GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289551038


From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:37:18 +0200
References: <mailman.371.1289426695.2059.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><2039780895.285586.1289526212233.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <2039780895.285586.1289526212233.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


The evidence for R1a IS contradictory, as its oldest ancient DNA
attestation is in Europe and it is present in light-pigmented steppe
groups that archaeology and common sense tells us cannot have
originated in South Asia.

The way out of this conundrum is either: (1) a European origin of R1a,
or (2) a very broad early distribution of R1a at an early stage, so
that R1a could move from West-to-East, but there was already R1a
established in South Asia.

Both (1) and (2) are problematic: (1) because of the higher South
Asian Y-STR diversity, and (2) because such a broad early distribution
is hard to harmonize with shallow coalescence times for extant Y-STR
diversity.

As for R1b, "Eurasian Paleolithic" is not even close to being the same
as "Turkic". As to the 16,000-year old origin in you mention, I
believe that is due to a multi-unit deletion in the ancestry of R-M73
chromosomes, but I will let people more knowledgeable in this area
chime in. But, also, a theory that places the origin of R1b at the
very eastern end of its current distribution lacks in parsimony, as
R1b folk must've participated in a veritable Drang nach Westen, as
they seem to have moved all the way to the Atlantic but made barely a
presence either East or South of their supposed homeland.

Moreover, there is no reason to associate R1b with Turks. My own
analysis of autosomal published datasets, indicates a clear
relationship between Altaic speakers, including Turks, with their
distinctive autosomal component having clear East Eurasian
affiliations.

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/11/fine-scale-east-eurasian-admixture.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidimensional-scaling-and-admixture.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/admixture-in-siberia-greenland-and.html

Thus, I don't see any reason to associate R1b, a lineage of clear West
Eurasian distribution with Turkic speakers.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:43 AM, <> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Rus!
sian 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, the!
n 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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Anatol Klyosov
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message



--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com


This thread: