I believe that for Turkology, this is another mighty breakthrough analysis of Dr. A. Klyosov that will open floodgates for new explorations and discoveries. It is advisable for anybody who wants to address Altaians and their history to be primed with the work of the late L.P. Potapov, 1969, “Ethnic composition and origin of Altaians”, Science, Leningrad. That is not to assert that the history of the peoples in the Altai is superior to the histories of the other people, most of them are endowed with their own rich history, but to accentuate that for millenniums the mountain ranges were refuge shelters collecting assemblages of various exiles who had to fight their way in, and to learn to melt together or to fight endless conflicts. Altai was one of those places from the prehistorical times. Altai is a bouquet of many past flowerbeds, a zoo where genetical dinosaurs and modern apes chanced to cohabitate. Anybody familiar with the primer would abstain from using a wide paintbrush, and would realize a necessity for a skillful tailor's approach to avoid embarrassment. Those who do their homework always come out ahead. Since the sequences carried by the exiles are better preserved in their ancestral gene pools than among the exiles' descendants, exploration of the exile genetics is but a first road post pointing to the right direction.

The refugees fled to Altai as broken tribes, united by common fate and familiar and social ties, as individual clans or clan confederations, and became Altai seoks, bone in Türkic and clan in English. The rest of the tribe could have survived, or not endure, elsewhere. In the majority of cases, the fates of the tribes are known, and even in the cases when the tribes did not survive they are traceable for another millennia or more as subdivisions of newly formed tribes and confederations. More often than not, the tribes fragmented, and the fragments continued their life in different geographical areas ruled by different ruling tribes. Of these, one of the lasting examples on the fates of the ancient peoples are Ases and their kyshtyms or marital partners Tokhars. In the 8th c. BC the S.Siberian Ases, without their kickback Tokhars yet, became hegemons in the Mesopotamia. Before the 3rd c. BC, the Ases, now ruling the Tokhars, became hegemons in N.China. Displaced from the N.China, Ases regrouped in Horesm and along with their allied Subars subjugated Bactria in 140 BC. By that time, the As-Tokhars were already split, a part of them remained in C.Asia and played a second flute in a succession of the Türkic C.Asian states, starting with the Huns and ending with the Uigur Kaganate. Never reunited again, the western As-Tokhars became Azeris (without Tokhars), Kushans of India with tamga, Bulgars (without Tokhars), Horesmian Ottokars (As-Tokhars), Kipchak Toks-oba of the N.Pontic, Dügers and Digors on both sides of the Caspian, and few more fragments. In the east, As-Tokhars are known as Ashtak (Ch. Ashide, tamga ), Tuhsi, Tört-As (Four Ases), Turtas (Russian distortion of Tört-As), Bi-Turtas (Biy, or Ruling Tört-As) and Kul-Turtas (dependent Tört-As), Azyk tribe of Kirgizes that preserved their tamga , Askeshtim, and few more fragments.

In the Altai, As-Tokhars were known as Tört-As/Dieti-As (pop. 253 males, 1897 census), Askeshtim (As-kyshtyms, pop. 450 in 1860), and Russified Turtas. A representative pinpointed sample may tell plenty not only about their Altai speck, but also about As-Tokhars across Eurasia and across millenniums.

The spectrum of the tribal names that makes sleuthing so fascinating for the investigators, with automatic calculation of a minimal model, reduces spectrum of seemingly disorganized connections to an organized genetical tree, allowing logically reasonable attributions, in this case, for the R1a base haplotypes of the samples:

Posting clarifications, comments, and additional subheadings are (in blue italics) and blue boxes. Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Most of the references on the author's work can be found on the author's homepage http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/. The adjective Türkic and the noun Türk are used to denote the global world for the Türkic community that includes Turkish and Turks as one of the constituents; Türk is a noun of which the Turkic and Türkic are adjectival derivatives, it is needed for translation from Russian, which has four distinct designations for four phenomena. The semantics of the above terminology in English vs. Russian is a result of their national histories.

The phrase in the title gives a rather new language in the sciences of human origins. So far the population genetics (popgenetics) holds opinion that haplogroup R1a appeared somewhere in the southern steppes, in areas of the modern Russia and Ukraine, according to some 15,000 ybp, to others 10 thousand ybp, and it waited out Ice Age in the “Ukrainian refuge”. Both figures came out from the hands of Spencer Wells without any explanation, and without explanation they were left when for whatever reason he then changed the number 15 thousand years to 10 thousand years, and how R1a could survive “Ice Age” in the Ukraine 10 thousand ybp, when the ice age in those days was long gone. But the population geneticists continue to preach about the ice age, and about the “Ukrainian haplogroup” R1a, and about 15 thousand ybp. None of them provide a source for the dating, and no such calculations for the “southern steppes” are given by neither Wells nor by the others. This is a normal course for the popgenetics.

At the same time, much data points to the South Siberia and Altai region as the habitat of the ancient Caucasoids. That was shown by the old works on the analysis of the “genetic distances” in the polymorphic protein forms (series of works by Nazarov A.F. in the 1980s and 1990s), and b y the research on migration of haplogroup Q carriers from the Southern Siberia, and apparently specifically from the Altai region, across the Bering bridge to America. Since the arrival of haplogroup Q carriers to America is dated by various sources from 20 to 12 thousand ybp, they would have to leave the South Siberia no later than 40-30 thousand ybp (usually the speed of ancient migrations is assumed to be 1 km per year).

It is estimated that haplogroup Q formed from the combined haplogroup P in the range of 45-40 thousand ybp. Then, the haplogroup P had to be in the South Siberia in those days, and later form the haplogroups R, R1, R1a, and R1b. All of these haplogroups are anthropologically Caucasoid, and they came to Europe as Caucasoids, R1a about 11-9 thousand ybp to the Balkans, R1b about 10 thousand ybp to the E.European Plain, and about 5000 ybp to the western and central Europe (and to the Balkans, to the south-eastern Europe).
1511

This would seem to be a paradox: Caucasoids (Europoids) received their name from Europe, where they came after long and faraway migrations from the Central Asia. But in fact, it makes sense if we accept possibility that Caucasoids in fact formed in Europe as a combined haplogroup FT, which spun out onto two branches, with IJK remaining in Europe, and NO + P migrating to the east, to the southern Siberia, where Haplogroup P rermained for long 20,000 years before the beginning of its return to Europe (as descendents of the haplogroups R1a and R1b).

Such long-range migrations in academic circles of history and linguistic are traditionally viewed with suspicion. They just do not have a methodological apparatus to study such long migrations - many thousands of miles and for thousands of years, sometimes tens of thousands of years. Usually, the similarity of material traits at different ends of the continents, and even on different continents, is held as a chance coincidence. I have numerously read such arguments, for example, as the swastika sign found at the ancient Indians, where were no Aryans, that that is a chance coincidence, the same representation of a solar symbol. Frankly, that argument never convinced me, but I had no objective data to refute it. Now, it have come about in a form of practically identical ceramics with dozens of identical traits at the Caucasoids (maybe Europeans?) (and Aryans) and at the American Indians (personal communication of E. Mironov), but that is another story.

The DNA genealogy provides new and compelling evidence of such far-fetched migrations. The haplogroup R1a has been found in northern China, where its share reaches 30% at a number of local nations and ethnic groups. But a major issue is not the  numbers, but the fact that they are so riddled with mutations as few (or none at all) haplotypes among other haplogroups. In the northern China, only short haplotypes of the R1a are available, but the property of the short haplotypes is that they usually are much more stable than the long specimens. The accuracy of dating is less for them, but with these “global” mutations, the accuracy is not so important, very important is the phenomenon itself. The North China haplotypes gave the dating of 20,000 years to a common ancestor of the R1a haplogroup in that region.
1512

The base haplotype of their 5-marker haplotypes

13 X 14 X X X X 12 X 13 X 30

had only one characteristic difference from the R1a haplotype of the E.European Plain - a third marker (DYS19) of the latter is usually 16 or 17, and in China it is 14.

The Altai's R1a haplotypes were investigated in our paper (Klyosov and Rozhanskii, 2012), and it was found that their common ancestor lived quite recently in historical terms - only 825±320 ybp, and its core haplotype was

13 26 16 11 11 17 12 11 14 X X 31

It was noticeably different from the E.European Plain base haplotype R1a, with a pair DYS385 = 11-17, which in the E.European Plain is 11-14

13 26 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30

A common ancestor of these two basic haplotypes lived 8100 ybp (Klyosov and Rozhanskii, 2012). On the whole, a juxtaposed comparison of the different Altaic populations' base haplotypes has led to the calculated time to a common ancestor of the European and Altaic haplotypes for the R1a group in the range of 10,400 and 7,300 ybp (ibid). The same pattern was obtained for the Tuvan haplotypes; on the whole, a common ancestor of the European, Altai, and Tuvan haplotypes lived 10,000-10,400 ybp (Klyosov and Rozhanskii, 2012).

It should be noted that explorations of the population geneticists are distinguished by the same flaw, constantly repeated in their “academic” publications. Specifically, it is a static picture and a lack of historical comprehension. If they see an R1a haplotype group in Asia, it would “come from Europe”, it would be immediately called “Scythian”, “Kurgan culture”, “Indo-European”, without a slightest justification. In other words, these are “judgments by concepts”, and not by the science. Not by the science because they can not calculate dating, and do not include dating in their considerations-reasonings.

In reality, the data and calculations show that in the Altai region, China, Mongolia, South Siberia, and Central Asia (these regions overlap) are present at least two groups of the R1a haplotype.

One group is the original, the oldest in respect to their common ancestors, not a European, and not an “Indo-European”, not an Aryan, but strictly autochthonous.

That group is fragmented, it passed various population bottlenecks, and now is constituted of the descendants of the ancestral lines with age from 600-800 ybp to 7,000 ybp (Mesolithic), and in rare cases up to 20 thousand ybp (Upper Paleolithic), as is for the series of the Northern Chinese haplotypes. The haplotypes of these series are markedly different from the haplotypes of the E.European Plain.
1513

The other group are haplotypes that really “came” from the Europe 4000-3000 ybp, with their usually Aryan, “Indo-European” carriers of R1a. If they can be typed by the R1a subclades, the result would likely show the south-eastern subclade L342.2 (R1a1a1h1-L342.2, Middle East, India, eastern part of the E.European Plain, hence South-Eastern branch) and its derivatives.

Therefore for example the Tarim Basin mummies, with the date 4000 ybp, could be either autochthonous or “Indo-European”, and no rush is in order to call them “European”, “Scythians”, or “Kurganians”. As has been stated above, for that is no justification. The haplotypes would help, but unfortunately they either were not defined or not published. The argument that “they wore the clothes like Scottish plaid” also are not viable, because for consistency it needs to be shown that this type of clothing was not, oppositely, brought to Europe from the Altai. Consideration of such alternatives is not innate to the population geneticists.

Archeology is not helpful in resolution of this problem.  A study of the Afanasiev culture would probably clarify the problem, at least partially, but it turned out that for the Afanasiev culture objective dating is almost nonexistent, and where its people came from remains unexplored, they either are autochthonous, or the “Europeans”. The analyses of the fossil bone remains in respect to the haplogroups were not done yet.

The usual bewilderment about the relationship of the haplogroup R1a origin, essentially Caucasian, with the Altai, boils down to the fact that the R1a carriers in the Altai (and surrounding areas) are now typical Mongoloids and speak Turkic languages. The usually asked question is, what kind of the “Indo-Europeans” are they when they are the Turkic-lingual Mongoloids? That can again be responded with the comment above about the lack of a historical vision, of the type “what I see, that I sing”. The haplogroup R1a in the Altai, as is reported above, passed a population bottleneck only 800-900 ybp. What does that mean? That means that these are not the Caucasoid ancestors who lived there thousands years ago, although the haplogroup has preserved, at least partially. This means that 800 - 900 years ago (or at the time) that population was nearly wiped out, either as a result of natural cataclysms, or most likely by the the enemy.

By their genotype, and hence the phenotype, the surviving R1a carriers and their descendants were already different people. The fact that they switched to the Turkic language shows who could have been their enemies. Although the cause could also have been the Turkic-speaking mistresses and wives. If the cause was the enemies - timewise they could be Chinese or Mongolian invasions of the 11-13 cc AD. The haplogroup R1a remained at many descendants, and thus endured at (not numerous) surviving ancestors, but their wives were already not Caucasoid, but Mongoloid.

1514

That is precisely what changed the genotype and phenotype of the offsprings while preserving the male chromosome and its haplogroup R1a. Therefore, can be expected a shift of the mtDNA spectrum toward the Asian Mongoloid types of the mitochondrial haplogroups. As is seen below, this is how it turned out.

It is clear that with such state of the matter, the new scientific publications, with new material, and with substantiated conclusions are of undoubted interest and importance. And in this 2012 year came out two articles on the “Altai subject”. The first is a joint article of the specialists from the Penn university (Matthew Dulik, Theodore Schurr, et al.), from the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch (Sergey Jadanov and Ludmila Osipova), and from the Kazakhstan Institute of General Genetics and Cytology (Aiken Askapuli), entitled “Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome Variation Provides Evidence for a Recent Common Ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous Altaians”. The second is the article by Spanish authors (Barcelona) Gonzales-Ruiz, Malgosa, et al. “Tracing the origin of the east-west population admixture in the Altai Region (Central Asia)”.

As usual, hopes for the emergence of advanced works were justified only partially. Both works contain interesting findings, which however are largely drowned in a swamp of incongruities. More interesting turned out to be the first work, but it did not answer our questions outlined above. Nevertheless, it contained raw material that enabled to do some (and very informative) calculations shown below.

Let's start with the second, much simplistic work (in the context outlined above).

Article by Gonzalez-Ruiz et al. (2012)

Gonzales-Ruiz and coauthors investigated mtDNA in the skeletal remains of the Pazyryk culture. This is an archaeological culture of the Iron Age (3rd - 5th centuries BC, although some extend the date to the 6th century BC) (see Marsadolov L.S., 1994, Pazyryk Timing, and A.Yu.Alekseev et. al., 2001, Chronology of Eurasian Scythian Antiquities Born by New Archaeological and 14C Data), which is (archeologically) classed as belonging to the “Eastern Scythian circle”. The area is the Mountain Altai and adjacent areas of the Altai, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia. Economic mainstay is nomadic animal breeding. It is suggested that Pazyryk is a derivative of the Afanasiev culture. Its main physical types are dolichocranic Caucasoid with high and wide face (probably, carriers of haplogroup R1a), brachycranic Mongoloid with low face, and mezzo dolichocranic Mongoloid with medium height face (the latter can be carriers of mtDNA C, N, Q, and their paired haplogroups).
1515

It should be stated that the previous paragraph in the article is hardly present. Instead, the authors expand that the Altai is a boundary of the western and eastern Eurasian steppes, especially dwell on the “Scythians”, who were “Caucasoid” (called “Europoid”) and spoke “Indo-European languages”. Altrogether, the standard bouquet of population genetic doctrines, including mentioning of Herodotus. No other data that the fossil remains the authors studied belonged to the Scythians are stated in the article, and it is unclear why it was needed at all to write about the Scythians. It is not known, whether these are Scythians. Right there goes on the “nomadic pastoralism”, although bones also do not tell about it. In short, flows a powerful that to the material content has no relation (probably, the background summarizes contents and terminology of the bibliography). But this is a norm in popgenetics. That in the tombs were found Caucasoid anthropological features is immediately presented as “the Scythians had a European morphology”. That Caucasoid morphology could remain of the the indigenous Caucasoids had not occurred to the authors. This is the popgenetics.

The authors examined mtDNA (HVRI, hypervariable region) of 19 skeletal remains from four tombs in the Mongolian Altai, dated to the Bronze (three mtDNA) (3000-700BC) and Iron (16 mtDNA) (800-300BC) Ages.

It was postulated (more accurately, accepted as given) that the mtDNA haplogroups are divided into three regional sources:
- West Eurasian: R0 - R0a'b, HV, N1, JT, UK, W, X
- East Eurasian: M - C, D, G, Z, M9, M10, M11, M13, A, B, F, N9a
- South Asian: M*, U1a-c, U9, R*, R1-R2, R5-R6, N1d.

Then went typical popgenetic correlations, like the “diversity of genes”, “nucleotide diversity”, Harlequin, FST, “paired genetic distances between populations”, and so on, that in the DNA genealogy do not make sense, but there is some mysterious meaning in popgenetics, which is OK. Instead of relaying that alchemy, let's look at once what is it in essence. That would be constructive.

So, of the 19 remains 11 turned out to be haplogroups A, C, D and G, i.e. the “East Eurasian”, 9 turned out to be J, K, HV, U, and T, i.e. “West Eurasian”. The authors chose not to provide these numbers directly, 9 and 11, but show “58%” and “42%”, otherwise the quantities are too small.

In reality, of the first 11 haplogroups seven turned out to be haplogroup D - all three haplogroups of the “Bronze Age”, and the other four of the Iron Age. The A, C, and G were one each, all of the Iron Age.
1516

In the Iron Age Altay sample were found three K, two U (U5a1), and one J, HV, and T each. This allowed the authors to conclude that in the Bronze Age all (three) haplogroups were “oriental”, and in the Iron Age they were complemented by various “Western” haplogroups. That is the “admixture”. Loosely speaking, that may be right. However, from the Bronze Age came only three samples, and from the Iron Age came 16. Curiously, what would be the distribution, if it was the opposite, 16 of the Bronze Age, and 3 of the Iron Age? Obviously, the distribution would be different. However, the authors tagged the Pazyryk population “genetically homogeneous”.

Taking a picture as given, it comes out that the brides and wives of the Altaians (mostly R1a, as is shown below) were East Asian women (probably Mongoloid), and in the Iron Age were added Western Eurasian women. Either they were coming themselves, or they were abducted.

That is, in essence, the entire article. Everything else is general chat. Certainly, from the article is not  much to learn. Although the fact of the analysis of the fossil mtDNA is a no small achievement that requires some technical scientific school.

Article by Dulik et al. (2012)

As was mentioned above, the article by Dulik et al. is much more advanced.

True, the main issue she addresses, namely the origin of the Amerindians, with a conclusion that originally they are from the Southern Siberia, has been settled in the literature long ago. And that they have common haplogroups Q and C has long been resolved too. The authors delve into details of exactly which subclades they have in common, but in my view it is unproductive, other than as general exercises on the topic. Well, they have found common subclades (actually, missed more than found), and what it resolves, what problem it answers? Moreover, the authors got jumbled between the “genealogical” and “population” mutation rates, and eventually came to a totally wrong conclusion, completely bungling discussion and conclusions.

It is quite regrettable that the authors are completely unfamiliar with the current literature on the mutation rates. For example, this author three years ago has published a detailed article in the J. Genet. Geneal. (2009) and Human Genetics (2009) what are the actual constants of the mutation rates, and how they are calibrated.
1517

Well, the authors do not read literature on the mutation rates, alas, then why publish illiterate articles on the subject? That's becides the fact that numerous forums have long debunked the “Zhivotovsky population rates”, and it seems the authors are unaware of that. How do you have to disrespect the subject of their own research not to be interested, not to read the forums, and finally, do to read the journal “Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy”, where fifty issues starting from 2008 sorted out the mutation rate constants dozens of times, repeatedly demonstrating that the “Zhivotovsky population rates” for the real systems are sheer nonsense, moreover, essentially they are a product of doctoring and outright manipulation of the data. On that, Proceedings devoted special articles. Nevertheless, the authors cite Zhivotovsky, although they seems to have already been aware that something is wrong there. So they calculate in parallel “populationally” and “genealogically”, which leads to a complete mess in the results. And so they write accordingly that calculating “populationally” it comes out recent, but calculating “genealogically”, it comes out as the Bronze Age. Well, this is not serious. However, in the “popgenetics” anything is possible. Like in shamanism.

But the funniest matter is not even that. In the end, the authors came to a conclusion that the “population rate” more correctly describes the data, agreeing better with the data of the history. Thus, the “population” rates for the South American Q1a3a1a* produce the time to the common ancestors (according to the authors) in the America 4.9 thousand years and 7.7 thousand years, and “according to Zhivotovsky” 22.0 and 13.4 thousand years, which means that the second is correct.

This, of course, boggles the mind. Have the authors heard about the “population bottlenecks”? How come they suddenly decided that any population in the calculation gives exactly the “true” value of the time to the ancient common ancestor? For example, according to the authors, the series of the Altai Q1a3a* (which should be older by phylogeny than the Q1a3a1a*) of the 19 17-marker haplotypes has only 29 mutations from the base haplotype

13 24 13 10 15 18 Х Х 13 14 14 17 – 16 14 19 11 16 11 22

and on the top of that, these markers do not have any mutations. It is clear that a common ancestor of these 19 haplotypes is recent. Indeed, 29/19/0.034 = 45 → 47 conditional generation (at 25 years each), i.e. 1175±250 years to a common ancestor. And by the “logic” of the authors, it should be not less than 20 thousand years. Hence, the “method is wrong”, is it not? But this just means that the ancestors did not survive in their offsprings, the DNA genealogical line almost cut short, the population has passed through a bottleneck, or a “genetic drift” as say the popgeneticists. In short, the common ancestor of the series lived recently, and there is nothing wrong. This also happened in the America with a series Q1a3a1a* haplotypes. The series should not be artificially extended three times using a flawed method.
1518

The “advancement” of the article is not, of course, that calculations were wrong, and that it “discovered America”, which has long been discovered. But that the article published a good haplotype compilation for different Altaic populations, as many as 189 haplotypes in the 17-marker format. It would be better have haplotypes been longer, but what has been published is also alright. It would be better if the subclades of the R1a1a1 were revealed, but the published is also alright. But they measured only R1a1a-M17 (R1a1a) and R1a1a1-M417 (R1a1a1) [the first SNP was not needed, in this situation it is redundant, since all haplotypes had M417], and stopped at that, incorrectly noting R1a1a1* (with asterisk), as it has no downstream SNPs. That M458 (Central European and West Slavic branches) and L365 (North-European branch) were not found, is natural, they could not be found. It is known that there are none in the east, except for the recent “tourists”. But to measure L342.2 would be appropriate, it would separate the autochthonous subclades and the “Indo-European”. Too bad that the authors probably did not know of that snip.

The authors found that the studied populations mostly had “East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups”, which generally contradict the previous paper cited above, according to which from the Iron Age began an active “mixing” of mtDNA. In reality, the haplogroups A, C, D, and G turned out to be in majority at all tested populations:

- at Chelkans (Chelkandy, N.Altai, a part of Tubalars) (38%), another 19% N9a, the other are minor;
- at Kumandins (Kumandy, Kumans, N.Altai, with seoks Chabat, So/Solu; phenotype Ugrian Hanty/Mansi) (62%, the rest are minor);
- at Tubalars (N.Altai, Turgeshes with seoks Chagat/Chygat of Tele stock, Chalkanyg; Kumysh/Komlyash/Komnosh aka Black Tatars, Mountain/ Taiga Tatars, Kumysh = Silver; Kuzen, Palan-Komdosh/Bolan, Tiber, Togus/Tokuz = Tokuz-Oguzes, Turgesh/Kergesh, Yalan, Yus, Yus-Shanmai) (64% and 53% for the two populations, the rest are minor);
- at Shors (N.Altai, with seoks Aba/Aban, Chelei/Teleut, Kalar, Chelei/Elei, total 22 seoks; language of Uigur family; phenotype Ugrian Hanty/Mansi) (50%), another 14% in F1, the other minor;
- at Altai-kiji (N.Altai, with 36 seoks Irkit, Naiman, Kypchak, Mundus/Kypchak the largest seoks; Tele 30%, Türks/Ashina Türks 22%, Enisei Kyrgyzes 12%, Naimans 10%) (48% and 36% in the two populations, the rest are minor)
- at Telengits (S.Altai, Tele tribes Telengut, Telengit, and Tele) (40%), 15% of haplogroup V, the rest are minor, and
- at Teleuts (S.Altai, Tele tribes Telengut, Telengit, and Tele) (51%, the rest are minor).

This is important, and confirms the above hypothesis that despite the Caucasoid (Y-DNA) haplogroup R1a, Mongoloid women turned R1a carriers from Caucasoids to Mongoloids, and even changed their language to Türkic.

1519

Now turning to the most important for us (in the DNA genealogy) object, the haplotypes. Of the 189 haplotypes 75, i.e. 40%, were R1a, of them the majority were 60 haplotype R1a at the population of Altai-kiji (Tele 30%, Türks/Ashina Türks 22%, Enisei Kyrgyzes 12%, Naimans 10%). For comparison, haplotype R1b was found only 6 ea., or 3%, all in the population of Kumandins (Cumans/Kumans, Ugrian Hanty/Mansi phenotype, 62% eastern mtDNA). The second highest number was Haplogroup Q, total 34 haplotypes (18%), five subclades. Haplogroup C (in two subclades, C3* and С3с1) included 24 haplotypes (13%). Haplogroup N in four subclades (N1*, N1b*, N1c* and N1c1 [last only two haplotypes]) included 22 haplotypes (12%). The remaining haplogroups - D3a (six haplotypes), J2a (three haplotypes), E1b1b1c, I2a and L (one haplotype). This is all, so to say, again popgenetics, and refers to what we have NOW. To the DNA genealogy it has almost no relationship. All these individual haplotypes from the 189 as a rule are accidental, for example from the groups I2a, E1b, J2a in southern Siberia. What is no accident, it is the 75 haplotypes of the Caucasoid (originally) haplogroup R1a, and if in the west they are mainly mtDNA of the group H, in the Altai they are mostly mtDNA of the group C. There lies the reason for their Mongoloid phenotype.

Altai-kiji (Tele 30%, Türks/Ashina Türks 22%, Enisei Kyrgyzes 12%)

Fig. 1. The tree of the 75 haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1a1-M417 in the Altai.
Upper left arm - Tubalars (57, 68, 70, 71, 74), Chelkans (60, 61, 62) and Altai-kiji (57). The lower right-hand branch - similar composition: Tubalars (66, 67, 69, 73, 75) and one Chelkan (63). The lower left branch - mixed: Kumandins (64, 65), Tubalars (72), Altai-kiji (8, 51, 59). The remaining haplotypes - Altai-kiji.
(color coding added, ethnic affiliation conditional to statistical probability of fraction in population and randomness of sampling)

1520

Figure 1 shows the tree of 75 haplotypes of haplogroup R1a in Altai.

One can see that the tree has several completely different branches. For a single haplogroup, so unusual tree is rare, and usually indicates a series of population bottlenecks, which split onto branches in early history, and has barely survived in relatively recent times. The massive differences between the branches indicate that the original common ancestors belong to the far antiquity.

Mixing up and averaging all haplotypes of the tree, which would be totally wrong, would generate a phantom “common ancestor” who ostensibly lived about 4,300 ybp. To do that is wrong because the tree consists of branches, each one of which describes a separate DNA-genealogical line, and the branches are of different size, and correspondingly of different “weight”. With averaging, the most ancient branches are lost, and the tree is “rejuvenated”. In the “Zhivotovsky method” the rejuvenation is artificially by increasing  the age by about three times. Why specifically three? So yes. So showed the theory for 10,000 haplotypes with their full homogenization for the history of the whole humanity, which is totally artificial and unrealistic premise. And the “compensation” is most “dull”, it presumes that correction by a factor of three is independent of the haplotype format, whether it is 6-marker, 9-marker, 12-marker or 17-marker. Or any other formats. That is, it is presumed that the mutation rate is independent of what the haplotype markers are and how many are there. It is inconceivable that none of the “population geneticists” pay any attention to that. At least someone should have thought that this simply can not exist. That's what a lack of adequate scientific school is. A complete atrophy of thinking. In short, using the “Zhivotovsky method” it comes out that the time to the common ancestor of the whole tree is 12.800 years. In reality, this answer is not even close.

Let's consider the haplotype tree Fig. 1 in terms of the DNA genealogy.

Kangars/Turgeshes, modern Tubalars and Chelkans

The eight haplotypes in the upper left branch have a base haplotype (in the format of Y-filer, i.e. DYS 393, 390, 19, 391, 385a, 385b, 439, 389-1, 392, 389-2 - 458, 437, 448, GATAH4 , 456, 438, 635):

13 24 16 9 12 14 10 14 11 18 – 14 14 20 12 17 11 23 (No 57, 60-62, 68, 70, 71, 74)
1521

The branch has 10 mutations (in the highlighted markers; the other markers have no mutations), which gives 10/8/0.034 = 37 → 38 conditional generations, or 950±315 years to a common ancestor (the arrow indicated a correction for reverse mutation, 0.034 is a mutation rate constant for 17-marker haplotypes). This haplotype is notably different from the base haplotype in the E.European Plain (by 9 mutations)

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 13 11 17 - 15 14 20 11 16 11 23

and from the base southeast haplotype subclade L342.2 (by 8 mutations)

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 13 11 17 - 15 14 20 12 16 11 23

That places their common ancestor at 7250 ybp (6750 ybp to the common ancestor with the subclade L342.2). This could not be the “Indo-European” R1a, in those days they (the R1a “Indo-Europeans”) lived in Europe, and had not even arrived yet in the E.European Plain. This is an autochthonous common ancestor, most likely a phantom ancestor (i.e., the dating can be significantly underestimated), but this is not an “Indo-European” common ancestor. The modern fairly young population consists mainly of Tubalars and Chelkans (Turgeshes). Now they are Mongoloid and Türkic.

Potentially Türks/Ashina Türks, or their parent tribe of Saka, a part of modern Altai-kiji

At the foot of the described branch is shown a mini-branch of four haplotypes, three of which are identical, and the fourth (56) differs by only one mutation (in DYS390).

13 26 16 10 11 14 10 14 11 18 – 15 14 21 12 16 11 23 (No 27, 28, 29)

13 25 16 10 11 14 10 14 11 18 – 15 14 21 12 16 11 23 (No 56)

Six mutations (marked) separate a common ancestors of these haplotypes and the basic haplotype of the E.European Plains by 6/0.034 = 176 → 214 generations, or 5,350 years, and places their common ancestor by (5350+4600)/2 = 4975 ybp. It is also too early for the arrival of the “Indo-Europeans” R1a to the Altai. They (the “Indo-Europeans”) arrived a thousand years later (“Indo-Europeans” in quotation marks are neither Indo- nor Europeans, the label comes from the attribution by the latter days seers of the Andronovo Kurgan culture to the Ossetians aka Iranians aka Indo-Europeans aka most reverend ourselves).

One mutation between the above two haplotypes places the mini-branch at 1/0.34 = 29 → 30 generations, or about 750 ybp. But between this mini-branch (Altai-kiji) and the branch of the Tubalars and Chelkans (Turgesh branch) are 6.5 mutations, or 5900 years between their common ancestors. This puts THEIR common ancestor at (5900 + 950 + 750) / 2 = 3800 ybp.

In other words, from the DNA line running from 3800 ybp (which in turn also clearly passed the population bottleneck) remained two sub-branches, aged 950 and 750 ybp. But the distance between them shows that from their common ancestor they separated far apart, and that distance can be easily calculated.
1522

Thus, we see that the upper left part of the tree is not an “Indo-European” branch, but autochthonous haplotypes of R1a. They are ancient in origin, much older than the haplotype R1a (more precisely, their common ancestors) in the E.European Plain.

Teleut Tele

This type of calculations allows to obtain the following basic haplotypes and ages of the common ancestors of the branches. A small branch on the left of seven haplotypes (with total of only three mutations)

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 14 11 18 – 15 14 21 10 16 11 23 (325 years to a common ancestor) (No 3 - 7, 42, 46, 50).

Kumans (Kumandins)

Rather ancient branch of the 6 haplotypes (at 7 o'clock) [27 mutations]

13 25 15 10 11 14/15 10 13 11 17/18 - 15 14 20 12 16 11 23 (3800 years to a common ancestor) (No 8, 51, 59, 64, 65, 72)

This may well be, with the base haplotype in the west of the E.European Plain:

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 13 11 17 - 15 14 20 12 16 11 23

Probably, Tele

Young branch of 10 haplotypes at the bottom of the tree, with only four mutations:

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 14 11 18 – 15 14 21 12 17 11 23 (300 years to a common ancestor) (No 25, 26, 34 - 41)

Probably, Tele

Branch of the seven haplotypes in the upper right part of the tree, in which only five mutations that gives 5/7/0.034 = 21 generations, or about 525 years to a common ancestor:

13 26 16 10 11 17 11 14 11 18 – 15 14 19 11 15 11 23 (No 43-45, 47-49, 53)

The branch differs by 11 mutations in 17 markers from the base haplotype of the subclades L342.2 (noted above),

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 13 11 17 - 15 14 20 12 16 11 23

that separates their common ancestors by 11/0.034 = 324 → 472 generations, or 11.800 years, and places a common ancestor of L342.2 and Altai branch at (11800 + 4900 + 525)/2 = 8600 ybp. This common ancestor lived together with the base haplotype of the E.European Plain 7700 ybp. Again, these are the autochthonous common ancestors of the haplotypes. In this (and the next) branch a characteristic marker is DYS385 = 11-16, while in the E.European Plain it is 11-14.
1523

Probably, Tele

The sub-branch of 9 haplotypes at 3 o'clock (with only 7 mutations, i.e. the common ancestor lived 7/9/0.034 = 23 generations, or 575 ybp), with a base haplotype

13 26 16 11 11 17 11 14 11 17 – 15 14 19 11 15 11 23 (No 1, 2, 9-11, 12, 15, 52, 54)

It is apparent that this branch is kindred with the previous branch. They have the same value ​​of DYD385 = 11-17, and they differ only by two mutations, i.e. their common ancestors diverge by 2/0.034 = 59 → 63 generations, or 1575 years. Their common ancestor lived (1575+525+575)/2 = 1340 ybp. It is clear that this double branch is young (in respect to their common ancestor). It is visible how fragmented branches are, how they scatter into recent survivors and equally recent descendants.

A pair of haplotypes (13, 14) are the same, so technically their common ancestor has no age:

13 25 16 11 11 18 11 14 11 17 – 15 14 19 10 15 11 23 (0 years) (No 13, 14)

Kangars/Turgeshes, modern Tubalars and Chelkans

Finally, the last branch (at 5 o'clock) of 6 haplotypes, with a total of 11 mutations, i.e. 11/6/0.034 = 54 → 57 generations, or 425 years to a common ancestor, has a base haplotype

13 24/25 16 11 11 14 11 14 11 17 – 16 14 20 14 16 11 23 (63, 66, 67, 69, 73, 75)

It sharply differ from the neighboring double branch higher up the tree, especially by GATAH4 (marked). On the overall, the difference from the base haplotype of the E.European Plain is 6.5 mutations

13 25 16 11 11 14 10 13 11 17 - 15 14 20 11 16 11 23

and from the branch higher up the tree is a 12.5 mutations

13 26 16 10 11 17 11 14 11 18 – 15 14 19 11 15 11 23

producing 12.5/0.034 = 368 → 570 generations, or 14,250 years to the common ancestors. THEIR common ancestor lived (14250+ 525+425)/2 = 7600 ybp. This is again an autochthonous common ancestor.

Compiling basic haplotypes for all ten branches of the tree, including the (phantom) base haplotype of the whole tree at the top (the last haplotype in the matrix), we obtain the following matrix:
1524
 

The whole matrix contains 51 mutations (marked), which produces the age of the common ancestor to 51/10/0.034 = 150 → 176 generations, or 4,400 years prior to the average age of all base haplotypes in the matrix (765 years), i.e. the common ancestor of all branches lived 4400+765 = 5165 ybp. This may correspond to the age of the Afanasiev culture (Southern Siberia Nomadic pastoralism, Southern Eurasian Anthropological Phenotype, 5700/5300 - 4500/4000 ybp, 3700/3300 - 2500/2000 BC).

Literature