Nonetheless, Klyosov's professional credentials and substantial "dna genealogy" paper production, may lead some to give his work, characterized by very narrow confidence intervals and rather imaginative archaeological reconstructions, undue attention.
Klyosov resurfaced on GENEALOGY-DNA-L, taking a swipe at my criticism of his narrow confidence intervals:
Instead of walking in circles considering "bushy trees" all these years and complaining on "huge confidence intervals", one better take ACTUAL genealogy data, ACTUAL haplotype datasets, and compare actual dates with those resulted from DNA genealogy. This will show what ACTUAL margins of error looks like. With "bushy trees", they should be first subdivided on separate branches, and each branch should be analyzed individually.
Thankfully, the arrival of ancient DNA analysis can be used to falsify Klyosov's assertions. In December 2010 he discussed the possibility that some E1b1b1 subclades may have played a role in wiping out the "Bell Beakers":
However, E-V13 is already out, since it was formed around 2600 ybp (Lutak and Klyosov, Proceedings, 2009, April, pp. 639-669). E-V65 is out on the same reason (2625 ybp). E-V22 is a good candidate, with its common ancestor around 5075 ybp (ibid). E1b1b1a1-V12 also could be there, with its common ancestor of 4300+/-680 ybp. E3b1, as Adams et al (2008) called them (it is apparently E-81), has a common ancestor in Iberia around 4825 ybp (Klyosov, Proceedings, 2009, March, pp. 390-421), which nicely fit to the concept.The recent publication of 7,000-year-old E-V13 from Neolithic Spain, indicates that this haplogroup was in existence at least that long ago, and hence could not have been formed 2,600 years before present. Klyosov's error is at least 2.5x, consistent with my assertions that Y-STR based age estimates carry huge confidence intervals, and inconsistent with his self-assurance that they do not.
I see nothing wrong in advancing speculative hypotheses based on the available evidence. I've advanced some of my own ideas for the spread of E-V13 that appear to be less plausible in the light of the ancient DNA evidence, even though a historical, Greek-mediated spread of a subset of E-V13 as proposed by Di Gaetano et al. and King et al. is still possible.
What is certainly wrong is to have over-confidence in one's assertions and not to admit the limitations of Y-STR based age estimates when they are staring us in the face on both theoretical and empirical grounds.