GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111894886
Subject: R1a1 - Dating of M17
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 03:41:26 +0000
The opinion (ask Bennett at FTDNA if you think I am exaggerating) has shifted dramatically of late suggesting that R1a may have emerged in Southern India as long as 40,000 years ago, moving north either via the Black Sea or more likely via the Hindu Kush (Khyber Pass at Peshawar) moving into Central Asia where M17 moved east as far as the Pacific Ocean in Siberia but concentrated west of Lake Baikal in the Altai region; and their kinsmen moved toward the Black Sea in successive waves. Some of the more recent movements brought M17 to Eastern Europe; and others moved down to the Arabian Penninsula and a return to the Indian Sub - Continent. The latter movements may have been as recent as 4000 YBP. The dating procedures are simply not up to the task - we are left guessing when all these events in fact did take place.
My point is that there is a desperate need to revise what FTDNA says about R1a on the Haplogroup Database pages. Researchers such as Oppenheimer and Kilvisid ascribe to the "India first" hypothesis - and so do I by the way. Diversity measures (Pakistan versus Ukraine) are also in support of the South / Central Asian origin of M17 (R1a1). Zerjal, Wells (recently), Semino, and Kivisild are all in agreement over the issue (age depth as early as 51,000 BC to perhaps a more reasonable 15,000 years have been proposed by recent researchers) - but still the old Kurgan hypothesis persists. It is entirely possible that 3000 - 1000 YBP the people who were descendants of the Kurgans and bearing M17 "returned" to the Indian Sub - Continent and brought with them an Indo - European language - but M17 has a much greater time depth.
-------------- Original message --------------
> ellen Levy wrote:
> > Dan:
> > Further, there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that
> > R1b is only approximately 7000 years old and can be
> > attributed to the Kurgan people either.
> Oh there is plenty of evidence of that. Just take the
> published papers which use 0.0007 for the mutation
> rate and divide the time by three, that is,
> use the real measured mutation rate. That does not
> say that 7000 is correct, of course.
> Doug McDonald