GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220655087


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:51:27 +0000


From: "Dienekes Pontikos"
>An age of e.g., 5,000BP in location X is consistent with either:
arrival 5,000BP of one or a few related males to location X
or
arrival 2,000BP of a larger group of already differentiated males to location X
or
any number of different settlement scenarios. What you _can't_
conclude is that the calculated age of British R1a1 TMRCA coincides
with the arrival of R1a1 into Great Britain.


Everyone understands it too, that a "common ancestor" and an "arrival" are not necessarily the same things.
However, we live not in abstract world. We look at a wider picture, compare things and make conclusions,
albeit (always) tentative. The thing is that the Balkans show a common R1a1 ancestor of 12,200 years "old".
And then we see a spread of R1a1 in all directions, with about the same range of "common ancestors" of 4000-5000 years old> from Iberia through Italy, France, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, England, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Sicily, Sardinia, Armenia, Anatolia, Lebanon, and Crete as well, all within a thousand years, between 4000 and 5000 years BP. And then we see a decrease to Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, OAE to 4,000, and India to 3,800 years BP.

You see my point? It is hard to believe that someone had arrived en masse to Europe 2000, 1000 or 500 years ago, and spread R1a1 to make them everywhere 4000-5000 years old. It is MUCH more logical to assign all those dates to ARRIVALS, and this also explains a certain down-gradient to Saudi Arabia and India. It all looks as actual migrations, arrivals.

Comments?

Anatole Klyosov

This thread: