N-L1026 is the Y-chromosome haplogroup most closely associated with the speakers of Uralic languages. Thus far, the oldest published instances of N-L1026 are in two Siberian-like samples dating to 1473±87 calBCE from the site of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov (BOO), located within the Arctic Circle in the Kola Peninsula, northern Russia.
So does this mean that the BOO people were Uralic speakers? I'm now thinking that it probably does, even though, as the scientists who published the BOO samples a year ago pointed out, they predate most estimates of the spread of extant Uralic languages into the Kola Peninsula (see Lamnidis et al.
here).
Hundreds of ancient human samples from across Eurasia have been sequenced since last year. In fact, thousands if we count unpublished data. But only a handful of them belong to N-L1026.
Indeed, as far as I know, the next oldest instance of N-L1026 from Europe after those at BOO is still in an Iron Age sample from what is now Estonia published earlier this year as 0LS10. Of course, this individual was in all likelihood an early west Uralic (Finnic) speaker (see Saag et al.
here).
Moreover, consider these comments by Murashkin et al. in regards to the BOO site (referred to as KOG in their paper, available
here):
Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sámi sledges (Ru. kerezhka).
...
The morphological characteristics of the skull series of the KOG are not like those of any other ancient or modern series from the Kola Peninsula, including the Sámi people. Instead, the series shows closer biological affinities with ancient Altai Neolithic and modern, Ugric-speaking Siberian groups (Moiseyev & Khartanovich 2012). It has earlier been suggested that modern Ugric-speaking Siberians, together with Samoyeds and Volga Finnic populations, share some common morphological characteristics that indicate their common origin (Alekseyev 1974; Bunak 1956; Gokhman 1992).
...
Based on the materials from the grave field, we can argue that there were direct or indirect contacts between the inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula and southern and western Scandinavia (Murashkin & Tarasov 2013).
Thus, the BOO people may have spoken an early west Uralic language related to Sami languages. It's also possible that they are in part ancestral to the N-L1026-rich Sami people.
Another intriguing thing about these mysterious ancients is that individual BOO003 belongs to the rare mitochondrial haplogroup T2d1b1. Now, this clearly is not a lineage native to Europe or indeed any part of North Eurasia. Its ultimate source is probably West or Central Asia. So how did this pioneer polar explorer end up with such an unusual and exotic mtDNA marker, and might the answer be an important clue about the origins of the BOO people?
The most plausible explanation is that the ancestors of BOO003 were associated with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, which stretched from the taiga zone to the oases of what is now western China along the Ob-Irtysh river system, and probably facilitated cultural, linguistic and genetic exchanges between the populations of North Eurasia and Central Asia.
In other words, considering all of the clues, it would seem that the BOO people came from some part of the Ob-Irtysh basin, which might thus be the best place to look for the population with the oldest and phylogenetically most basal N-L1026 lineages. And if we find that, then we've probably found the proto-Uralians and their homeland.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on
Global25 data featuring the earliest likely Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record. It was produced with an online PCA runner freely available
here. EST_IA includes the above mentioned 0LS10, while FIN_Levanluhta_IA is largely made up of Saami-related samples from western Finland. See anything interesting? Feel free to let me know about it in the comments below.
See also...
Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
It was always going to be this way
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
205 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205E. N. DUBOVTSEVATHE
DIVING BIRD MOTIF IN THE NEOLITHIC — ENEOLITHIC OF THE NORTH OF WESTERN SIBERIA
Vessels with the original waterfowl images have been found in several Neolithic sites of the north of Western Siberia. The sites were dated to the middle of the 6th — the middle of the 5th millennium BC. The style and the ornamentation technique differed from the similar waterfowl images on the comb and the pit-comb ceramics of the Neolithic and the Eneolithic of the Trans-Urals and the European part of Russia. The closest to them in morphology were the bird images on the Lipchinka vessels from Razboinichy Ostrov occupation site in the Trans-Urals. The localization of the images on vessels was also unusual. In the upper part of the vessel they were, as a rule, depicted heads down, and in the lower part — with their heads up. L. L. Kosinskaya interpreted this type of images as the illustration of the Ural cosmogonic myth about the “diving for soil”. Identical images were found on the Eneolithic pottery from Gorny Samotnjol settlement (the lower reaches of the Ob river.) The persistence of these motifs over the period of two thousand years reflected the evolution of the ceramic tradition and the socio-cultural contacts.
http://news.sbras.ru/ru/Documents/v_sak_tezisy.pdf
During excavations of Bystryi Kulyogan 66 settlement in Surgut Priobye (the middle of VI - the first third of V thousand B.C.) three vessels with images resembling waterfowl were found. "The iconography of the figures is unique: a low isosceles shaded triangle forms the torso; one of the sides of the triangle goes beyond its top, thus depicting the neck of a bird; the head simulates a short segment located at an acute angle to the neckline. The slanting parallel to the "back" successfully imitates feathering" [Kosinskaya 2001, p. 58]. Birds are located by horizontal friezes in different parts of the vessel, their heads are directed upwards and downwards. The friezes are separated by three, four wavy lines or empty zones. All images are made in the drawing or retreat technique. Identical motifs are also found in other settlements of Bystrinsky culture (Barsova Mount II/8, Pykhty I), as well as in the village of Bolshaya Umytiya 2 (Kondy River basin). There is a variation of this image without a head. "Headless" birds are usually located in the lower part of the vessel. Such figures are also known on the early neolithic ceramics of the Konda river basin (Sumpagna VI, Big Wash 109). All these settlements, except for the last one, have close radiocarbon dates, which fall within the Middle Neolithic period (middle of VI - middle of V millennia BC).
The interpretation of this motif as an image of waterfowl by some specialists is doubtful, as their iconography is quite specific and they differ greatly from the images of waterfowl on the comb and crested-fovered ceramics of the Neolithic and Eneolithic basins of the Trans-Urals and European part of Russia [Chairkina 2005; Zhulnikov, Kashina 2010]. However there are also absolutely other images of birds. "Tulova of triangular or trapezoidal shape, shaded by vertical and inclined lines. The head is indicated by a short line. The neck is decorated with one or two lines located vertically or at an angle to the body, the legs are shown in two short segments" [Chairkina 2005, p. 241]. Such images are typical of the Lipchinsky vessels of the Razboinichiy Island camp. The Bystrinsky and Lipchinsky images are brought together not only by stylistics, but also by the technique of execution; the motifs on the Robbery Island are made in the retreating technique. Why are they depicted head down? L.L. Kosinskaya interprets these motifs as an illustration of the Pro-Ural cosmogony myth "about a waterfowl diving behind the ground". The bird in the upper part of the vessel was usually head down (diving behind the ground), and in the lower part of the vessel - head up (diving) [Kosinskaya 2001, p. 59]. В. V. Napolskikh notes that this myth is extremely ancient and undoubtedly already existed in the Neolithic Era [Napolskikh 2011, p. 215-217]. Surprisingly, vessels with an identical plot were also found in the Eneolithic settlement of Gorny Samotnol (3060-2920 BC), which is located in the lower reaches of the Ob River. The ceramic complex of the settlement is at least two-component. One type of tableware has analogies with the taiga Neolithic monuments, including the Bystrinic culture. The origin of the second type has not been established [Tupahina, Tupahin 2018, p. 47]. Among the ceramics of the first type, vessels with the subject of interest were found. A total of 4-5 fragments were found, all figures were drawn. The contours of the figures are completely similar to those of Bystrin, although the hatching is located horizontally [Tupahina 2016, p. 206, Fig. 1]. Sometimes the figures are depicted with two heads and necks. Perhaps, this is how a pair of birds are conveyed. It can be a pair of geese or swans, as on the petroglyphs of Eastern Europe [Zhulnikov and Kashina 2010], or a pair of antagonists of the myth about a diving bird - a duck and a loon [Napolskikh 2011, p. 215]. Regardless of the interpretation, the stability and repeatability of this subject for two thousand years is undoubted. The analyzed images were not widespread in the North of Western Siberia in the Early Neolithic period; in this area they appear together with the carriers of the tradition of thin-walled, drawn ceramics in the middle of the VI millennium B.C. This ceramic tradition is widely spread in the middle Neolithic in the taiga zone (the basin of Kondy, Surgut, Lower PriObie, Agan River basin). In the Late Neolithic it is fixed on the Kond river (settlement Bolshaya Umytiya 109), in the Eneolithic - in the extreme north (settlement Gorny Samotneol-1). More distant analogies can also be traced in the Trans-Urals region (Razboinichiy Island).
@Leron
Could you link sources on the substrate in Samoyedic being related to Chukotko-Kamchatkan?
In Estonia, in addition to N, there were R1a in stone graves. With exactly the same genetic background. Even the SNiP, z92, could be identified. If N and brought the Finnish languages to the Baltic States, then definitely together with this z92.
The R1a in some Uralic groups is phylogenetically nested within Indo-European R1a and must be associated with the Indo-European (Baltic, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Aryan etc.) influence in Uralic.
So there's no point singling out R1a as a Uralic marker.
And no, the ancient Estonian with R1a-Z92 has clearly less Uralic-specific ancestry than OLS10, the sample with N-L1026.
Post a Comment