Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289882593

From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:19 -0500
References: <>

From: Dienekes Pontikos < >

> Then, you have distorted my words (or maybe it was a poor choice of my
> words). I have never claimed in my studies that Caucasoids originated in
> South Siberia.

>You said:
>"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 double check your

>I'm glad you do not entertain this idea.

My response:

Now I understood where you did get it. Yes, indeed, I can repeat that
neither archaeology nor "common sense" cannot say anything negative or
positive about origin of Europeoids in the Altai area or, more broadly, in
South Siberia. Since it happened around 60,000-50,000 ybp (just a guess),
what archaeology can possibly say about it? The same with "common sense".
That is why when I read your statement that "archaeology and common sense"
can say something what possibly has happened around 60,000 ybp, I just could
not take it seriously. It did not mean at all that I advocated that
Europeoids originated in South Siberia. As I have said, I have never claimed
it in my studies.

>Your alternative idea (that
Europeoids originated in the eastern European plain) is also not much
better, unless you are using a non-standard definition of Europeoid,
that limits it to northern Eurasians.

My response:

Well, you have right to deny whatever I have said, and I have right to
analyze data and put forward hypotheses. I would prefer that you put forward
YOUR hypothesis on when and where Europeoids have originated, but here empty
words again - "West Eurasia". Can you be a bit more specific - where, when
and based on which data? Just to mention genome is not an answer.

As you (might) see in my paper on crania and Europeoids, I have summarized
more than 50 pieces of data from different disciplines related to origin of
Europeoids and their possible migrations. As you see, I prefer analyze data.
Definition of Europeoids is given in the same paper.

>Altaic speakers (including Turkic speakers) are bound by a common
autosomal element from the Chuvash and Turks in the West to the Yakuts
in northeastern Siberia. Uralic and Paleosiberian groups belong to
different autosomal components.

My response:

As I see, you equate present day "Altaic speakers" with R1a and R1b of many
thousand years ago. It is a mistake. "Altaic speakers" are typically
Mongoloids, while ancient R1a and R1b were "Europeoids". Apart of this, I
agree with the above quotation. However, it concerns quite different things.
By the way, the current Yakut popularion (N1c) is only 1600 years "old".
>From a middle of the 1st century AD. Do you take it into consideration?

>This Altaic element has the shortest Fst distance to the East Asian
(Fst=0.044) element which is the Chinese one, and hence would not be
called "Caucasoid".

My response:

Exactly the same thing, as I have explained above. You compare present-day
autosomal features with ancient European tribes. Are you surprised that R1b1
in Central Africa do not look like Irish R1b1? However, thousands yours ago
they certainly looked differently.

>Your theory

>Seems to suggest that Turkic (and R1b1) spread from the Altai to
Western Europe, that R1a1 originated in the Altai, went to Eastern
Europe, and then went back to the Altai much later

It is not what I "suggest". The data point to it. R1a1 in the Altai area
(including Xinjiang Uygurs) is of ~21,000 ybp, and even belong to a
different subclade, with DYS392=13 (instead of "11" typically in Europe,
West Asia, India, Central Asia, Pakistan). On some reason you ignore this
important fact. From there R1a1 arrived to Europe, and around 4,000 ybp they
moved East, reached South Ural, moved to India and Iran, and moved further
East. Some of those R1a1 were excavated (dated ~3,800-3,400 ybp). Some of
them were known in Northern China under various tribal names. Is it news for
you? If not, why you did write that I "suggest" it?

Actually, I do not know whether Tarim Mummies were the original R1a1 from
that area, or "Indo-European" R1a1, who came from Europe. I was surprised
how quickly some folks jumped to a conclusion that they were from Europe.
Please do not tell me that they used "European fabric", that fabric could
have been brought from that area to Europe well before.

>My theory is that Altaic speakers originated in East-Central Asia and
were originally Mongoloid in physical type. The autosomal evidence is
supportive of this theory, as is the presence of east Eurasian
Y-chromosome lineages among all living Altaic groups. The idea that
they were related to R1b1 is inconsistent with all other lines of

My response:

Some of them certainly were. I do not understand only why if Y-chromosome
lineages are similar in Altai and East Eurasia, why it is necessarily
West-East movement, and not in the opposite direction? Please elaborate.

Your last phrase is incorrect again. Some Altaic populations DO belong to
R1b1. How can it be "inconsistent"? It is a fact.


Anatole Klyosov

This thread: