing, and treating skin disorders. He also considered their consumption beneficial for various stomach disorders. Hippocrates and Galen considered snails to be beneficial for the treatment of herniation and hypersensitivity.” ref

rehistoric Hunters Roasted and Ate Giant Snails 170,000 Years Ago

“In a groundbreaking discovery, scientists have unearthed the remains of enormous snail shells at a 225,000-year-old archaeological site in southern Africa. What makes this find truly remarkable is that it appears these giant snails were not just natural inhabitants of the area, but also a significant source of sustenance for the humans who lived there. Why and when terrestrial mollusks entered our ancestor’s diet were unanswered questions until the recent discovery of the giant land snail, known as Achatinidae, at a rock-shelter in southern Africa. A new study has demonstrated how small groups of hunter-gatherers captured, roasted and ate giant snails as early as 170,000 years ago. Until now, the oldest evidence of Homo sapiens capturing and eating giant land snails dated to roughly 35,000 years ago in Europe, and around 50,000 years ago in Africa. However, a new study published in the Quaternary Science Reviews shows how people at a southern African rock-shelter called Border Cave roasted a species of giant snail that was, according to the researchers, “as big as an adult’s hand.” ref

Giant Snails Roasting on an Open Fire

“The oldest archaeological layers at Border Cave date to at least 227,000 years ago. Evidence shows how ancient people living in this cave cooked starchy plant stems, ate an array of fruits and hunted small and large animals. A 2020 study published in Science even found that the ancient people living in Border’s cave made grass bedding around 200,000 years ago. The new study was led by Marine Wojcieszak of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels.” ref

“An analysis of shell fragments excavated at Border Cave demonstrates how hunter-gatherers at the site roasted large African land snails on embers, “and then presumably ate them,” according to Wojcieszak. Described as “a delicacy,” eating these snails spiked in popularity between about 160,000 and 70,000 years ago. According to the team of scientists, these new discoveries at Border Cave “challenge an influential idea that human groups did not make land snails and other small game a big part of their diet until the last Ice Age waned around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago.” ref

“The team of researchers working on the study suggested that when hunter-gatherer groups in southern Africa roamed the countryside hunting large animals, some of them, perhaps with limited mobility due to age or injury, might have stayed behind “snail-gathering.” Wojcieszak added that food sharing at Border Cave demonstrates how “cooperative social behavior was in place from the dawn of our species.” Furthermore, because snail meat is relatively easy to eat, the fatty protein of snails would have been an important source of nutrition for the elderly and smaller children.” ref

“Science News reported that previous archaeological excavations at a cave on the southern tip of South Africa revealed that humans ate mussels, limpets and other marine mollusks as early as around 164,000 years ago. However, according to archaeologist Antonieta Jerardino of the University of South Africa in Pretoria, the new evidence of giant snail consumption at Africa’s Border Cave pushes back the human consumption of mollusks by several thousand years to 170,000 years ago.” ref

“Most of the shell fragments discovered at the site displayed signs of extended heat exposure, which the researchers say is consistent with “having once been attached to snails that were cooked on hot embers.” It was concluded that the lower parts of large land snail shells rested against the hot embers during cooking, which accounts for the burned and unburned shell fragments discovered by the scientists.” ref

Land Snail Shell Beads in the Sub-Saharan Archaeological Record: When, Where, and Why?

“Abstract: Shell beads are well established in the archaeological record of sub-Saharan Africa and appear as early as 75,000 BP; however, most research has focused on ostrich eggshell (OES) and various marine mollusc species. Beads made from various land snails shells (LSS), frequently described as Achatina, also appear to be widespread. Yet tracking their appearance and distribution is difficult because LSS beads are often intentionally or unintentionally lumped with OES beads, there are no directly dated examples, and bead reporting in general is highly variable in the archaeological literature. Nevertheless, Achatina and other potential cases of LSS beads are present at over 80 archaeological sites in at least eight countries, spanning the early Holocene to recent past. Here, we collate published cases and report on several more. We also present a new case from Magubike Rockshelter in southern Tanzania with the first directly dated LSS beads, which we use to illustrate methods for identifying LSS as a raw material. Despite the long history of OES bead production on the continent and the abundance of land snails available throughout the Pleistocene, LSS beads appear only in the late Holocene and are almost exclusively found in Iron Age contexts. We consider possible explanations for the late adoption of land snails as a raw material for beadmaking within the larger context of environmental, economic, and social processes in Holocene Africa. By highlighting the existence of these artifacts, we hope to facilitate more in-depth research on the timing, production, and distribution of LSS beads in African prehistory.” ref

“Shell beads have a long history of production in sub-Saharan Africa and are one of the first indicators of early modern human symbolic behavior, appearing by 75,000 years ago alongside other forms material culture such as utilized ochre and portable/parietal art. Although the earliest examples were perforated whole marine shells, standardized production of shaped ostrich eggshell (OES) beads was established by at least 50,000 years ago. OES beads remain well represented in Later Stone Age (LSA) and Iron Age (IA) deposits, with the tradition continuing into the ethnographic present among linguistically and culturally diverse communities. In contrast to more extensive research on glass beads, however, few studies have moved beyond quantification of OES to focus on chronology, distribution, and manufacture.” ref

“Such studies are typically focused on metric analyses. Other notable work has drawn on ethnographic data to explore the social contexts of these artifacts. This paper builds on the OES literature by focusing on a concurrent but even less studied phenomenon: the production of similar disc beads from the shells of terrestrial land snails. Although land snail shell beads are most often described as Achatina in published sources, identified taxa include other genera in the Family Achatinidae such as Archachatina, Burtoa, and Limicolaria. Referring to all cases as Achatina may produce the undesired effect of masking variation in species used for beadmaking when comparing sites within and across regions. We therefore propose the new designation land snail shell (LSS) beads to complement reporting convention for OES beads without implying taxonomic homogeneity of molluscs.” ref

“Land snails are some of the most pervasive and dense archaeological residues found at sites across Africa. However, interpretation on a case-by-case basis is typically limited to whether their presence is owed to taphonomic “natural” causes (such as self-introduction through burrowing) vs. human agency (such as subsistence behavior or harvesting). Walz argues that this “(non-) treatment” of land snail debris overlooks other possibilities that may inform broader interpretations of site formation, economic and social behavior, and localized environments. Although land snails have been documented as a food source in both archaeological and ethnographic contexts, ethnographic uses also include subsistence and household tools, landscape markers, decorations and personal adornment, and ritual implements. While respecting the limits of ethnographic analogy, it seems unlikely that these other uses are purely historic. To illustrate this point, Walz documents land snail shell beads, scoop/spoon implements, and shallow bowls from Iron Age contexts at Kwa Mgogo and Gonja Maore in northeastern Tanzania. Land snail artifacts are perhaps overlooked more often than OES because snails are expected taphonomic agents and/or ecofacts at many archaeological sites, attracting less attention and scrutiny.” ref

“Beyond general inattentiveness to snail shells as forms of material culture, LSS beads are likely underreported for several reasons. Primarily, shell beads of all types are generally understudied in archaeological accounts. Whereas glass beads are frequently employed as proxies in Iron Age research for long-distance trading networks, individual and group wealth, and social stratification, shell beads are more enigmatic. Aside from obviously exotic cases of marine species traded inland, OES and LSS beads appear in both hunter-gatherer and agropastoralist contexts and are not indicative of any single social process. Consequently, reporting for shell beads is typically limited to tabulation by level and/or raw material, occasionally with summary statistics on diameter, aperture form, and thickness. Other times, shell beads are only reported as present/absent. Second, LSS beads closely resemble their OES counterparts in coloration, size, and morphology. Because both types of beads are often found within a single site, LSS beads are easily mischaracterized or simply grouped with OES. Ward and Maggs further attribute misidentifications to inadequate magnification and encrustations on bead surfaces. Finally, because of their small size, collection bias may reduce the number of LSS and other beads collected from survey assemblages or excavations where sediments are not finely sieved.” ref

“What is becoming clear, however, is that LSS beads are hardly scarce in the sub-Saharan African archaeological record. We now seek to initiate discourse on the existence and distribution of these artifacts and their role in prehistory. This first requires a review of sites where LSS beads have been identified thus far. We then review several ecological aspects of African land snails as a vehicle for discussing how these animals enter the archaeological record, and what aspects of their physiology affect their utility as a raw material for beadmaking. Here, we build upon earlier scholarship aimed at helping archaeologists distinguish LSS beads from OES and other raw materials. Although it may be possible to assign genus or species-level identifications in some circumstances, we argue that, at minimum, describing this type of disc bead as LSS will help improve reporting and inter-site comparisons. We illustrate our methods using a new case study of LSS beads from Magubike Rockshelter in southern Tanzania, which represent the first directly dated beads of this type. The context of these finds at Magubike evokes broader questions on the nature of these artifacts, starting with when they appear and where they are found. Our ultimate objective is to consider why LSS beads begin to appear alongside, but do not replace, OES beads in many places across sub-Saharan African during the latter stages of the Holocene. We believe this can represent a starting point for more focused study of LSS beads in African archaeology, as part of a broader recognition of land snails as an important component of material culture.” ref

“Reviewing the available literature, it is apparent that LSS beads are not unusual finds. Unfortunately, it also becomes apparent that there is no consistent framework for identification or reporting them. Here, we present the geographic and chronologic distribution of published cases of LSS (and potential LSS) beads. We also include several sites which had not previously published the occurrence of LSS (Mumba, Mlambalasi, Border Cave, and White Paintings Shelter). These cases were ascertained by one of the authors (JM) during first hand observation of collections. It is highly possible that other collections likewise have LSS beads that were mistakenly attributed to OES and have not been further examined.” ref

“The use of variable terminology presented the greatest challenge to this literature review. Without an established convention to identify or report LSS beads, numerous published instances may or may not refer to the same raw material. Sites where the shell bead material was identified as OES, marine shell, or water snail were excluded from this list. Some sites have reference to “shell beads”; however, further searching reveals their identification as something other than land snail, e.g., “small ocean snails” at Takwa, “marine gastropod” of likely Andara sp. at Manda, and “fresh water mollusc” at Gamble’s Cave, all from Kenya. The publications which used the generic term “shell beads” were included in our list, as further study is necessary to determine what type of shell they may be.” ref

“To distinguish between potential LSS cases, the raw material category in Table ​Table11 has two sub-columns to highlight the different standards in reporting. The first lists the term used in the original publication cited. By far, the most common term in the published literature is Achatina, but this is one genus among hundreds of identified species of African land snails. Some site reports have narrower classifications to a particular species, e.g., A. immaculata at Ntshekane, South Africa. Others use the more generic term “mollusc shell,” such as North Horr 1, Kenya. Based on this information, the second sub-column indicates whether the case is likely to be an LSS bead. Beads which are not indicated as LSS may still belong to this category; however, more information is required to support such a designation. These cases still warrant inclusion in our table as they could represent land snails and merit further study.” ref

“Radiocarbon dates and ages provided in Table ​Table11 are based on published dates and archaeological contexts. We calibrated all published radiocarbon dates using Intcal13 and reported to 95% confidence interval or 2σ. Unfortunately, chronological control for such finds is often lacking. Direct bead dates would be the most reliable given the stratigraphic mobility of beads; however, no direct LSS dates are available in the existing literature. The next most desirable option is to report dates from an associated layer. Where undated, we report the date from the next closest appropriate context (i.e., the underlying or overlying strata). Many publications report shell beads only as present/absent, or as an overall number from the excavation. In cases without provenience and/or associated dates, we report bracketing dates for the site or a broad time period (Later Stone Age, Pastoral Neolithic, or Iron Age).” ref

When Do LSS Beads Occur?

“Investigating the chronological range of LSS bead cases is challenging because other than those from Magubike, there are no direct dates on these artifacts. At present, it is only possible to determine which LSS beads have published provenience data and correlate that with associated radiocarbon dates from charcoal and other datable material within the same level or strata. This of course only produces a rough estimate of the antiquity of LSS beads. Expectedly, the range is quite broad, spanning approximately 15,000 calBP to as recently as 160 calBP. However, the upper extent of this range is potentially a significant overestimate.” ref

“Only four published sites have LSS beads in strata dated to older than 5,000 BP: Bushman Rockshelter and Tloutle in South Africa, and Kalemba and Makwe Rockshelters in Zambia. At Bushman Rockshelter, half of the Achatina beads (n = 3 of 6) and all of the broken and unfinished beads (n = 3) come from levels 1–5. Plug notes elsewhere that levels 1–2 show mixing of modern and Iron Age material, including Lydenburg-type potsherds, tobacco leaves, and goat dung. It is therefore plausible that the LSS beads postdate even the more recent date of 11,131–10,717 calBP derived from charcoal in level 2. Similarly, inverted mid- and late Holocene dates at Tloutle, one of which is from the seventeenth century, imply that at least uppermost levels are “probably a palimpsest of mid-Holocene and recent Holocene occupations.” ref

“At Kalemba, the only four beads specified to be Achatina come from the uppermost horizons R and S, the latter dated to the last 300 years. The nine remaining beads from earlier P and Q horizons are referred to as “small undeterminable land snail (not Achatina),” that are “made from the flat apex of the shell…punched at the thin center of the spiral”. Judging from the line drawing on page 156, it appears that these are examples of pierced opercula rather than shaped disc beads. Finally, it is worth noting that Makwe Rockshelter has an Iron Age occupation with a high density of artifacts, found above bead layers. It is therefore possible that the Achatina beads from that site are intrusive, especially given the stratigraphically inconsistent dates reported by Phillipson.” ref

“As beads can be quite vertically mobile, particularly in sites with long occupational sequences and trampled, mixed upper strata, direct dating should be strongly considered before any of these cases can be confirmed as early Holocene. Otherwise, the vast majority of the remaining cases from Table ​Table11 are associated with Iron Age deposits. When only the sites with specifically Achatina or “land snail” beads are considered (n = 55 of 81, sites marked as LSS in Table ​Table1),1), 56% of known LSS beads come from contexts dated within the past 2,000 years. An additional 26% are undated but associated with Iron Age material culture (Fig. 7). This constitutes strong evidence that LSS beads are a relatively recent phenomenon, potentially associated with Iron Age peoples or contact with them.” ref

“These preliminary findings concord with anecdotal observations found throughout the archaeological literature on LSS beads. Ward and Maggs claim that while OES was preferred for beadmaking in the LSA, Achatinidae dominated the early Iron Age. Garlake adds that shells beads of both OES and Achatina material “occur in all Later Iron Age sites in eastern Africa,” indicating continued use throughout this period. Both Mazel, and Hall and Smith suggest that LSS beads are associated with agriculturalists and may not have been prioritized before the spread of farming. Yet, when reporting LSS beads at the potentially nineteenth-century site of Ficus Cave, Partridge singles them out as the only find that would not be expected in most modern Bantu villages. Formally testing the association between LSS beads and the Iron Age, and determining when this tradition appeared and (potentially) disappeared, requires further research into the archaeological context of individual cases as well as direct radiocarbon dating of the artifacts in question. Based on this initial review, however, it appears that LSS beads appear over 40,000 years after OES traditions are established across sub-Saharan Africa and may persist until the recent past if not ethnographic present.” ref

Where Do LSS Beads Occur?

“Consideration of where LSS beads occur provides additional insight into factors that may have shaped their creation. The earliest examples, and the greatest number of individual sites, are found in the southernmost part of the continent. Forty percent of all sites with specified LSS beads are found in South Africa (n = 22 of 55 LSS sites, Table ​Table1)1) followed by Zimbabwe (n = 8), Botswana (n = 7), and Zambia (n = 6). Tanzania is also well represented (n = 7), although half the confirmed cases come from this study, suggesting further work is needed in the region. Curiously, there is no compelling evidence of LSS beads in western Africa. We found only one potential case from Kintampo Rockshelter No. 6 in Ghana; however, Stahl suspects the “small shell beads” are more likely from marine Cerithids because the land snail and fresh water mollusc shells in the deposits were too thin to have produced the observed beads.” ref

“Concentration of LSS beads in Southern Africa can be at least partly attributed to greater archaeological research focus. Recent work on the Middle and Later Iron Age in Tanzania has revealed LSS beads at dozens of lesser known sites (J. Walz, pers. comm.), suggesting gaps remain in our knowledge of their distribution. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that the four-corner region of southern Africa was the location of successive large-scale complex societies during the Iron Age, with populous capitals such as Mapungubwe, K2, and Great Zimbabwe. Since such polities were heavily integrated in coastal-interior trading networks, and beads are an important social signaling mechanism in societies undergoing processes of vertical stratification, it is understandable that LSS beads might appear more frequently. Southernmost Africa is also known for ethnographically documented networks of hxaro exchange among !Kung-speaking hunter-gatherers in which OES beads play a major role. Social, political, and economic developments in the later Holocene of this region probably contributed to increased bead demand among both food producers and foragers, with farther ranging effects along trade routes. The presence of Zhizo series glass beads in early strata at Kwa Mgogo suggests that these networks had reached as far as northeastern Tanzania by the mid-tenth century AD, perhaps also explaining the presence of LSS beads in the region.” ref

“Plotting the coordinates of known sites reveals another pattern: LSS bead sites cluster in the Afromontane belt along the eastern extent of the continent even though land snail species occupy a much broader range. Land snails are found from sea level to over 3,000 m in elevation and can live in a wide variety of biomes from coastal shores to savannah grassland to rainforest and mountainous range. If LSS raw material was more widely available, why were LSS beads seemingly restricted geographically?” ref

“The eastern distribution of documented LSS bead use does not appear to be related to environmental factors proposed to affect shell growth and form, such as moisture, temperature, substrate composition, predation, or population density. Although thinner shells can result from environmental calcium deprivation, the growth of snail shells is not well understood. There is some correlation between moist environments and shell morphology, with wetter (and warmer) environments contributing to an elevated growth rate through increased activity and feeding, producing larger shells to accommodate large snail bodies. However, both large and small snail species can occur in the same environment so an environmental explanation for shell bead production seems unlikely. Human intervention is another possibility; agricultural activity around the Limpopo-Shashi confluence in the last 2,000 years may have encouraged snail consumption of crops and thus snail collection to curb these invasive agricultural pests.” ref

“The lack of LSS bead sites reported in central and western Africa remains particularly confusing. This area is presently inhabited by A. achatina, one of the three largest LSS on earth. Ethnographic literature from these regions points to A. achatina as a source of food, suggesting the snails were a familiar resource to people from those areas. Furthermore, given the impressive size of A. achatina—150–200 mm in length and up to 100 mm in height—it should be a good candidate for beadmaking raw material. It is possible the absence of published data may reflect biases in collection and reporting and not necessarily a dearth of LSS beads. However, the distribution of such large snail species in the past requires further study. Evaluating what LSS species make good bead raw materials and their ancient distributions would help determine functional and geographical constraints on societies making beads.” ref

Why Do LSS Beads Occur?

“Drawing on the evidence of when and where LSS beads are known thus far, we can engage with hypotheses to explain why they were created. It is perhaps easier to start by eliminating several possibilities. Ancient peoples did not start making LSS beads because they lost the ability or preference for making beads out of OES, which continue to be prevalent into the ethnographic present. Conversely, LSS beads are not absent earlier in the record because of a dearth of land snails. The sheer amount of unmodified snail shells in archaeological deposits across the continent, combined with evidence for snail middens at sites like Mumba, implies prehistoric peoples were familiar with the potential utility of snail shell.” ref

“Although there may be taphonomic explanations for why LSS beads are not typically found in pre-Iron Age contexts, preservation should not be a major factor. Land snail shell is less brittle than OES and has been described as more durable. Bias is more likely to be introduced by the underreporting of these finds. Alternative explanations are rooted in the environmental, economic, and sociopolitical context of this time period in eastern and southern Africa. Although few sources discuss why LSS beads are present beyond the immediate questions of site formation, hypotheses for their creation tend to revolve around several interrelated themes: environmental change, population increase and incipient social stratification, and the elaboration of Iron Age trade networks.” ref

Environmental Change 

“The appearance of LSS beads may be linked to environmental change causing the displacement and scarcity of ostriches. There has been considerable discussion on the connection between climate change and the spread and development of Iron Age cultures around the Shashi-Limpopo Basin and along the Swahili coast. Warm wet periods around c. 2,000 BP and c. 1,000 BP are implicated in the spread of Iron Age populations from drier eastern Africa and population increase associated with K2 and Mapungubwe, while the Little Ice Age c. CE 1,300 may have influenced the abandonment of Mapungubwe and the rise of Great Zimbabwe.” ref

“Environmental change and associated human responses could have impacted ostrich ranges. Hall and Smith argue that the Zhizo occupation of the Limpopo belt during a period of increased rainfall displaced ostriches into more marginal areas to the west. Mitchell makes a similar argument for the reduction of personal ornaments at Tloutle after 6,140 BP, suggesting that ostrich populations may have declined in the basin toward the mid-Holocene. During favorable climatic periods, positive feedback between agricultural land cultivation and rising population densities would have also pushed ostriches and other wild fauna to the margins of large settlements. Increasing reliance on domestic species diminishes natural animal and plant diversity and tends to push wildlife away from habitation sites.” ref

“Other explanations for LSS bead production focus on raw material availability on the local scale. These arguments tend to center on whether ostrich and land snail populations can survive in the same environments or if prevalence of one type of bead over the other can be used as a proxy for environmental conditions. Maggs and Ward argue that ostriches and snails are “ecologically incompatible,” with the former requiring savanna environments and snails requiring forest and brush because they are “quickly killed by direct sunlight.” This is not strictly true since land snails are nocturnal and can survive in the same environments as ostriches by hiding and/or resting during the day, perhaps under brush or in rockshelters, and coming out at night when conditions are more favorable. Both types of organisms would be drawn to ephemeral fresh water resources, although ostriches can obtain the majority of their water requirements from eating plants. It is not quite so straightforward to use the presence of one type of shell to infer the rarity of the other.” ref

Population Increase and Incipient Social Stratification 

“Related to discussion of environmental fluctuations and ostrich scarcity, production of LSS beads may have been a response to increased demand for beads. Heightened population densities are detectable beginning in the early Holocene, with associated elaboration of material culture including increased production of beads. This process continued throughout the Holocene, aided by the spread of food production throughout many parts of the continent. The development of Iron Age polities in southern Africa is associated with localized population increases around the Shashi-Limpopo Basin, coupled with increased agricultural production. Population concentration and rising social complexity led to the formation of elites and further increases in craft production. Caches of OES and LSS beads and bead blanks at Schroda are considered to be evidence for elite control of craft production. Bead wearing is an important form of social signaling in many African societies and beyond, relaying information about the wearer’s wealth, control over labor, and/or status through non-verbal means. Increased population density coupled with emerging vertical stratification likely increased economic demand for beads and therefore bead raw materials. If OES became more difficult to procure, either through localized environmental shifts or elite-controlled access, LSS may have produced a viable alternative to keep up with markets.” ref

“However, there is some tension in the literature regarding the relationship between OES and LSS, and if the latter represent higher status, exotic products or lower status, locally made alternatives. Arguments for LSS beads as prestige goods are based on the rarity of snails in the immediate vicinity combined with a lack of on-site manufacture debris, indicating beads were traded in in their finished form. Klehm and Klehm and Ernenwein interpret LSS beads as higher value trade items at the Middle and Late Iron Age sites of Khubu la Dintša and Mmadipudi Hill, Botswana, relative to locally produced OES beads. Dubroc draws similar conclusions for the nearby center of Bosutswe, where LSS beads are concentrated in levels with other exotic goods such as mussel shell beads and non-local game. While the value and status of these artifacts would have been historically contingent, LSS like other non-local beads were seemingly used to establish, maintain, and communicate relationships and social influence within emerging state societies.” ref

“Calabrese, however, argues for the lower status of LSS relative to OES beads at Leokwe Hill, South Africa, where elite Leopard’s Kopje individuals occupied a hilltop above Zhizo commoners. The elite hilltop, area A, revealed higher densities of glass beads (33% of total number) and OES beads (62%) than the commoner area B. Notably, only 1% of Achatina beads found at the site come from area A, whereas 73% come from area B. Calabrese interprets these patterns as reflecting differential access to various types of material culture, and potentially raw materials, with commoners having decreased access to glass and OES beads. Given the visual similarities of OES and LSS beads, particularly from a distance, it is tempting to think of the latter’s appearance as reflecting prehistoric counterfeit operations. No blanks or preforms are reported at Leokwe Hill, so such activities must have taken place elsewhere.” ref

“On-site manufacture of LSS beads, in the form of unfinished preform stages, are only reported at a small number of sites: Mutshilachokwe in Zimbabwe, Makwe in Zambia, Gede in Kenya, Kwa Mgogo, Gonja Kalimani and Gonja Maore in Tanzania, Taukome in Botswana, and Magogo and Bushman Rockshelter in South Africa. Overall status of these items was likely fluid depending on place of manufacture, availability of land snail shell for raw material, and finesse of the final product. Although the existence of LSS beads is almost certainly tied to expressing some form of status or identity, this is contingent on context and not easily generalized in the literature.” ref

Iron Age Trade Networks 

“Questions of exotic vs. local items play into other discussions about the role of LSS in trade. Growth of complexity in southern Africa is partly attributed to the development of elaborate trade networks between the Indian Ocean and the interior. Establishment of trade routes and a market for the circulation of personal ornaments, including copper bangles, gold, and glass trade beads, is inextricably linked to other processes discussed such as agricultural intensification, population increase and the emergence of nascent elites, and perhaps ecological changes affecting availability of other raw materials such as OES. LSS beads were potentially incorporated into these networks, meeting existing demand for shell beads founded on long-standing traditions using OES. It remains unclear whether Magubike Rockshelter, located more than 1800 km from major centers in the Shashi-Limpopo Basin, would have been part of the same networks or involved in more localized trade. The presence of LSS and Zhizo series glass beads at Kwa Mgogo only 450 km away suggests both scenarios are possible. It is noteworthy that the two clusters of LSS beads at Magubike date to nearly 1,000 years apart (~ 500 years before and after the Kwa Mgogo finds), suggesting considerable time depth for these artifacts in eastern Africa, and potentially independent innovation. Further data on the prevalence of LSS beads in eastern Africa, as well as evidence for movement between eastern and southern Africa, are needed to better assess trade interconnectivity between these regions.” ref

“It is also interesting to consider the role interaction between hunter-gatherer and agropastoralist populations played in the appearance and proliferation of these artifacts (see Wilmsen and Denbow and comments for consideration of political economies in the Kalahari, past and present). OES beads are one of the primary components of hxaro exchange networks among Khoesan groups such as the Zu/’hoãsi. Individuals are linked in ongoing reciprocal exchange relationships with hxaro partners, circulating various types of gifts (except food), although OES beadwork is preferred. Ethnographic and archaeological data demonstrate the Khoesan also traded ivory, skins, ostrich feathers, and copper with other ethnic groups. Hall and Smith hypothesize that foragers engaged in surplus bead production for trade with farmers, although this may have been limited to raw materials with manufacture located and controlled by the elite within cities. Mitchell considers the possibility that foragers were engaged in simultaneous bead production for multiple purposes. This was previously documented by Wiessner, who observed specialized OES manufacture of smaller beads for hxaro and larger beads for trade. In this scenario, perhaps it was the LSS beads that were being manufactured (or raw material supplied) to agropastoralists to maintain forager supplies of OES for hxaro.” ref

“At present, it appears that LSS beads are largely confined to eastern and southeastern Africa during the last 2,000 years, associated with Iron Age communities. Although this is partly biased by ongoing research foci within southeastern Africa, there is compelling evidence that this phenomenon is linked to population increase, elaboration of trade networks, and the growth of social complexity during the later Holocene. It is intriguing that LSS beads appear tens of thousands of years after the establishment of OES beadmaking, despite the much longer tenure of land snails in the same parts of the world. Although we offer some possible explanations as to why this might be, more data are required to begin formally testing hypotheses. Highlighting these artifacts is intended to promote discussion, and ultimately publication, of additional finds from scholars working in diverse regions across the continent. We hope that re-examination of many disc bead assemblages reveals some unexpected finds.” ref

“This exercise in reviewing cases of LSS beads in sub-Saharan Africa has perhaps revealed more about what we do not know than what we do know. Once geographic and temporal distributions are better defined, there are many fruitful directions for further research. For example, LSS bead production remains largely a mystery. Although there are numerous ethnographic accounts of OES beadmaking, it is more difficult to find accounts using LSS. Several site reports note the presence of LSS preforms, but the lack of high-quality images, drawings, or descriptions render it impossible to assess production stages between sites or through time. Since both OES and LSS are naturally occurring convex shells of comparable thickness, both would be broken into smaller pieces, drilled and shaped, and likely followed similar production sequences notes that unfinished preforms were often drilled from the inner surface of the shell, which is consistent with OES techniques suggesting a procedural similarity. However, variability between LSS and OES manufacture techniques (particularly the application of drilling and shaping with different shell characteristics), and variability among LSS examples, remains unexplored.” ref

“Greater attention to distinguishing LSS beads from OES, direct dating of known and new cases, and reportage using standardized terminology should help increase visibility of these finds and pave the way for future work. To this end, we have offered a review of cases known thus far and practical approaches to identifying LSS using the easily observable microstructure of shell profiles. Recently excavated LSS beads with direct dates from Magubike Rockshelter illustrate these methods and add an important data point to the distribution of LSS beads across eastern and southern Africa. We hope this preliminary work prompts additional research questions on related topics, such as differing manufacture techniques between LSS and OES beads, the co-occurrence of these artifacts with other types of personal ornamentation and symbolic imagery, and the broader role of LSS beads in prehistoric African societies.” ref

The believed Sumerian descendants, the Marsh Arabs – R2, Q2, and X2 

“The Marsh Arabs, also referred to as Ahwaris, the Maʻdān or Shroog—the latter two often considered derogatory in the present day—are Arab inhabitants of the Mesopotamian marshlands in the modern-day south Iraq, as well as in the Hawizeh Marshes straddling the Iraq-Iran border. Comprising members of many different tribes and tribal confederations, such as the Āl Bū Muḥammad, Ferayghāt, Shaghanbah, Ahwaris, had developed a culture centered on the marshes’ natural resources and unique from other Arabs. The origins of Marsh Arabs are still a matter of some dispute.” ref 

“Some scholars such as Ali al-Wardi have claimed they are descended from the Nabataeans of Iraq, the Aramaic-speaking people who inhabited Lower Mesopotamia in the Middle Ages, and some of their clans even follow their ancestry to Islamized Mandaeans. Other scholars have proposed historical and genetic links between the Marsh Arabs and the ancient Sumerians due to shared agricultural practices, methods of house-building, and location. There is, however, no written record of the marsh tribes until the ninth century and the Sumerians lost their distinct ethnic identity by around 1800 BCE, some 2700 years before. Links to Sumerian genetics can likely be traced back to the Arabization and assimilation of indigenous Mesopotamians. Others, however, have noted that much of the culture of Ahwaris is shared with the desert bedouin who came to the area after the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate.” ref

ref

“Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b and Expansion (Fertile Crescent) by 22,000 years ago.” ref

“Rb1-V88 around 8,000 years ago. R1b-V88 coalescence time was estimated between  9,200–5,600 years ago. Researchers suggest R1b-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.” ref

Sumerians

Genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq

“For millennia, the southern part of the Mesopotamia has been a wetland region generated by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers before flowing into the Gulf. This area has been occupied by human communities since ancient times, and the present-day inhabitants, the Marsh Arabs, are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians. Analyses of the haplogroups and sub-haplogroups observed in the Marsh Arabs revealed a prevalent autochthonous Middle Eastern component for both male and female gene pools, with weak South-West Asian and African contributions, more evident in mtDNA. A higher male than female homogeneity is characteristic of the Marsh Arab gene pool, likely due to a strong male genetic drift determined by socio-cultural factors (patrilocality, polygamy, unequal male and female migration rates).” ref

“Evidence of genetic stratification ascribable to the Sumerian development was provided by the Y-chromosome data where the J1-Page08 branch reveals a local expansion, almost contemporary with the Sumerian City State period that characterized Southern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, a more ancient background shared with Northern Mesopotamia is revealed by the less represented Y-chromosome lineage J1-M267*. Overall our results indicate that the introduction of water buffalo breeding and rice farming, most likely from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of autochthonous people of the region. Furthermore, a prevalent Middle Eastern ancestry of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also the Sumerians were most likely autochthonous and not of Indian or South Asian ancestry.” ref

“The Near East is well known for its important role in human history, particularly as a theatre for great historical events that changed the face of the world during the Neolithic period. The temperate climate and fertile soil brought by the continuous flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, made the Mesopotamian region ideal for early revolutions in agriculture and farming. In particular, the southern part of Mesopotamia (the delta between the two rivers in the present day southern Iraq) has been historically known as the Garden of Eden (biblical name) or Sumer Land, the land of Abraham. The Mesopotamian civilization originated around the 4^th millennium BCE (around 6,000 years ago) in the low course of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This alluvial territory, which emerged progressively by soil sedimentation, attracted different populations from the northern and eastern mountains but, whereas traces of their culture are present in the territory, as documented by the Ubaid-Eridu pottery, nothing is available for their identification.” ref

“Only two groups of populations arrived later and in larger number leaved historical records: Sumerian and Semitic groups. The Sumerians, who spoke an isolated language not correlated to any linguistic family, are the most ancient group living in the region for which we have historical evidence. They occupied the delta between the two rivers in the southern part of the present Iraq, one of the oldest inhabited wetland environments. The Semitic groups were semi-nomadic people who spoke a Semitic language and lived in the northern area of the Syro-Arabian desert breeding small animals. From here, they reached Mesopotamia where they settled among the pre-existing populations. The Semitic people, more numerous in the north, and the Sumerians, more represented in the south, after having adsorbed the pre-existing populations, melted their cultures laying the basis of the western civilization.” ref

“The ancient inhabitants of the marsh areas were Sumerians, who were the first to develop an urban civilization some 5,000 years ago. Although footprints of their great civilization are still evident in prominent archaeological sites lying on the edges of the marshes, such as the ancient Sumerian cities of Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Eridu, and Larsa, the origin of Sumerians is still a matter of debate. With respect to this question, two main scenarios have been proposed: according to the first, the original Sumerians were a group of populations who had migrated from “the Southeast” (India region) and took the seashore route through Arabian Gulf before settling down in the southern marshes of Iraq. The second hypothesis posits that the advancement of the Sumerian civilization was the result of human migrations from the mountainous area of Northeastern Mesopotamia to the southern marshes of Iraq, with ensuing assimilation of the previous populations.” ref

“Over time, the many historical and archaeological expeditions that have been conducted in the marshes have consistently reported numerous parallelisms between the modern and ancient life styles of the marsh people. Details such as home architecture (particular arched reed buildings), food gathering (grazing water buffalos, trapping birds and spearing fish, rice cultivation), and means of transportation (slender bitumen-covered wooden boats, called “Tarada”) are documented as still being practiced by the indigenous population locally named “Ma’dan” or “Marsh Arabs”. This village life-style, which has remained unchanged for seven millennia, suggests a possible link between the present-day marsh inhabitants and ancient Sumerians. However, popular tradition considers the Marsh Arabs as a foreign group, of unknown origin, which arrived in the marshlands when the rearing of water buffalo was introduced to the region.” ref

“Marsh Arabs and Iraqis identified 28 haplogroups, 14 in the marsh sample and 22 in the control Iraqis. Only eight haplogroups were shared by both groups. More than 90% of both Y-chromosome gene pools can be traced back to Western Eurasian components: the Middle Eastern Hg J-M304, the Near Eastern Hgs G-M201, E-M78, and E-M123, while the Eurasian Hgs I-M170 and R-M207 are scarce and less common in the Marsh Arabs than in the control sample. Contributions from eastern Asia, India, and Pakistan, represented by Hgs L-M76, Q-M378, and R2-M124, are detected in the Marsh Arabs, but at a very low frequency.” ref

“Haplogroup J accounts for 55.1% of the Iraqi sample reaching 84.6% in the Marsh Arabs, one of the highest frequencies reported so far. Unlike the Iraqi sample, which displays a roughly equal proportion of J1-M267 (56.4%) and J2-M172 (43.6%), almost all Marsh Arab J chromosomes (96%) belongs to the J1-M267 clade and, in particular, to sub-Hg J1-Page08. Haplogroup E, which characterizes 6.3% of Marsh Arabs and 13.6% of Iraqis, is represented by E-M123 in both groups, and E-M78 mainly in the Iraqis. Haplogroup R1 is present at a significantly lower frequency in the Marsh Arabs than in the Iraqi sample (2.8% vs 19.4%; P < 0.001), and is present only as R1-L23. Conversely the Iraqis are distributed in all the three R1 sub-groups (R1-L23, R1-M17 and R1-M412) found in this survey at frequencies of 9.1%, 8.4% and 1.9%, respectively. Other haplogroups encountered at low frequencies among the Marsh Arabs are Q (2.8%), G (1.4%), L (0.7%), and R2 (1.4%).” ref

“When the PCA was based on mtDNA haplogroup frequencies, Marsh Arabs occupied, together with Iraqi and Saudi Arabian populations, a position in the middle of the plot among three distinct groupings: the first included western Eurasian, the second embraced all the South Asian groups while the third represented the North Africa and South Arabian Peninsula peoples. For both systems, the longitudinal separation operated by the first PC is mainly due to the East-West decreasing frequency of East Asian haplogroups (see for example: Y-chromosome Hgs R2-M124, C-RPS4Y, and H-M69; mtDNA Hgs A, F, D, and G) and the increasing frequencies of the African haplogroups (see for example: Y-chromosome Hgs A-M13, B-M60, E-M35; mtDNA Hgs L1, L2, and L3) while the latitudinal separation operated by the second PC is mainly ascribable to the different distribution of haplogroups most frequent in West Eurasian (Y-chromosome Hgs J-M172, M267 and mtDNA Hgs H and U5), and the African-specific haplogroups (Y-chromosome Hgs A-M13, B-M60, E-M35, and mtDNA Hgs L0-3).” ref

“MtDNA variation: A total of 233 haplotypes and 77 sub-haplogroups have been identified in this survey. Only 26 of the observed sub-haplogroups are shared between the two populations, and most of the remaining are represented by singletons. According to their known or supposed geographic/ethnic origin, in addition to a strong West Eurasian component (77.8% and 84.1% in the Marsh Arabs and Iraqis, respectively), it is possible to recognize contributions from North/East and Sub-Saharan Africa and from East and South Asia.” ref

“West Eurasian mtDNAs observed in this study are approximately equally distributed into macro-Hgs R0, KU, and JT, although with haplogroup and sub-haplogroup differences between the two Iraqi samples. In the Marsh Arabs Hg J prevails (15.2%) followed by Hgs H (12.4%), U (9.7%) and T (7.6%). Conversely, in the control group, the most frequent is Hg H (17.0%), followed by Hgs U (14.8%), T (12.6%), and J (11.9%). Both the less represented N1 and W haplogroups show higher frequencies (marginally significant) in Marsh Arabs. The most frequent macro-Hg R0 includes molecules R0a ((preHV)I), more represented among the Marsh Arabs (6.9% vs 4.0%), HV, observed mainly as HV*, but especially H mtDNAs. Although the majority of the H mtDNAs (7.6% in Marsh Arabs vs 10.8% in Iraqis) did not fall into any of the tested sub-haplogroups, a limited number of H subsets (H1, H5, H6, and H14) have been observed. In particular, while H5 (3.4% vs. 2.8%), H1 (0.7% vs. 1.7%), and H14 (0.7% vs. 1.1%) were found in both groups, H6 was observed only in one subject of the control group.” ref

“Almost all the main U sub-haplogroups and the nested K branch were found in the Iraqi sample, but only a sub-set of them (K1, U3, U4, U5, in addition to the South West Asian U7) were observed in the Marsh Arabs. The nested Hg K, mainly K1, was observed at a comparable frequency in both groups (6.2% in the marshes vs 4.6%). The situation of macro-Hg JT is more complex. Significant differences (P < 0.05) emerged in the distribution of J1 and J2 sub-clades, with the latter much more frequent in the marshes (6.2% vs 1.7%). By contrast, Hg T displayed a lower frequency in the marshes (7.6% vs 12.6%) due to a significant lower incidence of its T2 sub-clade (2.1% vs 6.9%, P < 0.05). On the other hand, Hgs N1 (8.2%) and W (4.8%), were both present in the marshes at a three-fold higher frequency than in Iraqis. Haplogroup X was detected as X2 with a frequency lower than 2% in both population samples.” ref

African haplogroups are of North/East and sub-Saharan African origin and represent minor components in both groups. The North/East African contribution is mainly represented by Hg M1 which accounts for 2.8% of Marsh Arabs and 1.2% of the Iraqi sample, the latter displaying also 0.6% of Hg U6. The sub-Saharan African component comprised Hgs L0, L1, L2 and L3 and accounted for 4.9% in the marshes and 9.1% of the control sample. Out of the twelve African sub-haplogroups identified in this survey, six in the marshes and seven in the control sample, only one (L2a1) was shared between the two Iraqi groups.” ref

“The Asian contribution was significantly higher (P < 0.01) in the Marsh Arabs than in the control sample (11.8% vs 5.2%). It includes mtDNAs belonging to the Southern Asian Hgs M (M*, M33, M37e) and R2 in Marsh Arabs, and R5a and U2d in the control sample. Haplogroup U7, frequent in Southwest Asia, was observed in both groups. The East Asian haplogroup B4 was detected at a very low frequency in both Iraqi groups.” ref

“Only a small proportion of the Marsh Arab gene pool derives from gene flow from neighboring regions. On the paternal side, our phylogeographic data highlight some southwest Asian specific contributions as testified to by Hgs Q, L, and R2, known as South Asian Y-chromosome lineages, primarily observed in India and Pakistan. Different from the Iraqi control sample, the Marsh Arab gene pool displays a very scarce input from the northern Middle East (Hgs J2-M172 and derivatives, G-M201 and E-M123), virtually lacks western Eurasian (Hgs R1-M17, R1-M412 and R1-L23) and sub-Saharan African (Hg E-M2) contributions. On the other hand, the absence in both Iraqi groups of the North African E-M81 branch, speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from this region.” ref

“On the maternal side, a significant (East/Southwest) Asian component (11.8%) is present among Marsh Arabs as testified to by Hgs B4, M, R2, and U7. The B4 mtDNAs carry control-region motifs observed in Iran, Kirghizstan, Western Siberia, Vietnam, and Korea, attesting to contact with Central and East Asia. This observation is likely due to recent gene flow, although it is worth noting that the ancient Silk Road passed through the Iraqi region from Basra to Baghdad. On the other hand, the majority of M, R2, and U7 mtDNAs display control-region motifs observed in South West Asia and, in particular, in India. Additional evidence of the multiple relationships with South West Asia derives from the presence of one M33 mtDNA, which was completely sequenced, (GenBank accession number: JN540042). This mtDNA belongs to the M33a2a clade and clusters with three sequences from Uttar Pradesh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, respectively. On the other hand, the presence in Iraq of Hgs M1 (in both Iraqi groups) and U6 (in the control sample) of North/East African origin is indicative of some limited gene flow from that area. The sub-Saharan contribution is instead represented by haplogroups L0, L1, L2, and L3. It reaches values (~8%) in line with those reported for other Middle Eastern Arab populations.” ref

“The last point is well illustrated by Y-chromosome data where the less represented J1-M267* lineage indicates Northern Mesopotamia contributions, whereas the most frequent J1-Page08 branch reveals a local recent expansion about 4,000 years ago. Although the Y-chromosome age estimates deserve caution, particularly when samples are small and standard errors large, it is interesting to note that these estimates overlap the City State period, which characterized Southern Mesopotamia and is testified to by numerous ancient Sumerian cities (Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Eridu, and Larsa).” ref

“In conclusion, our data show that the modern Marsh Arabs of Iraq harbor mtDNAs and Y chromosomes that are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, certain cultural features of the area, such as water buffalo breeding and rice farming, which were most likely introduced from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of the autochthonous people of the region. Moreover, a Middle Eastern ancestral origin of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that, if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also Sumerians were not of Indian or Southern Asian ancestry.” ref

“The Ma’dan, or Marsh Arabs, is a distinct group of people who originally inhabited the marshy area at the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq before the marshes were destroyed by irrigation projects developed by the Iraqi government. A seminomadic tribal people, the Ma’dan once lived in reed huts built on floating islands of reeds, and made their living by herding water buffalo, fishing, and hunting wild boars and waterfowl. Their houses were elaborately woven with Gothic-like arches made of bundles of reeds tied together at the top. This same kind of house had been built since the 4th millennium BCE.” ref

“The marshes were covered with rushes and reeds. Qasab, a kind of giant grass that looks like bamboo, covered most of the land and grew as tall as 7.6 m (25 ft). Natural islands, some floating and some anchored, dotted the waters, and the marshes were alive with wildlife, including turtles, frogs, various waterfowl, wild boars, and hordes of mosquitoes in the summer. Eagles were a common sight, soaring in the skies above the marshes. Summers were hot and humid; in the winter, the water was icy, and the winds were cold. A strong wind, called the “forty days’ wind,” blew throughout the month of June. Some historians believe the marshes were the Garden of Eden from the Bible.” ref

“The traditional Ma’dan believed in jinn, bad spirits who could take the form of humans or other animals. Unique to Ma’dan folklore are two marsh monsters: the anfish, a giant serpent with hairy skin, and the afa, a giant serpent with legs. Both were said to live somewhere in the heart of the marshes, and both were deadly. The Ma’dan also believed in a place called Hufaidh, an island of paradise located in the southwest part of the marshes, although no one knows exactly where. According to legends, the jinn could hide the island from human sight. On this island were palaces, palm trees, pomegranate orchards, and huge water buffalo. It was believed that anyone who saw Hufaidh was bewitched, and no one would be able to understand the person’s words afterward. Ma’dan boys are traditionally circumcised at puberty, but many boys refuse because of the frequent occurrence of infection afterward. After a death, some Ma’dan dye their turbans dark blue to signify mourning. Others put mud on their heads and clothes.” ref

“The traditional Ma’dan way of life was organized as a tribal society made up of various groups of families who shared a common lineage, with each family group headed by a sheikh (leader). Marriages were arranged by parents, although a couple had some choice in the matter. Paternal first cousins had the first claim to a young woman for their bride. Another who wished to marry her must have her paternal first cousin’s father’s agreement to give up his son’s right to her. In traditional Ma’dan homes, men and women did not eat together and all meals were conducted in silence. All talking was done before and after the meal, never during it. Men and women were generally segregated in public life as well, although young children would play together.” ref

“The displacement of the Ma’dan from their homeland in the marshes has caused the traditional tribal structure to deteriorate. Little is known about the conditions of Ma’dan women. Nearly 4.2 million Iraqis have fled the war-torn country, and an additional 2.2 million have left homelands within the country for cities and urban areas. The Ma’dan are among this group of displaced individuals, and until the situation in Iraq can be stabilized, the survival of both Ma’dan men and women is highly at risk.” ref

“One of the populations associated with haplogroup Q1b1 is the Marsh Arab population in the southern part of Mesopotamia. For thousands of years, this region has been a wetland due to its position between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern-day Iraq. Mesopotamia has had human occupants since shortly after they first migrated from Africa 60,000-80,000 years ago. The current inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the Marsh Arabs, have strong ties to the ancient Sumer, one of the world’s first civilizations. Like their ancient forebears, Marsh Arab culture includes architecture based on arched reed buildings, subsistence strategies from grazing water buffalo, trapping birds, and spearing fish to cultivating rice, and the use of skinny boats called “Tarada” for transportation.” ref

“Haplogroup Q-L245 is linked to the Marsh ArabsOne of the populations associated with haplogroup Q1b1 is the Marsh Arab population in the southern part of Mesopotamia. For thousands of years, this region has been a wetland due to its position between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern-day Iraq.” ref

Caucasus

“Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), also called Satsurblia cluster, first identified in a 2015 study, based on the population genetics of several modern Western Eurasian (European, Caucasian, and Near Eastern) populations. It represents an ancestry maximized in some Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups in the Caucasus. These groups are also very closely related to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Iranian Plateau, who are sometimes included within the CHG group. Ancestry that is closely related to CHG-Iranian Neolithic farmers is also known from further east, including from the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex and the Harappan/Indus Valley Civilisation. Caucasus hunter-gatherers and Eastern hunter-gatherers are ancestral in roughly equal proportions to the Western Steppe Herders (WSH), who were widely spread across Europe and Asia beginning during the Chalcolithic.” ref

“The Mesolithic/Neolithic Iranian lineage basal to the Caucasus hunter-gatherers are inferred to derive significant amounts of their ancestry from Basal Eurasian (c. 38–48%), with the remainder ancestry being closer to Ancient North Eurasians or Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (ANE/EHG; c. 52–62%). The CHG displayed an additional ANE-like component (c. 10%) than the Neolithic Iranians do, suggesting they may have stood in continuous contact with Eastern Hunter-Gatherers to their North. The CHG also carry around 20% additional Paleolithic Caucasus/Anatolian ancestry. Lazaridis et. al (2016) models the CHG as a mixture of Neolithic Iranians, Western Hunter-Gatherers and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. In addition, CHG cluster with early Iranian farmers, who significantly do not share alleles with early Levantine farmers.” ref

“An alternative model without the need of significant amounts of ANE ancestry has been presented by Vallini et al. (2024), suggesting that the initial Iranian hunter-gatherer-like population which is basal to the CHG formed primarily from a deep Ancient West Eurasian lineage (‘WEC2’, c. 72%), and from varying degrees of Ancient East Eurasian (c. 10%) and Basal Eurasian (c. 18%) components. The Ancient West Eurasian component associated with Iranian hunter-gatherers (WEC2) is inferred to have diverged from the West Eurasian Core lineage (represented by Kostenki-14; WEC), with the WEC2 component staying in the region of the Iranian Plateau, while the proper WEC component expanded into Europe. Irving-Pease et. al (2024) models CHG as being derived from an Out of Africa population that split into basal Northern Europeans and West Asians. The latter was where CHG originated from.” ref

“At the beginning of the Neolithic, at c. 8000 BCE pr around 10,000 years ago, they were probably distributed across western Iran and the Caucasus, and people similar to the northern Caucasus and Iranian plateau hunter-gatherers arrived before 6000 BCE in Pakistan and north-west India. A roughly equal merger between the CHG and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers in the Pontic–Caspian steppe resulted in the formation of the Western Steppe Herders (WSHs). The WSHs formed the Yamnaya culture and subsequently expanded massively throughout Europe during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age c. 3000—2000 BCE. Caucasus hunter gatherer/Iranian-like ancestry, was first reported as maximized in hunter-gatherers from the South Caucasus and early herders/farmers in northwestern Iran, particularly the Zagros, hence the label “CHG/Iranian.” ref

“Jones et al. (2015) analyzed genomes from males from western Georgia, in the Caucasus, from the Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,300 years old) and the Mesolithic (9,700 years old). These two males carried Y-DNA haplogroup: J* and J2a, later refined to J1-FT34521, and J2-Y12379*, and mitochondrial haplogroups of K3 and H13c, respectively. Their genomes showed that a continued mixture of the Caucasians with Middle Eastern populations took place up to 25,000 years ago, when the coldest period in the last Ice Age started. “CHG ancestry was also found in an Upper Palaeolithic specimen from Satsurblia cave (dated c. 11000 BCE), and in a Mesolithic one from Kotias Klde cave, in western Georgia (dated c. 7700 BCE).” ref

“The Satsurblia individual is closest to modern populations from the South Caucasus. Margaryan et al. (2017) analysing South Caucasian ancient mitochondrial DNA found a rapid increase of the population at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, about 18,000 years ago. The same study also found continuity in descent in the maternal line for 8,000 years. According to Narasimhan et al. (2019) Iranian farmer related people arrived before 6000 BCE in Pakistan and north-west India, before the advent of farming in northern India. They suggest the possibility that this “Iranian farmer–related ancestry […] was [also] characteristic of northern Caucasus and Iranian plateau hunter-gatherers.” ref

“During the Neolithic and early Eneolithic, likely during the 4th millennium BC, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHGs) mixed with Eastern Hunter-gatherers (EHGs) on the Pontic–Caspian steppe, with the resulting population, almost half-EHG and half-CHG, forming the genetic cluster known as Western Steppe Herder (WSH). To David W. Anthony, Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry of Yamnaya is often with higher than 50%. As well as an overwhelming WSH ancestry, Yamnaya also have additional admixture from Anatolian and Levantine farmers, and the Western Hunter-gatherers (WHGs). Some scholars argue that the archaic PIE (‘Indo-Anatolian’) language may have originated among a CHG-rich population in Western Asia, based on the lack of EHG ancestry in the probable speakers of Anatolian languages. Others, such as Anthony, suggest that PIE was spoken by EHGs living in Eastern Europe.” ref

“According to Jones et al. (2015), Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) “genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ~3,000 BCE, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze Age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also Central and South Asia possibly correlating with the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages.” For example, about 50%-70% of Armenian ancestry is derived from CHG, persisting from Neolithic times to the present. Wang et al. (2018) analyzed genetic data of the North Caucasus of fossils dated between the 4th and 1st millennia BC and found a correlation with modern groups of the South Caucasus, concluding that “unlike today – the Caucasus acted as a bridge rather than an insurmountable barrier to human movement.” According to Allentoft et al. (2024), The arrival and admixture of CHG with Caspian steppe cultures is dated to about 7,300-years-old, which is seen in two ancient samples from Golubaya Krinitsa with 18-24% admixture.” ref

“CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic-like ancestry is prominent in pre-steppe admixture Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (4500–2000 BCE) populations in Central Asia, like the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (which also had Anatolian Neolithic Farmer-related ancestry) as well as in the northwestern Indian subcontinent such as in sites in or adjacent to the Indus Valley Civilisation (who have mixed CHG-related and Ancient Ancestral South Indian ancestry). It is unclear as to whether the dispersal of CHG/Iranian Plateau-related ancestry eastwards to the Indian subcontinent was the result of the migration of farmers or an earlier dispersal of hunter-gatherers who later adopted farming, but this dispersal likely occurred sometime before 6000 BCE due to the lack of Anatolian Farmer-related ancestry in ancient South Asians, but which is present in the Iranian Plateau after this time. This pre-steppe CHG-related ancestry makes up a significiant proportion of the ancestry of modern South Asians. WSHs, who were of significant CHG ancestry, also later migrated into Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.” ref

“The 1100-kilometre long Caucasus mountain ranges extend between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea and are bounded by the rivers Kuban and Terek in the north and the Kura and Araxes rivers in the south. The rich archaeological record suggests extensive human occupation since the Upper Palaeolithic. A Neolithic lifestyle based on food production began in the Caucasus after 6000 calBCE. As a region rich in natural resources such as ores, pastures, and timber, the Caucasus gained increasing importance to the economies of the growing urban centers in northern Mesopotamia. In the 4^th millennium BCE, the archaeological record attests to the presence of the Maykop and Kura-Araxes, two major cultural complexes of the Bronze Age (BA) in the region. The Maykop culture is well known for its large and rich burial mounds, especially at the eponymous Maykop site, which reflects the rise of a new system of social organization, while the Kura-Araxes is found on both flanks of the Caucasus mountain range, demonstrating a connection between north and south.” ref

“Contact between the Near East, the Caucasus, the Steppe, and central Europe is documented, both archaeologically and genetically, as early as the 5th millennium BCE. This increased in the 4^th millennium BCE along with the development of new technologies such as the wheel and wagon, copper alloys, new weaponry, and new breeds of domestic sheep. Such contact was critical in the cultural and genetic formation of the Yamnaya complex on the Eurasian Steppe—with about half of BA Steppe ancestry thought to derive from the Caucasus. In the 3^rd millennium BCW, increased mobility associated with wheeled transport and the intensification of pastoralist practices led to dramatic expansions of populations closely related to the Yamnaya, accompanied by the domestication of horses allowing more efficient keeping of larger herds. These expansions ultimately contributed a substantial fraction to the ancestry of present-day Europe and South Asia. Thus, the Caucasus region played a crucial role in the prehistory and formation of Eurasian genetic diversity.” ref

“Recent ancient DNA studies have resolved several long-standing questions regarding cultural and population transformations in prehistory. One important feature is a cline of European hunter-gatherer (HG) ancestry that runs roughly from West to East. This ancestry differs from that of Early European farmers, who are more closely related to farmers of northwest Anatolia and also to pre-farming Levantine individuals. The Near East and Anatolia have long been seen as the regions from which European farming and animal husbandry emerged. In the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, these regions harbored three divergent populations, with Anatolian and Levantine ancestry in the west and a group with a distinct ancestry in the east. The latter was first described in Upper Pleistocene individuals from Georgia (Caucasus hunter-gatherers; CHG) and then in Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals from Iran. The following millennia, spanning the Neolithic to BA, saw admixture between these ancestral groups, leading to a pattern of genetic homogenization of the source populations. North of the Caucasus, Eneolithic, and BA individuals from the Samara region (5200–4000 BCE) carry an equal mixture of EHG- and CHG/Iranian ancestry, so-called ‘steppe ancestry’ that eventually spread further west, where it contributed substantially to present-day Europeans, and east to the Altai region as well as to South Asia.” ref

“In our study, we aimed to investigate when and how the genetic patterns observed today were formed and test whether they have been present since prehistoric times by generating time-stamped human genome-wide data. We were also interested in characterizing the role of the Caucasus as a conduit for gene-flow in the past and in shaping the cultural and genetic makeup of the wider region. This has important implications for understanding the means by which Europe, the Eurasian steppe zone, and the earliest urban centers in the Near East were connected⁶. We aimed to genetically characterize individuals from cultural complexes such as the Maykop and Kura-Araxes and assessing the amount of gene flow in the Caucasus during times when the exploitation of resources of the steppe environment intensified, since this was potentially triggered by the cultural and technological innovations of the Late Chalcolithic and EBA around 4000–3000 BCE.” ref

“Finally, since the spread of steppe ancestry into central Europe and the eastern steppes during the early 3rd millennium BCE was a striking migratory event in human prehistory, we also retraced the formation of the steppe ancestry profile and tested for influences from neighboring farming groups to the west or early urbanization centers further south. Here we show that individuals from our Caucasian time transect form two distinct genetic clusters that were stable over 3000 years and correspond with eco-geographic zones of the steppe and mountain regions. This finding is different from the situation today, where the Caucasus mountains separate northern from southern Caucasus populations. However, during the early BA we also observe subtle gene flow from the Caucasus as well as the eastern European farming groups into the steppe region, which predates the massive expansion of the steppe pastoralists that followed in the 3^rd millennium BCE.” ref

“The two distinct clusters are already visible in the oldest individuals of our temporal transect, dated to the Eneolithic period (~6300–6100 yBP/4300–4100 calBCE). Three individuals from the sites of Progress 2 and Vonyuchka 1 in the North Caucasus piedmont steppe (‘Eneolithic steppe’), which harbor EHG and CHG-related ancestry, are genetically very similar to Eneolithic individuals from Khvalynsk II and the Samara region. This extends the cline of dilution of EHG ancestry via CHG-related ancestry to sites immediately north of the Caucasus foothills. In contrast, the oldest individuals from the northern mountain flank itself, which are three first-degree-related individuals from the Unakozovskaya cave associated with the Darkveti-Meshoko Eneolithic culture (analysis label ‘Eneolithic Caucasus’), show mixed ancestry mostly derived from sources related to the Anatolian Neolithic (orange) and CHG/Iran Neolithic (green) in the ADMIXTURE plot. While similar ancestry profiles have been reported for Anatolian and Armenian Chalcolithic and BA individuals, this result suggests the presence of this mixed ancestry north of the Caucasus as early as ~6500 years ago.” ref

Ancient North Eurasian ancestry in Steppe Maykop individuals

“Four individuals from mounds in the grass steppe zone, archaeologically associated with the ‘Steppe Maykop’ cultural complex, lack the Anatolian farmer-related (AF) component when compared to contemporaneous Maykop individuals from the foothills. Instead they carry a third and fourth ancestry component that is linked deeply to Upper Paleolithic Siberians (maximized in the individual Afontova Gora 3 (AG3) and Native Americans, respectively, and in modern-day North Asians, such as North Siberian Nganasan. To illustrate this affinity with ‘ancient North Eurasians’ (ANE), we also ran PCA with 147 Eurasian and 29 Native American populations. The latter represents a cline from ANE-rich steppe populations such as EHG, Eneolithic individuals, AG3, and Mal’ta 1 (MA1) to modern-day Native Americans at the opposite end. To formally test the excess of alleles shared with ANE/Native Americans we performed f₄-statistics of the form f₄(Mbuti, X; Steppe Maykop, Eneolithic steppe), which resulted in significantly positive Z-scores (Z >3) for AG3, MA1, EHG, Clovis, and Kennewick for the ancient populations and many present-day Native American populations.” ref

“Based on these observations, we used qpWave and qpAdm methods to model the number of ancestral sources contributing to the Steppe Maykop individuals and their relative ancestry coefficients. Simple two-way models of Steppe Maykop as an admixture of Eneolithic steppe, AG3, or Kennewick do not fit. However, we could successfully model Steppe Maykop ancestry as being derived from populations related to all three sources (p-value 0.371 for rank 2): Eneolithic steppe (63.5 ± 2.9%), AG3 (29.6 ± 3.4%) and Kennewick (6.9 ± 1.0%). We note that the Kennewick related signal is most likely driven by the East Eurasian part of Native American ancestry as the f₄-statistics (Steppe_Maykop, Fitted Steppe_Maykop; Outgroup1, Outgroup2) show that the Steppe Maykop individuals share more alleles not only with Karitiana but also with Han Chinese.” ref

“Individuals from the North Caucasian steppe associated with the Yamnaya cultural formation (5300–4400 BP, 3300–2400 calBCE) appear genetically almost identical to previously reported Yamnaya individuals from Kalmykia immediately to the north, the middle Volga region, Ukraine, and to other BA individuals from the Eurasian steppes who share the characteristic ‘steppe ancestry’ profile as a mixture of EHG and CHG-related ancestry. These individuals form a tight cluster in PCA space and can be shown formally to be a mixture by significantly negative admixture f₃-statistics of the form f₃(EHG, CHG; target). This cluster also involves individuals of the North Caucasus culture (4800–4500 BP, 2800–2500 calBCE) in the piedmont steppe, who share the steppe ancestry profile, as do individuals from the Catacomb culture in the Kuban, Caspian, and piedmont steppes (4600–4200 BP, 2600–2200 calBCE), which succeeded the Yamnaya horizon.” ref

“The individuals of the MBA post-Catacomb horizon (4200–3700 BP, 2200–1700 calBCE) such as Late North Caucasus and Lola cultures represent both ancestry profiles common in the North Caucasus: individuals from the mountain site Kabardinka show a typical steppe ancestry profile, whereas individuals from the site Kudachurt 90 km to the west or our most recent individual from the western LBA Dolmen culture (3400–3200 BP, 1400–1200 calBCE) retain the ‘southern’ Caucasus profile. In contrast, one Lola culture individual resembles the ancestry profile of the Steppe Maykop individuals.” ref

“Evidence for interaction between the Caucasus and the Steppe clusters is visible in our genetic data from individuals associated with the later Steppe Maykop phase around 5300–5100 years ago. These ‘outlier’ individuals were buried in the same mounds as those with steppe and, in particular, Steppe Maykop ancestry profiles but share a higher proportion of AF ancestry visible in the ADMIXTURE plot and are also shifted towards the Caucasus cluster in PC space. This observation is confirmed by formal D-statistics. By modeling Steppe Maykop outliers successfully as a two-way mixture of Steppe Maykop and representatives of the Caucasus cluster, we can show that these individuals received additional ‘Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic ancestry,’ most likely from contemporaneous sources in the south. We used ALDER to estimate an average admixture time for the observed farmer-related ancestry in Steppe Maykop outliers of 20 generations or 560 years ago.” ref

“Eneolithic Samara individuals form a cline in PC space running from EHG to CHG, which is continued by the newly reported Eneolithic steppe individuals. However, the trajectory of this cline changes in the subsequent centuries. Here we observe a cline from Eneolithic_steppe towards the Caucasus cluster. We can qualitatively explain this ‘tilting cline’ by developments south of the Caucasus, where Iranian and AF ancestries continue to mix, resulting in a blend that is also observed in the Caucasus cluster, from where it could have spread onto the steppe. The first appearance of ‘combined farmer-related ancestry’ in the steppe zone is evident in Steppe Maykop outliers. However, PCA results suggest that Yamnaya and later groups of the West Eurasian steppe carry also some farmer-related ancestry as they are slightly shifted towards ‘European Neolithic groups’ in PC2 compared to the preceding Eneolithic steppe individuals. The ‘tilting cline’ is also confirmed by admixture f₃-statistics, which provide statistically significant negative values for AG3 and any AF group as the two sources. Using f– and D-statistics we also observe an increase in farmer-related ancestry (both Anatolian and Iranian) in our Steppe cluster, distinguishing the Eneolithic steppe from later groups. In addition, we find the Caucasus cluster or Levant/AF groups to share more alleles with Steppe groups than with EHG or Samara_Eneolithic. MLBA groups such as Poltavka, Andronovo, Srubnaya, and Sintashta show a further increase of AF ancestry consistent with previous studies, reflecting different processes not directly related to events in the Caucasus.” ref

Green Sahara: attracted “Back to Africa” migrations and culminated in the dispersals of “New” African cultures, including Ancient Egypt

Uan Muhuggiag

“Uan Muhuggiag is an archaeological site in Libya that was occupied by pastoralists between the early Holocene and mid-Holocene; the Tashwinat mummy, which was found at Uan Muhuggiag, was dated to 5600 years ago and presently resides in the Assaraya Alhamra Museum in Tripoli. Uan Muhuggiag is a rock shelter in southwestern Libya in what is now the Sahara Desert. It is located on the bank of the Wadi Teshuinat, sitting on a plateau in the Tadrart Acacus at almost 3000 feet above sea level. The site is approximately 1500 miles west of the Nile Valley.” ref

“The most noteworthy find at Uan Muhuggiag is the well-preserved mummy of a young boy of approximately 2+1⁄2 years old. The child was embalmed, positioned into a fetal position, then placed in a sack made of antelope skin which was insulated by a layer of leaves. The boy’s organs were removed, as evidenced by incisions in his abdomen and thorax, and an organic preservative was inserted to stop his body from decomposing. An ostrich eggshell necklace was also found around his neck. The mummy of the child has been radiocarbon dated, via the deepest coal layer where it was found, to 7438 ± 220 years ago, and, via the animal hide it was wrapped in, to 5405 ± 180 years ago, which has been calibrated to 6250 cal years ago. This date precedes the earliest known Ancient Egyptian mummies by one thousand years. Another date for the animal hide made from the skin of an antelope, which was accompanied by remnants of a grind stone and a necklace made from the eggshell of an ostrich, is 4225 ± 190 BCE.” ref

“Uan Muhuggiag was inhabited during the early- to mid-Holocene in what has been termed as the African Aqualithic culture complex, or “Green Sahara” period. Analysis of pollen found at the base levels of the site dating to between 7500 and 5000 BCE indicates a wet savannah. Extensive samples from a number of sites indicate that tropical humid plants began to expand northward around 12,000 years ago after a lengthy dry period, eventually reaching deep into what is today the Sahara Desert. Rock art findings depicting elephants, giraffes, and crocodiles were discovered at sites surrounding Uan Muhuggiag. Furthermore, fish bones, fish hooks, and harpoons were found at several sites in the Sahara region. It is speculated that the dry period that continues into the present day began around 5000 years ago, which led to the abandonment of the site.” ref

“Uan Muhuggiag appears to have been inhabited from at least the sixth millennium BCE to about 2700 BCE, although not necessarily continuously. The stratigraphic sequence comprises seven distinct occupation levels. Layer 1 is the very top layer, followed by layer 1a. The middle level is labeled from 2a to 2d, with 2d being the oldest. Finally, below that, there is also a layer 3, which is further subdivided into section A, at the top, and section B, at the bottom. Layer 1 has been dated as beginning around 3800 years ago, and consists of loose aeolian sand at the very top, slightly cemented sand and dung below that, and hearths at the bottom.” ref

“Animal remains found at the site include domestic cattle, sheep or goat, wild cat, wild donkey, warthog, gazelle, hare, baboon, and turtle. Domestic cattle bones were also found in the lowest layers and perhaps date from the eighth millennium years ago, providing some of the earliest known evidence of pastoralism in the Sahara. Among the faunal remains in the middle layers, dated to be roughly between 5300 and 6000 years ago, remains of sheep and goats appear more frequently. It has been surmised that this was probably the time period when the shelter was most actively occupied. Fruits and plant seeds were also found. There were more than 30 different species of plant seeds found during the 1982 excavations by Barich, including millet and wild melon. The seeds spanned a long period of time, with the most recent being three date seeds that were radiocarbon dated to 2130 years ago, suggesting that the shelter continued to be inhabited intermittently, even after the period of main occupation and subsequent drought.” ref

“The pottery at Uan Muhuggiag was found mainly in the top layers. It is of the dotted wavy-line decorated variety that was common in the region during that period. There is evidence that a two-toothed tool was used in order to create equal spacing between the dots, known as the “return” technique. Other finds at Uan Muhuggiag include two hemispherical hollows dug out of the rock, measuring approximately 30 to 40 centimeters, called “kettles.” These were found completely covered by deposits and are estimated to be from at least 7500 years ago. Several pieces of charcoal were also found, the oldest of which were determined to be 7800 years old. They were probably used in large fireplace pits. The lower levels also uncovered backed and microlithic tools, while lithics such as flakes and arrowheads were found in the upper layers. A total of 406 stone tool fragments were found in level 2a, and 77 in the earliest occupation level of 2d.” ref

“Antonio Ascenzi, a pathologist, believes that Uan Muhuggiag and the surrounding area became inhabited around 10,000 years ago by Negroid peoples, who followed the monsoon north. It has been suggested that some time later, around 7000 years ago, people from Mesopotamia and the Middle East arrived, introducing pastoralism to the region. The idea of domestic cattle in Africa coming from the Fertile Crescent exclusively is now seen as having serious shortcomings. As no hard archaeological evidence supports this claim, and subsequent archaeology has revealed a deep well of cattle integration and early association of cattle with religious and subsistence strategies in Holocene Africa. More modern scholarship has instead found that the origins of pastoralism, cattle worship, and cattle domestication lie most likely in areas of the Sudanese Nile Valley (e.g., Affad). Several discoveries at Letti, in Sudan, suggest early burial and domestication of cattle, including early implements used to safely bleed cattle without harming them. The cultural practice of drinking cow blood on special occasions is still shared to this day by many Nilotic cattle herding groups in Africa, such as the Maasai and Dinka.” ref

“One of the earliest burials of cattle can be found at the site of Nabta Playa, which had inhabitants that were of the same Nilo-Saharan traditions of Sudan and the broader Nile Valley. These people were responsible for sacrificial cattle burials in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli. At one of the sites from the beginning of the Holocene (~10,000 years ago), among the bones of wild fauna, remains of domesticated cattle with ‘auroch-like’ features were found. There is strong evidence that domestic livestock, principally cattle, played an important role in the lives of the inhabitants of Uan Muhuggiag, which is supported by the amount of cattle bones found at the site as well as evidence of a cattle cult and ritual sacrifice at a location in the Messak Plateau, approximately 60 miles in distance from the site.” ref

“The Tashwinat mummy found at Uan Muhuggiag was one thousand years older than the oldest known Egyptian mummy. Its sophisticated form of evisceration indicates a highly advanced society. Some scholars argue that the sub-Saharan African population living there could have had an influence on the process of mummification used in Ancient Egypt a thousand years later. Considerable debate also exists about whether the rock art found at Uan Muhuggiag along with the two mummies, signify that the shelter was a burial place or otherwise sacred. Mori was a strong advocate of this theory and believed that the site was a place where a cult of the dead took place.” ref

The Garbage Crisis in prehistory: artifact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies

“Abstract: Concepts of refuse behavior and site abandonment have been developed that show the potential to distinguish degrees of mobility and sedentism among past human communities. Whereas much of this work had been conducted in ethnographic situations or on recent sites, this study makes an initial attempt to apply this body of theory to the archaeological record of humanity’s most fundamental settlement transition: from mobile hunter-gatherer to settled village farmer. The centerpiece of the study is an analysis of artifact distribution patterns in the Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 (ca. 12,000 years ago), which is combined with a diachronic overview of data from earlier and later sites, dating from 20,000 to 8000 years ago. We conclude that human communities in the Natufian period had not yet tailored their indifferent household refuse disposal practices to the long-term requirements of sedentary living. Subsequently, there occurs a punctuated gradient of change in the Levantine sequence, towards higher rates of secondary refuse disposal. Elementary efforts at refuse disposal began in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period (ca. 10,300–9,200 years ago), and some form of consistent garbage cycling was probably a standard feature in many villages by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (ca. 9,200–8,000 years ago).” ref

ref

“Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a and Expansion (Fertile Crescent “North Arabia”) by 12,300 years ago.” ref

R1a2a (R-YP5018)

R1a

“R1a could have migrated directly to eastern Europe (European Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), or first southward through Central Asia and Iran. In that latter scenario, R1a would have crossed the Caucasus during the Neolithic, alongside R1b, to colonize the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In the absence of ancient Y-DNA from those regions, the best evidence supporting a Late Paleolithic migration to Iran is the presence of very old subclades of R1a (like M420) in the region, notably in the Zagros mountains. However, these samples only make up a fraction of all R1a in the region and could just as well represent the descendants of Eastern European hunter-gatherers who branched off from other R1a tribes and crossed from the North Caucasus any time between 20,000 and 8,000 years ago. The logic behind this is that most known historical migrations in Eurasia took place from north to south, as people sought warmer climes. The only exception happened during the Holocene warming up of the climate, which corresponds to the Neolithic colonization of Europe from the Near East. A third possibility is that R1a tribes split in two around Kazakhstan during the Late Paleolithic, with one group moving to eastern Europe, while the other moved south to Iran.” ref

“Some people have theorized that R1a was one of the lineages of the Neolithic farmers, and would have entered Europe through Anatolia, then spread across the Balkans toward Central Europe, then only to Eastern Europe. There are many issues with this scenario. The first is that 99% of modern R1a descends from the branch R1a-M417, which clearly expanded from the Bronze Age onwards, not from the early Neolithic. Its phylogeny also points at an Eastern European origin. Secondly, most of the R1a in the Middle East are deep subclades of the R1a-Z93 branch, which originated in Russia (see below). It could not have been ancestral to Balkanic or Central European R1a. Thirdly, there is a very strong correlation between the Northeast European autosomal admixture and R1a populations, and this component is missing from the genome of all European Neolithic farmers tested to date – even from Ötzi, who was a Chalcolithic farmer. This admixture is also missing from modern Sardinians, who are mostly descended from Neolithic farmers. This is incontrovertible evidence that R1a did not come to Europe with Neolithic farmers, but only propagated from Eastern Europe to the rest of Europe from the Bronze Age onwards.” ref

“R1a is thought to have been the dominant haplogroup among the northern and eastern Proto-Indo-European tribes, which evolved into the Indo-Iranian, Thracian, Baltic, and Slavic people. The Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in the Yamna culture (3300-2500 BCE). Their dramatic expansion was possible thanks to an early adoption of bronze weapons and the domestication of the horse in the Eurasian steppes (circa 4000-3500 BCE). Individuals from the southern part of the Steppe are believed to have carried predominantly lineages belonging to haplogroup R1b (L23 and subclades), while the people of northern forest-steppe to the north would have belonged essentially to haplogroup R1a. The first expansion of the forest-steppe people occurred with the Corded Ware Culture (see Germanic branch below).” ref

“The forest-steppe origin of this culture is obvious from the usage of corded pottery and the abundant use of polished battle axes, the two most prominent features of the Corded Ware culture. This is also probably the time when the satemisation process of the Indo-European languages began, considering that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language groups belong to the same Satem isogloss, and both appear to have evolved from the Catacomb and Srubna cultures. Ancient DNA testing has confirmed the presence of haplogroup R1a-M417 in samples from the Corded Ware culture in Germany (2600 BCE), from Tocharian mummies (2000 BCE) in Northwest China, from Kurgan burials (circa 1600 BCE) from the Andronovo culture in southern Russia and southern Siberia, as well as from a variety of Iron-age sites from Russia, Siberia, Mongolia and Central Asia.” ref

“The origins of the Slavs go back to circa 3500 BCE with the northern Yamna culture and its expansion across Central and Northeast Europe with the Corded Ware culture. The M458 and Z280 lineages spread around Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia and would form the core of the Proto-Balto-Slavic culture. The high prevalence of R1a in Baltic and Slavic countries nowadays is not only due to the Corded Ware expansion, but also to a long succession of later migrations from Russia, the last of which took place from the 5th to the 10th century CE. The Slavic branch differentiated itself when the Corded Ware culture absorbed the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture (5200-2600 BCE) of western Ukraine and north-eastern Romania, which appears to have been composed primarily of G2a-U1 et I2a1b-M423 lineages descended directly from Paleolithic Europeans, with some other Near-Eastern farmer lineages (notably E-V13, J2a and T1a).” ref

“It is surely during this period that I2a2, E-V13, and T spread (along with R1a) around Poland, Belarus, and western Russia, explaining why eastern and northern Slavs (and Lithuanians) have between 10 and 20% of I2a1b lineages and about 10% of Middle Eastern lineages (18% for Ukrainians). The Corded Ware period was followed in the steppes by the Srubna culture (1800-1200 BCE), and around Poland by the Trzciniec culture (1700-1200 BCE). Mathieson et al. (2015) and Krzewinska et al. (2018) each retrieved the Y-DNA from six Srubna individuals, and all 12 of them belonged to haplogroup R1a. Those tested for deep clades were positive for Z93, the Indo-Iranian branch.” ref

From the Epipalaeolithic into the earliest Neolithic (PPNA) in the South Levant

“Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue…” Ornaments in the Levantine Early Neolithic

“Abstract: With the onset of the Near Eastern Neolithic during the 12th millennium cal years ago or 12,000 to 11,000 years ago, and thereafter, one can observe growing sedentary tendencies, as well a significant increase in populations and community sizes, all reflected in the Neolithic demographic transition. At that time (and even somewhat earlier in certain areas) a notable tendency for within and between community differentiation was observed, archaeologically visible through the variances in the material remains. A specific domain where this phenomenon can be observed are the easily portable items of adornment. The aspiration for symbolling and signaling at both the community level and the individual served to increase webs of interactions and exchange between communities, sometimes over huge distances. The differences and the similarities actually reflected the degree and intensity of connectivity between the communities far and wide.” ref

NATUFIANS (12,500-9500 BCE): SETTLEMENTS, PROTO-AGRICULTURE

“The Natufian culture refers to mostly hunter-gatherers who lived in modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria approximately 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Merging nomadic and settled lifestyles, they were among the first people to build permanent houses and cultivate edible plants. The advancements they achieved are believed to have been crucial to the development of agriculture during the time periods that followed them. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica: Mainly hunters, the Natufians supplemented their diet by gathering wild grain; they likely did not cultivate it. They had sickles of flint blades set in straight bone handles for harvesting grain and stone mortars and pestles for grinding it. Some groups lived in caves, others occupied incipient villages. They buried their dead with their personal ornaments in cemeteries. Carved bone and stone artwork have been found.” ref

“Matti Friedman wrote in Smithsonian magazine: Natufians were linked by characteristic tools, particularly a small, half-moon-shaped flint blade called a lunate,. They also showed signs of the “intentional cultivation” of plants, according to Ofer Bar-Yosef, professor of prehistoric archaeology at Harvard University, using a phrase that seems carefully chosen to avoid the loaded term “agriculture.” Other characteristic markers included jewelry made of dentalium shells, brought from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea; necklaces of beads made of exquisitely carved bone; and common genetic characteristics like a missing third molar. A study, published in Nature Scientific Reports by a team of scientists and archeologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rechovot and the University of Copenhagen, rejects the long-held “core region” theory that argues that the Natufian culture spread from the Mount Carmel and Galilee region and suggest instead the Natufians had far more diverse and complex origins.” ref

“Daniel K. Eisenbud wrote in the Jerusalem Post: “According to the researchers, the study is based on evidence from a Natufian site located in Jordan, some 150 km. northeast of Amman. The site, called Shubayqa 1, was excavated by a University of Copenhagen team led by Dr. Tobias Richter from 2012-2015. The excavations uncovered a well-preserved Natufian site, which included, among other findings, a large assemblage of charred plant remains. The botanical remains, which are rare in many Natufian sites in the region, enabled the Weizmann-Copenhagen team to obtain the largest number of dates for any Natufian site yet in either Israel or Jordan. Utilizing an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS), that can reveal the amount of carbon-14 in a sample as small as a single atom, Prof. Elisabetta Boaretto of the Weizmann Institute, was able to accurately date the charred remains. “To ensure the highest accuracy, the team selected only samples from short-lived plant species or their parts – for example, seeds or twigs – to obtain the dates. “Over 20 samples from different layers of the site were dated, making it one of the best and most accurately dated Natufian sites anywhere,” the Institute continued. “The dates showed, among other things, that the site was first settled not long after the earliest dates obtained for northern Israel.” ref

“Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that either Natufians spread very rapidly into the region, or, more probably, that the settlement patterns emerged more or less simultaneously in different parts of the region. “The early date of Shubayqa 1 shows that Natufian hunter- gatherers were more versatile than previously thought,” said Richter. “Past research had linked the emergence of Natufian culture to the rich habitat of the Mediterranean woodland zone. But the early dates from Shubayqa 1 show that these late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers were also able to live quite comfortably in more open parkland steppe zones further east.” Richter noted the researchers determined that a portion of the Natufians’ subsistence appears to have relied heavily on the exploitation of club rush tubers as well as other wild plants and the hunting of birds, gazelle, and other animals. According to Boaretto, the “core area” theory may have come about, in part, because the Mount Carmel sites have been the best preserved and studied – until now. “In addition to calling into question the idea that the Natufians originated in one settlement and spread outwards, the study suggests that the hunter- gatherers who lived 15,000 to 12,000 years ago were ingenious and resourceful,” said Boaretto. The authors concluded that their findings support the view that there were many pathways to agriculture and “the Neolithic way of life” was a highly variable and complex process that cannot be explained on the basis of single-cause models.” ref

“Laura Anne Tedesco of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote: “The Natufians were the first people of the eastern Mediterranean area to establish permanent villages. Prior to the Natufians, bands of people had moved seasonally, to follow animals for hunting and to gather available plants. The Natufians, while still hunters and foragers, settled in villages year-round, relying on the natural resources of their immediate area. These resources included gazelle, wild cereals, and marine life. The latter, abundant in the region, was used for food as well as for making tools, art, and body ornamentation. Shells collected from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea were commonly used for jewelry and headdresses, typical status markers. “After the last Ice Age, as the climate became warmer and rainfall more abundant, the nomadic population of the eastern Mediterranean began to establish the first permanent settlements. The site of Eynan/Ain Mallaha, situated between the hills of Galilee and Lake Hula in the Levant, was inhabited from 10,000 to 8,200 BCE or around 12,000-10,200 years ago, during the Natufian period. Eynan (in Hebrew)/Ain Mallaha (in Arabic) is one of the hundreds of Natufian settlements known from the eastern Mediterranean, where remains of a rich and dynamic artistic tradition have been discovered.” ref

“Excavations in the Levant, including at Eynan/Ain Mallaha, were undertaken with great enthusiasm by European and American archaeologists in the years following World War II. During this period of scientific exploration, hundreds of sites were uncovered, not just Natufian but from preceding and succeeding periods. These archaeological activities contributed enormously to our current understanding of the prehistoric record of this region. Jericho, well known for its defensive walls described in biblical accounts, is another important Natufian site that was discovered at about the same time as Eynan/Ain Mallaha.” “When we talk about people in the Natufian period becoming more sedentary and less mobile, it’s not just about economics and settlement patterns, but about culture,” Tobias Richter, a professor of prehistory at the University of Copenhagen, told Smithsonian. “At what point does a place become home? At what point do we develop emotions and attachments that are tied to a specific location?” ref 

“Natufian settlements were generally found in open woodland areas with oak and Pistacia trees and underbrush with large amounts of grain-carrying grasses. They tended to stay away from the high mountains of Lebanon, the steppe areas of the Negev desert in Israel and Sinai, and the Syro-Arabian desert in the east, presumably because of limited food resources and competition from other groups of foragers who exploited this region. Natufian dwellings were semi-subterranean, often with a dry-stone foundation. The frame was probably made of brushwood. No traces of mudbrick have been found, which became common later in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period. Their round houses have a diameter between three and six meters, and contain a central round or subrectangular fireplace. In Ain Mallaha traces of postholes have been identified. Villages covering over 1,000 square meters have been found. Smaller settlements have been interpreted by some researchers as camps. Traces of rebuilding in almost all excavated settlements seem to point to a frequent relocation, hinting of a semi-nomadic rather than settled existence. Settlements have been estimated to house 100–150 people, but there are three categories: small, medium, and large, ranging from 15 square meters to 1,000 square meters. There are no definite indications of storage facilities.” ref

“The Natufian people lived by hunting and gathering. The preservation of plant remains at Natufian sites is poor because of the soil conditions, but wild cereals, legumes, almonds, acorns, and pistachios may have been collected. Animal bones show that gazelle (Gazella gazella and Gazella subgutturosa) were the main prey. Deer, aurochs and wild boar were hunted in the steppe zone, as well as onagers and caprids (ibex). Water fowl and freshwater fish formed part of the diet in the Jordan River valley. Animal bones from Salibiya have been interpreted as evidence for communal hunts with nets. A pita-like bread dated to 12.500 BCE or around 14,500 years ago has been attributed to Natufians. This bread is made of wild cereal seeds and papyrus cousin tubers, ground into flour.” ref

“According to one theory, a sudden change in climate — the Younger Dryas event (c. 10,800 to 9500 BCE) — inspired the development of agriculture. The Younger Dryas was a 1,000-year-long interruption in the higher temperatures prevailing since the Last Glacial Maximum, which produced a sudden drought in the Levant. This could have threatened wild cereals, which were out-competed by dryland scrub. It is presumed that local population had become largely sedentary. To preserve their sedentary way of life they cleared the scrub and planting seeds obtained from elsewhere, originating agriculture. This theory is controversial and hotly debated in the scientific community. Ancient figs found in an archaeological site in the Jordan Valley, presumably where Natufian lived , may represent one of the earliest forms of agriculture, scientists report. The carbonised fruits date between 11,200 and 11,400 years old. The U.S. and Israeli researchers reported their findings in the journal Science and said the figs are a variety that could have only been grown with human intervention, arging the discovery marks the point when humans turned from hunting and gathering to food cultivation.” ref

“Rebecca Morelle of the BBC reported: “Nine small figs, measuring just 18mm (0.7in) across, along with 313 smaller fig fragments were discovered in a house in an early Neolithic village, called Gilgal I, in the Jordan Valley. The researchers from Harvard University in and Bar-Ilan University in Israel believe the figs are an early domestic crop rather than a wild breed. The ancient fig is smaller than these varieties of modern fig After examining the figs, they determined that it was a self-pollinating, or parthenocarpic, variety, like the kind we eat today. In nature, parthenocarpic fig trees appear now and again by a chance genetic mutation; but because they do not produce seeds, they cannot reproduce alone — they require a shoot to be removed and replanted.” ref

Natufians and the Neolithic Revolution?

“V. Gordon Childe (1892-1957, an Australian transplant to Britain, invented the concept of the Neolithic Revolution in the 1920s. Charles C. Mann wrote in National Geographic, ” In today’s terms, Childe’s views could be summed up like this: Homo sapiens burst onto the scene about 200,000 years ago. For most of the millennia that followed, the species changed remarkably little, with humans living as small bands of wandering foragers. Then came the Neolithic Revolution — “a radical change,” Childe said, “fraught with revolutionary consequences for the whole species.” In a lightning bolt of inspiration, one part of humankind turned its back on foraging and embraced agriculture. The adoption of farming, Childe argued, brought with it further transformations. To tend their fields, people had to stop wandering and move into permanent villages, where they developed new tools and created pottery. The Neolithic Revolution, in his view, was an explosively important event — “the greatest in human history after the mastery of fire.” ref 

“Matti Friedman wrote in Smithsonian magazine: The discoveries at Ein Gev challenge the conventional wisdom about the agricultural revolution—and raise the question of whether the term “revolution” is even the right one… Childe was deeply affected by the Industrial Revolution, which had altered the Western world by the time of his birth, and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which happened when he was 25. In the first half of the 20th century, which saw the breakup of old empires and ascendant movements for individual rights, belief in scientific progress and human agency was deeply felt. The promise of Childe’s “agricultural revolution” was a life freed from the unpredictable labor of hunting and gathering, and a step up the ladder toward an ordered way of life.” ref

“Today, many scholars still identify the move to agriculture as a singular moment of human invention that paved the way for modern life. This is supported by genetic studies and archaeological finds that trace the appearance of domesticated grains to modern-day Turkey and Syria approximately 10,000 years ago. Avi Gopher, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, for example, pinpoints the transformation to 10,500 years ago. He calls this a “big bang”—a leap in plant domestication in southeastern Turkey executed not gradually but rapidly and purposefully, based on what we would think of as scientific understanding. Smart people, in other words, figured out something novel and important, and human history was never the same after that. This breakthrough, he told me, can only be called a revolution. “The idea that you could take control of a species in nature and put it to work for you—this was a complete change of worldview, one that led, in many ways, to our own civilization. And the evidence is that it happened quickly.” ref

“The key moment of the “agricultural revolution” is sometimes described as a lightning bolt of human innovation akin to electricity or powered flight. It’s a good story. But at Nahal Ein Gev II, every dig season complicates it a little more. The village here flourished 2,000 years before the revolution got going, and the growing impression is of a place curiously ahead of its time—“a true turning point in human culture,” in the words of Steven Mithen, the eminent British prehistorian and author of After the Ice: A Global Human History. Matti Friedman wrote in Smithsonian magazine: The finds at Nahal Ein Gev II testify to humans settling down and practicing some form of cultivation millennia before that “big bang.” “You’ll never hear me say the word ‘revolution,’” Grosman told me. “I hate the word. If we look at Ein Gev, we’ll see that exciting things are happening there, but it’s not a ‘revolution.’ They’ve got one foot in one era and the other foot in another, and that’s why they’re so interesting.” ref

“It’s not that Grosman disagrees that people figured out how to harness grain mutations in southeastern Turkey 2,000 years later. But she sees that as a late stage of the process, not the beginning, and as more of an elaboration than the breakthrough itself. The leap, in her eyes, was from nomadism to living in one place, harvesting plants, and building a society bigger than an extended family. This shift is visible at Nahal Ein Gev II, she believes, and this change made possible the invention of agriculture—not the other way around. The truth is that revolutions have always been more complicated than we tend to think. Was the French Revolution caused by the oppression of common people by royal autocrats, by the spread of liberal ideals, or by expanding literacy? Or was it due to the actions of specific people like Louis XVI or Robespierre? The answer is some combination that is impossible to predict at the time and hard to grasp afterward. Richter, the University of Copenhagen prehistorian, views the move to agriculture in the same way. “I think we have to see history and historic process as an almost chaotic overlapping of circumstances that co-occur at the same time,” he said.” ref

“The Khiamian Period (c. 10,200 – c. 8,800 BCE or around 12,200-10,800 years ago, also referred to as El Khiam or El-Khiam) is a period of the Near-Eastern Neolithic, marking the transition between the Natufian and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Some sources date it from about 10,000 to 9,500 BCE, The Khiamian is named after the site of El Khiam, situated on banks of the Dead Sea, where researchers have recovered the oldest chert arrows heads, with lateral notchs, the so-called “El Khiam points”, which has served to identify sites in Israel, (Azraq), Sinai (Abu Madi), and to the north as far as the Middle Euphrates (Mureybet). The Khiamian is regarded as a time without any major technical innovations. However, for the first time, houses were built on the ground level, not half buried as was previously done. Otherwise, members of this culture were still hunter-gatherers. Agriculture was still rather primitive. Relatively new discoveries in the Middle East and Anatolia show that some experiments with agriculture had taken place by 10,900 BCE, and wild grain processing had occurred by 19,000 BCE at Ohalo II. According to Jacques Cauvin, the Khiamian was the beginning of the worship of the Woman and the Bull, found in later following periods in the Near-East, based on the appearance of small female statuettes, as well as by the burying of aurochs skulls.” ref

“Not far from the Sea of Galilee is the Natufian site of Nahal Ein Gev II, which is sometimes described as a village. Matti Friedman wrote in Smithsonian magazine: I came to the village with Leore Grosman, an archaeologist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem….Her team of 30 arrived in work pants and sun hats from their quarters at a nearby kibbutz. At first light, they fanned out across the hill by the stream. Soon a few were squatting in the remains of a round house. Several diggers under the direction of Natalie Munro, an archaeologist from the University of Connecticut, were busy in the adjacent cemetery, brushing off an adult cranium and treading carefully around the skeleton of a 3-year-old. One team member set up a geolocation tripod that precisely locates every artifact on a grid. A PhD student looked for gazelle bones. The pace picked up as the sun rose, the same atmosphere of industry you might have sensed if you had come when the villagers were here 12 millennia ago.” ref 

“The village yields new surprises each season. When I was there, a pair of doctoral students from Canada and Sweden were brushing earth from two reddish-brown objects inside one of the Natufian homes. It wasn’t clear what the objects were, but they were made of clay, which didn’t seem notable at first—anyone who has spent time at an archaeological dig has seen plenty of pottery. But then I remembered that pottery wasn’t supposed to have been invented in this part of the world for another 4,000 years. “The finds at the site make clear that its people were innovators,” Mithen, the British prehistorian, told me. “Processes of change that we thought occurred during the later Neolithic were already underway at this settlement. Nahal Ein Gev illustrates how architecture, art and economy are interlinked in ways that we have yet to fully understand in the transition from hunting and gathering to farming lifestyles.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“Y-DNA Haplogroup R2a and Expansion (Fertile Crescent “Iran Neolithic”) by 10,000 years ago.” ref, ref, ref

“Haplogroup R2a (R-M124) is characterized by SNPs M124, F820/Page4, L381, P249, and is mainly found in South Asia, with lower frequencies in Central Asia. R-M124 is also found in multiple Jewish populations: Iraqi Jews, Persian Jews, Mountain Jews, and Ashkenazi Jews. Most research has tested only for the presence of R-M479 (R2) and R-M124 (R2a) – or SNPs downstream from M124 like P249, P267, L266, PAGES00004, and L381 SNPs). Because the other primary branch, R2b (R-FGC21706) was discovered later than R2a, it has often not been tested for. Hence most results are best described as R2(xR2a). n addition, relatively little research has been done within South Asia, which is known to have the greatest concentration of R2. (Hence the figures cited in the table right may not be indicative of true frequencies, i.e. Pakistan is the only South Asian country that has been included.) In 2013, R2(xR2a) was found in 5 out of 19 males from the Burusho minority of North Pakistan. Haplogroup R2, or R-M479, has been concentrated geographically in South Asia and Central Asia since prehistory. It appears to reach its highest levels among the Burusho people in North Pakistan.” ref

“Haplogroup R2a, or haplogroup R-M124, is a Y-chromosome haplogroup characterized by genetic markers M124, P249, P267, L266, and is mainly found in South Asia as well as in Central Asia, Caucasus, West Asia and North Africa / MENA. Haplogroup R-M124 was known as Haplogroup P1 and formerly thought to be a sister clade of Haplogroup R rather than derived from it. Haplogroup R2 most often observed in Asia, especially on the Indian sub-continent and Central Asia. It is also reported at notable frequencies in Caucasus.” ref

“Ancient samples of haplogroup R2a were observed in the remains of humans from Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age Iran and Turan; and Iron Age South Asia. R2a was also recovered from excavated remains in the South Asian sites of Saidu Sharif and Butkara from a later period. R-M124 is most often observed in Asia, especially on the Indian sub-continent and in Central Asia. It is also reported at notable frequencies in Caucasus. Haplogroup R-M124, along with haplogroups H, L, R1a1, and J2, forms the majority of the South Asian male population. The frequency is around 10-15% in India and Sri Lanka and 7-8% in Pakistan. Its spread within South Asia is very extensive, ranging from Baluchistan in the west to Bengal in the east; Hunza in the north to Sri Lanka in the south.” ref

“According to Sengupta et al. (2006), uncertainty neutralizes previous conclusions that the intrusion of HGs R1a1 and R2 [Now R-M124] from the northwest in Dravidian-speaking southern tribes is attributable to a single recent event. Rather, these HGs contain considerable demographic complexity, as implied by their high haplotype diversity. Specifically, they could have actually arrived in southern India from a southwestern Asian source region multiple times, with some episodes considerably earlier than others.” ref

Paragroup R-M124*

“While R1a and R1b haplogroups are often associated with the Indo-European languages, the original linguistic affinity of the R2 descendant haplogroups R2a and R2b remains unknown. There are not many studies focusing on deeper subclades of Y‑DNA haplogroup R2 (R-M479), and research tends to focus on the widespread subclades of haplogroup R1. Ancient DNA samples carrying pure Y-DNA haplogroups R1* and R2* haven’t been discovered yet. The oldest detected sample of R* related to both R1 and R2 is the 22000 BCE Mal’ta Boy (MA1), who lived near the Lake Baikal and in archaeogenetics he represents the population of the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE).” ref

“The Y-DNA haplogroup R2 is mainly represented by its R2a (R2‑M124; R‑M124; R‑Y3399; R‑P249; R‑L266) subclade detected in 865 samples worldwide, while the R2b (R‑FGC50368; R‑SK2164; R2b‑FGC21706) subclade was seldom tested for and it was detected in only 13 samples worldwide. In Europe the Y-DNA haplogroup R2 is represented solely by the subclades of R2a (R‑M124) and peaks at 2% in Latvia, 1% in Lithuania, 1% in Belarus, 1% in Masovian Voivodeship of Poland, 1% in Slovakia, 1% in Ukraine, 1% in Moldova, 1% in Hungary and 1% in Switzerland. It does not appear at all in Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia, Western Poland, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain and Portugal.” ref

R2a in Ancient Samples

1. 8241 BC – Ganj Dareh, Iran – Y‑DNA R2a (R‑Y3399), mtDNA unknown (sample I1949)
2. 8000 BC – Ganj Dareh, Iran – Y‑DNA R2a (R‑Y3399), mtDNA J1c10 (sample I1945)
3. 3500 BC – Geoksyur, Turkmenistan – Y‑DNA R2a (R‑Y8766), mtDNA J1d6 (sample I8526)
4. 2196 BC – Gonur, Turkmenistan – Y‑DNA R2a (R‑Y3399), mtDNA R2 (sample I4087)
5. 1971 BC – Sappali Tepe, Surxondaryo, Uzbekistan – Y‑DNA R2a-Y3370, mtDNA K1a (sample I7492)
6. 1613 BC – Bustan (Boʻston), Uzbekistan – Y‑DNA R2a3a2, mtDNA HV2a2 (sample I11520)
7. 1600 BC – Sumbar, Turkmenistan – Y‑DNA R2a-FGC13203 (from R2a‑Y3370), mtDNA W3b (sample I6675)
8. 1207 BC – Katelai (Swat), Pakistan – Y‑DNA R2a3a2b2c, mtDNA U7b (sample I12147)
9. 400 BC – Saidu Sharif (Swat), Pakistan – Y‑DNA R2a3a2b, mtDNA U2b2 (sample I7722)
10. 356 BC – Aligrama (Swat), Pakistan – Y‑DNA R2a3a2b2b1, mtDNA HV6 (sample I8245)
11. 166 BC – Ksirov (Danghara Plain), Tajikistan – Y‑DNA R2a (R‑Y3399), mtDNA U2e1e (sample I12292; Kushan)
12. 670 AD – Roopkund, Uttarakhand, Northern India – Y‑DNA R2a3a2b2c, mtDNA HV14 (sample I3352)” ref

“The earliest sample containing Y-DNA R2a known to modern archaeogenetics is a man from Ganj Dareh, Iran. This ancient site belongs to the Neolithic Fertile Cresent region, which also contained sites such as Göbekli Tepe, Çatalhöyük, Chogha Golan, Chogha Bonut, Chogha Mish, Abu Hureyra and Jericho. A woman from Ganj Dareh (sample GD13a) shows genetic affinity with Baloch and Brahui from Pakistan and Makrani from Gujarat, India (Baloch mercenaries). R2a carrying male (sample I1945) from Ganj Dareh also carried the descendant haplogroup of mtDNA J1c, which nowadays appears only in Europe and North America, this points to a common origin of his ancestors in a population related to the Ancient North Eurasians.” ref

“Other males from the 3500 BCE Geoksyur site in Turkmenistan carried the following Y-DNA haplogroups: P1 (or CT), 3x J‑ZS6592 (J1a2a1b1a), J‑ZS4428 (from J1a2a1b), J‑PF4993 (from J2a1a1a1a), Q-L56 (Q-M346; Q1a3)[4]. Just like the mtDNA haplogroup J1c, the Y-DNA haplogroup Q1a3 is nowadays widespread mostly among Native Americans, which points to the common ANE origin of Y-DNA P1, R2a, and Q1a3 found at the Central Asian site of Geoksyur. This observation might also explain why in the 2021 Zhang et al. study the Tarim Mummies were modeled as 100% isolate but their genes were also found not only in the Neolithic Central Asian Geoksyur, Namazga, and Sarazm individuals but also in the Botai, Okunevo, Dzungaria, Chemurchek, Bronze Age Baikal and Bronze Age Kumsay in Kazakhstan. They all shared a high level of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry.” ref

“Nevertheless, the samples from Geoksyur, Namazga, Parkhai, and Sarazm were still much closer (but not uniform) to Yamna Samara and Afanasievo Culture than to Tarim Mummies and Mal’ta Boy. The only samples from Central Asia shifted towards ANE the most were those from Bronze Age Aigyrzhal, Kyrgyzstan (circa 2100 BCE) and resembled the ones from Early Bronze Age Dzungaria. The downward shift of Geoksyur and Namazga from Yamna Samara was mostly due to its high genetic input from Iran Neolithic and Anatolia Neolithic, in evidence from that earliest 8211 BCE Ganj Dareh sample and lots of Y‑DNA J1a and J2a in Southern Central Asia. That is why the pre-Steppe carries of Y‑DNA R2a in Central Asia can be modeled in aDNA as 10% ANE, 20% Anatolia Neolithic, and 70% Iran Neolithic (that is 90% of Fertile Crescent or Zagrosian DNA). The Elamites might be genetically closest to people from the Neolithic Central Asia but this requires some further examination.” ref

“The phenetic analysis of Tarim Mummies from Bronze Age Qäwrighul (1800 BCE) also pointed to their uniqueness and to their slight affinity towards people from the Oxus Civilization (BMAC) and Sappali Tepe. However, no Y‑DNA R2a has ever been detected in any of the Tarim Mummies from the Xiaohe Cemetery (2100 BCE – 1700 BCE), and instead, they carried mainly the descendants of Y‑DNA haplogroup R1*: 2x R1b‑PH155 (R1b2), 7x R1a1a, 1x R1‑M173. The remaining not deeply classified Y‑DNA haplogroups from Xiaohe were: F‑M89 (East, South and Central Asian), K‑M9 (ancestral to N, O, P, R; 43000 BCE Ust’-Ishim man carried a descendant of this haplogroup: K2a), P‑M45 (ancestral to Q and R).” ref

“BMAC individuals were largely derived from local, Chalcolithic populations similar to those found in Geoksyur. A genome of a woman from 2800 BCE – 2300 BCE Rakhigarhi, Northern India (close to Punjab and New Delhi) matched the DNA from 11 other individuals who had been found at sites in Iran and Turkmenistan from a similar period. A comparison of modern Indo-Iranian populations with the ancient genome has shown genetic continuity with the BMAC cluster, except for their high admixture with Steppe populations (Andronovo Culture), that occurred at the end of BMAC after 2000 BCE. The first genetic outliers observed in several BMAC individuals may represent the very beginning of this demographic event. According to Narasimhan et al. 2019, Steppe pastoralist ancestry appeared in outlier individuals at BMAC sites by the turn of the second millennium BCE around the same time as it appeared on the Southern Steppe (in Sintashta Culture and Andronovo Culture).” ref

“The Central Asian Steppe group, which admixed with BMAC does not harbour the Baikal Hunter-Gatherer genetic component because the BHG component did not arrive in the Central Asian Steppe until the late Iron Age. The best proxy for admixture with BMAC is the subpopulation formed by four individuals all belonging to the Kytmanovo site of Andronovo Culture (1446 BCE – 1298 BCE male from Kytmanovo already carried Y‑DNA R1a‑Z2124). These individuals have a very similar genetic profile to that of individuals from Sintashta, near the Caspian Sea. The screening of the individuals associated with the Andronovo horizon in the data shows that they formed a moderately heterogeneous group, with genetic proximities that do not necessarily correlate with geographical or cultural proximity. For example, Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individuals are more closely related to individuals grouped under the precise Andronovo label than Srubnaya from the Samara region.” ref

“The 2200 BCE – 1600 BCE males from Sappali Tepe, Gonur, Bustan (Boʻston), and Sumbar, who carried the Y‑DNA haplogroup R2a still archaeologically belonged to the BMAC (Oxus Civilization). In the post-1200 BC Swat Valley, Pakistan males carrying R2a appear next to males, who carry the Sintashta derived R1a‑Z94 haplogroup (from R1a‑Z93). None of the Yamna/Afanasievo derived Y‑DNA R1b‑Z2103 appeared in the Swat Valley, even if some males from Sintashta still carried this Y‑DNA haplogroup (2012 BC sample I1020[4]). North of Pakistan there are three additional ancient samples with detected Y‑DNA R1a‑Z93: one from 1497 BCE Kokcha, Uzbekistan (sample I12499) and two from 1200 BCE Kashkarchi, Uzbekistan. One of males from Kokcha, Uzbekistan from around 1738 BCE carried Y‑DNA haplogroup Q1a1b1, which is related to both Native Americans, and Siberian Kets, yet another sign of some Ancient North Eurasian derived genes in Central Asia.” ref

“A 1207 BCE man from Katelai (Swat), Pakistan carried both Y‑DNA R2a3a2b2c and mtDNA U7b. The modern distribution of mtDNA haplogroup U7 almost perfectly matches the distribution of Y‑DNA haplogroup R2 shown on the map above (and below). This supports the hypothesis of a local origin of Y‑DNA R2a and R2b in the Swat Valley of Pakistan because the carriers of mtDNA U7 spread to South Asia and Europe before the suggested Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages from the Andronovo Culture and mtDNA U7 originated in the Near East and then spread towards South and Central Asia prior to the Holocene. However, low amounts of mtDNA U7 in West Bengal and Orisa most probably deny the appearance of mtDNA U7 together with Y-DNA R2a in South Asia (but not in Central Asia or Pakistan), and it is still more likely that Y-DNA R2a spread to East India together with Y‑DNA R1a‑Z93, which came from the Andronovo Culture and then those two Y‑DNA haplogroups spread together from the Swat Valley of Pakistan. The latter is also supported by the elevated amounts of mtDNA U7 in Gujarat and Rajasthan and much lower amounts of Y‑DNA R2a there.” ref

“Ancient individuals from the Swat Valley of Pakistan show that the Andronovo Culture (Central Asian Steppe) ancestry integrated further South around 1500 BCE – 1200 BCE, and nowadays this genetic component makes up to 30% of ancestry in many South Asian populations. That Central Asian Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same genetic profile as that of the Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people, who affected both regions and likely spread the unique features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.” ref

R2b in Ancient Samples

1. 4000 BCE – Anau Tepe (Tepe-Anau), Turkmenistan – Y‑DNA R2b (R‑FGC50368), mtDNA W3a1 (sample I4087)
2. 850 BCE – Loebanr (Swat), Pakistan – Y‑DNA R2b (R‑FGC50368), mtDNA W3a1b (sample I8997)
3. 850 BCE – Loebanr (Swat), Pakistan – Y‑DNA R2b (R‑FGC50368), mtDNA W3a1b (sample I8998)” ref

“Those two males from Loebanr were most probably brothers from the same mother, and again, the oldest subclades of Y‑DNA R2 appear near the Swat Valley and in Central Asia instead of South India (or South Asia in general). The oldest sample of mtDNA W3a1 in Central Asia comes from 4000 BCE or around 6,000 years ago, a male from Anau Tepe, who also carried Y‑DNA haplogroup R2b just like those two brothers.” ref

“The second oldest sample carrying mtDNA W3a1 comes from a 2917 BCE Yamna Culture woman from Prydnistryanske, Ukraine (very close to Moldova). Bronze Age samples of that mtDNA haplogroup come mostly from European and Central Asian cultures such as Corded Ware, Baden, Unetice, Trzciniec, BMAC (Sappali Tepe, Uzbekistan), Scythians from Kazakhstan. Its sister haplogroup W3a2 is nowadays found mostly in Tajikistan, England, France, Slovakia, Romania, Poland and Ukraine.” ref

“The 2022 paper by Guarino-Vignon et al. showed that the Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples from Central Asia, including those from Tepe-Anau genetically resemble modern Brahui, Balochi, Makrani, Kalash and Pathans (Pashtuns) but modern Yaghnobis and Tajiks are dramatically shifted from those samples towards Yamna and Iron Age Turkmenistan (Scythians, Kushans). Some samples from Early Middle Bronze Age Turan (circa 1500 BCE) resemble those from Central Asian Steppe (Andronovo Culture) and those of modern Ossetians. The Burusho people appear closer to Pathans and Kalash but form their own cluster far away from the ancient Central Asian samples and Tajiks. The Burusho are still closest to the South Asian cluster.” ref

“Modern samples of R2b were only detected in Pakistan (Islamabad; Punjab; Azad Kashmir), India (Punjab), China (Shandong), Iraq (Al Anbar), Saudi Arabia (Hāʼil), Bahrain (Al Muharraq). It is possible that this haplogroup appeared in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain already in the Neolithic but the Iron Age Persian expansion or some other recent events could also be responsible for spreading R2b to those regions. This can not be determined.” ref

R2a in Kazakhstan and Europe

“The relatively high amount (0% – 25%) of Y‑DNA R2a in the Kazakh Tore tribe, 12% in Zhanakorgan district, 6.3% – 10% in Kozha tribe, 5.4% in Jalayir tribe, 2% in Sirgeli and Alban tribes, 1% in Baiuly tribe could be explained by the backward migration of Scythians from the territory of BMAC and Southern Andronovo (there are no ancient samples of Y‑DNA R2a from the territory of Kazakhstan). Yaghnobis (cultural and genetic descendants of Scythians) show no genetic admixture from South Asia (unlike Tajiks), while both Yaghnobis and Tajiks show genetic affinity to BMAC and Andronovo[10]. This backward Scythian migration through Kazakhstan is further proven by 8% of Y‑DNA R2a in Ossetians from Alagir, 7.9% in Balkars (descendants of Scythian Alans and Turkic tribes; they carry very high amounts of Central Asian Y‑DNA R1b‑M73 and Iranic Y-DNA R1a‑Z2124 from R1a‑Z94), 16% in Chechens, 20% in Kalmyk-Oirats from Derbet, Kalmykia and 1% in Eastern European countries.” ref

“During the 14th century CE, Alania was destroyed by Timur, and many of the Alans, Cumans, and Kipchaks migrated to Eastern Europe. This genetic influx might go back even further in time as R1a‑Z2124 was already detected in the ancient Hun (5th century CE), Avar, and Hungarian conqueror (post-850 CE) samples from Hungary, a descendant of this Y‑DNA haplogroup, namely the R1a‑Z2123 is nowadays mostly prevelant in Bashkiria, Kazakhstan (in Tore, Kozha, Tarakty, Sirgeli, Oshakty, Kangly, Jalayir, Zhetiru, and Kypshak tribes), Northern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, among Karachay-Balkars and it was the Y‑DNA haplogroup of the Hungarian Árpád Dynasty.” ref

“Even older sample with this Y‑DNA haplogroup is a 380 BCE – 200 BCE Scythian from a kurgan near Samara (I0247), who carried Y-DNA R1a1a1b2a2a (R1a‑Z2125) and mtDNA G2a4. Both Y‑DNA haplogroups R1a‑Z2124 and R1a‑Z2125 were present in the territory of the Middle Bronze Age Kazakhstan because a 1900 BCE – 1300 BCE male from Dali in Bayan-Zhurek mountains, Eastern Kazakhstan carried Y‑DNA R1a‑Z2124 and mtDNA U5a1a2a (sample I0507), this site is only 100 km away from Northern Xinjiang. Another male from 1600 BCE – 1196 BCE Taldysay, Ulytau region, Central Kazakhstan carried R1a‑Z2125 and mtDNA H3g (sample I4787).” ref

“The Kalmyk Dörwöds (Dörbet) in Mongolia are characterized by high frequencies of Y‑DNA haplogroups C3d‑M407 and R2a‑M124 (15.2%). It is noteworthy that the age of haplogroup R2aM1‑24 found in both Dörbet and Oirats from Kalmykia shows the best correspondence to the historical chronology of the Kalmyk dispersals. Haplogroup D-M174, albeit rarely found in the Dörwöds and Torguuds (about 2%), reveals genetic affinity to the Tibetan populations, where this haplogroup was present probably before the Last Glacial Age. Another rare Y‑DNA haplogroup N1a‑M128, which frequently occurred only among Kazakhs (8.1%) in Central Asia, was also detected in the Buzava Kalmyks, who live next to Derbet in Kalmykia and carry up to 17.4% of Y‑DNA haplogroup R2a.” ref

“Phylogenetic network of haplogroup R1a1a‑M17 (carried by 3.3% of Kalmyks) demonstrates that two haplotypes of the Kalmyks coincide with the haplotypes common among different populations of South Siberia (Tuvinians, Altaians and Sojots) and Central Asia (Tajiks and Pathans), two haplotypes with populations of Pathans, Persians and Indians, and one haplotype with South Siberians (Shors and Tuvinians).” ref

“A median network of R2a‑M124 haplotypes derived from 12 Y‑STR loci in the Kalmyks, Buryats (2.7% of R2a) and populations of Southwestern and South Asia (in which this haplogroup is present at a relatively high frequency) reveals common haplotypes observed in Kalmyks and Buryats, whereas there is no haplotype sharing between these and other comparative populations. However, the R2a‑M124 haplotypes found in the Kalmyks and Buryats are still the derivatives of Indian subclades of R2a. This suggests a recent common ancestry and/or expansion of the Kalmyk R2a‑M124 lineages from India or Southern Central Asia.” ref

“The descendants of Y‑DNA R2a‑F2791 subclade are nowadays found only in Latvia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Chechnya, Georgia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. The R2a‑Y101424 subclade of R2a‑Y3399 (basal R2a‑M124) found among Kurds in Turkey is also present in Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, so it most probably was not mediated there by the Scythians. Kurmanji Kurds from Georgia carry around 44% of Y‑DNA R2a‑M124. The Y‑DNA haplogroup R2a has not been detected in the Roma population of Europe[35]. They mostly carry: 44.8% of H‑M82, 22.6% of I‑M170, 12.7% of J2a‑M67, 6.7% of R1‑M173, 3.6% of E‑M36, 2% of J‑M92, 1.6% of C‑M217, 0.4% of R‑M17 (R1a1a) and aren’t responsible for the appearance of Y‑DNA R2a in Europe (the Scythians are and from the 17th century CE the Kalmyks).” ref

R2a in China

“Archaeological excavations at the 2000 BCE site of Sappali Tepe, located in the North Bactrian oasis of Southern Uzbekistan, during the 1960s and 1970s yielded the earliest evidence of silk outside of China and raised the possibility that the East‑West contacts along the Great Silk Road may be far older than previously thought. People from the Southern Gansu province of China nowadays carry 3.4% of Y‑DNA haplogroup R2a. During the Bronze Age, the Qijia Culture (2200 BCE – 1600 BCE) thrived in that region, and it might be one of the factors why the R2a haplogroup spread to Central China.” ref

“Qijia Culture is distinguished by the presence of numerous domesticated horses (in evidence also genetically after DOM2 horse spread to China after ca. 2000 BCE), practice of oracle divination, metal knives, and recovered axes, which point to some interactions with Siberian and Central Asian cultures, in particular with the Seima-Turbino complex (Okunevo Culture). Archaeological evidence points to plausible early contact (often violent) between the Qijia Culture and Central Asia. In spite of all the archaeological evidence of its Western contacts, those most probably were only trade relations as all males from the 2000 BCE Mogou site of the Qijia Culture carried only East Asian Y‑DNA haplogroups: O3a2 and O3a2c1a and did not show any genetic affinity towards West Eurasia. It means that Y-DNA haplogroup R2a appeared in Central China only later in history. 4% of R2a in Western Xinjiang and 2% in Eastern Xinjiang might point to its appearance in that region after 1500 – 1300 BCE because a study from 2021 by Ning et al. proved that the appearance of European mtDNA in 1500 – 1300 BCE Western Xinjiang is correlated with the appearance of Yamna (Steppe) and Andronovo related ancestry.” ref

“In the same study, mtDNA samples from the Qijia Culture clustered with East Asian and South Asian samples far away from European samples, this again suggests that the speculated appearance of Y‑DNA haplogroup R2a in China during the Early Bronze Age either wasn’t correlated with the appearance of Yamna or Andronovo related ancestry or did not happen during the Qijia period in Gansu. The Qijia mtDNA samples were not far away from the Late Bronze Age Kayue, China; Bronze Age Khovsgol, Mongolia and Neolithic samples from Baikal, Russia. Those three geographic regions nowadays harbor around 3% of R2a. Kayue Culture (900 – 600 BCE) most probably developed from the Western part of the Qijia Culture. Early Bronze Age Tarim (Xinjiang) clustered with the Kayue Culture and Neolithic Baikal but not with the European samples.” ref

“The only Asian ancient mtDNA samples clustering close to those from Europe were: Eneolithic Turkmen (Namazga Culture), BMAC, MLBA Central Asian Steppe, Iron Age Shirenzigou and Northern Xinjiang Afanasievo (a proof that Tocharians and Yuezhi are the descendants of the Afanasievo Culture). After 1000 BCE the stone based burial type spreads from Northern Xinjiang Dzungaria (Afanasievo mtDNA) to Eastern Xinjiang, this might represent the earlieast spread of Tocharian languages to Eastern Xinjiang noted by archaeology. According to phenetic comparisons, the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang area) experienced a significant gene flow from highland populations of the Pamirs and Fergana Valley (modern-day Eastern Uzbekistan) after 1200 BCE.” ref

“These highland populations may include those who later became known as the Saka (Scythians) and who may have served as “middlemen” facilitating contacts between the East (China) and West (Bactria) along what later became known as the Great Silk Road. The ancient Scythian DOM2 horse belonged to exactly the same breed as that of Boz Adyr, Xiongnu (from Gol Mod 2 Cemetery, Mongolia), and Karasuk, all those breeds were also closely related to the DOM2 horse from Sintashta, meaning that the people responsible for spreading the final breed of DOM2 horse to China were the Scythians. This lineage of horses survived at least until the 8th century CE in Central Asia at Boz Adyr, Kyrgyzstan. Bronze Age Deer Stone horses from Mongolia, medieval Aukštaičiai horses from Lithuania (9th – 10th century CE), and Iron Age Pazyryk Scythian (6th century BCE) horses showed similar diversity levels.” ref

“This might point to the earliest possible date of 1200 – 700 BCE for the arrival of Y-DNA R2a in the Tarim Basin and points to a similar backward migration of Scythians to the territory of late Andronovo Culture, which also took place in Kazakhstan. The Saka (Scythian) presence has been found in various locations in the Tarim Basin, for example, in the Keriya region at Yumulak Kum (Djoumboulak Koum, Yuansha) around 200 km East of Khotan, with a tomb dated to as early as the 7th century BCE. Surviving documents from Khotan (300 BCE – 1006 CE) of later centuries indicate that the people of Khotan spoke the Saka language (Khotanese), an Eastern Iranian language that was closely related to the Sogdian language from Central Asia. Additionally, the mtDNA samples from Iron Age Western Xinjiang and Southern Xinjiang were shifted from the Bronze Age Xinjiang samples towards BMAC, Tian Shan Saka, Tagar (Scythians), Iron Age Sarmatian, and Hungary Bronze Age.” ref

“According to the 2022 V. Kumar et al. study on ancient DNA from Xinjiang (201 samples), the Bronze Age (3000 – 1000 BCE) Northern and Western Tarim Basin is mainly represented by Y-DNA haplogroups: R1b1 (majority), R1a2 (it is either very rare R1a‑YP4141 or R1a‑Z93), Q2a, Q2, and Q1b1. The Late Bronze Age in the Western Tarim Basin (probably circa 1000 BCE) yields the first appearance of Y‑DNA R1a1. It is during the Iron Age (1000- 1 BCE) when the majority of Y‑DNA haplogroups related to Central Asia appear in Western Tarim Basin: R1a1 (majority), R1b2 (R1b‑PH155), Q2a1, Q1b2, Q1b1, J2a1, J2a2, J2b2, J1a2, L1a2, E1b1 (E1b1b1 was already found at the 2011 BCE Gonur site of BMAC, so it is not Greek or Macedonian), I2a1 (European). The Iron Age Southern Tarim Basin is dominated by Y‑DNA: G2a2 (majority), R1a1, L1a1, Q1b1 (majority), Q1b, Q1, N1a1, and Iron Age Northern Tarim Basin by Y‑DNA: R1b1, R1a1, and R1a2.” ref

“This means that this study, in opposition to 2021 Zhang et al., proves that the Tocharian languages (R1b1) were first in the Tarim Basin right next to some isolated unknown ANE languages (Q2a, Q1b), and exactly after 1000 BCE or around 3,000 years ago, the Scythian genetic influx occurred in Western Xinjiang. The Y‑DNA haplogroup O2 appears in the Eastern Tarim Basin only during the Iron Age and in the Southern Tarim Basin much later in the historical era (1 CE—present). Deeper classification of some of those detected Y-chromosomes on YFull showed that two Xinjiang individuals from 1451 – 1374 BCE and 739 – 494 BCE already carried the Y‑DNA haplogroup R1a‑Z93; two from 1571 – 1460 BCE and 353 ‑ 7 BCE carried the Iranic Y‑DNA R1a‑Z2123. The R1b‑FT292014 haplogroup from Xinjiang is nowadays found only in Pakistan, while R1a‑YP1548 from a 693 BCE Xinjiang man is found only in Kazakhstan, Altai, Kyrgyzstan and Shandong, China (next to 6.7% of R2a in Jiangsu, China).” ref

“Surprisingly, on aDNA PCA, four Late Bronze Age and two Bronze Age Tarim Basin individuals were identical to modern Europeans. Remaining BA samples from Tarim Basin clustered with Early Bronze Age Dzungaria (Proto-Tocharians). Those people might literally be the ancestors of Tocharians, and those 6 people “from Europe” were either European mercenaries/merchants or individuals who still preserved their Yamna/Afanasievo gene pool (maybe they did not mix with the ANE-derived locals). Samples of EMBA (1700 BCE) Tarim Mummies from the 2021 Zhang et al. paper created their own cluster far away from the Afanasievo/European Tarim Basin population and appeared closer to the supposed ancestral ANE population. During the Iron Age, the Tarim Basin samples shifted towards Iran Neolithic (BMAC) and East Asia but still did not move to the exact area of modern Uyghur, Iron Age Southern Tarim Basin, and Iron Age Shirenzigou samples.” ref

“When it comes to Horpa (Qiangic) speaking population of Daofu, Western Sichuan, China, where R2a makes up 6.25% of all Y‑DNA, on PCA they appear to be closest genetically to Han-Xinjiang and Tibetan-Shigatse populations. The European mtDNA haplogroups were not found among Horpa (Qiangic) speaking populations. The mtDNA (maternal) variation of Qiangic populations was also largely contributed by Northern Asian prevalent haplogroups, including haplogroups A, C, D, and G. In addition, cultural features of the upper Yellow River basin, such as painted pottery, millet agriculture, and urn burial, are prevalent in the Neolithic sites of Western Sichuan, probably due to the demic diffusion via the genetic corridor.” ref

“Hui from Ningxia (close to Gansu and Henan) carry 3.2% of R2a, they also carry 1.6% of R1b1b2 (R1b‑M269) and 3.2% of R1a1, unlike Man from Liaoning, who carry 1.5% of R2a but none of the Y-DNA R1 derived haplogroups (just like Qiang from Sichuan and Han from Gansu who carry only R2a). Han from Jiangsu also carry 8.9% of R1a1 next to 6.7% of R2a. In general, R1a and R1b are not totally absent in China as Hui from Yunnan carry 10% of R1b1c and 10% of R1a (next to 10% of J1, 10% of Q1a3, and 0% of R2a). Chinese from the Henan province (next to Gansu) also carry around 1.6% of R1b‑M269.” ref

“R1b1b1 (R1b‑M73 brotherly to R1b‑M269) has also been detected in 8.3% of Chinese Mongolian, in 25% of Kyrgyz from Xinjiang, and in 6% of Uyghurs from Xinjiang (they also carry 30% of R1a1, 16% of J2a and 4% of R2a). R1b‑M73 was detected mainly in NEAS (Kumandins, Mongolians, Chinese, Bashkirs, Northern Pakistani, and Pamiri) and was sporadically detected in South Asia and West Eurasia (except for Karachay-Balkars and Kalmyks). It is possible that this haplogroup, together with R2a and R1a‑Z93, spread to those regions with migrations of the Saka after 1000- 700 BCE and later with those of Xiongnu, Wusun, Yuezhi (probably to Gansu) or Kushans after the 3rd century BCE. In general, the star-like structure of Y‑DNA R2a‑M124, which includes the Chinese samples, suggests that it reflects a relatively recent expansion from South or Central Asia to North-East Asia via the Northern route and more diversified R2 haplotypes occur in the areas around Pakistan and India instead of North-East Asia.” ref

R2a in Thailand and Malaysia

“The Mon from Northern Thailand shows the presence of haplogroups usually found in South, Central, and West Asia: 16.7% of R‑P249 (R2‑M124) and 5.6% of J‑M172 (J2). The connection between the ethnic Mon and populations from South and Central Asia was already proposed from previous identification of mtDNA lineage W3a1b. Both groups of the Mon-Khmer speaking Lawa groups showed high differences between each other and from other populations, presenting low levels of haplogroup diversity with high frequencies of O‑PK4 (O1b1a1) (72% in Lawa 1) and N‑M231 (56% in Lawa 2).” ref

“The native language of Mon is Mon, it belongs to the Monic branch of the Mon-Khmer language family and shares a common origin with the Nyah Kur language, which is spoken by the people of the same name and who live in the Northeastern Thailand. The groups from Thailand, where Y‑DNA haplogroup R1a has been detected are: Khon Muang 6 (9% of R1a; 4.6% of J2; 0% of R2a), Yuan 1 (5.3% of R1a; 0% of J2; 0% of R2a), Yuan 3 (4.2% of R1a; 0% of J2; 0% of R2a). It means that the appearance of R2a in Thailand could have been accompanied by the spread of Y‑DNA haplogroups R1a (usually R1a‑Z94 derived R1a1a1b2a1b: R1a‑Z2124) and J2.” ref

“Y‑DNA R2a (R‑L266, same as R‑M124) and mtDNA R21 has been detected in one modern male (JEH002) from the Malaysian Jehai tribe, who live next to the Thailand’s Southern border. Other male (JEH04) from the same tribe carried Y‑DNA R1a1a1b2a R1a‑Z94 and mtDNA M13b1. If the appearance of Y‑DNA R2a correlates with that of R1a‑Z94 in Thailand and Malaysia, then the spread of R2a in Thailand could occur only after 1200 BCE (after R1a‑Z93 associated Painted Grey Ware Culture appeared in Central India next to West Bengal) but this can not be determined yet. Ancient DNA samples from Thailand carrying Y‑DNA R2a could undermine this statement but just like in the case of ancient samples from Southern India, there aren’t any carrying Y‑DNA R2a.” ref

Languages and Genetics

“Modern distribution of Y‑DNA haplogroups R2a and R2b covers the areas of not only the Indo-European languages but also: Dravidian Brahui in Pakistan; isolate Burushaski in Hunza, Pakistan; Horpa (Qiangic) near Xinlong, Western Sichuan, China; Monguor in Gansu, China; Mandarin in Jiangsu, China; Mon in Thailand; Arabic in Jordan, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates; Jehai (Mon-Khmer) in Malaysia; Kalmyk-Oirat, Buryat (Mongolic), Karachay-Balkar, Ossetian and Chechen in Russia; Kazakh in Kazakhstan; Oirat in Western Mongolia; Lodha, Kannada, Kerala, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and Sora in India.” ref

When it comes to Indo-European languages the distribution of Y‑DNA R2 covers the areas of: Tajik, Bartangi and Wakhi (Pamir languages) in Tajikistan; Nuristani, Pashai, Hazara and Aimak in Afghanistan; Balochi, Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi in Pakistan; Persian and Balochi in Iran; Kurdish in Turkey, Iraq, Iran; Kurmanji in Georgia; Dhivehi in Maldives; Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; Kashmiri, Hindi, Bhojpuri, Bengali, Odia, Punjabi, Marwari, Marathi (in Konkan) and Konkani languages in India. All those languages belong to the the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages.” ref