GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289567138


From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:05:38 +0200
References: <AANLkTi=R-uQYBmw7vDz3Tsfjzv7_c6JD__MT_n4i6XvE@mail.gmail.com><625030.15518.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <625030.15518.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>


I don't know who you are referring to, but I never thought that R1b
was from Central Asia, and when the National Geographic documentary
said that Central Asians are some kind of ur-fathers of East and West
Eurasians, I clearly pointed out that that is not the case, and their
increased diversity is due to their recently admixed status, and all
subsequent autosomal research has proved me right.

R1b origin in Central Asia is dead wrong for the reasons I've already listed.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM, vernade didier <> wrote:
> Dienekes,
>
> 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 ?
>
> Didier
>
> 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
>> 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 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: