http://www.academia.edu/2440050/The_Origin_of_Kurds
Jak pisałem we wcześniejszych wpisach, przyjrzę się teraz „wiarygodności” osoby Anatole Klyosov’a, jak i niektórych twierdzeń, których jest on autorem (wraz z innymi, jak Rozhanskii, Tomezzoli, itp.).
Pewno nie wszyscy o tym wiedzą lub pamiętają (może Adam Smoliński i Dragomira coś sobie przypominają), ale od dłuższego już czasu ostrzegałem osoby powołujące się na wyniki prac i odkryć tego rosyjskiego naukowca i patrioty…
Pragnę przybliżyć teraz o co mi chodziło i nadal chodzi, kiedy mówię, że ten „super ruski troll” nie jest on specjalnie wiarygodnym źródłem danych… i powoływanie się na niego, jak to robią wyznawcy „południowej drogi R1a”,.. to siara… 🙂
Najpierw trochę ogólnie dostępnych danych na jego temat, a potem kilka przykładów jego tez, zacytowanych z jego trzech prac i jednego filmu…
Czy to nie jest rechot Aku, że „łowcy ruskich trolli” powołują się na prace i twierdzenia „super ruskiego trolla”, którego ja wg nich także „ruski troll” i agent złych mocy demaskuję?!! 🙂
Oto dowody, że ten ałtorytet genetyczny (i językoznawczy), w którego twierdzenia wierzą i „rudaweb.pl” i „Białczyński”. „Orlicki” pomijam, bo on nigdy nie powołał się nawet na żadne nazwiska, czy badania naukowe, pomijając ten jego ruski film…
http://www.anatole-klyosov.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Klyosov
Anatole A. Klyosov (born 20 November 1946 in Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad Oblast of Russian SFSR)[1] is a scientist who worked in the fields of physical chemistry, enzyme catalysis, and industrial biochemistry. In 1989 Klyosov immigrated to the US. He spent most of his career developing ways to use enzymes to convert agricultural waste products into useful products —first to convert cotton waste products in glucose in the USSR, and later in the US, turning waste from the paper-making industry into useful products. He later helped found a company, and later joined it as CSO, that was founded to use enzymes to alter existing anticancer drugs via glycosylation. In 2008 he began publishing work about what he calls „DNA genealogy” that has been dismissed as pseudoscience.
(…)
From 2008[17] Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls „DNA genealogy” and „new science”, aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, archaeology and linguistics and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics.[18][19] Klyosov described his „DNA genealogy” as a „patriotic science” and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field.[20] In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory[21] with „outlandish claims” that the human species originated in Northern Russia.[18][20] According to scientists from various fields, „DNA genealogy” is pseudoscience,[22] and they have characterized it as „DNA demagoguery”.[18][23]
Klyosov is the founder and president of the Academy of DNA Genealogy[18] and self-publishes its proceedings via Lulu.[6]
In 2013 Klyosov became editor-in-chief of the journal Advances in Anthropology, published by Scientific Research Publishing,[18][21][24] after a mass resignation of editors from the journal.[25]
…..
Tutaj upowszechniam trochę wiadomości o SCIRP, gdzie Klyosov upowszechnia swoje „odkrycia”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies.[1] As of December 2014, it offers 244[2] English language open access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicine.
The company has been accused of being a predatory open access publisher[3] and of using email spam to solicit papers for submission.[1] In 2014 there was a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company’s journals, with the outgoing Editor-in-Chief saying of the publisher „For them it was only about making money. We were simply their ‚front’.”[4]
(…)
Controversies
SCIRP generated controversy in 2010 when it was found that its journals duplicated papers which had already been published elsewhere, without notification of or permission from the original author and of the copyright holder.[7] Several of these publications have subsequently been retracted.[8] Some of the journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own.[6] In 2012, one of its journals, Advances in Pure Mathematics, accepted a paper written by a random text generator. The paper was not published, but only due to its author’s unwillingness to pay the publication fee.[9] The company has also been noted for the many unsolicited bulk emails it sends to academics about its journals.[1][6] In 2013, the Open Journal of Pediatrics, a SCIRP journal, published a study which concluded that the number of babies born with thyroid problems in the western United States increased by 16 percent in 2011 compared to 2010, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The study has been criticized for not taking into account the fact that 2010 was a year with an unusually low number of births with thyroid problems. SCIRP refused to print a letter criticizing the study, but offered to publish it as an article for a charge.[10]
The company has been included in a list of questionable open access publishers,[11][12] according to Jeffrey Beall‚s criteria.[13] Beall states that „This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status.” He acknowledges that its fees are relatively low, describing this as „a strategy that increases article submissions,” and that „it has attracted some quality article submissions. Nevertheless, it is really a vanity press.”[1]
Further controversy was generated by a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company’s journals, Advances in Anthropology, in 2014. According to the former editor-in-chief, Fatimah Jackson, it was motivated by failures to include the editorial board in the journal’s review process, and by „consistent and flagrant unethical breaches by the editorial staff in China”, for whom publishing the journal „was only about making money.” According to Beall, this was the first mass resignation from an open-access journal.[14] (…)
…..
No dobra, tyle wstępu a teraz co zarzucają mu jego krytycy,.. w tym i ja 🙂
…..
1.
Kliknij, aby uzyskać dostęp AA20120200004_71596882.pdf
Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23928
Out of Africa Theory Officially Debunked?
Клёсов А.А. Лекция 15: Не выходили наши предки из Африки
UWAGA!!! Nie twierdzę, że Klyosov kłamie w tej pracy, czy manipuluje danymi. Zwracam uwagę na to, że inni mu to zarzucają. Wyjaśniam, że nie drążę tematu Słowian z Marsa, czy z skądkolwiek z kosmosu, patrz to co np. twierdzą Ingliści… Jeśli to prawda, niech tak będzie, bo nie jestem zupełne przywiązany do Afryki, czy innej „Ziemi świętej”…
…..
2.
Ten film szczególnie polecam uwadze „łowcom ruskich trolli”, bo to oni ciągle powołują się na Klyosova…
Анатолий Клёсов: Русские самый древний род на Земле
Anatolij Klyosov: Rosjanie to najstarsza rasa na świecie
Published on Aug 9, 2015
2:39 (Nieczytelne) ileś tam lat temu z Ruskiej Równiny takim klinem do zachodniej Europy wyszli ludzie z haplogrupą R1a (jakąś). Wszyscy R1a w Europie to potomkowie tych R1a z Ruskiej Równiny…
4:16 R1a wyszli z Azji Środkowej. R1a wyszli z Załtaju i szli kilometr na rok, czyli odległość 10,000 kilometrów, to 10,000 lat podróży
5:00 Klyosov mówi o „południowej drodze R1a”, kiedy to ludzie z haplogrupą R1a (jakąś tam) 8,000 lat temu dotarli tamtędy na Bałkany, co potwierdza archeologia… No może to było 10,000 lat temu. Stamtąd poszli w Europę i wtedy tzw. języki indo-europejskie zaczęły się rozszczepiać około 6,000 lat temu, sądząc po danych językoznawstwa…
5:54 Z Europy (skąd?) jakieś 5,000 lat temu potomkowie tej ludności dotarli na Rosyjską Równinę … (Widać Klysov nic nie wiedział wtedy o Karelczyku!!! 🙂 ), skąd jedni (kiedy?) przez Skałakaz przeszli na południe i dotarli nawet do Indyjskiego Oceanu i Arabii. Inni poszli (jak i kiedy?) na wschód do Iranu,.. i ci zwani są przez historyków „Awestyjskimi Ariami”, a jeszcze inni poszli (jak i kiedy?) na południowy Gural i to oni zbudowali Arkaim i później stamtąd poszli do północnych Indii. Język rosyjski to język przodków braminów.
8:28 Istnieje jeszcze jedna grupa R1a, która poszła jeszcze dalej na wschód… z powrotem do Załtaju i z nich powstali Scytowie, którzy mają ta samą haplogrupę, co Słowianie.
16:50 Scytowie byli zmieszani z ludami mongoloidalnymi, bo brali sobie za żony mongoloidalne żony. Oni z Azji potem przyszli do Europy!!! (Proszę o tym pamiętać, bo będę do tego wracał w innych wpisach!!!)
…..
3.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/aa.2012.21001
Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants
Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
(…)
Northern China R1a Haplotypes
Apparently, the most ancient source of R1a1 haplotypes is provided by the people now living in northern China. It was shown (Bittles et al., 2007) that for a number of Chinese populations, such as Hui, Bonan, Dongxiang, Salars, 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.
(…)
R1a Haplotypes in India and Pakistan
(…)
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” (see their description and discussion in Klyosov, 2009a, 2009c, and references therein), 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).(…)
UWAGA!!! Klyosov powyżej podważa „szacowanie” wieku różnych próbek pobranych od osób żyjących obecnie, czyli… ISTNIEJE MOŻLIWOŚĆ BŁĘDNEGO OKREŚLENIA WIEKU MUTACJI, TAKŻE W PRZYPADKU DATOWAŃ UNDERHILL 2014!!! 🙂
…..
4.
Kliknij, aby uzyskać dostęp AA_2013051612554944.pdf
DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe
Anatole A. Klyosov, Giancarlo T. Tomezzoli
This article attempts to merge the data of contemporary linguistics and DNA genealogy in order to describe
the migrations and settlement of peoples and languages in Europe after the last Ice Age. In the new
paradigm, three important groups of players have been identified: —R1a haplogroup bearers, conditionally
identified as Aryans. They arose around 20,000 years before the present (ybp) in central Asia and the
Altai Mountains; after their migration along the southern route, they arrived in Europe between 10,000 –
9000 ybp, bringing proto-Indo European (PIE) and Indo European (IE) languages. In 4800 ybp they migrated
eastward from Europe to the Russian Plane and then to India. About 3000 – 2500 ybp they migrated
with their IE languages from the Russian Plain back to central, western, and southern Europe, laying
the genetic groundwork for peoples later called Celts, Germans, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians, and Balto-Slavs.
—E, F, G, J, I, K haplogroup bearers. The dates of their arrival in Europe (sometime before 5000 ybp)
and their migration routes remain obscure. They apparently spoke non-IE languages. —R1b haplogroup
bearers, called the Arbins. They arose about 16,000 ybp in central Asia, and migrated to Europe along a
northern route. They arrived in Europe between 4800 and 4500 ybp bringing with them several non-IE
languages. It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications
that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was
marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe.
Our analysis of current linguistic theories in the light of DNA genealogy data demonstrates that: —the
Anatolian theory is generally compatible with DNA genealogy data; —the Vasconic and Afro-asiatic
substratum theory is partially in agreement with DNA genealogy data; —the Kurgan theory and the Palaeolithic
Continuity Theory (PCT) appear incompatible with the history of Europe based on haplogroup
data. —the “Out of Africa” theory has questionable validity.
(…)
Haplogroup R1a apparently arose about 20,000 ybp (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b) in central Asia and possibly in the southern Siberia region of the Altai Mountains. Its ancient subclade M17 is observed in north China (Klyosov, 2009). R1a bearers migrated from central Asia across Tibet, Hindustan, the Iranian Plateau, and Anatolia between 12,000 and 10,000 ybp. Their downstream subclade, M417, crossed Asia Minor and entered the Balkans between 10,000 and 8000 ybp. It is apparently their arrival in the Balkans which strontium isotope measurements dated at 8200 ybp (Boric & Price, 2013). The M417 subclade spread all over Europe sometime between 9000 and 5000 ybp. Around 5700 ybp, the recently discovered Z645 branch of haplogroup R1a developed. In 4900 ybp (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2012), we find a Eurasian branch, Z283, and its South-Eastern branch Z93, along with the downstream branch Z342.2/Z94 and the central Eurasian branch Z280. The central Eurasian branch R1a-Z280 embraces about half of all contemporary east European males, and the Aryan branch R1a-Z94 is currently observed in Russians, Ukrainians, and in southern Asian populations in like the Kyrgyz, the Kazakh, and the Tajik peoples. This branch also exists in Iran, India, in the Middle East, and along the ancient migration route from the Russian Plain to the Middle East, particularly in Armenia and Turkey. The R1a haplotypes which were excavated in the Andronovo archaeological sites east of the Ural Mountains, and which have been dated at between 3800 and 3400 ybp (Keyser et al., 2009), probably belong to the Z94-L657 subclade (Klyosov, 2013).
(…)
We have said above that haplogroup R1a migrated across Anatolia to the Balkans between 10,000 and 8000 ybp; the
group spread throughout Europe, moved east to the Russian Plain, and then went to India. The first date is supported by the fact that we find PIE in Anatolia between 10,000 and 9000 ybp (Gray & Atkinson, 2003; Bouckaert et al., 2012). PIE could have been formed and evolved during the long migration from the Altai Mountains to Anatolia. Then, the language migrated with the same R1a haplogroup to the Balkans and across Europe, where around 6000 ybp it split into branches; members of haplogroup R1a arrived around 4800 – 4600 ybp on the Russian Plain as speakers of Indo-European language(s). DNA genealogy has confirmed that haplogroup R1a arrived in India as the legendary Aryans around 3500 ybp; even today nearly 72% of some Indian upper castes are R1a bearers (Sharma et al., 2009).
(…)
The suggestion of the Anatolian hypothesis that Tocharian languages were not part of the Balkan linguistic advergence area is conditionally supported by DNA genealogy. According to Gray and Atkinson (2003), the Tocharian languages were an archaic branch, which arose around 7900 ybp, and were spoken by R1a populations in the Tarim basin.
Based on the dating of the Tocharian language and the relatively high linguistic distance of Tocharian A and B from the other IE languages (Tomezzoli & Kreutz, 2011), it is unlikely that the protoTocharians migrated westward to Europe and the Russian Plain with the proto-Aryans (R1a), and then moved back to the Tarim Basin. It is more likely that the proto-Tocharians migrated from the Altai region of north China to the nearby Tarim basin and remained there (never going to Europe), forming the autochthonous R1a peoples of Central Asia.
The Anatolian hypothesis groups these Tocharians rather superficially with Europeans (Li et al., 2010), without any DNA justification—their haplotypes were not even reported for a comparison with European R1a haplotypes. It is not enough to consider Tocharians as Europeans on the basis of their somatic features and their clothing which, in 4000 ybp, looked like Scottish plaid. In fact, plaiding techniques could equally well have been brought to Europe by R1a tribes from the Altai and Central Asia. Still, there is some room for the Tocharian languages to be considered as derivatives of the archaic European R1a languages of the IE family. Tocharian is possibly an ancient Centum branch. In that case, we have to admit that Gray and Atkinson’s (2003) estimate of their appearance (7900 ybp) should be reduced at least to around 6000 ybp. There should also be a recognition of an earlier migration (between 6000 – 5500 ybp) of R1a bearers from Europe to the Altai region, and their possible contributions to the Afanasyevo archaeological culture and perhaps to the Centum Tocharian languages in the area, including the Tarim basin.
This concept is verifiable; if Afanasyevo bones not too far away from the Tarim basin are dated at least 5000 ybp and are shown to belong to the R1a-Z93 subclade, the case for a migration of R1a from Europe to the Tarim basin will be well supported.
DNA genealogy data disallows Anatolia as the homeland of PIE and IE languages.
DNA records show that these languages had no specific homelands—R1a bearers migrated over thousands of miles during the course of thousands of years. No archaeological site can be possibly identified as a location in which IE split into branches—the branching of IE was a continuous process of divergence and convergence over millennia. According to DNA genealogy data (see Figure 1), the predecessors of those who spoke PIE languages might have migrated 50,000 ybp or earlier from the unknown birthplace of the β-haplogroup. The birthplace might have been in Europe, the Russian Plain, or south Siberia (where they arrived between 40,000 – 35,000 ybp). Much later, sometime after 20,000 ybp, they migrated westward along with the R1a haplogroup via Anatolia, to the Balkans, to the Russian Plain and Pontic steppes, to the Middle East, Middle Asia, the Iranian plateau, the Ural mountains, Hindustan, South Siberia (again), North China, and Mongolia. All of these locations are migrational passing points and not homelands for the predecessors of the IE languages.(…)
…..
No i co?!! Ktoś już rozumie? Jeśli nie, zadawajcie pytania i czekajcie na wpis o Afanasiewo, jako wschodnia Yamnaya… hehehe…
A no i na sam koniec…
Skoro ludzie z haplogripą R1a MOGLI „PROSTĄ PÓŁNOCNĄ DROGĄ” IŚĆ Z ZACHODU NA WSCHÓD, patrz mapka… NO TO DLACZEGO WCZEŚNIEJ NIE MOGLI TAKĄ SAMĄ DROGĄ IŚĆ ZE WSCHODU NA ZACHÓD, hm?!!
SKRBH 
Białczyński powołał się kiedyś także na osobę (niby genetyka?) o nazwisku Lawrence Mayka, który rzekomo potwierdza „południową drogę R1a”. Niestety nie udało mi się znaleźć żadnej jego pracy, nie mówiąc już nawet o dowodach, które przedstawił, jako poparcie tej tezy.
Jedyne co udało mi się ustalić to to, że jest prowadzącym ten projekt:
http://www.gwozdz.org/polishclades.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Lawrence-Mayka/1590333965
Wygląda mi na to, że Lawrence Mayka… jest z wykształcenia elektrykiem…!!! LOL 🙂 🙂 🙂
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrence-mayka-25b5155
http://www.classmates.com/people/Lawrence-Mayka/50939251
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lawrence_Mayka
Oto co wyszukuje mój google na jego temat:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Lawrence+Mayka&espv=2&ei=CgzqWKDcEqzegAb2uKTAAg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=662
Underhillowi poświęcę oddzielny wpis. Nie znam już nikogo więcej, kto może potwierdzić w jakiś rozsądny sposób, na bazie prac i danych „południową drogę R1a”…
PolubieniePolubienie
G2a nie ma nad Wisłą, zresztą to raczej nie byli „pierwsi rolnicy” tylko „pierwsi europejscy rolnicy”, bo tylko J2, o ile dobrze rozumiem było obecne w żyznym półksiężycu, a I2a to już „tubylczy wtórnie zrolniczony” ludek…
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full
Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans
Zuzana Hofmanováa,1, Susanne Kreutzera,1, Garrett Hellenthalb, Christian Sella, Yoan Diekmannb, David Díez-del-Molinob, Lucy van Dorpb, Saioa Lópezb, Athanasios Kousathanasc,d, Vivian Linkc,d, Karola Kirsanowa, Lara M. Cassidye, Rui Martinianoe, Melanie Strobela, Amelie Scheua,e, Kostas Kotsakisf, Paul Halsteadg, Sevi Triantaphyllouf, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolikah, Dushka Urem-Kotsoui, Christina Ziotaj, Fotini Adaktylouk, Shyamalika Gopalanl, Dean M. Bobol, Laura Winkelbacha, Jens Blöchera, Martina Unterländera, Christoph Leuenbergerm, Çiler Çilingiroğlun, Barbara Horejso, Fokke Gerritsenp, Stephen J. Shennanq, Daniel G. Bradleye, Mathias Curratr, Krishna R. Veeramahl, Daniel Wegmannc,d, Mark G. Thomasb, Christina Papageorgopoulous,2, and Joachim Burgera,2
Abstract
Farming and sedentism first appeared in southwestern Asia during the early Holocene and later spread to neighboring regions, including Europe, along multiple dispersal routes. Conspicuous uncertainties remain about the relative roles of migration, cultural diffusion, and admixture with local foragers in the early Neolithization of Europe. Here we present paleogenomic data for five Neolithic individuals from northern Greece and northwestern Turkey spanning the time and region of the earliest spread of farming into Europe. We use a novel approach to recalibrate raw reads and call genotypes from ancient DNA and observe striking genetic similarity both among Aegean early farmers and with those from across Europe. Our study demonstrates a direct genetic link between Mediterranean and Central European early farmers and those of Greece and Anatolia, extending the European Neolithic migratory chain all the way back to southwestern Asia.
Significance
One of the most enduring and widely debated questions in prehistoric archaeology concerns the origins of Europe’s earliest farmers: Were they the descendants of local hunter-gatherers, or did they migrate from southwestern Asia, where farming began? We recover genome-wide DNA sequences from early farmers on both the European and Asian sides of the Aegean to reveal an unbroken chain of ancestry leading from central and southwestern Europe back to Greece and northwestern Anatolia. Our study provides the coup de grâce to the notion that farming spread into and across Europe via the dissemination of ideas but without, or with only a limited, migration of people.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.figures-only
It is well established that farming was introduced to Europe from Anatolia, but the extent to which its spread was mediated by demic expansion of Anatolian farmers, or by the transmission of farming technologies and lifeways to indigenous hunter-gatherers without a major concomitant migration of people, has been the subject of considerable debate. Paleogenetic studies (1⇓⇓–4) of late hunter-gatherers (HG) and early farmers indicate a dominant role for migration in the transition to farming in central and northern Europe, with evidence of only limited hunter-gatherer admixture into early Neolithic populations, but increasing toward the late Neolithic. However, the exact origin of central and western Europe’s early farmers in the Balkans, Greece, or Anatolia remains an open question.
Recent radiocarbon dating indicates that by 6,600–6,500 calibrated (cal) BCE sedentary farming communities were established in northwestern Anatolia at sites such as Barcın, Menteşe, and Aktopraklık C and in coastal western Anatolia at sites such as Çukuriçi and Ulucak, but did not expand north or west of the Aegean for another several hundred years (5). All these sites show material culture affinities with the central and southwestern Anatolian Neolithic (6).
Early Greek Neolithic sites, such as the Franchthi Cave in the Peloponnese, Knossos in Crete, and Mauropigi, Paliambela, and Revenia in northern Greece date to a similar period (7⇓–9). The distribution of obsidian from the Cycladic islands, as well as similarities in material culture, suggest extensive interactions since the Mesolithic and a coeval Neolithic on both sides of the Aegean (8). Although it has been argued that in situ Aegean Mesolithic hunter-gatherers played a major role in the “Neolithization” of Greece (7), the presence of domesticated forms of plants and animals indicates nonlocal Neolithic dispersals into the area.
We present five ancient genomes from both, the European and Asian sides of the northern Aegean (Fig. 1); despite their origin from nontemperate regions, three of them were sequenced to relatively high coverage (∼2–7×), enabling diploid calls using a novel SNP calling method that accurately accounts for postmortem damage (SI Appendix, SI5. Genotype Calling for Ancient DNA). Two of the higher-coverage genomes are from Barcın, south of the Marmara Sea in Turkey, one of the earliest Neolithic sites in northwestern Anatolia (individuals Bar8 and Bar31). On the European side of the Aegean, one genome is from the early Neolithic site of Revenia (Rev5), and the remaining two are from the late and final Neolithic sites of Paliambela (Pal7) and Kleitos (Klei10), dating to ∼2,000 y later (Table 1). Estimates of mitochondrial contamination were low (0.006–1.772% for shotgun data) (Table 1; SI Appendix, SI4. Analysis of Uniparental Markers and X Chromosome Contamination Estimates.). We found unprecedented deamination rates of up to 56% in petrous bone samples, indicating a prehistoric origin for our sequence data from nontemperate environments (SI Appendix, Table S5).
(…)
Uniparental Genetic Systems
The mtDNA haplogroups of all five Neolithic individuals are typical of those found in central European Neolithic farmers and modern Europeans, but not in European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (1). Likewise, the Y-chromosomes of the two male individuals belong to haplogroup G2a2, which has been observed in European Neolithic farmers (3, 10); in Ötzi, the Tyrolean Iceman (11); and in modern western and southwestern Eurasian populations, but not in any pre-Neolithic European hunter-gatherers (12). The mitochondrial haplogroups of two additional less well-preserved Greek Mesolithic individuals (Theo1, Theo5; SI Appendix, Table S6) belong to lineages observed in Neolithic farmers from across Europe; consistent with Aegean Neolithic populations, unlike central European Neolithic populations, being the direct descendants of the preceding Mesolithic peoples who inhabited broadly the same region. However, we caution against over-interpretation of the Aegean Mesolithic mtDNA data; additional genome-level data will be required to identify the Mesolithic source population(s) of the early Aegean farmers. (…)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109172344.htm
DNA reveals origins of first European farmers
Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, Koshel S, Zaporozhchenko V, et al. Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. PLoS Biology, 2010; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536
Date: November 10, 2010
Source: University of Adelaide
Summary: A team of international researchers has resolved the longstanding issue of the origins of the people who introduced farming to Europe some 8,000 years ago. A detailed genetic study of one of the first farming communities in Europe, from central Germany, reveals marked similarities with populations living in the Ancient Near East (modern-day Turkey, Iraq and other countries) rather than those from Europe.
Genetic matrilineal distances between 55 modern Western Eurasian populations and Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) samples. Mapped genetic distances are illustrated between 55 modern Western Eurasian populations and the total of 42 Neolithic LBK samples (A) or the single graveyard of Derenburg (B). Black dots denote the location of modern-day populations used in the analysis. The coloring indicates the degree of similarity of the modern local population(s) with the Neolithic sample set: short distances (greatest similarity) are marked by dark green and long distances (greatest dissimilarity) by orange, with fainter colors in between the extremes.
Kliknij, aby uzyskać dostęp 20150339.full.pdf
Tracing the genetic origin of Europe’s first farmers reveals insights into their social organization
Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy, Guido Brandt, Wolfgang Haak
Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20150339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339
Received: 12 February 2015
Accepted: 25 February 2015
(…)
In this study, we present 84 mtDNA and 9 Y chromosomal DNA data from Mesolithic (6200–6000 BC) and Neolithic specimens of the STA and LBKT from western Hungary and Croatia. Spanning a time transect of the Hungarian Neolithic in Transdanubia over approximately 900years (ca 5800– 4900 BC) allowed us to gain detailed insight into the spread of farming from the Near East.
(…)
The haplotype of the Mesolithic skeleton from the Croatian Island Korcˇula could be assigned to mtDNA haplogroup U5b2a5 (electronic supplementary material, dataset S3). Sub-haplogroup U5b has been shown to be common in hunter–gatherer communities across Europe [28–30,32,33, 47,48]. Contrary to the low mtDNA diversity observed in Central/North European hunter–gatherers [28–30], we identify a higher variability in early farming communities of the Carpathian Basin including haplogroups N1a, T1, T2, J, K, H, HV, V,W, X, U2, U3, U4 and U5a (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Previous studies described haplogroups N1a, T2, J, K, HV, V, W and X as being characteristic for the Central European LBK and suggested these as the mitochondrial ‘Neolithic package’ that had reached Central Europe in the sixth millennium BC [38,39]. Interestingly, most of these eight haplogroups
show comparable frequencies between the STA, LBKT and LBK, and represent the majority of mtDNAvariation in each culture (STA ¼ 86.36%, LBKT ¼ 61.54%, LBK ¼ 79.63%) with similar haplotype diversity (STA ¼ 0.97674, LBKT ¼ 0.95277, LBK ¼ 0.95483). By contrast, hunter–gatherer haplogroups are rare in the STA and both LBK groups (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Haplogroup H was not included in the Neolithic package, because it has also been found in pre-agricultural context in Iberia [48]. However, the low resolution of HVS-I does not allow to distinguish between H lineages of Neolithic or preNeolithic origins in Transdanubia and would require whole mitochondrial genome analyses.
(…)
(b) Y chromosomal DNA
We analysed 33 Y-haplogroup defining SNPs located on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY), using multiplex [38] and singleplex PCR. We successfully generated unambiguous NRY SNP profiles for nine male individuals (STA ¼ 7, LBKT ¼ 2; electronic supplementary material, datasets S3 and S5). Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the haplogroup G2a2b (S126), and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2). The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups—STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15) and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one
F* (M89).
(…)
…..
No i znów brak jest R1a… Ciekawe co na to „łowcy ruskich trolli” i inni wyznawcy południowej drogi R1a..?!! 🙂
PolubieniePolubienie