GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289561072
From: vernade didier <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:24:32 +0000 (GMT)
I'll make it short : when Spencer Wells said R1b was from central Asia and made these drawings that everyone know on Genographic, showing a move from East to West , I didn't see people reacting against it.
It seems that R1b is from Central Asia , may be people can discuss exactly from where but it doesn't seem really "odd".
So, in short, I don't see your point. What's wrong in Anatole Klyosov post not said before by others ?
Dienekes wrote :
> 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
> 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
> Asian Y-STR diversity, and (2) because such a broad early
> is hard to harmonize with shallow coalescence times for
> extant Y-STR
> 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
> relationship between Altaic speakers, including Turks, with
> distinctive autosomal component having clear East Eurasian
> 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, <>
> > 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.
> > Regards,
> > Anatol Klyosov
|Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published by vernade didier <>|