DNA genealogy: Slavs and "Indo-Europeans" (Part 1)

WHERE DID THE SLAVS AND "INDO-EUROPEANS" COME FROM? THE ANSWER IS GIVEN BY DNA GENEALOGYAnatoly Klesov, almanac "Swan" No. 574, September 07, 2008

Make yourself comfortable, dear reader. Some shocks are waiting for you. It's not very easy to start a narrative with the fact that the author expects from his research the effect of an exploding bomb, but what if it does?

And, in fact, why such confidence? Nowadays there is nothing to surprise, isn't there?

Yes, that's it. But when the issue is at least three hundred years old, and the conviction has gradually formed that the issue has no solution, at least by "available means", and suddenly a solution is found, then this, you will agree, is not so common. And this question is "The origin of the Slavs." Or – "The origin of the original Slavic community." Or, if you like, "The Search for the Indo-European ancestral homeland."

In fact, over these three hundred years, all sorts of assumptions have not been made on this score. Probably everything that is possible. The problem is that no one knew which ones were correct. The question was extremely confusing. Therefore, the author will not be surprised if, in response to his conclusions and conclusions, a chorus of voices will be heard – "so it was known", "it was written about before". That's human nature. And ask this choir now – well, where is the ancestral homeland of the Slavs? Where is the ancestral home of the "Indo-Europeans"? Where did they come from? So there will be no chorus, but there will be discord – "the question is complicated and confusing, there is no answer."

But first, a few definitions to make it clear what it is about.

By Slavs in the context of their origin, I will mean the Proto-Slavs. And, as will be seen from the following presentation, this context is inextricably linked with the "Indo-Europeans". The latter is a monstrously clumsy term. The word "Indo–Europeans" is just a mockery of common sense. In fact, there is an "Indo-European group of languages", and the history of this issue is such that two centuries ago a certain similarity was discovered between Sanskrit and many European languages. This group of languages was called "Indo-European", it includes almost all European languages, except Basque, Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. Then they didn't know the reasons why India and Europe suddenly found themselves in the same language bundle, and even now they don't really know. This will also be discussed below, and the Ancient Slavs were not spared here.

But the absurdities gave way when the speakers of the "Indo-European languages" themselves began to be called "Indo-Europeans". That is, a Latvian and a Lithuanian are Indo–Europeans, but an Estonian is not. And the Hungarian is not an Indo-European. A Russian Russian who lives in Finland and speaks Finnish is not an Indo-European, and when he switches to Russian, he immediately becomes an Indo–European.

In other words, the linguistic, linguistic category was transferred to the ethnic, even essentially genealogical. Apparently, they thought there was no better choice. Then maybe it wasn't. Now – there is. Although, strictly speaking, these are linguistic terms, and by saying one thing, the liguists mean another, and the third are confused.

There is no less confusion when we go back to ancient times. Who are the "Indo-Europeans"? These are those who in ancient times spoke "Indo-European" languages. And before that, who were they? And they were "proto–Indo-Europeans". This term is even more unfortunate, and is akin to calling the ancient Anglo-Saxons "proto-Americans". They have never even seen India, and that language has not yet been formed, it will only be transformed in millennia and join the Indo-European group, and they are already "proto-Indo-Europeans". It's like calling Prince Vladimir "proto-Soviet". Although "Indo-" is also a linguistic term, and has no direct relation to India among philologists.

On the other hand, you can understand and sympathize. Well, there was no other term for "Indo-Europeans". There was no name for the people who in those distant times formed a cultural connection with India, and expanded this cultural, and in any case linguistic connection to the whole of Europe.

Wait a minute, how was it not? And arias?

But more on that later.

More about the terms. For some reason, it is permissible to talk about the ancient Germans or Scandinavians, but not about the ancient Slavs. Immediately it is heard – no, no, there were no ancient Slavs. Although it should be clear to everyone that we are talking about the ancient Slavs. What is the double standard? Let's agree – speaking of the Slavs, I do not mean the modern "ethno-cultural community", but our ancestors who lived millennia ago. Surely they must have some kind of name? Isn't the clumsy "proto-Indo-Europeans" the same? And not "Indo-Iranians", right? Let there be Slavs, Proto-Slavs. And arias, but more on that later.

Now – what Slavs are we talking about? Traditionally, Slavs are divided into three groups – Eastern Slavs, western and southern. Eastern Slavs are Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians. Western Slavs – Poles, Czechs, Slovaks. South Slavs are Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Slovenes. This is not an exhaustive list, you can recall the Sorbs (Lusatian Slavs), and others, but the idea is clear. Actually, this division is largely based on linguistic criteria, according to which the Slavic group of Indo-European languages consists of eastern, western and southern subgroups, with approximately the same division by country.

In this context, the Slavs are "ethno–cultural communities", which includes languages. In this form, it is believed that they were formed by the 6th-7th centuries AD. And the Slavic languages, according to linguists, diverged about 1300 years ago, again around the 7th century. But the genealogically listed Slavs belong to completely different genera, and the history of these genera is completely different.

Therefore, Western and Eastern Slavs as "ethno-cultural communities" are somewhat different concepts. Some are Catholics in the mass, others are Orthodox. The language differs markedly, there are other "ethno-cultural" differences. And within the framework of DNA genealogy, it's the same thing, the same genus, the same label on the Y chromosome, the same migration history, the same common ancestor. The same ancestral haplogroup, finally.

So we have reached the concept of "ancestral haplogroup", or "genus haplogroup". It is determined by labels, or the pattern of mutations in the male sex chromosome. Women also have them, but in a different coordinate system. So, the Eastern Slavs are the genus R1a1. They are among the residents of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus – from 45 to 70%. And in ancient Russian and Ukrainian cities, towns, villages – up to 80%.

Conclusion – the term "Slavs" depends on the context. In linguistics, "Slavs" are one thing, in ethnography – another, in DNA genealogy - the third. Haplogroup, the genus was formed when there were no nations, no churches, no modern languages. In this respect, belonging to a genus, to a haplogroup is primary.

Since belonging to a haplogroup is determined by completely specific mutations in certain nucleotides of the Y chromosome, we can say that each of us carries a certain label in DNA. And this mark in the male offspring is indestructible, it can only be destroyed together with the offspring itself. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of such cases in the past. But this does not mean that this label is an indicator of a certain "breed" of a person. This label is not related to genes and has nothing to do with them, namely genes and only genes can be associated with a "breed" if desired. Haplogroups and haplotypes do not determine the shape of the skull or nose, hair color, physical or mental characteristics of a person in any way. But they forever bind the carrier of the haplotype to a certain human race, at the beginning of which there was a patriarch of the family, whose offspring survived and lives today, unlike millions of other broken genealogical lines.

This label in our DNA turns out to be invaluable for historians, linguists, anthropologists, because this label is not "assimilated", as speakers of languages, genes, carriers of different cultures are assimilated, who "dissolve" in the population. Haplotypes and haplogroups do not "dissolve", do not assimilate. Whatever religion the descendants have changed over the millennia, whatever language they have acquired, whatever cultural and ethnic characteristics they have changed, exactly the same haplogroup, the same haplotype (except with several mutations) stubbornly appear with appropriate testing of certain fragments of the Y chromosome. It does not matter whether it is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, an atheist or a pagan.

As will be shown in this study, members of the genus R1a1 in the Balkans, who lived there 12 thousand years ago, after more than two hundred generations came to the Eastern European plain, where 4500 years ago the ancestor of modern Russians and Ukrainians of the genus R1a1 appeared, including the author of this article. Five hundred years later, 4000 years ago, they, the Proto-Slavs, came to the southern Urals, four hundred years later they went to India, where about 100 million of their descendants, members of the same genus R1a1, now live. The Aryan family. Aryans, because they called themselves that, and it is recorded in the ancient Indian Vedas and Iranian legends. They are the descendants of the Ancient Slavs or their closest relatives. There was and is no "assimilation" of haplogroup R1a1, and the haplotypes are almost the same, they are easily detected. Identical to Slavic. Another wave of Aryans, with the same haplotypes, went from Central Asia to Eastern Iran, also in the 3rd millennium BC, and became Iranian Aryans.

Finally, another wave of representatives of the genus R1a1 went south and reached the Arabian Peninsula, the Gulf of Oman, where Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates are now located, and the Arabs there, having received the results of DNA testing, look with amazement at the testing certificate with the haplotype and haplogroup R1a1. Aryan, Proto-Slavic, "Indo-European" - call it what you want, but the essence is the same. And these certificates define the boundaries of the area of the campaigns of the ancient Aryans. The calculations below show that the times of these campaigns in Arabia are 4 thousand years ago.

So, when we say "Slavs", in this study we will mean the Eastern Slavs, people from the genus R1a1, in terms of DNA genealogy. Until very recently, science did not know how to designate them in "scientific terms". What objective, measurable parameter unites them? Actually, the question was not raised in this way. According to a huge array of data accumulated by linguistics, comparative analysis of languages – these are some "Indo-Europeans", "Arias", newcomers from the north (to India and Iran), they know snow, cold, birch, ash, beech, wolves, bears, horse are familiar to them. Now it has become known that these are people of the R1a1 genus, to which up to 70% of the population of modern Russia belong. And further to the west, to the Atlantic, the share of the Aryan, Slavic genus R1a1 is steadily falling, and among the inhabitants of the British Isles is only 2-4%.

This issue has been sorted out. And who are the "Indo-Europeans" then?

It inevitably follows from the above that "Indo-Europeans" are the ancient genus R1a1. Arias. Then everything, or at least a lot, falls into place – and with the arrival of people of this kind in India and Iran, and the spread of people of the same kind throughout Europe, and hence the appearance of the Indo–European group of languages, since this is actually their Aryan language, or its dialects, and the appearance of "Iranian languages" of the Indo-European group, since these are the Aryan languages. Moreover, as we will see below, the "Iranian languages" appeared after the arrival of the Aryans in Iran, or rather, not "after", but were the result of the arrival of the Aryans there, in the 2nd millennium BC.

And how do modern sciences look at "Indo-Europeans" now? "Indo-Europeans" with them is like a heffalump. "Indo-Europeans", in modern linguistics and a little in archaeology, are ancient (as a rule) people who then (!), after millennia (!), came to India, and somehow made Sanskrit, the literary Indian language, appear in one linguistic bundle with the main European languages, except Basque and Finno-Ugric languages. And besides Turkic and Semitic, which do not belong to Indo-European languages. How they, the Europeans, did it, how and from where they ended up in India and Iran – linguists and archaeologists do not explain. Moreover, they also enroll in the "Indo-Europeans" those who did not come to India and did not seem to have anything to do with Sanskrit, but apparently they spread the language. Celts, for example. But at the same time, they argue who was Indo–European and who was not. The criteria are applied in a variety of ways, up to the shape of the dishes and the nature of the patterns on it.

Another complication is that since many Iranian languages also belong to Indo-European, and it is also unclear to many why, they often say "Indo-Iranian" instead of "Indo-European". Even worse, "Indo-Europeans" are often called "Indo-Iranians". And monstrous constructions appear that, for example, "Indo-Iranians lived on the Dnieper in ancient times." This should mean that those who lived on the Dnieper produced descendants through millennia who came to India and Iran, and somehow made the languages of India and Iran become to a certain extent close to many European languages - English, French, Spanish, Russian, Greek, and many others. Therefore, those ancients who lived on the Dnieper millennia before, "Indo-Iranians". You can go crazy! Moreover, they spoke "in Iranian languages"! This is despite the fact that the "Indo-European" ancient Iranian languages appeared in the 2nd millennium BC, and those on the Dnieper lived 4000-5000 years ago. And they spoke a language that would appear only in hundreds, or even thousands of years.

They spoke Aryan, dear reader. But it's just scary to mention this among linguists. They don't mention it. They don't do that. Apparently, there was no command, no order. And they themselves are afraid.

And who are the "proto-Indo-Europeans"? And this is like a protoslonopotamus. These are, therefore, those who were the ancestors of those who were the ancestors of those who, after millennia, came to India and Iran, and did so ... well, and so on.

This is how linguists present it. There was a certain "nostratic language", a very long time ago. It is placed from 23 thousand to 8 thousand years ago, some in India, some in Central Europe, some in the Balkans. Not so long ago, it was estimated in the English-language literature that 14 different "ancestral homes" of "Indo-Europeans" and "proto-Indo-Europeans" were offered in scientific sources. V.A. Safronov in the fundamental book "Indo-European ancestral homes" counted 25 of them – seven in Asia and 18 in Europe. This "nostratic" language (or languages), which was spoken by "Proto-Indo-Europeans", about 8-10 thousand years ago broke up into "Indo-European" languages, and other non-Indo-European (Semitic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic). And the "Indo-Europeans", therefore, led their languages. True, they got to India after many millennia, but they are still "Indo-Europeans".

This was also dealt with. Linguists, however, have not figured it out yet. They note – "although the origin of Indo-European languages is studied most intensively compared to others, it continues to be the most difficult and persistent problem of historical linguistics... Despite the more than 200-year history of the issue, experts have not been able to determine the time and place of Indo-European origin."

Here again the question of the ancestral homeland arises. Namely, the three ancestral homeland - the ancestral homeland of the "Proto-Indo-Europeans", the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans", and the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. It is bad with the ancestral homeland of the "proto", because it is bad with the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans". Currently, three are being considered more or less seriously as candidates for the ancestral homeland of "Indo-Europeans" or "proto-Indo-Europeans". One option is Western Asia, or, more specifically, Turkish Anatolia, or, even more specifically, the area between the Van and Urmia lakes, just south of the borders of the former USSR, in western Iran, aka western Azerbaijan. The second option is the southern steppes of modern Ukraine–Russia, in the places of the so-called "kurgan culture". The third option is eastern or Central Europe, or, more specifically, the Danube Valley, or the Balkans, or the northern Alps.

The time of the spread of the "Indo-European" or "Proto-Indo-European" language also remains uncertain, and varies from 4500-6000 years ago, if representatives of the Kurgan culture are accepted as its speakers, to 8000-10000 years ago, if its speakers were the then inhabitants of Anatolia. Or even earlier. Supporters of the "Anatolian theory" believe that the main argument in its favor is that the spread of agriculture in Europe, North Africa and Asia began from Anatolia between 8000 and 9500 years ago, and reached the British Isles about 5500 years ago. Supporters of the "Balkan theory" use the same arguments about the spread of agriculture, however, from the Balkans towards Anatolia.

This issue has not been resolved until today. There are a lot of arguments for and against each of the three options.

The same applies to the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. Since no one has yet connected Slavs (Proto–Slavs), Aryans, and Indo-Europeans, and even more so has not put a sign of identity between all three, then the ancestral homeland of the Slavs is a separate, and also unresolved issue. This issue has been discussed in science for more than three hundred years, but there is no agreement, even minimal. It is generally accepted that the Slavs enter the historical arena only in the 6th century AD. But these are new times. And we are interested in the ancient Slavs, or the Proto-Slavs, say, three thousand years ago and earlier. And this is generally bad.

Some believe that the "ancestral homeland of the Slavs" was located in the area of Pripyat and the Middle Dnieper. Others believe that the "ancestral homeland of the Slavs" was the territory from the Dnieper to the Western Bug, which the Slavs occupied two or three thousand years ago. And where the Slavs were before, and whether they were at all – they consider the question "unsolvable at this stage." Still others suggest that the ancestral homeland of the Slavs, as well as the "Indo-Europeans" in general, were the steppes of the south of present-day Russia and Ukraine, but the fourth indignantly dismiss this. Fifths believe that the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans" and the ancestral homeland of the Slavs should still coincide, because the Slavic languages are very archaic and ancient. Others correct that they are not "Indo-Europeans", but one of their large groups, thereby hinting that "Indo-Europeans" should be different. Which ones are usually not explained.

From time to time, a certain "Indo-Iranian community" is mentioned, which for some reason spoke the "Balto-Slavic proto-language". This is already making my head spin. Sometimes there are some "Black Sea Indo-aryans". Why they are suddenly "Indo", in the Black Sea region, is not explained at the same time. Linguists say that it is customary.

They attract anthropology, and they say that the Slavs in this respect are close to the Alpine zone – modern Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy, Southern Germany, the northern Balkans, which means that the proto-Slavs moved from west to east, and not vice versa. But anthropologists and archaeologists cannot indicate the time of this movement, since the Slavs usually burned corpses, and did not bury them, which deprived scientists of material for two and a half millennia. Some believe that the settlement of the Proto-Slavs on the territory of Eastern Ukraine is connected with the spread of the kurgan archaeological culture, which means from east to west. It is almost unanimously believed that the population of the Andronovo culture was "Indo-Iranian" in its linguistic affiliation, that "Indo-Aryans" lived in the Southern Urals, in Arkaim, and "Indo-Iranians" created it again. There are expressions "Indo-Iranian tribes on the way of resettlement to India". That is, they were already "Indo-Iranian", although they had not yet moved there. That is, anything, up to the point of absurdity, just so that the word "arias" is not used.

Finally, the "near-scientific" literature goes to the other extreme, and claims that "the Slavs–Russ were the progenitors of almost all European and part of the Asian peoples," and "from 60% to 80% of the British, northern and Eastern Germans, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, 80% of Austrians, Lithuanians are assimilated Slavs, Slavs-Russ".

The situation is approximately clear. We can proceed to the essence of my presentation. Moreover, the most "advanced" historical and linguistic scientific articles, recognizing that the question of the place and time of the origin of the "Indo-European" language remains unresolved, call for going beyond archaeology and linguistics and attracting "independent data" to solve the issue, which will allow us to look at the problem from the other side, and make a choice between the main theories.

That's what I'm doing in the study presented here.

The essence of DNA genealogy and its main provisions I have repeatedly described before (http://www.lebed.com/2006/art4606.htm , http://www.lebed.com/2007/art4914.htm , http://www.lebed.com/2007/art5034.htm ). This time I will get straight to the point, reminding only that in the DNA of every man, namely in his Y chromosome, there are certain areas in which mutations accumulate gradually, every few generations, over and over again in the nucleotides. It has nothing to do with genes. And in general, DNA consists of only 2% of genes, and the male sexual Y chromosome is even less, there are an insignificant fraction of a percent of genes there.

The Y chromosome is the only one of all 46 chromosomes (more precisely, of the 23 carried by the sperm), which is transmitted from father to son, and then to each next son along a chain of times tens of thousands of years long. The son receives the Y chromosome from the father exactly the same as he received from his father, plus new mutations, if any, occurred during transmission from the father to the son. And it happens rarely.

And how rare?

Here is an example. This is my 25-marker Slavic haplotype, genus R1a1:

13 24 16 11 11 15 12 12 10 13 11 30 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 34 15 15 16 16

Each digit is a specific sequence of nucleotide blocks in the Y chromosome of DNA. It is called an allele, and shows how many times this block is repeated in DNA. Mutations in such a haplotype (that is, a random change in the number of nucleotide blocks) occur at a rate of one mutation in about 22 generations, that is, on average once every 550 years. Which allele will change next – no one knows, and it is impossible to predict. Statistics. In other words, here we can only talk about the probabilities of these changes.

In my earlier stories about DNA genealogy, I gave examples on the so-called 6-marker haplotypes, small ones, for simplification. Or also called "bikini haplotypes". But to search for the ancestral homeland of the Slavs, a much more accurate tool is needed. Therefore, in this study we will use 25-marker haplotypes. Since there are 50 million nucleotides in the Y chromosome of any man, the haplotype with its numbers can in principle be extended as long as you like, it's just a matter of the technique of determining nucleotide sequences. Haplotypes are determined by a maximum length of 67 markers, although technically there is no limit. But 25-marker haplotypes are also very thin resolution, such haplotypes are not even considered by scientific articles. This is probably the first one.

Haplotypes are extremely sensitive to origin, speaking of genealogical genera. Let's take not the Slavic R1a1, but, say, the Ugro-Finnish genus, N3 in the DNA genealogy system. A typical 25-marker haplotype of this genus looks like this:

14 24 14 11 11 13 11 12 10 14 14 30 17 10 10 11 12 25 14 19 30 12 12 14 14

It has 29 mutations compared to the Slavic one above! This corresponds to a difference of more than two thousand generations, that is, the Slavic and the Finno-Ugric common ancestor lived more than 30 thousand years ago.

The same picture is obtained if we compare, for example, with the Jews. A typical Middle Eastern haplotype of Jews (genus J1) is:

12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 17 8 9 11 11 26 14 21 27 12 14 16 17

It has 32 mutations in relation to Slavic. Even further than the Finno-Ugrians. And they differ among themselves by 35 mutations.

In general, the idea is clear. Haplotypes are very sensitive when compared with representatives of different genera. They reflect completely different histories of the genus, origin, migration of genera. Yes, what is there Ugro-Finns or Jews! Let's take the Bulgarians, brothers. Up to half of them have variations of such a haplotype (genus I2):

13 24 16 11 14 15 11 13 13 13 11 31 17 8 10 11 11 25 15 20 32 12 14 15 15

It has 21 mutations in relation to the above East Slavic haplotype. That is, they are both Slavic, but the genus is different. The genus I2 descended from another ancestor, the migration routes of the genus I2 were completely different than R1a1. It was later, already in our era or at the end of the last, they met and formed a Slavic cultural and ethnic community, and then they joined writing and religion. And the genus is mostly different, although 12% of Bulgarians are of the East Slavic, R1a1 genus.

It is very important that the number of mutations in haplotypes can be calculated when the common ancestor of the group of people whose haplotypes we are considering lived. I will not dwell here on how the calculations are carried out, since I recently published all this in the scientific press (link – at the end of the article). The bottom line is that the more mutations there are in the haplotypes of a group of people, the older their common ancestor is. And since mutations occur completely statistically, disordered, with a certain average rate, the lifetime of the common ancestor of a group of people belonging to the same genus is calculated fairly reliably. Examples will be given below.

To make it clearer, I will give a simple analogy. The haplotype tree is a pyramid standing at the top. The vertex at the bottom is the haplotype of the common ancestor of the genus. The base of the pyramid, at the very top, is us, contemporaries, these are our haplotypes. The number of mutations in each haplotype is a measure of the distance from the common ancestor, from the top of the pyramid, to us contemporaries. If the pyramid was perfect – three points, that is, three haplotypes at the base would be enough to calculate the distance to the top. But in reality, three points are not enough. As experience shows, a dozen 25-marker haplotypes (meaning 250 points) can be enough for a good estimate of the time to a common ancestor.

25-marker haplotypes of Russians and Ukrainians of the genus R1a1 were obtained from the international database YSearch. The carriers of these haplotypes are our contemporaries living from the Far East to western Ukraine, and from the northern to southern suburbs. And so it was calculated that the common ancestor of the Russian and Ukrainian Eastern Slavs, the genus R1a1, lived 4500 years ago. This figure is reliable, it has been cross–checked by haplotypes of different lengths. And, as we will see now, this figure is not accidental. Let me remind you again that the details of calculations, verification and rechecking are given in the article given at the end. And these calculations were carried out on 25-marker haplotypes. This is already the aerobatics of DNA genealogy, if you call things by their proper names.

It turned out that the common Proto-Slavic ancestor, who lived 4500 years ago, had such a haplotype in his DNA:

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

For comparison, here is my haplotype:

13 24 16 11 11 15 12 12 10 13 11 30 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 34 15 15 16 16

Compared to my proto-Slavic ancestor, I had 10 mutations (highlighted in bold). If we remember that mutations occur once in about 550 years, then 5500 years separates me from my ancestor. But we are talking about statistics, and for everyone on the circle it turns out 4500 years. I have more mutations, someone else has less. In other words, each of us has his own individual mutations, but the ancestor haplotype is the same for all of us. And he, as we will see, keeps this way almost all over Europe.

So, let's take a breath. Our common Proto-Slavic ancestor lived on the territory of modern Russia-Ukraine 4500 years ago. The Early Bronze Age, or even the Eneolithic, the transition from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. To imagine the scale of time, this is much earlier than the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, according to biblical legends. And they came out, if we follow the interpretations of the Torah, 3500-3600 years ago. If we ignore the interpretation of the Torah, which, of course, is not a strict scientific source, then we can note that the common ancestor of the Eastern Slavs, in this case Russian and Ukrainian, lived a thousand years before the eruption of the volcano Santorini (Tera), which destroyed the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete.

Now we can begin to build a sequence of events in our ancient history. 4500 years ago, the Ancient Slavs appeared on the Central Russian upland, and not just some ancient Slavs, namely those whose descendants live in our time, numbering tens of millions of people. 3800 years ago, the Arias, descendants of those Proto-Slavs (and having an identical ancestral haplotype, as will be shown below), built the Arkaim settlement (its current name), Sintashta and the "land of cities" in the Southern Urals. 3600 years ago Arkaim Arias left and moved to India. Indeed, according to archaeologists, the settlement, which is now called Arkaim, existed for only 200 years.

Stop! And where did we get that these were the descendants of our ancestors, the Proto-Slavs?

How from where? And R1a1, the label of the genus? It, this label, accompanies all the haplotypes listed above. So, it is possible to determine from it what kind those who went to India belonged to.

By the way, here's more data. In a recent work by German scientists, nine fossil haplotypes from Southern Siberia were identified, and it turned out that eight of them belong to the genus R1a1, and one is a Mongoloid of the genus C. The dating is between 5,500 and 1,800 years ago. Haplotypes of the genus R1a1, for example, are as follows:

13 25 16 11 11 14 X Y Z 14 11 32

Here the unencrypted markers are replaced with letters. They are very similar to the Slavic haplotypes listed above, especially when you consider that these ancient ones also carry individual, random mutations.

Currently, the share of Slavic-Aryan haplogroup R1a1 in Lithuania is 38%, in Latvia 41%, and Belarus 40%, in Ukraine from 45% to 54%. In Russia, Aryan Slavs average 48%, due to the high proportion of Finns in the north of Russia, but in the south and center of Russia, the share of Eastern Aryan Slavs reaches 60-75% and higher.

I'll make a reservation right away – I deliberately write "Hindus", and not "Indians", because Indians mostly belong to aborigines, Dravidians, especially Indians of southern India. And Hindus are, for the most part, just carriers of haplogroup R1a1. It would be wrong to write "haplotypes of Indians", since Indians as a whole belong to very different kinds of DNA genealogy.

In this sense, the expression "Hindu haplotypes" is synonymous with the expression "Slavs haplotypes". It has a reflection of the "ethno-cultural" component, but this is one of the signs of the genus.

In his early work about the haplotypes of Slavs and Hindus ( http://www.lebed.com/2007/art5034.htm ) I have already written that they, Slavs and Hindus, had the same common ancestor. Both of them belong to the genus R1a1 in a multitude, only Russians have 50-75% of them, Hindus – 16%. That is, Russians from the genus R1a1 40-60 million men, Hindus – 100 million. But in that work I described only the type of haplotypes, and short ones. Now, a year later, we can already determine when the common ancestors of the Eastern Slavs and Hindus lived.

Here is the ancestral haplotype of Hindus of the same genus, R1a1.

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

Almost exactly the same as the haplotype of the first ancestor of the Slavs. Two mutations have been identified, but in fact there are no mutations there. The fourth number on the left is 10.46 for the Slavs there, therefore rounded to 10, and for the Hindus there is 10.53, rounded to 11. It's actually the same thing. The same is true with the average mutation, a fraction of one.

The age of the common ancestor of Hindus is 3850 years. 650 years younger than the Slavs.

Since the ancestral haplotypes of Hindus and Slavs practically coincide, and the Slavic haplotype is 650 years older, it is clear that it was the proto-Slavs who came to India, and not vice versa. Strictly speaking, they were not Proto-Slavs, but proto-Hindus, but they were descendants of the Proto-Slavs.

If you add up all the haplotypes of Slavs and Hindus, since they are presumably from the same ancestor, then the differences disappear altogether. Common ancestral haplotype of Slavs and Hindus:

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

It is identical to the haplotype of the common ancestor of the Slavs. The lifetime of the common ancestor of Slavs and Hindus is 4,300 years ago. The ancestor is Proto–Slavic, he is older. In 500 years, the ancient Slavic Arias will stand Arkaim, in another 200 years they will go to India, and the Hindus will start counting from their common ancestor, again the Proto-Slavic, 3850 years ago. It all fits together.

Currently, the share of Aryan Indians, R1a1, throughout the country is 16%, in second place after the most common Indian "aboriginal" haplogroup H1 (20%). And in the higher castes, haplogroup R1a occupies almost half. Let's focus on this in a little more detail.

As you know, society in India is divided into castes and tribes. The four main castes or "varnas" are brahmins (priests), kshatriyas (warriors), vaishyas (merchants, farmers, herders), and sudras (workers and servants). In the scientific literature, they are divided into "Indo–European" and "Dravidian" castes, each of which has three levels - the highest caste, the middle and the lowest. The tribes are divided into Indo-European, Dravidian, Burma-Tibetan and Australasian. As it was determined recently, this entire male population in India can be divided into a dozen or one and a half main haplogroups - Mongoloid C, Iranian–Caucasian G, Indian H, L, and R2 (which are extremely rare in the world except India), Middle Eastern J1, Mediterranean (and Middle Eastern) J2, East Asian Oh, Siberian Q, Eastern European (Aryan) R1a1, Western European (and Asian) R1b. By the way, European Gypsies, as it is known, came from India 500-800 years ago, overwhelmingly have haplogroups H1 and R2.

The main share of both upper castes, Indo-European and Dravidian, consists of representatives of the Aryan haplogroup R1a1. There are 45% of them in the Indo–European upper caste, and 29% in the Dravidian upper caste. The remaining members of the higher castes are carriers of the Indian haplogroups R2 (16% and 10%, respectively), L (5% and 17%), H (12% and 7%), the rest are units of percent.

The tribes, on the contrary, are dominated by the East Asian haplogroup O (53% in Australasian, 66% in Burma-Tibetan and 29% in "Indo-European" tribes), and the "aboriginal" Indian H (37% in Dravidian tribes).

In principle, this is consistent with the ancient migration flows, which are outlined below. The most ancient stream, 40-25 thousand years ago, to the east from Northern Mesopotamia – Western Iran, dividing at the Pamir-Hindu Kush-TianShan, led future Dravidians, East Asians and Australoasians to the south, to India, and future Siberians, Western Asians and Europeans to the north and west. After many millennia, the second wave of Dravidians came to India from the Middle East, bringing with them the skills of nascent agriculture, along with haplogroup J2, which is most in the highest caste of Dravidians – 15% (in the highest caste of Indo–Europeans - 9%). And finally, 3500 years ago, carriers of haplogroup R1a1 arrived in India from the southern Urals under the name of Aryans. Under it, they entered the Indian epic. Interestingly, the Indian caste system itself was created about the same 3,500 years ago.

So, let's repeat it again. Slavs and Hindus have one common ancestor of the genus R1a1, who lived 4,300 years ago, and the ancestor of the Slavs themselves, with the same haplotype, lived a little earlier, 4,500 years ago. His descendant, 650 years later, began the genealogical line among the Hindus, counting from 3850 years ago (this is the lifetime of the common ancestor of the Hindus, see above), just from the time of the beginning of Arkaim. R1a1 – these were the arias that came to India. And when they came, and what brought them there – I'll tell you below, and before that we'll see when the common ancestors of the genus R1a1 lived throughout Europe. Then we will make a general picture of where they lived before everyone else, that is, where their ancestral homeland was, and where and when they moved from their ancestral homeland. We can already call them Aryans with good reason, instead of the faceless R1a1, and even more so instead of the clumsy "Indo-Europeans" or "proto-Indo-Europeans". Arias they are, dear reader, arias. And there was nothing "Indo-Iranian" in them, until, of course, they came to India and Iran. And they did not get their language from India or Iran, but on the contrary, they brought their own there. Aryan. Proto-Slavic. Sanskrit. Or Proto-Sanskrit, if you like.

We are looking at the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Reading:

"The only justified and accepted currently in science is the use of the term "Arias" only in relation to tribes and peoples who spoke Indo-Iranian languages."

It's necessary – so famously and directive to disown their ancestors.

And further – "In linguistics, the Indo-Iranian languages are called Aryan."

In fact, it was our Aryan ancestors who brought the language to Iran, and after millennia, already in our time, it began to be considered Iranian. And since there is a large school of Iranian languages, Aryan began to be mistaken for Iranian, confusing the cause with the effect.

The Iranian languages are Indo–European, and their dating is as follows - the oldest, from the 2nd millennium BC to 300-400 years BC, the middle – from 300-400 years BC to 800-900 years AD, and the new – 800-900 years AD to the present. That is, the oldest Iranian languages date back AFTER the departure of the Aryans to India and Iran, and more than 1000 years AFTER the life of the proto-Slavic ancestor (4500 years ago). He, our ancestor, could not speak the Iranian language in any way. He spoke Aryan, and his descendants brought the Aryan language to Iran a thousand or one and a half years later. And the Western Iranian group of languages appeared in general around 500 BC.

So the Arians and the Proto-Slavs, through the efforts of our scientists, became faceless "Indo-Europeans", and the Aryan, Old Slavic languages became "Indo-Iranian". This is also politically correct. And there were absolutely fantastic passages accepted in the scientific literature that "Iranian-speaking tribes lived on the Dnieper," that "the Scythians were Iranian-speaking," that "the inhabitants of Arkaim spoke Iranian languages."

They spoke Aryan, dear reader, Aryan. They are Old Slavic languages. And this is also our narrative.

According to the Indian Vedas, it was the Arias who came to India from the north, and it was their hymns and legends that formed the basis of the Indian Vedas. Russian Russian (and related Baltic languages, for example, Lithuanian) is the closest to Sanskrit, and from Russian and Baltic languages to Europe is just a stone's throw away. So, the Baltic-Slavic languages are the basis of the "Indo-European languages", isn't it? That is, they are also Aryan languages, if you call things by their proper names.

So, no one is arguing. But, you know, it's somehow wrong to give such an honor to the Slavs. "Indo-European languages" are politically correct, some faceless "Indo-Europeans" are even more politically correct, Slavs are not very politically correct. And arias are, you know, fraught.

And why is it fraught?

And here is how the Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines it: "Since the middle of the 19th century, the concept of "Arias" (or "Aryans") has been used to define peoples belonging to the Indo-European linguistic community. This use of the term was developed in racist literature (especially in fascist Germany), which gave it a tendentious and anti-scientific meaning."

Well, there was nothing racist in the way we calculated the data on the life times of the Aryans above. Therefore, we will not drag Nazi Germany here. And why else is it fraught?

And arias, you know, it's a little scary. This was still known to citizens during the time of the NKVD GUGB of the USSR, and especially the employees of this organization. At that time, there was a development of a Secret Political Department (PDF) called "Aryans", which linked this word with accusations of the creation and propaganda of fascist organizations in the USSR. According to sources of that time, the main accusations were made against representatives of the Soviet intelligentsia – teachers of higher and secondary educational institutions, literary workers of publishing houses. In particular, a group of employees for the production of foreign dictionaries was arrested and convicted in the "Aryan case". In general, we can talk a lot about this. As the Doctor of Historical Sciences A. Burovsky notes, "try to talk about arias in the professional community – and dear colleagues will instantly tense up, catch up... Questionable topic, not good. It's better not to deal with this topic at all, it's calmer. And if you are already engaged, then you don't need to draw any conclusions."

But we will, and not alone.

So, it became clear that the genus R1a1 in DNA genealogy is Arias, they are our ancestors, the Proto-Slavs, they are "Indo–Europeans". They brought their Aryan language, aka Proto-Slavic, to India and Iran 3500-3400 years ago, that is, 1400-1500 years BC. In India, it was polished into Sanskrit by the works of the great Panini about 2,400 years ago, close to the turn of our era, and in Persia-Iran, the Aryan languages became the basis of a group of Iranian languages, the oldest of which date back to the 2nd millennium BC. Everything converges.

This is what it means when linguists do not have in their hands the dates of life and migration of the Aryans, in particular, on the territory of modern India and Iran. Hence, they, the Aryans, and then all the others – the inhabitants of the Russian plain, the Dnieper, the Black Sea, the Caspian, the southern Urals – were all awarded the title of "Indo-Europeans", and even more so "Iranian-speaking", exactly the opposite.

That's where these clumsy "Indo-Europeans" came from. In fact, they had Aryan languages without any India or Iran, all over the Russian plain and up to the Balkans. By them, the Aryans, the language was brought to Europe, by them to Iran and India. From India to Europe – the same group of languages – Aryan. And they took it and called it "Indo-European", "Indo-Iranian", "Iranian". And what is incomprehensible to the mind in general, our people, our ancestors, the Proto-Slavs turned out to be "Indo-Europeans", or even "Iranians". "Iranian-speaking residents of the Dnieper". What's it like?

It's time, finally, for philologists and linguists to put things in order. We, experts in DNA genealogy, will help.

So which way did the Aryan, proto–Slavic stream go - to the west, to Europe, or vice versa, to the east? By region – to increase from 4500 years, or to decrease? To India, as we have already seen – on the decline, from 4500 to 3850 years. So, the flow from the territory of present-day Russia went to the east.

And to the west?

And here our narrative comes out in a completely unexpected, so to speak, angle. I collected 25 marker haplotypes of the genus R1a1 from all European countries, and for each country or region I determined the haplotype of a common ancestor for the population, and when this ancestor lived. And it turned out that almost all over Europe, from Iceland in the north to Greece in the south, the common ancestor was the same! In other words, the descendants passed their haplotypes as a baton to their own descendants for generations, diverging from the same historical place, the ancestral homeland of the Slavs, the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans", the ancestral homeland of the Aryans - which turned out to be the Balkans. And not just the Balkans, but Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia. This is the area of the most ancient haplotypes of the genus R1a1. And the lifetime of the first ancestor, which is indicated by the oldest, most mutated haplotypes, is 12 thousand years ago. More precisely, 12200 years ago, but this is too much. In archaeology and linguistics for those times, such accuracy is not known.

DNA genealogy definitely indicates that for almost 6 thousand years our pre-Slavic Balkan ancestors lived in those parts, not really moving anywhere. If they moved, traces of those activists have not yet been found in the haplotypes of our contemporaries. Perhaps there is none left. But about 6 thousand years ago, the Great Migration of peoples began – apparently in connection with the transition to new forms of management and the need to develop new territories. The first nomination is to the northern Carpathians, to the territory of historical Bukovina. Where the mysterious Tripoli culture was found, which, according to archaeologists, also mysteriously disappeared.

And she's not missing. The descendants of the Trypillians live there. Their common ancestor, according to local haplotypes, lived 6 thousand years ago, and belonged to the genus R1a1. Proto-Slavic. And the haplotype of that ancestor is now known to us. He is the same as the haplotype of the ancestor of the Eastern Slavs. Same family.

And then the waves of migrations of the genus R1a1 began to diverge in all directions, from the Balkans (the archaeological culture of Vinca and cultures related to it) and Bukovina (the Tripoli culture). Almost in all directions – 4-5 thousand years ago, the third-fourth millennium BC.

Germany is exactly the same 25-marker haplotype as the Eastern Slavs, 4800 years ago.

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

Now its owners (already with mutations) in Germany are on average 18%, but in some areas it reaches a third. The majority of the rest of the German population have the "Baltic" haplogroup I1 (24%) and the "Western European" R1b (39%).

Norway is the same haplotype, the ancestor lived on the territory of modern Norway 4,300 years ago. In Norway, the share of R1a1 now averages from 18 to 25% of the population. Mainly Baltic I1 (41%) and Western European R1b (28%) haplogroups.

Since all other Europeans of the genus R1a1 have the same haplotype of the first ancestor in the respective territories, I will not mention it anymore. I will only indicate when the first ancestor (he is also a descendant of the Balkan R1a1) lived.

Sweden – 4250 years ago. It can be seen that the development of the northern territories – Norway, Sweden – took time, several centuries, 500-600 years. In total, among modern Swedes, 17% are descendants of the Proto-Slavs, of the genus R1a1. Mainly Baltic I1 (48%) and Western European R1b (22%) haplogroups.

Let's move on to the Atlantic, to the British Isles. Here is a whole group of territories where the descendants of the Aryans, R1a1, have been living for a long time. They do not numerically dominate in comparison with another genus, R1b, of which the Celts are a typical representative, and who came there 3500-4000 years ago. But there are not so few of them, descendants of the Aryans, on the islands.

In England, the common ancestor of modern R1a1 carriers lived 4800 years ago, as in Germany. But in England and in the British Isles in general, there are relatively few descendants of Slavs, from 2% to 9% across all islands. Western European R1b (71%) and Baltic I1 (16%) haplogroups completely dominate there.

In Ireland – 5200 years ago. For some reason, the Irish haplotypes are the oldest in Western Europe and the British Isles. Either the settlement was really very early, or the ancient Irish survived more successfully than others. But now there are few representatives of haplogroup R1a1 in Ireland, no more than 2-4% of the population. There are three quarters of the Western European haplogroup R1b.

The development of northern, cold and mountainous Scotland took time. The common ancestor of the local branch of the genus R1a1 lived 4,300 years ago. In Scotland, the descendants of the ancient Slavs are declining in number from north to south. In the north, on the Shetland Islands, there are 27% of them, and this number drops to 2-5% in the south of the country. On average, across the country, they are about 6%. The rest – from two-thirds to three–quarters - have the Western European haplogroup R1b.

Let's start moving east.

Poland, the common ancestor of R1a1 lived 4,600 years ago. The Russian-Ukrainian – 4500 years ago, which is almost the same within the accuracy of calculations. And even if four generations is not the difference for such terms. In modern Poland, the descendants of the Proto-Slavs average 57%, and in some areas up to 64%. The rest have mainly Western European R1b (12%) and Baltic I1 (17%) haplogroups.

In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, a common Proto-Slavic ancestor lived 4,200 years ago. Only slightly less than the Russians and Ukrainians. That is, we are talking about settling in the territories of modern Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia – all within just a few generations, but more than four thousand years ago. In archaeology, such accuracy of dating is completely unthinkable.

In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the descendants of the Proto-Slavs of the genus R1a1 are about 40%. The rest have mainly Western European R1b (22-28%), Baltic I1 and Balkan I2 (18% in total) haplogroups.

On the territory of modern Hungary, the common ancestor of R1a1 lived 5,000 years ago. There are now up to a quarter of the descendants of the ancient Slavs-R1a1. The rest have mainly Western European R1b (20%) and the combined Baltic I1 and Balkan I2 (26% in total) haplogroups.

In general, the situation is clear. I will only add that in European countries - Iceland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Lithuania, France, Italy, Romania, Albania, Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Moldova – a common ancestor lived 4,500 years ago. To be quite precise, it was 4525 years ago, but I deliberately do not operate with such accuracy here. This is the common ancestor of the genus R1a1 in all the countries listed. A pan-European ancestor, so to speak, not counting the Balkan region shown above, the ancestral homeland of the Proto-Slavs, Aryans, "Indo-Europeans".

The share of descendants of Slavic-Aryans in these countries varies, from 4% in Holland and Italy (up to 19% in Venice and Calabria), 10% in Albania, 8-11% in Greece (up to 25% in Thessaloniki), 12-15% in Bulgaria and Duchovina, 14-17% in Denmark and Serbia, 15-25% in Bosnia, Macedonia and Switzerland, 20% in Romania and Hungary, 23% in Iceland, 22-39% in Moldova, 29-34% in Croatia, 30-37% in Slovenia (16% in the Balkans as a whole), and at the same time – 32-37% in Estonia, 34-38% in Lithuania, 41% in Latvia, 40% in Belarus, 45-54% in Ukraine. In Russia, Aryan Slavs, as I have already mentioned, average 45%, due to the high proportion of Finns in the north of Russia, but in the south and in the center of Russia, the share of Eastern Aryan Slavs reaches 60-75%.

The ancestral haplotypes are the same everywhere. And why should they be different? The genus is the same, R1a1. It is not indicative that the ancestral haplotype is the same, it is indicative that it is OBTAINED from the haplotypes of contemporaries the same. This means that the methodology of analysis and processing of haplotypes is correct, the statistics are sufficient, the data are reproducible and reliable. That's what is extremely important.

Let's move on to the Northern Carpathians neighboring Hungary. I have already written about them. But it is worth repeating that the time of the common ancestor of the genus R1a1 in Bukovina is 6 thousand years. Late Stone Age, with the transition to the Eneolithic.

Let me remind you that Bukovina is the old name of the area in the north–east of the Carpathians, at the junction of Ukraine and Romania, from Ukraine - Chernivtsi region. The city of Chernivtsi is the historical center of Bukovina. Within the framework of archeology, it is part of the territory of the Tripoli culture. This is the Eneolite.

So we found those who lived there in the Eneolithic era. Scientific works state that the origin of the Tripoli culture is not defined, it was based on Neolithic tribes, that is, tribes of the Late Stone Age, which lasted until about five thousand years ago.

And DNA genealogy has determined. The ancient Slavs lived there. Arias. "Indo-Europeans". Our ancestors. The genus R1a1, which includes up to three quarters of Russian people.

Scientific books write that the early inhabitants of the Tripoli culture, who lived there 5,000 years ago and earlier, were "squeezed out of there by the migration of "Indo-Europeans" about 4,000 years ago. But we see that this is not the case. The Proto–Slavs are those very early inhabitants, two thousand years ahead of the deadline indicated by respected scientists. They are "Indo-Europeans", only then there were no "Indo-Europeans" in sight, the descendants of these ancient Slavs left for India only two and a half thousand years after the described period of their life in the Tripoli culture.

So we found the ancestral homeland of the ancient Slavs, they are Arias. These are the Balkans, the Dinaric Alps.

But what about the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula as possible ancestral homes of the Aryans, the genus R1a1, the Proto-Slavs? Yes, let's see.

Armenia. The age of the common ancestor of the genus R1a1 is 4400 years ago.

Asia Minor, the Anatolian Peninsula. A historical crossroads on the routes between the Middle East, Europe and Asia. This was the first or second candidate for the "Indo-European ancestral homeland". However, the common ancestor of R1a1 lived there the same 4500 years ago. It is clear that this ancestral homeland, judging by the haplotypes, cannot be in Anatolia.

So, both Eastern Slavs, Armenians, and Anatolians – all have the same Aryan ancestor, or the ancestors are very close in time, within several generations.

It should be noted that 4500 years before the common ancestor of the Aryans in Anatolia is in good agreement with the time of the appearance of the Hittites in Asia Minor in the last quarter of the III millennium BC, since there is evidence that

The Hittites rebelled against Naramsin (2236-2200 BC, then

there are 4244-4208 years before our time).

The names of these countries sound unusual in relation to the genus R1a1, but our ancestors, or descendants of our ancestors, visited there in ancient times, and modern owners of R1a1 in those parts carry their Y chromosomes.

The age of the common ancestor in the Arabian Peninsula, determined by haplotypes, is 4000 years. This date is well consistent with 4400-4500 years before the common ancestor in Armenia and Anatolia, if we take as a reasonable option the direction of the flow of Aryans from the Middle Russian plain through the Caucasus mountains and further south to Arabia. In other words, the migration wave came from Europe, preserved the time of the common ancestor in the Caucasus and Asia Minor, and already reached Arabia at the end, shifting the time of the common ancestor by 400-500 years.

So it is not in Arabia and not in Asia Minor that the ancestral home of the Aryans, the Proto-Slavs, the "Indo-Europeans". Europe is the Balkans.

In principle, the haplotypes of the genus R1a1 could have been brought to Arabia by slaves brought to those lands four thousand years ago. But it is up to historians to answer this question.

A series of haplotypes from the island of Crete has been published in the literature. They were collected from the inhabitants of the Lasithi plateau, where, according to legends, their ancestors escaped during the eruption and explosion of the Santorini volcano 3,600 years ago, and the rest of the haplotypes were collected on the adjacent territory of the prefecture of Heraklion. We calculated the lifetime of a common ancestor in Crete in several different ways, but the result is the same – 4,400 years ago. A respectable 800 years before the explosion of the Santorini volcano.

This value corresponds to the average times of the European settlement of the genus R1a1.

Let's summarize the first part of our investigation. The DNA of our contemporaries shows that the most ancient roots of the Aryans, the genus R1a1, dating back 12 thousand years, are in the Balkans – in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia. After 6 thousand years, this genus will expand to the northeast, to the Northern Carpathians, forming the Proto-Slavic, Tripoli culture and marking the beginning of the great migration of peoples in the fourth-third millennium BC.

As part of this migration, apparently caused by the development of agriculture and the transition to its extensive forms, the genus R1a1 moved 5500-4500 years ago to the west, to the Atlantic and the British Isles, and 4000-4200 years ago, and north to Scandinavia. The same genus came to the near north and east – to the lands of modern Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, with a common proto-Slavic ancestor who lived 4500 years ago. The same ancestor gave surviving offspring, currently living all over Europe, from Iceland to Greece and Cyprus, and spread to the south of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf of Oman.

Descendants of the same ancestor, with the same haplotype in their DNA, went to the southern Urals, built settlements there 4000-3800 years ago, one of them (discovered in the late 1980s) became known as Arkaim, and under the name of the Aryans went to India and Iran, bringing their proto-Slavic haplotypes there 3500 years ago. This is the only but significant link that allows us to call the entire genus R1a1 the genus of the Aryans. The same bundle leads to the identity of "Indo-Europeans", Aryans, and the genus R1a1 within the DNA genealogy. She, this bundle, places the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans", Aryans, Proto-Slavs in the Balkans. The same bundle correlates the place of the Balkan ancestral homeland, the migration flow of the Aryans-Slavs, the dynamic chain of archaeological cultures and the corresponding flow of Indo-European languages, and shows the place and time of the appearance of the particle "Indo" in the term "Indo-Europeans". Finally, she, this bundle, convincingly shows that it was not the Proto-Slavs who spoke "Indo-Iranian" languages, but on the contrary, the descendants of the proto-Slavs brought their Aryan languages to India and Iran, and the times of the appearance of these languages in India and Iran, established by linguists, are completely consistent with the time of the arrival of the descendants of the Proto-Slavs there, the time recorded in the form of mutations in the DNA of our contemporaries of the genus R1a1.

But how did the genus R1a1 get to the Balkans, and from where? We have sorted out the ancestral homeland of the "Indo-Europeans", who turned out to be Arias, they are also Proto-Slavs. And where is the ancestral home of the "Proto-Indo-Europeans"? When and where did nostratic languages originate? What is the current picture of the flows, migrations of "Proto-Indo-Europeans" that led to the appearance of the Aryans, the Proto-Slavs in their historical ancestral homeland?

This is the second part of our investigation.