Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289526212

Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:43:32 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <>

From: Dienekes Pontikos

>The evidence for R1a is contradictory, with modern populations suggesting

>a South Asian origin, while its presence in Kurgan-related steppe

>groups suggests a European origin.

>As for Dr. Klyosov's theory that R1b is "Turkic", I believe that's
>largely based on the R-M73 in Uygurs, and I consider it to be highly
>improbable and lacking in parsimony.

Dear Dienekes,

There is nothing "contradictory" regarding R1a origin based on data available today. There is nothing to suggest "a European origin" of R1a1. There are simply no such data. If you (or anyone else) disagree, I would love to see data convincingly pointing at the "European origin of R1a1". I bet there are no such data, just empty talks.  

Yes, indeed, most of European R1a1 are originated around 4,800 ybp (there are close to 20 distinct "branches" of R1a1 in Europe by now) from a common ancestor in East European Plain, however, the root of R1a1 is located in the Altai region (with adjacent current Russian, Mongolian, Kyrgizian, Tibetan and Chinese territories) around 21,000 ybp. The first findings were published in J. Genet. Geneal. (2009) and lately were confirmed by analysis of Zhong et al. data on East Asian R1a1 haplotypes (Mol. Biol. Evolution, 2010). Those Altai R1a1 base (ancestral) 8 marker haplotypes differ from European base haplotype by as many as 7 mutations, which places their common ancestor at about 21,000 ybp. Besides, the Altaian, Mongolian, and Chinese R1a1 hapotypes belong to a ancient R1a1 subclade compared to Indian, Pakistani, Central Asian, Turkey, and European R1a1 haplotypes. This analysis has just escaped attention of English-speaking readers, but it continues to be published in Russian in the Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, along with multiple haplotype R1a1 (and R1b1) trees an their detailed consideration.

As to your second remark, I have no idea where on Earth you got it. Apparently, the word "Turkic" has many prejudices attached, which in turn distorts the vision. Call it "Eurasian Paleolithic" origin of R1b1, as well as their "Eurasian Paleolithic" language. It is better now, isn't it? Uygurs are vaguely (if at all) related there, I am not sure if I even have mentioned Uygurs in that context. The thing is that R1b1 (originated around 16,000 years bp a the same Altai region) migrated over many millennia from there across Central Asia, Middle Volga, the Caucasus, Anatolia, Middle East (Shumers?), North Africa (including Egypt) to the Atlantics, entered Iberia around 4800 ybp and as the Beaker Culture moved to the Continent and further on spread over Central and Western Europe and the Isles. All their migration path is the area of agglutinative non-Indo-European language  (including Turkic Tartars, Chuvash, Bashkirs, et al, some of them have VERY archaic turkic language, then North-Caucasian non-IE languages, than non-IE languages of Anatolia and adjacent regions, Sumerian, Basques, etc.).

I am merely suggesting to look at those non-IE languages peppering the path of R1b1 migration as remnants of ERBIN (R1b) languages in their dynamics.


Anatol Klyosov                         

This thread: