«Вестник Академии ДНК-генеалогии Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba Volume 5, No. 7 July 2012 Академия ДНК-генеалогии Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba ISSN 1942-7484 Вестник Академии ДНК-генеалогии. ...»

А разнесли их, вероятно, арийские (балканские) геологоразведчики и металлурги. Они исходили всю Европу, распространяя по пути гончарные технологии, производящее хозяйство как разумное дополнение к охоте и собирательству, медь (тоже по желанию), а также выразительность и гибкость языка, которые отвечали великим арийским достижениям и, в целом – высокой, но не высокомерной сообразительности ариев по любому вопросу, что многих привлекало к ним и их мировоззрению.

Когда волна балканских металлургов-ариев, уходивших от эрбинской агрессии, докатилась 3,8-3,6 т.л.н. до Южной Сибири и Алтая (Клёсов, 2008а; Klyosov, Rozhanskii, 2012), она, вероятно, там встретила сородичей, с которыми рассталась относительно недавно: за 3 т.л. до встречи, т.е. во время “веерной” эмиграции ариев, предположительно, с Балкан. Языки воссоединившихся ариев, как и их мировоззрение, не успели разойтись неузнаваемо.

На мой взгляд, именно ту, судьбоносную для будущей России, встречу описывает дощечка 9-А “Велесовой книги”. В ней говорится о детях Славуни, среди которых было три дочери; и обитали они, по дощечке 7-Ё, в Пенджабе (это, возможно – “пятиречное” верховье Иртыша, западные отроги Алтая). Дочери вышли замуж за конных “вестников”-вестовых нарождавшейся Андроновской общности культур. Прозвища связных были “Утренник”, “Полуденник” и “Вечерник”: по тем направлениям, от Алтая, на которых они работали (восточное, южное и западное, соответственно).

Так дети Славуни – славяне – еще раз породнились с давними сородичами ариями: образовали “славяно-арийский” союз племен, который разрастался в сторону Семиречья, расположенного в юго-восточном Казахстане. А затем обстоятельства вынудили эти рода мигрировать на Русскую равнину, причем – двумя путями (северным и южным), из-за чего в толкованиях книги возникает путаница.

Славяне, тоже произошедшие из арийского клана геологоразведчиков и металлургов 6,5-7 т.л.н., постепенно утратили с ним связь, из-за большого расстояния между Алтаем и центром металлургии на Балканах, и занимались они, главным образом, скотоводством, которое вынесли из Малой Азии. Но от них балканские специалисты по цветным металлам, вероятно, имели важную информацию об урало-алтайско-тяньшаньском регионе, богатом цветными металлами. Без нее “балканцы” не рискнули бы двинуться в Зауралье через безрудные, с их точки зрения, степи огромной Русской равнины. Кстати, небольшие месторождения олова (это более редкий, чем медь, металл, который наметил дальнейший прорыв арийских металлургов к бронзе на основе медно-оловянных сплавов) имеются в Центральной Европе, тогда как ближайшие крупные – на Британских островах, Пиренеях и в урало-алтайском регионе. И нужно было выбирать, с учетом начавшегося эрбинского вторжения в Европу. Балканский клан металлургов и волхвов, сумевших сохранить Ригведу и другие Веды, пошел к Уралу сквозь “ямников”.

…А поскольку у Славуни были еще и сыновья, то на Русскую равнину из алтайско-тяньшанского региона (зауральская “страна городов” к тому времени была оставлена) пришли арии, у которых за 3 т.л. до их воссоединения был общий предок по мужской линии, но у которых за это время раздельной жизни в ДНК накопился чуть разный “почерк” мутаций, а также сложилось, после взаимных притирок, немного другое – сатемное – индоевропейское произношение.

Один из детей Славуни: младший сын по имени Рус, – не имел своей вотчины на Русской равнине (подобно древлянам, северянам и т.д.), поскольку его потомки стали родом-посредником, объединявшим и укреплявшим разбросанные по Равнине арийские рода славян и ариев, да и не только арийские рода. Поэтому на ней многие арии, и не только они, стали называть себя русскими – принадлежащими к мировоззрению и помыслам славянина по имени Рус.

И если полякам, украинцам или белорусам (народам, проживающим на Равнине, у которых арийская гаплогруппа явный лидер, в процентном отношении) не нравится, что их равнину называют “Русской” – читайте “Восточно-Европейская”, то на мой взгляд, суть не в терминах или сравнениях культур, а в глубине и целостности памяти ведического рода, когда-то породившего и наставлявшего почти все человечество. Та память имеет силу и безусловный интерес хранить свой род как раз в многообразии его культур и вариантах здравомыслия. – В той силе творческого разумения, которая единственно способна противостоять любым: и внутренним, и внешним, – проявлениям имперского мышления.

Имеется еще один большой вопрос. Как получилось, что арии от западных склонов Гималаев и до Балкан нигде не “наследили” ни гаплогруппами, ни языками? Ведь сильный род растет быстро. И через несколько веков, тем более – тысячелетий, он превышает размеры, с которыми можно компактно, без отстающих, мигрировать, успешно охотиться и т.д. Дам предварительные обоснования:

Первый поход ариев к Средиземноморью был не обычной миграцией, со скоростью порядка 1 км в год, а рейдом сообщества арийских родов в погоне за полярными сияниями, совершавшими 12 т.л.н. петлю геомагнитного экскурса через алтайско-синьцзянский регион и Гималаи к Малой Азии и далее на север. Эти небесные “колесницы Арджуны” (или же “райские сады”) сыграли большую роль в истории не только ариев, но и других мегародов, с их гаплогруппами. Имею основания предполагать, что путь от Центральной до Малой Азии арийские преследователи полярных сияний – воодушевившиеся эксгиперборейские хранители памяти о тех сияниях – “пробежали” за несколько десятков лет. Поэтому 11,5-12 т.л.н.

носители зародыша индоевропейского языка отделились и в тот же период, по калиброванному углероду, “засветились” уже в Анатолии и Палестине.

По-видимому, они там образовали культуру докерамического неолита А, или Иерихон А, на базе многих местных достижений (за исключением, наверное, производящего хозяйства и мягких сортов пшеницы, принесенных с их родины – западных склонов Гималаев).

Однако немалая часть ариев, вероятно, продолжила погоню за полярными сияниями, которые все круче заворачивали к северу и возвращались в Заполярье. На севере Европы настойчивых преследователей остановили сильные холода, которые никак не давали подобраться к памятным умеренным холодам Крайнего Севера. Зато на подступах к утерянной когда-то родине, и в относительной близости к магнитному полюсу (это немного улучшало общее самочувствие, бедственное во время геомагнитных экскурсов), арии познакомились с восхитительными, по части охоты на северных оленей, достижениями свидерской культуры, дата рождения которой, по калиброванному углероду, немного превышает дату рождения “анатолийско-балканского” субклада ариев. С характерными для свидерской культуры наконечниками стрел, а также некоторыми другими заимствованиями, не только материальными, “северяне” через тысячу лет вернулись к сородичам на Ближний Восток и преобразовали докерамический неолит А в Б. И свои новые SNP-мутации, если они успели появиться, влили в “общий котел” там разраставшегося рода ариев.

От контактов со свидерцами имеем “северный след” в культуре Иерихона Б. Балтийский берег, куда указывает С.В. Конча – маловероятный кандидат на родину потери ариями и, соответственно, арийским (индоевропейским) языком целостности своего развития. Однако ещё В.А. Сафронов заметил (Сафронов, 1989), что в первых ближневосточных городах появились “северные” наконечники стрел, одновременно изменилась архитектура зданий… В таком случае вероятно “северное” влияние и на язык арийской общности, задержавшейся на Ближнем Востоке на 4 т.л.

Еще один вопрос, касающийся археологии. Если основы производящего хозяйства, с его первыми стационарными поселениями-телями и городами, считать принесенными на Ближний Восток из алтайско-синьцзянского региона, то где же в северном Китае раскопки и находки истоков ближневосточной революции? В Китае, к сожалению, “прикрывают” любые, особенно – сенсационные открытия (в частности, изучение мумий, выборочного ряда земляных пирамид и холмов, похожих на тели), если они имеют отношение к европеоидам, которые, оказывается, населяли северную и центральную часть страны от глубочайшей древности и до сравнительно недавнего времени.

…Надеюсь, не сильно уходил от темы, заявленной в названии статьи.

Клёсов А.А. (2008а). Откуда появились славяне и «индоевропейцы»? Ответ дает ДНК-генеалогия. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии.

т.1, №3, с.400-477.

Клёсов А.А. (2008б). Загадки «западноевропейской» гаплогруппы R1b. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.1, №4, с.568-630.

Клёсов, А.А. (2010а). Гаплогруппа R1b (часть 1). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.3, №2, 249-299.

Клёсов, А.А. (2010б). Гаплогруппа R1b (часть 2). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.3, №3, 406-475.

Клёсов А.А. (2010в). Древние («неиндоевропейские») гаплотипы гаплогруппы R1a1 в северо-западном Китае. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.3, №6, 925 – 941.

Клёсов А.А. (2010г). О месте и времени происхождения гаплогруппы R1b (c удивлением читая Wikipedia). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНКгенеалогии. т.3, №12, 2084 – 2109.

Клёсов А.А. (2011а). ДНК-генеалогия основных гаплогрупп мужской половины человечества (Часть 1). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНКгенеалогии. т.4, №5, 988-1014.

Клёсов А.А. (2011б). ДНК-генеалогия основных гаплогрупп мужской половины человечества (Часть 2). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНКгенеалогии. т.4, №7, 1367-1494.

Клёсов А.А. (2011в). Гаплотип фараона Тутанхамона (1333 – 1323 до н.э.) и его возможное происхождение. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНКгенеалогии. т.4, №11, 2063-2069.

Клёсов А.А. (2011г). Происхождение древних субкладов гаплогруппы R1b – территории и времена. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии.

т.4, №12, 2227–2245.

Клёсов А.А. (2012). Любопытный поворот истории про гаплотип фараона Тутанхамона и его происхождение (Продолжение, начало в Вестнике 2011, ноябрь, т. 4, №11). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.5, №1, 2431–2436.

Клёсов А.А., Конча С.В. (2012). Лингвистика и ДНК-генеалогия: очередная попытка найти взаимопонимание на общем поле. Переписка. (Предисловие – Клёсов А.А.). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.5, №5, 422–523.

Рожанский И.Л., Клёсов А.А. (2009). Гаплогруппа R1a: гаплотипы, генеалогические линии, история, география. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. т.2, №6, 974-1099.

Сафронов В.А. (1989). Индоевропейские прародины. – Горький.

Черных Е.Н. (2009). Степной пояс Евразии: Феномен кочевых культур. – М.

Gell-Mann M., Peiros I., Starostin G. (2009). Distant Language Relationship: The Current Perspective. – Вопросы языкового родства, №1, 13–30.

Klyosov A.A., Rozhanskii I.L. (2012). Haplogroup R1a as the Proto IndoEuropeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants. (Published in Advances in Anthropology, vol. 2, No. 1). – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии (ISSN 1942-7484), 5, №3, 162-198.

Rozhanskii I.L., Klyosov A.A., Zolotarev A.S. (2012). IRAKAZ - a database of extended haplotypes of R1a haplogroup. Introductory notes. – Вестник Российской Академии ДНК-генеалогии. 5, №5, 553–559.

Продолжение «Размышлений над книгой лингвиста Ю.К. Кузьменко «Ранние германцы и их соседи. Лингвистика, археология, генетика»

Комментарии автора книги и ответ http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net ПРИМЕЧАНИЕ: Профессор Ю.К. Кузьменко дал согласие на воспроизведение своих комментариев.

А. Клёсов:

Уважаемый Юрий Константинович, Искренне рад ответу и комментариям.

Во-первых, понятно, что Вы не со всем согласны. К этому могут быть две основные причины - (1) Вы знаете те ФАКТЫ, которые не знаю я, и (2) Вы делаете другие ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ. Первое для меня самое ценное, и это отличает профессионала (в данном случае Вас - в лингвистике и, возможно, археологии) от меня (в том и другом непрофессионала).

У профессионала-лингвиста (археолога) факты выстроены в свою профессиональную систему, у меня они разрознены и встроены в МОЮ профессиональную систему. Неудивительно, что конечный результат может быть другим.

Беда, как мне представляется, в том, что в лингвистике и археологии (и других науках, конечно) часто интерпретации принимаются за факты. И эти "факты" бронзовеют со временем. Вот там-то встреча двух наук (например, лингвистики и ДНК-генеалогии) становится особенно болезненной. Смысл и цель этой встречи и состоит, на мой взгляд, в том, чтобы переосмыслить и переформулировать, какие "факты" на самом деле были интерпретациями, и были ли возможны другие интерпретации, основанные на тех же наблюдениях.

После этого вступления давайте бегло (пока) рассмотрим Ваши возражения, и посмотрим, они основаны на фактах или интерпретациях (с той и другой стороны).

>Кое с чем я, правда, не вполне согласен. 1. Это особенно касается R1b. Конечно, это исконно не индоевропейцы, но во время формирования протогерманского большая часть носителей этой группы уже говорила на индоевропейских языках, прежде всего на протоиталийском. Данные лингвистики, археологии и генетики в этом случае хорошо коррелируют. По крайней мере мне так казалось.

Итак, исконно это были не индоевропейцы. Важно, что Вы с этим согласились. «Исконно», как я понимаю, это до прибытия их в Европу 4800лет назад (я ставлю две границы даты, потому что ДНК-генеалогия дает 4800 лет для прибытия R1b на Пиренеи, и археология с этим согласуется в отношении самой ранней датировки культуры колоколовидных кубков, а также тем, что раскопки с датировками ранее 5000 лет в Европе R1b не выявили; ДНК-генеалогия также дает 4500 лет назад для прибытия R1b с Ближнего Востока в Европу через Сардинию и Апеннины, через Балканы, и, видимо, фронтально полосой от Черного до Балтийского моря с востока на запад). И вдруг после этого они заговорили на индоевропейский языках, а именно уже говорили «во время формирования протогерманского языка», и «говорили на протоиталийском».

Я пока не вижу, в чем именно Вы не согласны. Я пишу, что R1b прибыли в Европу как носители неиндоевропейских языков, и во временном интервале от 4800-4500 лет назад (то есть от начала III тыс до н.э.) до середины-конца II тыс до н.э. продолжали говорить на неИЕ языках. Далее, я предполагаю, что индоевропейские языки в Европу принесла гаплогруппа R1a, причем это были как R1a 9-8 тыс лет назад, хотя язык в те времена был пра-ИЕ, и, конечно, значительно отличался как от современных, так и от ИЕ языков 3 тысячи лет назад, так и R1a, прибывающие волнами в Европу с конца II тыс – начала I тыс до н.э., с уже сатемным (если угодно) ИЕ языком. Далее, я предполагаю, что основной толчок к распространению ИЕ языков по Европе дали «кельты» Гальштата, которые были R1a и тоже прибыли с востока. Только этим я могу объяснить известное бурное радиальное распространение «кельтов» от Гальштата (условно говоря) по всей Европе всего за несколько сотен лет, если не за несколько поколений. Это не могли распространяться люди, с такой-то скоростью, но за несколько поколений могли распространяться языки и прочие культурные признаки, если к этому была потребность (экономическая в первую очередь).

Вот и давайте непредвзято посмотрим, КОГДА в этом интервале (между 4500 лет назад и 3000-2500 лет назад) формировался протогерманский язык, откуда сведения, что они говорили на протоиталийском, и откуда вообще в Европе взялся ИЕ протоиталийский язык, если он на самом деле был индоевропейским, если R1b прибыли с неИЕ языком. Наиболее правдоподобный ответ тогда в том, что протоиталийский язык появился от R1a, которые с 9-8 тысяч лет назад жили в Европе, и были вытеснены прибывающими R1b на Русскую равнину примерно 4600-4000 лет назад.

Как видите, Ваше несогласие – Это особенно касается R1b. Конечно, это исконно не индоевропейцы, но во время формирования протогерманского большая часть носителей этой группы уже говорила на индоевропейских языках, прежде всего на протоиталийском - вполне может быть примирено с данными ДНК-генеалогии, изложенными выше. Если расставить датировки (лингвисты, к сожалению, это обычно не делают), то возможно мы получим непротиворечивую картину. Над этим нужно поработать.

Отдельная тема здесь – это наличие у современных R1b на Пиренеях (и на юге Франции) баскского языка. Я пишу, что этот язык 5000 лет назад и был языком эрбинов, носителей гаплогруппы R1b, и перекличка его с севернокавказскими языками подтверждает это. Так что этот язык не просто язык отдельной ветви R1b, прибывших на Пиренеи, а его корни уходят значительно глубже, на Кавказ, и, видимо, до того, в динамике языков. Но тогда это и должен был быть исходный язык культуры колоколовидных кубков, заселяющих Европу. Но ветвь R1b, входящая с Ближнего Востока через Апеннины, могла подхватить и протоиталийский язык там, и если это действительно был пра-ИЕ язык (кентумный??), то он и мог быть унаследован от древнейших R1a в Европе. Кстати, недавние данные по анализу генома басков действительно показали, что баски прибыли на Пиренеи исторически не так давно, и практически полностью вытеснили автохтонное население (механизм «вытеснения», как Вы понимаете, мог был самый разный, но скорее всего был один).

Как видите, здесь переплетение разных факторов, но ни один из них не взят с потолка, у каждого есть свое основание. Нужна «оптимизация факторов», чтобы построить непротиворечивую картину.

2. Вы говорите, что процент финноугорских гаплогрупп слишком мал у германцев, чтобы можно было бы предполагать их влияние. Но Вы имеете в виду только хромосомные гаплогруппы. Отношения же германцев и финноугров было таковым, что германские мужчины брали в жены финноугорских жен. Самые ранние исторические свидетельства говорят именно об этом, поэтому хромосомные гаплогруппы нам ничего не покажут. Вернее они показывают только сильное финноугорское влияние на самые северные германские языки, что я хотел показать в своей немецкой книге, где у меня, к сожалению, еще не возникло идеи привлечь данные генетики.

Да, безусловно, я имел в виду только мужскую, хромосомную гаплогруппу N. В лингвистике (будущего) роль мтДНК непременно должна рассматриваться, но есть хорошая вероятность, что это мало что даст. Это даст только тогда, если приток жен был действительно «однородный», одной гаплогруппы. Если именно так было у германцев, и они действительно брали преимущественно финноугорок, это проявится в спектре мтДНК в Германии (особенно в ископаемых ДНК). На деле обычно жен (и подруг) добывали в самых разных местах, и с мтДНК получается полная какофония. Мы обычно видим достаточно четкие миграционные векторы мужских гаплогрупп-гаплотипов, но полную прозрачность мтДНК. Здесь «прозрачность» - как у вращающегося винта вертолета, через который мы и видим четкие линии мужских гаплогрупп. Хотя, возможно, есть исключения, и к Германии они могут проявиться. Это надо внимательно посмотреть.

Ниже – предварительные результаты этого рассмотрения. На диаграмме ниже – общая картина мтДНК в современных Финляндии и Германии.

Видно, что и там и там основная гаплогруппа Н. Но проблема в том, что эта гаплогруппа основная по всей Европе в целом, те же 42% и в Финляндии, и в Германии, и везде. Поэтому это не показатель в данном контексте. А остальные гаплогруппы прыгают между показателями в Финляндии и Германии, та самая хаотичность, о которой я писал выше. Примеры – U5 в Финляндии 19%, в Германии 6% U в целом в Финляндии 25%, в Германии 15% J в Финляндии 6%, в Германии 10%, то есть почти вдвое больше.

V в Финляндии 6%, в Германии 3.5% U5 в Финляндии 19%, в Германии 6% Т в Финляндии 6.8%, в Германии 10% W в Финляндии 4%, в Германии 1.2% K в Финляндии 4%, в Германии 8% D и Z в Финляндии есть (от 0.5 до 1.0%), в Германии нет.

N в Финляндии в 4 раза меньше, чем в Германии.

Доля гаплогрупп мтДНК в современной Европе (темно-синий цвет), и отдельно в современной Германии (желтый) и Финляндии (голубой цвет). По вертикальной оси – процентное содержание. По горизонтальной оси – гаплогруппы.

Я не говорю, что эти данные дают определенный ответ, но говорю, что картина сложнее схемы. Более того, гаплогруппа Н резко пошла в рост только в ходе заселения Европы эрбинами (R1b) в III и II тыс до н.э. Общая картина по данным ископаемых гаплотипов такова, что гаплогруппу Н, видимо, принесли в Европу будущие арии, носители гаплогруппы R1a, в переходный период от мезолита к неолиту, примерно 9-8 тыс лет назад, мигрирую по южному пути через Анатолию на Балканы. В раскопках периода мезолита гаплогруппу H пока не нашли, но это всего на образцах (Ricaut et al, 2012, Advances in Anthropology). Она резко полявляется в неолите (датировки 9000-5500 лет назад), хотя гаплогруппы R1b в Европе в те времена еще не было. Из 68 образцов четверть – гаплогруппа Н, самая большая пропорция.

По данным Haak et al (2008), на стоянке в Германии (Эйлау) с датировкой 4600 лет назад, где все найденные мужские гаплотипы оказались гаплогруппы R1a (кстати, гаплотипы совершенно типичны для современных на Русской равнине), там же найдены мтДНК гаплогруппы H, K1b (три), K1a2, Х2 (две), I, U5b. Интересно, что в Индии, согласно (Sharma et al, 2005), «Индийские мтДНК относятся как к азиатской гаплогруппе М, так и к западноевразийским гаплогруппам H, I, J, K, U, W и другим, которые больше нигде не найдены. Основная в Индии гаплогруппа М является юго-западно-азиатской, хотя другие авторы полагают ее происхождение восточно-африканским».

Как бы кто их не называл, но гаплогруппы М действительно нет ни в Германии, ни в Финляндии, ни вообще в Европе (на уровне 0.1% и менее), но в Индии ее 134 из тестированных 183 человек (три четверти) [Behar et al, 2010]. Это, видимо, дравидская гаплогруппа. А вот Н, I, K, U – это те, которые были найдены в семье R1a в Германии 4600 лет назад. Вполне возможно, что в Индию их принесли арии через тысячу лет после датировки захоронения в Эйлау. В нынешней России гаплогруппа Н составляет 85 из выборки в 198 человек, то есть 43% (у белорусов 39%, что практически то же самое), как вообще в Европе, на втором месте – гаплогруппа U5 (10.6%), что больше чем в Германии (6%), но столько же, сколько в Финляндии (10.3%). В современной Турции гаплогруппы Н – 25%, хотя там она тоже на первом месте по численности.Возможно, оттуда она и сопровождала древних предков ариев, 10-9 тысяч лет назад, в Европу. А вот U5 в Турции только 5%, она там на седьмом месте.

Если взять совершенно наугад, например, деревню Сараево Ярославской области, то там состав мтДНК такой (Назарова, 2011):

-- preV2, I, U, X 6% (по одной из 16 образцов) С приходом R1b доля гаплогруппы Н в Европе несколько падает (от 23% до 18%), причем это во времена заселения Европы движением колоколовидных кубков (от их прибытия до 3700 лет назад, то есть примерно за пятьсоттысячу лет), а потом опять начинает бурно расти. Мы знаем, что в эти же времена носители гаплогрупп R1a, I1, G практически исчезают из центральной Европы, R1a уходят на Русскую равнину, и с ними уходят часть гаплогруппы Н, которая в наше время наряду с R1a доминирует на Русской равнине, достагая в среднем до половины всего населения.

Остается только предположить, что изгнав и уничтожив мужчин R1a, эрбины оставили женщин, отсюда и резкий рост численности женской гаплогруппы H в Европе пареллельно с резким ростом численности носителей R1b.

Мы пока не знаем, какие мтДНК сопровождали эрбинов до их прихода в Европу. Но по немногим данным знаем, какие мтДНК гаплогруппы нашли у хуннов Забайкалья, например (Пилипенко и др., 2011) среди выборки из 12 ископаемых гаплотипов. Там три D, два С, два А4, и по одному В4, В5b, C5b1b, U2a и U7. В Европе таких мало, малые доли процента, или нет.

Гаплогруппы D и В, например, распространены в Японии (38% и 13%, соответственно), гаплогруппы D у якутов 30%, у узбеков 11%. Так что хунны своими женщинами в Европе не отметились.

3. Я нигде не сочувствую гипотезе палеолитической непрерывности. Наоборот, считаю ее абсолютно неверной.

Согласен. Видимо, меня несколько ввело в заблуждение, что Вы ее там излагаете, и в нескольких местах. Да я и не писал, что Вы ей сочувствуете.

Вот что я на самом деле описывал:

«Ю.К. Кузьменко время от времени обращается к гипотезе непрерывного культурного развития в Европе, начиная с эпохи палеолита, которую иногда называют гипотезой о культурном и антропологическом континууме в Европе, начиная с кроманьонцев (Отт, Хойслер, Алинеи). На мой взгляд, эта гипотеза относится к категории схоластических, можно назвать ее механистической, которой можно объяснить все, что угодно, не вдаваясь в суть вещей. Сменили бы нацисты евреев полностью в Европе, и это тоже попало бы в категорию «непрерывного культурного развития в Европе». А что, люди были, люди и остались».

И еще:

«Гипотеза о «непрерывности» возможно и применима для каких-то частных случаев, но никак не может серьезно рассматриваться как руководство к анализу динамики культур, языков, гаплогрупп в Европе от палеолита через неолит к нашему времени».

4. Вы ругаете меня за то, что я пользуюсь данными современного распределения гаплогрупп. Но других данных фактически нет. Случаи анализа древних останков слишком немногочисленны и фрагментарны.

Дело не в том, что Вы пользуетесь данными современного распределения, все мы пользуемся. Но их можно переносить на древние времена только «плавно», принимая во внимание картины миграций, наличие тех самых фрагментарных данных по ископаемым гаплотипам, и прочие вспомогательные данные. Ни в коем случае нельзя переносить современные данные на древность, там все было по-другому. Но это бич популяционных генетиков, что они обычно переносят. Раз R1a в Европе много сейчас, значит, это и 30 тыс лет назад так было. А отсюда – фантазии про всякие «убежища» в ледниковый период. Раз R1a сейчас много на Русской равнине – значит, и 15 тыс лет назад тоже было много, опять сказки про «украинское убежище» во время ледников. Вы не представляете, как академическая литература набита этими баснями. Wiik, которого Вы, по-моему, цитируете, употребил название «украинская гаплогруппа R1a» 37 раз (!) в своей статье.

Хотя Украина и Польша имеют то же содержание R1a, а Россия – еще больше.

5. Наконец, самое важное для Вас возражение. Вы ругаете меня за то, что я использую данные популяционной генетики. Я, к сожалению, не в состоянии профессионально оценить Вашу теорию и их идеи. Как неспециалист, я просто не имел права отбросить все их многочисленные публикации, хотя признаюсь, что Ваши идеи более соответствуют моей лингвистической реконструкции.

Это я прекрасно понимаю. Потому и возражал, чтобы Вы более критически относились к данным популяционной генетики. К сожалению, ни на Западе, ни тем более в России нет хорошей школы популяционной генетики. То есть гаплотипы-гаплогруппы они определяют (в России – только короткие), распределения описывают, но не более того.

Альтернативные варианты объяснений вообще не рассматривают, статистический анализ просто неграмотный (обычно используют программы, не думая), и так далее. Поэтому их результаты всегда приходится пересчитывать.

Рад возможности дискуссии. Вообще было бы хорошо, если бы наши взаимные аргументы можно было бы опубликовать. В такой живой манере сложность проблемы и ходы ее решения доходят значительно лучше, в том числе и до меня. А значит, и до других.

Всего хорошего.

А. Клёсов Ethnic affiliation of Scytho-Sarmatians The following is a review of the main arguments for a Turkic origin of the Scythian-Sarmatian people, with assertions somewhat grouped together by respective disciplines, although everything is invariably interlaced and conflated.

This review has no chance of being all-encompassing, the subject is just too large and complex. Every piece of evidence can be used as an argument, every literary reference has its own depth and place, and the body of evidentiary material continues to grow exponentially.

The arguments are cited generically, without references, as these are readily available on the Internet. In most cases, the volume of publications for each point is quite substantial, on-line and in print. For the purposes of argument, the documented evidence is attested evidence, not ascribed evidence. To be attested, either a modern trait must be traceable into the past by historical or ethnological testimony of contemporaries, or be shown with appropriate testing that the trait existed in the past. The historical period is the literate period, with written evidence, everything else is pre-historical. Archeological, anthropological, and other pre-historic evidence is by nature mute, following the golden rule that “pots don't talk”. An artifact found today can't be ascribed to today's population unless there is direct link between the population and the people that left that artifact. An absence of evidence at present is a positive evidence for the absence of the phenomenon.

It is widely recognized that the terms “Scythian” and “Sarmatian” are multidimensional. For the Scythian kingdom described by Herodotus, Scythians were an empire that at for a generation included Medes, and in more static description included Greeks, half-Greeks, and Sarmatians that on Herodotus' scale were ethnologically indistinguishable from the Scythians, some land tillers, some forest people, nomadic Acathyrsi Scythians, and so on. Some vague folks were just called Budini, in Trkic a term for a human mass, perhaps a Finnic tribe [“Old Trkic Dictionary”, Ed. Nadelyaev V.M. et al., 1969: “budun/bodun/boun/ boiun” = population, subjects, people]. Like any other empire in the world and at all times, the Scythian empire had a ruling ethnos (now politely termed “titular”) and subject ethnoses, and thus the “imperial” Scythians were likely multi-lingual and multi-cultural. Presumably, that does not make Scythians themselves (“proper”, or “per se”) linguistically, culturally, and traditionally any more amorphous than, for example, Bourbons in five centuries made Europe amorphous.

When the Scythians were pushed to retreat, and their empire shrank to a kingdom and to smaller principalities, they were reduced to the Scythians proper, fairly homogeneous in their language and culture. It would be dead wrong to state that the European Scythians in a millennium did not absorb linguistic and cultural influences of their neighbors, that the Scythians neighboring Greece did not become somewhat Hellenized, neighboring Illirians Illirianized, and so on till we pass China. Some were totally assimilated, lost their ethnic identity, culture, and original language, while others prevailed in the melting pot and became Tabgaches (Tuoba in Pinyin), Empire Wei, and a dozen of other Chinese “dynasties”, while the third group carried the nucleus of their culture and language into the modern times.

In the last 20 years (1990-2010), the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory has been retreating, first allowing a presence of non-Iranic elements among the Scythians (treating Scythians in the “imperial” mode), then stipulating multi-cultural and multi-linguistic people (still treating Scythians in “imperial” mode), thus preserving the Iranic prevalence, and finally retreating to a position of non-Iranic Scythians ruled by a great Iranic dynasty (treating Scythians in “proper” mode).

This series of metamorphoses yields only to the facts, not to the theory and not to the opponents, and the retreating process went bit by bit, yielding only as much of the conceptual territory as the facts forced it to yield, and without overt recognition that the yielding was to the particular ethnicity against which the whole Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory was concocted. For the purposes of the following argument, the Scythians are solely the Scythians proper, without any mixing or non-Scythian nationals to confuse the subject.

In the world prior to the 1700’s, the Scythians were known in Europe only from the works of the ancient writers, principally Herodotus. At that time, the accepted wisdom was that the Herodotus’ Scythians were precursors of the Trks, with the Trks branching into Slavic, Mongol, Finnish, Baltic, Ugrian, and other unspecified variations. There was a 2-millennium-long string of historical references linking Herodotus’ Scythians, Assyrian Ashguzai, and the Hebrew Ashkenazi with the Trks, it was not a scientific concept, but common knowledge. This knowledge was not based on archeological discoveries and artifacts, anthropological measurements, or biomarkers of modern science. It was fed by the utilitarian needs of the rulers, trade, war, and at times religion. There was a need to communicate with Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Trks.

Statesmen had their emissaries, translators, interpreters, and scribes, their storage of records, and schools to prepare diplomatic staff. On the proficiency and perpetuity of the diplomatic system depended fates of the rulers and countries; and the palace chroniclers and poets had to record for posterity the affairs with the foreigners.

On encountering a new intruder, rulers had to search in their cellars for the right tools, and meet the new challenge by utilizing whatever expertise was on hand.

Thus, it came down to us through the ages that Cimmerians and Scythians were somehow related, that Scythians and Sarmats were somehow related, that on the western front, Scythians and Sarmats were somehow related with Huns and Avars, then with Bulgars and Bechens, then with Kipchaks and Oguzes, and finally with Tatars. On the southern front we have Ashguzai and Saka, then Saka and Hunas or Chionites, then Hunas, Masguts, and Savirs. On the eastern front we have Kangars, Huns, Usuns, Tokhars, and Trks in general or chopped down to a tribal level.

By the 10th c. AD, the Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians were long gone, but the diplomatic tradition, reflected in chronicles and histories, kept recollecting the old knowledge, applying the old term to the new and new players crossing the thresholds of the states. Every new intruding rising power, if it did not absorb the existing state apparatus, started history from the moment of it rise; so the Medes started with Saka, ignorant of the Ashguzai; but their literate Greek neighbors have Medes ruled over for 27 years by the Scythians/Ashguzai, while the Medes call the same Scythians Saka. In the east, the Hans started with Huns, holding them to be Juns, who previously were also called Zhou. Or Zhou belonged to the Juns (Latinized as Rong in Pinyin). Once the new power coheres and bureaucratizes, the continuity sequence restarts, the Huns are connected with Se (Saka), the Se with the Trks, and from there it is a breeze.

In the flow of the diplomatic events, when rulers encountered newcomers, the traders were a pool of knowledge. The traders had to bargain, place orders, and specify quality and quantity of goods; they had to deal with every tribe and principality along the way; they had to know who is who and how to deal with everyone; they were a pool of linguistic and customs knowledge, always ready to be called upon in time of need, to advise on how to communicate with the strangers, or fill in as foreign service staff when nothing better was available.

Historians used the eyewitness accounts of traders and travelers, and that's how it came to us from the lips of the historians.

Then there was mercenary nomadic cavalry serving in every army of the Eurasia.

The courts had to deal with them, sometimes on a very intimate scale, because a number of rulers used nomadic mercenaries as their Praetorian Guard. The times were changing, the rulers changed, nomadic tribes changed, but the communication between the rulers and mercenaries remained continuous and permanent.

The courts had an intimate knowledge of the nomadic languages, and when the ancient writers tell us who is like whom, it should not be taken lightly, or dismissed offhand because the ancients were confused and had no clue. They were not confused, and they did have clue. Their knowledge came to us that Scythians were precursors of the Trks, and that was how we entered the Modern Age.

Before the Northern Pontic area fell into the lap of the Russian Empire, there was no known nomadic archeology to contend with. And only when the spectacular kurgans and their contents became known in the West, the question of their attribution came to the attention of the Western scientists. Archeological excavations in the 19th c. have shown that Herodotus and other historians faithfully recorded specks of the Eurasian peoples' history. Archeological excavations created a tremendous opportunity to analyze and absorb the newly found predecessors into the “we-world” of the then Western Europe.

Early in the 19th c., Heinrich Julius von Klaproth (1783-1835) was commissioned for ethnographic expedition to the recently seized portions of the N. Caucasus, in 1812-14 he published “Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien unternommen in den Jahren 1807 und 1808” (I-II, Halle and Berlin, 1812-14) with an appendix, entitled “Kaukasische Sprachen”, where for the first time von Klaproth formulated a hypothesis of Scytho-Sarmatian origin of the Ossetic language. At that time, the Georgian term Ovs covered numerous tribes north of Georgia, including the Trkic Balkars and Karachais, called Ases by the Irons and Digors. In his work, von Klaproth completed the sequence Scytho-Sarmatians> Alans > Ossetes (“Memoire dans lequel on prouve 1'identite des Ossetes, peuplade du Caucase, avec les Alains du moyen-age” (“Nouvelles annales des voyages No 16”, 1822, pp. 243-56).

K. Zeiss furthered that hypothesis with a publication in 1837; based on the religion and territory of the Persians, and common Scythian and Persian words, he suggested to identify Scythians with the Persian-lingual tribes. The sequence was completed by the prolific writer count Vs. Miller and philologist V.I. Abaev (Abaev V.I., 1949, “Ossetian language and folklore”, Moscow-Leningrad). The Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory was officially canonized in the USSR, with a corollary that the Trkic people in Europe were a mass of invaders asking for ethnical cleansing. At the end of the WWII war, in preparation of a campaign against Persia and Turkey, all Muslim “invader” peoples were deported from the Caucasus and Crimea, taken from their paradise valley homes to the cattle cars, and dumped in the Kazakhstan semi-desert.

V.I.Abaev's work was introduced in the western linguistical publications, and his conclusions were widely accepted by the Western linguistics, although his work has never been translated into the western languages. The greatest pearls of the V.I. Abaev's book did not gain linguistic appreciation: that Ossetic lexicon is 80% non-IE, that only about 10% of the Ossetic lexicon belongs to the Iranian family [Abaev V.I., 1949, “Ossetian language and folklore” p.103: “Hence we have about % of elucidated Indo-European words (i.e. 10% Iranian IE and 10% non-Iranian IE - author).... from the major languages of the Near East Asia: Arabian, Persian, Turkic and Georgian...the number of these words also reaches 800 (20 %).

Accepting for the remaining somehow "elucidated" words the maximal figure of 400 (another 10 %), we still have about 2000 words remaining, i.e. 50% of the dictionary not touched by the linguistic analysis (i.e. the Caucasian languages, specifically the local language of the deported and not mentionable Nakhs-“Chechens” NK)”], that the key linguistic properties of phonology [Abaev V.I., 1949,“Ossetian language and folklore” p. 25: “For the Indo-European languages these (OssetianNK) phonemes are alien”; p.96 “from the different angles, we witness that the correct presentation of the Ossetian phonetics cannot be made while ignoring the Caucasian-Japhetic (i.e. non-IE - NK) phonetic facts.

The attempt to reduce it all to the "Indo-European" can cause only that a number of the most interesting phenomena would end up outside of the sphere of the scientific research”], agglutination, morphology, semantics [“Ossetian language and folklore” p. 99: “we have well developed agglutinating declination, and each Ossetian case finds more or less exact typological equivalent in the declination of some of the Caucasian languages (i.e. non-IE - NK) with the same semantic meaning and the same syntax function”], and syntax [“Ossetian language and folklore” p. 108: “We find a similar (to Ossetic - NK) picture both in neighboring Japhetic languages (i.e. non-IE - NK), and in the languages of the Finnish and Turkic groups” (i.e. non-IE - NK)] of the Ossetic language are not compatible with the IE and Iranian linguistic family [“Ossetian language and folklore” p.95 “the scope and the importance of this non-Iranian both in the language and in folklore the Ossetes cannot be hidden from any researcher with the most superficial acquaintance”; p.95: “the number of facts in the Ossetian language which, because of the impossibility to connect them with the facts of the Iranian, Aryan or Indo-European, were until now left out from the circle of attention of the traditional linguistic school”].

Thus, forgetting phonology, agglutination, morphology, semantics, and syntax, if a name in Olbia happened to sound like an Ossetic word, there are 90% chances that Ossetic word is not Iranian, 80% chances that that Ossetic word is not IE, and 50% chance that it is Caucasian Adyge or Nakh word.

Besides lexicon, the agglutination in Ossetic as an IE language makes it a white crow: of the 450 IE languages, 440 are black sheep flexive languages, and about 10 held as IE are white crow agglutinative languages. If like Ossetic, they are unrelated to IE in phonology, agglutination, morphology, semantics, and syntax, and carry 20% of IE lexicon, in a court of law they would retain their freedom only with an overly sympathetic jury. If Ossetic has anything to do with the Scytho-Sarmtian languages, any objective jury would conclude that the ScythoSarmatian languages were also agglutinative, like the Trkic or Nakh. As for V.I.

Abaev's mastery in oblique phraseology, in 1949 in the Former USSR the deported Nakhs were not mentionable by sane people, hence the “CaucasianJaphetic” euphemism.

Still, in the USSR the archeologists fell in line and defined their digs as Iranianlingual Scythians and Sarmatians, archeological cultures were published as Iranian-lingual, the history was re-written in the umpteen's time, and 200+ ethnic groups in Russian public schools were informed on the Iranian-linguality of the Scythians. Close to a hundred of these groups were of Trkic origin, the state was robbing their children of their own history on an industrial scale. From about mid 1950's to about 1990's, when teaching of history in the Former USSR was interrupted to re-write the history again, the Trkic teachers of Trkic children had to teach kids with a full knowledge that they are teaching a blatant, state-dictated, politically motivated lie.

There were alternate opinions, like those of K. Neumann, 1855 (K. Neumann, “Die Hellene im Skythenlande”, Berlin, 1855), who came to differing conclusions. G.

Moravcsik in 1958 published his work that promised to decimate the new paradigm (G. Moravcsik, “Byzantinoturcica II”, Berlin, 1958). The alternate opinions managed to introduce a factor of inconclusiveness in the concept, but failed to impress the “consensus” of European scientific community into revising the upsurging concept. Some scholars hedged their opinions by qualifiers. Others dropped the shades and selected sides, joining the universal acquiescence of the Indo-European concept by the European scientific community. In the 1930's, the brilliant Russian school of Turkology was physically wiped out, and the halfbaked replacement scholars had to follow the 1944 edict against “ancientization” of the Trkic history. There were opinions, but no voices, not even the kitchen table whispers. At the conclusion of his 1949 work, V.I. Abaev declared that any alternate opinions are unscientific, thus putting all potential improvident dissidents on notice.

The Dark Age did not end in 1960's with publication of the works of L. Gumilev and O. Suleimenov, who dared to break the cover of silence, against all odds the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory is still a sole doctrine of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the process, the ancient Iranians unwittingly gained brand new faces, they become flatter-faced, shovel-fanged semi-Mongoloids with somewhat Caucasoid appearance, with ladies a little more pronouncedly Mongoloid than the men. Welcome to the good company, my friends!

A separate Scythian-related question is the ethnonym Trk. If it came after a leader under that name, it happened many centuries before the name Trk became an ethnonym, and still more centuries before the name Trk became a politonym in the 6th c. The first known records of the Trks are millenniums older then the modern notions of the linguistic family and the ethnos termed “Trkic”. “In the mid-first century AD (i.e., before 50 AD - NK), Turkae “Turks” are mentioned there (living in the forests north of the Sea of Azov - AK) by Pomponius Mela.” [C. Beckwith (2009), “Empires of the Silk Road”, p.115, K. Czegledy (1983), “From east to West”, P. Golden (1992), “Introduction to the history of the Turkic people”]. This is smack in the middle of the Sarmatian territory, during the period of Alan leadership, when the Roman Empire just started paying an annual tribute to the Sarmatian Alans.

In the mid-first century AD the N. Pontic steppes were occupied by Sarmatians, the conglomerate of many European tribes headed by the Alan rulers, and among the many tribes already were the tribes of Turkae “Turks”. The Turkae “Turks“ are also mentioned in the “Natural History of Pliny the Elder (i.e, before AD - NK), spelled Tyrkae “Trks”. [C. Beckwith (2009), Ibid, p.115, D. Sinor (1990), “Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia”, p. 285]“. These Latin classical references to the Trks are direct and overt, and should be familiar to any proponent of any Eurasian ethno-linguistic theory, they should be complemented by the toponymic terms that are still mistreated as of unknown provenance or ascribed to Iranians against protestation of the Turkologists.

In the Middle Asia, in the land of Massaget (future Alans) Sarmats, in the Antique period are minted coins that use the word “Trk“ as an adjectival synonym of the word “state“ [A. Mukhamadiev, 1995, (“Linguoethnohistory of the Tatar people”)]. Nearly simultaneously, Ptolemy places Huns and Ases in or around the present Moldova, into the territory populated by the Sarmatian Yazygs; he also places the Hunno-Bulgarian patently Trkic tribe Savars right in the N. Pontic seven rivers area in the headwaters of Don and Sever (Savar - NK) Donets, and places the Scythian Agathyrs around the Carpathian mountains contiguous with Savars, and located in the Yazyg territory. The ancient geographers throw a real monkey wrench into the machinery of the ScythoOsseto-Iranian Theory, conflating Sarmats with the Trks, Huns, and Savars centuries before their alleged appearance in the Central and Eastern Europe.

From the historiographical standpoint, the body of the Scythian-related scientific publications is yet to be analyzed statistically, both retrospectively and as a running total. On the source study, vast layers of material remain unturned, for example the fundamental work of Agusti Alemany, 2000 (“Sources On The Alans” Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, 2000) completely omitted Islamic sources, which yet may add valuable information on the notion of Sarmatians. A retrospective statistical analysis of the Classical writers can provide a threedimensional image of the references, and locate the centerline for the perceptions of the contemporaries, the perceptions so cavalierly dismissed by the architects of the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory.

A running total of the genetic publications may give a “consensus” picture quite different from that advertized as “consensus of scientific community”, and it would have an advantage of reflecting the facts on the ground. For example, a cursory look on the references to the Trkic analogies pertaining to the Kurgan cultures versus the overall analogies tends to create an impression that the facts on the ground are unambiguously leaning toward the Trkic side, but a more accurate statistics may reveal a much richer picture. Statistically, the advertized “consensus” may not exist at all.

1. The key word here is documented vs ascribed. Among the Turkic people, the Kurgan burial tradition extends to the present. Except for the Turkic people, no other group has practiced Kurgan burial rite, which is an extension or rite of Tengriism. Documented are only Turkic people, the others are either cultural borrowings (Phillip, the father of Alexander; Rus princely burials, etc.), or ascribed to nations without documented evidence (Scytho-Iranians, Germanics, etc.). Cultural borrowings are easily detected, because as an alien tradition the kurgan burials do not extend to the body of the people, they only mark the elite, while the Turkic kurgan burials are a fabric of the national etiology, and the Turkic ordinary burials differ from the elite burials only in opulence.

In case of the Slavs, archeologists and anthropologists state in unison that no Slavic remains were found because the Slavs cremated their deceased, that shows that the Rus princes of Slavs were not Slavs, they were buried in a tradition alien to the Slavs. The most important attribute of the Tengrian burials, and least understood by uninitiated archeologists, are the provisions for travel: food in dishes, cart or horse for transportation, and a set of travel necessities that reflects the time and space, like whetstone, knife, bow and arrows, axe, and so on.

Naturally, nobody sets out for travel naked, so the deceased are properly attired in their travel caftans, travel boots, bonnet hats, and belt carriers. It is well known that none of these typical Scythian, Hunnic, and Turkic funeral traditions can be found in the innate Indian or Iranian historical last rites.

2. The key word here is documented vs ascribed. The use of ochre in burial ritual, like in item 1, is documented only among the Turkic people, including today's Sakha and their ancestors yesterday's Kurykans.

3. Kipchak balbals typologically are identical with the Cimmerian and Scythian balbals. Two types of balbals are distinguished, one representing a deceased, and the other representing his or her slain enemies. The first type is a sculptural depiction of the deceased, the second type symbolizes victories, and range from untouched slab (meg in Turkic, mengir/menhir in English) to slightly touched to reflect a specific individual, usually a shape of his distinct hat. Until enough positively identified samples were accumulated quite recently, archeologists could not positively tell the attribution of the balbals, even now museum exponents carry a generic description "sculpture from nomadic kurgan" for both Scythian and Kipchak sculptures. No traces of the balbal tradition were ever found in Indian, Brahman, or Iranic ethnology.

4. Archeologists uniformly link the Scythian and Hunnic archeological cultures, denoting a common cultural and ethnological origin. The spread of the ScythoSiberian culture is beyond anybody's imagination, the diagnostic hallmark of the culture is the Scythian Triad, found along a strip of 14 time zones. At the dawn of the Common Era, the whole length of the strip was populated by a continuum of the ethnically Trkic people, most of whom did not suspect that in the future they will be called “Trkic”. Most of that length has no traces of Iranic archeological cultures.

The spread of the Seima-Turbino metallurgical province (1800–1500 BC) overlays the same territory, it is centered in the Altai, it reaches the Middle East on one end and China on the other. In the Middle East, it is attributed to the horsed nomadic tribes with transparently Trkic names recovered from the Sumerian cuneiform writing, Guties and Turuks, that happened to be allophonic with the Trkic Guzes and Trks; in addition to the names of the Middle Eastern horse husbandry people being nearly identical with the generic names of the Trkic tribes, they also wielded unique cast bronze axes with unique method of joint with the handle. Those were the same axes found zillions of kilometers away in the Altai area, and the same unique axes were found zillions more kilometers away in the Inner Mongolia and Northern China, in the territories populated by nomadic animal husbandry people [R. Bagley “Early Bronze Age Archaeology. The Northern Zone” (i.e. South Siberia - NK)//M. Loeuwe, E.L.

Shaughnessy, eds “The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221BC”, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 223)] whom the Chinese called Juns and Zhou. More than that, the Chinese word for the knife “ge”, and Greek word for knife “akinak” happened to be allophonic and congruent with the Trkic word for knife “kingirak” that the ancient Chinese http://kladina.narod.ru/dremin/dremin.htm, look for akinak].

5. Linguistic theory of V.I. Abaev (Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory) is a complete fake, Abaev eluded certified lexicon (quite a few words, by the way, including Caucas and Caucar for Caucasus, i.e. White Rockies and White Snow (tops) in ancient Scythian and in modern Turkic, like in Карское Море = Kar Sea = Snow Sea), and instead used names from the Olbia graves, which ethnically could be anybody's graves, even if the paleography was correct, which is doubtful. The gravestones were demolished in the 19th c., so there is nothing to verify what was written on the gravestones, they could have been bi-lingual, but at the time no European scholar could foresee the discovery of the Trkic alphabet.

In modern science, the names as literary evidence are discounted, with the sole exception of the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory. That means that we have documented literary evidence on the Scythian language, it has Turkic lexicon, and we have none of the Iranian or Indian lexicon. [Assyrian records, A.D.

Mordtmann, “ber die Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung”, ZDMG XXIV, 1870, p. 50;

Classical records, G.Dremin “Scythian Vocabulary”,http://kladina.narod.ru/ dremin/dremin.htm, see review; http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic /27_Scythians/ ScythianWordListSourcesEn.htm"]. Further more, for his Olbian reconstructions V.I. Abaev used the Digor language, the language that remains mutually unintelligible with the “Ossetian” Iron language which he ventured to prove to be Iranian. Just zeroing in on the strictly linguistic aspects of that linguistic theory flags out that the theory has neither a substructure, nor a superstructure to hold the hot air in.

6. In the millennia-long literary tradition, a drawn-out string of historical references specifically linked Herodotus’ Scythians with various Trkic tribes, such as the Huns, Trks, Bulgars, Khazars, etc. Between 400 AD and the 16th century the Byzantine sources use the name in reference to twelve different Trkic peoples, the overall number of such references in the Byzantine sources, counted by G. Moravcsik, is astronomical, numbering in thousands (G.

Moravcsik, “Byzantinoturcica II”, Berlin, 1958, p.236-39). The Scytho-Iranian Theory makes a joke of itself and its subject by ignoring the two millennium-long continuous experience of the foreign affairs department at the Byzantine court, its staff of interpreters, its spies, informers and scribes, and making light of the experience of the Byzantine and Roman diplomatic corps who were intimately familiar with the Persian, Parthian, and Scythian languages and their temporal variations, and never identified Scythian with Iranic or even with the Sogdian languages.

In the Near East, Scythians were called Ashguzai (Assyrian and related records) and Ashkenaz (’ kuz and ’ knz, Hebrew, Biblical records, pl.

Ashkenazim), identified solely with the Trkic tribes, including the Judaic Khazars who migrated to Germany. The transparent Trkic-based etymology of the ethnonym Ashguzai/Ashkenaz is Tribal People As-kiji or As Tribe As-guz, where As is a generic word for “tribe” and a tribal ethnonym, kiji is “people” and guz is “tribe”; this is conventional and oft-repeated scheme of naming Trkic tribes, with uncounted examples. In modern times, Ossetians call their Trkic Balkar neighbors with an ethnonym As, and Ases are known to be members of the Trkic Kaganate. The European and Near Eastern evidentiary records on the Scythians mutually corroborate, they are consistent each with other, and point amply to the Trks, completely excepting Iranians, Persians, Khorasanis, and everybody else deemed to be Iranian and located within the ancient European and Near Eastern horizons.

7. The Biblical literary tradition, shared by the Christians and Moslems, directly connects the righteous progenitor Noah (Koranic Nuh) with the Scythian Ashkenazim, and Ashkenazim with the Trks. The canonized version of Genesis in the Bible lists Noah's son Japheth, grandson Gomer (the Hebrew form of Cimmerian - NK), and great grandsons Ashkenaz (Biblical Scythians - NK), Riphath, and Togarmah (Biblical Tokhars - NK). The letter of the Khazar Kagan Joseph traces Khazar's ancestry to the Noah’s third son Japheth, then to the ancestor of all Trkic tribes his grandson Togarma, and his ten grand-grandsons Uigur, Dursu, Avar, Hun, Basilii (Balkars - NK), Tarniakh, Khazar, Zagora, Bulgar, and Sabir.

The Biblical account is weightily corroborated by modern research, the popular among the Siberian peoples haplogroup Q is abundant among the traced to the Trkic Khazar descent Ashkenazi Jews, and their distinct alleles are conformally dated by not more than a thousand years back*. Linguistic evidence also supports the Biblical account, the Mayan tribes of the American Indians, who belong to the haplogroup Q, were found linguistically connected with the Trkic linguistic group. This line of corroborating literary, genetic, and linguistic evidence leaves no wiggle room for the Scytho-Iranian Theory.

(*Indeed, a common ancestor of Jewish bearers of haplogroup Q lived 675±125 years ago [Klyosov, A.A. (2008) Origin of the Jews via DNA Genealogy. This Proceedings, vol. 1, No. 1, 54-232] – Comment by the Editor) 8. Since the Scytho-Iranian Theory was exclusively linguistic undertaking in conflict with history, literary sources, archeology, anthropology, odontology, and ethnology, the linguistic evidence is the most weighty counterargument. Linguistic comparison of IE and Altaic (read: Turkic) pra-lexicons [A.V. Dybo, “PraAltaian World According to Comparative-Historical Linguisic Semantic Rreconstruction (abstract)” http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/semrec.htm] found that pra-IE does not have lexicon for mounted riding, instead pra-IE has riding carts and chariots, while the pra-Altaic has developed vocabulary for mounted riding. The core of the pra-Altaian economy was seasonal pastoralism, or developed seasonal hunting with a corral component, it has terms with horses and riding; the role of agriculture was less significant. In the Proto-Altaic, the terminology of clothing and footwear is more differentiated, for example, it contains the names for pants and kneeguards (associated with horse riding), which the PIE does not have.

The mobile pra-Altaian has more terms related to the boats/rafts (e.g. salla in Turkic, sail in English). The core of the pra-Indo-Europeans' economy were agriculture and well-developed sedentary pastoralism. There is a sea of difference between sedentary pastoralism and nomadic pastoralism not only in the skills and technology involved, but also in drastic difference in the types of the herd animals, one can drive horses, cows, sheep, and pigs around the village, but one can't drive them across a waterless steppe range. The lexical evidence excluded the possibility that the IE people were engaged in nomadic horse husbandry, which is impossible without super cowboy-type lifestyle of the Eurasian nomads, excluded that IE people could drive huge herds of horses for thousands miles between summer and winter pastures, live in mobile home wagons, or knew the technique of portable yurt construction.

The pra-IE reconstruction does allow for horse terminology, for stable maintenance of horses, their local pasturing, cart riding, and terminology associated with sedentary horse husbandry, that culture reached Middle East that already had donkey husbandry technology, but any IE horse husbandry that reached the Indian subcontinent was somehow copiously lost among the local Indo-Arians.

India did not know the culture of horses until the migration of the Saka (Ch.

Se/Sai/Sk) Scythians a millennium after the arrival of the Indo-Arians.

9. The mobile nomadic society with mobile property can't survive without codified means to identify and authenticate property. Such identification is provided by tamgas. Systematic historical cataloguing of Turkic tribal tamgas is documented from the 8th c. on, the tamga markings and whole "tamga encyclopedias" are registered across Eurasia, most of the Turkic nations, and only the Turkic nations have retained their historical tamgas, some peoples preserved their tamgas to a clan and family level. Archeologists specifically identify the ancient tamgas with the Eurasian nomadic pastoralists, and among the Turkic people this trait has survived through the Christian and Islamic periods, while the Indo-Iranians, Indians, Persians (non-Turkic), and Brahmans have no historical recollection of the tamgas in their past. Specialists figured out the development of tamgas between branches and generations, making tamgas a tracing tool.

The traditional Scythian territories of Crimea and Dobruja are notable for the wealth of their tamgas. As with the elite burials, tamgas among the other ethnicities are either cultural borrowings (some recorded dynastic tamgas), or they are arbitrarily ascribed to nations without a thread of documented evidence (e.g. "Iranian-lingual"). Unfortunately, explorations of uncultured archeologists wiped out most of the unknown "primitive" markings from the pages of history, some of the greatest discoveries were saved by a chance encounter of a learned professional.

10. Europe, and the European languages carry a heavy load of Turkisms, many of which are explainable by their Scythian origin. Ironically, that can't be said about Iranic languages, whether Eastern of Western Iranic, Southern or Northern Iranic, or even Ossetian with its sprinkle of 10% Iranic lexicon. While the ancient Turkisms of possibly Scythian and Cimmerian origin are noted in the Frisian, Camry, Vulgar and proper Latin, Germanic, English, and Romance languages, Scythians and Cimmerians did not leave a trace of Iranic languages in these European languages, at least no trace is recorded in the linguistic literature.

The same observation is true in other areas ascribed to the Iranian speakers in the huge territories of the Eurasia steppe belt of the pre-Scythian times, the various languages of the people in those territories are notable for the absence of any Iranic traces in their languages. Not only the toponymy of the Central Asia is predominantly Trkic, the traces of the Middle Persian language there date to no earlier than the Sassanid period. The reconstruction of the Sogdian language, the language of the settled population in the Central Asia, leads not to a protoIranian language (“proto-Eastern Iranian”) ascribed to the Scythians, but to the post-Scythian Old Persian language of the Iranian Plateau. Once again, the Iranic language of the Scythians is nowhere to be found.

11. Few inscriptions found in kurgans or adjacent settlements were written in runiform alphabet and read in Trkic languages. Among such inscriptions with known provenance is the Issyk inscription found in the grave of a presumably Saka prince (500 BC), alphabetic characters found in the Hunnic princely grave (13 AD), inscriptions of the Humar fortress in the Caucasus (ca 10th c.), and inscription from the Samara Bend city (ca 10th c.). In spite of the scarcity of the preserved inscriptions, they substantially complement other written materials in Trkic runiform scripts in the Kurgan culture territories, facilitating crossreference and reading.

12. No nation with lactose intolerance could have survived nomadic diet of milk and meat. Infants would have died out even in good years, and there was no substitute for nomads following their herds. Iranians and Indians (and Chinese) are known for their lactose intolerance. This is a very weighty argument, the Brahmins did not bring to India neither their kurgan burial tradition, nor their nomadic lactose tolerance, ditto Iranians to the Iranian Plateau. They were graineaters. Genetically, lactose tolerance is an abnormal deviation among humans, it is known to arise twice within two unrelated human populations, with two independent genetic modifications that propagated within two non-agricultural pastoral economies. The estimated duration to get 50% lactose tolerance is 6, years, and even Mongols, who switched to animal husbandry at about 200 BC, have only about 50% tolerance.

(The question of the origin of lactose tolerance is a controversial one, in terms of when, where, and which population was the first to be able to consume milk without suffering lactose intolerance. Itan et al (2009) have considered the present-day frequency of 13910T allele which signify a polymorphism strongly associated with the ability to produce lactase in human organism and, hence, digest lactose and therefore painlessly consume milk by adults, and concluded that the origin of this SNP in Europe was about years ago, in a region between the Balkans and central Europe. This would be inconsistent with the Turkic origin of lactose tolerance. However, lately two more works have been published which shed more light to the problem. Lacan et al (2011) have found no 13910T in excavated bones of bearers of haplogroups G2a and I2a1 (20 and 2 in samples respectively) in la grotte des Treilles in South France, dated 5000 years ago. It is consistent with the data that R1b have appeared in the Pyrenees little later, 4800 ybp (years before present), and it was them who brought lactose tolerance SNP (and the respective lactase gene) to Europe. A few month ago a new study was published which found that 27% among excavated bones in the Basque country in the Pyrenees, dated 5000-4500 ybp, carried 13910T SNP (Plantinga et al, 2012). It fits again to the hypothesis that it was R1b who brought lactose tolerance to Europe, and that R1b belonged to the proto-Turks in Asia some 16,000-6,000 years ago – Comment by the Editor) 13. Anthropology and demography recognized importance of safe drinking water for the survival of humanity, and defined two methods of disinfecting drinking water that divided humanity into two sundered camps, boilers and alcoholics. Boilers disinfected their drinking water by boiling, they developed the culture of tea; alcoholics disinfected their drinking water by mixing it with fermented products, they developed the culture of wine, bear, koumiss. However important was the safe drinking water for sedentary populations, tied to the same water sources for generations, it was even more important for the nomads that had to cross desert tracts as a routine part of their economy; a murrain of the horses could be tolerated, but epidemic among shepherds ensues a disaster.

The sparseness and isolation of the nomadic population exaggerated the problem: an epidemic involving only few dozen people on the march, driving their herds to the remote pastures, could wipe out a whole clan. Scholars accurately divided the sedentary world in respect to the water disinfection, but the nomadic landmass largely escaped their scrutiny, and the role of fermented milk drinks in carrying on cultural and technological exchanges between sedentary isolates so far remains in a shade. The ancient writers mention fermented koumiss, also spelled out as fermented mare milk, as a drink of the Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Trks, and anything in between and afterwards, the Trkic koumiss tradition belongs as much to the modern times as to the 1st mill. BC.

The Trkic diluted koumiss is called airan, it is lactose free, and can be used by sedentary people noted for their lactose intolerance, in Iran it is called doogh, and is drunk equally by its Trkic and non-Trkic population. Notably, in contradiction with the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory, the Indo-Arian India belongs to the boiling world, the Indo-Arians did not bring the most essential horse nomadic sanitary tradition to the Indian subcontinent. The “Ossetes” have no part of it, while the distinctive feature of the neighboring Karachai-Balkarian kitchen is koumiss, along with the typically Scythian fare of the horse-flesh, foal shashlik “kazi” etc.

The “Ossetian” Digors, however, have little to do with the “Ossetes”, not only the “Ossetes” do not understand the Digor language, are Christians versus the Moslem Digors, but the Digor cuisine is also distinct from the “Ossetian”, it is the cuisine of their neighbors Trkic Balkars, with koumiss and horse-flesh. This distinction goes to the past, in 1779/1783, Jacob Reineggs identified Digors with Bulgarians-Utigurs, Besse singled out Digors for a close kinship of Digors, Balkarians, Karachais and Hungarians. In China, fermented koumiss is an isolated tradition of the Trkic pastoralist minority there, the sedentary agriculturists there keep drinking solely boiled tinctures. Neither Chinese, nor Indians had a prohibition against the airan-type drinks, and in Muslim countries it was allowed under Sharia, thus excepting a possibility of the alien tradition suffering from ideological injunctions.

14. Had anybody ever see a blond Brahman, Indian, or Persian? Chroniclers repeatedly mention light-haired Turkic tribes of different provenance (Tele, Usuns, Kipchaks, etc.). Apparently, the genes for the light hair and eyes accumulated among the northern Turkic people who coexisted and admixed with Fennic people, that admixture is reflected in the proportion of the haplogroup N among the Turkic people. The Caucasoid remains found in the Altai royal kurgans, and the Caucasoid remains found in the Tarim basin were all found to be consistent with Uigur or South Siberian Trkic population [http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/ThorntonSchurr2004OJATarimUigurGenetics.pdf].

At the same time, in all chronicles that describe Brahmans, Indians, or Persians, descriptions never mention that "Brahmans are blonds", or that they are notable for their light eyes. Ditto for the Indians. Ditto for the Persians. Solely for the Western Iranian people (excluding Kurds, Lurs and Bakhtiari), anthropological descriptions for the Iranic people do allow some Near Eastern type dull green eyes and 7% non-black or dark brown hair, an obvious admixture to their genetic pool. No wonder, these people lived with the Semitic and Near Eastern Guties, Turuks, and other nomads for 2.5 millennia, plenty of time to gain some variety while preserving their core phenotype. On trekking across Central Asia, the Indo-Arians conceptually could not totally lose their blondish genetic phenotype, and also all the hallmarks of the traditional nomadic economy and culture, all the while preserving their Arian language an intact virgin.

15. Nearly all remains in the kurgan burials were found to be of CaucasoidMongoloid admixture with clinal distribution of Mongoloid component receding from the east to the west - Bouakaze, 2009, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/ turkic/60_Genetics/TeleGeneticsBouakaze2009En.htm; Keyser, 2009, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/TeleGeneticsKeyser En.htm. Non-admixed Caucasians are rare and noted by archeologists as atypical addition to the local population. Neither the Aryan, Indo-Arian, Indian, or Persian studies ever identified any notable fraction of Mongoloid admixture in their make-up. On top of that, their inhibitions do not allow Mongoloid admixture, and their marriage traditions preclude the massive penetration of Mongoloid traits into the bulk of their population. That is confirmed by genetic analyses, the few thousand Mongols of the Chingizid Persia did not leave significant genetic imprint on the Persian population, the nomadic armies that ruled India did not leave significant genetic imprint on the Indian population, and the Caucasoid-Mongoloid descendents of the kurgan burials are not traceable in the Brahman caste.

16. The flood of recent genetic studies of the kurgan culture internments clearly left the Indo-Iranians outside of the picture. A simple statistical compilation of the genetic cognates leaves Turkic people squarely in the center (Tuva, Kazakh, Altaians, N. Altaians i.e. Kipchaks, Teleuts, Shors, Turkish, Sakha-Yakuts), with fringes occupied by Fennic Mansi, Tunguses, and Portugese, and the rest are framed into a wreath of murky definitions like Paleo-Sibirian, Asiatic, Central Asian, and North-Eastern Asian, which likely describe the very same core group and fringes. Notably, two studies of Andronov culture kurgans brought up http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/TeleGeneticsBouakaze 09En.htm; Keyser, 2009, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/ TeleGeneticsKeyser2009En.htm. Nowhere under the blue sky are mentioned any genetic Brahman Aryans or Iranians close to the kurgans. A small fraction of Indians is mentioned in one study, confirming millennia-old alliance of Central Asian nomads and Indians, especially visibly reflected in the Buddhist influence in the earliest recorded Turkic toreutics [C. Lalueza-Fox, 2004, http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/CentralAsian13BC-1BC_ gensEn.htm]. The sparse and open nomadic population did absorb some input from huge Indian human mass, but the reverse is not true, except for the ethnic isles in India (e.g. Gujratis, Jats) and in Afganistan-Pakistan (e.g. Duranies, Saka clan of Pashtuns) the nomadic admixture was statistically insignificant to affect the indigenous population on the Indian subcontinent as a whole.

(Many of the mentioned populations are, at least in part, bearers of haplogroup R1b, such as Tuva, Kazakh, Altaians, Teleuts, Shors, Uighurs, Kalmyks, Khakasses) [Klyosov, A.A., 2012, Advances in Anthropology, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87-105] – Comment by the Editor) 17. Of the nominally 82 distinct Turkic ethnic groups, many of which consist of distinct subgroups that are separate ethnicities in their own right, only a smaller portion has been genetically examined, and of those only a small portion was examined comprehensively. However, the available picture provides sufficient information to depict an exceptional picture. The spectrum of admixtures across the range of the genetic portraits is consistent with the literary and archeological Eurasian spread of the Scythian and Sarmatian people, among the Trkic phylum it includes characteristic genetic lines innate for Tunguses, Mongols, Chinese, Kamchatkans, Eniseans, Fennic people, Tibetans, Indians, Caucasian peoples, Balkan peoples, Slavic peoples, West European, and Scandinavian peoples. That Eurasian genetic spread of admixtures, although still with essentially incomplete inventory, can't be matched by any other group in the Eurasia, and specifically by the people tapped in the construct of the ScythoOsseto-Iranian Theory [Graphical images: Trkic Genetic Charts]. The Turkic genetic picture is perfectly consistent with the literary records, myths and sagas, archeological, anthropological, and ethnological evidence.

18. Two facts are well-established, one that the Scythians originated in the Altai area and moved to Europe from there. It was established by tracing the route of the Scythian kurgans [Alekseev A Yu. (2001), “Chronology of Eurasian Scythian Antiquities Born by New Archaeological and 14C Data”//Radiocarbon, Vol.43, No 2B, 2001, pp 1085-1107], and the other that Amerindians descended from the Eastern Eurasian peoples. Naturally, the IE people originated in the Western Eurasia, their Indo-Arian branch trekked eastward to the Indian subcontinent and the Near East from the Eastern European Plain after 2000 BC, they predictably should be genetically different from the Amerindians, and predictably some Siberian and Eastern Eurasian people would share some markers with the Amerindians. This obvious foresight found confirmation on both sides. The mtDNA Hg X is a suitable marker restricted to the northern Amerindians, including Ojibwa, Nuu-Chah-Nulth, Sioux, Yakima, and Na Denespeaking Navajo (Brown M.D. et al., (1998) “mtDNA haplogroup X: an ancient link between Europe/ Western Asia and North America?”//Am J Hum Genet pp.1852-1861). The historical Indo-Iranians do in fact lack the mtDNA Hg X, while it is present, first of all, in the Trkic Azeri population (4%). It also shares the appellation As-People of the Ash-guzai Scythians, and also happened to live in the historical Scythian Sakacene in the territory of the modern Azerbaijan.

Then it is present in the Trkic Bashkir population (4%) that straddles the Ural mountains. Also it is present in the Trkic Chuvash population (1%) that now straddles the Itil/Volga middle course; then it is present in the Trkic Nogai population (4%) that migrated to the Eastern Europe from the Central Asia in the course or after the Mongol conquest; then it is present in the Trkic Turkish population (3%) that generally migrated westward from the Central Asian Oguz Yabgu state early in the 11th c. AD.

The genetic marker is consistent with the linguistic observations, it was found that the agglutinative Na Dene languages share some basic lexicon with the Trkic languages. What is especially interesting, the mtDNA Hg X appears to be a female companion of the male Y Hg R1b, its spread duplicates the 3rd mill. BC route of the Hg R1b from the Eastern Europe by circum-Mediterranean and overland routes to the Western Europe, with some traces left in the area between the Middle Asia and the Near East by the Scythian, Hunnic, and Trkic horse riders.

Under the Scytho-Iranian Theory, the picture would not be so decisively black-and-white, the Indo-Arians would be obligated to share at least some of the Trkic and Amerindian traits. The biggest problem of the Scytho-Iranian Theory is in its utter inability to predict future developments, like the results of the Scythian kurgans' C14 radiocarbon tracing, the Trkic-Amerindian-Ash-guzai Scythian genetic links, or the phenomenon of Hg X appearing in the west of the Eurasia and in N.America. It is a backward-looking solely linguistic theory, with a myopic time limits horizon within the 17th-20th cc. on the outside.

19. Anthropological studies invariably uncover Caucaso-Mongoloids from the oldest to the newest uncovered kurgans. No kurgans of any time period found population free of Mongoloid admixture. Odontological examinations corroborate craniological studies, and like the craniological results they indicate a growth in the proportion of the Mongoloid component starting in the 1st mill. BC that amplified the initial Mongoloid contribution. In the vicinity of the Aral Sea, along the Central Asian rivers, the original population was Uraloid (read: Fennic, i.e. originally East Asian); aridification at the end of the 2nd mill. BC displaced the Central Asian Uraloid population to the north, to the Urals and northern Central Asia, likely adding their Uralic genes to the genetic pools of the Andronov culture.

Linguistic speculation on the fate of the Central Asian Uraloid population does not exist, but it is unlikely that anybody will ever suggest that the distinct Uraloids were IE speakers. The 2nd mill. BC was the time of opposing migrations, part of the N.Pontic agrarian population was migrating south-east across Central Asia to the Iranian Plateau and Indian subcontinent, and the Central Asian pre-agricultural Uraloids were migrating north and north-east toward the forest-steppe belt.

20. The maps of the modern Eurasian and European blood group distribution shows a clear dividing line cutting the Eastern Europe into northern and southern halves. The northern half of the Group B allele runs latitudinally across the Moscow latitude along the archeological line that separates kurgan burials zone south of the Oka River from the Fennic area north of that line. The southern half, where the frequency of the Group B allele exceeds 15%, runs across Ural mountain range in the east to the Hungary in the west, abutting the Black and Caspian seas, and extending deep into the northeastern Caucasus area almost reaching the modern Iran, it closely matches the historical belt of the Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnic, and Turkic tribes.

The modern Eurasian distribution of the Group B allele maxes out in the meridional center of the Eurasia, with the highest values coinciding with the map of the Ephtilite state, Middle Asia, and extending via historical lands of the Turkic Tele tribes east of the Ural mountains all the way to the Kar Sea. The blood group B is not a Mongolic trait. Notably, the elevated levels of blood group B in the north-east of the Western Europe coincides with elevated traces of Turkic languages in the same areas. The blood group B distribution is consistent with the Turkic Scytho-Sarmatians, and can't be explained with the ScythoIranian Theory, which obviously would generate a drastically different distribution.

21. Hippocrates, “De Aeris, Aquis et Locu”, lib. iv., and Strabo noted a weird practice of artificial cranial deformation among the Scythians. Same practice is extensively documented among Sarmatians, and its traces are documented in the area of the Central Europe that Ptolemy called “Sarmatia”. The “Smithsonian Report” for 1859 published an article by Prof. A. Retzius that describes that the custom of artificial cranial deformation still existed in the south of France (which were lands of Burgundian horse nomads) and in parts of Turkey. That custom was described among the Kushans, Huns, Avars, Kangars, Bulgars, and Trks, and among other Trkic people. Notably, that custom was also observed among R1b people in Egypt, both the skulls of Tutankhamen and Nefertiti were artificially deformed. That custom was not documented among the Indo-Iranic people; more than that, the “Encyclopedia Iranica” emphatically declares that Iranian people did not practice artificial cranial deformation. The custom of artificial cranial deformation is extremely ancient, it was noted on the Neanderthal skulls.

22. Chinese chroniclers noted very specifically the nomadic dress, with bashlyk bonnet hat and left-lapel caftan and leather boots and waist belt. No ethnographic description of Brahmins, Iranians, Indians, etc. ever noted bashlyk hats, but to these days they are the national dress in Kazakhstan, Bashkiria, and everywhere else where we have ethnographic evidence on the Trkic people.

The bashlyks of the modern Russian generals arise to the Cossack bashlyks that is an inheritance of their Trkic past. The symbology of the nomadic belts is paramount throughout millennia, from the Scythian monuments to the present pastoral Turkic and Mongolic population, although in modern times belt as a tool shack is replaced by automobile trunks. As far as the Indo-Iranians are concerned, on the ancient pictures experts discriminate them from the Turkic people precisely by their distinctly different attire incompatible with the depictions of the Scythian and Trkic traditional dress. Notably, the Trkic attire, together with its terminology, became a typical dress for the Slavic peoples to a degree that it is rated as inherently Slavic, which makes Slavs incompatible with the Indo-Arians in this one ethnological aspect.

23. From the first historical records, a sequence of nomadic warriors served as mercenaries under the general names of Scythians, Huns, and Trks. No small or great empire in Eurasia escaped paying tribute to the mounted nomads and enlisting them as mercenaries. The Alexander sarcophagus of the 4th c. BC depicts Greeks fighting Persians, and all “Persians” uniformly wear Scythian (or Kazakh, or Bashkir) bonnet hats and riding boots, the Persians proper are nowhere to be found there; it also depicts a Parthian shot two centuries before the Parthians entered the pages of history. Until the Modern times, no army of sedentary agricultural states could resist the cavalry armies, and no empire could master a cavalry force compatible with the Scythian, Hunnic, or Trkic armies, or compete with their military aptitude, and that includes the states of IndoIranians, Indians, Persians, and the forces of the Brahmans. The continuity of methods, organization, strategic and tactical maneuvers, arms, training, dress, military aptitude, and trustworthiness of the Scythian, Hunic, and Trkic mercenaries makes them uniquely distinct across time and Eurasian space.

24. Huns, Trks, and Scythians demonstrate an amazing congruence of their geographical and political development. At the dawn of the historical period, when literacy was limited to the Middle Eastern area of the inhabited world, the people called Kang left their footprint in the space spanning from the Middle Asia to the Middle East. A millennium later, in the historical period, Scythians ventured from their states in South Siberia and Tuva to establish their states in the Middle East and N.Pontic area. In the next historical period, Huns established their state covering South Siberia and Tuva, reaching from the Middle Asia to the Far East, and eventually establishing a state in the Eastern and Central Europe. A few centuries later, in the same geographical space the Trks stretched their Trkic Kaganate state from the Central Asia to the Eastern Europe, while their Trkic opponents established the Avar Empire, Bulgar Empire, and Khazar Empire that extended from Volga to Central Europe and Balkans. All these expansions, in addition to the temporal symmetry, have a common denominator: these people were horse-mounted warriors, they produced vast herds of horses, they valued trade opportunities, they expanded from a steppe pasture area to a steppe pasture area, and they settled in the choicest suitable areas. The sedentary agricultural states of Rome, Greece, Persia, Khorasan, India, and China abutted the steppe empires on the west and south.

25. Most of the time, the productivity of the nomadic horse husbandry far exceeded the productivity of the sedentary agriculturists. Animal pastoralists needed free markets to sell their surplus horses and animal row materials. The value of GDP can be derived from the size of the cavalry army: 1 warrior per family and 30 horses (with sheep converted to equivalent horses at 10 sheep per 1 horse) produce annually 20% or 6 horses for sale per family. At 20 solidi a head and 20 solidi/lb, it is 6 lb of gold per family if they sell all their merchandise at Byzantine market prices. The local markets probably were able to provide only 10% of that, or 0.25 kg of gold, or 5 kg of silver annually per family [Angeliki E.

Laiou, Editor-in-Chief, “The Economic History of Byzantine: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century”, 2002, Dumbarton Oaks, http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/ byzantium.pdf]. A 10,000-strong army represents a 40,000 to 50,000-strong tribe with potential annual trade income of 2,500 kg of gold, or 50,000 kg of silver at local market prices, not exactly living in poverty, but only when there is a trading partner available. C. Beckwith noted that at all times the first objective of the nomadic Scythians, Huns, and Trks was the trade, every peace treaty that reached us required allowance and facilitation of free trade on the part of the sedentary states. Here is notable the unique ethnological similarity between the Scythians, Hunnic, and Trkic people [C. Beckwith, 2009, “Empires of the Silk Road”].

26. The extensive Indo-European and Trkic ethnology documents such cultural attributes as dress, food, drinks, conservation of produce, family relationships, housing, sanitary traditions, military traditions, societal organization, cosmological concepts, literary traditions, mythological and folk tale traditions, art, and a myriad of other traits. In many cases, the prominence of these traits far exceeds the significance of the other characteristics. For example, the Scythian mercenaries were a major, if not the only, force in the armies of a number of the states, during almost a millennium period. The Scythian warriors in the Scythian conical hats, Scythian boots, Scythian pants, on the Scythian horses, and with Scythian composite bows are shown innumerable times in the historical records, and became a staple image of the generic Scythian. The Ossetian ethnography of the historical period would have to come up with at least a remote echo of these mercenary military traditions wearing Ossetian conical hats, Ossetian boots, Ossetian pants, riding the Ossetian horses and with Ossetian composite bows. In the absence of such ethnological links, the Indo-European theory remains a murky propaganda myth. The so-called universal acceptance can become a scientific concept only when the multidisciplinary evidence converges to the same conclusion. As we know, it not only does not converge, it stubbornly keeps conflicting with it.

27. The Turkic traditional succession order is Lateral Succession, senior brothers of the dynastic clan pass the rule from older brother to younger, and when they run out of brothers the next in line is their nephew, an oldest son of the senior brother who had to have served as a ruler. Children of brothers who for any reason did not serve as rulers were bypassed in the succession order. Passing of the scepter from brother to brother was noted among the Scythians, Huns, and all Trkic people. Lateral Succession is an oddball tradition in the human societies, it was noted among a handful of people in the world, and it is drastically different from that of the IE people (and Chinese too). That Trkic custom was also the rule in the initial Rus society [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession#Lateral_succession].

28. A drastic difference between the Trkic and IE tradition is the equality of sexes (pre-Islamic, pre-Christian, and not under influence of sedentary agricultural nations). In the Age of Enlightenment, the inequality and equality of sexes was expressed in terms of Patriarchate and Matriarchate by the people grown up with a mindset of the male-dominated societies, the concept was applicable to the Trkic societies only superficially. In the literary tradition, the equality of sexes was reflected in the story about the Scythian Amazons, the story about Scythian girls marrying only after killing an enemy, in the archeology it is noted in the presence of the female warriors buried under the Scythian and Sarmatian kurgans; in the Trkic literary traditions the equality is embedded in the canvas of the story, the specifically Bulgarian single combat between an admirer and his bridal selection; and in real life, in the Trkic societies the women still enjoy nowadays a commanding status incompatible with the surrounding population whose traditions were born from the agricultural sedentary past.

The high status of the women in Turkic societies was shocking and was noted by all travelers grown up in the Middle Eastern Persian and Arabic tradition, by European travelers, and by the Chinese observers. On the Scythian female status we have only sensational anecdotal testimonies, but for the Turkic societies we have literary evidence that women were the owners of the state, people, and land, and men respected the matrilineal priority. Women called assemblies for the election of the heads of state, and the maternal tribe was evaluating and approving or declining male candidates for the leadership position. Nothing of this nature is documented in the agricultural societies, among the Iranians, IndoIranians, or Indians; to the contrary, females in those societies are traditionally abused and subservient.