441 SKRBH 33 Nowe źródła genetyczne,.. czyli czy to śmierć teorii o 10,000 lat bytności R1a w Anatolii, na Bałkanach, Puszcie, i pochodzeniu szlachty polskiej od Sarmatów, itp?!!

Posted on by


http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/indoeuropean.html

Oto kilkadziesiąt (!!!) zupełnie nowych i dopiero co upowszechnionych źródeł archeologicznych i genetycznych, traktujących zarówno o mtDNA , jak i Y i X DNA, z których wyciągnąć należy wiele bardzo ciekawych wniosków,.. które obalają wiele wyssanych z palca twierdzeń, patrz:

Po pierwsze:

Wygląda na to, że NIE MA POTWIERDZENIA teoria o tym, że ludność posiadająca haplogrupę R1a była rzekomo obecna na w Anatolii, Bałkanach i w Dolinie Dunaju 10.000 lat temu, itd, co oznacza że np. kultura Vinca NIE MOGŁA BYĆ PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKA, a za tym idzie i jej pismo, itd, także Pra-Słowiańskie nie było, jak twierdzą niektórzy…

Po drugie:

Wygląda na to, że NIE MA POTWIERDZENIA, że tzw. Scytowie, Sarmaci, Alanowie, itp, (lub inni przodkowie Osetyńców) MOGLI BYĆ PRZODKAMI SZLACHTY POLSKIEJ, a co za tym idzie, że w języku słowiańskim  / le(c)hickim / polskim obecne są tzw. zapożyczenia od-irańskie…

Po trzecie:

Wygląda na to, że rody R1a przyszły na teren dzisiejszej Polski z… Karelii, czyli Rosji, a nie z terenów dzisiejszej Ukrainy, czy Węgier, Bałkanów a wcześniej Anatolii, co pogrąża tzw. teorię anatolijską, i pochodne.

Zwracam uwagę na to, że „współczesna nałka” WIELOKROTNIE JUŻ MYLIŁA SIĘ, CO DO WNIOSKÓW JAKIE WYCIĄGAŁA NA PODSTAWIE DOSTĘPNYCH JEJ DANYCH, (np. brednie o pochodzeniu ludów, jak np. Niemcy czystej krwi, itp) jednocześnie ciągle będąc umotywowana rasistowsko , patrz anglosascy, a zwłaszcza niemieccy krętacze i przeciw-słowiańscy kłamcy, jak KoSSina i inni naziści, a także ich „polscy” naśladowcy… jak np. Godłowski, czy inni…

Skoro inni mogli, no to i ja mogę sobie tu trochę pogdybać i na podstawie poniższych danych i ja wyssę sobie z mojego palca taki oto obraz sytuacji:

Rody łowców i zbieraczy R1a, jako potomkowie R1 z Mal’ta nad Bajkałem uganiały się od bardzo dawna za zwierzyną, która przemieszczała się okresowo ze wschodu na zachód w granicy laso-stepu. Mogli oni już mówić językiem Przed-Pra-Słowiańskim (PPSA / PPIE). Tak dotarli do Karelii (Jeleni Ostrow), a następnie nad Wisłę. Tu osiedli i zaczęli udomawiać i hodować zwierzęta, nabyli zdolność trawienia mleka, nauczyli się wytwarzać sery, itd. Ich potomkowie z tzw. kultury Pucharów Lejkowatych z Bronocić zostali rolnikami (jakoś, ale nie przez wymianę ludności), tworząc inne kultury archeologiczne, jak tzw. Sznurowa. W między czasie ruszyli na wschód i zmieszali się z innymi ludami R1b, I1/2, G, itd, tworząc kultury archeologiczne jak tzw. kultura Jamowa / Yamnaya i inne.

Kolejna wędrówka rodów znów udała się na wschód, tyle że drogą bardziej północną i to z nich powstały kultury archeologiczne, jak tzw. Andronowo, Sintashta, itd, z których w późniejszych czasach wyłonili się tzw. Ariowie, których plemiona oddzielnie dotarły do Sindii, Iranu, Chin, itd.

To z potomków Ariów którzy pozostali na Guralu, dodatkowo zmieszanych z różnymi ludami mongolskimi, itd, wytworzyła się kultura archeologiczna Srubna, z której wywodzą się przodkowie tzw. Scytów, Sarmatów, itd.

Nie dotyczy to tzw. Osetyńców, którzy są jedynie ziranizowaną tubylczą ludnością skałkazką… a co za tym idzie… ŻADNYCH TZW. ZAPOŻYCZEŃ OD-IRAŃSKICH W JĘZYKU PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIM / SŁOWIAŃSKIM BYĆ NIE MOGŁO, BO NIE WSKAZUJĄ NA TO ANI DANE JĘZYKOWE, ANI GENETYCZNE,.. A CI KTÓRZY TWIERDZĄ INACZEJ SĄ PRZECIW-LOGICZNYMI RASISTAMI I SĄ ZMOTYWOWANI POLITYCZNIE PRZECIW-SŁOWIAŃSKO! 😦

To tak w skrócie, a teraz kto ma odwagę i dowody ze źródłami na ich poparcie, niech nie waha się i pierwsza/y rzuci we mnie kamieniem… Czekam na to z utęsknieniem… 🙂

SKRiBHa

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/03/06/114488

Parallel ancient genomic transects reveal complex population history of early European farmers Czytaj dalej →

17 thoughts on “441 SKRBH 33 Nowe źródła genetyczne,.. czyli czy to śmierć teorii o 10,000 lat bytności R1a w Anatolii, na Bałkanach, Puszcie, i pochodzeniu szlachty polskiej od Sarmatów, itp?!!”

  1. „Po trzecie:

    Wygląda na to, że rody R1a przyszły na teren dzisiejszej Polski z… Karelii, czyli Rosji, a nie z terenów dzisiejszej Ukrainy, czy Węgier, Bałkanów a wcześniej Anatolii, co pogrąża tzw. teorię anatolijską, i pochodne.”

    Nie za bardzo. Jeśliby mieli skądś przyjść, wybrałbym kierunek wschodni, tam gdzie nie było lodowca. Pytanie czy na tereny polskie pierwsi weszli R1a czy I2?
    Jak dotąd znaleziono I2 w Czechach, datowane na 30 000 lat, 18-12 000 lat nastąpiło ochłodzenie klimatu i nikt nie mieszkał. Teraz pozostaje ustalić chronologię zasiedlania od 12 000 lat do 5 000 lat, wiemy już że od 5 000 lat aż do dzisiaj nic się nie zmieniło.

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

  2. „NIE MA POTWIERDZENIA teoria o tym, że ludność posiadająca haplogrupę R1a była rzekomo obecna na w Anatolii, Bałkanach i w Dolinie Dunaju 10.000 lat temu”

    Uzyłes nieodpowiedniego słowa. Jest zaprzeczenie, potwierdzona jest mieszanka I2a i G2a jako jej mieszkańców. Ale co daje do myslenia, to taka myśl, że skoro byli oni rolnikami i jako rolnicy naddunajscy mieliby przynieść JAKO PIERWSI rolnictwo na południe Polski, to dlaczego nie zdominowali swoimi genami obszaru współczesnej Polski?

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

    • Użyłem zwrotu „NIE MA POTWIERDZENIA”, bo go nie ma,.. bo jeśli niby potwierdzeniem tego ma być ta praca M. Pericic z 2005r ,.. w której ja nie znalazłem NIC o tym tajemniczym pra-starym R1a z Macedonii sprzed rzekomo 14,000 lat,.. na które powołano się tu:

      400 SKRBH 11 Adrian Leszczyński. KRÓTKA HISTORIA RODU GENETYCZNEGO R1a

      …no to gdzie jest / są jakiekolwiek źródła na potwierdzające rzekomej bytności R1a na Bałkanach itd. już 10,000 / 14,000 lat temu, hm?

      A no i zwróć uprzejmie uwagę, że ja TYLKO stawiam pytanie w tytule wpisu,.. dodatkowo trzy razy jak rzekomo tzw. św. Piotr wypierając się Joszui,.. ja także dodatkowo podpieram się „magicznym” zwrotem – „wygląda na to”…

      Ci, którzy twierdzą, że było jak wyżej, powinni chyba coś udowodnić,.. a nie tylko tak sobie wymyślać niestworzone rzeczy, nieprawdaż? No to teraz do dzieła!!! 🙂

      Polubienie

      Reply ↓

  3. O no i proszę!!! Czyli co, teraz co dwa, czy trzy dni będą upowszechniane takie badania?!! 🙂

    Napisze to dokładniej pod koniec tygodnia, ale NOWA WYKŁADNIA CO BYŁO BRZMI TAK:

    Dawno temu (dłużej niż 14,000 lat temu) rody łowców R1a i R1b rozdzieliły się, gdzieś w po drodze z Bajkału na zachód. R1a poszła do Europy na granicy laso-stepu. a R1b skręciła na południe, choć może i przeszła na zachód zarówno z południa, jak i północy Skałkazu, Jeziora / Morza Czarnego, itd,.. to GŁÓWNIE PRZESZŁA PRZEZ IRAN, ANATOLIĘ, EGIPT, KAMERUN, HISZPANIĘ, (WŁOCHY – ale nie wiem skąd, czy przez Sycylię, czy przez Grecję!)

    Łowcy R1a, już MÓWIĄCY PPS = PPIE, (przez Karelię?) dotarli nad Wisłę. Ci którzy z Karelii poszli na południe na północ od Jeziora/Morza Czarnego zmieszali się z kobietami ze Skałkazu i tak powstała tzw. kultura Jamowa / Yamnaya.

    Część potomków łowcy EHG z Karelii NIGDY NIE OPUŚCIŁA STREFY LASU, a inna część PONOWNIE ZMIESZAŁA SIĘ ZE ZMIESZANYMI JUŻ TZW. Yamnaya, która w swojej wschodniej części składała się z R1b i R1a Z93, z które to rody poszły na wschód i około 5600 lat temu założyły tzw. kulturę Afanasiewską.

    Czyli wychodzi, że łowcy EHG z R1a byli już PPS = PPIE ZANIM POWSTAŁA MIESZANKA YAMNAYA, CZY TZW. KULTURA CERAMIKI SZNUROWEJ!!!

    Pra-Słowianie to JUŻ ŁOWCY, a nie TYLKO HODOWCY, czy ROLNICY!!! To tacy „Indianie” tyle ze w Azji i później w Europie, których korzenie biegną do tzw. Chłopca z Mal’ta znad Bajkału…

    Czyżby R1b z Villabruna jest odkameruńskie, czy wcześniejsze od anatolijskie, ktoś wie?

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/southern-european-blues.html

    Wednesday, March 22, 2017

    Southern European blues

    Not sold on this; not unless we see direct evidence from ancient DNA:

    Abstract: Important gaps remain in our understanding of the spread of farming into Europe, due partly to apparent contradictions between studies of contemporary genetic variation and ancient DNA. It seems clear that farming was introduced into central, northern, and eastern Europe from the south by pioneer colonization. It is often argued that these dispersals originated in the Near East, where the potential source genetic pool resembles that of the early European farmers, but clear ancient DNA evidence from Mediterranean Europe is lacking, and there are suggestions that Mediterranean Europe may have resembled the Near East more than the rest of Europe in the Mesolithic. Here, we test this proposal by dating mitogenome founder lineages from the Near East in different regions of Europe. We find that whereas the lineages date mainly to the Neolithic in central Europe and Iberia, they largely date to the Late Glacial period in central/eastern Mediterranean Europe. This supports a scenario in which the genetic pool of Mediterranean Europe was partly a result of Late Glacial expansions from a Near Eastern refuge, and that this formed an important source pool for subsequent Neolithic expansions into the rest of Europe.

    Pereira et al., Reconciling evidence from ancient and contemporary genomes: a major source for the European Neolithic within Mediterranean Europe, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Published 22 March 2017.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1976

    Posted by Davidski at 6:29:00 AM

    Blogger xyyman said…
    I told you so. „Near east” = African/North African. lol! More and more will come out to support. Lazaridis made it clear it was a North South cline. All DNA evidence supports this. This is not rocket science. Europeans are depigmented Africans.
    March 22, 2017 at 6:34 AM

    Blogger Romulus said…
    Makes sense given that new Mesolithic Sardinian mtDNA.
    March 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM

    Blogger Gioiello said…
    More and more closer to the truth!
    March 22, 2017 at 6:42 AM

    Blogger Rob said…
    Very interesting Could explain the pattern of R1b
    March 22, 2017 at 6:48 AM

    Blogger xyyman said…
    Typical games they play. They never consider the real migration path. From Sahara Africa to Europe and the Near East. Read the article.

    Quote from the study
    We ((performed founder analysis)) using in-house Founder Analysis software that applies an algorithm for choosing the best tree. We calculated the age estimate for the migration of each founder using the ρ statistic and obtained the effective number of samples associated with each founder as before [13-15] by multiplying the number of samples in each founder cluster by a ratio of the variance assuming a star-like network and the variance calculated with the method of Saillard et al. (Supplementary Data 2) [16]. We performed the founder analysis of mitogenome data in three ways: (1) from the Near East (including Anatolia) to Mediterranean Europe (including Iberia); (2) from the Near East and eastern/central Mediterranean Europe to Iberia; and (3) from the Near East and Mediterranean Europe to central/northern Europe (excluding the British Isles and Volga Tatars from Russia). Additionally, we performed the founder analysis considering Mediterranean Europe and the Near East as independent sources to Iberia as well as to central and northern Europe. We also performed a reciprocal founder analysis, reversing the migration direction of all the models described to confirm that all sources and sink regions were correctly assigned.
    March 22, 2017 at 7:02 AM

    Blogger batman said…
    From the paper:
    „We find that whereas the lineages date mainly to the Neolithic in central Europe and Iberia, they largely date to the Late Glacial period in central/eastern Mediterranean Europe.

    This supports a scenario in which the genetic pool of Mediterranean Europe was partly a result of Late Glacial expansions from a Near Eastern refuge, and that this formed an important source pool for subsequent Neolithic expansions into the rest of Europe.”

    The only refugia known from the hot part of the Meds are bound to the North-African coast, where y-dna E obviously spent the Younger Dryas.

    Just after YD the post-glacial carriers of y-dna E (re-)appear in the Levant, as well as Alger and Atlas.

    Though, at the same time we find that NW Europe get populated by y-dna I, basically, while the Northern Meds are dominated by y-dna G. From France to Iran, where they seem to border a dyansty of y-dna J, east of Tigris while a y-dna H gets established in (southern) India.

    We still do NOT know just where these GHIJK-men survived the Younger Dryas. But we do know that they all start to appear – across arctic and semi-arctic Eurasia – at about 11.500 years ago. Which is why we know that their (common) history, background and late, ice-time refugia must have been arctic. Otherwise we couldn’t explain their re-occurance at places like Gibraltar and North Cape within the very same pioneeer-phase, as of 10.800 – 11.800 C-14-calibrated years ago.

    As the Mesolithic y-dna found in NW Europe is hg I we may conclude that their „brother-lines” G, H, J and K share their paleolithic/arctic origin. Their common arctic traits, known as „caucasian”, seem to underline just that.
    March 22, 2017 at 7:21 AM

    Blogger capra internetensis said…
    Though the Iberomaurusian mtDNA results were nigh-useless HVS-I only, a couple of the later ones from Afalou looked like legitimate J and 1 looked like T2b. If accurate then these are more Neolithic-like haplogroups present in the Western Mediterranean, in this case in the Epipalaeolithic.
    I would dearly love to see genome-wide data from those samples.
    March 22, 2017 at 7:41 AM

    Blogger xyyman said…
    To those who don’t get it what I posted. They ran all the possible migration routes even the ones that make absolutely no sense and did not run the one that makes more geographic sense. Why? Because they know the answer. This “Near East” label is a game. (sometimes they using Africanized bedoiuns as a proxy)Because the genetics show the Near East and the Sahara are yes, similar but there are differences between them and similarities between the Sahara and Europe. Common sense would suggest the Sahara was the source for BOTH. I have to do a deep dive of the paper. Remember Natufians are now confirmed NOT to be ancestral to modern Europeans which was a common misconception going back 100years.
    aDNA has proven that is NOT the case.
    March 22, 2017 at 7:44 AM

    Blogger Roy King said…
    Yes!! Finally some support for what I’ve been arguing for years that there was a Mesolithic migration from the Near East to Mediterranean Europe (Greece/Sardinia/Italy) that was post-LGM and pre-Neolithic. Didier Binder, the CEPH archaeologist, terms it fancifully, „From the Caspian to the Capsian”. Impressed ware Neolithic followed along the same path and, likely, North Africa participated in the movement.
    March 22, 2017 at 7:52 AM

    Blogger Chris Davies said…
    „and, likely, North Africa participated in the movement.” I agree.
    March 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM

    Blogger Gioiello said…
    Ex Oriente non lux, sed nox. Rex.
    March 22, 2017 at 8:23 AM

    Blogger Arch Hades said…
    So they are basically saying that Anatolian-Aegean farmer [EEF minus the 10% WHG input] is very old in Southeastern Europe.
    March 22, 2017 at 8:39 AM

    Blogger Gioiello said…
    Not only it is what I am saying from so long, but it was clear also from aDNA from Anatolia: only Northern-Western regions, nothing to do with Middle East and Iran.
    March 22, 2017 at 8:43 AM

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

  4. PRA-SŁOWIANIE BYLI ŁOWCAMI. TU JEST WSZYSTKO NAPISANE,.. NO MOŻE POMINĘLI KARELCZYKA I JEGO R1a M417 lub M420,.. i to, że YAMNAYA OD NIEGO POCHODZI!!! 🙂

    Nawet eupedia jest po mojej stronie… hehehe

    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml

    Paleolithic mammoth hunters

    Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called „Mal’ta boy” from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013). This individual belonged to a tribe of mammoth hunters that may have roamed across Siberia and parts of Europe during the Paleolithic. Autosomally this Paleolithic population appears to have contributed mostly to the ancestry of modern Europeans and South Asians, the two regions where haplogroup R also happens to be the most common nowadays (R1b in Western Europe, R1a in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia, and R2 in South Asia).

    Haplogroup R1a probably branched off from R1* during or soon after the Last Glacial Maxium. Little is know for certain about its place of origin. Some think it might have originated in the Balkans or around Pakistan and Northwest India, due to the greater genetic diversity found in these regions. The diversity can be explained by other factors though. The Balkans have been subject to 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian Steppes, each bringing new varieties of R1a. South Asia has had a much bigger population than any other parts of the world (occasionally equalled by China) for at least 10,000 years, and larger population bring about more genetic diversity. The most likely place of origin of R1a is Central Asia or southern Russia/Siberia.

    From there, R1a could have migrated directly to eastern Europe (European Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), or first southward through Central Asia and Iran. In that latter scenario, R1a would have crossed the Caucasus during the Neolithic, alongside R1b, to colonise the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In the absence of ancient Y-DNA from those regions the best evidence supporting a Late Paleolithic migration to Iran is the presence of very old subclades of R1a (like M420) in the region, notably in the Zagros mountains. However these samples only make up a fraction of all R1a in the region and could just as well represent the descendants of Eastern European hunter-gatherers who branched off from other R1a tribes and crossed from the North Caucasus any time between 20,000 and 8,000 years ago. The logic behind this is that most known historical migrations in Eurasia took place from north to south, as people sought warmer climes. The only exception happened during the Holocene warming up of the climate, which corresponds to the Neolithic colonisation of Europe from the Near East. A third possibility is that R1a tribes split in two around Kazakhstan during the Late Paleolithic, with one group moving to eastern Europe, while the other moved south to Iran.

    Did R1a come to Europe with Neolithic farmers ?

    Some people have theorized that R1a was one of the lineages of the Neolithic farmers, and would have entered Europe through Anatolia, then spread across the Balkans toward Central Europe, then only to Eastern Europe. There are many issues with this scenario. The first is that 99% of modern R1a descends from R1a1a (M417), a subclade that clearly expanded from the Bronze Age onwards, not from the early Neolithic. Its phylogeny also points at an Eastern European origin. Secondly, most of the R1a in Middle East are deep subclades of the R1a-Z93 branch, which originated in Russia (see below). It could not have been ancestral to Balkanic or Central European R1a. Thirdly, there is a very strong correlation between the Northeast European autosomal admixture and R1a populations, and this component is missing from the genome of all European Neolithic farmers tested to date – even from Ötzi, who was a Chalcolithic farmer. This admixture is also missing from modern Sardinians, who are mostly descended from Neolithic farmers. This is incotrovertible evidence that R1a did not come to Europe with Neolithic farmers.

    Bronze Age Proto-Indo-Europeans

    R1a is thought to have been the dominant haplogroup among the northern and eastern Proto-Indo-European language speakers, that evolved into the Indo-Iranian, Thracian, Baltic and Slavic branches. The Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in the Yamna culture (3300-2500 BCE). Their dramatic expansion was possible thanks to an early adoption of bronze weapons and the domestication of the horse in the Eurasian steppes (circa 4000-3500 BCE). The southern Steppe culture is believed to have carried predominantly R1b (M269 and M73) lineages, while the northern forest-steppe culture would have been essentially R1a-dominant. The first expansion of the forest-steppe people occured with the Corded Ware Culture (see Germanic branch below). The migration of the R1b people to central and Western Europe left a vacuum for R1a people in the southern steppe around the time of the Catacomb culture (2800-2200 BCE). The forest-steppe origin of this culture is obvious from the introduction of corded pottery and the abundant use of polished battle axes, the two most prominent features of the Corded Ware culture. This is also probably when the satemisation process of the Indo-European languages began since the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language groups belong to the same Satem isogloss and both appear to have evolved from the the Catacomb culture.

    Ancient DNA testing has confirmed the presence of haplogroup R1a1a in samples from the Corded Ware culture in Germany (2600 BCE), from Tocharian mummies (2000 BCE) in Northwest China, from Kurgan burials (circa 1600 BCE) from the Andronovo culture in southern Russia and southern Siberia, as well as from a variety of Iron-age sites from Russia, Siberia, Mongolia and Central Asia.

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

    • „NO MOŻE POMINĘLI KARELCZYKA”
      Nie pominęli, jest on ukryty pod YP1272, a jest również dopisana „północna afryka”, gdyż oprócz Karelczyka, współczesnego nam Szpakowskiego z Białorusi, odnaleziono go również u jakiegoś Tunezyjczyka.
      Domyślam się, że został tam zawleczony wraz ze słowiańskimi Wandalami, ktorzy migrując znad Wisły lub Odry zabrali ze sobą różne kłady w R1a, stąd i ów Tunezyjczyk, ale i popularne słowiańskie kłady na Sycylii.

      Polubienie

      Reply ↓

    • Zważ na to, że całkiem niedaleko od nich, wśród Kurdów, obserwuje się podwyższoną w stosunku do ich sąsiadów wartość R1a Z93.
      Na pewno nabyli ją na wiele wieków przez Chazarią, czyli tymi Z93, którzy przyjęli ją -wyznanie zydowskie- dobrowolnie, najpewniej to jest pozostałość po najeździe scytyjskim opisywanym w starym testamencie. I by było mało, dostarczycielami R1a mogą być dokładnie te same ludy źródłowe, wszak nie najeżdżali ich ze środkowej azji, tylko raczej z wybrzezy m.czarnego.
      Pytanie, ile wniosła im jedna fala R1a, a ile druga fala R1a, może to być 1/99, 30/70, jak i 50/50 z całości R1a.

      Polubienie

      Reply ↓

      • Tzw. Chazaria to bardzo późna bajka… Wschodnia Yamnaya i Afanasievo są już pełne R1a Z93 i R1b 4600 lat wcześniej a na północy tego nie uświadczysz..!

        Polubienie

  6. Wiem, że to dla wielu wolnych umysłów straszne i straszliwie niezrozumiałe, ale lepiej zapoznać się z tymi danymi, jak i z komentarzami napisanymi tam, zwłaszcza te od Goga, który twierdzi, podobnie do mnie, że BYŁY DWIE FALE OSIEDLEŃCZE ZE „STEPU” (wg mnie z laso-stepu!).

    Pierwsza „Karelczycy” z ich starym R1a (tym, czy tamtym), a potem druga, czyli już potomkowie ich ale zmieszani z „armeńskimi kobietami”, którzy przynieśli ze sobą hodowlę np. koni, i uprawę ziemi!!!

    Zmieszali się na stepie nadczarnomorskim, rozmnożyli, bo mieli „nadwyżkę żywności”, bo nie musieli TYLKO POLOWAĆ… i „zalali” ziemie swoich „karelskich” Przodków… To wyjaśnia też BRAK PODKŁADU JĘZYKOWEGO W JĘZYKU SŁOWIAŃSKIM I ZAPOŻYCZENIA OD PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIE (GiL+GaL / Ko”L”+Ko) W J. KARTWELSKICH I SEMICKICH!!!

    „Karelczycy” wędrowali przez pustkę, pozostali w pustce, a potem tylko zalała ich ludność pochodna od R1a M417, ale nie R1b, bo ci „wyszli” ze stepu „tzw. droga południową R1b”, przez Skałkaz, Anatolię, Egipt, itd. Kamerun jest chyba znacznie starszy, więc byłaby to wcześniejsza fala R1b, patrz także Villbruna!!!

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32990.html

    New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)

    Maciamo 18-10-16, 15:58
    I finally found some time to make the map of Yamna admixture using the data from Eurogenes Steppe K10. There was no data for some countries, so I had to guess based on neighbouring countries or isolated samples reported on forums. That is the case for Portugal, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia and Azerbaijan.

    I would especially need regional samples from all over Iberia. There are huge variations from nearly 0% of Yamna among some Basques to 16% in some Spaniards (but their region of origin is unknown). The Eurogenes data just shows a lower percentage in northern Spain, but that is not very helpful as Galicia, Cantabria and Catalonia probably have very different levels.

    Regional data from Britain, France and Germany are also welcome.

    Even though Yamna chieftains from kurgan belonged almost exclusively to R1b, among modern Europeans it is the Uralic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and North Caucasian people who inherited the highest share of Yamna ancestry, not Western Europeans, who now have the highest percentage of haplogroup R1b. One of the reasons for this is that R1b arrived in Western Europe after over a thousand years of genetic dilution through intermarriages with Balkanic and Central European people. In contrast, in the eastern half of Europe, R1b lost its position of dominance and was replaced by R1a and N1c lineages, starting from the Catacomb culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and continuing until the Middle Ages. Nevertheless Yamna ancestry was passed maternally in the Steppe and in neighbouring populations, which explains the high Yamna admixture from the Baltic to the North Caucasus.

    Maciamo19-10-16, 08:55
    I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.

    No it doesn’t make sense because the Basque R1b-M153 is only 2800 years old and has a TMRCA of 2500 years. Most Basques belong to the subclade just under that, with a TMRCA of 2100 years. This means that the Basque R1b is a very recent phenomenon starting in Roman times. But who knows, R1b might have continued to expand little by little each generations among the Basques for over 1000 years before reaching today’s frequencies. I now believe that the Basque only got their R1b very gradually over the last 2500 years and that it has nothing to do with Bronze Age PIE invasions. That has the benefit to explain why they kept speaking Basque. I don’t know why R1b increased gradually. Maybe increased fertility compared to the native male lineages (I2-M26 + G2a ?), or a noble lineage of some sort. It was probably a combination of factors. Anywau, if R1b entered the Basque gene pool from, say, neighbouring Aquitaine or Castille c. 500 BCE or even 100 BCE, it could have been autosomally low in Yamna ancestry (say 15-20%). After diluting it slowly over 1000 to 2000 more years with relatively pure Basque women, there would be very little Yamna left, surely under 5%. If Haak et al. are right and the Basque have 27% of Yamna, then it becomes much harder to explain with such a young TMRCA for their R1b, especially that Haak found 5% less Yamna among other Spaniards (22%). Spanish branches of DF27 are between 3500 and 4400 years old, so Late Bronze Age, and match the arrival of foreign Bronze Age cultures like El Argar. So there is no doubt that R1b was in many parts of Spain long before it spread among the Basques.

    It’s good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG. Using Dodecad K12, they have about 18% of East European + West European + Mediterranean, but the latter also includes non-IE Neolithic ancestry. Using K12b, they have only 5% of Atlantic_Med + North European, but that doesn’t include the Gedrosian that came with the IE. So depending on the calculator, we get somewhere between 7 and 18% of Steppe admixture. Unfortunately neither the Haak paper nor the Steppe K10 data have any Indian sample. But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar. And we get a similar percentage of Steppe admixture (10-20%) both in Spaniards and upper-caste Indians. But it took another 1500 years before R1b-M153 started spreading among the Basques, so a considerably lower Steppe admixture is to be expected.

    MarkoZ 19-10-16, 10:42
    People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they’re WHG. Before that I thought they’d be EHG admixed as well. The error lies in assuming that the Baltic populations are the result of a simple coalescence of Neolithic Corded Ware and Mesolithic elements. We already know that North-Eastern Europe received substantial input from further east by way of Russia, since N1c is the dominant paternal marker in all North-Eastern populations barring Belarusians. The preponderance of this marker transcends linguistic and national affiliation.

    Olympus Mons
    19-10-16, 11:53
    Finally! 🙂 I’ve been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper „Massive Migration from the steppe”, was incorrect.

    If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven’t yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn’t that inflate the „Yamnaya” percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?

    YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).

    Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit.

    If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

    Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

    Tomenable 19-10-16, 14:04
    so how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

    Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I. Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.

    UWAGA!!! Nowe dane z 2017r PRZECZĄ TEMU, patrz:
    https://skrbh.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/34-polnocna-droga-r1a-czyli-min-koniec-bredni-o-tzw-starozytnosci-jezyka-litewskiego-pochodzeniu-tzw-scytow-tocharow-itd/

    Goga 19-10-16, 18:48
    But the map I made was only for the ‚Steppe’ component, Then you should rename it into the ‚map of Steppe admixture’. Since it doesn’t correspondent well with the ‚Yamnaya admixture’. At this moment your map is MISLEADING and full of contradictions. Like now according to your map there is more Yamnaya admixture in Finno-Ugric/Saami people than European Indo-Europeans. Like you said Yamnaya Admixture is more than Steppe Admixture.

    Steppe admixture in NorthEastern Europe existed even before the arrival of late second stage Yamnaya PIE. So, a lot Steppe ancestry in NorthEastern Europe has nothing to do with second stage Proto-Indo-European speakers from Yamnaya.

    Yamnaya = Steppe + NorthWest Asia.

    So, you should rename your map into ‚map of Steppe admixture’ or change your percentages about the Yamnaya ancestry.

    Goga19-10-16, 19:04
    I knew N1c couldn’t be a Baltic hunter gatherer. N1c, Siberian admixture, and Uralic languages in Northeast Europe all probably have the same post-CWC source. Then again its arrival might be different for different regions.I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.

    So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn’t hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don’t think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.

    His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.

    Goga19-10-16, 19:14
    Absolutely crazy, no way to deal with it, if I have understood well Gedrosia was the actual Chalco_Iran component… but it is near to absent in the steppe.

    Very simple. Modern European Steppe folks (like Russians) have NOTHING to do with the ancient Iranic Central Asian Steppe folks. Only the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks were full of Gedrosia. While modern Eastern Europeans don’t have that admixture, sicne Eastern Europeans have nothing in common with the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks. The only common thing between ancient Indo-Iranized tribes and modern day Eastern Europeans is the Steppes admixture.

    Those ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks are now Turkified and speak Turkic language as their native language and do consider themselves as Turks/Tatars.

    With other words. Eastern Europeans (Balto-Slavs) are NOT directly related to Indo-Iranized cultures in the Steppes. And those ancient Indo-Iranized folks of the Steppes are now native Turkic/Tatar people of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan.

    Those Shintashta/Androno Steppes folks who were once Indo-IRANIZED by people (Aryans) from the Iranian Plateau were later Turkified and those Indo-Iranized Steppe cultures became Tatars/Turks.

    Kristiina20-10-16, 14:53
    Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE Jaakko Häkkinen who has given the most recent dating for different protolanguage levels based on linguistic criteria does not propose that Proto-Uralic is dated 2000 BCE.

    In his model pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic is dated between 3500 and 2800. The late Proto-Uralic is dated 2300 BC. However, the early history is quite blurred and the time margins are wide, but, by 2000 BC, Proto-Uralic had probably already disintegrated.

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

  7. W laso-stepie było wiele starego R1a1a, coś jak Karelczyka, patrz:

    http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15

    Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age

    Chunxiang Li, Hongjie Li, Yinqiu Cui, Chengzhi Xie, Dawei Cai, Wenying Li, Victor H Mair, Zhi Xu, Quanchao Zhang, Idelisi Abuduresule, Li Jin, Hong Zhu and Hui ZhouEmail author

    BMC Biology20108:15
    DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-15
    © Li et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

    Received: 21 September 2009
    Accepted: 17 February 2010
    Published: 17 February 2010

    Abstract

    Background
    The Tarim Basin, located on the ancient Silk Road, played a very important role in the history of human migration and cultural communications between the West and the East. However, both the exact period at which the relevant events occurred and the origins of the people in the area remain very obscure. In this paper, we present data from the analyses of both Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) derived from human remains excavated from the Xiaohe cemetery, the oldest archeological site with human remains discovered in the Tarim Basin thus far.

    Results
    Mitochondrial DNA analysis showed that the Xiaohe people carried both the East Eurasian haplogroup (C) and the West Eurasian haplogroups (H and K), whereas Y chromosomal DNA analysis revealed only the West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1a in the male individuals.

    Conclusion
    Our results demonstrated that the Xiaohe people were an admixture from populations originating from both the West and the East, implying that the Tarim Basin had been occupied by an admixed population since the early Bronze Age. To our knowledge, this is the earliest genetic evidence of an admixed population settled in the Tarim Basin. (…)

    Table 3 Analysis strategy of the samples.

    Sample

    MtDNA-HVRI

    MtDNA

    Y chromosome

    Sexing

    Independent

    No.

    haplotype

    haplogroup

    haplogroup

    Morphological

    Molecular

    repetition

    100

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    √

    102

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    –

    106

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    107

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    –

    109

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    –

    110

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    –

    111

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    115

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    117

    223-304

    M*

    Female

    Female

    119

    93-134-224-311-390

    K

    Female

    Female

    √

    120

    189-192-311

    R*

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    121

    183-189-192-311

    R*

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    127

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    √

    128

    260

    H

    Female

    Female

    131

    189-192-311-390

    R*

    Female

    Female

    132

    298-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    135

    223-298-309-327

    C4

    Female

    Female

    136

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

    138

    298-327

    C4

    –

    Female

    –

    139

    298-327

    C4

    R1a1a

    Male

    Male

     

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

  9. 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..?!! 🙂

    Polubienie

    Reply ↓

Dodaj komentarz

Ta witryna wykorzystuje usługę Akismet aby zredukować ilość spamu. Dowiedz się w jaki sposób dane w twoich komentarzach są przetwarzane.