Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289578799

Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:19:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <>

From: Dienekes Pontikos < >

> 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 .

There are at least two incorrect statements in the above quotation. One, that “ (R1a) oldest ancient DNA attestation is in Europe ”. Generally, I do nor buy that kind of verbal statements. Years, maybe? Territories? Haplotypes? Calculations? Furthermore, it is plain incorrect. Most of European lineages (“haplotype branches”) are 2500-3000 years “old”, or “younger”. THEIR common ancestor is of around 4800 “years of age”, and came from the East European Plain. Besides, there are VERY FEW haplotypes, mainly with DYS392=13, which have a common ancestor with other European haplotypes around 12,000-10,000 ybp (cf. 11,600+/-1600 for the Balkan haplotypes in my publication in J. Genet. Geneal., 2009). This is as “old” in Europe as it gets.


Compare it with 19,000 – 23,000 ybp for R1a1 in the Altai area and a bit to the East. These are follow from R1a1 datasets, summarized recently by Zhong et al (2010). Those are mainly of Uygurs, Tibetans, and adjacent populations. Cf. 21,000+/-3,000 ybp, published in my paper in H. Genet. Geneal. (2009).


I have no idea what “archaeology and common sense” can tell regarding that Europeoids (Caucasoids) could not have originated in the Altai area, or, more broadly, in South Siberia. Please doubled check your books.                        


>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…


First, there is no any conundrum. Second, said both “ways” are incorrect and tooooo vague, since “an early stage” is not defined there, and “early distribution” is not “originated”. You forgot the third, MUCH more justified “way” – R1a1 are originated, based on data available today, in South Siberia , around the Altai region, and they were of the race which was called later “Caucasoids”. It was around 21,000 ybp, and one of their oldest branches had DYS393=13. Their base haplotypes differ by many mutations (it is published, by how many) from the European, more “younger” haplotypes.


I understand that new data and new conclusions are absorbed slowly and (sometimes) painfully, however, welcome to science, in that case.      


>such a broad early distribution is hard to harmonize with shallow coalescence times for extant Y-STR diversity.

Again, welcome to DNA genealogy. In fact, it is not hard at all, if one knows basic principles of the data treatment.


>As for R1b, "Eurasian Paleolithic" is not even close to being the same
as "Turkic".


This statement lacks a definition what is “Eurasian Paleolithic” and what is “Turkic”. There are “Turks”, typically – language-wise – which are attributed – language-wise – to the beginning of AD. In that case, by definition, they cannot be “even close” to “Eurasian Paleolithic”. It is not too hard to understand, that when I talk on ancient R1b migrations, they could not possibly be those “Turkic” whom we know now. One can call them “Proto-Turkic”, “Erbins” (by definition), or “Sino-Caucasians”, for example. They are current populations on their (R1b) way who currently have the most archaic Turkic language.


Again, I repeat, that I am merely suggesting to THINK over it, not to jump the gun - mindlessly. There are a number of ancient languages on the assumed R1b1 migration way which are “unclassified”, “unassigned”, agglutinated languages, in Asia and in Europe , and you can easily connect them – geographically – and see that is matches pretty well the R1b1 migration path.                  


>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…


“Believe” is not science. It belongs to the church. You need DATA. The classic “I think therefore I am” is not the same “I think therefore I have data”. One needs both – to have data and to think over them.  


>a theory that places the origin of R1b at the very eastern end of its current distribution lacks in parsimony…


Please elaborate. With DATA please.


>Moreover, there is no reason to associate R1b with Turks.


See above.


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

There are two incorrect statements here again. First, I would truly appreciate to see DATA on “clear West Eurasian distribution” meaning “origin”. If you shown me R1b1b2 haplotypes in Turkey , I can tell you right away that their common ancestor lived around 6,000 ybp. Is it “origin”? At the same time, there are haplotype branches in the Altai region among R1b1 with a common ancestor who lived around 17,000 ybp. What say you?


Anatole Klyosov 

This thread: