GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291519844


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b and R1a fate
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 22:30:44 -0500


In response to: > From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>


Dear Andrew,

Since you (we) are discussing a very important subject, namely a cross-interpretation of data of linguistics and DNA genealogy, let me come back to it again. As I understand, the main point of your preceding message (see below) was that I misread ALL your statements, one by one. Fine, THIS is not a comment to argue about. It would be silly if I insist that I read them properly, and you insist that I misread them. Hence, let's come back to the drawing board. However, I have just one condition: you express your statements in a frank, direct way. Please do not go around trying to create some "uncontroversial" statements and as a result produce something which says close to nothing.

Agreed? Good, thank you.

Now, please try not to use linguistic terms which are not compatible with migration routes of haplotypes/tribes. Please do not use the term "Iranians" when you are describing R1a1 in Ukraine or in the Black Sea steppes. There is nothing "Iranian" in them. "Iranian" is the language which R1a1 brought to the Iranian Plateau about 3500 years ago. Hence, R1a1 in the steppes 4500 years ago cannot possible be "Iranians". This language was called "Aryan" in the 19th and the first quarter of the 20th century, and then it was changed to "IndoEuropean" on clearly political reasons, and one branch of it was called "Iranian" when Iran was still Persia. To call European R1a1 "Iranians" is awfully confusing and historically wrong. Let's leave this sloppy and awkward term to the linguists.

I cannot comment of the first half of your message (see below) because it says much about nothing. The following is the first meaningful "something" worth of commenting:

>I only worked with two things we know, trying
> to build from what is least controversial: Tocharian is IE (but not Indo
> Aryan) and the geographical position it was found in. Agreed?

Yes. Tocharian IS an Indo-European language, according to contemporary linguistics. Yes, it is bound to a certain geographic position, namely Xinjiang, China. It is Western (North-Western) China. It is a place where the most ancient R1a1 common ancestor was found, in fact, a number of them, from 7,000 to 21,000 ybp. It is where the Tarim mummies were found, dating 3800 ybp and onward to out time (to about 200 AD). All of them (males) are R1a1, thus far. Finally, according to Gray and Atkinson (Nature) Tocharian languages split from IE language tree 7900 ybp. It is certainly not the "Indo-Aryan" branch.

Now, my turn to ask a question: What is your point in that regard? Please, express it directly.

My point is that the Tocharian R1a1 did not come from Europe. They are at the root of the IE languages. Therefore, R1b are not related to that root. R1b have nothing to do with Tocharian languages. R1b have nothing to do with the root of IE languages. Am I clear? Any claims otherwise are not substantiated, unless they are supported with DATA.

Let's move to the next point.

> I think you must surely be mis-reading me, or are you seriously saying that
> Iranian languages are 8000 years old?

As I said, let's postulate that I always misread you, just by definition. No, I am not saying that Iranian languages are 8000 years old. I do not know where you got it. "Iranian" languages are estimated to be some 4000 years old in the contemporary linguistics. According to DNA genealogy, and from other general considerations, "Iranian" languages were brought to the Iranian Plateau by R1a1 3500 years bp, that is by the Aryans, when they (the Aryan languages which were renamed as "Iranian" languages) had already had their history on the Eastern European Plain and in Central Asia.

Now, my turn to ask a question: What is your point in that regard? Please, express it directly.

> Well, I think being specific would go beyond what I was trying to do which
> is say what is least controversial in broad terms.

Understood, but - frankly - useless in the context of this discussion.

> Do you know of many controversies about the idea that Western European IE
> languages like Celtic and Italic probably arrived from the direction of the
> Balkans? Again, I am trying to start with what is most general and least
> controversial.

I am confused with the above. Yes, there are many controversies about Celtic. However, it does not fit to your last sentence. There are many controversies who Celtics actually were in BC times. There are many controversies with Celtic language BEFORE the 1st millennium BC. It was likely NOT Indo-European those times. There are many controversies about Celts and Gauls, who were who, and in many deep studies they are often mixed together. Read THE CELTS by Nora Chadwick, for example. It is one of the best studies of the Celts, and they often undistinguishable from the Gauls in descriptions. Even the names are often used interchangeably.

Now, my turn. Which language(s) the Celts (or their predecessors) spoke 4500 years bp, where, and which haplogroup did they belong? DATA, please.

> yes I guess the period of original dispersal of western European R1b AND western
> European IE languages may be around 4000 years ago, and in a similar time
> frame. This bit IS meant to be a speculation. What do you think?

I think that the above is not a "speculation" but plain incorrect. IE language "dispersal" in Europe was - according to the contemporary linguistics - around 6000 years ago. Than the IE languages started to split into branches. My question to you" where R1b were 6000 years ago? In Europe??

> I am avoiding making any proposal about what Y haplogroup was in the
> original wave of dispersal of IE languages as a whole. It is too difficult.

I understand. I take it that R1b was not among that dispersal. At any rate, you do not have DATA about it.

> But we do know that a BRANCH of R1a has dispersed on the Steppes more
> recently than the original R1a, linking India and Russia for example as you
> have pointed out to me before; and we do know that a BRANCH of IE also links
> these same regions, and this branch must surely have dispersed more recently
> than IE as a whole? Again, this is a speculation. Please comment on any
> problems you see but treat it as a speculation.

I did not get it. First, please do not use R1a1 and steppes in one sentence. It is a cliché, with no data on it. Particularly when you - again - avoid dates. We know that R1a1 were in "Russia" (in its present-day sense) since 4800 years bp, they were in "Germany" 4600 ybp, they were in South Ural 3800-3600 ybp and beyond Ural, in Siberia 3400 ybp (excavations), they were in India 3500 ybp, and their common ancestor (India) lived around 4050 ybp, presumably in "Russia". There are no DATA on the steppes and R1a1. So, you are right, R1a1 was linking "Russia" and "India" around 3500 ybp, both "physically" (the Aryan migration to India) and language-wise. Clearly, it was (3500 ybp) much later that the initial dispersal of IE languages in Europe (around 6000 ybp).

Anatole
>>R1b was in "IE population" ONLY since the 1st millennium BC until nowadays.
>> Unfortunately, you do not indicate dates, and this is VERY confusing.

Andrew
> Those dates seem ok for what I am saying. NOTE: I am not saying anything
> about how R1`b and R1a corresponded or not to IE speaking populations BEFORE
> this.

O.K., I will say it. DNA genealogy and linguistic can be compatible in the following: R1a spread Indo-European language(s)
/dialects in Europe and from Europe before and after 6000 ybp, R1a1 brought IE languages to "Russia" from the West, R1a1 brought IE language to "India" (3500 ybp), to "Iran" (3500 ybp), to the Caucasus (4500 ybp), to Anatolia (around 4200-3600 ybp).
Unlike R1a1, R1b1b2 spoke non-IE language(s) 6000 ybp and earlier, they spoke non-IE languages in Anatolia and in Asia Minor in general, they brought non-IE language to Iberia, and the Basque language is the present continuation of that R1b1b2 language, and R1b1b2 brought those non-IE languages to Europe and spread them across Europe and to the Isles between 4800 and 3200-3000 ybp, and in some regions much later. Around 3000 ybp R1b1 began use IE language, and it spread across Europe in the 1st millennium BC and the 1st millennium AD, thank to Roman Empire influence and vastness.

Of course, many details here remain to be clarified, this is just a general, introductory description.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov


This thread: