Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291589017

From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b and R1a fate
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:43:37 -0500
References: <>

> From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>

Anatole: >> To call European R1a1 "Iranians" is awfully confusing and
> wrong. Let's leave this sloppy and awkward term to the linguists.

Andrew: > I have not called European R1a1 Iranian...,
> R1a1 as we see it today clearly is dominated by a relatively young branch
> or
> group of branches and that was what I was focusing on.

My response:

O.K., fine with the first sentence. Accepted. The second sentence is out of
place. It is irrelevant in the context of this discussion how "young" R1a1
(again, without indication of their "age") and how many branches they have.
If 21 - is it O.K.? What does it change? What if 5? Would it be any
difference for this discussion?

> 1. There are of course signs, of R1a having had an older history in
> Europe,
> Central Asia, and the Middle East. I would basically say about these
> signs,
> that we are working with very little.

First sentence is fine with me. Why the second sentence? What information
does it carry? Can you be more specific, please?

> 2i.b. I suppose a more orthodox way to try to recover the satem approach I
> mention here would be to propose that when the satem people arrived from
> the
> steppes they hit areas of higher population, and although they passed on
> language their genetic contribution is diluted.

Again, why "steppes" here" What it give to you? Why even to mention
"steppes"? What if, say, from mountains? Would it change anything?

Unfortunately, I had to discard a lot of paragraphs above in your
discussion, since they carry no data or anything. Readers would be dizzy.

> ii. I would suggest that the hypthesis which is simplest would be simply
> to
> suggest that Iranian speakers and Slavic speakers lived for many centuries
> in close contact with each other.

Technically, Slavic languages arose only from the middle of the 1st
millennium. R1a1 before that spoke the Aryan language. You may call it "IE"
language. It is the same thing, generally speaking. "Iranian" is just one
branch of it.

> You asked for speculations...

I have NEVER asked for "speculations". I have asked for DATA. This is the
principal difference between our approaches, it seems.

>> according to Gray and Atkinson (Nature) Tocharian languages
>> split from IE language tree 7900 ybp. It is certainly not the
>> "Indo-Aryan" branch.
>> My point is that the Tocharian R1a1 did not come from Europe. They are at
> the root of the IE languages.

> No derived language can be a root, of course.

Here we go again. I wrote "at the root", where the Tocharian languages are.
You "responded" - "no... can be a root". (??) Where on Earth you can see "a
root" in my words? In the Atkinson-Gray tree the root (Hittite) is 8700 ybp,
Tocharians come second, AT the root, with the data of 7900 ybp.

You try to argue so much and everything, that it is not even funny.

>My point about Tocharian is that BEFORE Indo-Iranian...

Beautiful. Since I have already quoted that Indo-Iranian languages are dated
4600 ybp and Tocharian 7900 ybp, you are overwhelmingly right.

> ... there must have been IE languages BETWEEN Tocharian and its relatives
> in Europe

Equally beautiful.

>... and I suggest that some of these at least were in the steppes.

May be. Why not? And maybe not. In my "book" R1a1 migrated from the area of
Tocharian languages to Europe via Tibet, India, Pakistan, Iran, Anatolia and
Asia Minor to the Balkans. Have you even seen steppes in any of those
regions? Why STEPPES? Only because someone was talking about them?

> Some were presumably ancestral to Indo Iranian indeed.

Beautiful again. Since all of them R1a1, what you have said is very likely.

> This particular point is probably not controversial to you, which is
> why you do not perhaps see why I wrote it. However, I think Dienekes
> disputes it for example.

I have not seen him "disputes it". I have noticed that did not like
"steppes" as a continuous motif in your statements, and I agree with him.

I'd be interested to know what you think on this.

See above.

> 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?

First, Celtic language is a collective term. It was introduced as a
collective term in the beginning of the 18th century. Second, it is referred
to as an IE language only in the 1st millennium BC. Hence, as such it could
have brought in the 1st millennium BC from the Balkan. And maybe not. Again,
you never give DATA. It is never clear what your "probably" is based upon.

> The Romans talked about Gauls, not Celts. The modern use of the term to
> apply to Irish,
> Scottish, Welsh and Breton is actually quite a recent and trendy thing...


> ... It has become acceptable when referring to these modern peoples of
> course, but
> I do not think it helps in our type of discussion here.

Well, if it is applicable only to "modern peoples", why even to mention it
with respect to, say, 4500 years bp? It is irrelevant to mention that it is
"IE" with "modern peoples".

> Coming back to what you are saying though, who are the Celts you talk
> about
> who did not speak Celtic? I am assuming this will have something to do
> with
> Basques and the Beaker culture in your mind?


Let's forget about Celts in the context of this discussion. Celts were Gauls
and vise versa, they were likely both R1a and R1b, and maybe G, I1, I2, etc.
Their ancestors were the Beakers (R1b) and the Aryans (R1a), and God knows
who. Eventually, today, many R1b call themselves "Celts". God bless them.

>> My question to you" where R1b were 6000 years ago? In Europe??

> Actually, not trying to be uncontroversial now, yes I think this is very
> likely. But at this point in time R1b was quite likely mainly in SE
> Europe.

DATA, please. But not the "Zhivotovsky data", I beg you.

> Thanks! I think the biggest disagreements with the above, at least for me,
> are concerning the liklihood of your R1b scenario.

Very good. Please, challenge it. With DATA, please.

> I'd say R1b's oldest splits show that it probably originates somewhere
> near Anatolia (including Balkans, Fertile Crescent, Caucasus, Levant).

Incorrect. You talk here mainly on R-L23. It is way down on the R1b

> R-L11 for example sits in a family tree where most of its "cousins", and
> other
> close relatives are nowhere near, for example, Iberia.

Well, there are plenty of R1b in the US. So what? They are also far away
from Iberia and from the Balkans, and from Central Asia. So what? I am
surprised with that level of "arguments". Please read again my arguments
regarding L11 and Iberia.

> I see absolutely no reason to suggest Roman influence, even if we insist
> on an Iberian origin.

Well, you do not see, I see. What can we do about it?
However, I do not insist on Roman Empire in that regard, you are grabbing
absolutely minor thing. It was just a small remark on passing.

> In your scenario, a small part of R1b splits off from its Middle Eastern
> family very early, and disperses suddenly from Iberia much later.

"Small" - it is what YOU say. I do not know, small or large. Regarding
"suddenly" - did the Bell Beaker move "suddenly"? Why I wonder you focus so
much on some things you invent yourself?

> The Y haplogroup presumably makes the jump from a Basque-type language
> culture to
> an IE language culture (Latin, or I would say Celtic languages fit your
> scenario better) just before making this dispersal. Correct?

Again, your "jump", "before making this dispersal"... Is the time period
between 4800 and 3200 ybp a "jump"??

> The way I see it, you see to agree with the following starting point...
> Step 1. Ancestral R1b in Middle East
> Step 2. It enters Europe, maybe in the Neolithic, probably via the Balkans
> and southern Europe.

Step 1 - incorrect. Ancestral R1b was in the Altai region. They came to
Middle East as full-blown R1b1b2, L23, L51, L11.
Step 2 - about 4800 ybp via Iberia, about 5000-4500 ybp via the Balkans and

> Step 3. Where it seems we then differ is that in step 3, you have R1b in
> Europe only
> surviving in Iberia for a very long time.

Incorrect again. See above.

> I suggest instead that during step
> 3, R1b hangs around in the entry point of eastern Balkans.

I have suggested it - and published - long time ago.

> Step 4.
> Then you have R1b jumping onto the IE train during Roman times, very late,
> and I say that it probably jumped on the IE train when the IE first hits
> Europe, probably in the eastern Balkans. (Actually Dienekes' proposal that
> IE was maybe already there does not change this much.)

No "trains", please. Be more academic. As I have said, R1b began switching
to the R1a language around 3000 ybp. It is not the "Roman times". What I
have said, that during the Roman times, particularly to the end of the 1st
millennium BC, Roman Empire sped up spread of the IE/R1a language across
Europe, including the Isles.


Anatole Klyosov

This thread: