Searching for the original Indo-europeans

Confronted to the obvious resemblances of many words from many different languages from Europe and Asia, scholars had came to surmise a common origin to explain this phenomenon. It soon became clear that this conjecture was correct.

This language family was named the Indo-european languages and their theoretical ancestor, the Proto-indo-european language.

It is indeed accurate to say that English is akin to Persian, Latin, Ancient Greek, Pashtun,French, Russian or Hindi and many others. These languages are related and linked by an ancient common origin, a common core.
The link is not confined to linguistics. A cultural link is also observable among the antique cultures of Europe and Asian cultures sharing this linguistic link.
For instance, the major antique Hindu god Dyaus Pita is recognizable in Jupiter and Zeus(Sometimes named Zeus Pater), all derived from an antique Father-Sky deity.
Sometimes, despite the difference in names, Indo-european gods are easily recognized by their personification. This is the case with Indra, the Hindu God of war and weather, a mace-wielding thundering god (whose mace is named Vajra and is a symbol of thunder and lightning) who crushes evil beings, like Vritra a giant snake, and that we can find back in Thor, the Germanic hammer-wielding god of thunder (whose hammer is named Mjöllnir and is a symbol of thunder and lightning (Mjöllnir likely comes from an ancient Indo-european root that gave malleus, the Latin word for hammer)) fighting Jörmungandr, a giant evil snake. This major archetypal god is found throughout the Indo-european continuum (the Slavic Perun, the Baltic Perkunas, theHittite Tarhun/teshub, the Gallic Taranis and others).

This constatation of a common language family (with an hypothetical but extremely likely proto-indo-european language as the source) and tracks of common cultural elements spanning over basically all of Europe up to the east of India leads us to wonder how it is possible for a language family to extend on such a distance across Eurasia. Who were its original speakers? Where was its place of origin?

Some people, Like Colin Renfrew, allege that the proto-indo-europan language appeared inAnatolia (Present day Turkey) and was imported in Europe with the spread of agriculture during neolithic, Indian nationalists allege that their Indo-european languages are autochthonous to their country and that some of their ancestors spread this language family all over Eurasia up to Europe.
The more likely explanation is, in my opinion, the Kurgan theory. I will show in these pages that archeology, linguistics and even genetics seem to support it, so far.

The Kurgan hypothesis postulate that, north of the black sea, in what are modern Ukraine andsouth of Russia, an Europoid pastoralist population migrated both east and west imposing its culture and languages on local populations through the centuries and milleniums, mixing again and again as a minority with the locals in this process (and indeed the presence of early Indo-european loanwords in Finno-ugric languages at the stage of proto-Uralic (few examples: proto-indo-european *wed-er/en (water, river), *h₁nḗh₃mn̥- (name), *wosa (merchadise, to buy), *sneH(u)- (sinew)) have their matches in proto-Uralic: *wete, *wosa, *nime- ,*sone ) gives a strong basis for this theory, especially if we add that there are also several clear tracks of early Indo-iranian loanwords in these northern languages (more will be said later about it)).

Hypothetical Indo-european migrations roughly up to 1,000 BCE, according to the Kurgan Hypothesis

The culture supposed to be ancestral to the Indo-european languages and cultures are theSredny Stog culture, from 4,500 BCE to 3,500 BCE, followed by the Yamna culture (also namedPit grave culture or Yamnaya culture) from 3,600 BCE to 2,200 BCE.
From there we can follow the archeological trail of their movements in the south-east of Europe during the late 5th millenium BCE-4th millenium BCE (e.g. destruction of Karanovo VI in Bulgaria; the earliest movement in south-east Europe (before 4,000 BCE, being very likely at the origin of the Indo-european Anatolian laguage family which is apparently from an earlier stage than Proto-indo-european and that might have arrived in Anatolia around 2,600 BCE (the date of the arrival of the Anatolian-speaking populations in Asia minor and the path they took to arrive there is purely theoritical)) or in the north of Europe (Globular amphora culture and Corded ware culture, appearing roughly around 3,500-3,000 BCE) and in Asia with the Afanasevo culture (appearing around 3,500 BCE, in Kazakhstan, south Siberia, west Mongolia and even apparently in Xinjiang) then by the Andronovo culture horizon (around 2,300 BCE to 1,000 BCE) in central Asia, then in south Asia with the Gandhara graves culture (appearing in the Swat valley of north Pakistan around 1,800 BCE).

In the perspective of the Kurgan hypothesis, the Proto-indo-european stage existed during the 3,600 BCE-3,000 BCE time frame (more or less). Archeology and linguistics can apparently allow to pinpoint the proto-indo-european dates to the Chalcolithic time (e.g. The proto-indo-europeans had (their own) words for wheel, wool, horse, metal, etc… which wouldn’t fit with earlier dates (like a fully neolithic time)).

Genetics could very well confirm the Kurgan theory. Genetic testing have indentified an haplogroup (wikipedia article on the haplogroups) that could be the genetic signature of the population that was once the vector of indo-europeanization.

From Iceland to North-east india or to China or south Siberia, Haplogroup Y-DNA R1a1a is present, where we would expect it to be found if it was the mark of the spreading of Indo-european movements at the origin of the archeological ancestral Indo-european cultures. While hypothetical, many elements support the idea that early Indo-european populations were caucasoid R1a1a individuals spreading from the north of the black sea as early as 6,500 or 5,500 years ago.
Haplogroups can be understood as genetic signatures allowing to identify ancestral human lineages. Two sets of haplogroups are existing : the mtDNA haplogroupsidentifying the female lineages (transmitted from mother to daughter, exclusively matrilinearly (men also inherit it from their mother but they don’t transmit it to their offsprings)) and the Y-DNA haplogroups that identify male lineages (transmitted from father to son, exclusively patrilinearly).

Map of the Y-DNA haplogroups determined by the DNA of the human Y chromosome.

These haplogroups, that are mutations in the DNA that are unique to a particuliar lineage, can help to identify the early human migrations and the origin and composition of the populations of a given country or region.

The European populations are mainly bearers of the R1b (more exactly from the R1b1a2 sublineages (ex-R1b1b2 sublineages)), R1a (more exactly the R1a1a sublineages) and I (I1, I2a and I2b) – other haplogroups are present but are less specific to Europe, such as Y-DNA J2, G2a, E1b1b1, N1c and other lineages – as for their male haplogroups, and bearers of many mtDNA haplogroups whose most frequent and typical are mtDNA haplogroup H (whose most subgroups are typically Europoid) and some mtDNA haplogroup U subgroups (a mtDNA haplogroup such as U5 is typical of Europe for instance and is thought to be representative of early paleolithical hunter-gatherers of Europe ; a mtDNA haplogroup such as K who is an offshoot of haplogroup U8 is also rather frequent in Europe, even if also found in west Asia).

Map of the approximative Y-DNA haplogroups repartition in Europe.

In the European male lineages, the subgroups of R1 (R1a and R1b (R1b is currently typical of western Europe while R1a is much more frequent in the east and in a least quantity in the north of Europe)) are the most frequent haplogroups in Europe, and in the female European lineages, H subgroups are the most frequent haplogroups.

The archeological findings and the testing of ancient DNA seems to confirm the presence of caucasoid populations deep into Asia, up to south Siberia, during bronze age, apparently almost always associated with haplogroup R1a1a, seemingly supporting the Kurgan theory. The east Asian flow of populations apparently starting to be important only from early iron age, in south Siberia and central Asia, as described in several studies provided below.

“According to paleoanthropological data, the Caucasoid (in respect of its morphological features) population predominated in the steppes of the Altai–Sayan region [Pastmists : located in south Siberia] during the Neolithic [Pastmists : here, apparently at least starting with the chalcolithic], Bronze, and partly early Iron Ages [1–3]. At that time the Mongoloid component was observed only in few cases. However, beginning from the early Iron Age, the presence of this component has been increasing, and becoming prevalent in modern times. Thus, dynamics of the anthropological composition of the Altai–Sayan populations can be characterized by definitely directed replacement of the Caucasoid component by the Mongoloid one.” (excerpt from « Origin of Caucasoid-Specific Mitochondrial DNA Lineages in the Ethnic Groups of the Altai–Sayan Region » (Derenko et al, 2002 | source))

Other major studies of reference (more informations from these studies will be given in the next articles) :

“Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people” (source)

“Unravelling migrations in the steppe: mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient central Asians”(source)

“Pigment phenotype and biogeographical ancestry from ancient skeletal remains: inferences from multiplexed autosomal SNP analysis” (source)

“Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age” (source)


The presence of caucasoid haplogroups, both in ancient and recent DNA testing in south Siberia, Siberia, Mongolia, China and south Asia is attested by the recent genetic studies and Mummies from the Altai (for instance, see this wikipedia article on the Pazyryk burials) and theXinjiang (wikipedia article on the tarim mummies) regions only seem to corroborate this fact.

The Cherchen man, a Tarim basin (Xinjiang) mummy dated 1,000 BCE.

The conjunction of the archeological data (the source of the south Siberian Europoid population arriving in south Sibera around 3,500 BC during the Chalcolithic seems to be clearly originally coming from the north-east of the black sea (many archeological similarities in the sepultures, potteries, cultual elements, economy, social organisation, and so on, between the Afanasevo culture and the cultures north of the black sea)), the linguistical data (the nature of the Tocharian languages (attested in western China (Xinjiang) around 500 A.D.) supports its separation early from the Indo-european group – which fits well with the Afanasevo culture origin and dates) and the genetic data (the Haplogroups (both the male and female lineages) confirm an European origin of this population and de facto confirm haplogroup Y-DNA R1a1a as an Indo-european marker. Both of the Europoid and Asian lineages found in the earliest Tarim basin (Xinjiang) mummies (The people of Xiaohe (pastmists : see the Xinjiang pagefor more details)) fits an origin in south Siberia (a few other facts in archeology and linguistics (e.g. it seems some sort of proto-altaic (or proto-Turkic and proto-Tungusic stems anyway) is found in Tocharian) could also support this view. The fact that the archeological sites are found first in the east of the Xinjiang and in north-west Gansu seem to also confirm that this population didn’t arrive directly from the west but rather from south Siberia (from the Afanasevo culture)) and tend to confirm the association of the Tocharian language with the chalcolithic Afanasevo culture) seem to validate the Kurgan theory in terms of pattern and chronology. At the moment, no other theory on the subject knows such a seemingly blatant confirmation in the available data.

Ancient mummy of a tall woman with europoid features discovered in north-western China (Xinjiang).

As previously mentionned, some common cultural and mythological background can also be perceived in the antique Indo-european peoples (despite the huge geographical distance and the long time separation: for instance, the three Kalasha people of south Asia designated by robe colors (white robes (safed posh), red robes (surkh posh) and black robes (siah posh)) remind of the three colors representing the Indo-european social organisation elsewhere (e.g. in the Scandinavian Rigsthula, the Jarl (noble) is blond, the Karl (freeman, churl) is redheaded and the thrael (slave, serf) is black-haired (white, red and black are symbolic and representing a different layer of the indo-european social order (originally possibly as a reference to the colors of the sky (daylight/twilight/night))).

The subject is too dense to be treated here but let’s give a famous example of a potential culural marker: In the material culture, a symbol such as the Swastika is often thought to be ofIndo-european origin by many as it is found in many antique Indo-european populations (but it is also possible, that its origin was actually non-indo-european, probably from the middle-east(the oldest swastika found so far was in Iraq at Samarra, dated around 5,000 BCE (the second oldest found swastikas are apparently among the Vinca signs of the Balkans around 4,000-3,000 BCE. (It’s also in the Vinča culture, specifically in the east of Serbia, that were found the oldest evidences of extractive metallurgy in the world, thus far [source : On the origins of extractive metallurgy: new evidence from Europe]))) and then gained some significance in the ancient Indo-european populations (sometimes changed as a triskellion, like among the Celts)).

Swastika on the head of an Asian monk. In Asia, the Swastika is a widely spread positive symbol. It is a major symbol of the religion appearing in India (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism)

Here, a Swedish bracteate roughly from 400 AD (historiska museet, Sweden). The Swastika is a symbol found throughout Eurasia.

This Swastika (dated 500 BCE) was found on an ancient artefact during archaeological digs in Bulgaria. The oldest found Svastika in the Balkans are from the Vinca signs, around 4,000-3,000 BCE.

Persian necklace with three swastikas from the first millenium BCE found at Kularaz, in the Gilan region of Iran (National Museum of Iran). The number 3 was an important number in the Indo-european tradition.

Let’s also mention another recurrent point. Some people have alleged that the ancient Indo-europeans were calling themselves “Aryas” (Aryans) or more exactly *Aryos as an ethnonym, but this is of course unproved, even though the presence of the Indo-european root ar-(supposed to mean “noble” or maybe “freeman” – but of course, it could also as easily have been used as a word to designate a member of the community, maybe on cultural and linguistical criteria (maybe even ethnical), for the first Indo-europeans) in many ancient Indo-european languages could indeed be a hint of such thing (ancient Greek Aristos (still visible in the english word “aristocrat“), the Aryas of south Asia (Alan is also possibly related to it), theArsi of Xinjiang, the arawa term in Hittite, the Ario- prefix in the names of prominent Celtic and Germanic individuals of the antiquity (e.g. Germanic Ariovistus and Ariaric (a son of a Goth king), Gaulish Ariomanos (Irish Eremon), etc…), or also the old Irish aire (“nobleman“, “freeman”), could possibly support this hypothesis).

Map of a part of Asia (Afghanistan is lighter, here). According to the Kurgan hypothesis, starting with the chalcolithic and/or the early bronze age, migrations originating north of the black sea spread the Indo-european languages and a partially common cultural background throughout Eurasia.

Despite the very ancient time of these surmised migrations (apparently as early as the copper age (chalcolithic) ), visible lingering tracks are apparently still seen in the phenotypes of Asian populations of these regions, even if uncommon. the following articles will give examples of such phenotypes and a few basic informations related to the matter, about these regions and their populations :
South Asia (Iran and Afghanistan)
South Asia (Pakistan and India)
Central Asia
Xinjiang

Indo-iranian-speaking Scythian warriors of the Eurasian steppes (from a gold vase of the Kul Oba kurgan in Crimea, Ukraine)
Source from: http://pastmists.wordpress.com/category/indo-european/

Эвшээлт

Орчин үеийн судалгаагаар Приматын эвшээлт нь Гоминидын түүхэн хөгжлийн дундаас олж авсан мэдрэхүйн /халдварт/ рефлекц буйг илэрхийлж байна. 

Хүмүүн эвшээснээр тархи сэргэж, үр бүтээлтэй ажиллах мэдрэмжийг хүлээн бий болгодог. Өөрөөр хэлбэл, уураг тархи өөрөө өөртөөн сэргэх ёстойг сануулдаг гэсэн үг. Тэгвэл энэ үйлдэл бусдад халдварладагийн учир нь таны тархи ч бас сонор сэрэмжээ алдахгүй байх хэрэгтэй гэдгийг өөртөө сануулж байгаа хэрэг гэнэ. Ер нь сүүн тэжээлтэн амьтад дундаас Хүмүүн салвар нь эвшээлтийг гээлгүй салж хөгжсөн бол өвөг төрөл болох Паны бүлийн Шимпазед мөн адил эвшээлтийн дохио нь харилцан даган дууриах процесоор түлхүү ажиглагдсаар өнөөг хүрчээ. Энэ нь сэтгэцийн хувьд хүмүүнтэй төстэйг илтгэнэ. Мөн сүүн тэжээлтэн-Mammal's анги дотороо Homo нь бусдаасаа илүү мэдрэмжтэйг илэрхийлэх өнгөц таамнал болно. Бусад доод бүлийн анги, сүүн тэжээлтэн амьтад өөр хоорондоо нэгэн мөчрийн амьтад боловч салаа бүр хэв шинжийн ялгагдахгүй юмгүй өвөг язгууртай болохоо илэрхийлж эвшээлгэх үйлдэл үйлддэг. 

http://paleoantropologiahoy.blogspot.com.es/2013/11/primer-estudio-heteroespecifico-de.html

03.11.13

Гандхара хийц

Грек-Бактрын үеийн хүний баримал

Гандхара хийцийн барималууд-Грек хэв шинжийн Буддист урлаг

Бактр-Гандхара хийцийн толгой Афганистан

Пакистан-Афганистан орчмоос олдсон Гандхара хийцийн Бурханы тэргүүн

Буддагийн тэргүүн, ойролцоогоор МЭ IV зууны үе.

Гандхара хийцийн хүний толгой МЭ IV-V зуун

БУГАН ХӨШӨӨ

West Asian-European

Sayan-Altai

Classic Mongolian

Буган чулуу хэмээх ойлголтод Евразийн тал хээр нутгийн, хүн дүрст янз бүрийн хэлбэрт чулуун хөшөөний бүлэг хамаарна. Эдгээр чулуун дүрсийг уулын энгэр, голын хөндий, булш дараасны ойролцоо босгож байрлуулсан байх ба гол төлөв дайчин цэрэг эрсийг дүрсэлсэн байдаг. Царай төрхийг тойм төдий дүрсэлж,толгой хэсгийг ээмэг, сондор сэлтээр тодруулна. Чулуун багана хөшөөний голд амьтны дүрс байх нь хувцасны чимэг хатгамал эсвэл биеийн шивээсийг бэлгэдсэн бололтой. Бэлхүүсээр бүсэлсэн бүсэнд зэр зэвсэг болон багаж сэлт зүүжээ. Тойм төдий дүрсэлсэн бусад хүн дүрст чулууг бодвол дайчин эрийн аливаа шинж байдлыг тун нарийн илэрхийлэн гаргасан байх тул дүрсэлсэн зэр зэвсгийг нь булш дараасны олдвор эсвэл тэдгээрийн хэлвэр маятай харьцуулснаар түүхэн он цагийг тогтоож болох мэт ажээ. Өмнөхөн үеийн буган чулууг тал бүрээс нь товгор хээгээр чимэглэжээ. МЭӨ I мянганы Карасукийн соёлын үеийн зэр зэвсэг болон гүйдэл дунд нь амьтаныг дүрсэлсэн бугын дүр төрх гайхалтай сонин харагддаг. Хожуу үеийн бугуна чулуун дээрх дүр дүрслэлд арай илүү хийсвэр хэв маяг оруулсан байдаг нь дурсгалуудын хээ чимэглэл дүрслэлээс нь илт мэдэгддэг.[1] Буга шүтлэгт овог аймгуудын ерөнхий тархалтын байр зүйг хэлбэр хийц онцлогоор нь Оросын эрдэмтэн Волковын буган хөшөөнд гаргасан дүрслэл түүний ангилал зүйд буган хөшөөг 1. Евразийн хэлбэр 2. Алтай-Соёны, 3. Монгол-Байгалийн гэсэн ангилал[2] гэж ангилсан нь буган хөшөөнд гаргасан дүрслэл, харьцуулсан ангилал болно. “Эдгээр ангилсан зүйлс нь өөр хоорондоо гойд ялгагдах юмгүй боловч хүйсийн талаас нь Евразийн хэлбэр, Алтай-Соёны хоёр нь ихэвчлэн эмэгтэй хүний эдэлж хэрэглэдэг зүйлс дүрсэлсэн бол Монгол-Байгалийн хэлбэр бүхий буган чулуун хөшөө нь эрэгтэй хүний эдэлж хэрэглэх зэр зэвсэг, бамбай, гоёл чимэглэл зэргийг дүрслэн үзүүлсэн нь ялган үзэх үндэслэл байна” [3] гэж Археологич Д. Эрдэнэбаатар үзсэн байна.

Эх сурвалж:

---

[1] Чингис хаан түүнийг залгамжлагчид Монголын эзэнт гүрэн УБ 2010., Тал 46

[2] Волков В. 1981. Оленние камни. УБ., Стр 227.

[3] Mongolian Journal of Anthropology, Archaeology and Ethnology: Official Journal of the National University of Mongolia. Volume 3 No. 1 December 2007 Д.Эрдэнэбаатар, А.А. Ковалев “Монгол Алтайн бүс нутгийн археологийн соёлууд” Тал 47.

----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_stone

Deer stone site near Мurun soum in Mongolia.

29.10.13

Маск

Моче маск МЭ 2-7 зуун Перу

Чандар хадгалж байсан маск МЭ 10-11 зуун Перу

Олмекийн ногоон хашаар урласан маск Мексик МЭӨ 10-6-р зуун

Маск

Бетховины маск

Наполео́н  Бонапа́рт

Үхээрийн эзэн Түрдэд Дагвогийн маск

Наполео́н Бонапа́ртын нүүрний хэвт маск

South Asia - India & Pakistan

Within a geographic continuum going from the south-east of Tajikistan, eastern Afghanistan (especially Nuristan) down to the north of Pakistan, the Europoid phenotypes are more frequent. The area is also apparently the place of a (slightly) higher frequency of the haplogroup Y-DNA R1a1a than in the neighboring areas.

mirrored from http://pastmists.wordpress.com/2010/06/ for educational purposes

SEE ORIGINAL PAGE FOR AN ASTOUNDING PHOTO ESSAY

The south of Asia was the homeland of bright and famous ancient civilizations, culturally and linguistically Indo-european, especially India (of the Indo-aryan linguistical family) and Iran (formerly known as Persia, of theIranian linguistical family).

It was at the end of the 18th century, that sir William Jones realized the relation between European languages and south Asian languages such asSanskrit, inaugurating then the existence of the now famous Indo-european language family theory.

Latin, for instance, has many similarities with Sanskrit. Indeed, how couldn’t we link words such as vox (voc-is), “voice“ in Latin and vac in Sanskrit (also “voice” ; found in many other Indo-european languages, e.g. Tocharian vak/vek orHittite huek), candor (“bright whiteness” in Latin ) and candra, “moon” in Sanskrit, ignis (“fire” in Latin) and agnis (“fire” in Sanskrit, Agni also being the god of fire – also ugnis in Lithuanian and ogon’ in Russian, all meaning “fire“), Latinjugum (meaning “yoke“, also derived from the same proto-indo-european word) and Sanskrit yugam, giving the word“yoga“ (also in the ancient greek zugon, Tocharian yuk or Hittite yukan, among many examples), Latin nebula andSanskrit nabhas (but also Hittite nepiš, German nebel and Russian nebo, for instance, meaning all either “cloud“, “mist” or “sky“), or pater (“father” (a word also related) in Latin) and pitar in Sanskrit (also the ancient greek pater or Tocharianpacer, and many others). Likewise, we can find some similarities between the declension suffixes in both languages (examples : -ibus at the plural dative and ablative cases in Latin and -ebhyas in Sanskrit in the same cases).

When it became obvious that most of the languages of Europe and the languages of south Asia were related, then started the search for an explanation to such an astonishing geographical extent. Many theories have been erected to try to solve the puzzle of the origin of the extent of this language family and to discover the original population responsible for this situation and their ancestral homeland.

The Kurgan hypothesis explains the repartition of the Indo-european languages in Eurasia by the successive migrations of pastoralist populations living north of the black sea (in what is nowadays east Ukraine and south Russia), whose arrival is visible in the archeology. In this theory, the early Indo-iranians originated in the region between Russia andnorth-west Kazakhstan between 2,500 BCE and 2,000 BCE (the Abashevo culture of Russia is also considered possibly a good candidate for the origin of the proto-indo-iranian language by some (The fact that it was influential in the origin of the Sintashta site (a site just east of the Ural mountains often considered as having the oldest visible expression of indo-iranian practices) could support this view as well)) and were subsequently found in the Andronovo culture of central Asia. Also, the fact that the Andronovo culture was followed by the Indo-iranian-speaking Scythians/Sakas (who clearly seem spawned from it (there is an archaeological continuity between these cultures)) seem to clearly make this theory the most logical one.

The Gandhara grave culture of the north of Pakistanis also seen as the advance of Indo-iranian populations in south Asia. The presence of proto-Indo-iranian loanwords in Finno-ugric languages (such as Estonian and Finnish) and in languages from the east of the Caucasus can be seen as supporting this theory of the Indo-iranian ethnogenesis (Interestingly, among the terms that the ancient Finno-ugric language borrowed to the ancient Indo-iranian language seems to be the “arya” word (source)).

A spreading of the Indo-european languages in Eurasia from neolithic agriculturalist populations seems very unlikely as the proto-indo-european language had words for the wheel (examples : Latin rota, Sanskrit rathas, Irish roth andLithuanian ratas (a root also meaning sometimes “chariot” in a few languages)) and a metal (examples: Latin aes(bronze), Sanskrit ayas (iron), Gothic aiz (brass; coin) and old Norse eir (bronze), among others), which seems to exclude, de facto, the oldest typical neolithic time. The fact that the stem for “horse” (*ekwos ; the satem version of it in Sanskrit is ‘asva‘) is also present in the original language, the proto-indo-european language (a root visible in these few examples : Latin equus, Mycenian iqo, Gaulish epos, Tokharian B yakwe or old Irish ech), also excludes both south Asiaand neolithic as the geographical origin and the time of the proto-indo-europeans, as the horse was apparently absent of south Asia until the last part of bronze age (this animal was apparently also absent of south-west Asia and in a big part of Asia minor until the same historical time (informations about the horse domestication)).

The study of ancient Indo-iranian languages also seems to support an origin of this language family from outside of India (source).

Frequency and spread of the lactase persistence T-13910 allele of the LCT gene. 

We can see that South Asians and Europeans share a specific mutation for lactase persistence

The Gandhara grave culture, located in the north of Pakistan in the Swat valley, sees the arrival of the horse in south Asia during bronze age and a few points allows for a (still controversial and hypothetical) link with the early Indo-aryans. The funerary practices, for instance, show several similarities with other supposedly Indo-european practices and there are many similarities with the Andronovo culture traditions. They also could fit quite well with the RigVedic descriptions. These traditions are clearly the mark of a change in this region, at this time.

In the Kurgan theory, the first Indo-iranians supposedly arrived around 1,800 BC-1,600 BC in south Asia from central Asia. These populations were apparently in large part of Europoid type as hinted by several studies (see the central Asia article), which seems confirmed by the admixture estimates of south Asian populations that do have an european component even if in low quantity (examples here or here (or here for a higher resolution of the latter) | source : dienekes.blogspot.com)

Supporting the theory of migrations from central Asia into south Asia, the presence ofthe very mutation (mutation T-13910 of the lactase phlorizin hydrolase (LCT) gene) providing the lactose tolerance (here more precisely the lactasepersistence) among European populationsis also found in south Asia, especially in the the north-west of India (source). This clearly shows that south Asians and Europeans share a specific mutation and as such as specific relation of which west Asians are excluded (this allele is obviously only very marginal and residual among west Asians and likely the result of Indo-european migrations of little demographic impact).

A 2009 study (Kallur N. Saraswathy et al., Brief communication: Allelic and haplotypic structure at the DRD2 locus among five North Indian caste populations) also emphasized the genetic flow inherited of populations extraneous to India within the upper caste populations of north India.

The dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene, with its known human-specific derived alleles that can facilitate haplotype reconstruction, presents an important locus for anthropological studies. The three sites (TaqIA, TaqIB, and TaqID) of the DRD2 gene are widely studied in various world populations. However, no work has been previously published on DRD2 gene polymorphisms among North Indian populations. Thus, the present study attempts to understand the genetic structure of North Indian upper caste populations using the allele and haplotype frequencies and distribution patterns of the three TaqI sites of the DRD2 gene. Two hundred forty-six blood samples were collected from five upper caste populations of Himachal Pradesh (Brahmin, Rajput and Jat) and Delhi (Aggarwal and Sindhi), and analysis was performed using standard protocols. All three sites were found to be polymorphic in all five of the studied populations. Uniform allele frequency distribution patterns, low heterozygosity values, the sharing of five common haplotypes, and the absence of two of the eight possible haplotypes observed in this study suggest a genetic proximity among the selected populations.The results also indicate a major genetic contribution from Eurasia to North Indian upper castes, apart from the common genetic unity of Indian populations. The study also demonstrates a greater genetic inflow among North Indian caste populations than is observed among South Indian caste and tribal populations.

[pastmists : interestingly, among the populations being the closest of the north Indian upper castes, in this specific study, we find the Chuvash people (a Turkic-speaking people of Russia whose haplogroups and autosomal profile reveal they are still largely from the ancient "Europoid" autochthonous non-Turkic substrate) [pastmists: the Finns and even the Russians are close too, seemingly confirming this view] living west of the Ural mountains, where was located the already mentionned Abashevo culture, during bronze age. Is this a sign that the Aryas had come from populations in this general region (and of this historical culture), or maybe more generally from a region close to the Ural mountains?]

Asko Parpola, a Finnish scholar, evokes a few points supporting the migration of Indo-iranian populations in India during bronze age in this excerpt of an interview:

Hindu.com : “Some Indian scholars feel that the Indus Civilisation is Aryan [i.e. Indo-iranian] and connected with the Rig Veda. You are a Vedic scholar and you specialise in the Indus script too. So what is your reaction to this standpoint?”

Asko Parpola : “Rigvedic hymns often speak of horses and horse-drawn chariots, and the horse sacrifice, ashvamedha, is among the most prestigious Vedic rites. The only wild equid native to the Indian subcontinent is the wild ass, which is known from the bone finds of the Indus Civilisation and depicted (though rarely) in its art and script. The domesticated horse is absent from South Asia until the second millennium BCE. Finds from Pirak and Swat from 1600 BCE show it was introduced from Central Asia after the Indus Civilisation. The earliest archaeological finds of horse-drawn chariot come from graves dated to around 2000 BCE in the Eurasian steppes, the natural habitat of the horse. There are also ancient Aryan loanwords in Finno-Ugric languages spoken in northeastern Europe (for example, the word for ‘hundred‘ in my own language Finnish is ‘sata’ [i.e. the same word than in Indo-iranian]). Some of these Aryan loanwords represent a more archaic stage of development (that is, are phonetically closer to the older Proto-Indo-European language) than Rigvedic Sanskrit. It is very likely that these words came to Finno-Ugric languages from Proto-Aryan spoken in theVolga steppes [i.e. in Russia].”

(Source)

Isolated people of the Hindu Kush mountains in the north of Pakistan (in the Chitral district), the Kalash are a polytheistic ethnic group speaking the Kalash language, a Dardic language (a language group considered as a subgroup of the Indo-aryan language family) of the Indo-iranian language family. Their traditions are said to be close to the ancientpre-Zoroastrian Iranian and ancient Indian Vedic traditions.

Central Asia

ScythioSiberian mummy

There was a time, well before the Turkic population movements, when central Asia was speaking Indo-european languages. During antiquity, Indo-iranian languages were once spoken by populations from the east of Europe up to the Altai mountains of south Siberia(Scythians, Sakas and Sarmatians were such peoples) and down tosouth Asia.

Nevertheless, prior to this situation, another kind of Indo-european language was apparently present in Asia.

The first Indo-european migration eastwards (from its ancestral home of Ukraine and south Russia) we find tracks of, occurs right before 3,500 BC and gives birth to the Afanasevo culture, whose extent is from Kazakhstan to south Siberiaand Mongolia. It is likely that the population of the Afanasevo culture was speaking a language that was the ancestor of the Tocharian language.

The ancient DNA and the archeology reveal hints of this ancient past. A 2004 study expose the nature of the bronze age population (in this study the samples are precisely from 1,300 BC to 400 AD) of Kazakhstan :

“Unravelling migrations in the steppe: mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient central Asians” (Lalueza-fox et al, 2004 – source)

“The distribution of east and west Eurasian lineages through time in the region is concordant with the available archaeological information: prior to the (…) seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belong to European lineages; while later an arrival of east Eurasian sequences that coexisted with the previous west Eurasian genetic substratum can be detected. The presence of an ancient genetic substratum of European origin in West Asia may be related to the discovery of ancient mummies with European features in Xinjiang and to the existence of an extinct Indo-European language, Tocharian” 

[...]

“Most of the retrieved sequences (n = 21, 78%) belong to European (or west Eurasian) mtDNA haplogroups (HV, H, T, I, U and W haplogroups).”

[...]

“Haplogroups present in modern Kazakhs, such as B, F, C, Z, D, R, J and Y [Pastmists : almost all typically east-Asian],were not observed in the prehistoric Kazakhs [Pastmists : here, the earliest samples are from the bronze age]. By contrast, two haplogroups observed among the ancient samples, W and I, have not yet been found among modern Kazakhs. The results also indicate that there is an excess of west Eurasian haplogroups in comparison with those currently found (notably haplogroups H and U). However, this may be attributed to the overrepresentation of the earlier temporal period with only west Eurasian haplogroups. The observed absence of east Eurasian sequences prior to the eighth to seventh century BC suggests an earlier prehistoric expansion of peoples containing west Eurasian sequences into Asia, that probably went further east, into present-day China. This expansion may be related to the discovery of mummies that contain European features and west Eurasian mtDNA sequences in the Tarim basin, China, as well as the relict Indo-European Tocharian.”

South Siberia was also once populated mostly by Europoid populations, likely speaking the ancestor of the Tocharianlanguage, in what is known as the Afanasevo culture, appearing as early as 3,500 BC roughly mirroring the supposed Indo-european population movements into the north of Europe at the same time (the similar dates of these population movements, both east and west, probably explain the resemblances between Tocharian, the easternmost Indo-european language, and the westernmost Indo-european languages, found in Europe - Indo-iranian language being likely spread by a later population movement spreading the satem innovation (see below) now overwhelmingly present in Asia but not in the tocharian language). Both these migrations have their origin in the north of the black sea, in thesrednij stog and yamnaya cultures of Ukraine and south Russia, a relation hinted in archeology, even more clearly in Asia. In its easternmost known extent, the Afanasevo culture reached the west of Mongolia.

Tracks of these ancient (supposedly) Indo-european migrations can be found in archeology but also in the ancient DNA.

“Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people”(Keyser et al, 2009 – source)

“To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization [i.e. in Xinjiang, northwest China]. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far. “

The study also reveals that during bronze age,90% ofthe mtDNA haplogroups (female lineages) – such as U2, U4, U5a1, T1, T3, T4, H5a, H6, HV, K and I – were west Eurasian/Europoid (and 67% during iron age).

Several of these mtDNA genetic signatures have an exact match in Europe (like for instance mtDNA haplogroup I4 and T1 who are frequently found in the north and north-east of Europe (in the case of T1, the Baltic area is apparently where its frequency is the highest; this very haplotype was also found in ancient DNA from the ancient remains of Kazakhstan(Lalueza-fox et al. 2004) and Xinjiang (Gao et al. 2008)), the U5a1 haplotype is found in north-west Europe, the specific U2e haplotype was found nowadays in an east European individual and in only one Uyghur, the K2b haplotype was found in only two individuals, two Europeans (one Austrian and one Hungarian) and the precise U4 haplotypes of the study were found mostly in the north, the east, the north-east and the south-east of Europe and in the Volga-Ural area as well (but also a few in the Altai region up to the Baikal area), etc…).

Interestingly, the oldest mummies from the Tarim basin of Xinjiang (north-western China), among the 2,000 BCE Xiaohepeople, were also all R1a1a (and with a few mtDNA lineages having matches in modern Europe, as far as Iceland andGreat Britain) (source).

The Europoid haplogroups, though rather rare in Mongolia, are findable there (sources here and here). This is also illustrated by the ancient DNA.

“A western Eurasian male is found in 2000-year-old elite Xiongnu cemetery in Northeast Mongolia” (source)

“We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (Y-SNP), and autosomal short tandem repeats (STR) of three skeletons found in a 2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia.“

The human remains also reveal the change in the population of the Altai :

“According to paleoanthropological data, the Caucasoid (in respect of its morphological features) population predominated in the steppes of the Altai–Sayan region during the Neolithic [Pastmists : here, apparently at least starting with the Chalcolithic time], Bronze, and partly early Iron Ages [1–3]. At that time the Mongoloid component was observed only in few cases. However, beginning from the early Iron Age, the presence of this component has been increasing, and becoming prevalent in modern times. Thus, dynamics of the anthropological composition of the Altai–Sayan populations can be characterized by definitely directed replacement of the Caucasoid component by the Mongoloid one.” (excerpt from « Origin of Caucasoid-Specific Mitochondrial DNA Lineages in the Ethnic Groups of the Altai–Sayan Region » (Derenko et al. 2002) | source )

The study « Moleculargenetic analysis of Wanggu remains, inner Mongolia, China » (Yuqin Fu et al. 2006) [source] also reveals a “Caucasoid” input in the ancient Wanggu tribe :

“Recently, we discovered human remains of the Wanggu tribe in the Chengbozi cemetery in the Siziwang Banner of Inner Mongolia, China. [...] Our results show that the genetic structure of the Wanggu tribe in the Jin-Yuan period is a complex matriline, containing admixture from both Asian and European populations.” 

In 2004, the study “Different Matrilineal Contributions to Genetic Structure of Ethnic Groups in the Silk Road Region in China” (Yao et al, 2004) estimated the west eurasian input among the Mongolians to 14.3 % (source in PDF format).

It’s also interesting to note that a study on the Eurasian cattle revealed that the Mongolian cattle is partially derived from the European cattle (source : “Genetic diversity and structure in Bos Taurus and bos Indicus populations analyzed by SNP markers”), which reminds of similar conclusions found about the Japanese cattle (see the Xinjiang article for more details). In this context it is also interesting to mention that the Turkic öküz (meaning ox in English (same ancestral root), a word also akin to Sanskrit ukṣán) resembles Tocharian B okso.

As for the main Indo-european group of the Indo-european language family in Asia, the Indo-iranians, their ancestors supposedly migrated from the north of the black sea probably becoming the proto-indo-iranians in the region going fromRussia up to the north west of Kazakhstan roughly between 2,500 BC to 2,000 BC (explaining the presence of very early Indo-iranian loanwords in Finno-ugric languages (such as Finnish) and east Caucasian languages), spreading progressively up to south Siberia and south of central Asia leaving their tracks in an archaeological horizon named theAndronovo culture, supposedly giving ultimately birth to the Scythian/Saka population.

“The DNA analyses revealed that one subject was an ancient male skeleton with maternal U2e1 [pastmists: U2e is the European subgroup of U2, an ancient Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup. A 30,000 years old man found at Kostenki, south Russia, was found to be U2] and paternal R1a1 haplogroups. This is the first genetic evidence that a male of distinctive Indo-European lineages (R1a1) was present in the Xiongnu of Mongolia“

The fact that the male lineage, the haplogroup Y-DNA R1a1a, was associated almost exclusively with such west Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in the female lineages, in the oldest analyzed period, clearly points to a migration from eastern Europe, especially considering archeology which support this view, as the Afanasevo culture had several similarities with the Yamna culture of the north of the black sea. It is also mentionned that at least 60% of the tested ancient individuals had light hair and blue or green eyes.

It must be noted that the oldest written tracks of Indo-iranian language are not found in south Asia but in northern Syria, in a kingdom named Mitanni, in inscriptions dated around 1,400 BC.

The Mitanni inscriptions are in Hurrian, a non-indo-european language (whose ultimate origin is thought to be eitherCaucasus or Armenia), but indo-iranian terms linked to horses and chariots (and Indo-Aryan divinities as well) are found in these texts.

Given the fact that the oldest found tracks of chariot and horse-riding are found near the south of the Urals (examples :Sintashta site (also here) | Saratov site) and in the north of central Asia, it can be surmised that their use was spread by Indo-iranians in Anatolia, west Asia and south Asia. Such a location for the origin of Indo-iranian (i.e. roughly from Russia to the south of the Ural mountains. For instance, the Abashevo culture in Russia, is seen as a possible source for the proto-indo-iranian language or the satem features and indeed the Abashevo culture was influential in the Sintashta site where are seen the oldest known expression of indo-iranian-like rituals, according to many specialists) is supported by the fact that, as previously stated, many words from the Indo-iranian language family – sometimes from the proto-indo-iranian or at least at a very early stage of Indo-iranian – can be found in Finno-ugric languages (languages such asFinnish, Estonian or Saami) and languages from the eastern Caucasus (the fact that these loanwords have been entering these Finno-ugric languages at diverse stages of evolution of the Indo-iranian language confirm that the Finno-ugric populations have been in close contact with Indo-iranian-speaking populations for many centuries, and the fact that some of these loanwords seem to pertain to the proto-Indo-iranian stage supports the idea that these loanwords aren’t just a legacy of the Scythian and Sarmatian populations. It does support the theory of a homeland of the original Indo-iranians actually in the Russia-northwest Kazakhstan region). [a few examples of Indo-iranian roots in Finno-ugric languages]

“In 1370 BC a treaty between the king of Mitanni, Mattiwaza (old reading Kurtiwaza), and the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, was concluded and there is an oath guaranteed by a series of gods including such Indo-aryan divinities as Indra, Mithra, Varuna and Nasatya. In the 14th century BC in the hittite city of Bogazkoy a trainer from the land of the Mitanni named Kikkuli composed a treatise on horse training where he employed numerous Indo-Aryan terms (Thieme 1960; Mayhofer 1966; 1974; Kemmenhuber 1968). The first time the Indo-aryans appeared in the Near East dates, however, from the 17th century BC when the Hurrians (non-Indo-European) came from north-east Anatolia and founded the Mitanni kingdom. It was dominated by Indo-Aryans who had brought chariots, blood-horses, and the skills of horse-training. The names of Mitanni kings known from documents of the Tel-Amarna [Tell el-amarna] archive in Egypt and from the cuneiform texts and seals of the Near East are Indo-Aryan. The Indo-Aryans formed elite charioteer squadrons (Yankoska 1979; 1981; 1987). Judging by the descriptions of their dress and weapons, which included a hood, a bow, and a quiver with shaft-hole arrows (Zaccani 1978), the Aryans had come to Mitanni from the steppes. None of those features were known in the near East but had analogues only in the steppes. This is an elite dominance migration pattern: The dominance is secured by the introduction of new chariot battle tactics. The dominant group was presumably small and soon assimilated.” 

“The origin of the indo-iranians, volume 3“ p. 322, by Elena E. Kuz’mina

Seemingly confirming this theory, many of the words meaning “horse” throughout west Asia during antiquity seem derived from the satem form of the Indo-european root designating the horse (*ekwos), pointing again towards the Indo-iranians (speaking a satem Indo-european language in which horse was said “asva“) as the spreaders of mounted horses and chariotry in this region during bronze age (examples : Ugaritic “ssw“, Hurrian “essi“, Akkadian “sissu” and many others. Among them, quite revealing is the Hittite word “azu(wa)” which is extremely close to the Indo-iranian word and could have easily been a loanword from this language. The rise of the Hittites (an Indo-european Anatolian people (i.e. from modern day Turkey) whose language isn’t considered a satem language but that had a few satem words in its vocabulary), that was posterior to the rise of the Mitanni, owed much to an efficient use of chariotry.

The specialists generally consider satem a later innovation well after the proto-indo-european language which wascentum. This conforts the idea that the horse was introduced and domesticated late in west Asia and the Near East, apparently disproving the theory that the Indo-european languages appeared in either Asia minor or the Middle-East, as the stem for “horse” was omnipresent in basically all the Indo-european languages and, as such, obviously already part of the proto-indo-european language from which almost all the known Indo-european languages are derived (with maybe the exception of the Anatolian languages that could be derived from an earlier stage) while the horse was basically absent until the last part of bronze age in most of west Asia (regions such as the middle or near-East and most of Asia minor).

In south Asia, the Gandhara graves culture of Swat Valley in northern Pakistan seems to represent the advance of these Indo-iranians in south Asia, also importing the horse in these lands.

A comparison between the burial rites of the bronze age Andronovo culture (central Asia and south Siberia) and the bronze age Swat culture (north Pakistan). In the latter case, the Swat culture, also known as the Gandhara grave culture, it is a change in the local tradition. (picture from "The origins of the Indo-iranians" by Elena E. Kuz'mina)

Some phenotypes of current south Asia seem to keep the track of this ancient migration from Central Asia occuring during bronze age (more of such pictures to be found on this bloghere and here) :

Origin of the populations having contributed to the Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan modern populations

“In fact, it’s in the more eastern variants of the Andronovo civilization – notably in the Bishkent culture, in the south of Tajikistan – that a probable expression of indo-iranian rituals is visible in the archeological clues. In the Tulkhar cemetery, the sepultures of the males have a little rectangular hearths that quite remind of the altar-hearth (ahavaniya) of the first indo-aryan priests while the tombs of the females have got little circular hearths that evoke the garha-patya (always associated with women) in the indo-aryan home. 

Even if a few points are still quite controversial, the fundamentally indo-iranian identity of the bronze age steppic cultures is seen as almost certain.” 

From “In search of the Indo-europeans. Language, archeology and myth”, J. P. Mallory
Source from http://centralasiandragons.weebly.com/south-asia.html

Монголын палеонтологийн судалгаа

Монголын палеонтологийн судалгааны түүх, өнөөгийн байдлын талаар Монгол улсын Палеонтологийн төв лабораторийн эрхлэгч, доктор Цогтбаатартай манай сурвалжлагчийн хийсэн ярилцлага сонирхоно уу.

Асуулт: Монголд палеонтологийн шинжлэх ухаан анх үүссэн цагаас яриагаа эхэлье?

Хариулт: Монголын палеонтологийн шинжлэх ухааны түүхийг хоёр хувааж болно л доо. Нэгдүгээрт нь гадаадын эрдэмтэн судлаачид ирж судалж байсан үе байна. Хоёрдугаарт нь үндэсний шинжлэх ухааны сэхээтнүүд бий болж энэ чиглэлийн гадаадын эрдэмтэдтэй хамтран судалгаа хийж эхэлсэн үе гэж хувааж болно л доо. Ер нь палеонтологийн шинжлэх ухааны үүднээс монголын палеонтологийн олдворыг судалсан шинжлэх ухааны анхны экспедиц 1920-иод онд Монголд ирж байсан Америкийн байгалийн түүхийн музейн Төв Азийн гуравдугаар экспедиц юм. Монголчууд маань үүнийг Эндрюсийн экспедиц гэж нэрлэдэг юм. Энэ экспедиц 1922, 1923, 1925 онд Монголд ажилласан юм. Дараа нь 1946-1949 онд ЗХУ-ын ШУА-ийн ”Монголын Палеонтологийн экспедиц” гэдэг нэртэй ч зөвхөн гадны эрдэмтдээс бүрдсэн экспедиц ирж ажилласан. Энэ экспедиц бол өмнөх Эндрюсийн судалгаанаас хамаагүй өргөн хүрээг хамарч судалгаа хийсэн. Түүний дээр Төв Азийн гайхамшигт үлэг гүрвэлийн тоонд ордог Тарбазавр батаар зэрэг олон үлэг гүрвэлийн олдворуудыг анх тогтоосон байдаг юм. Тэрчлэн Алтайн цаадхи говьд байдаг үлэг гүрвэлийн олдворын бүсийг олж нээсэн байх жишээтэй. 1960-аад оны үеэс Монгол улс шинжлэх ухааны академи байгуулж ирээдүйтэй шинжлэх ухааны салбаруудыг хөгжүүлэх шаардлагатай гэж үзсэний үндсэн дээр 1964 онд Биологийн хүрээлэнгийн дэргэд Палеонтологийн тасаг гэж байгуулсан. Эндээс Монголын палеонтологийн судалгааны түүх эхэлдэг юм.

Асуулт: Яг өнөөдөр гэхэд Монголын палеонтологийн судалгаа дэлхий нийтэд үнэлэгдэх болсон байна л даа. Дэлхийд нэртэй судалгаа олдворуудын талаар товч дурдана уу?

Хальс: Одоо эргээд дүгнээд үзэх юм бол Монголоос олдсон үлэг гүрвэлийн олдворын судалгаагүйгээр дэлхийн үлэг гүрвэлийн судалгааны түүхийг ярихад боломжгүй болсон. Юу гэсэн үг вэ гэхээр, Монголын палеонтологийн судалгаа дэлхийд тодорхой орон зай эзэлсэн гэсэн үг. Үлэг гүрвэлийн дэлхийд батлагдсан 400-гаад олдвор байдгийн 80 орчим нь монголоос олдсон байдаг. Өөрөөр хэлбэл дэлхийд нээгдэж батлагдсан олдворын тавны нэг нь Монголынх байна. Үлэг гүрвэлийн олдворыг тогтооно гэдэг бол хальт мөлт, босон суун хийдэг ажил биш. Судалгаа шинжилгээний өндөр түвшинд дэлхий нийтэд хүлээн зөвшөөрөгдөж байж хийдэг ажил учир Монголын шинжлэх ухааны палеонтологийн судалгаа шинжилгээний үзүүлэлт эндээс харагдаж болно. Монголын олдвор цуглуулгагүйгээр дэлхийн үлэг гүрвэлийн түүхийг танин мэдэхэд учир дутагдалтай болсон гэдгийг юугаар батлах вэ гэхээр зөвхөн үлэг гүрвэлийн судалгаа бус зургаан зуун сая жилээс наашхи өнөөг хүртэлх дэлхийн түүхийн бүхий л амьтан ургамлын төлөөлөгчид Монгол нутгаас олддог учраас зөвхөн олдвор цуглуулга бус тэр чиглэлээр ажиллаж байгаа эрдэмтэн судлаач нарын уйгагүй хөдөлмөрийн үр дүн гэж үзэх ёстой зүйл.

Асуулт: Палеонтологийн судалгаа бол ихээхэн нарийн, бас тэгээд ихээхэн хөрөнгө хүч, техник технологи шаардагддаг байх. Энэ талын боломж нь хэр хангагдаж байдаг вэ?

Хариулт: Сөнөж мөхсөн буюу байхгүй болсон зүйлийг байгаа юм шиг болгож судална гэдэг бол хэцүү зүйл. Гэхдээ энүүгээрээ орчин үед амьдарч байгаа амьтад, ургаж байгаа ургамлын судалгааг амархан гэж хэлж байгаа юм биш л дээ. Гэхдээ их ховор байдаг, чулуужсан олдвор цуглуулган дээр үндэслээд нарийн судалгаа өөрөөр хэлбэл амьдарч байгаа эх дэлхийнхээ түүхийг сэргээх ажилд арай илүү хөрөнгө мөнгө, эрдэм мэдлэг, хүчин чармайлт шаардана. Ялангуяа хээрийн судалгаа малтлага зэрэг бол үнэхээр их хөрөнгө зардаг ажил юм байна. Өнөөдрийг хүртэл бидний болгож ирсэн зам бол хамтарсан экспедицийн зам. Өөрөөр хэлбэл цаад талын бололцоотой орны дэмжлэгээр ихэнхи судалгааг явуулж ирсэн л дээ. Энэ учраас яагаад заавал хамтраад байдаг юм, дангаараа хийх ёстой юм биш үү гэдэг үзэл бодол бас байдаг л даа. Миний бодол бол дэлхийн түүхээ судалж байгаа юм чинь зөвхөн монголчууд л газар нутаг дээрээ байгаа зүйлээ судлана гэдэг үзэл бодол бол учир дутагдалтай. Судалгааны учир утга нь дэлхий нийтэд хүлээн зөвшөөрүүлэх байдаг учраас хамтарч байж дэлхий нийтэд хүлээн зөвшөөрүүлэх ёстой л доо. Тийм болохоор ганц Монголд биш дэлхий нийтэд палеонтологийн чиглэлийн экспедицийг дандаа л хамтарч явуулж байгаа юм. Одоо битгий хэл тэр 1920-иод онд Монголд хийсэн Эндрюсийн гээд байгаа экспедици ч гэсэн тухайн чиглэлийн дэлхийн шилдэг эрдэмтдийг л урьж оролцуулсан байдаг.

Асуулт: Ер нь аль аль орны экспедици, эрдэмтэдтэй хамтран ажиллаж байв? Одоо ямар оронтой хамтарсан судалгаа хийж байна?

Хариулт: 1990-оноос өмнө гол төлөв тухайн үеийн социалист орны экспедицүүдтэй хамтарч ажиллаж байж л дээ. Тэр үеийн ЗХУ, Польшийн ШУА-уудтай хамтарсан экспедицүүд ажиллаж байсан. 1990 –ээд оноос хойш тухайн палеонтологийн чиглэлээр ямар орны ямар эрдэмтэн сайн ажиллаж байна тэр бүхэнтэй хамтран ажиллах бололцоо нээгдсэн л дээ. Тухайлбал АНУ-ын байгалийн түүхийн музейтэй 1992 оноос хамтарсан экспедицүүд зохион байгуулан ажиллаж байна. 1993 оноос Японы эрдэмтэдтэй хамтарсан судалгаа шинжилгээний ажил хийж байна. Түүнчлэн Австри, Франц, Италийн нарийвчилсан судалгааны жижиг экспедицүүдтэй хамтарсан судалгаа шинжилгээний ажил хийгдэж байна. Сүүлийн жилүүдэд БНСУ-ын эрдэмтэд хамтарсан судалгаа хийх хүсэлт их ирүүлж байна. Мөн олон жил уламжлал болж ирсэн ОХУ-ын Палеонтологийн хүрээлэнтэй хамтарсан судалгаа хийгдэж байна.

Асуулт: Манай улсын палеонтологичид маань дэлхийд хэр үнэлэгдэж явдаг вэ?

Хариулт: Палеонтологи гэдэг өргөн хүрээтэй л дээ. Бидний хамгийн их сайн мэддэг дэлхий нийт мэддэг судалгааны салбар бол үлэг гүрвэл болчихлоо л доо. Үлэг гүрвэлийн судалгаагаар монголын эрдэмтэд дэлхийд нэлээд дээгүүр байр суурьтай. Тухайлбал манай ахмад эрдэмтэн академич Ринчингийн Барсболд гэж хүн бий. Энэ хүн өнгөрсөн жил Сээр нуруутны палеонтологийн салбарт олгодог дэлхийн өндөр шагнал, энэ салбартаа Нобелийн шагнал гэгддэг шагналыг хүртээд байгаа. Мөн үлэг гүрвэлийн чиглэлээр судалгаа хийж байсан Пэрлээ гуай бол тухайн үедээ энэ салбарын зуун шилдэг эрдэмтдийн жагсаалтанд багтаж “Who is who” гэдэг номонд тэр хүний намтар түүх нь хэвлэгдсэн байгаа.

Асуулт: Монгол бол өргөн уудам нутагтай орон. Судалгаа нэлээд хожуу эхэлсэн. Палеонтологийн дурсгал байж болзошгүй газар бүхнийгээ судалж амжсан байдаг уу.

Хариулт: Тодорхой судалгаа ярья л даа. Жишээ нь үлэг гүрвэлийн судалгаа байна. Үлэг гүрвэлийн судалгаагаар Монгол улс дэлхийд 3-т ордог юм. Манай өмнө АНУ, Хятад хоёр орж байгаа. Энэ хоёр их гүрний дараа дэлхийд зогсож байна гэдэг бол бас том үзүүлэлт. Үүнийг дагасан сурталчилгаа сайн хийгдэж байна. Жишээ гэхэд манай үлэг гүрвэлийн үзэсгэлэн дэлхийн 30 гаруй улсын 65 хотод гараад байгаа. Өнгөрсөн жил палеонтологийн салбарынхны бүтээлээ тавихыг хүсдэг дэлхийн нэг номерийн сэтгүүлд бидний бичиж хэвлүүлсэн зүйл оны шилдэг материал болсон. Энэ бүхнээс дүгнэж хэлэхэд монголын палеонтологийн судалгаа дэлхийн хэмжээнд явагдаж байгаа.

Эх сурвалж: http://mn.vom.mn/i/1171

Умард Европ болон Өрнөд Сибирийн нутаг дэвсгэр-Кавказойд-Монголойд хэв шинж

Фин-Угор хэв шинж.
 Байгаль нуурын бүс - Фофаново булш (6000 жил).

4000 жилийн үед холбогдох хүний гавалын яснаас нөхөн сэргээсэн дүр төрхүүд. Чухам энэ цаг үед Умард Европ болон Өрнөд Сибирийн нутаг дэвсгэр дээр Кавказойд-Монголойд хэв шинжийн хүмүүс хоооронд ямар нэгэн нийлэгжилт явагдсан байж болзошгүй гэж үздэг. Тухайн үеийн хүмүүсийн Антропологи төрхөд хүйсд ажиглагдах төрхтөны ялгаа байсан ба Эрэгтэйчүүд нь илүү Монголойд байхад Эмэгтэй хүйсийн олдворууд нь Кавказойд хэв шинжийг илэрхийлж байв.

11.10.13

The Shaman Gene-Who were Shamans

The Shaman Gene
Southwest African in origin, the Shaman Gene experienced a singular expansion in Native Siberians—Evenks and Chuckchi—where it is found in 1 in 10 people. In its African homeland only 5% have it. On average around the world, its frequency is about 1%. It is absent in Chinese and many other non-Siberian populations.

The Shaman Gene, although very rare, is found in African and Siberian populations.
All Contents Copyright © 2012, DNA Consultants, Phoenix- See more at: http://dnaconsultants.com/shaman-gene#sthash.TuAhsMxV.dpuf