Home
Back
In Russian (later)
Contents Genetics
Contents Pazyryk Genetics
Contents Amerind Genetics
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Aryans, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Anti-Iranian Arguments
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
English-Türkic Lexicon
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Overview of Türkic genetics
Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
The Academy of DNA Genealogy, Newton, USA
Email: aklyosov@comcast.net
Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants

Advances in Anthropology 2012. Vol.2, No.1, 1-13 Published Online February 2012 in SciRes ( (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aa) DOI:10.4236/aa.2012.21001
© 2012 Àíàòîëèé À. Êë¸ñîâ, Anatole A. Klyosov; Copyright © 2012 SciRes
 

Links

Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans
http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net

Editorial Introduction

Due to the great scholar and visionary Dr. Anatole A. Klyosov, we can literally touch the spread of the NOP > R1 people from 20,000 years ago to the present, and affiliate them with the living generations. Nothing ever advanced Turkology so energetically and systematically as the euphoria of the Indo-European nationalism, under whatever flag of the time it was advocated: Indo-Germanic, Aryan, Great Russian, or Great Ossetian. The following promulgation on Proto Indo-Europeans rests on two unequal foundations, genetic and linguistic. The genetic support is based on solid foundation of male Y-DNA markers propagating from generation to generation with calibrated stochastic temporal changes, while the linguistic support is based on a sand pile of creationist family tree model with uncalibrated and uncalibratable temporal changes (the observed and documented changes in language A, applied as a rule to changes in language B, congrue only in case of a single phenomenon historically shared by both languages). The revolutionary wave of the advances in the applied mathematics in genetics sweeps the field, rendering the mass of the early studies woefully obsolete in analysis and in the interpretations made from the incipience of the popular genetics to the year 2010 of our era. The tsunami wave of genetics sweeps away not only the early genetic notions, but also the popular axiomatic linguistic notions built in the past 300 years. The linguistic revolution is yet to come, but the coming of the great wave is already apparent, it will lift the suppressed models that tried to introduce some reality into naive linguistic exuberance to land it back to the reality level. What is uncalibratable now would become calibratable, and the firm dating provided by the applied mathematics in genetics would establish firm timescale for linguistic dating. No more a family tree model dated on which ruler managed to concoct a new political entity to satisfy his personal greed and ambitions. Genetics and demography would take over.

The path to R1a
Fig 3 from Klyosov, A. & Rozhanskii, I. (2012). Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
Advances in Anthropology, 2, 80-86
Posting clarifications, comments, and additional subheadings are (in blue italics) and blue boxes. Page numbers are shown at the end 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/. Clarifications and comments address the Türkic aspects. In English, the adjective Türkic and the noun Türk are used to denote the global world for the Türkic community that includes (Anatolian) Turks and Turkish as one of the constituents; Türk and Turk are nouns of which the Türkic (Turkic) and Turkish are adjectival derivatives, for four distinct designations for four phenomena.

Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants

This article aims at reconstructing history of R1a1 ancient migrations between 20,000 and 3500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred sixty (4460) haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1a1 populations and timespans to their common ancestors in the regions from South Siberia and northern/northwestern China in the east to the Hindustan and further west across Iranian Plateau, Anatolia, Asia Minor and to the Balkans in Europe, including on this way Central Asia, South India, Nepal, Oman, the Middle East, Comoros Islands, Egypt, etc. This study provides a support to the theory that haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia, apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions, around 20,000 ybp. (Apparently, the most ancient source of R1a1 haplotypes is provided by the people now living in northern China, at approximately 20,000 ybp). Not later than 12,000 ybp bearers of R1a1 already were in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp, and around 9000 - 8000 ybp they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Europe east to the British Isles. On this migration way or before it bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) have developed Proto Indo-European language, and carried it along during their journey to Europe. The earliest signs of the language on passing of bearers of R1a1 through Anatolia were picked by the linguists, and dated by 9400 - 9600 - 10,100 ybp, which fairly coincides with the data of DNA genealogy, described in this work. At the same time as bearers of the brother haplogroup R1b1a2 began to populate Europe after 4800 ybp, haplogroup R1a1 moved to the East European Plain around 4800 - 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south (Anatolia, Mitanni and the Arabian Peninsula), east (South Ural and then North India), and south-east (the Iranian Plateau) as the historic legendary Aryans. Haplotypes of their direct descendants are strikingly similar up to 67 markers with contemporary ethnic Russians of haplogroup R1a1. Dates of those Aryan movements from the East European Plain in said directions are also strikingly similar, between 4200 and 3600 ybp.

The first writing system, the original Mesopotamian (believed to be the world's oldest) has emerged circa 3600 BC (5600 ybp), it belonged to an agglutinative language, and any notion of a flexive Proto Indo-European language, or for that matter any language, known from the 9400 - 9600 - 10,100 ybp hangs in fine etheric vacuum, next to the theories of unintelligent and intelligent creation. The first written materials ascribed, with reservations, to an Indo-European language date to the 17th c. BC (3700 ybp, Anatolia), any references before that belong to the I.Asimov's-type compositions. Very few linguists would bet a half-dollar on anything older than 5700 BC. In fact, the Proto Indo-European language notion is the creationist model of a single-origin family tree, one of the few theories espoused by the linguists; without a Wave model, it even does not hold water.

However, the credulous attitude of the authors is irrelevant to the authors' findings on the R1a march in time and space.

Introduction

This study focuses on the origin of Indo-Europeans and the Aryans who entered India (the Hindustan), Iran (Iranian plateau), and Anatolia (Mesopotamia) approximately 3500 years ago.

The research findings, described in this study, demystify the origin of the Aryans. For nearly two centuries, the "Aryan problem" (essentially — Who were the Aryans? Where did they come from? Where did they disappear? Were they a particular human race, different from others?) has posed many challenges, often controversial and conflicted, for researchers, archeologists and linguists; however, this study opens new ground for our consideration and is based on the data provided by DNA genealogical test results.

The methodology of DNA genealogy, including considerations of extended 67 marker haplotypes, is described in detail in the preceding paper in this journal (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2011) and in Materials and Methods section of this article. The 67 marker haplotypes have been introduced to the scientific domain and personal usage several years ago, and available databases containing tens of thousands of 67 marker haplotypes are listed in (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2011) and in this paper (Appendix).

First, the following two 67 marker haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 are presented, belonging to the two authors of this paper:

13 24 16 11 11 15 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 34 15 15 16 16 — 11 11 19 23 15 16 17 21 36 41 12 11 — 11 9 17 17 8 11 10 8 10 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 15 23 21 12 13 11 13 11 11 12 13

13 25 15 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 11 30 – 16 9 10 11 11 23 14 20 34 12 12 15 15 — 10 11 19 23 17 16 18 18 34 38 14 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 11 10 8 12 10 12 21 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 13 25 21 13 12 12 13 11 11 12 13

Next, the following are two Indian R1a1 haplotypes, taken arbitrarily from the "Indian FTDNA Project" (the references to Projects are at the end of this paper):

13 24 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 33 12 15 15 16 — 10 12 19 23 15 17 18 18 35 41 15 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 13 23 21 12 12 11 13 10 11 12 12

13 23 16 11 12 15 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 30 12 16 16 16 — 11 12 19 23 15 16 18 21 35 39 12 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 16 10 12 12 13 8 14 24 22 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12
1

Both Indian haplotypes contain 24 and 21 mutations with the first haplotype (mutations are shown in bold, and rules of their counting are explained in the paper cited above), and 28 and 36 mutations with the second one. This produces on average 27.25 ± 6.60 pairwise cross-mutations between all four haplotypes; that is, 27.25/.12 = 227 → 292 ± 55 conditional generations (25 years each) = 7300 ± 1400 years between two haplotypes on average, or 3650 ± 700 years to a common ancestor of all the four haplotypes (.12 here is the mutation rate constant for 67 marker haplotypes, see the preceding paper cited above). According to all historical accounts, the Aryans arrived in India in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, which is approximately 3500 years ago.

This simplified calculation is based on these four haplotypes that belong to different subclades of R1a1 haplogroup (Z280, M458 and L342.2). However, considering each of the four haplotypes, the first two are from the current Russian-Ukrainian (linguistically Indo-European) group, and the second two are from the Indian (linguistically Indo-European) group. Both are similar and belong to the same R1a1 haplogroup. Currently, up to 72% of the upper castes in India belong to bearers of the same R1a1 haplogroup (Sharma et al., 2009).

This simplified calculation is given here for illustrative purposes, though four 67 marker haplotypes contain as many as 268 markers, which is quite statistically informative in a first approximation. A much more detailed analysis of Indian and ethnic Russian extended series of R1a1 haplotypes is given in (Klyosov, 2009b, 2011b), and principally the same results were obtained with respect to patterns of mutations in haplotypes, migration routes, and their chronology.

This brings closure to the question of the Aryans’ DNA-related origin and who entered India during the middle of the 2nd millennium CE. They belonged to the R1a1 haplogroup, which is the prevalent one in the present-day Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, in the first one up to 62% of total male population, in the latter three up to 55% of total male population [Klyosov, 2009b, 2011b and references therein]).

The reverse projection of the population genetics' results onto the present-day Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus) equates the modern location of the Slavic-speaking people with the modern distribution of the Y-DNA marker. In the historical terms, such equating comes in conflict with the distribution of the people belonging to different linguistic trunks, as is illustrated on the maps shown below: according to the modern interpretation of the Ptolemy's distribution of the tribes, the recorded population of the Eastern Europe at the verge of the eras was predominantly Türkic-Scythian-Sarmatian in the southern steppes and Fennic in the forest areas, the Scythians were nomadic horse pastoral tribes with little in common with the Aryan (Indo-Iranian) sedentary agricultural tribes. A look at the map shows that either the population was nearly completely displaced, together with their genetic signatures, or assimilated to the disappearance of free pasture ranges, new dominant language, and new culture. In either case, the equation of the current Eastern European linguistic siblings of the Indian Brahmans with the genetic siblings of the Indian Brahmans runs into a conflicting collision. What used to be a chain of migratory events from 20,000 ybp according to the DNA-genealogy becomes an annoyingly static picture after the R1a reached the promised land in the E. Europe ~6000 ybp. That also conflicts with the Slavic annals, where Slavs migrated to the E. Europe from the Danube area.

The ancestral Slavs in the Danube basin area are not noted for their genetic kinship with their descendent Eastern European Slavs, they are of different ancestry: predominant haplogroup is I at Bosnians (42%), Croats (mainland) (38%), Herzegovinians (63%), Ethnic Macedonians (34%), Macedonians (Skopje) (23%), Serbs (36%), Serbs (Bosnia) (40.7%), Slovenians (30.7%), Slovenian (38%);
E1b1b at Bulgarians (20%);
R1b at Czechs and Slovaks (35%).
These genetic differences can be attributed to different historical causes in the last 1500 years for each Slavic group with predominant haplogroups I,  E1b1b, and R1b,  but then the same last 1500 years logics should apply to those Slavs bearing the haplogroup R1a.

One of the historical scenarios for the explosive spread of R1a in the Eastern Europe may be Droit du seigneur (Right of first night), that survived in Russia well into the 19th century. The relatively small ruling elite, and possibly all members of the demographically small dominating ethnic group, were seeding into posterity their Y-DNA marker that originated some 4,500 ybp, speedily and efficiently replacing the original Slavic markers. For centuries, the Rus and Russian standing army primarily consisted of Slavicized elite inherited from the Bulgar and Khazar states, and of the allied Türkic tribes (Black Clobuks, Oguzes, Baryns, etc.), "boyar offsprings", and "Tatars" whose ethnicity automatically classed them as service nobility, and the pay for the service was by land allotments with permanently bonded occupants. The heavy dose of non-Slavic nobility able to seed their seeds is attested by the predominance of the Türkic-derived elite family names: Akchurins, Arginskys (from tribe Argyn, a part of annalistic Basmyls), Barynskys (dynastic tribe of Savirs), Bichurins, Karamzins, Krichinskys, Kutuzovs, Meshcherskys, Michurins, Shirinskys, Scriabins, Suvorovs, Turgenevs, Yushinsky (from tribe Usun/Wusun/烏孫), Yusupovs, and many more. Now, unbeknown to their Y-DNA marker, these names are held as Russian, and their origin by default as Slavic,  but the transposition of the ancient DNA line on the modern cultural identity and the lingua franca of the state territories is misleading.

It appears that tracing the custom of the Right of first night in Europe  invariably ascends to the horse nomadic tribes of the Sarmatian circle: Vandals/Burgund/Bulgars and their kindred tribes, peculiarly affecting the feudal customs in France, Germany, and England, but the roots of the tradition penetrate much deeper, it was first recorded by Herodotus in Anatolia. In the slavery societies of ancient agricultural states like Rome, Greece, Persia, and all the way to China, the use of slaves for sex was a daily affair, not worth specific annalistic notation, but unwittingly universally recorded in references to a "child of a slave or a concubine".

 
Modern reconstruction of Y-DNA map in Ptolemy's time Reconstruction of ethnic tribes according to Ptolemy

Virgiones of the map must be the same Burgundians ~ Bulgars per Agathias;
Coestobocs of the map are held as Gauls/Celts;
Dacians are rated as Gepids, of the Goth/Vandal circle.
That leaves only Stavans in the upper Pripyat marches as tentative Slavs-Aryans.

There is merit in comparing the Indian haplotypes with the R1b1a2 haplotypes — a group who populates ~60% of Europe, living primarily in the British Isles, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and other Central and Western European countries. The typical ancestral haplotype in R1b1a2 haplogroup, dated about 4,800 years before present, is as follows (Klyosov, 2011a):

13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 — 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17 — 11 11 19 23 15 15 18 17 36 38 12 12 — 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12

There are 48 and 44 mutations between the above and the Indian R1a1 haplotypes shown earlier. This formally places their common ancestor at more than 10,000 years before present and, in fact, much earlier, at least 15,000 years ago. R1b1a2 bearers were not among the Aryans coming to India, and it is very likely that they were (linguistically) not Indo-Europeans then. Specifically, there is no supporting evidence that 4000 years before present (ybp) bearers of R1b1a2 spoke Indo-European (IE) languages. On the other hand, Central Europe was likely populated by R1b1a2 speakers of non-IE languages. Moreover, there are very few bearers of R1b haplogroup in India, mostly on its Arabian Sea coast, and there were none of the R1b haplogroup among the 367 tested Indian Brahmins (Sharma et al., 2009). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that bearers of the R1b1 (as well as R1b1a2) haplogroup were among the Aryans, and, hence, they were not among those carrying the Indo-European languages elsewhere in those times.

We are left holding two questions: first, from where did the R1a haplogroup arise and, second, what was their migratory route that brought them to the
1) East European Plain (currently up to 62% R1a1, see above),
2) India and Iran (10% - 16% R1a1),
3) Anatolia (15% R1a1),
4) the Middle East (up to 7% - 13% R1a1), and
5) the Arabian Peninsula, where nowadays 2% - 10% of the population carries the R1a1 haplogroup (Abu-Amero, 2009; Underhill et al., 2009)?

As described in (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2011), Europeoids (Caucasoids) appeared ~58,000 ybp. They gradually branched to downstream haplogroups and migrated to the west, south and east. Haplogroup NOP, which was among them, arose ~48,000 ybp, and moved eastward, presumably towards South Siberia and/or adjacent regions. Haplogroup P arose ~38,000 ybp, apparently in South Siberia, and gave rise to haplogroup R and then R1 ~30,000 - 26,000 ybp (see the diagram in Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2011). The timing of haplogroup R1a’s appearance can be reconstructed from series of R1a haplotypes, made available from the databases (see the list in Materials and Methods and the Appendix). The most ancient common ancestors of this haplogroup lived in: northern and northwestern China (in particular, Xinjiang region (East Turkestan), which is the south Altai area), in southern Siberia, in the Eastern Himalayas, India and Pakistan, the Comoros Islands, and in Europe, where their bearers apparently migrated from the east during both the remote past and later, for example, with the Scythians.

Northern China R1a Haplotypes

Apparently, the most ancient source of R1a1 haplotypes is provided by the people now living in northern China (the area which historically was the ancestral territory of Uigurs, a female dynastic line of the Huns. The Chinese colonial encroachment started during Qin dynasty, 3rd c. BC). It was shown (Bittles et al., 2007) that for a number of Chinese populations, such as Hui, Bonan, Dongxiang, Salars (all assembled primarily of Türkic Uigurs), a percentage of R1a1 haplotypes reached 18% - 32%. Their haplotypes were not provided in the paper, but the author, Professor Alan H. Bittles, kindly sent us a list of 31 of five-marker haplotypes typed as R1a1, the tree of which is shown in Figure 1. The haplotypes vary tremendously in their alleles, which already indicates that their common ancestor lived in ancient times. For example, values of DYS19 varied between 14 and 17, DYS388 between 12 and 14, and DYS393 between 10 and 13. It should be noted that mutations in the last two markers occurred on average once in 4,545 and 1,320 generations, respectively. With a correction for back mutations (Klyosov, 2009a) it occurs once in 8500 and 2400 generations. The 31 haplotypes contain 99 mutations from the deduced 5 marker base haplotype as shown here in the 12 marker FTDNA format with missing alleles indicated:

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

This extent of mutations, which can be presented as 99/31/5 = .639 ± .064 mutation/marker, is a very high value. Actually, it is a measure of how ancient a common ancestor might be (for a comparison, contemporary European R1a1 and R1b1a2 haplotypes are separated by .250 - .270 mutations from their common ancestors, see Klyosov 2011a, 2011b). It can also be presented as 99/31/.00677 = 472 →683 conditional generations; that is, it is 17,100 ± 2,400 years to the common ancestor of these 31 haplotypes. The value of .00677 mutation/haplotype for conditional generation is the mutation rate constant for the 5 marker haplotypes (Klyosov, 2009a).
2

Figure 1.  The 5-marker haplotype tree for R1a1 haplotypes in Northern China.
The 31-haplotype tree was composed from data provided by Dr. A.H. Bitttles and collected in ethnic communities Hui, Bonan, Dongxiang, and Salars (Bittles et al., 2007) (no haplotypes were provided in the referenced article). A fraction of R1a1 haplogroup in said populations is 18%, 25%, 32%, and 22%, respectively (ibid).
 
Hui = Chinese designation for Moslems, from Hui = Uigur; predominantly Uigurs with joined fractions of other Türkic and non-Türkic Middle Asian extracts
Bonan (Bao'an=Uigur) = mix of Mongols, Hui, ubiquitous Han Chinese, and Tibetans, in Gansu; Mongols, Hans, and   Tibetans have nothing to do with the R1a, thus Bonan R1a ≈ Uigur;
Dongxiang (Bao'an=Uigur) = mix of Mongols, Han, Hui, and Tibetans, in Gansu, thus Dongxiang R1a ≈ Uigur;
Salars = (Salar = Sary Uigur=Uigur) Oguzes + Uigurs, in Gansu.

With some nuances, these are people of Türkic genetic trunk.
On Tu, Xibe, and Tatars see notations below.

Since these haplotypes descend from such an ancient common ancestor and contain numerous mutations, this makes their deduced base (ancestral) haplotype rather uncertain. Therefore, the quadratic permutation method was employed for the same set of haplotypes (Klyosov, 2009a). This method does not require either a base haplotype or a correction for back mutations. The obtained timespan is 19,625 ± 2,800 years to a common ancestor. This result is within the margin of error with that calculated by the above linear method.

Therefore, haplogroup R1a arose at approximately 20,000 ybp with the territory geographically belonging to Central Asia.

R1a1 Haplotypes from Altai

Thirteen Altai R1a1 haplotypes were listed in (Underhill et al., 2009), 12 of which showed a rather recent base haplotype (the last marker is DYS461):

13 26 16 11 X X X 12 11 14 11 31 — 10

These 12 haplotypes have only 7 mutations per 120 markers from the above base haplotype, which gives 7/120/.0018 = 32 →33 generations; that is, 825±320 years to a common ancestor. The same set of the Altaian haplotypes in a different format is given in (Järve et al., 2009), with the base haplotype (not listed in the cited paper)

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

and the same 7 mutations per 120 markers. Therefore, this exactly correlates to the same timespan to that of the common ancestor as given above. The same set of the Altaian haplotypes was given in (Järve et al., 2009) in a significantly more extended format, with the base haplotype (the second panel represents DYS 458, 437, 448, GATAH4, 456, 438, 594, 411S1 [two alleles], 596, 643, 645, 635, YPenta1, YPenta2):

13 26 16 11 11 17 X X 11 14 11 31 — 15 14 19 11 15 11 8 10 11 9 10 8 23 11 10

All 12 haplotypes in the extended format collectively contain the same 7 mutations. In other words, the added 15 "slow" markers did not produce mutations, and is an indicator of a quite recent common ancestor of the haplotype dataset. However, this base haplotype differs by 6 mutations from the base haplotype of the East European Plain, which in the same format is

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 10

and by 12 mutations from the East European Plain base haplotype in the extended format:

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 15 14 20 12 16 11 10 10 11 10 10 8 23 11 10

(a more extended 67 marker base haplotype of the East European Plain is shown below). These 6 and 12 mutations exactly fit the difference between the respective mutation rate constants for the two haplotype formats, equal to .020 and .0404 mutations per haplotype per generation, respectively. These mutation differences place a common ancestor of the Altaian and the East European Plain haplotypes at 8100 ybp.

An additional Altaian haplotype from the list

14 24 17 11 11 15 X 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 15 14 20 13 15 11 10 10 12 10 10 9 24 11 8

differs by as much as 20 mutations from the above base Altaian haplotype, and by 12 mutations with the East European Plain base haplotype. This places their common ancestors at 10,400 and 7300 ybp, respectively.

R1a1 Haplotypes in Tuva

Four R1a1 haplotypes from Tuva, the region which borders with Altai in Southern Siberia, north of Mongolia, were listed in (Underhill et al., 2009; Järve et al., 2009). Three of them are identical in all their 26 markers

13 26 15 9 11 14 X 12 10 13 11 30 — 18 14 19 12 16 11 10 10 11 10 10 8 23 11 8

and significantly differ, by as many as 20 mutations, from the fourth one, which belongs to the lineage found among the Altayans:

13 25 16 11 11 17 X 12 11 14 11 31 — 15 14 19 11 15 11 8 10 9 10 10 8 23 11 10

They also differ by 12 mutations from the East European Plain base haplotype. This places a common ancestor of the Tuva R1a1 haplotypes at 10,000 ybp and also with the East European Plain base haplotype by 7300 ybp.

What emerges from the analysis of the data is that the Altaian and the Tuva haplotypes have apparently the same ancient R1a1 common ancestor, who lived 10,000 - 10,400 ybp. However, the surviving DNA lineages, which "surfaced" only recently, particularly in Tuva, are different in Tuva and in Altai, though all coalescent to said ancient common ancestor.

We know of well-documented historical events that illuminate the demographical changes leading to and in the early 1st mill. AD. These are consecutive relocations of the Türkic nomadic states of Oguzes (740), Kangars/Bechens (colloquial Pechenegs, 750), Karluks (colloquial Karakhanids, 920), Kimaks/Kipchaks (colloquial Polovetses, 990) from the greater Altai area to the west. Assuming that 2/3 of the population have relocated, 1/3 of the population minus military and hardship losses stayed put, and carried on their genotype. The new demographic status at the destinations was a blend of the previous population and the newcomers from the immediate east, linguistically also Türkic, but with relatively higher proportion of the eastern Eurasian Y-DNA and mtDNA genes.

By the early 13th c., of the mid-1st mill. AD population, in the Altai probably remained only 10% (1/32) of the early Altaian population, 90% of the early Altaians having moved to the Middle Asia and Eastern Europe. At least partially, the outflow was replenished by the kindred genotypes migrating from the east. In 1650 a Jungar-executed genocide reduced the number of Tele people east of Tuva by ~90%, minority of whom found refuge in the Northern Altai (Altai in this paper) and a majority settled in the Southern Altai (Tuva in this paper).

R1a Haplotypes in the Eastern Himalayas

Five R1a1 haplotypes were listed in (Kang et al., 2011), which showed a rather recent base haplotype (the last two markers are DYS437 and DYS438):
3

13 25 15 10 11 14 13 14 10 13 11 30 — 14 11 11

These 5 haplotypes have only 4 mutations from the above base haplotype, which gives 4/5/.0215 = 37 →38 generations; that is, 950 ± 480 years to a common ancestor. However, the above base haplotype has very unusual (for R1a haplogroup) alleles DYS426 = 13, and DYS388 = 14, and differs by 5 mutations with the East European Plain base haplotypes. This places their common ancestor at 6650 ybp. This is clearly a separate branch of ancient R1a haplotypes in Eastern Himalayas.

R1a Haplotypes in India and Pakistan

There are two principal sources of haplotypes of haplogroup R1a in the Hindustan. One was brought by the Aryans in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, as it was described above, and supported below with more extended series of Indian haplotypes. A timespan to the most recent common ancestor of these haplotypes varies between 4000 and 4600 ybp, and often around 4050 ybp, depending on a particular haplotype datasets. The base (ancestral) haplotype of the Aryan (linguistically Indo-European) haplotype in its 12 marker format is

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30

This haplotype is nearly identical to that of the East European Plain base (see below), except the latter came from a common ancestor who lived between 4,600 and 5,000 ybp as determined using different haplotype datasets (Klyosov, 2009a; Klyosov, 2011b).

A more ancient source is presumably the South Siberian and/or Central Asian haplotypes brought to the Hindustan during the westward migrations of R1a bearers between 20,000 and 10,000 ybp. Some studies alleged that the most ancient common ancestors of R1a haplotypes were Indian; however, the results were flawed by erroneous calculations of timespans using incorrect "population mutation rates", which routinely converted the actual 3600 - 4000 ybp ("Indo-European" R1a1 in India) into 12,000 - 15,000 ybp. This was erroneously claimed as the proof of "origin of R1a in India." Furthermore, high percentages of R1a in some regions in India or in some ethnic and/or religious groups (such as Brahmins) were incorrectly claimed as the proof of the origin of R1a in India (Kivisild et al., 2003; Sengupta et al., 2006; Sahoo et al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2009; Thanseem et al., 2006; Fornarino et al., 2009). The application of the flawed approach resulted in confusion amongst researchers in the field of human population genetics over the last decade. The course of research is hopefully corrected by the application of today’s most recent developments of DNA genealogy, which utilizes a principally different methodology (Klyosov, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Rozhanskii and Klyosov, 2011; Klyosov, 2011b).

Forty-six of 6 marker R1a1 haplotypes of three different tribal population of Andra Pradesh, South India (tribes Naikpod, Andh, and Pardhan) listed in (Thanseem et al., 2006) and shown in the haplotype tree in Figure 2, contain 126 mutations; that is .457 ± .041 mutations per marker (the mutation rate constant equals .0123 mutation/haplotype/generation, Klyosov, 2009a). It gives 7200 ± 960 years to a common ancestor (TMRCA = “Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor” ). The base (ancestral) haplotype of those south Indian populations in the FTDNA format is as follows:

13 25 17 9 X X X X X 14 X 32

This differs from the north-Indian "Indo-European" haplotype (see above) by four mutations on six markers, which places their most recent common ancestor to approximately 11,600 ybp.

The ancient north China R1a1 base haplotype (see above) differs from the Andra Pradesh R1a1 base haplotype by at least 5 mutations on the 5 available markers, which places their common ancestor at approximately 22,000 ybp. Within a margin of error, it can be deduced that this is the same common ancestor of the north China haplotypes. This mutational difference neatly fits the chronology and direction of the migration, which continues from the ancient (non linguistically Indo-European) Indian haplotypes to the (linguistically) Indo-European Indian haplotypes with their common ancestor (non-IE and IE) who lived approximately 11,600 ybp. Also, this data dovetails with the timing of the follow-up migration of R1a1 bearers from Hindustan via Asia Minor (with a detection of the proto Indo-European language in Anatolia with estimated divergence time of 9400 - 9600 - 10,100 ybp, see Gray & Atkinson, 2003; Renfrew, 2000; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 1995) to Europe (with the arrival 10,000 - 8000 ybp, see below) and then to the East European Plain (5000 - 4800 ybp, see below).

The analysis of this data and of these findings essentially unites most, if not all, concepts of the "origin of Indo-European language" which have, at various times, placed the "origin" from India to Iran, Anatolia, the Balkans, to the Russian Steppes (Gimbutas, 1973, 1994; Mallory, 1989; Dixon, 1997; Anthony, 2007), except that they were related not to the "origin," but to the passing areas of the R1a1 migration.

Population geneticists typically mix DNA lineages and branches in their analysis whereby "phantom common ancestors" emerge. This is exemplified with 110 of 10-marker R1a1 haplotypes of various Indian populations, both tribal and Dravidian and Indo- European castes, listed in (Sengupta et al., 2006). The resulting mixed haplotype tree is shown in Figure 3. It contains 344 mutations, which is .313 mutations per marker, and results in a "phantom" 5275 years to a "common ancestor," just between the shown above 7180 ± 960 years for non-IE and 4050 ± 500 IE Indian haplotypes.

Figure 2. The 6-marker haplotype tree for R1a1 haplotypes in Andra Pradesh (tribes Naikpod, Andh, and Pardhan), South India (TMRCA 7200 ± 960 years).
The 46-haplotype tree was composed from data listed in (Thanseem et al., 2006). The designations of haplotypes are those used in the article.
Figure 3. The 10 marker haplotype tree for R1a1 haplotypes in India (mixed population, including tribes and castes) (TMRCA ~4050 years).
The 110-haplotype tree was composed from data listed in (Sengupta et al., 2006). The article contains 114 Indian R1a1 haplotypes, however, four of them were incomplete.
4

For a comparison, consider the Pakistani R1a1 haplotypes listed in the Sengupta (2006) paper (Figure 4). Forty-two haplotypes contain 166 mutations, which gives .395 ± .031 mutations per marker, and 6800 ± 860 years to a common ancestor. This value fits within margin of error to the "south-Indian" 7200 ± 960 ybp; however, the base (ancestral) haplotypes differ significantly. The base Pakistani haplotype is as follows (in the FTDNA format plus DYS461):

13 25 17 11 X X X 12 10 13 11 30 — 9

It differs from the south Indian "non-IE" and the north Indian "IE" base haplotypes by four and two mutations on six markers, respectively. This places a common ancestor of the Pakistani and the south Indian "non-IE" R1a1 populations at approximately 12,980 ybp which is within margins of error with the 11,600 ybp reported above as the migration time through the Hindustan westward. The two mutations place a common ancestor of the Pakistani and the "Indo-European" Indian populations more recently, at 7800 ybp. This chronological trend might also point in the direction of the ancient migration of R1a1 westward.

A more detailed consideration of the Pakistani R1a1 haplotypes, including separate calculations of each of the four branches in Figure 4, results in a timespan of 8650 years to a common ancestor for all of these branches (Klyosov, 2010a). In all, it does not change the principal conclusions of this section.

R1a1 Haplotypes in Central Asia

Ten 10-marker Central Asian haplotypes were listed in (Sen-gupta et al., 2006). They contain 27 mutations from the base haplotype

13 25 16 11 X X X 12 10 13 11 31— 9

which gives .270 ± .052 mutations per marker, and 4300 ± 940 years to a common ancestor. It is the same value that we have found for the East European Plain and "Indo-European" Indian base R1a1 haplotypes.

Both the Central Asian base haplotype and the dating of a common ancestor described above are supported by the latest data on extended 67 marker haplotypes that were collected in November 2011 in the R1a1 FTDNA Project. The Central Asian base haplotype was as follows:

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 23 15 15 18 19 34 38 14 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 14 23 21 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

This is identical to the above-mentioned Central Asian 10- marker base haplotype in all the given alleles. A common ancestor for the series of the extended haplotypes lived 3650 ± 590 ybp. The Central Asian base haplotype differs from the East European Plain base haplotype (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2009) by only 4 mutations in the 67 markers. This separates them in terms of the time of their common ancestors

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 -- 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 23 16 16 18 19 34 38 13 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 14 23 21 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

by only 4/.12 = 33 →34 conditional generations; that is by ~850 years.

The result is compelling and provides an exact fit with the expected migration pattern of the R1a1 haplogroup from the East European Plain (~4600 - 4400 ybp) to Central Asia (3650 ± 590 ybp) on their way to the South Urals and to the Hindustan.

What these findings suggest is that there are two different subsets of the Indian R1a1 haplotypes. One was brought by European bearers known as the Aryans, seemingly on their way from the East European Plain through Central Asia in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. The other was much more ancient and migrated from South Siberia/northern China to India 12,000 years ago. This migratory wave continued through the Iranian Plateau westward (via Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor), to the Balkans and then further into the European continent.

Figure 4. The 10-marker haplotype tree for R1a1 haplotypes in Pakistan.
The 42- haplotype tree was composed from data listed in (Sengupta et al., 2006).
5

R1a1 Haplotypes of the Comoros Islands

 

Fifteen R1a haplotypes have been found among 381 tested men on the Islands. Three of them were R1a*-SRY10831a, and twelve were R1a1 (Msaidie et al., 2011). The cited study did not generate any chronological estimates based on the haplotypes, and considered only 8 marker haplotypes (for a typical "population genetics" analysis without separation of haplogroups) while, in fact, determined 17 marker haplotypes.

The base haplotype for said 12 R1a1 haplotypes is as follows:

13 24/25 15 11 12 14 X X 10 13 11 18 — 16/17 14 19 12 15 11 23

All have 104 mutations; that is, .51 ± .05 mutation per marker. This high value points at a significantly more ancient common ancestor compared with that in the East European Plain, Central Asia and the Indo-European Indian R1a1 populations (.28, .27, .24 mutations per marker, respectively). Furthermore, it is more ancient compared with the old south Indian and Pakistani R1a1 populations (.457 and .395 mutations per marker, respectively, see above). Indeed, a common ancestor of the Comoros R1a1 haplotypes lived .51/.02 = 255 →340 conditional generations; that is 8500 ± 1190 ybp.

For a comparison, the East European Plain base haplotype in the same format is as follows:

13 25 16 11 11 14 X X 10 13 11 17 — 15 14 20 12 16 11 23

It differs by as many as 7 mutations from the Comoros base haplotype. This places their common ancestor at 9900 ybp. It is reasonable to suggest that this common ancestor was one of those R1a1 who were moving westward along the Iranian plateau and Asia Minor almost 10,000 ybp. Indeed, the dating around 9900 ybp is rather typical for archaeological settlements in Asia Minor with known dates of 10,200, 9900 and 9000 ybp (Myres et al., 2010). It is not necessarily true that the bearers of R1a1 were in the Comoros Islands 9900 ybp since it is known that the Persian traders had expanded their maritime routes to Madagascar by 700-900 AD (Msaidie, 2011).

The reference to archaeological settlements in Asia Minor at around 10,000 ybp is interesting, not because the cited dates appear not to appear in the Myres et al., 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/, but because the passing through the Asia Minor R1a1 hunter-gatherers were unlikely to leave archaeological traces other than their campsites and pre-Kurgan burials. The hunter-gatherer economy did not encourage permanent locations with permanent structures like those among entrenched agriculturists, but they tended to follow seasonal cycles harvesting known products in known ranges. Fertile forests could reduce the scale of transhumance, but the absence of wheel transport, draft or riding animals still necessitated traditional technology of quick and light temporary housing along the lines of the native American wigwams, practically undetectable archaeologically. The dating around 9900 ybp is typical for permanent agricultural archaeological settlements in Asia Minor, not for the roaming pre-agricultural and pre-animal husbandry hunter-gatherers. And since no soul on this planet could write before the invention of literacy, any notion of the of R1a1 hunter-gatherer language around 10,000 ybp is rather speculative.

It appears that allowing liberally a timespan from 10,000 to 1100 ybp for the arrival of R1a1 on the Comoros conceptually conflicts with the rigid postulated arrival of the R1a1 in the Eastern Europe.

R1a1 Haplotypes in the Arabian Peninsula

Sixteen R1a1 10 marker haplotypes from Qatar and United Arab Emirates were published (Cadenas et al., 2008). They split into two branches, and their base haplotypes

13 25 15 11 11 14 X Y 10 13 11 30

13 25 16 11 11 14 X Y 10 13 11 31

differed by only one mutation. Their common ancestor lived 3750 ± 825 years bp. Since a common ancestor of R1a1 haplotypes in Armenia and Anatolia lived 4500 ± 1040 and 3700 ± 550 years bp, respectively (Klyosov, 2008), the three dates do not conflict with each other. They were not part of the ancient migrations of 12 - 9 thousand ybp, but they were most likely on the military expeditions of the (Aryan) R1a1 from the East European Plain southward through Anatolia, Mitanni, and to the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula around 4000 - 3600 ybp. As mentioned earlier, today there are between 3% and 9% of R1a1 in those regions, among them members of famous tribes such as Quraish/Quraysh (Muhammad, the founder of the religion of Islam, was born into the Quraysh tribe), Al Tamimi (Banu Tamim) and others.

We know nothing about military expeditions of the Aryans from the East European Plain southward through Anatolia, Mitanni, and to the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula around 4000 - 3600 ybp. What is known is that Arians did not ride mounted into India, they did not bring horses to India, they rode oxen carts. Which means that the Aryan military expedition from the East European Plain southward to the Arabian Peninsula around 4000 - 3600 ybp went along the lines of the much later Darius 516 BC march against Scythians, with endless columns of foot soldiers, and oxen-pulled wagons and supply trains. The idea of such a lethargic Aryan expedition to the far-away Arabia after the Arabs mastered the use of the camels appears to be quite a figmentary construct. Bands of randomly roaming not numerous clans in search of better farmland, like an Aryan version of the slightly later father Abraham, seems to be more appropriate for the 4000 - 3600 ybp times.

The alternate candidates would be the East European Tiber Grave Kurganians, who would not only bring along their R1a1 allele, but also horses, kurgan burials with horses and travel supplies, hand-made ceramics tempered with shells, and expressly non-mediterranean anthropological remains, technologically and culturally predating Scythians, but carrying unmistaken traces of their kinship. Unfortunately or fortunately, the earliest monuments of the Scythian-circle incursions in the Near East are the traces attributed to the Cimmerians, dated by about 3000 ybp; but according to A.Ivanchik(2001), the Cimmerians and Scythians are archeologically indistinguishable, and we have no paleogenetic information on them. According to A.Klyosov, the Tiber Grave Kurganians should leave behind their predominant R1b alleles, not the R1a1.

Much more reliable data is obtained with extended 67 marker haplotypes from the Arabic FTDNA project. Twenty-seven haplotypes from Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Syria form a separate branch on the haplotype tree and result in the following base haplotype:

13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 23 15 16 18 19 35 38 13 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 14 23 21 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

Therein 499 mutations exist and 499/27/.12 = 154 →182 generations; that is, 4550 ± 500 years from a common ancestor of the Arabic haplotypes — practically the same as that for the East European Plain R1a1 common ancestor (see above). The two differ by only 1.4 mutations in all the 67 markers; that is, 1.4/.12 = 12 generations apart, a ~300 year difference between the Russian Plane R1a1 common ancestor and the Arabic haplotypes common ancestor. The exception being that the Arabic haplotypes are typically coupled with the downstream L342 SNP mutation. The difference places their common ancestor at ~4825 ybp, which is the East European Plain base (ancestral) haplotype. This is the same Aryan haplotype that was brought ~4500 ybp from the East European Plain in a star-like manner to India, Iran, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula to arrive there a thousand years later, in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.

The refugees from the Central Europe that fled to the East Europe from a pogrom inflicted by the R1b Kurgan invaders might have developed their lingua franca right there, in the Eastern Europe, aggregating numerous vernaculars of the refugee crowds and the preceding local tribes. The time around 4500 ybp present was one of most swirly times in Europe, the R1b Kurganians went from the Eastern Europe west to Europe, and the R1a farmers fled to the Eastern Europe. That is, if if if we accept the conjecture that the appearance of the 10,000-years old R1a alleles in the Balkans was a jump from the Anatolia 9000 ybp, and not a result of the well-documented Kangar/Bechenek mass migration to the Balkans in the 700-1000 AD carrying the Middle Asian 10,000-years old R1a alleles to the Balkans. If we accept the Anatolian R1a migration, and then accept the Balkan R1a migration, we would get a Eastern European melting pot with the bulk of the old R1b terrible East European Kurganians and an inflow of the scared and destitute Central European farmers. The farmers, though, did not stay around for too long with the Kurganians, they fled once again in search for safer grounds, carrying their newly formed syncretic culture and the emerging Indo-European language southward in a star-like manner.

The corollary of the suggested whirlwind scenario is that the newly formed language has to bear marks of creolization, a loss of most of the grammatical attributes, and a development of analytic-type language that primarily operates with the roots of the words, like English and Chinese. The creolization would have taken place independently of the location, be it in an intermediate refuge in the Central Europe, or in the later refuge in the  Eastern Europe.

Another corollary of the suggested whirlwind scenario is the effect of the bottleneck, invariably created during any migration. Only a part of the available gene pool is transplanted to the new location.

Recent developments in the phylogeny of R1a1 haplotypes coupled with the DNA genealogy analysis have shown that the migrations of R1a1 from the East European Plain in the described star-like manner were accompanied with the R1a1-L342 (around 4400 ybp) and then its downstream L657 subclade. The L342 subclade is almost absent on the East European Plain, and it appears in the Bashkir population in the east, in Kazakhstan (L342 →L657) south-east, in India (L342 →L657), and in the Middle East (including the Arabian Peninsula, L342 →L657). It shows primary directions of the Aryan (R1a1) migrations after ~4800 ybp.

The Arabian R1a1-L657 haplotypes along with all known Iranian, Indian and Kazakh L657 haplotypes have the following L657 base haplotype:

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 16 10 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 23 15 16 18 19 35 40 14 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 14 8 13 23 21 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

Its common ancestor lived 3000 ± 400 ybp. The above base haplotype differs by 9.85 mutations from the East European Plain base haplotype (some mutations are fractional ones), which places the R1a1-L657 and R1a1 East European Plain common ancestor at 5000 ± 600 years bp.

The area of Bashkiria served as refuge area for very diverse ethnic groups and for as long as we have records on Bashkirs. Nowadays, Bashkirs are a minority in their own country, < 30%, so anything from anywhere can be found there. Besides Bashkirs, in Bashkiria and surrounding areas live Bechens, Abdaly/Ephtalites, Kipchaks, Huns, probably the same Seklers/Szeklers/Izgils/Ishkil/Ichgil/Äsägel/Askel/Askil//Esgil/Esgels/Esegels/Esegs called Esgels in the Tatar-Bashkir area, “Hermihions/Hionites/Red Chions” in Persian, Ch. Asitsze/Pin. Asijie, Sijie 思結/Hermihions, and probably other tribes.

The Kazakhstan's south-east was a territory of Usuns, with remnants of As-Tokhars and Saka, and probably with some Kangars. Nowadays, it is the territory of the Senior Juz, which includes the oldest annalistically known Türkic tribes. That territory was not as heavily colonized as the northwestern Kazakhstan, but it still suffered all genetic consequences of colonization, especially in the last half-century, and again anything from anywhere can be found there in meaningful proportions.

Seklers/Szeklers/Izgils/Esgels/Esegels/Eseg was a dynastic tribe of the Scythians and their late (and leftover) state in Dobruja; they were one of the triumvirate leading tribes of the Bulgars, known as Esegs, with autonomous status; in the 10th c. in Bulgaria was a coup later repeated by Ivan the Terrible, the hereditary possessions were converted to provinces, governors appointed, and only those who accepted demotion were appointed as governors of their provinces without a right to succession; after that the eastern Esegs disintegrated and disappeared as a nation; the western Esegs under a Hungarian name Szekler ([E]sek + lar [Tr. pl.]) continued autonomous existence as an allied nation supplying troops for the suzerain; that's how the dynastic tribe of the Scythians became Hungarian service cossacks. In the Chinese annals the tribe Ezgil/Ezgel (Ch. Asitsze) was described as strongest tribe of the Eastern Hun confederation, it later became a maternal dynastic tribe in the Türkic Kaganate. In Ezgils we see the Ases of Tacit and Strabon, they were a dynastic tribe of the Tokhars, conquerors of Bactria, and Ash-guzai of the Assyrians. The "service class" is a great understatement. If their haplotype was the "Atlantic modal haplotype", then Ases and Seklers are known from Pacific to Atlantic, appearing everywhere as a dynastic tribe; Chingiz-khan was from the Uigur House of Djalairs, which were descendents of the Türkic Kaganate's maternal dynastic tribe of Ezgils. And timewise Ases now extend from 4th millennium BC to today, see Yu.Zuev's work http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevStrongTribeEn.htm. It is very exciting to locate not only the Scythian royals, but the Ases/Tochars, mysterious Picts in conical hats, and way beyond to the "Atlantic modal haplotype", it is like a dream. Picts were building huge corrals out of volcanic tuff, the corrals are still standing.

There is more. The Transylvania and Dobruja Seklers maintained their traditional links until the catastrophe in ca 1920, when they were kicked out from their land into a foreign country. With their traditions, and incest prohibitions, they had a permanent martial partner, which supplied wives for their tribe. In the old days, from before our era into the Middle Age, their permanent martial partner was the Tokhar tribe. The alliance could break from time to time, but because they stayed in Transilvania and Dobrija for 2 millennia, there is a high chance that they had just one martial partner for 2 millennia, and older people still know who that is, because incest laws were strictly observed till the disintegration of the rural society, which happened only very recently.

R1a1-L342 Bashkir and Szekely/Seklers (Hungarian) Haplotypes

As noted in the preceding section, migrations of the ancient Aryans eastward (and in some cases westward, as illustrated below with the Szekely L342 R1a1 haplotypes) have resulted in the appearance of the downstream R1a1 subclades, such as L342, among the Bashkirs. The respective L342 base haplotype is as follows:
6

13 24 16 11 11 15 12 12 12 13 11 31 — 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 31 12 15 15 15 — 11 10 19 23 16 15 19 19 35 38 14 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 10 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 14 23 21 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

Their common ancestor lived only 1300 ± 250 ybp; however, the base haplotype differ by as many as 14 mutations from the East European Plain base haplotype. This places their common ancestor, for the Bashkirs and the East European Plain, at 4700 ± 500 ybp. This is again the Aryan R1a1 common ancestor on the East European Plain.

The anchor points are
1. Indian upper castes now have Y-DNA (72%), now also found predominant in the East Europe, with a common ancestor at 4500 ybp;
2. In Bashkiria now was found a line of that common Y-DNA with common ancestor at 1300 ybp, a hallmark of the past bottleneck;

— Consequently,
1. Some 1300 years ago, at 700 ± 250 AD, or in the period of 450 to 950, some refugee came to Bashkiria and settled there;
2. Or later a group of migrants moved to Bashkiria after experiencing in that period a bottleneck elsewhere;
3. During that period,
3.1 Hunnic Empire disintegrated (ca 450 AD), and dispersed east, possibly leaving a Y-DNA trail in Bashkiria (e.g. Esegs/Seklers);
3.2 Ephtilite Empire disintegrated (ca 550 AD), and dispersed west and north-east (Imenkov Culture)
3.3 Great Bulgaria disintegrated (ca 660 AD), and dispersed west and north-east
3.4 Kangar Union south of the modern Bashkiria disintegrated (ca 550 AD), and dispersed north-west (Bechens/Patsinaks/Pechenegs/Bosnyaks) 
3.5 Oguz Yagbu state expanded to Eastern Europe (ca 760 AD), becoming an active local participant, with later disintegration
3.6 Khazar Kaganate disintegrated (ca 950 AD), and dispersed to the west and north-east
3.7 Start of Kipchak/Kimak advance westward (ca 950 AD), displacing and absorbing local tribes
4. All these Türkic entities and their constituent tribes could have seeded the Bashkir refugees;
5. Numerous clans of Indian upper castes derive their origin from the Saka/Scythians, Hunas and Abdaly/Ephtilites, who could seed both India and Eastern Europe with their Y-DNA without any assistance of the Indo-Aryans.
6. The common ancestor at 4500 ybp could have arose anywhere in the Middle or Central Asia, and spread their seeds in various areas of Eurasia.

There is quite a distant L342 lineage among descendants of Hungarian Szekely servicemen, recorded in the first 1602 military census. The lineage is only 675 ± 260 years "old". However, its base haplotype

14 23 17 11 11 14 12 12 10 14 11 32 — 17 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 31 12 14 15 15 — 11 12 19 23 16 15 20 19 34 38 13 11

contains as many as 15 mutations in the first 37 markers from the respective L342 Bashkir base haplotype. This places their common ancestor to 3500 ± 400 ybp. It apparently reflects migrations of R1a1-L342 bearers from the Ural region westward to Transylvania along with Finno-Ugric migrations of those times.

Knowing the dynastic conservatism of the Türkic tribes, it is more plausible that Esegs/Seklers accompanied the Northern Huns to Dzungaria in 93 BC, and then from Dzungaria to Altai in 126 AD and on to the Aral area that extended their pastures to the Kama river and Bashkiria. By 334 Bulgars (Hunno-Bulgars) are known in the Azov area, by 337 Huns become known to the Classical writers. The female dynastic tribe of the Huns, although not specifically known to the Classical writers, not only accompanied Huns, but also left numerous traces of their estates called Hatun, Hotyn (Queen), and the like in the Eastern Europe. It is known that after the Hunnic retreat from Pannonia, Huns remain in their domains in Transylvania and Dobruja, which later were recorded as Sekler lands. Today, Seklers constitute a largest minority in Europe, 3 mln people. With all the political, religious and nationalistic redrawing of the map, Seklers had to leave noticeable genetic traces in the modern Rumania. The notion of the Sekler migration from the Ural region westward to Transylvania along with Finno-Ugric tribe(s) may be not far from the truth, allowing for migration in few stages, first with the Huns in ca 350s (not documented), and then with Magyars to Levedia (ca 750) and on to Atilkuzu (889) and on to Pannonnia (990) (documented). We still do not know the affiliation of 3 Türkic Kubar tribes, who were led to Pannonia by Shilka's son Arbat (Hung. Arpad) of the Dulo dynastic line, along with 3 Finno-Ugric Magyar tribes.

R1a Haplotypes along the Ancient Migration Path from South Siberia to Europe

Three principal studies have been published recently, that contain hundreds of R1a1 haplotypes from all over the world (Underhill et al., 2009; Zhong et al., 2010; Shou et al., 2010). Analysis of those haplotypes and the chronology of their common ancestors have not been undertaken by the authors of these studies. Figures 5-7 show general views of R1a1 haplotype trees, that were calculated from the data. The purpose for including pictures of these trees was not to analyze their fine structure in detail (Klyosov, 2010a, 2010b), but to demonstrate their complex multi-branch structure, hence, ancient origins. For example, relatively young trees (young "age" of their common ancestor) are often rather symmetrical and relatively uniform, such as the East European Plain R1a1 haplotype tree with a common ancestor 4600 ybp (Figure 8).

Analysis of R1a1 haplotypes and their branches on the trees in Figures 5-7 shows that their ancient common ancestors lived in south Siberia and Altai (belonging to both south Siberia and Central Asia). Their ancient descendants carried the R1a1 haplogroup while migrating from North and North-Western China, across Tibet and Hindustan, and then along the Iranian Plateau, from Asia Minor and finally into Europe. Some remnants of ancient R1a1 were left in Cambodia, Nepal, Oman, Israel, Iraq, Egypt, Crete, the Caucasus, Russia, Estonia (the respective haplotypes are recovered from data published in Underhill et al., 2009, Zhong et al., 2010, Shou et al., 2010). Results of the dynamics of mutation in these haplotypes significantly differ from those in the contemporary European R1a1, except one ancient and distinct lineage of R1a1 in Europe (see below). Their common ancestors as thusly reconstructed, lived from 20,000 ybp in south Siberia/northern China through 12,000 - 11,000 ybp in Hindustan and 6900 ybp in Uigurs in north-western China.

Figure 5. R1a1 10 marker 638-haplotype tree from all over the world, composed based on data published by Underhill et al. (2009)
Figure 6. R1a1 8 marker 365-haplotype tree from all over the world, composed based on data published by Zhong et al. (2010)
Figure 7. R1a1 8 marker 131-haplotype tree collected in North-Western China, composed based on data published by Shou et al. (2010)
The lower right branch consists of R1* haplotypes
Figure 8. R1a1 67 marker 148-haplotype tree collected in Russia and Ukraine (East European Plain), published by Klyosov (2011b)

8

Typically, ancient common ancestors are recognized by the distinct DYS392 = 13, unlike typical DYS392 = 11 in most of European (and elsewhere) R1a1 haplotypes. The study by Underhill et al. (2009) listed four Egyptian R1a1 haplotypes, two of them having DYS393 = 13, and two DYS393 = 11. These four haplotypes have their common ancestor of ~13,275 ybp.

The great TMRCA ~13,275 ybp shows that they came from quite different lineages. In reverse chronological order, Egypt, also called Dawla al-Turkiyya = State of Turkey, absorbed these known waves of Türkic peoples: Ottomans (any of the 25 main Türkic tribes of Anatolia, 1500s-1800s), Mamluks (mostly Kipchaks, 1200s-1400s), Saracenes (Bulgars, Savirs, Kipchaks, Kimaks, 700s-1100, demographically minor).

The very top of the tree (Figure 6) contains 18 base haplotypes, which are identical to each other, and expressed in the 9 marker format as follows:

13 25 16 11 X X X 12 10 13 11 30

In this particular case these identical haplotypes are from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Slovakia, Iran, Nepal, India, and Hungary (Compare the location of the Türkic states in the last 2 millennia:  Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Balkans, Iran, India, Hungary, and China). The short haplotype format does not allow them to be resolved any further, but with the available 9 markers this base haplotype is an exact (albeit partial) reproduction of the base haplotype of the East European Plain. Furthermore, the tree in Figure 8 produces exactly the same 67 marker base haplotype of the East European Plain. The whole tree contains 148 haplotypes with 2748 mutations from the base haplotype. It produces 2748/ 148/67 = .277 ± .005 mutations per marker, and .277/.12 = 155 →183 generations; that is 4575 ± 470 years to a common ancestor of the East European Plain base haplotype.

This general picture for what is called here the East European Plain base haplotype (R1a) parallels the designation “Atlantic base haplotype” (R1b) for Western Europe, tentatively attributed to the Türkic peoples. As it happens, among the Türkic peoples, R1a and R1b are predominating haplotypes.

The whole pattern of ancient migrations of bearers of R1a1 haplotypes shows that after they had arrived to Europe via Asia Minor, as it is described above, between 11,000 and 8000 ybp (see below), they moved to the East European Plain in the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. It coincided time-wise with the arrival of bearers of R1b1a2 haplotypes in Europe. From there R1a1 split into three principal streams. One stream migrated south, over the Caucasus to Anatolia, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. The second stream went eastward to South Ural, the Andronovo (1800–1300 BC, 3800–3300  ybp) and Sintashta (2100–1800 BC, 4100–3800 ybp) archaeological cultures in the 2nd millennium BC, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then split into two migration paths. One went south to India as the legendary Aryans, another went further east to Altai and the Northern China. This closed the loop of the ancient migrations of R1a1. Yet the third stream went south-east to the mountainous terrain of Middle Asia in ~4000 ybp, and some 500 years later moved to Iran, otherwise known as the "Avesta Aryans."

Neither Andronovo nor Sintashta are viewed by third parties as incontrovertible Indo-Iranians or ancestors of the "Avesta Aryans". The popular references to the "Russian scholars" or "Russian school" are misleading, since the post-Soviet Russia has developed, in addition to the official school, fairly independent schools that cautiously or openly laugh at the frills of the official postulastes. If anything, the attribution should be rated controversial or disputable. Among the main points disputing the Indo-Iranian linguistic attribution of the Andronovo and Sintashta are:

1. The ethnology of the nomadic Andronovo and Sintashta is not compatible with the "legendary Aryans" Indo-Iranian agricultural ethnology.
2. NO archaeological evidence exists for any variant of the Andronovo culture either reaching or even influencing the cultures of Iran or northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian Plateau, northern India, or Pakistan (Bryant E., Patton L., eds. "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History", Routledge, 2004, p 155).
3. The nomadic Andronovo and Sintashta burials are Kurgan burials with travel inventory accompanying the deceased. The "legendary Aryans" did not bring Andronovo-type Kurgan burials to the Iranian Plateau, India, or Pakistan.
4. NO zooarchacological evidence exists for the presence of the horse in Iran until the last centuries of the second millennium BC and even then such finds are exceedingly rare. In South Asia the first appearance of the horse is at Pirak. Pakistan, and dated to c. 1700 BC (Jarrige and Santoni 1979) (Bryant E., Patton L., eds. "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History", Routledge, 2004, p 155).
5. By the time of the nomadic Andronovo and Sintashta, the mounted horse riding in Kazakhstan, in the Andronovo area, was around for 2.5 thousand years, but the "legendary Aryans" did not bring mounted horse riding to India and Iran.
6. Dating of the Andronovo culture, with respect to the chronology of its geographical distribution and cultural variation is non-existent. Chronological sequence is “floating”,  and so is the careful explication of the cultural variants of the Andronovo. Researchers focus upon a single attribute, without considering temporal or typological variations. Typological parallels are drawn in the absence of chronological control.  Chronological synchronisms are made on assumed typological parallels (Bryant E., Patton L., eds. "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History", Routledge, 2004, p 156). The circular logic rules.
7. The nomadic "legendary Aryans" did not bring lactase tolerance to either Iran, India, or China, incredible for people living on a diet of milk and meat.
8. Three arguments are advanced on the identity of the Andronovo culture with the Indo-lranians:
(I) they are “in the right place at the right time." This argument remains thoroughly unconvincing;
(2) parallels between the material culture and environment of the Andronovo vs. commentaries in the Rigvcda and Avesta are taken to confirm the Indo-Iranian identity of the Andronovo. The parallels are far too general to offer confidence in these correlations;
(3) later Scythians (Saka), known to be Iranian, occupy the same territory and share generalized similarities in material culture with the Andronovo. Thus, the ancestral Andronovo must be Indo-Iranian (Bryant E., Patton L., eds. "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History", Routledge, 2004, p 156). Since later Scythians (Saka) are nowhere close to Iranians, and are positively known to be Türkic in the eyes of the contemporary Eastern and Western witnesses and outside of recent Eurocentric scholarship, the last argument is self-defeating. Softly stating, all three arguments are thoroughly unconvincing.

However, the credulous attitude of the authors is irrelevant to the authors' findings on the R1a march in time and space.

R1a1 Haplotypes of the Current Descendants of the Legendary Aryans in India

The R1a1 FTDNA Project in November 2011 contained 101 Indian haplotypes. Their base haplotype in the 25 marker format

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

contained only 1.4 mutations on average, compared with the East European Plain base haplotype (see above). This translates into 1.4/.046 = 30 →31 generations, or ~775 years between their common ancestors. In terms of time, this is a close distance between the East European Plain and the Indian base haplotypes, and it fits with the time spans for the East European Plain R1a1 common ancestor (4600 - 4800 ybp) and the Indian common ancestor (~4050 ybp), determined independently. This is the historical Aryan base haplotype.

Probably, for a country of 1,2 billion people, 101 samples is not a representative measurement, if it was for the upper castes only it would not ne a representative sample, and even if it was for the Brahman caste only it would give only a rough idea. The 101 sample with TMRCA ~775 years depicts a bottleneck that occurred around 1200 AD, possibly outside of the modern Indian territory, and may reflect, for example, an exodus of Horezmians after the Chingizkhan's takeover of Horezm and ravaging its cities and fields, exodus resulting from the Chingizkhan's invasion of Punjab, Ulug Khan army invasion, and the like. All these armies were drafted from Central and Middle Asia subordinated to Chingizids.

Figure 9 shows that the Indian R1a1 haplotype tree contains five principal branches. Their base haplotypes in the 25 marker format are as follows (clockwise from the top):

13 24 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 15 9 10 11 11 23 14 20 32 12 15 15 16
13 25 16 11 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 30 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16
13 25 15 10 11 14 12 12 10 14 11 30 — 16 9 10 11 11 25 14 20 32 12 15 15 16
13 25 16 10 12 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 16 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16
13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 10 13 11 31 — 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 20 32 12 15 15 16

Figure 9. R1a1 53-haplotype 25-marker tree collected in the Indian FTDNA Project database (November 2011).
The Project contained 101 of 12 marker haplotypes, but only 53 of them were in the 25 marker format.
8

A superposition of these five base haplotypes gives the above Indian "Indo-European", the Aryan R1a1 base haplotype. All five base haplotypes differ collectively by 12 mutations from their ancestral (see above) base haplotype, which translates 4050 ± 500 years to their ancestral haplotype.

It should be noted that datasets of Indian R1a1 haplotypes are difficult to analyze, because they typically represent a superposition of haplotypes from various sources, including those from the ancient (pre-Indo-Aryan) ancestors, from the East European Plain, Central Asia, the Middle East, etc. Since they all are present in various amounts and proportions, only analysis of their haplotype trees can give meaningful results.

Other Scattered Ancient R1a1 Haplotypes in Asia

A "patchy" pattern of R1a1 was created by the territorially blending of ancestors from the very ancient R1a1 (from more than 10,000 - 15,000 ybp) to the rather recent, the Aryan migrations. The tree in Figure 5 presents some haplotypes from Nepal, which differ by 5 mutations from the East European Plain base haplotype, pointing at a common ancestor of 7200 ybp. Some Indian haplotypes show 7-mutation difference from the East European Plain haplotype with a common ancestor of 10,200 ybp. A Cambodian haplotype makes 9 mutations, which places a common ancestor of the East European Plain base haplotype and the Cambodian haplotype at 14,000 ybp. Some haplotypes from Pakistan, Iran, Oman and Arab Emirates show 5 - 6 mutations, pointing to a common ancestor of 7000 - 9000 ybp. A group of ethnic minorities from north-western China (Tu (aka Tu Fang  "Tu aliens" of the Zhou stock, the Scythians of the 17th c. BC), Xibe (possibly, from "scattered", probably Türkic fragments joined with Tunguses at the turn of the eras, politically a sedentary part of Kerulen Tatars, now indistinguishable from Tunguses), Tatars (Tatars were an assembly of 3 autonomous groups of different origin that included Hunnic, Uigur, and other Türkic refugees from different time periods), Uigurs, Yugurs, Salars, Bonan and others) typically have their collective R1a1 common ancestor of 6900 ybp (Klyosov, 2010b). All of them reportedly have the following base haplotype, obtained from the tree in Figure 7:

13 25 16 11 X X X 12 X 14 12 31

The value of DYS392 = 12 is suspect, because it is an unusual one for R1a1, including those from Central Asia. However, almost all Asian haplotypes in (Shou et al., 2010) are reported as having this "12" allele. The difference in 2.85 mutations with the base East European Plain or with the IE Indian base haplotype (if DYS392 = 12 is correct) or 1.85 mutation (if DYS392 = 11 is correct) places a common ancestor of the north-western Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes and the Russian/Indian haplotypes to either 9350 ybp or 7925 ybp respectively. In any case, they are significantly more ancient compared with the majority of the European haplotypes.

A Presumably Ancient (10,000 - 7700 ybp) R1a1 Population in Europe

There is a distinct group of R1a1 bearers in Europe who have DYS392=13, while the overwhelming majority of R1a1 haplotypes in Europe and elsewhere has DYS392 = 11. The base haplotype of this group, coined "The Old European branch" (Rozhanskii and Klyosov, 2009) is as follows:

13 25 15 11 13 14 12 12 10 14 13 31 — 16 9 10 10 11 25 14 19 31 12 15 15 15 — 10 11 19 23 16 16 17 17 36 38 11 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 12 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 13 23 22 12 12 11 13 11 11 12 12

This haplotype differs from the East European Plain R1a1 haplotype by 6 mutations in the first 12 markers, 12 mutations in the first 37 markers, 20 mutations in the first 37 markers, and 24 mutations in all the 67 markers, which places a common ancestor of their haplotypes at 6,800 ybp. Besides, compared to the so-called North-western base (Atlantic modal haplotype?) haplotype (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2009)

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 10 10 13 11 30 — 15 9 10 11 11 24 14 19 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 24 16 15 18 18 33 38 13 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 12 10 8 11 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 14 8 14 23 22 12 13 11 13 11 11 12 13

the difference is 9, 14, 24 and 29 mutations, respectively. Their common ancestor lived ~7400 ybp.

Lastly, there is an additional comparison worthy of consideration, and it regards the Central European branch (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2009) as follows:

13 25 16 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 11 29 — 16 9 10 11 11 23 14 20 32 12 15 15 16 — 11 11 19 23 17 16 18 19 34 38 14 11 — 11 8 17 17 8 11 10 8 12 10 12 21 22 15 10 12 12 13 8 14 25 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 13

Herein the difference is 9, 15, 25 and 34 mutations, respectively. Their common ancestor lived ~7700 ybp.

A series of 67 haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 from the Balkans was published (Barac et al., 2003a,b; Pericic et al.., 2005). In print, haplogroups were in 9-marker format, and the respective haplotype tree is shown in Figure 10. Most of the tree contains typical European haplotypes with a common ancestor of ~4500 ybp. However, the left branch is distinctive since it contains R1a1 haplotypes with DYS392 = 13, such as

12 24 16 10 12 15 X X X 13 13 29
12 24 15 11 12 15 X X X 13 13 29
13 24 14 11 11 11 X X X 13 13 29

This branch was calculated using both linear and the quadratic permutation methods. It obtained .598 ± .071 mutations on average per marker, which resulted in 11,425 ± 1780 and 11,650 ± 1550 years to a common ancestor, respectively (Klyosov, 2009a).

Calculations with short haplotypes are subject to high margins of error compared with extended 67 marker haplotypes. The authors of this study consider the timespans to a common ancestor of R1a1 haplotypes in Europe of 7400 - 7700 ybp to be more reliable in comparison to the 11,000 - 12,000 ybp. Haplotype databases continue to expand, and future studies will reveal the lower limit of "age" of haplogroup R1a in Europe. Thus, dismissing the data of Figure 10 would be premature.

Figure 10. The 9-marker 67-haplotype tree for the Balkans, haplogroup R1a1.
The tree was composed from data (Barac et al., 2003a, 2003b; Pericic et al., 2005)
9

Materials and Methods (ommitted)

Conclusion

The results of this study lend a support to the theory that haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia, apparently in South Siberia or the neighboring regions, such as Northern and/or Northwestern China, around 20,000 years before present. The preceding history of the haplogroup is directly related to the appearance of Europeoids (Caucasoids) ~58,000 ybp, likely in the vast triangle that stretched from Western Europe through the East European Plain to the east and to Levant to the south, as it was suggested in the preceding article (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2011). A subsequent sequence of SNP mutations in Y chromosome, with the appearance of haplogroups NOP ~48,000 ybp and P ~ 38,000 ybp in the course of their migration eastward to South Siberia eventually gave rise to haplogroup R ~30,000 ybp and R1 ~26,000 ybp, and then to haplogroup R1a and R1a1 ~20,000 ybp. The timeframe between the appearance of R1a and R1a1 is uncertain.

At some point in time, the bearers of R1a1 began migration to the west, over Tibet and the Himalayas, and not later than 12,000 ybp they were in the Hindustan. They continued their way across the Iranian Plateau, along Anatolia and Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp. By 9000 - 8000 they arrived in the Balkans and spread westward over Europe and to the British Isles. At that point, R1a1 still had DYS392 = 13 in their haplotypes, as did their brother haplogroup R1b1. This marker is very slow, and mutates on average once in 3500 conditional generations. Somewhere on this extended timescale, bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) developed Proto-IE language and carried it along during their journey from Central Asia to Europe. The earliest signs of the language in Anatolia were detected by linguists, and dated by 9400 - 9600 - 10,100 ybp, which coincides with the data of DNA genealogy that is described in this paper.

The arrival of R1a1 in Europe might be marked by known archaeological cultures in the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe, dated back to 9000 - 7000 ybp. Yet they also can be attributed to other ancient haplogroups, such as I, J, E, G.

As the bearers of haplogroup R1b1a2 began to populate Europe after 4,800 ybp (the Bell Beakers and other R1b1 migratory waves to Europe, including perhaps the Kurgan people, though their identification and haplogroup assignment remains unclear), haplogroup R1a1 had moved to the East European Plain around 4800 - 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south, east, and south-east as the historic Aryans. Dates for these movements are strikingly similar, and they span 4200 and 3600 ybp. As a result, in Anatolia and Mitanni, South Ural, Iran, India, and beyond the Ural Mountains, in South Siberia, in all those areas today’s linguists find the same languages: the Aryan, or the Indo-European language, or the Iranian family of languages. They all have the same Aryan roots. They founded common horse breeding terminology and shared essentially the same vocabulary for household items, gods and religious terms, although sometimes twisted due to "human factor" as found in India and Iran.

Currently, most of those with European R1a1 live in Eastern Europe, primarily in Russia (up to 62% of the population) and Poland, Ukraine, Belarus (up to 55% of the population in the last three countries). In depth reports on their haplotype branches and distinct SNP (characteristic mutations in the DNA) will be explored in forthcoming publications.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Laurie Sutherland for her valuable help with the preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Abu-Amero, K. K., Hellani, A., Gonzalez, A. M., Larruga, J. M., Cabrera, V. M., & Underhill, P. A. (2009). Saudi Arabian Y-chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions. BMC Genetics, 10, 1959. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-59
Adamov, D., & Klyosov, A. A. (2008). Theoretical and practical evaluations of back mutations in haplotypes of Y chromosome. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 1, 631-645.
Anthony, D. W. (2007). The horse, the wheel, and language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barac, L., Pericic, M., Klaric, I. M., Janicijevic, B., Parik, J., Rootsi, S. & Rudan, P. (2003a). Y chromosome STRs in Croatians. Forensic Science International, 138, 127-133. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.09.004
Barac, L., Pericic, M., Klaric, I. M., Rootsi, S., Janicijevic, B., Kivisild, T., Parik, J., Rudan, I., Villems, R., & Rudan, P. (2003b). Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 535-542. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200992
11
Bittles, A. H., Black, M. L., & Wang, W. (2007). Physical anthropology and ethnicity in Asia: the transition from anthropology to genome-based studies. Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26, 77-82. doi:10.2114/jpa2.26.77
Burgarella, C. & Navascues, M. (2011). Mutationrate estimates for 110 Y-chromosome STRs combining population and father-son pairdata. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 70-75. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.154
Cadenas, A. M., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Underhill, P. A., & Herrera, R. J. (2008). Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16, 374- 386. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934
Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The rise and fall of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fornarino, S., Pala, M., Battaglia, V., Maranta, R., Achilli, A., Modiano, G., Torroni, A., et al. (2009). Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome diversity of the Tharus (Nepal): A reservoir of genetic variation. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 9, 154-170. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-154
Gamkrelidze, T.V., & Ivanov, V.V. (1995). Trends in linguistics 80: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gimbutas, M. (1973) The beginning of the bronze age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans 3500-2500 B.C. Journal of Indo-Europeans Studies, 1, 163-214.
Gimbutas, M. (1994) The civilization of the goddess. In: J. Marler (Ed.), The End of Old Europe: the Intrusion of Steppe Pastoralists from N. Pontic and the Transformation of Europe. San-Francisco: Harper.
Gray, R. D., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2003) Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426, 435-439. doi:10.1038/nature02029
Järve, M., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Rootsi, S., Help, H., Rogaev, E. I., Khusnutdinova, E. K. et al.(2009) Decreased rate of evolution in Y chromosome STR loci of increased size of the repeat unit. PLOS One, 4, e7276. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007276
Kang, L., Lu, Y., Wang, C., Hu, K., Chen, F., Liu, K. et al. (2011). Y-chromosome O3 haplogroup diversity in Sino-Tibetan populations reveals two migration routes into the Eastern Himalayas. Annals of Human Genetics, 76, 92-99.
Kivisild, T., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Mastana, S., Kaldma, K., Parik, J., Metspalu, E. et al. (2003). The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 72, 313-332. doi:10.1086/346068
Klyosov, A. A. (2008). Where Slavs and Indo-Europeans came from? Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 1, 400-477.
Klyosov, A. A. (2009a). DNA Genealogy, mutation rates, and some historical evidences written in Y-chromosome. I. Basic principles and the method. Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 5, 186-216.
Klyosov, A. A. (2009b). DNA Genealogy, mutation rates, and some historical evidences written in Y-chromosome. II. Walking the map. Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 5, 217-256.
Klyosov, A. A. (2009c). A comment on the paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood. Human Genetics, 126, 719-724. doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0739-1
Klyosov, A. A. (2010a). Haplogroup R1a1 and its subclades in Asia. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 3, 1866- 1896 (in Russian).
Klyosov, A. A. (2010b). Ancient (non-Indo European haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 in North-Western China. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 3, 925-941 (in Russian).
Klyosov, A. A. (2011a). Haplotypes of R1b1a2-P312 and related sub-clades: Origin and "ages" of most recent common ancestors. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 4, 1127-1195.
Klyosov, A. A. (2011b). Biological chemistry as a foundation of DNA genealogy: The emergence of "Molecular history". Biokhimiya, 76, 517-533. doi:10.1134/S0006297911050026
Klyosov, A. A., & Rozhanskii, I. L. (2011). Re-examining the "out of Africa" theory and the origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in light of DNA genealogy. Advances in Anthropology, 1, 1 (in press).
Mallory, J. P. (1989). In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology and myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Msaidie, S., Ducourneau, A., Boetsch, G., Longepied, G., Papa, K., Allibert, C. et al. (2011). Genetic diversity on the Comoros Islands shows early seafaring as major determinant of human biocultural evolution in the Western Indian Ocean. EEuropean Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 89-94. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.128
Myres, N. M., Rootsi, S., Lin, A. A., Jarve, M., King, R. J., Kutuev, I. et al. (2010). A Major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 95-101.
Pericic, M., Lauc, L. B., Klaric, A. M. et al. (2005). High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern Europe traces major episodes of paternal gene flow among Slavic populations. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22, 1964-1975. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi185
Renfrew, C. (2000). Time depth in historical linguistics. In: C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, & L. Trask (Eds.) (pp. 413-439). Cambridge: The Mc-Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Rozhanskii, I. L., & Klyosov, A. A. (2009). Haplogroup R1a: Haplotypes, genealogical lineages, history, geography. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, 2, 974-1099 (in Russian).
Rozhanskii, I. L., & Klyosov, A. A. (2011). Mutation rate constants in DNA genealogy (Y chromosome). Advances in Anthropology, 1, 26- 34. doi:10.4236/aa.2011.12005
Sahoo, S., Singh, A., Himabindu, G., Banerjee, J., Sitalaximi, T., Gaikwad, S., Trivedi, R., Endicott, P., Kivisild, T., Metspalu, M., Villems, R., & Kashyep, V. K. (2006). A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. PNAS, 103, 843- 848. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507714103
Sengupta, S., Zhivotovsky, L. A., King, R., Mehdi, S. Q., Edmonds, C. A., Chow, C. E. T., Lin, A. A., et al. (2006). Polarity and temporality of high-resolution Y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. Human Genetics, 78, 202-221. doi:10.1086/499411
Sharma, S., Rai, E., Sharma, P., Jena, M., Singh, S., Darvishi, K., Bhat, A. K., Bhanwer, A. J. S., Tiwari, P. K., & Bamezai, R. N. K. (2009). The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system. Human Genetics, 54, 47-55. doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2
Shou, W. H., Qiao, E. F., Wei, C. Y., Dong, Y. L., Tan, S. J., Shi, H. et al. (2010). Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian pastoralis and lesser influence of western Eurasians. Human Genetics, 23, (Advance Online Publication).
Thanseem, I., Thangaraj, K., Chaubey, G., Singh, V. K., Bhaskar, L. V., Reddy, M. B., Reddy, A. G., & Singh, L. (2006). Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: Inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. BMC Genetics, 7, 42-53. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-7-42
Underhill, P. A., Myres, N. M., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Zhivotovsky, M. A., King, R. J. et al. (2010). Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 479-484.
Zhong, H., Shi, H., Qi, X.-B., Duan, Z.-Y., Tan, P.-P., Jin, L. et al. (2010). Extended Y-chromosome investigation suggests post-Glacial migrations of modern humans into East Asia via the northern route. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 28, 717-727.
12

APPENDIX

The following DNA projects were selected as primary haplotype databases:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/sharifs/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arab%20Tribes/default.aspx?vgroup=Arab+Tribes&section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1aY-Haplogroup/default.aspx?vgroup=R1aY-Haplogroup&section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Hungarian_Magyar_Y-DNA_Project/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/India/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Turkic/default.aspx?section=yresults

Reference data were selected according to SNP assignment from YSearch database:

(http://www.ysearch.org)
and public projects of FTDNA
(http://www.familytreedna.com)
13

 
Home
Back
In Russian (later)
Contents Genetics
Contents Pazyryk Genetics
Contents Amerind Genetics
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Aryans, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Anti-Iranian Arguments
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
English-Türkic Lexicon
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline

3/5/2013
Рейтинг@Mail.ru “” θδğŋγşāáäēə ï öōüūû“” Türkic Türkic