- What is the achievement of DNA genealogy in the field of study stories do you consider the most important Russian people today?
- A lot of copies are broken around who the Rus are and where they came from. Many thought out interpretations in which the lack of facts is “compensated” by violent fantasy.
DNA genealogy received an exact answer to this question. “Accurate” here is one that is as consistent as possible with objective scientific data. So, let me remind you that the culture of corded stoneware and the Fatyanovo culture are of key importance for the history of the Russian Plain. The first was born about 5200 years ago, and ended 4500 years ago. It was she who moved to the Fatyanovo culture, stretching from Belarus to the territory of present-day Tatarstan and Chuvashia.
So, the Fatyanovites were never called Rusas just because, according to the concepts of many historians, Slavs cannot be ancient. Allegedly, the Slavs and Russians have practically no roots. In other words, by default it is assumed that the Slavs in general had no ancient ancestors, and in particular there were no Russians, nor were there any.
You can still find some information in the literature about the ants and the Clavens, but there is nothing about who the Fatyanians were. Like, it is not clear who they are. However, DNA analysis showed that Fatyanovtsy belong to the haplogroup R1a, and half of the modern ethnic Russians also belong to R1a.
Moreover, the corpse position of the Fatyanov burials was typical of people belonging to the R1a haplogroup. In other words, the Fatyanovtsy are the direct ancestors of half of the modern ethnic Russians who have the same R1a haplogroup (the remaining half have the haplogroup I2a, N1c1, and the minor in the number of haplogroup or genus).
Now the question is: why are people of the Fatyanovo culture not called ancient Rus? Yes, only because the important heads of historical institutions did not give their approval on the term. The names are entered by people vested with authority, and that is the answer to the question. And, firstly, they do not know that the Fatyanovtsy are the direct ancestors of half of the modern Russians, and secondly, they don’t want to change anything, because the liberals will immediately call them “nationalists”, which is worse for academic historians than war Goodbye, foreign grants, who have.
Nevertheless, DNA tests unequivocally show a direct connection between ethnic Russians and Fatyanovs, and this, I believe, is one of the recent most important achievements of DNA genealogy.
- There are a lot of speculations about the supposedly Finno-Ugric origin of the Russian people. What does DNA genealogy say about this?
- Of course, I came across such reasoning more than once and consider them as part of the information war. From the same category as the notorious Norman. Normanism and Finno-Ugrism are twins. Moreover, the tone was taken as if the Finno-Ugrians were something bad.
Especially in recent times Ukrainian history falsifiers and their illiterate allies "from the crowd" have been distinguished. The best thing they thought of was that the Russians were a mixture of Finno-Ugrians and Mongols. First of all, this is racism, which I do not accept, all nations, of course, are equal, there are no nations higher or lower than others.
Secondly, DNA tests determined that the haplogroup N1c1, which is incorrectly called "Finno-Ugric", is in modern ethnic Russians on average 14%, but this is on average. If we move from Pskov and to the north, this number increases, and in the White Sea region it reaches approximately 40%.
If you go to the south of Russia, then in the Kursk, Belgorod, Oryol regions their number decreases to 5%, and becomes less than, say, in Ukraine. And the reason is clear - a simple geographical factor. The further south from the Baltic, the lower the content of the haplogroup N1c1. In the Balkans, for example, there is none at all. And Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians have an equal content of haplogroups R1a and N1c1 - by 40% each, the rest is minor in number of impurities, as a rule - “visitors” over the last couple of millennia.
Thirdly, the Lithuanians and Latvians, as well as the carriers of the N1c1 haplogroup among ethnic Russians, what kind of “Finno-Ugrians” are they? “Finno-Ugric peoples” are, according to the well-known scientific definition, carriers of Finno-Ugric languages. And in Lithuania, Latvia, Pskov and Kursk do not speak Finno-Ugric languages. Therefore, the question is not that being Finno-Ugric is something shameful or reprehensible, but that it is wrong.
Fourthly, the haplogroup N1c1 appeared in the Baltic States and on the territory of the Russian Plain about 2500 years ago, in the middle of the 1st millennium BC, and it appeared first in the southern Baltic, and its speakers, apparently, already spoke in languages of the Indo-European family, as carriers of the haplogroup R1a, and then on the territory of modern Finland, about 1500-2000 years ago.
By that time, Fatyanovo culture had already existed on the territory of the Russian Plain. There lived people belonging to the haplogroup R1a. The most interesting thing is that when I look for the roots of the myth about the Finno-Ugric origin of Russians, I see that the thesis was originally formulated only as a hypothesis. That was just a guess, you know? There were no grounds for that hypothesis, they were invented by interpreting indirect data. And they simply invented it when there was no data.
When a hypothesis is presented as an indisputable fact, then we are faced with an ideological approach. And its goal is transparent: to introduce the conviction among Russians that they live in a foreign land. The Slavs here are supposedly newcomers, and the territory does not rightfully belong to them.
Similarly, in my opinion, the Norman theory is being built. They say that the Russian state was founded by alien people, by some “Scandinavians” who laid everything - crafts, diplomacy, and military affairs. And they were apparently invisible in Russia, some Normanists say that tens of thousands, others — hundreds of thousands.
One bad luck - somewhere their descendants on the Russian plain got lost. Even if their 1000-1200 years ago were just 100-200 people, now there would be a lot of their descendants here. And they are not. After a long search for the descendants of the "Scandinavians" in Russia, four people found it difficult, who have no idea that there is a "Scandinavian" label in their DNA. Ancestors know their grandfather. No one was found in Ukraine, not one in Belarus, not one in Lithuania.
In the DNA genealogy, the “Scandinavian” label is called Z284. It is, of course, full in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and still know where? On the British Isles - in England, Ireland, Scotland, where, according to historical information, the Vikings went. And it turns out that they went only to the west, to the east they did not go.
There were no “Normans” in Russia, except as inmates in the Oreshek fortress, but with the troops of Charles XII with a known success. Descendants here they did not have time to acquire. It turns out that the "Scandinavian" swords Slavs brought from military campaigns, as trophies, and even did themselves. The same and the building of "Scandinavian construction." Look in the area of Ladoga "Scandinavian chromosomes", you will not find. There are none, and never have been. So the “Norman theory” crumbles like a house of cards.
- It is often stated that the very name of the capital of Russia is of Finno-Ugric origin, and this is considered to be one of the evidence of the Finno-Ugric origin of the entire Russian people.
- Yes, indeed, they say that the word “Moscow” is supposedly translated from Finno-Ugric. Others, however, argue that the Turkic. Third - that it is from the Arabic word "mosk", which means "mosque" (from the Arabic مسجد [ˈmæsdʒɪd] - "place of worship").
But in fact, there are at least two dozen versions of the origin of this word, to the extent that in Latin there is the word "Mosqa" (male union, brotherhood, monastery). However, all versions are “forgotten”, they put forward only one possible interpretation, and they even submit it not as an assumption, but as an allegedly “proven” fact. This is the lack of a scientific approach - to pedal only one version, which is thrown, while others seem not to be.
In general, I see how they climb out of their skin, trying to “prove” that the Russians did not originally live on the Russian Plain. They speak about the Swedes, about the Finno-Ugrians, about the ancient Germans - if only they would not be Russians. Fortunately, now there is a mathematically exact tool (DNA genealogy) that puts an unequivocal cross on all these fabrications.
DNA genealogy is good in that it is an exact science that does not allow a multitude of ideological reinterpretations. We do not deal with the consonance of some old names, do not take two broken pots and, on the subjective similarity of their appearance, do not make far-reaching conclusions, and do not take it on faith who, for whatever reason, said that in antiquity, Herodotus or Homer.
We accept only facts, direct evidence. We are for honest science, not for the one that is based on “opinions”, and opinions revolve in any desired direction, depending on external or internal order.
- Consider another famous culture, which stretched from the southern Urals to the Dniester. This Pitcher culture, with dating 4600-5300 years ago
- In the academic literature it is stated the thesis that representatives of the Pittora culture created the Afanasyevskaya culture of Altai. This conclusion was made on the basis of just the external similarity of the material characteristics of the two cultures.
However, a natural question arises: on what basis is it concluded that Afanasyans brought culture to the south of Siberia, and not vice versa? And they, they say, have a lot like, Yamna and Afanasyevskaya. Remarkable, but why similarity is interpreted only in one direction? And because it has already been expressed long ago, and it has become “bronzed.” So, this is also not a science.
DNA genealogy can clearly show not only the connection of cultures, but also the direction of migration of peoples. Now, with the help of DNA tests, it has been proven that people from Southern Siberia, including the ancestors of the Yamniki, were moving west. The roots of Pit-culture turned out to be in the Afanasyev culture, and not vice versa. And from Yamnaya culture, those ancient people (haplogroup R1b) went south through the Caucasus to Mesopotamia, and not to the west, ostensibly to Europe, as historians with archaeologists have considered for half a century.
There is no DNA of “pits” in Europe, but they are numerous in descendants - in the Caucasus and Turkey, and further, bypassing the Mediterranean Sea - on the Iberian Peninsula. And from there - the rapid settlement of continental Europe 4800-4400 years ago, and then more slowly and thoroughly - until 3000 years ago, before the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.
For historians, this turned out to be a solution to the ancient riddle - where did the culture of bell-shaped cups go from? And she went to continental Europe from the Iberian Peninsula, starting 4800 years ago. There are many mysteries along the way, including the languages spoken by the invaders of Europe, why and how Old Europe died, who the Celts are and where they came from, and much more.
- Your opponents constantly emphasize that you are not a geneticist, but a chemist, and therefore you are not a professional in the field you have taken. Even the most ardent opponents do not question your achievements in world chemistry. But this is not genetics, will you agree?
- There is an elementary substitution of the thesis. DNA genealogy and genetics are different things, different scientific disciplines. I never said that I was a geneticist, I never claimed that I was engaged in genetic research. I'm actually not a neurosurgeon, and not a sword absorber, but where is the DNA genealogy? That's also with genetics.
DNA genealogy stands on the shoulders of geneticists, more precisely, on one shoulder. The other shoulder is physical chemistry. The third shoulder, if such were - these are historical sciences. And I am an expert in physical chemistry, what genetics do not understand. Therefore, genetics could not create a DNA genealogy. And I could not create genetics, for which I do not pretend.
If it is half in joke, then DNA genealogy is the use of chemical methods for processing data obtained by geneticists. See the difference or not?
Simply put, what is DNA? This is deoxyribonucleic acid. Acid, do you understand? Well, now let someone say that chemists do not deal with acids and this is not their field of professional activity. Kuram to laugh!
If it is serious, the most important part of DNA genealogy is the transformation of the picture of mutations, developed in time, into chronological indicators. In other words, in times that have passed from certain historical events and phenomena, such as ancient migrations, the formation of ancient archaeological cultures, the transition of migrants to other regions and other continents, issues of human evolution - in the same place, too, evolution took place in time.
Here, the speed of mutations in the Y chromosome, more precisely, in different parts of the chromosome, plays an enormous role, and for this it is necessary to know the equations of reaction rates, the methodology of specialized calculations.
This is not genetics, and has nothing to do with genetics. This is DNA genealogy. And genetics and in physical chemistry, and in the history understand a little. Not their methodology. That DNA genealogy and went to the junction of sciences. This is now called the "multidisciplinary approach." This is about us.
-Thanks for the detailed answers. There are still a lot of questions left, and we will definitely turn to you again, if you don't mind.
- Of course, please.
To be continued