Home
Back
Russian
Contents - Scythians
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Cavalli-Sforza Genetic Map
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Scythians 7 c. BC
Burial of a Massagetan warrior 8-7 c. BC
Pazyryk 4-2 c. BC
Bulgars 6-15 c. AD
Ogur and Oguz
Scythians and their descendents
Wikipedia - Scytho-IranianTheory
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Scythian Y-DNA

Igor Rozhanskii
Academy of DNA-Genealogy (Tsukuba, Japan), igorrozhanskiiATgmail.com

THE LITHUANIAN TATARS. DNA ANCESTRY TRACED TO THE EURASIAN STEPPES
Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Volume 10, No. 5 May 2017 (in Russian), pp. 1714-1735

Posting Introduction

Pending testing of Scythian fossil DNA, Igor Rojansky, PhD, deduced that Scythians were of R1a-Z2125 Y-DNA subclade, the same as the Kipchaks' Y-DNA, the Timber Grave horse nomads, and the subclade of the Corded Ware R1a component. That conclusion, from the tip of the pen of one of the best experts on genealogical genetics, has good chances to be confirmed experimentally. And if not, it still leaves us with the Kipchaks' Y-DNA subclade, the Timber Grave horse nomads' subclade, and the subclade of the Corded Ware R1a component. That comes after it was authoritatively confirmed that the Corded Ware R1a component originated in the Timber Grave peoples. A very rich trove with endless consequences! Russia is full of shoeboxes filled with sculls from kurgan excavations, they are bidding their time to come to light.

The group of Lithuanian Tatars is an ethnic island transplanted to the Poland's territory 600 years ago. Like a host of such test tubes scattered everywhere, it affords a peak at the state (Kipchak Khanate, aka Russian moniker Golden Horde) and the society long gone. The work of I. Rojansky investigates Y-DNA composition of the small Tatar island and offers a telescopic view of their ancestors, in particular of the haplogroup subclade R1a-Z2125, which he traces to the Scythian ancestors based on a convergent number of analogies. This work (May 2017) is the first that, absent paleogenetic testing, provides a first deduced evidence on the genetic affiliation of the Scythians. With the ethnic affiliation of the Scythians still stubbornly discussed, and on the background of consistent ducking and retreating of the Scytho-Iranian, aka Scytho-Ossetian, theory, the identification of a specific haplogroup subclade, with its unique history of development and migrations, is a giant nail into the coffin of the fake theories and their propaganda machinery.

Probably, among the best scholastic arguments of the author is the reference to the Sekler (Székely) people, a very significant ethnic group of the Scythian descendents from the Scythia Magna in the territory of the modern Rumania. Known from the time of Phillip, the father of the Alexander the Macedonian, the Scythia Magna had survived for 2200 years, in the early Middle Ages bridging Hungary to the north and Danube Bulgaria to the south. With the de-Turkification of the Danube Bulgaria, the Dobruja Scythia was left alone. It was incorporated into Hungary for 800 years, till the dismemberment of the Hungary, and the transfer of the Sekler lands to the newly formed Rumania. Seklers gave Hungary its runic script, which was attested in use as late as 1699. The name Sekler already contains the ethnonym S'k known from the appellations Saka and Scythian, with a Türkic plural suffix -lar, validating their Scythian identity. We also know from the Chinese annals that the tribe Tujue (Türk) led by the Ashina clan, that gave the name to the polity, the Türkic people, and the Türkic linguistic family, was an offshoot of the tribe Se (Saka). That record comes from the time when the Chinese had already learned the intricacy of the Türkic (Scythian in our context) ethnic structure, and artfully used it.

Page numbers are at the end of the page; they follow the pagination of the version published in Russian. Posting's notes and explanations, added to the original text and not noted specially, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes. Green highlight mark unrelated to the contents passages that are completely out of whack with objective analysis, and instead reflect on the author's beliefs. To accentuate context, subtitles were added to the sections of the original text.

Igor Rozhanskii
THE LITHUANIAN TATARS. DNA ANCESTRY TRACED TO THE EURASIAN STEPPES
Scythian Y-DNA
Analysis of a representative Y-DNA dataset of the Lithuanian Tatars has led to the conclusions that
(i) at least 2/3 of its members paternally descend from the inhabitants of the steppe belt of the Kipchak Khanate (aka Golden Horde), who spoke Kipchak languages and belonged to various branches of the haplogroups R1a, J2, Q1a and R1b;
(ii) the principal Y-DNA lineages of the Lithuanian Tatars originate from the Scythian tribes, which occupied the Eurasian steppe zone during the Iron Age; and
(iii) an emergence of the Kypchak branch of the Türkic languages ​​may be attributed to a Turkification of one group of the originally Scythian tribes, judging by the predominance without any exception of the R1a-Z2125 subclade among all Kypchak branches.
The latter proposal suggests a critical re-evaluation of the existing models of the Kipchak ethnic history.
An appropriate kind advice to the item (iii)'s latter proposal would be to attend to the history of the As and Tuhsi (Tokhars) horse nomadic constituent tribes of the Türkic Kaganates and the Kipchak confederation. The Kipchak confederation migrated to the Eastern Europe around 10th c. AD and entered into a love-hate relations with the incipient Rus principality.

The travel necessities supplied to the deceased of the Kipchak uniquely distinct kurgan burials attest to their Tengrian religion at the time of the 10th c. AD migration. The travel necessities supplied to the deceased of the Kipchak kurgan burials attest to their Tengrian religion at the time of the 10th c. AD migration.

Keywords: Lithuanian Tatars, Lithuania, Tatars, DNA, nomads.
1715

In the center of Europe, surrounded by Belarusians, Poles, and Lithuanians, lives a small (about 12 thousand people) people, whose existence is breaking accepted definitions of ethnology. They are Lithuanian (or Polish-Lithuanian) Tatars who do not differ neither by their lifestyle nor appearance from their neighbors, who lost their original Türkic language more than 400 years ago, and largely changed their religion (Sunni Islam), but retained their ethnic self-awareness and a memory of their roots. According to numerous documentary records, they are descendent population of the Kipchak Khanate, who switched to the service of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) primarily in the late 14th - early 15th cc. The regiments of the light Tatar cavalry proved to be a valuable addition to the heavily armed cavalry, a basis of the Polish-Lithuanian army of that era. This is not a sole case when the nomads of the Eurasian steppes enlisted in the service of the European monarchs and settled in the territory of their countries, but only the Lithuanian Tatars managed not to dissolve among the surrounding peoples, and retain their national identity. This phenomenon attracted attention of the historians from the time when some chroniclers tried to explain a defeat of the Teutonic Order in the Battle of Grunwald by the German knights confronted by allegedly innumerable Tatar hordes.

Tatars - lit. stranger, foreigner, alien was a Türkic generic term with negative connotations, applied to a range of entities: Persians, Persian Jews, Mongolish tribes not necessarily of Mongolic descent (i.e. Thirty Tatars confederation, 7th c.), etc. The Türkic allies (i.e. the Kipchaks warning The Rus friends strangers are coming, let's join forces and beat them off , 13th c.) and the Türkic component (i.e. Oguzes, Brodniks, etc.) of the 13th c. Rus used the term Tatars for the invaders, that term was assimilated into the early Russian precisely with the supraethnic meaning of a stranger. The ensuing colonizing troops of the 16th-19th cc. used that term well into the 19th c., before they gained familiarity with the ethnic appellations of their victims, independent of the ethnic affiliation of their prey, and any non-Russian-speaking or non-Christian could have been called Tatars. Only the introduction of a mass passportization in the last decades of the 19th c. codified the Türkic-speaking populace of the empire into the ethnic Tatars, Bashkirs, etc. The chauvinistic ad hock colonial labeling created problems that pursued, covertly and overtly, the Former Russian empire, the Former Soviet Union, and now the Russian state. Across Europe, the modern term Tatars is synonymous with Türkic people without regard for the ethnic affiliation, thus any Siberian Kipchak or at the same time is a Siberian Tatar. The term is eidetic to the term Indian during the Indian Wars in the USA.

The heavily armed cavalry was a traditional Sarmat heavy cavalry, it was always combined with the numerous traditional Sarmat light cavalry, and since the preceding millennium saw extensive relocations and migrations, genetically they were much like the native tribes of the Kipchak Khanate with dynamic provenance. In 200 years they switched to local languages, and barring their national self-consciousness, in 400 years they would be classed as native Slavs, or Poles, or Lithuanians, and many of them, like their kins Suvorov and Kutuzov, would become the ardent Slavic (Indo-European in today's linguistic lingo) patriots.

Although the history of individual Lithuanian-Tatar gentry lines is known from documents on the transfer of their ancestors to the Lithuanian service, there is little information on the whole on the Lithuanian Tatars ancestors' places of origin and ethnic background. A solution of that puzzle was helped by a turn to the data from the population genetics collected during field research (Pankratov 2016) and obtained from the commercial Lithuanian Tatars Nobility Project (Dumin 2016). Both studies noted the contribution of the Y-chromosome lines of the Central and East Asian origin, but differed in assessing that contribution, and the origin of other genealogical lines.

One more aspect of this problem can be of interest not only to the narrow GDL specialists, but also for all medieval historians. Due to the rather early isolation from their steppe kins, the Lithuanian Tatars had to retain a complement of genealogical lines of the steppe part of the Kipchak Khanate at the time of its rise and blossom.

Since the Tatar migration to the GDL was fairly massive, at the level of several thousand professional troops, the genealogical lines of their offspring can be a sample of their composition at the time of migration. And an analysis provides independent data in the reconstruction of the ethnic composition and the origin of the peoples who were instrumental in the historical course of the Eastern Europe and the North Caucasus in the 10th-15th cc.
1716

Despite a large amount of the available historical and linguistic material, many questions have no unambiguous answers. In particular, there is no truly convincing theory on the ethnogenesis of the Kypchak peoples, whose languages, for a short time by historical standards, supplanted all other languages of the Great Steppe. This paper analyses the currently available data on the Y-DNA of the Lithuanian Tatars to provide additional material for addressing the above problems.

Kypchak was a lingua franca of the Juchi Empire, and a language of a demographically significant portion of population, but the local languages continued their independent, and partly mobile, existence. Their traces, and few surviving documents attest to the independent existence not only of a variety of Slavic, Fennic, and a plethora of other languages, but also of the numerous Türkic languages. The thesis of language replacement follows the Russian historical narrative.

Methods and materials

Two independent samples were used as a starting material. The first was collected on condition of anonymity in Belarus among people whose ancestors beyond the 3rd generation were Lithuanian Tatars. This is a 74 haplotype test in the 17-mark format YFiler (Pankratov 2016). The second sample, published on the Lithuanian Tatars Nobility project, consists of 42 haplotype test in formats from 12 to 111 markers.

The project administrators personally selected participants with confirmed Lithuanian-Tatar origin, and made their names available. There are 32 in all, the results of tests for Y-DNA showed that not all of the namesake participants were close relatives, and conversely, as a rule the lines with recent common ancestor had participants with different surnames (In Russia, that was a result of passportization, surnames were assigned after the name of the grandfather, separating brothers into different lines.) Since one of the principal conditions for sampling, namely the absence of close kinship, was not controlled in the commercial DNA project, an additional verification is necessary as to how appropriate is its use for the task at hand. A distribution of haplotypes over haplogroups can be used as a criterion. If their shares are the same within a margin of error, both samples can be considered identical representatives and consistent with the principle of random selection. Statistics are shown below.

Haplogroup According to Pankratov, 2016, number of people According to Lithuanian Tatars Nobility Project, number of people Combined Combined
% (rounded)
G2a 3 4 7 6
I2a2 1 0 1 1
J1 4 1 5 4
J2 15 8 23 20
N 2 2 4 3
Q 6 6 12 10
R1a 36 17 53 46
R1b 7 4 11 9
74 42 116 100
 
It must be understood that the auxiliary troops came as a unit, with their supply train and support personnel. The support folks were drafted and were released at the end of the campaign. Every trooper had as a minimum a groom responsible for spare horses. The descendents of the support people who remained with the troops add to the Lithuanian Tatars statistics, and they indeed did represent some peasantry and artisans of the Kipchak Khanate, but ethnically they are unrelated to the subject of the study. The statistically significant haplogroups G2a, I2a2, J1, and J2 may point to the origin of the support personnel.

The Lithuanian Tatars most likely were, in today's parlance, the Cossacks, i.e. the freelancing units for hire on a contract, without allegiance to any particular ruler.

1717

Both samples include the same complement of haplogroups, and the most represented R1a has relative fractions of 50% and 40% respectively. The second largest haplogroup J2 yields 20% in both, and some scatter in the minor lines is within the statistical error. The data is consistent, allowing a combined analysis of both samples as a single whole. The total number of 116 samples of Y-DNA gives a test density of 1 to 500 for an ethnic group of about 12,000 people. This is a high indicator, surpassing the data from many studies of population genetics, which is considered to be classical. An analysis of a sample of the Lithuanian Tatars in the population geneticists study from Belarus (Pankratov 2016), also used data on the Y-DNA of other Türkic-speaking peoples, Nogais, Kazan Tatars, Azeris, Chuvashes, etc.. That data is also used as far as practicable.

The high proportion of J2 haplogroup may lead to its source in the Caucasus, giving indication of where the R1a came from. For example, the Nakhs, bordering on Savirs, have J2 proportion reaching 60%, and the Savir/Nakh sample would return R1a/J2 predominance. Same would be with the Bulgar/Nakh sample. Savirs are known for their traditional annual military campaigns, and for their mercenary service in numerous foreign armies, including Persian, Byzantine, and Khazar. It is unlikely that such uniformity of the genetic material can be formed elsewhere except for the congestion of the Caucasus valleys.

The horse nomads of the Karluk branch, Uigurs and Uzbeks, have significant proportion of J2 haplogroup, 34% and 30% respectively. Uigurs were a maternal dynastic tribe of the Huns, they supplanted the old maternal dynastic tribe Qian (Kian, Huyan, Kayi), and later became the paternal dynastic tribe of the Southern Huns in China (coup by Huhanie, 56 BC, Huhanie-Shanuy). After that turmoil, at the turn of the eras, Uigurs had a heavy presence in the Aral basin, from which they were displaced westward, along with Avars/Wars/Uars and Kangars, first by Türkic Kaganate, and then by the Oguz migration. They are good candidates for the compact fraction of the J2 of the Lithuanian Tatars.

First of all, statistics on the main haplogroups and subclades in the sample of Lithuanian Tatars should be considered and compared with data on relevant peoples. It is represented graphically in Fig. 1, where for the Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians and Kazakhs the source was the projects available on the Family Tree DNA website (https://www.familytreedna.com/projects.aspx), and for the Belarusians (Rozhansky 2013), Crimean Tatars (Muratov 2016 ) And the Kirgiz (Di Cristofaro 2013) from the published field samples.
1718

Fig. 1. Distribution of 12 major haplogroups and sub-clusters of Europe in samples of Lithuanian Tatars,
their surrounding peoples, and peoples of the Eurasian steppe zone

Approaching the statistical data formally, Lithuanian Tatars would occupy an intermediate position between the Eastern Slavs and the Türkic peoples, as was stated according to the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) in the population genetics article (Pankratov 2016, Supplementary Fig. 1). The authors concluded that the results of the PCA pointed to the mixed origin of the patrilineal pool in the Lithuanian Tatars, as it contains haplogroups typical of the Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia, along with those that are now common among Europeans. To understand whether this is really the case, and what is the actual degree of the Y chromosome lines' mix instead of all-averaging PCA should be used DNA genealogy's methods. Prior to the analysis, note that no East Asian haplogroups C2-M217 and O-M175 are contained in the available sample of the Lithuanian Tatars, in the Fig. 1 they are in the category other, and they constitute a significant proportion of the Kazakhs and Kirgizes. That will be needed in the subsequent discussion.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup R1a, 46%

Almost half of the Lithuanian Tatars from the joint sample belong to the haplogroup R1a, represented by subclades Z2125, M458 and Z280.

The distribution of 17-marker haplotypes along branches is shown in Fig. 2.
1719

Fig. 2. Tree of 17-marker haplotypes of Lithuanian Tatars of haplogroup R1a.
Added from the list in (Pankratov 2016) Nogais' and Volga Tatars' haplotypes are not labeled.

As follows from the structure of the tree, the same branches are present in both samples, and the seven participants of the Lithuanian Tatar Nobility project show exact coincidences on common markers with haplotypes collected on condition of anonymity in Belarus. This circumstance made it possible to clarify attribution of several lines from the field sample, typified by only 26 snips.

The Asian subclade R1a-Z2125 has two branches, whose ancestors' dating agrees with the timing of the Lithuanian Tatars' becoming a separate ethnic group. A group of 11 haplotypes on the right part of the tree belongs to the branch YP1542, widespread among the Kirgiz and Altaians. Its 17-marker base haplotype diverges by 2 mutations from the base haplotypes of the main Kirgiz branch from the field sample (Di Cristofaro 2013), which is dated by 1400300 years ago:

Lithuanian Tatars 13 25 15 11 11 14 10 14 11 32 15 14 21 12 15 11 23
Kirgizes              13 25 16 11 11 14 10 14 11 32 15 14 21 12 16 11 23

The land of Modern Kirgizstan, populated at the turn of the eras by the Saka (Saka means Mountaineer, Highlander in Türkic) and Usun tribes, was overrun by the Enisei Kirgizes (Khakasses) in the 8th c. AD. Since Kirgizstan is a natural mountain fortress of the Tian Shan mountains, it is an island similar to the Lithuanian Tatars, with high genetic inertia and limited influences. Essentially, all four are Scythians, the Saka Scythians, Usun Scythians, Enisei Kirgiz Scythians, and the Lithuanian Tatar Scythians. The Lithuanian Tatar branch returns the exact date of their split, 600 ybp. The other date of 1400 ybp coincides with the invasion of the Enisei Kirgizes in the 8th c.

The Altaians must be considered separately for the Northern Altaians and Southern Altaians, since their demographic histories are much different.

The neighboring group of 9 haplotypes belongs to the very rare branch R1a-S23201, carriers of which are found among Hungarian Seklers, Moldovans, Russians, Ukrainians, Kazan Tatars, Chechens, and also in the British Isles.

There is little that connects Seklers with Romance Moldovans, Slavic Russians and Ukrainians, Türkic Tatars, Hurro-Urartian Chechens, and the Saxons of the British Isles other than the trace of the Scythians, whose name or its echo had survived in the appellations Scythian, Saxon, Sekler, and also in the forms Szekler ([E]sek + lar [Tr. pl.]), Izgil, Esgel, Esegel, Eseg, Esgil, Ezgel, Askal, Scolot, Saka, Sakha, Chinese Asitsze, and probably as many more. Chinese chronicles assert that Ezgel was the strongest tribe of the Huns, whose leaders happened to be also marked by the R1a haplogroup. Thus, the circle closes, from R1a to distribution, to appellations, to Huns, and back to R1a. No IE's nor any Aryans are left a bloody chance.

The line also finds support of the Classical sources that reported that some Scythian and Cimmerian nomads found a refuge in the Jutland marshes, and the Late Antique Saxon migration to the British Isles. In Europe, the Herodotus' Scythian is a generic name for the horse nomads consisting of numerous tribes, each with its own appellation; in Persia, Saka is a tribal name, a specific appellation; the two should not be confused.

1720

The small number of the haplotypes and the large distances between them allow to estimate the timing of the common ancestor only approximately at 35001000 years ago. Their base haplotypes are, respectively:

Lithuanian Tatars 13 23 17 11 11 14 11 14 11 32 16 14 20 12 16 11 23
R1a-S23201       13 23 17 11 11 14 10 14 11 32 16 14 20 12 16 11 23

The older estimate comports with the westward departure time of the Scythian kurgans from the Minusinsk Depression established by the C14 dating. Some venturers went west, some went east, some went southwest, and some remained in situ. Nowadays their traces are coming to the front. They can be discerned: Scythians, Guties, Sakastan (Azerbaijan), Sakastan (Pakistan), Indo-Scythians, Xia, Zhou, all known under a Classical generic term of the 5th c. BC Scythians, then Huns, then Türks, then Tatars.
Wikipedia rendition

But before the Scythian ancestors reached the Minusinsk Depression, in the Balkan Carpathians they had learned the artisanship of bronze, and spread the art all the way to the Altai, traceable as the Eurasian Metallurgical Province (28-22 cc. BC), with a tongue to the Mesopotamia where they go under the appellation of Guties (23rd c. BC), and the East Asian Metallurgical Province (22-8 cc. BC) reaching into China.

Both branches belong to the subclade R1a-S23592, which is parallel to the well-studied R1a-Z2123, widely distributed in the Indian subcontinent and in a number of the Türkic-speaking peoples. It should also be noted that the parent branch of S23592 was identified in a fossil DNA sample under the code number RISE495 from the Krasnoyarsk Territory, referred to the Karasuk Bronze Age culture (Allentoft 2015, V. Tagankin, private communication). Thus, there is no doubt that both considered lines of the Lithuanian Tatars ascend to the peoples who settled the eastern part of the Eurasian steppes from the Bronze Age during the Aryan migrations.

The Karasuk people could be a fraction of the R1a Corded Ware farmer migrants, but then they would not be Türkic-speaking. Or they could be a fraction of the R1a Türkic-speaking Timber Grave horse nomad migrants. In both cases, a part of their  R1a-S23592 subclade would remain with their parent population. Until it is found there as a meaningful evidence, the source of the Indian R1a-S23592 is from a local migration and Türkic in origin.

However, the quantity of the haplogroup R1a steppe branches in this sample are fewer than that of the Central European subclade R1a-M458, which led the authors of the Scientific Reports article to a conclusion of the Lithuanian Tatars' Y-chromosome lines admixed nature. Albeit such conclusion seems to be axiomatic, it conflicts with a number of facts. First, the 17-marker tree of haplotypes shows two compact branches which converge to dating significantly beyond the time of the appearance of Tatar settlements in the GDL. If they had arisen by conflating with the surrounding Slavic population, the times of their ancestors' lives were about 600 years ago and later, or they would have been close to the dating of these branches among the Slavs, that is about 2300-2700 years ago. Secondly, the sample Blt27 at the top of the diagram is in close kinship with the Karanogais from the Dagestan and the Itil Tatars, in no way connected with Byelorussia. That group of 5 haplotypes coincides by common markers with a group of three Kazan Tatars from the Tatar project FTDNA, whose common ancestor lived 400170 years ago, and for which is confirmed a West Slavic branch of L260. Obviously, they all descend from a common Tatar ancestor, whose further genealogy is yet unknown. Thirdly, the same can be said of the group of the Lithuanian Tatars, Karanogais, a Kuban Nogay and a Volga Tatar in the lower part of the diagram. The following chain of snips was established for one of them:

R1a-M458 > PF7521 > CTS11962 > L1029 > YP417 > YP418 > YP1137.
1721

According to data from the FTDNA haplogroup project, the YP1137's parent branch YP418 stands out from the entire Central European branch (CTS11962) in that it is extremely rare among the Western Slavs, but dominates among the Russians, Ukrainians and Bulgars, who, in turn, have few other branches. As in the case of the Tatar line L260, the ancestor of that branch obviously also belonged to one of the Türkic-speaking peoples. Finally, the scenario with the recent change of the subclade M458 lines from the Belarusians to the Lithuanian Tatars contradicts the unusual selectivity of such transfer. The branches of the primarily Central European subclade M458 are widely spread among the Belarusians, but their share (about 15%) is smaller than that of the subclade R1a-Z280 (35%) and is compatible with contributions of the branches N1c-L1025 and I2a-CTS10228. In the 19 haplotypes R1a-M458 sample of the Lithuanian Tatars are 5 R1a-Z280, one or two N1c-L1025 and not a single I2a-CTS10228. In the population genetics such imbalance is usually attributed to the founder effect, but this explanation is akin to the textbook's rope is a simple cord. Interpretation should not suffer truisms and strains.

The date of 400170 marks a major turning point in the history of the Eastern Europe. The Kipchak Khanate fractioned, dynasties fell and rose, the daughter principalities fought for dominance, and the Rus principality grew into Russia after the Troubles period. The turmoil caused major demographic shifts and relocations. The policy of aggressive chains of bulwarks () pushing pastoralists away from the center caused major dislocations, mass pauperization and further dislocations. A reverse flow of dislocated pauperized populace into the service to the rising powers churned further the demographic picture. The disordered backflow masses did not need 200 years to lose their language and turn into newly minted Slavs, adding to the mass of the Slavs minted during the Rus period. Polities came to an end, populations had survived.

The split of the haplogroup zone into two islands separated by a wedge, like the R1a-YP418 or Corded ware wedged by Globular Amphora, attests to major demographic migrations. It illustrates the nonsense of the western, European, and the like categories and labels. A brother in the west is not a western brother, it is just a brother with a new hat.

(end of the Scythian/Lithuanian Tatar R1a-S23592 section)
1722

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup J2, 20%

Fig. 3. Tree of 17-marker haplotypes of the Lithuanian Tatars from haplogroup J2.
Added from the list in (Pankratov 2016) haplotypes of the Nogais, Volga Tatars,
Mordovians, Mari, Chuvash, and Bashkirs, are not labeled.

The pertinence of the haplogroup J2 to the issue of Scythians rests on the tentative origin of the haplogroup from the Central Asia, and its possibility of being one of the Scythian haplogroups.

The second haplogroup in the sample is J2-M172. Its significant share (23 out of 114 haplotypes) obviously made a main contribution to the PCA calculation, bringing the Lithuanian Tatars closer to the peoples of the North Caucasus. However, such blunt approach is inadmissible, since the haplogroup J2 diverges into dozens of far-flung branches, many not related to the Caucasus at all. In the cited paper (Pankratov 2016) the issue of attribution to the haplogroup J2 branch was left out, voiding conclusions drawn by the authors. Apparently, to somehow compensate for the deficiency, examining the haplogroup J2 authors turned to a large number of haplotypes among other peoples: Nogais, Volga Tatars, Mordvins, Mari, Chuvashes and Bashkirs.
1723

A summary tree for the entire multinational sample is shown in Fig. 3.

Contrary to the population geneticists' graphs, the Lithuanian Tatars practically have no branches typical for the North Caucasus. In the left and at the bottom of the diagram are 6 disparate haplotypes attributable to the subclades J2b-L283, J2a-PF5197, J2a-M67 and J2a-L25. The type of four 12-marker haplotypes from the Lithuanian Tatar Nobility project not included in the tree is unclear, except for one identified as J2a-L192. The remaining 13 haplotypes form a compact branch with an ancestor from the era of Kipchak hegemony in the Eurasian steppes. This genealogical line stands apart from other cases of haplogroup J2 in the Eastern Europe, since it does not belong to any featured subclades of the L283, M67 and L25. The SNP Pack in analysis of the J-M172 (J2-M172) finds this snip sequence:

L26> PF5087> Z2221> PF5197> PF5172> PF5191> FGC16096> S15439.

The J2 Haplogroup Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/j2-m172/about) registered only 3 participants with a confirmed snip S15439, its equivalent L198 was determined for 9 participants, for another 6 haplotypes was confirmed a higher snip FGC16096. The project administrators included remaining cases of these branches by a similarity of extended haplotypes.

The structure and geography of the branch FGC16096 is presented in the following scheme (Figure 4).
1724

Fig. 4. Tree of 37-marker haplotypes of subclade J2-FGC16096

It is possible to estimate how far three compact lines of the branch S15439 from Saudi Arabia (1000200 years before the common ancestor), Switzerland (875210 years) and Lithuania (850260 years) diverge. Here are their basic 37-marker haplotypes, in the same sequence:

12 23 14 10 13-15 11 13 12 13 11 29 15 9-9 11 11 26 15 20 29 13-13-15-15 11 10 19- 22 14 14 16 16 34-38 11 9
12 23 14 10 14-15 11 13 13 13 11 29 15 9-9 11 11 26 15 19 30 13-15-16-16 10 11 19- 22 15 14 17 15 35-38 11 9
13 23 14 10 13-18 11 15 13 14 11 30 17 9-9 12 11 24 15 21 32 14-15-16-16 11 11 19- 22 15 13 16 17 34-34 12 9

They form a triangle with sides in 31, 29 and 14 mutations, where the short side corresponds to the distance between the Arab and the Swiss group. This means that the Lithuanian-Tatar branch diverged from the others 7300 years ago or earlier. Since it belongs to the subclade J2a-PF5197, which is specific for the Asia Minor and South Asia, the most likely choices are the Central Asia and the adjacent step belt.
1725

The remaining haplogroups found in the sample of Lithuanian Tatars are noticeably inferior in numbers to R1a and J2, but among them also are a number of lines that can give information about the origin of this ethnic group. They are presented in graphical form in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. A minor haplogroups tree of 17-marker haplotypes of Lithuanian Tatars.
The added from the list in (Pankratov 2016) haplotypes of Armenians and Azerbaijanis are not labeled.

The branches of haplogroups Q (10%), R1b-M73 (3 ea) R1b-Z2103 (2 ea), marked in Fig. 5, are found in many peoples of the Great Steppe, and therefore their appearance in the Lithuanian Tatars is quite natural. It is curious that all three representatives of R1b-M73 subclade appear to belong to the branch identified in the remains of the Mongol nobility of the Mongol Empire times sensationalized by journalists who were not too familiar with the subject (Lkhagvasuren 2016).

Chingiz-khan, via a Borjigin ancestor, was from the Uigur dynastic House of Yaglakar (aka Djalairs/Jalayir/Jalair), descendents of the Türkic Kaganate's maternal dynastic tribe of Ezgils, and supposedly belonged to the Uigur Yaglakar Y- DNA haplogroup, conjecturally directly related to the Sekler's R1a-Z2125 haplogroup. Aside from the direct Chingiz-khan line, the Mongol nobility included nukers from the Tatar and Mongol cosmopolitan society, more adventurers and cossacks than the hereditary nobility. First, the R1b-M73 Y- DNA haplogroup would fit nicely into that assemblage, and second, demographically nobility would leave a larger trail than individual commoners.
 
1726

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup R1b-L51, 5 ea, 4%

The origin of the second line from the West European subclade R1b-L51 is still unclear due to low resolution.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup R1b-L51, 5 ea, 4%

The R1b-L51/M412/S167 origin is related to the Celtic migration to Iberia and eastward spread from Iberia to across Europe. With the timespan to the common ancestor in the range of 5300700 ybp, at that time it straddles the Siberia and Europe. Timewise, it precedes migration routes of the R1b from Asia Minor and the Middle East to Europe that mainly happened between 4500 and 3500 ybp (Klyosov 2012).

With that background, it is obvious that this subclade is an inheritance of the Celtic presence in the Central Europe, and a guest in the Lithuanian Tatars population. Even if the two descendant populations had originated from the same village, after combined 9400 years of separation (2X4700), chances that they could recognize their erstwhile kinship would be nil, like that of a poodle and a wolf.

 
  1726

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup G2a-L1264, 6% (Irrelevant guest)

The origin of the young line from the G2a-L1264 branch is not so obvious.

If we literally interpret statistics on modern peoples, this line should be attributed to recent migrants from the North Caucasus, since the L1264 branch is one of the main genealogical lines of Adygea-Abkhazian peoples, and is also prevalent in Georgia. However, the finding of haplogroup G2 (the subcomponent was not determined) in the burials of the Don Alan of the 8th century AD. show that 600-700 years before the migration of Tatars to the GDL, this haplogroup existed in the territory of the future Kipchak Khanate (Afanasyev 2015).

The subject of Alans was a key and hot topic in the Soviet pseudo-science in search for the Slavic past. For that, the Alans, whose appellation in Türkic is synonymous with As and means plain, steppe, field and such, were rechristened into linguistic Indo-Europeans. The stepping stone was to identify Alans with Scythians. The second was to connect Ossetes with Alans and by implication with Scythians. And the third was to proclaim the Adyge Ossetes as Iranic Indo-Europeans. The Don Alans is an extension of the prime sequence, to place the linguistic Indo-Europeans in the Eurasian steppe belt. Historically, the Don Alans area was populated by Savirs, called Severyans in the Slavic annals. Savirs played a crucial role in the history of the early Duchy of Rus. The Alans/Ases and the Savirs were typical horse nomads, constituents of the Khazar Kaganate, at times called generically Scythians by the Classical writers. Alans aka Ases and Savirs aka Suvars were locals in the Aral-Caspian area, and could include a fair dosage of the local haplogroup G2a.

The geography of the G2a-L1264 branch outside the Caucasus proves the same. It is scattered with low frequency among the eastern Slavs, Tatars and Ashkenazi Jews, which is more in line with the early steppe origin of these rare lines than with the relatively recent migration from the North Caucasus.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup N, 3% (Irrelevant guest)

The sample has only three haplotypes of the haplogroup N, of which one belongs to the subclade P43 common among the Türkic peoples. The attribution of the other two is unclear due to low resolution.

The anthropological study of T. Chikisheva, 2010, demonstrated amalgamation of the Timber Grave horse nomadic migrants with the South-Western Siberian hunter-gatherer sparse local population, the likely candidates for the haplogroup N common among the Türkic peoples.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup I2a2-M223, 1% (Irrelevant guest)

On the origin of the only sample of the haplogroup I2a2-M223, which is rare in Eastern Europe, is difficult to draw any conclusions.

Since haplogroup I2a2-M223 is local in Poland, there appears no need to go too far. But it was found in the Pit Grave burials, hence it was around associated with the predominant R1b of the Kurgan culture, and could have survived through the Timber Grave stage, round trip migration to the Altai/Minusinsk, and be a constituent of the Scythian Kurganians.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup J1-58, 4% (Irrelevant guest)

Finally, the remaining two groups consist of close relatives with unlikely both steppe and Slavic origins. The first, of the haplogroup J1-P58, the authors of the cited article tried to draw from the Caucasus, apparently guided by the PCA calculation. Since they could not find any of the P58 subclade in the North Caucasus (where is located the parallel Z1828), for comparative haplotypes were taken those of the Armenians and Azeris. For some unknown reason, remained outside of the study the people from the same settlements with the Lithuanian Tatars for the last 600 years, the Ashkenazim Jews. The base haplotype of one of the Ashkenazim branches of the haplogroup J1, namely J-FGC5206, exactly coincides with the base haplotypes of the Lithuanian Tatars group:

12 23 14 10 13 17 11 13 11 31 17 14 20 11 15 10 20

Evidently, the genealogy line ascends to the East European Jews, but its details are still unknown.

The Eastern European Jews in Khazaria are routinely called Khazars and Ashkenazim Jews, whose concocted origin from the west encounters some major biological and psychological problems.

Lithuanian Tatars haplogroup R1b-L51, 5 ea, 4%

The origin of the second line from the West European subclade R1b-L51 is still unclear due to low resolution.

The R1b-L51/M412/S167 origin is related to the Celtic migration to Iberia and its eastward spread from Iberia to across Europe. With the timespan to the common ancestor in the range of 5300700 ybp, at that time it straddles the Siberia and Europe. Timewise, it precedes migration routes of the R1b from Asia Minor and the Middle East to Europe that mainly happened between 4500 and 3500 ybp (Klyosov 2012).

With that background, it is obvious that this subclade is an inheritance of the Celtic presence in the Central Europe, and a guest in the Lithuanian Tatars population. Even if the two descendant populations had originated from the same village, after combined 9400 years of separation (2X4700), chances that they could recognize their erstwhile kinship would be nil, like that of a poodle and a wolf.

Conclusion

According to the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that from 65% to 85% of Lithuanian Tatars from the joint sample in their male ancestors ascend to the peoples who inhabited the Kipchak Khanate at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries. The differences relate mainly to haplotypes from the R1a-M458 subclade in low resolution. In favor of their carriers also ascending to migrants from the Eurasian steppes, attests statistics on the Nogais (Shalyaho 2013) and Circassians (Balanovsky 2011) carrying not typed for deeper snips haplotypes of R1a-M485, and also a sole Balkar haplotype from the Karachay-Balkarian project (set no. 307200, https://www.familytreedna.com/public/KBalkarDNA/default.aspx?section =yresults) of a very rare parental line of the R1a-M458.

Nogais, Circassians, and Karachays are politonyms or toponyms, their names do not reflect their ethnicity, nor the origin. Balkars are positively identified with Alans according to their own appellation and the appellations of their neighbors, including Ossetes. Same with Karachays, who are identified with Ases by their appellation. But both groups are so admixed and interspersed that most of their haplotypes are unrelated to their origin.

The nomadic Nogais are predominantly associated with the Kazakh tribes of the Aral-Caspian area, the home of the Alans. The Kipchak Khanate Nogai tribes were allocated pasturing territories in return for their military service as cossack armies. The terms Kazakh and Cossack are synonyms, difference in spelling is conditional to differentiate the groups, they mean a freelancing mercenary. Under their tribal names they were included in the various policies of the Aral-Caspian area, and were either victims or victors of the demographic upheavals. Whatever was their ethnic nuclei, they kept contracting and diluting. The chances that the nomadic local R1a haplogroups were numerously supplanted by the local Near Eastern haplogroups of the J and G type are greatly higher than the chances of their retaining the R1a predominance. Thus, their R1a complement floats at about 10%. The marker of Scythian proper there can only be accidental.

Circassians of the Adyge line are traditional farmers, they can't be used for genetic comparison with nomadic pastoralists.

The diminutive Karachays and Balkars are so much diluted that their original nucleus is a pale hint of their past. Like Nogais, they are but a tiny spec of the populace widely dispersed, mostly in Europe.

Genetic comparisons are a convoluted task, without reliable benchmarks conclusions are very tentative.

1727

The version on the recent origin of the Kuban and Terek Cossacks appears to be obvious, but it does not agree neither with the factual history of the Türkic peoples in the North Caucasus, nor with the dating of the sample branches (Figure 2).

Comparison of the current distribution of haplogroups presented in the sample and the data of the fossil DNA shows that the entire body of the steppe genealogical lines can be divided into Western and Eastern parts. The Western includes branches G2a-L1264, R1a-M458, R1b-Z2103, J2b-L283, and possibly also some participants from the branches R1a-Z280 and J2a. The Eastern includes R1a-S23592, R1b-M73, J2a-S15439, Q1a, and Q1b.

The modern quantitative relationship of these lines, fundamentally important in the PCA calculation, is of a secondary importance in the reconstruction by the methods of DNA genealogy (that reunites distant samples by familial connections). During 600 years' of the Tatar subethnos existence in the GDL, the original proportions changed several times: some initial lines grew faster, some slower, and many ended without descendants in the modern population. That is, happened what is called a genetic drift. For that reason, the principal historical information about Kipchak Khanate peoples is borne not by the percentage of particular genealogical lines in the modern sample, but by the very existence of such lines and the dating of their ancestors.

The Eastern group of branches links the Lithuanian Tatars with the peoples speaking Kypchak languages ​​- Kirgiz, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Karachais and Balkars, which also have these branches, although in different proportions. The origin of the Western group probably should be connected with the population of the Eastern Europe, which repopulated again the steppe zone after the demographic crisis at the turn of the 3rd-2nd mill. BC. That is evidenced by the timing of the corresponding branches' ancestors for the haplogroups G2a, J2b, R1a and R1b, which fall into a narrow interval of 4200-3800 years ago. According to archaeological data, between 4200 and 4000 years ago in the European steppe zone burials disappear, but they appear in the Southern Urals, marking the Sintashta culture (Anthony 2007). Paleoclimatologists record unusually strong drought in the Middle East beginning about 4,200 years ago and lasting for about 100 years (DeMenocal 2001). The consequences of the drastic climatic change, in addition to the fall of the Akkadian kingdom in Mesopotamia and the Old Kingdom in Egypt, apparently include an outmigration from the desertified steppes. When the drought was over, people returned, but those already were different tribes, whose descendants lived there till the next radical change of population at the sunset of the Kipchak Khanate.
1728

Over the past time from the Bronze Age epoch their genealogical lines have commingled in many ways with the lines from the east, including those that, after making a circle, returned to places that had once left.

The dating of R1a/R1b haplogroups clearly divulges their migratory routs. Born about 20,000 ybp, the Neolithic R1a stayed in Central Asia for 10,000 years, then split, and a fraction migrated westward, arriving in Europe via Balkans before the Black Sea flood. It grew and dispersed in Europe, reaching significant relative importance, graduated to farming, graduated to the Bronze Age technology, changed its vernaculars to the local Old Europe languages, and split again with the arrival of its R1b sister. The Western European fraction was largely wiped out 5,000 ybp by the newcomer R1b, but a refugee fraction survived by fleeing to the Eastern Europe, where it formed the Corded Ware culture and encountered its Türkic-speaking horse nomadic fraction. The two R1a fractions of different downstream haplotype lines coexisted at different social and economic levels, the mounted horse nomads inevitably had to rule over the sedentary farmers. Another split happened 4,000 ybp, the splinters headed southeast to become the Indo-Aryans of the South-Central Asia. With some lesser changes, the map stabilized to its present state.

The Neolithic R1a and R1b remained in Central Asia for 15,000 years, then split, and a fraction migrated westward, reaching Eastern Europe via Urals 7,000 ybp. The R1a and R1b grew and dispersed across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, reaching significant relative importance, graduated to animal husbandry, initiated Kurgan culture, refined and disseminated the Bronze Age technology across Eurasia, retained and spread its Türkic vernaculars, and 5,000 ybp sent out a tongue of R1b Celtic migrants on a circum-Mediterranean route to the Western Europe, which started a reverse
eastward dissemination. The eastward R1b and westward R1a/R1b flows across Europe 5,000 ybp largely wiped out the local Old Europe populace, driving its remnants far northward and eastward, and creating the Corded Ware culture island that span the northwestern and northeastern Europe. A wedge of the Celtic R1b split the island into two, western and eastern islands. A recursive process of local amalgamation and new R1a/R1b Kurgan migrations kept the Eurasian demography boiling for 3000-4000 years, well into the historical times, and taking the map to its present state.

There were numerous other splits, one of the oldest downstream R1a subclades was found way east of the Central Asia.

Funny, the Western samples used to be eastern, the migration dates and directions are well established, and the Eastern only differ from the Western by the divergent subclades. Apparently, the author's zero ordinate is the Corded Ware, the Eastern before the Corded Ware are the Western, and the Eastern after Corded Ware are the Eastern.

In the six millennia between the 9th mill. and 3rd mill. the eastern R1a people, but not their Y-DNA, had westernized in language and biology, to a level of different human species. The R1b Western Celtic and Germanic people retained much more in common with the Eastern R1b people in language, spirit, and traditions. That trend was helped by practically total amalgamation of the massive Eastern R1a Kurgan milieu (Huns, Avars, and their affiliates) with the western European populations, bringing new injection of the Kurgan language, biology, spirit, and traditions.

An archeologically large difference between the first migration of the R1a to Europe and the last migrations of the 1st mill. AD was that the first migrants were pre-Kurgan, and the post-6th mill BC migrations, including those of the 1st mill. AD, were Kurgan with kurgan and megalithic burials. All these west-east relations throw a monkey wrench into the European self-centered primacy, legendary Aryans, Indo-European linguistic equilibristics, parochial patriotism, and other super-duper constructs.

Due to historical circumstances, the mixed character of the population of the Black Sea steppes of the late Middle Ages was largely conserved in the Lithuanian Tatars. This is the uniqueness of their position, since in other kindred peoples the replacement of the original genealogical lines was much more intensive.

For example, the Itil autochthonous lines prevail among the Kazan Tatars, the local Caucasian haplogroups prevail among the Türkic-speaking peoples of the North Caucasus, and the Mongolian tribes, the ancestors of the modern Kalmyks (Karzhavin 2009), contributed significantly to the ethnogenesis (and phenotype) of the Kazakhs.

The first to note is the absence in the sample of the haplogroups of East Asian origin (C2 and O), and a very low proportion of the haplogroup N, which is a marker of migrations from the Altai (sic!) for many Türkic peoples. Although their extinction can be attributed to a genetic drift, such selectivity is likely an indicator that there also were few of them in the initial populations, which increases the likelihood of washing away such lines. The haplogroups Q1b, Q1a-M25 and R1b-M73, although present in the Altai and Mongolia, according to statistics tend to gravitate towards the Central Asia, where they probably were born. The possible Central Asian origin of the branch J2a-S15439 has already been mentioned above, and the migratory paths of the R1a-Z93 branch, ancestral to R1a-Z2125, from the Eastern European Plain to the East are reliably reconstructed from the sum of the available data (Klyosov, 2016).

Since there is strong evidence that the original language of the Lithuanian Tatars belonged to the Kipchak group of the Türkic languages ​​(Pankratov 2016, Supplementary Information Text), obviously their main component was the Kypchak people, known in Old Rus sources under a collective name Polovtsians (), with an accent on the last syllable (Zaliznjak 2014, page 649).

Their ethnogenesis in many respects remains a mystery, and the specialists' consensus exists only on the origin place of the Türkic languages ​​recorded in the earliest written sources. From the paleographic material and medieval chronicles, the original habitat of the Türkic peoples is usually placed in the upper course of the Ob and Enisei, where nowadays live Tuvans, Khakases, Chulyms, Karagases (Tofalars), Shors, Tubalars, Kumandins, Chelkans, and Altai-kiji (https://www.ethnologue.com/country/RU/languages) Despite the linguistic kinship, they show significant differences in their Y-chromosome lines (Derenko 2008, Balaganskaya 2011, Dulik 2012, Underhill 2014).

In the six millennia between the 9th mill. and 3rd mill. the eastern R1a people, but not their Y-DNA, had westernized in language and biology, to a level of different human species. The R1b Western Celtic and Germanic people westernized to a lesser degree, and retained much more in common with the Eastern R1b people in language, spirit, and traditions. That trend was helped by practically total amalgamation of the massive Eastern R1a Kurgan milieu (Huns, Avars, and their affiliates) with the western European populations, bringing new injection of the Kurgan language, biology, spirit, and traditions.

However, following the specialists' consensus, paleographic material and medieval chronicles methods, the origin of the R1b Celtic language, for example, would be located not in the Eastern Europe, from where they started their migration 6,000 ybp, and not in Siberia from where they started their migration 8,000 ybp, but probably in the Northwestern Europe, where the earliest records by the Classics of the European literacy document their presence. The Corded Ware was not noted by the European Classics, hence it did not exist to bear the majority of the modern Europeans. This limping logics is remarkable for its selectivity, profanity, intentional myopia, and self-serving methods destined for ridicule.

1729

In various, often contrasting proportions, the indigenous peoples of Altai and Sayan have the haplogroups C2, D, O2, Q1a-L53, N, R1a, and R1b, and for many of them can be discerned young branches with ancestral dates of 1000-1500 years ago. An analysis of the available 17-marker haplotypes (Dulik 2012, Underhill 2014) shows that the sample of Lithuanian Tatars has only the subclades R1a-S23592 and Q1a-L53 (branch L330), and a single haplotype of the subclade N-P43.

Since the Altai population nearly completely changed since the Russian conquest in the 17th c., the popgenetic surveys depict the demographic conditions in the modern Altaian mirror that reflects the genetic situation after latest mass migrations to the Altai. To sort out who brought what, samples must be specific to the ethnic seoks (clans, tribes of shared kinship). Many of the Russian-given ethnic names, like the Altaians, have nothing to do with ethnicities, and only confuse or obfuscate the ethnic picture, and that overlays the confusion brought about by the urbanization and pauperization of the indigenous population. The once ubiquitous and mighty Tele tribe, for example, was nearly completely wiped out in the 17th c., and only a tiny remnant had survived by fleeing to the Altai mountains. Tele must be tested as Tele, Teleuts, Telenguts, and Teleses, not as Altaians.

L.P. Potapov lists the following ethnicities of the pre-conquest Altaians:
Chiks
Teleuts
Enisei Kyrgyzes
Tuvinians
Argyns
Mongols
Naimans
Ases and Tuhas (Tochars)
Telenguts
Teleses
Kumandy
Chelkandy

Even that resolution would not be sufficient for a deeper look, but at least it would enable, as a next step, to increase resolution down to the complement of the main historical tribes. A rational testing is needed to obtain rational results and come to rational conclusions.

From that observation can be drawn a preliminary conclusion that either the Altai population underwent radical changes in the post-Mongol era, when the Lithuanian Tatars already settled on their new lands, or the contribution of the inhabitants of this region to the ethnogenesis of the Kypchak peoples was comparatively small. Based on the data on fossil DNA, the first variant is quite likely, since several dozen carriers of the haplogroup R1a were found in graves from the Bronze Age to the early Middle Ages, but only single samples from haplogroup C (Keyser 2009, S07 sample), J2a-PF5050 (Allentoft 2015, C. Rottensteiner, private communication, sample RISE602), N-P43 (Pilipenko 2015) and Q1a-M25 (Allentoft 2015, samples of RISE600 and RISE601).

Both conclusions apply. They are not mutually exclusive. As for the Altai contribution to the Kipchak DNA, it is the other way around, the Kipchak contribution to the modern Altai population is small, because by the time of the Altai's repopulation, Kipchaks centuries before that migrated westward reaching the Balkans and the Central Europe. The fossil haplogroup R1a from prominent kurgans may belong to the mass migration of the Hunnic refugees after the Huhanie revolt in 56 BC and Chinese attempt to exterminate the old Hunnic hierarchy.

The available statistics, however, do not yet allow us to assess how significant was the preponderance of the Scythian branches of R1a-Z93 in the region and at what time they were partially replaced by the East Asian haplogroups C2, O2, N-P43, and Q1a-L53. The likelihood of the second possibility, of the Kypchaks' origin outside the Altai, directly depends on the still fragmentary data on the fossil DNA of the Eurasian steppe peoples during the Middle Ages. It is closely intertwined with the so-called problem of the Alan inheritance, which is one of the hot topics in the history of the North Caucasus.

The so-called problem of the so-called Alan inheritance is the Russian, and since late also at least partially the Ossetian claim on the nomadic Alans/Ases as ancestors of the Ossetian Irons. The problem essentially pertains to the Russian claim on the Indo-Europeanism of the Alans as a stake for the entitlement to the ownership of the N. Pontic territories. Largely, all Ossetians use Caucasian substrate (Adyge) vernaculars as Ossetian lingua franca, but the differences between the titular Iron and secondary Digor languages are lexically tremendous, they are mutually incomprehensible, attesting to incompatible origins. The same is attested by the Y-DNA. Other than the might of the Russian political and academical machinery nothing supports the so-called problem of the Alan inheritance.
S. Ossetia Ironians N. Ossetia Digorians

Both variants (about Altai-Kipchak connection), however, converge on one point - the pedigrees of the Lithuanian Tatars' overwhelming majority, apparently like the Polovtsians, a slide of whom they can be considered, date back to the peoples inhabiting the steppe zone of Eurasia from the Bronze Age and creating a cultural community whose material features Left a mark on all its space.

Lithuanian Tatars are a political and probably an ethnic extract of the Kipchak Khanate population, but in no way are a slide representing it. The Russian term Polovtsians is a calque of the names Alan and As plain, steppe, field, Slavic pole (), and corresponds to the generic nomad, Scythian, Tatar, Türk, Ashkenaz (field people, Hyrcan (nomad). As a supra-ethnic term, it is equivalent to the later western Huns and eastern Tatars. At different times, very different ethnicities of the Wild Field were called by the generic moniker Polovtsians: Bulgars (R1a?), Kangars (R1a?), Bajanaks (R1b?), Oguzes (R1b?), Kipchaks (R1b?), Kumans (R1a?), Tuhsi (Tokhars, Toksoba) (R1a?), etc. The people of the Kipchak Khanate were ethnically diverse not any less. Indiscriminately bundling very diverse people under a single appellation and treating then as a single human trunk is not couth scientifically, and certainly not genetically. Just the Polovtsians Oguzes, of whom we have detailed records, consisted of 24 diverse tribes, each with its own origin, history, and genetic composition. The Polovtsians Kipchaks were not any less diverse. In no way the Lithuanian Tatars nor the Kipchaks can be taken as an equivalent. Like the term Russian, it is a politonym and an ethnonym. The first is changed as a hat, the second is an inherent property.

Crescendo

They (Polovtsians or Kipchaks) are known in various sources as Scythians (Σκύθοι), Saka, Shaka, Ashkuza, Ishkuza, *Shats (蔡). As follows from the up-to-date data on Y-DNA, the Scythians and Polovtsians (the ancestors of the Lithuanian Tatars, according to this concept) are very close peoples, descendants of the Aryan (R1a) tribes who started the movement from the Eastern European Plain to the east about 4000 years ago. From them (Aryans), they (Scythians, Polovtsians, Kipchaks) inherited the genealogical lines of the subclade R1a-Z93, which added via contacts with the surrounding peoples the branches from the haplogroups G2, J2, R1b, and subsequently R1a-Z282, and the haplogroups of the East Asian origin.

It is ludicrous to deduce nomadic Scythian Kurgans from the milieu of the European farming refugees of the 3rd mill. BC. The economic type Scythians correctly describes the type of the horse nomadic societies, but mechanically equating it with its Slavic synonym Polovtsians and specifically the Lithuanian Tatars is absurd. The horse husbandry precedes by millenniums the appearance of the European refugees in the Eastern Europe, a departure point of the 2nd mill. BC migrants to the South-Central Asia. The R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93) is a baby of the Eurasian steppe belt, the horse nomads farmed many agricultural populations driving them around at a time of a need, that was a typical scheme of the times. The R1a-Z93 went into the Corded Ware, to South Asia, to Europe, it assimilated to the surrounding languages, and remains one of the most geographically dispersed haplogroups of the Eurasia. In no way it can become a downstream haplogroup of its its own seed. No faulty premises and vague terminology can substantiate a reverse paradigm.

1730

At which stage of their history they moved from the original Indo-European language to the Türkic one is yet to be determined. On the example of Lithuanian Tatars, we have a rare case of a spiral movement in the form of a return to the language of the Indo-European family.

Since there was no Indo- in the Indo-European before the Aryan migration to the South-Central Asia, the languages of the Corded Ware refugees from the Europe could only be European, in the archeological lingo they are termed Old Europe language. That was the language the cart-riding Aryan farmers brought to Hindustan and Iranian Plateau to make the Old Europe language an Indo-European.

A fraction of the R1a family combined their Türkic vernaculars with the Old Europe languages, carried those languages to the Eastern Europe, where they cohabitated with their parental R1a (and R1b)Türkic nomads, and since there was no Indo-European language at the time of the Corded Ware, the thesis of an Indo-European to Türkic switch is a funny one. The trace of the Türkic vernaculars is attested by the mass of Turkisms in the Corded Ware daughter languages, and in Sanskrit and Avesta.

Thus, an analysis of a representative Y-DNA dataset of the Lithuanian Tatars has led to the conclusions that
(i) at least 2/3 of its members paternally descend from the inhabitants of the steppe belt of the Kipchak Khanate (aka Golden Horde), who spoke Kipchak languages and belonged to various branches of the haplogroups R1a, R1b, J2, and Q1a;
(ii) the principal Y-DNA lineages of the Lithuanian Tatars originate from the Scythian tribes, which occupied the Eurasian steppe zone during the Iron Age; and
(iii) an emergence of the Kypchak branch of the Türkic languages ​​may be attributed to a Turkification of one group of the originally Scythian tribes, judging by the predominance without any exception of the R1a-Z2125 subclade among all Kypchak branches. The latter proposal suggests a critical re-evaluation of the existing models of the Kipchak ethnic history.

An appropriate kind advice to the item (iii)'s latter proposal would be to attend to the history of the As and Tuhsi (Tokhars) horse nomadic constituent tribes of the Türkic Kaganates and the Kipchak confederation. The Kipchak confederation migrated to the Eastern Europe around 10th c. AD and entered into a love-hate relations with the incipient Rus principality.

The travel necessities supplied to the deceased of the Kipchak uniquely distinct kurgan burials attest to their Tengrian religion at the time of the 10th c. AD migration. The travel necessities supplied to the deceased of the Kipchak kurgan burials attest to their Tengrian religion at the time of the 10th c. AD migration.

To localize the place, time, and scale of that event (conversion to Türkic), if it is confirmed, it is also necessary to rethink the material collected by archaeologists and experts in the source study.

Finally, DNA genealogy makes it possible to understand how come that the Lithuanian Tatars preserved their national identity in conditions when many similar ethnic groups inevitably had to be assimilated.

Besides the religious and class barriers, not a lesser role had their preservation of the traditional continuity from father to son, which always was primary for the Kypchaks, manifested by a very high proportion of the ancestral lines. That could not be shaken neither by the loss of the language, nor by numerous marriages to the Slav maidens, nor even by the conversion to the Christianity.

LITERATURE

Afanasyev 2015 - Afanasyev G.E. New archaeological, anthropological and genetic aspects in the study of the Don Alans // Brief communications of the Institute of Archeology. Issue. 237. 2015. pp. 64-79.
Balaganskaya 2011 - Balaganskaya OA Genetic structure of markers of Y chromosome of Altai peoples (Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia) // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series XXIII. Anthropology. 2011. 2. P. 25-39.
Dumin et al. 2016 - Dumin SV, Volkov VG, Sabitov Zh.M.  Ethnogenetic links of the Lithuanian Tatars: historical roots of the Lithuanian-Tatar nobility // Zoltaordynskaya civilization. No. 9. P. 309-325.
1731
Zaliznyak, A.A. Old Russian stress: General information and vocabulary. M .: Languages ​​of Slavic Culture, 2014. 728 p.
Karzhavin 2009 - Karzhavin S.P. The role of Kalmyks in the formation of the genetic portrait of the Kazakh ethnos. Experience of simulation modeling of the historical development of the population / / Bulletin of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy. T. 2. 2009. 4. P. 670-746.
Klyosov 2016 - Klyosov A.A. Migration of Aryans according to DNA genealogy // Historical format. 2016. 2. P. 127-156.
Muratov 2016 - Muratov B.A. DNA genealogy of Tatar surnames - 2. Crimean Tatars // BEEIP Suyun. 2016. T. 3. No. 1 [1,2]. Pp. 28-79.
Pilipenko et al. 2015 - Pilipenko AS, Trapezov RO, Polosmak NV Paleogenetic study of carriers of Pazyryk culture from Ak-Alakh-1 burial ground (Gorny Altai) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Eurasia. P. 43. 2015. 4. P. 147-153.
Rozhansky and others 2013 - Rozhansky IL And others. Belarusians: ethnogenesis and connection with other Slavic peoples from the position of DNA genealogy // Science and innovations. Scientific and practical journal (Minsk). 2013. No. 3 (121). pp. 55-62.
Shalyaho 2013 - Shalyakho RA The genogeography of the Türkic-speaking peoples of the Caucasus: analysis of the variability of the Y-chromosome. The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of the candidate of biological sciences. M., 2013. 24 p.
Allenloft 2015 - Allenloft M.E. Et al. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia // Nature. 2015. V. 522. pp. 167-172.
Anthony 2007 - Anthony D.W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. 554 p.
Balanovsky 2011 - Balanovsky O.P. Et al. Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages ​​in the Caucasus Region // Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2011.
V. 28. pp. 2905-2920.
DeMenocal 2001 - DeMenocal P.B. Cultural Responses to Climate Change During the Late Holocene // Science. 2001. V. 292. pp. 667-673.
1732
Derenko 2006 - Derenko M. et al. Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome variation in South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions // Hum. Genet. 2006. V. 118. pp. 591-604.
Di Cristofaro 2013 - Di Cristofaro J. et al. Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge // PLoS ONE. 2013. V. 8 (10): e76748. Doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0076748.
Dulik 2012 - Dulic M.C. Et al. Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome Variation Provides Evidence for a Recent Common Ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous Altaians // Am J Hum Genet. 2012. V. 90. pp. 229-246.
Keyser 2009 - Keyser C. et al. Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of the south Siberian Kurgan people // Hum. Genet. 2009. V. 126. pp. 395-410.
Lkhagvasuren 2016 - Lkhagvasuren G. et al. Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen's Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan // PLoS ONE. 2016. 11 (9): e0161622. Doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0161622.
Pankratov 2016 - Pankratov V. et al. East Eurasian ancestry in the middle of Europe: genetic footprints of Steppe Lipka Tatars // Scientific Reports. 2016. V. 6: 30197. doi: 10.1038 / srep30197.
Underhill 2014 - Underhill P.A. Et al. The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a // Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2014. 23.
pp. 1-8.

REFERENCES

Afanas'ev 2015 - Afanas'ev G.E. I dr. Novye arheologicheskie, antropologicheskie i geneticheskie aspekty v izuchenii donskih alan [New archaeological, anthropological and genetic aspects in studying Don Alan], in: Kratkie soobshhenija Instituta arheologii. Vyp. 237 [Short messages of Institute of archeology. Release 237], 2015, pp. 64-79 [in Russian].
Allenloft 2015 - Allenloft M.E. Et al. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, in: Nature, 2015, V. 522, pp. 167-172 [in Russian].
Anthony 2007 - Anthony D.W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.
Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press Publ., 2007, 554 p. [In Russian].
1733
Balaganskaja 2011 - Balaganskaja O.A. I dr. Geneticheskaja struktura po markeram Y hromosomy narodov Altaja (Rossii, Kazahstana, Mongolii) [Genetic structure on markers Y chromosomes of the people of Altai (Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia)], in: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija XXIII. Antropologija [Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series XXIII. Anthropology], 2011, No. 2, pp. 25-39 [in Russian].
Balanovsky 2011 - Balanovsky O.P. Et al. Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages ​​in the Caucasus Region, in: Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2011, V. 28, pp. 2905-2920 [in English].
DeMenocal 2001 - DeMenocal P.B. Cultural Responses to Climate ChangeDuring the Late Holocene, in: Science, 2001, V. 292, pp. 667-673 [in Russian].
Derenko 2006 - Derenko M. et al. Contrasting patterns of the Y-chromosome variation in the South Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions, in: Hum. Genet., 2006, V. 118, pp. 591-604 [in Russian].
Di Cristofaro 2013 - Di Cristofaro J. et al. Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge, in: PLoS ONE, 2013, V. 8 (10): e76748. Doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0076748 [in English].
Dulik 2012 - Dulic M.C. Et al. Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome Variation Provides Evidence for a Recent Common Ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous Altaians, in: Am J Hum Genet., 2012, V.90, pp. 229-246 [in Russian].
Dumin i dr. 2016 - Dumin S.V., Volkov V.G., Sabitov Zh.M. Jetnogeneticheskie svjazi litovskih tatar: istoricheskie korni litovsko-tatarskogo dvorjanstva [Ethnogenetic linkages of the Lithuanian Tatars: historical roots of the Lithuanian-Tatar nobility], in: Zolotoordynskaja civilizacija [Zolotoordynsky civilization], No. 9, pp. 309-325 [in Russian].
Karzhavin 2009 - Karzhavin S.P. Rol 'kalmykov v formirovanii geneticheskogo portreta kazahskogo jetnosa. Opyt imitacionnogo modelirovanija istoricheskogo razvitija populjacii [Role of Kalmyks in the formation of a genetic portrait of the Kazakh ethnos. Experience in imitating modeling of the historical development of the population, in: Vestnik Rossijskoj Akademii DNK-genealogii. T. 2 [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of DNA genealogy. Volume 2], 2009, No. 4, pp. 670-746 [in English].
Keyser 2009 - Keyser C. et al. Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of the south Siberian Kurgan people, in: Hum. Genet., 2009, V. 126, pp. 395-410 [in Russian].
1734
Kljosov 2016 - Kljosov A.A. Migracii ariev po dannym DNK-genealogii [Migrat ions of the Aryans in the Light of DNA Genealogy], in: Istoricheskij format [Historical Format], 2016, No. 2, pp. 127-156 [in Russian].
Lkhagvasuren 2016 - Lkhagvasuren G. et al. Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen's Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan, in: PLoS ONE, 2016, 11 (9): e0161622. Doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0161622 [in English].
Muratov 2016 - Muratov B.A. DNK-genealogija tatarskih familij - 2. Krymskie tatary [DNA genealogy of the Tatar surnames - 2. Crimean Tatars], in: BJeIP Sujun [BEIP Suyun], 2016, T. 3, No. 1 [1,2] , Pp. 28-79 [in Russian].
Pankratov 2016 - Pankratov V. et al. East Eurasian ancestry in the middle of Europe: genetic footprints of Steppe in the Humanities of the Lipka Tatars, in Scientific Reports, 2016, V. 6: 30197. doi: 10.1038 / srep30197 [in English].
Pilipenko i dr. 2015 - Pilipenko A.S., Trapezov R.O., Polos'mak N.V. Paleogeneticheskoe issledovanie nositelej pazyrykskoj kul'tury iz mogil'nika Ak-Alaha-1 (Gornyj Altaj) [Paleogenetichesky research of carriers of pazyryksky culture from a burial ground of Ak-Alakha-1 (Mountain Altai)], in: Arheologija, jetnografija i Antropologija Evrazii. T. 43 [Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Eurasia. Volume 43], 2015, No. 4, pp. 147- 153 [in Russian].
Rozhanskij i dr. 2013 - Rozhanskij I.L. I dr. Belorusy: jetnogenez i svjaz 's drugimi slavjanskimi narodami s pozicii DNK-genealogii [Belarusians: ethnogenesis and communication with other Slavic people from a DNA genealogy position], in: Nauka i innovacii. Nauchno-prakticheskij zhurnal (Minsk) [Science and innovations. Scientific and practical magazine (Minsk), 2013, No. 3 (121), pp. 55-62 [in Russian].
Shaljaho 2013 - Shaljaho R.A. Genogeografija tjurkojazychnyh narodov Kavkaza: analiz izmenchivosti Y-hromosomy. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata biologicheskih nauk [Genogeografiya of the Türkic-speaking people of the Caucasus: analysis of variability of a Ychromosome. The abstract of the thesis for a degree of Candidate of Biology], Moscow, 2013, 24 p. [In Russian].
Underhill 2014 - Underhill P.A. Et al. The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, in: Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 2014, 23, pp. 1-8 [in Russian].
1735
Zaliznjak 2014 - Zaliznjak A.A. Drevnerusskoe udarenie: Obshhie svedenija i slovar '[Old Russian accent: General information and dictionary], Moscow, Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury Publ., 2014, 728 p. [In Russian].

 
Home
Back
Russian
Contents - Scythians
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Cavalli-Sforza Genetic Map
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Scythians 7 c. BC
Burial of a Massagetan warrior 8-7 c. BC
Pazyryk 4-2 c. BC
Bulgars 6-15 c. AD
Ogur and Oguz
Scythians and their descendents
Wikipedia - Scytho-IranianTheory
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
6/25/2017
@Mail.ru