Home
Türkic Genetics
Genetics Contents
In Russian (original)
In Russian (posting)
Sourcess
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Datelines
Klyosov A. Türkic DNA genealogy
Alinei M. Kurgan Culture Mesolith
Stearns P.N. Zhou Synopsis
Ogur and Oguz
Türkic Genetic Charts Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
24 thousand years of R1a migrations
Anatole Klyosov
Map and ancient migration routes of haplogroup R1a

http://pereformat.ru/2019/10/r1a-map/
Published 23.10.2019 © Copyright A. Klyosov 2019

Links

http://pereformat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/R1a-map-2019-1.jpg R1a-map-2019 Full size
http://pereformat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R1b-map-2019.jpg    R1b-map-2019 Full size
http://pereformat.ru/2019/10/r1a-map/ R1a migrations
http://pereformat.ru/2019/11/r1b-map/ R1b migrations

Posting Introduction

From yesterday's position, detailed tracing of human movements across 20 millenniums sounds like a fairy tale. The offered citation is an another outstanding breakthrough by Prof. A. Klyosov based on a rigorous method of dating DNA samples. By applying method to published fossil DNA data, the school of Prof. A. Klyosov was able to trace spatial and temporal migrations of specific DNA sequences, complementing dated archeological locations with credible mutation dating. It is one of a host of popular baby steps in building a global picture of R1a/R1b migrations, a yet fuzzy picture of events many millenniums away from us. The work is on a level with a Hubble expanding universe that shocked etiology of static universe, allowing us to date the beginning of the beginnings. With the data stream growing exponentially, with systematic record-keeping and analysis, a resolution of the picture will keep improving. Surely, 37 dated points can't reflect a 24 millennium anabasis of uncounted R1a prongs, dead ends, societal revolutions, and linguistic amalgamations. Probably, in stratified societies preserved material tends to reflect a demographically insignificant exceptional social status. Probably, the known linguistic shifts would damper enthusiasm of recent centuries to associate linguistic and genetic data, wisely noted by Prof. A. Klyosov in case of Tarim mummies. In the last century just the Eurasian territory under a Russian control lost 200 native languages, creating generations of newly “Indo-European” very Arian speakers with a raster of Hg types. Generally, that process is irreversible. The yesterday's boyars today are speaking Slavic, Hindi, and many other languages, including English.

Posting's notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are shown in blue in parentheses ()/[], or in blue boxes. The source on-line article has no pagination. To avoid possible terminological confusion, English version retains author's terms either in the text, or in additional parentheses () for cases where Russian words may not correspond to English or even archaic Slavic/Russian terminology.

Any material presented in this posting is protected by the author's and other copyrights.

Anatole Klyosov
Map and ancient migration routes of Haplogroup R1a
Published 23.10.2019

Click to enlarge in separate window

Zoomed-in Haplogroup R1a
Map of main locations and ancient migration routes of Haplogroup R1b
Click to enlarge in separate window
Zoomed-in Haplogroup R1b

Ancient migrations of haplogroup R1a

When in May of this year (2019) I spoke at the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, headed by retired Colonel-General L.G. Ivashov, the conversation turned to the fact that it would be nice to have a map that reflects routes of ancient migrations. I replied that I do not favor such maps because they constantly obsolete. New and new data appear, migration routes are updated and revised, and for me, they are constantly on a move. I feel them as 3-dimensional, movable version, simply impossible to depict on a map. That of course does not mean that my feelings are correct. Tomorrow, or even today, it may change with new data, but only with new data. Or it could be reevaluated even with the today's data, right now. Artists know this feeling, when they try to show on a canvas a raging sea, or trees swaying in the wind. In a sense, it is easier for them, nobody expects them to be responsible for the wave on the canvas to be of exact height, or the tree to bend exactly to a right position. They reflect an impression, and try to convey it to the viewer.

To that, I was asked half in jest to also convey an impression without insisting that it was this and not that. Without insisting that migration went across continent in exactly this way and not otherwise, but how exactly, as zigzag, or a semicircle, or a straight line, or a diffusely wide wave, or another squiggle, that does not really matter, important is to reflect a general picture. And as reference to show on the map main migrant sites where ancient fossil bones were found, and their haplogroups.

But unlike general talks where listeners usually reflect on speeches, like “it would be nice to find funding”, or “it would be nice for the government to be crystal honest, and that it...”, then substitute good government actions that would lead to a flourishing of a scientific field or science, or life in general, the Academy of Geopolitical Problems went further. A proposal was specific, given an artist, would you handle a map with him? A cartography is his, the data is yours. That somewhat changed things, and I agreed to try. Sergei Ivanovich Sukhonos, a world-famous person, made the proposal, Andrei Vladimirovich Kinsbursky volunteered to be an artist, and I have never met a more reliable and initiative artist in my life.

As a result, the map is in front of you. Actually, it would be possible to stop at that, the map itself is more than informative. But I will make comments, which, I hope, would make it possible to understand where exactly this map is “developing”. Where are possible shifts in our knowledge with new data about fossil DNA, with further growth of modern and fossil haplogroup-subclade-haplotype databases.

Now the topic is haplogroup R1a, next it would be haplogroup R1b. Perhaps there will be subsequent parts of this material for other haplogroups. By clicking on it, the map is enlarged in a new window.

The chronology on the map begins with the dating of the haplogroup R1a, which according to modern data (at the end of October 2019), formed 157 snip-mutations, that is, about 23 thousand YA (TYA). Shown on the map (point 1) 24 TYA should not be confusing: three months ago were known 167 snip-mutations, which pointed to 24 TYA to the appearance of a haplogroup R1a (an average of 144 years for a snip-mutation, based on a large body of material). These datings are average, calculated by a number of snip-mutations from present to an irreversible mutation attributed to haplogroup R1a, or some other subclade of any haplogroup, in a group of 100 randomly selected men with a certain haplogroup or a certain subclade. So, on average, they would have 167 snip-mutations up to a haplogroup R1a, but it turned out that several people in that series had abnormally small number of mutations, namely 30, 32, 33, 34, 35. Generally, the numbers167 and 30 are not averaged That is nonsense in statistical calculations with hundreds of samples, there are simple rules for rejecting obvious outliers. Numbers can drop for various reasons, including mundane typos by the counters, but in this case the YFull's employees averaged everything they were given. That resulted in a decrease by a millennium compared to the previous dating. Strictly speaking, there is no conceptual difference, that revision did not impact any other conclusion.

Somewhat more significant is another uncertainty.  Strictly speaking, we do not exactly know where this haplogroup was formed, and, probably, we would never know. Any find of an ancient R1a would not ensure that no more ancient find does not exist somewhere in a not yet excavated place. Therefore, as a result of some optimization of the available data, the origin of R1a was placed on a map somewhere between Altai and Baikal. What were the reasons for that?

Firstly, the Southern Siberia region more than once has been noted as a place of ancient carriers of ancient haplogroups. A burial with a haplogroup R and archaeological date of 24 TYA was found around the Lake Baikal. Haplogroup R is a “grandfather” of haplogroup R1a. Further, by the Angara river near Lake Baikal was found a burial with a haplogroup R1a and an archaeological date of 8 TYA. Further, in northern China, currently live tribes where one third of the population belongs to the haplogroup R1a with an estimated time to a common ancestor of 21,000 ±3,000 YA (YA). This dating was calculated back in 2009 (Klyosov, J. Genet. Genealogy, 5, 217-256), when no idea about any snip-based calculations even existed. True, those were only 5-marker haplotypes given to me personally by an Australian leader of a geneticist group that worked in the north of China. They did not study snips of the subclades. Finally, an upstream haplogroup K2-M526 > P > (R + Q) was found near Irtysh river in the Omsk province, with an archaeological date of 46,900-43200 YA, and that is also western Siberia. In addition, carriers of haplogroup Q, “brotherly” in relation to the haplogroup R, left for America (assessed no later than 25 TYA), also from Siberia. In other words, the southern Siberia does not contravene the fact that precisely there originated downstream haplogroups of the haplogroup K2, and hence the haplogroups P, Q, R, R1a and R1b. And likewise the haplogroups N and O, which appearance modern science places in the southeastern Asia.

Relatively not far from those places, in the northwestern China, in Xinjiang, in the Taklamakan Desert, were found many mummified remains with haplogroup R1a. So far, researchers could not identify their subclades. Chinese geneticists, for example, are asserting that that is not a haplogroup R1a-Z93. The mummies are dated by 4500-4000 YA (point f on the map). A further history is rather funny, an illustrious researcher V. H. Mair (and J. P. Mallory) decided that the plaid robes of the Tarim mummies were of Scottish origin. To my perplexed question in correspondence to Mair where did he get that from, he irritatedly advised me to read his books. He did not answer subsequent direct questions, he stopped corresponding. Such are our scientists, however, regrettably we have no others. In short, an infinite number of hypotheses on the origin of Tarim mummies can be advanced, including those that Tarimians are direct descendants of first carriers of the R1a haplogroup who have never been to Europe. Without subclades and snips, this issue cannot be resolved. As an open surmisal, point f is located in the area of ​​the supposed ancient migrations of haplogroup R1a to the south, toward the Tibetan plateau, and further on to the west.

It should be acknowledged that a route via Tibetan plateau, and Indian subcontinent, and then the Iranian plateau, and then the territory of Asia Minor with access to the Balkans, that route is supported only by indirect evidence. Archaic haplotypes of haplogroup R1a have been identified in Tibet, none of their subclades were determined. The same in India, among the jungle peoples were uncovered short haplotypes of R1a group with archaic markers, with none of their subclades determined. Same in Iran, were found archaic of the R1a group haplotypes were found, with DYS392 at 13, while in modern haplotypes (and in thousands years old fossil haplotypes of the R1a group) the that marker is 11, and that marker is very stable. A mutation rate constant of that marker is 0.0004 mutations per generation, that is, it mutates on average once every 62,500 years. That's in one Y chromosome line. In principle, such haplotypes have been known for a long time, the author of these lines wrote about them together with I.L. Rozhansky back in 2009 in the Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy. Nowadays databases have more than 60 such haplotypes, and they are in the following chains of the snips:

R1a-M420 > M459 > M198 > YP1051
R1a-M420 > M459 > YP1272
R1a-M420 > YP4141 > YP5018
R1a-M420 > YP4141 > YP4132

Their dates are (recalculated according to YFull data):

M459 - 125 snip-mutations, or 18,000 YA
YP4141 - 114 snip-mutations, or 16,400 YA
M198 - 95 snip-mutations, or 13,700 YA
YP1272 - 92 snip-mutations, or 13,200 YA
YP5018 - 86 snip-mutations, or 12,400 YA
YP4132 - 83 snip-mutations, or 12,000 YA
YP1051 - 50 snip-mutations, or 7200 YA.

All these lines are characterized by DYS392 = 13, unusual for the vast majority of modern haplotypes.

In that regard, I recall a funny, but revealing story from 2007, when we discussed those unusual haplotypes in our outlets of that time, realizing that they were some kind of ancient lineages, and a popgeneticist named Kharkov came to us, introduced himself as a major specialist, an author of many articles, and announced that there are no such haplotypes, these are typing errors, because the predictor does not show such haplotypes (!), and you all are ignorant there. It later transpired that such style of behavior and communication is typical for popgenetists. There is a lot of superbia, but no analytical skills. Both haplotypes and markers were confirmed. In particular, several YA those haplotypes were found in Iran by a notable geneticist P. Underhill.

So, haplotypes with the above snips were found in India, Iran, Middle East, Arab Peninsula, in the Persian Gulf countries (Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Qatar), as well as in Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, among the Kurds, in Macedonia, Georgia, Karachay-Balkaria. Again, it is near impossible to trace specific routes of ancient migrations in such situation. A path from India to Iran and the Balkans is no worse than the others. The archaic Caucasian haplotypes can be easily explained by the proximity to Iran and numerous military expeditions of the past from Iran to the Caucasus (and the opposite, to Persia and Caucasus). In any case, fossil DNA will clarify the situation, but now no one can seriously refute the proposed scenarios.

6,000 YA Persia did not exist. It was a land of Dravidian languages, with encroaching eastward Semitic languages, and numerous Turkic tribes in the mountainous areas north and west of Mesopotamia. The future Indo-Iranians showed up there after 4,000 YA, in a process of migration from a N. Pontic area. After that, Dravidian languages amalgamated with with the languages of the newcomers, or fled eastward, toward Afganistan and India.

In the context of this presentation, fossil samples of R1a are unexpectedly found by the Dnieper (Vasilyevka and Derivka sites), with archaeological dates of 10,643 and 8,822 YA (so archaeologists indicated for median values, which of course with such accuracy is amusing), as well as in Karelia, on South Deer Island, with an average date of 8,375 YA, or 6,850-6,000 BC. It should be said that in the same place, at Vasilyevka, R1b samples were also found, which gave reason to many network fans to immediately announce that the R1a and R1b folks lived and migrated together. But they simply did not pay attention to the datings, the R1b dated by one and a half thousand years later (9,202 YA, or 7,446-7,058 years BC), which is almost like from us to an ancient Rome. On the map, the locations of these R1a finds are designated as points a and b, respectively. Point a is not so far from the Balkans, it could be a “diffusion” of migrants from the Balkans, or vice versa, or it could lay on a direct migration route of R1a carriers, that we do not know. Therefore, on the map there are no migration route lines to point the a. As, there also are no lines to the point b in Karelia, they have not been clarified yet.

But the snips of these ancient Y-chromosome finds can give some clue - four snips of the haplogroup R1a - L62, L63, L145 and L146 were identified in Vasilyevka and Derivka. All these are all synonymous snips, they all identify with R1a-M420 formed 24 TYA, see above. And the R1a sample in Karelia dated by one and a half thousand years later has all these four SNPs, plus a later SNP M459, formed 6 thousand years after the above four. It turns out that migrants to Karelia could have come from the Dnieper, or by the same token, from anywhere with carriers of those four SNPs. In other words, we see the heritage of SNPs, but not yet a geographic heritage.

No fossil R1a haplogroups have been found yet in the Balkan ancient cultures, but what can be expected when out of 200 burials of the Lepensky Vir culture (Serbia), dated by 11,500-8,000 YA, only two or three burials were examined for fossil DNA. But the positions of the skeletons, where much more data is available, are often typical for the haplogroup R1a, i.e. on the side in a crouched position. We are waiting for new data on the Balkan haplogroups and snips dated more than 8-10 TYA.

Details of some points on the map corresponding to the finds of fossil DNA can be viewed on the informative haplo-maps of I.L. Rozhansky on the website of the Academy of DNA Genealogy
http://dna-academy.ru/ancient-haplomaps/

The further history of the haplogroup R1a in Europe remains unknown over the next two thousand years, until the appearance of the subclade Z645 there, which can be rightfully called Aryan. Continuing the chain of snips shown above:

M459 > M198 > M417 > Z645

The snip M417 was formed by 65 snip-mutations, or about 9400 YA, that is, at the same time when carriers of the haplogroup R1a lived by the Dnieper (or passed through those areas), but that snip was not found in ancient Karelia (only M459 and higher snips). Snip Z645 was formed by 41 snip-mutations, or about 5,900 YA. We know that in those days, between 5,000 and 6,000 YA, the Aryan languages, which were renamed “Indo-European” in the 19th century for reasons of political correctness (and also to prevent German scholars from continuing to call them “Indo-Germanic”), according to linguists, diverged into a number of linguistic branches, in particular, the future Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Paleo-Balkan, Greek, Germanic and some (+8) others. That is in good agreement with the divergence of the Z645 subclade on the branches of the M458, Z280, Z93, and Z284 subclades (35, 34, 32, and 31 snip-mutations, respectively, or formed about 5,000, 4,900, 4,600 and 4,500 YA. Since there the dating error is plus or minus several centuries, it can be assumed that they all diverged at about the same time. The last dating corresponds to the subclade Z284, which moved to Scandinavia (circle number 9 on the map). Before the divergence, all of them definitely spoke a language of the parent Aryan haplogroup Z645 , and continued to speak it many centuries later. Therefore, it is not surprising that according to the well-known linguist S.A. Starostin, modern Russian has 54% the same basic vocabulary as the Old Indian (i.e. Sanskrit) language. [There are reasons to assert that many of the common traits, including a screaming morphology, are due to their Turkic origin discovered by working bees but undiscovered yet by the well-known linguists of the Arian school] The same applies to other Slavic languages, the representative of which is the Russian language. Therefore, to say that the Slavic languages “evolved”, or “formed” in the middle (or even at the end) of the 1st millennium AD (!), as believe (some) linguists, is completely faulty and primitive. Historically, languages do not “evolve” and are not “formed” at the same time, in their dynamics they are developing for millennia, which is shown by the data of S.A. Starostin. [Posthumously, Starostin lost the Battle of Altaic Family between a Family Tree and a Cultural Influence models. Starostin also did not know that genetics would kill his linguistic arguments.]

A saying goes “Scratch a Russian, would find a Tatar”. A “Scratch a Russian word, would find a Tatar word” is even truer. The Shipova's listing of 2,000 Russian words of Türkic origin probably falls back on another 5,000 words of Türkic origin (Shipova, 1976). Shipova picked up a 2000-word list from a surface, of the most obvious, practically unchanged Türkic words from a Russian dictionary. Slightly less obvious, but a solid mass of core nature words saturate Russian language: Rus. byl “be”, Trk. bol “be”; Rus. id(ti) “move, walk”, Trk. ïd- “itinerate, itinerary”; Rus. (y)eda “food”, (y)est “eat”, Trk. ye- “eat”; Rus. beda “bad”, Trk. bad “bad, calamity”; Rus. bok “side”, Trk. bïq(ïn) “side”; etc. to no end. The same story with suffixes, practically every Russian suffix has a Türkic original. A non-Türkic part of the modern Russian lexicon consist of the “Old Europe” relicts shared with Germanic and some other European languages as a native Slavic lexicon, and the old and new loanwords from revolution to internet. Most of the “Old Europe” lexicon and many Turkisms are obsolete and survive only in dialects. In its official plans the Russian Academy of Sciences had a study of Türkic influence on Russian from the 18th c., but for 150 years it never got around to that. E. Shipova's work was a first scientific work of that nature in the history of Russian linguistics. And so far, for the last 50 years, it is a latest one. A Russian youth is befooled from kindergarten, and by a ripe age it is fully duped. To the benefit of the system, a duped population don't mind too much.

Probably Sanskrit, a neo language in India of ca. 2000 BC, brought enough Türkic-infected Corded Ware vocabulary to the hundreds of Indian languages of the time to make it “similar” to Russian. The number 54% is dubious, though, probably the number refers to a selected vocabulary used by S.A. Starostin, and not a fraction of standard Hindi 10,000 word dictionary, nor a weighted listing of frequently used Hindi words.

So, at about 5000 YA, the Aryan subclade R1a-Z645 split into the Aryan branches of the haplogroup R1a, which eventually occupied their areas in Eurasia. The subclade, or a branch R1a-M458, formed in its part the West Slavic and Central European groups of peoples. The R1a-Z280 branch formed the East Slavic group, to a large extent geographically intersecting with the M458 branch, especially in the west of the East European Plain. The R1a-Z93 branch largely left the East European Plain (its content among the Slavs is now at the level of a percent or fractions of a percent) and moved eastward, making up a significant part of the modern male population of Central Asia, Tatarstan, India, Iran, the Middle East and the Caucasian peoples, the Altai region (in particular , a third of the Khakass). The same branch was found in the Khazar fossils (Klyosov, Faleeva “Excavated DNA from Two Khazar Burials”, Advances in Anthropology, 2017, 7, 17-21). The R1a-Z284 branch currently accounts for up to 15-25% of men in Scandinavia, up to 9% in Scotland, 3-5% in the rest of the British Isles. Slavic peoples practically do not have it.

Parallel with the above branches, from the subclade M417, bypassing Z645, formed a branch of an L664 subclade (29 snip-mutations, or about 4,200 YA), which the Slavs also do not have. It is quite clearly localized in a northwestern part of Europe - in Holland, Norway, Sweden, and ends in the east in Germany. Its almost complete absence among the Slavs, including the Russians, shows once again that the Scandinavians practically did not live in Rus, and that the “Norman theory” is a phantom, a fake. [So must be a story of Catherine II, falsely accused of being a German Princess. She either did not rule Russia, or was not a German Princess.]

So, about 5000 YA, the Aryan branches of the R1a-Z645 subclade were formed, and their carriers arrived in the East European Plain. The haplotypes of modern ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Poles of the haplogroup R1a-Z280 converge on mutations of 4,900-4,600 YA, which means that their common ancestors lived at the same time. In the haplogroup R1a-M458, the haplotypes of two branches, Central European L1029 and West Slavic L260, differ significantly in mutations (their 67-marker ancestral haplotypes diverge by 16 mutations, which is equivalent to a discrepancy of 3,775 years), and have common ancestors, respectively, 3,070 ±290 years and 3000 ±300 YA. This shows that the common ancestor of both branches, namely the haplogroup R1a-M458, lived 4,900 ±300 YA, which practically coincides with the dating of the formation of the haplogroup M458 by snips (5,000 YA, see above). Haplotypes and calculations are given in books on DNA genealogy of recent years (see literature at the end of the article).

So, the haplotypes and snips of the Slavs of the haplogroup R1a (subclades Z280 and M458) were already in the East European Plain 4,900-4,600 YA, moving eastward from the Europe. This is confirmed by the fossil haplotypes of the R1a group found in the Corded Ware culture in Germany (the town of Eulau in Saxony-Anhalt, the land is located in the triangle between Berlin, Leipzig and Hanover) with an archaeological date of 4,600 YA, and the haplotypes themselves are almost the same as in modern ethnic Russians of the same haplogroup. These ancient haplotypes were found in boys from a group of 13 (including women, according to attestations of being mothers), killed with arrows and stone axes. There were no men among the killed, from which archaeologists concluded that the alien attack on the family was at a time when the men were absent, were on a hunt or other ancient duties. This corresponds to today's ideas that the murderers were most likely inhabitants of the Bell-Beaker culture (haplogroup R1b), which just at that time reached the territory of the future Germany, leaving the Iberian Peninsula a little earlier (about 4800 YA). Moreover, these were the times of an actual genocide of the indigenous populations in Europe, which was named by archaeologists “a death of Old Europe”, introduced by the archaeologist M. Gimbutas in the 1970s. That in turn led to the almost complete destruction of the European carriers of haplogroups E1b, G2a, H, I1, I2, R1a between 4800 and 4000 YA, and an escape of survivors to the periphery of the continent, to the British Isles, to Scandinavia, to Asia Minor, to East European Plain. Apparently, this was the reason for the migration of the Aryans, carriers of the haplogroup R1a and subclades Z280, M458 and Z93, to the East European Plain 4,900-4,600 YA. Of course, each dating here is not absolute, and has errors of several centuries.

Fossil DNA with haplogroup R1a in Europe was also found in Germany (archaeological dates 4,844-4,480, 4,515-4,065, and 4,488-4,363 YA and the like), but their SNPs were identified only very superficially, M420/L146/L62 and M198/L168/L449, with dating of snips formation 13,700-24,000 YA. The same is with finds of fossil R1a in Sweden (dating 4,636-4,487 YA, snip M459) and Denmark (dating 4,866-4,507 YA, snip M417).

As a result, carriers of subclades Z280 and M458 remained in the East European Plain (map circle 10), representing the Corded Ware culture ( archaeologically dated 5,200-4,300 YA, the initial region is a circle 8a) and then the Fatyanovo culture (4,300 -3,500 YA), while the carriers of the subclade Z93, the southern Aryans, about 4,500 YA went on long (in distance and time) migrations to the east, southeast and south. In the eastern direction in several centuries they reached Southern Urals, and in the Sintashta culture were found ancient carriers of R1a with dates 4,313-4,060 and 4,141-3,911 YA, respectively subclades L62 and Z645. We do not know the depth of snips typing there, so it makes sense to see them as an “upper limit”, because, for example, in a chain of snips

Z645 > Z93 > Z94 > Z2124 > Z2125 > Z2123

the dates of their formation are respectively 41, 32, 30, 29, 28, and 27 snip-mutations, or 5,900, 4,600, 4,300, 4,200, 4,000 and 3,900 YA, and snips Z93, Z94, Z2124 could have appeared in the Sintashta culture could be snips Z93, Z94, Z2124 è Z2125, or even Z2123, found in abundance in the modern higher castes of India, along with a snip L657 discussed below. But researchers reported (Allentoft et al., 2015) that in the Sintashta was found only a most superficial R1a-L420/L62 and Z645/S224, so this has to be taken as given. On the map these finds are indicated by a circle 12, and points g and f.

On the way along the East European Plain to the Sintashta culture, the southern Aryans (R1a-Z93) left a number of archaeological cultures, in particular, Srubnaya (3800-3200 YA), Potapov (3900-3600 YA), and Andronovo (4000-2900 YA ), far beyond the southern Urals, all found fossil DNA of haplogroup R1a. These findings are shown on the map as a group of five points c, e, f, g, h, all in the Samara region, except for a sample from the Andronov culture in the Altai region (Kutmanovo), dated 3461-3313 YA, snippet Z645 / S224 ... It should not be surprising here that the dating of DNA finds in the later (by migration) Sintashta culture turned out to be older than the dating of the previous Srubnaya, Potapov, and parallel-subsequent Andronov cultures, since all archaeological dates are purely evaluative. All the finds of the ancient DNA of the Srubna culture (again, all in the Samara region) had SNP R1a-Z93, archaeological dates 3865-3215 and 3865-3615 YA, in one case (also the Samara region), with a dating of 3865-3615 YA SNP was Z2123, according to calculations, SNP was formed about 3900 YA, so the dates are in good agreement. But it also shows that these results should not be taken “linearly", that the geographically further the culture, the younger the dating should be. In fact, both the archaeological dating are estimated, and the dating of fossil DNA is actually estimated, some bone remains may be older than others, and the dating itself has certain errors, where more, where less. So again we have “conceptual” results, which in this case is not at all bad for the current level of science.

There is also one point on the map in the mentioned group (Samara region), which belongs to the Potapov culture (3900-3600 YA), archaeological dating of the burial 4940-4551 YA, snip Z94. This is already more consistent with the SNP and the dating of the burial to the initial period of the advancement of the southern Aryans towards the southern Urals. But another point for the Potapov culture is dated 600-700 years later, 4215-3915 YA (Samara region), snip Z645 / S441. As you can see, conclusions based on one point may be premature.

Snip R1a-Z93-Z2123 of the Timber culture, dated 3865-3615 YA (see above), coincides well in time and in terms of SNP with the transition of the southern Aryans (at this stage, inhabitants of the Timber culture) to India. Nevertheless, according to modern concepts, these migrants still had to reach the Sintashta or Andronovo culture in order to move from there to India about 3500 YA. The result of this transition is indicated on the map by a circle 23. In the same place, on the map, the supposed regions of the transition of the southern Aryans through the foothills of the Pamir (modern Tajikistan), 4500-4000 YA, a circle 11, and the advance to the Iranian plateau, about 3500 YA, circle number 24. We do not yet know by what route the southern Aryans crossed to India, although there is more than enough fortune-telling on the net.

Earlier it was mentioned that in the higher castes of India, snips R1a-Z2123 and R1a-L657 were mainly found. The first was found along the migration route of the southern Aryans from the East European Plain to the southern Urals, the second was not (so far) found near the fossil skeletons. It is (rarely) found among modern Kazakhs (in the same clan) and Uighurs, but it is not a fact that it was not brought from India, and therefore not “local”. It is interesting that it is found in abundance in the Middle East, in the countries of the Persian Gulf. It is quite possible that snip L657 arrived in India from the Middle East two or three millennia ago, for example, by coastal trade transportation.

The advancement of the southern Aryans in a southern direction is shown by circle 19, from the East European Plain through the Caucasus to Mesopotamia and further to the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, with a conditional dating on the map 4300 YA. The migration began at the same time as the rest of the migrations of the Aryans to the east and southeast, about 4600-4500 YA, with the arrival in the Middle East 4000-3600 YA. Migrants left in the Caucasus a fairly significant number of descendants with haplogroup R1a, from the Black to the Caspian Seas, and this is mainly the subclade R1a-Z93, the rest, like Z280 and M458, are moderate or minimal. In other words, the corresponding contribution of the Russians to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union there was small. For example, among Armenians 64% of carriers of haplogroup R1a have subclade R1a-Z93. Among Azerbaijanis, all carriers of R1a in the databases have the subclade R1a-Z93, and their common ancestor lived 4300 ±800 YA, in Aryan times. Among the Kabardians, 70% of the carriers of the haplogroup R1a have the Z93 subclade.

Although fossil DNA with haplogroup R1a in Mesopotamia, Middle East and Arabian Peninsula were not been found yet (almost no relevant studies are conducted there), any historian knows the Mitani Aryans in Syria, they should definitely have haplogroup R1a-Z93. Now on average 12% of Arabs belong to that haplogroup. Similarly, fossil haplogroups of the Hittites are still unknown, but that the Hittites spoke Indo-European (Aryan) languages ​​allows to expect that particular haplogroup, especially so since according to known data migration of the future Hittites also went south across the Caucasus. On the map these are circles 20 and 21 with estimated date of 4,000 YA.

Classification of Near Eastern languages as Indo-European hangs on a thin string, and even without arguments to the opposite should be questioned just because those discoveries were made by Indo-Germanic experts of the Indo-Germanic times. Renaming that to Indo-European did not wipe the zeal out, it rather reinforced it by qualifying in any temptingly lying candidate. As confirmation are cited Turkisms scattered in European languages but yet classified as Indo-European:
Türkic anta: “also”, Gmc. und, and, Hett. anta, Hitt. hanti “there, opposite”;
Türkic hu, šu (pronoun) “this/that”, Gmc. he, hi, Hitt. ki “this”;
Türkic ös, öz, üs, üz (pronoun) “self (we, us, selves)”, Gmc. us, oss, uns, Hitt. nash “us”;
Türkic biz, bez (pronoun) “we”, Gmc. wi, wir, ver, veis, Hitt. wesh “we”;
Türkic arqu- “discord”, Lat. arguere “prove”, Hitt. arkuuae- “plead”;
Türkic azı:-, ӧz-, üzi:- “ooze, flow”, Gmc. water, wasser, Hitt. waatar “water”;
Türkic söy- “say”, Gmc. say, sagen, Hitt. shakiya- “declare”;
Türkic jin, yin- “bow, bend”, Gmc. genu, knie, Hitt. genu “knee”;
Türkic chäre, yürek “heart”, Gmc. heart, herz, Hitt. kir “heart”;
Türkic uvul-, opul- “collapse, swallow”, Gmc. evil, ubil, Hitt. huwapp- “evil”;
examples are random, many more can be cited.

It is known that the migration of the southern Aryans along the East European Plain and on to the southern Urals, and formation of the Sintashta and Andronovo archaeological cultures continued further eastward, after (or simultaneously) with separation of the migratory direction towards India, possibly after leaving a settlement with (modern) name Arkaim about 3,600 YA (according to archaeologists, the site was inhabited between 3,800 and 3,600 YA). A dating of 3,800 YA is soon after a date of the southern Aryans' burials (R1a-Z645-Z93) in the Sintashta culture (4,300-4,100 and 4,100-3,900 YA, rounded off dates). Again, dating of both the settlement and the Sintashta culture are archaeologists' assessments. So, migrations of the southern Aryans from the southern Urals towards Altai happened about 3,600-3,000 YA, on the way leaving the Karasuk (3,500-2,800 YA), Tagar (2,800-2,200 YA) and Tashtyk (2,200-1,500 YA) ) archaeological cultures. In all these cultures were found haplogroup R1a fossil DNA, but authors of the publications did not attend to the subclades. On the map these DNA are marked as circle 37, with a conditional dating of 3,000 YA. Nearby, in the same Altai region, is shown a circle 28, dated 3,000-2,500 YA. Those are cultures of the Scythian phylum, their fossil DNA belongs to R1a-Z93. A third of their descendants, the Khakasses, are of haplogroup R1a-Z93, and almost two thirds have haplogroups N1a (N1a1 + N1a2b).

Then migrants passed to China (map circle 29, conditional date 3,000 YA), and now several million men with haplogroup R1a live there. Just in the Henan province are estimated to live more than three million of the R1a haplogroup carriers (A.A. Klyosov, History of the Aryans and Erbins. Moscow, Conceptual, 2017, pp. 155-159). The dating of their haplotypes shows that their common ancestors with the haplotypes of the modern Russians lived 4,600 ±500 YA (calculations were carried out by I.L. Rozhansky), which puts these common ancestors back on the East European Plain.

The “Sixteen Kingdoms” period (304 - 439 AD) of Chinese history was a fulcrum of demographic changes, when numerous nomadic populations redraw a demographical map of China. Chinese historians refer to them under codenames Huns (pin. Xiongnu), Jie (pin. Jie), Syanbi (pin. Xianbei), Di (pin. Di), Qiang (pin. Qiang), and Tuyuhun (Tibetans, Tanguts). The Huns and Tocharians (Yueji, Tuhsi) had multi-millennia horse-nomadic economies, the Tungus-Mongols adopted horse-nomadic economy ca. 200 BC.

Huns, Jie , Syanbi, Di were predominantly Türkic-speaking, not necessarily mutually comprehensible.
The Huns were a conglomerate of various nomadic tribes, likely predominantly of R1a Hg.
Jie were a prominent subdivision of the Huns, likely the same R1a Hg.
Syanbi demographically were predominantly R1a Hg. The Huns were controlled by a Hg. C minority of Mongols/Tunguses codenamed Syanbi.
The Di, the earlier nomadic migrants of the earliest nomadic period of China ca 2nd mill. BC, probably conflated to some degree with their preceding and later cousins, including Xia nomads. Most likely they were generally R1a and R1b Hg.

By the 3rd-2nd mill. BC Eurasian nomads were disseminating their knowledge of metallurgy and writing across Eurasia. Under a name of Zhou they brought bronze casting technique and syllabic writing “Oracle bone script” to China ca. 17th c. BC.

The Northern European Kurganians did not reach China under any names. Not that we know of. Their brothers, from more southern areas, reached future China, and took it under their control.

Since most of the Scythians with known haplogroups are of the R1a-Z93-Z94-Z2123 marker, it is clear that those Scythians are direct descendants of the southern Aryans (rather than descendants of their Scythian fathers). But from the southern Urals the Scythians did not go to the south, to Hindustan, or through Tajikistan to the Iranian plateau, or through the Caucasus to Mesopotamia-Asia Minor, and did not become common ancestors of the Tatars or Tajiks. Tajik DNA-genealogical roots go back to the time of the Aryans on the East European Plain 4,600-4,000 YA, like the Hindus (as opposed to a more general term “Indians").

Tajiks are Persian-speaking migrants from the south-west, like the Sogdians from the south-east. They were called Tajiks after an Arab tribe Tai which Assyrians used for the Arabs (Tayaye). In Pahlavi, the ethnonym Arab took a form Tajik. During a Moslem expansion, in the Türkic Middle Asia the term became associated with Islam, denominating converts to Islam of any ethnicity. Many such converts were, naturally, Türkic. Tajiks were not an ethnic group, they were diverse traders and farmers scattered across Middle Asia. The Soviet Tajikistan was created in 1929 in a course of Stalin's re-carving an ethnic map of Soviet Russia. The ethnic Tajiks were relocated (deported) to a designated area that was somewhat cleared of its native population. For the new ethnic entity the Russian experts created a Cyrillic-based alphabet, local press, and a new schooling system. Tajikistan was born. An DNA of Tajiks is like a DNA of a vegetable garden, of beets, onions, chamomiles, and so on.

The Scythians went to Altai and Mongolia, most of them became nomads, and made transitions from Altai to the Black Sea region (sometimes further to the west) and back, spoke in the majority in Turkic languages ​​(although some, perhaps, in “Indo-Iranian” (or, say perhaps Austronesian) languages), had mostly haplogroup R1a-Z2123. So, in the Samara region, fossil remains of the Scythians were found with an archaeological date of 2,395-2,215 YA, haplogroup R1a-Z2123. The Scythians became the ancestors of most of the Kyrgyz and at least a third of the Karachai-Balkars. Those who became Sarmatians mainly had the R1b haplogroup with a series of subclades, which we will talk about in the next part of the article.

Scythian kurgans are traced asystematically, a bit here and a bit there, most of them, especially in the European Russia, were destroyed in the past 3 centuries. Scythian DNA research is in its infancy, almost all data came from pre-DNA archeology. Metallurgy asserts long-range revolving migrations starting from Carpathians and via Minusinsk depression ending in China. In the 3rd mill. BC such excurses could only be accomplished by horse nomadic peoples. The European Scythians from Minusinsk started their voyages in Carpathians. Groups of Mesopotamian Scythians ended up in China. The Samara “Scythians” may had nothing to do with the European Scythians. And in 2,395-2,215 YA Darius' Scythian blitzkrieg in the N.Pontic Ukraine only allowed Darius to ingloriously flee from the laughing Scythians without his army,. If Scythians spoke “Indo-Iranian” languages, Darius knew nothing of that language. These and those Scythians share only a name and remote ancestry, each one had its own dialect, pasturing routs and winter camps, and their paths may have never crossed.

Coin of Atail(s), Gr. Ateas (Ατεας), 4th c. BC, NW of Black Sea

Let us now turn to the historically important movements of the R1a haplogroup carriers in Asia Minor, Adriatic, Apennines and in the eastern part of Central Europe. Fossil haplotypes on which the concept is based not have been found yet, but is enough indirect evidence with modern haplotypes. Let's start with the Balkans (Serbia, Bosnia) and an adjacent part of the Adriatic (Croatia), modern residents have haplotypes of Carpathian branches of the R1a-Z280 group have, and in majority compared to others (people, ethnicities, branches?). That is described in detail in the book “History of the Aryans and Erbins” (Conceptual, 2017, pp. 185-189). The same picture in Italy, haplogroup R1a-Z280, Carpathian and related branches, in the Eastern Europe now that group is mainly among the Slavs. A most likely source is a migration of people of the Fatyanovo culture (a successor to the Corded Ware culture, with haplogroup R1a overwhelming majority). Detailed justifications skipped here are all published in recent years in books on DNA genealogy. The point is that migrations from the Fatyanovo culture (4,300-3,500 YA, a most expected haplogroup is R1a-Z280) went northwest, forming future Baltic Slavs of haplogroup R1a-Z280 with downstream subclades, and the Lusatian, Pomeranian and other Slavs of the Eastern Europe (map circle 13 and westward, through Poland and Germany), and southwest (circle 14), forming future southern Slavs in the Balkans (circle 14), the Adriatic (circle 15), in Asia Minor, particularly in Paphlagonia, Lydia, Troy. Dating is 3,600-3,200 YA. The Slavs in Paphlagonia (on the southern bank of the Black Sea, next to Lydia and not far from Troy) described a Tale of Bygone Years translated by V.N. Tatishchev “Îò ñèõ æå ñåìèäåñÿò è äâîþ ÿçûêó áûñòü ÿçûê ñëîâåíñê îò ïëåìåíè Àôåòîâà, íàðèöàåìèè íîðöû, ÿæå ñóòü ñëîâÿíå, æèëè áëèç Ñèðèè è â Ïàôëàãîíèè” (“From these seventy two languages came the Slav (Slovenian) language from the Afetov (Yafet) tribe,
called Norsemen, or Slavs, living near near Syria and in Paphlagonia”).

The Enets (Enetoi, Ἐνετοι) of Paphlagonia, according to ancient historians, became the Illyrian Enets, then Veneti and Thracians, then apparently Wends and early Celts of R1a haplogroup who spoke in Indo-European languages. ​​Linguists have never found other sources of IE languages ​​for the Celts except as carriers of haplogroup R1a. All that is detailed on Preformat (articles Venets and Veneds - who are their modern descendants and Where did the Celts come from). The stages of that historical path of the haplogroup R1a carriers, in all likelihood migrants from the Fatyanovo culture, aka ancient Ruses, on the map are marked by circles 16 (migration to Paphlagonia, 4,300-3,500 YA), 17 (migration to Lydia as Enets, time the same, by the end of that period), 18 (migration to Troy as the Enets, toward the end of that period), 25 (driving captive Enets-Venets to the Apennines, to the future Venice and to the Venice Lagoon, 3,200 YA), 26 (transfer of the Veneti to north of the Adriatic, formation of the Illyrians and Thracians, or merging with them, after 3,200 YA). Then, in the first half of the 1st millennium BC, or 3,000-2,500 YA, formation of the early Celts of the haplogroup R1a with Indo-European (IE) languages ​​(circle 30), and then a rapid borrowing of cultural characteristics of the early Celts, borrowing of their IE languages ​​and their assimilating by the surrounding Europeans of haplogroup R1b. There was a rapid “Erbinization” of the early Celts and very soon by historical standards, over several centuries, the Celts in Europe became mainly carriers of the haplogroup R1b.

Sorry, friends, here I am helpless to be of help. I guess a mass genetic conversion from papa R1a to papa R1b is possible on a mass scale if the mass would concurrently switch a language from, say, R1b Türkic to, say, R1a Italic. Or vice-versa, the direction does not matter as long as we know the destination. Linguistic stratification is even easier, a single mutation makes an R1b son of an R1a papa, the son moves to Venice or any other remote place, and produces a line of descendents speaking Venetian or any other non-R1a language. Viola, we have 2 lines of languages, one without definition of its classification, without a common lexical base, without a common morphology, without a common syntax, and without any chance on mutual comprehension (say, Ossetian and English), and the other, say, a Türkic line that missed all the omissions of the first line. And I can't help nada.

Finally, our story ends with Normans' (Vikings') raids, where the haplogroup R1a-Z284 is substantial, against the British Isles, between 789 and 1066 ( map circle 31). We repeat again that Normans actively raided westward, the Islands, resulting in the haplogroup R1a-Z284 and many dozens of its branches being abundantly represented there. There was nothing similar in the Rus, Normans did not live in the East European Plain. Maybe they have visited, who did not do “visits” in ancient times? Slavs criss-cross all over Europe. But no one says that the Slavs founded Europe or its countries. The “Norman theory” is a purely ideological phenomenon, a religion of Russophobes, there is nothing else behind it.

More detailed information on migratory routes and burials with identified haplogroups is given in the books:

A.A. Klyosov. DNA genealogy of the Slavs. Origin and history. Ed. Peter, 2019, 397 pp.
A.A. Klyosov. Practical DNA genealogy for everyone. Moscow, Conceptual, 2018, 361 p.
A.A. Klyosov. History of Aryans and Erbins. Moscow, Conceptual, 2017, 317 pp.
A.A. Klyosov. DNA genealogy from A to T. Moscow, Bookish World, 2016, 475 pp.
A.A. Klyosov. Who is in the way of DNA genealogy? Moscow, Book World, 2016, 845 pp.
Expertise of Veles's book (team of authors), Moscow, Conceptual, 2015, Part IV, DNA-genealogy of ancient Slavic migrations, pp. 303-453.
Anatole A. Klyosov. DNA Genealogy. Scientific Research Publishing, USA, 2018, 386 pp.

Anatoly A. Klyosov,
Doctor of Chemistry, Professor
2019

 
Home
Türkic Genetics
Genetics Contents
In Russian (original)
In Russian (posting)
Sourcess
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Datelines
Klyosov A. Türkic DNA genealogy
Alinei M. Kurgan Culture Mesolith
Stearns P.N. Zhou Synopsis
Ogur and Oguz
Türkic Genetic Charts Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
10/17/2020
Ðåéòèíã@Mail.ru