The origins and spread of R1a1 and other stuff (Klyosov 2009)

[Polako]

Whoooaa...huge study. I'm looking at it now. It reads like a novel.

Anatole A. Klyosov, DNA Genealogy, Mutation Rates, and Some Historical Evidence Written in Y-Chromosome, Part II: Walking the Map (http://www.jogg.info/52/files/Klyosov2.pdf), Genetic Genealogy, Volume 5, Number 2, Fall 2009

More to come...

[EliasAlucard]

Don't forget rule 1.1.3 (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/misc.php?do=showrules) ;)

//mod

[Polako]

Here's the lowdown; R1a1 arrives in the Balkans from South Siberia just after the Ice Age (about 11 or 12K ago). On the other hand, R1b gets to Europe much later - about 4K ago. I assume I1 could be a European Paleolithic or Mesolithic marker, that almost went extinct about the time R1b arrived in Europe. Wojewoda, our resident European mammoth hunter, should chime in on that after reading this paper.


A more detailed consideration of R1a1 haplotypes in the Russian Plain and across Europe and Eurasia in general has shown that R1a1 haplogroup appeared in Europe between 12 and 10 thousand years before present, right after the Last Glacial Maximum, and after about 6,000 ybp had populated Europe, though, probably, with low density. After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally, along with I1. Maybe more incidentally, it corresponded with the time period of populating of Europe with R1b1b2. Only those R1a1 who migrated to the Russian Plain from Europe around 6,000-5,000 years bp, stayed. They had expanded to the East, established on their way a number of archaeological cultures, including the Andronovo culture, which has embraced Northern Kazakhstan, Central Asia and South Ural and Western Siberia, and about 3600 ybp they migrated to India and Iran as the Aryans. Those who left behind, on the Russian Plain, re-populated Europe between 3200 and 2500 years bp, and stayed mainly in the Eastern Europe (present-day Poland, Germany, Czech, Slovak, etc. regions). Among them were carriers of the newly discovered R1a1-M458 subclade (Underhill et al, 2009).

...

The principal conclusion is that the male Basques living today have rather recent roots of less than four thousand years, contrary to legend that proposes they lived some 30,000 years ago. Despite the ancient language, it is very likely that the present day Basques represent a rather recent Iberian population, in terms of DNA genealogy. It is very unlikely that their ancestors had encountered Neanderthals in Europe or had been associated with the Aurignacian culture (34,000-23,000 ybp), nor did they make sophisticated cave paintings in South of France, Spain, and Portugal. Arguably, the Basque ancient and unique language was brought to Iberia around 3600 ybp by the M269 bearers from their place of preceding location(s) and/or their origin, presumably in Asia.

But we still have to figure out where European Uralic populations fit in. Well, the lack of R1b in Finland could partly explain their negative Middle Eastern scores on the BGA. :p

[Berossus]

This study appears to be labelled "Part II" in its title. Is there a Part I that we should be familiar with before taking a look, and if so, is there a link?

[Stygian Cellarius]

That was a very nice treat. Good reading. Although, he did slip out a few editorial remarks here and there, tho only a few times. The Lemba criticism is likely earn him an "anti-Semite" badge or two. :lol:

Berossus, I haven't read the first part, but I did download it. It's very easy to find.
Although, I don't know for sure, I don't think you need to read the first part, which is about the methods used. I didn't feel as if there was anything I was missing when reading the 2nd part.

Anyways, this is what I got out of Part II.
The goodies:

R1a1 TMRCA's

Chinese: 21,000±3,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Balkan: 11,650±1,550 | **4,350±680 | 1,850±530
--------------------------------------------------------
South Indian: 7,125±950
Pakistan: 7,025±890
--------------------------------------------------------
Russian: 4,750±500
German: 4,700±520
Armenian: 4,500±1,040
**
[Androvono: 4,300 - 3,500 ybp]
English: 4,125±475 | *3,575±450
Central Asia: 4,050±900
"Aryan" North Indian: 4,050±500
Irish: 3,850±460 | *3,575±450
Sweden: 3,825±520
U.A.E: 3,750±825
Anatolia: 3,700±550
Norway: 3,375±490
Scotland: 3,350±450
Quatar: 2,300±680


Synopsis:

• 21k ybp R1a1 appears in China...
...and splits.
• One branch migrates to the Balkans around 11.5k ybp
and another into Southern India around 7k ybp
and Pakistan, also around 7k ybp.

• Balkan branch migrates eastward into Russia, settling into modern-day Kazakhstan - Andronovo culture.
• Androvono complex abandon around 3,600 ybp. R1a's move into Northern India under the name "Aryans". (Note by Stygian: the word "Aryan" as we know, means "noble". "Noble" is a relative term, relative to "ignoble". I suspect they invented this name for themselves only after they were in a state of stable and close contact with "others", viz. autochtonous Indians, those they considered less noble in contrast to themselves.)

Edit:
And perhaps the most interesting quote from paper:
"After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally along with I1. Maybe more incidentally, it corresponded with the time period of populating Europe with R1b1b2. Only those R1a1 who migrated to the Russian plain from Europe around 6,000-5,000 ybp, stayed. They had expanded to the East, establishing on their way a number of archaeological cultures, including the Andronovo culture, which has embraces Northern Kazakhstan, Central Asian and South Ural and Western Siberia, and about 3,600 ybp they migrated to India and Iran as the Aryans. Those who left behind, on the Russian Plain, re-populated Europe between 3,200 and 2,500 ybp, and stayed mainly in the Eastern Europe (present-day Poland, Germany. Czech, Slovak etc. regions)."

[Berossus]

Stygian Cellarius: Thanks, after reading your response, I did a Google search and found the first part. I think I will probably take a quick look at it first before reading Part II, just to see if there is anything I may want to be aware of first.

[Azvarohi]

The "chinese R1a1" haplotypes are only 5-markers...I wouldn't trust it, when also knowing that Klyosov's method of producing tmrca values have been criticised.

[Polako]

The "chinese R1a1" haplotypes are only 5-markers...I wouldn't trust it, when also knowing that Klyosov's method of producing tmrca values have been criticised.

Ironically, his methods apparently work best with fewer markers. But honestly, I have no idea, because Y-STR genealogy isn't my cup of tea.

It looks like he's using two methods in this study, cross checking one against the other, and coming up with results within the error margins for both. So there must be something to this whole thing, even if quite a few details might need re-working in the end.

[Stygian Cellarius]

But honestly, I have no idea, because Y-STR genealogy isn't my cup of tea.

One thing that irritates me is that most info I read about topic such as these is based on Y-STR's. Which makes it quite difficult for me to relate it to anything I know about my R1a1a*. Seems I can do very little with my Y-chromosomal data. I am very tempted to take advantage of the SuperDNA sale FTDNA offers. Although, that company leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason, but I don't know a better place to go for STR analysis.


It looks like he's using two methods in this study, cross checking one against the other, and coming up with results within the error margins for both. So there must be something to this whole thing, even if quite a few details might need re-working in the end.

His results correlated nicely with Andronovo archaeology and the Eulau, Germany Skeletal remains (granted using more markers than the Chinese set). So his system seems to work.

[Azvarohi]

Ironically, his methods apparently work best with fewer markers. But honestly, I have no idea, because Y-STR genealogy isn't my cup of tea.

Yeah, something that his methods was best with less than 12 markers, but pretty much worthless with more than 25 markers. There was some other issues with it, also with his apparantly "biased" picking of haplotypes. Nordtvedt said that some of those from the Balkans weren't R1a1 haplotypes at all...


Seems I can do very little with my Y-chromosomal data. I am very tempted to take advantage of the SuperDNA sale FTDNA offers. Although, that company leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason, but I don't know a better place to go for STR analysis.

Well, you wouldn't be able to have a R1a1a* designation without SNP-testing. As mentioned above one of the problems with the Balkanic age of R1a1 was that Klyosov apparantly picked haplotypes he thought looked like R1a1, but were other haplogroups...this is the problem not have the SNP-data available.


His results correlated nicely with Andronovo archaeology and the Eulau, Germany Skeletal remains (granted using more markers than the Chinese set). So his system seems to work.

Every system works in a set of degree, some are more consistent than others. Also he uses 25 years/generation so if you might need to calibrate to 30 years/generation if you want to compare that too.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Well, you wouldn't be able to have a R1a1a* designation without SNP-testing. As mentioned above one of the problems with the Balkanic age of R1a1 was that Klyosov apparantly picked haplotypes he thought looked like R1a1, but were other haplogroups...this is the problem not have the SNP-data available.

The point of my post you quoted was that I would like to have my STR information for convenience. Regardless of the degree of certainty STR info can offer, I would get great use out of having that info. Wouldn't you?

Anyways, I wonder what the likelihood is of haplotypes repeating the same expected frequency of other haplotypes? (I know the fewer the markers the greater the chance) If the chance is frequent, how could Klyosov make that mistake? And if he did make that mistake, what haplotypes other than R1a1 produced those results? Particularly ones expected in that area.

[Scholar]

Nordtvedt said that some of those from the Balkans weren't R1a1 haplotypes at all...

Nordtvedt wrong. Those Balkans R1a haplotypes very old and different from another young R1a, some mutations make them look alike R1b. But they are R1a.

[Azvarohi]

Nordtvedt wrong.

What do you base that on? Others have also said that some of the haplotypes are R1a and Q...in my world R1a and Q isn't the same as R1a1.


Those Balkans R1a haplotypes very old and different from another young R1a, some mutations make them look alike R1b. But they are R1a.

Have you read the paper? If so then why do you say "R1a" when Klyosov studied R1a1?

Klyosov cherry picked his "old R1a1 haplotypes" from the Balkans, the reason the modal of his Balkanic group is so incomplete is because of his cherry picking and using non-R1a1, if he did that by mistake or on purpose he hasn't really explained...but if you take all the R1a1 haplotypes from the Balkans he had in his list then you get a age of about 5000 years.

[Scholar]

Good.

There was story then Balkanic R1a1 was found, some scientists considered that is really R1b. This R1a1 has few markers like R1b and they considered that another markers is mistake of reading and it must be R1b.

I don't know about Q and R1a, that another point, I'll try check info about it.



R1a is abridgement for all R1a and younger.

[Azvarohi]

R1a is abridgement for all R1a and younger.

But you do not use R1a haplotypes when looking for tmrca for R1a1, that would make R1a1 older and R1a younger depending on which tmrca you are looking for.

[Geto-Thracian]

Yeah, something that his methods was best with less than 12 markers, but pretty much worthless with more than 25 markers. There was some other issues with it, also with his apparantly "biased" picking of haplotypes. Nordtvedt said that some of those from the Balkans weren't R1a1 haplotypes at all...



Well, you wouldn't be able to have a R1a1a* designation without SNP-testing. As mentioned above one of the problems with the Balkanic age of R1a1 was that Klyosov apparantly picked haplotypes he thought looked like R1a1, but were other haplogroups...this is the problem not have the SNP-data available.



Every system works in a set of degree, some are more consistent than others. Also he uses 25 years/generation so if you might need to calibrate to 30 years/generation if you want to compare that too.

I really would like for someone to explain the logic behind using 25 or 30 years for generations when this seems high to me based on the fact that for most of history that was nearing the average whole lifespan for people. I would think people had kids way earlier than that, like around 20 and usually even younger. Many women were married off as soon as they werte sexually mature (15?) Like I said, I have no idea but I assume they had good reasons and I am just not aware of them.

[Stygian Cellarius]

I really would like for someone to explain the logic behind using 25 or 30 years for generations when this seems high to me based on the fact that for most of history that was nearing the average whole lifespan for people. I would think people had kids way earlier than that, like around 20 and usually even younger. Many women were married off as soon as they werte sexually mature (15?) Like I said, I have no idea but I assume they had good reasons and I am just not aware of them.

Good question, but like you said, they probably have a good reason. It would be funny if those scientists accidentally used the modern generation length and it has escaped their notice all this time :lol:. But yeah, I'd like to know why they use 25 or 30 as well. That makes little sense to me for the reasons you mentioned. 40 years or so being the average life-span and shortly after puberty being reproductive age. I would think that fore the most of human history, recombinant event to recombinant event would be around 15-20......................[an idea just popped into my brain]............... Okay, I think I know why. The age you're thinking of is the time of the firstborn, but a woman has several children. 25 years would be the average of all children combined?

[Azvarohi]

I really would like for someone to explain the logic behind using 25 or 30 years for generations when this seems high to me based on the fact that for most of history that was nearing the average whole lifespan for people. I would think people had kids way earlier than that, like around 20 and usually even younger. Many women were married off as soon as they werte sexually mature (15?) Like I said, I have no idea but I assume they had good reasons and I am just not aware of them.

Most years/generation ages are based on either geneaological studies (average years/generation for a proven lineage) or anthropological studies of "tribes people". I think there has also been some kind of calibration to how many kids that survive (that the first kid doesn't allways survive etc etc). Whether it is good or not is up to oneself to decide.

If you want 20 years/generation, run Klyosov's figures times 0,80:

"German R1a1" 4700*0,8 = 3760 years.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

The "birth" in and spread of R1a from south Siberia parallels the birth and spread of N1c from the same region.