Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Jostemikk, oktober 27, 2013, 02:14:16 AM
Sitat fra: Amatør1 på desember 02, 2013, 21:11:43 PMMye rart å spekulere på her, Joste. Jeg fant denne fra Cuzco i Peru, som ser ut til å vise en type steinbyggerkunst som er noe helt for seg selv.
Sitat fra: Pål Elnan på november 12, 2013, 00:01:29 AMJostemikk:SitatSjimpansene, vår påstått nærmeste slektning, så akkurat ut som en sjimpanse for svært lenge siden.Har du noe dokumentasjon på dette?
SitatSjimpansene, vår påstått nærmeste slektning, så akkurat ut som en sjimpanse for svært lenge siden.
SitatAt first 'gods and heroes' ruled Egypt for a little less than 18,000 years. The last of these was Horus, the son of Isis. After these came 470 native kings, of whom the first was Menes, before the time of the Macedonian and Persian rule, and also four Ethiopian kings and ive queens.Mortals have been Kings of their country, they say, for a little less than 5,000 years.The Ethiopians did not immediaately succeed each other, but at intervals, and their united reigns amounted to a little less than thirty-six years. "Of all these kings the priests have sketches in their holy books, handed down through successive generations from extreme antiquity, showing how tall each king was, what he was like, and what he accomplished in his reign."
SitatThe main reason given for the founding of the Order, to protect the pilgrim routes, does not bear any close examination whatsoever for the first ten or twelve years of the Order's existence. It would have been a physical impossibility for nine middle-aged knights to protect the dangerous route from Jaffa to Jerusalem from all the bandits and marauding infidels who believed that the pilgrims who provided such easy pickings, were a gift from God. The recorded actions of the knights make this an even more incredible scenario, for they did not patrol the dangerous roads of the Holy Land to protect the pilgrims, but spent nine years in the dangerous and demanding task of excavating and mining a series of tunnels under their quarters on the Temple Mount. These arduous tasks were completed with the patronage and support of the King of Jerusalem.The tunnels mined by the Templars were re-excavated in 1867, by Lieutenant Warren of the Royal Engineers. The access tunnel descends vertically downwards for eighty feet through solid rock before radiating in a series of minor tunnels horizontally under the site of the ancient temple itself. Lieutenant Warren failed to find the hidden treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem, but in the tunnels excavated so laboriously by the Templars, they found a spur, remnants of a lance, a small Templar cross and the major part of a Templar sword. These artefacts are now preserved for posterity by the Templar archivist for Scotland, Robert Brydon of Edinburgh. Also in his keeping is a letter from a certain Captain Parker who took part in Warren's excavation under the Temple and several subsequent ones.
SitatEran Elhaik, Ph.DGenetic Epidemiology, Population Genetics, and Molecular EvolutionTheMissing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian HypothesesEran Elhaik1,2,*1Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health2McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine*Corresponding author: E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.Accepted: December 5, 2012AbstractThe question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved. The "Rhineland Hypothesis" depicts Eastern European Jews as a "population isolate" that emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the "Khazarian Hypothesis" suggests that Eastern European Jew descended from the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews continuously reinforced the Judaized Empire until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo-Khazars. Thus far, however, the Khazar's contribution has been estimated only empirically, as the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian Hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. We further describe major difference among Caucasus populations explained by early presence of Judeans in the Southern and Central Caucasus. Our results have important implications on the demographic forces that shaped the genetic diversity in the Caucasus and medical studies.Key words: Jewish genome, Khazars, Rhineland, Ashkenazi Jews, population isolate, Eastern European Jews, Central European Jews, population structure.IntroductionContemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for approximately 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide (Ostrer 2001). Speculated to have emerged from a small Central European founder group and thought to have maintained high endogamy, Eastern European Jews are considered a "population isolate" and invaluable subjects in disease studies (Carmeli 2004), although their ancestry remains debatable between geneticists, historians, and linguists (Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Sand 2009; Behar et al. 2010). Recently, several large-scale studies have attempted to chart the genetic diversity of Jewish populations by genotyping Eurasian Jewish and non-Jewish populations (Conrad et al. 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Behar et al. 2010). Interestingly, some of these studies linked Caucasus populations with Eastern European Jews, at odds with the narrative of a Central European founder group. Because correcting for population structure and using suitable controls are critical in medical studies, it is vital to examine the hypotheses purporting to explain the ancestry of Eastern and Central European Jews. One of the major challenges for any hypothesis is to explain the massive presence of Jews in Eastern Europe, estimated at eight million people at the beginning of the 20th century. We investigate the genetic structure of European Jews, by applying a wide range of analyses—including three population test, principal component, biogeographical origin, admixture, identity by descent (IBD), allele sharing distance, and uniparental analyses—and test their veracity in light of the two dominant hypotheses depicting either a sole Middle Eastern ancestry or a mixed Middle Eastern–Caucasus–European ancestry to explain the ancestry of Eastern European Jews.The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.The "Rhineland hypothesis" envisions modern European Jews to be the descendents of the Judeans—an assortment of Israelite–Canaanite tribes of Semitic origin (figs. 1 and 2) (supplementary note S1, Supplementary Material online). It proposes two mass migratory waves: the first occurred over the 200 years following theMuslim conquest of Palestine (638 CE) and consisted of devoted Judeans who left Muslim Palestine for Europe (Dinur 1961). Whether these migrants joined the existing Judaized Greco–Roman communities is unclear, as is the extent of their contribution to the Southern European gene pool. The second wave occurred at the beginning of the 15th century by a group of 50,000 German Jews who migrated eastward and ushered an apparent hyperbaby-boom era for half a millennium (Atzmon et al. 2010). The Rhineland hypothesis predicts a Middle Eastern ancestry to European Jews and high genetic similarity among European Jews (Ostrer 2001; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010).The competing "Khazarian hypothesis" considers Eastern European Jews to be the descendants of Khazars (supplementary note S1, Supplementary Material online). The Khazars were a confederation of Slavic, Scythian, Hunnic–Bulgar, Iranian, Alans, and Turkish tribes who formed in the central–northern Caucasus one of most powerful empires during the late Iron Age and converted to Judaism in the 8th century CE (figs. 1 and 2) (Polak 1951; Brook 2006; Sand 2009). The Khazarian, Armenian, and Georgian populations forged from this amalgamation of tribes (Polak 1951) were followed by relative isolation, differentiation, and genetic drift in situ (Balanovsky et al. 2011). Biblical and archeological records allude to active trade relationships between Proto-Judeans and Armenians in the late centuries BCE (Polak 1951; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002), that likely resulted in a small scale admixture between these populations and a Judean presence in the Caucasus. After their conversion to Judaism, the population structure of the Judeo–Khazars was further reshaped by multiple migrations of Jews from the Byzantine Empire and Caliphate to the Khazarian Empire (fig. 1). Following the collapse of their empire and the Black Death (1347–1348) the Judeo–Khazars fled westward (Baron 1993), settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and Hungary (Polak 1951) and eventually spreading to Central and Western Europe. The Khazarian hypothesis posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries. Moreover, European Jewish communities are expected to be different from one another both in ancestry and genetic heterogeneity. The Khazarian hypothesis also offers two explanations for the genetic diversity in Caucasus groups first by the multiple migration waves to
SitatKhazaria during the 6th–10th centuries and second by the Judeo–Khazars who remained in the Caucasus. Genetic studies attempting to infer the ancestry of European Jews yielded inconsistent results. Some studies pointed to the genetic similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations like Adygei (Behar et al. 2003; Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al. 2009), whereas some pointed to the similarity to Middle Eastern populations such as Palestinians (Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2000), and others pointed to the similarity to Southern European populations like Italians (Atzmon et al. 2010; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010). Most of these studies were done in the pregenomewide era using uniparental markers and including different reference populations, which makes it difficult to compare their results. More recent studies employing whole genome data reported high genetic similarity of European Jews to Druze, Italian, and Middle Eastern populations (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010).Although both the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses depict a Judean ancestry and are not mutually exclusive, they are well distinguished, as Caucasus and Semitic populations are considered ethnically and linguistically distinct (Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Balanovsky et al. 2011). Jews, according to either hypothesis, are an assortment of tribes who accepted Judaism, migrated elsewhere, and maintained their religion up to this date and are, therefore, expected to exhibit certain differences from their neighboring populations. Because both hypotheses posit that Eastern European Jews arrived at Eastern Europe roughly at the same time (13th and 15th centuries), we assumed that they experienced similar low and fixed admixture rates with the neighboring populations, estimated at 0.5% per generation over the past 50 generations (Ostrer 2001). These relatively recent admixtures have likely reshaped the population structure of all European Jews and increased the genetic distances from the Caucasus or Middle Eastern populations. Therefore,we do not expect to achieve perfect matching with the surrogate Khazarian and Judean populations but rather to estimate their relatedness.Materials and MethodsData CollectionThe complete data set contained 1,287 unrelated individuals of 8 Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations genotyped over 531,315 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A linkage disequilibrium (LD)-pruned data set was created by removing one member of any pair of SNPs in strong LD (r2>0.4) in windows of 200 SNPs (sliding the window by 25 SNPs at a time) using indep-pairwise in PLINK (Purcell et al. 2007). This yielded a total of 221,558 autosomal SNPs that were chosen for all autosomal analyses except the identical by descent (IBD) analysis that utilized the complete data set. Both data sets were obtained from http://www.evolutsioon.ut.ee/ MAIT/jew_data/ (last accessed December 19, 2012) (Behar et al. 2010). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Ychromosomal data were obtained from previously published data sets as appeared in Behar et al. (2010). These markers were chosen to match the phylogenetic level of resolution achieved in previously reported data sets and represent a diversified set of markers. A total of 11,392 samples were assembled for mtDNA (6,089) and Y-hromosomal (5,303) analyses from 27 populations (supplementary tables S1 and S2, Supplementary Material online).TerminologyIn common parlance, Eastern and Central European Jews are practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jews and are considered a single entity (Tian et al. 2008; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010). However, the term is misleading, for the Hebrew word "Ashkenaz" was applied to Germany in medieval rabbinical literature—contributing to the narrative that modern Eastern European Jewry originated on the Rhine. We thus refrained from using the term "Ashkenazi Jews." Jews were roughly subdivided into Eastern (Belorussia, Latvia, Poland, and Romania) and Central (Germany, Netherlands, and Austria) European Jews. In congruence with the literature that considers "Ashkenazi Jews" distinct from "Sephardic Jews," we excluded the later. Complete population notation is described in supplementary table S3, Supplementary Material online.Choice of Surrogate PopulationsAs the ancient Judeans and Khazars have been vanquished and their remains have yet to be sequenced, in accordance with previous studies (Levy-Coffman 2005; Kopelman et al. 2009; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010), contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasus populations were used as surrogates. Palestinians were considered proto-Judeans because they are assumed to share a similar linguistic, ethnic, and geographic background with the Judeans and were shown to share common ancestry with European Jews (Bonne´ -Tamir and Adam 1992; Nebel et al. 2000; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010). Similarly, Caucasus Georgians and Armenians were considered proto-Khazars because they are believed to have emerged from the same genetic cohort as the Khazars (Polak 1951; Dvornik 1962; Brook 2006).The Three Population TestThe f3 statistics uses allele frequency differences to assess the presence of admixture in a population X from two other populations A and B, so that f3(X; A, B) (Reich et al. 2009). If X is a mixture of A and B, rather than the result of genetic drift, f3 would be negative. A significant negative f3 indicates that the ancestors of group X experienced a history of admixture subsequent to their divergence from A and B. The f3 statistics were calculated with the threepop program of TreeMix (Pickrell and Pritchard 2012) with k¼500 over the set of 221,558 SNPs. This test differs from ADMIXTURE (Alexander et al. 2009), which reports the proportions of admixture with the most likely ancestor.Principal Component AnalysisAlthough the commonly used "multipopulation" principal component analysis (PCA) has many attractive properties, it should be practiced with caution to avoid biases due to the choice of populations and varying sample sizes (Price et al. 2006; McVean 2009). To circumvent these biases, we developed a simple "dual population" framework consisting of three "outgroup" populations that are available in large sample sizes and are the least admixed—Mbuti and Biaka Pygmies (South Africa), French Basques (Europe), and Han Chinese (East Asia)—and two populations of interest, all of equal sample sizes. The cornerstone of this framework is that it minimizes the number of significant PCs to four or fewer (Tracy-Widom test, P<0.01) and maximizes the portion of explained variance to over 20% for the first two PCs. PCA calculations were carried out using smartpca of the EIGENSOFT package (Patterson et al. 2006). Convex hulls were calculated usingMatlab "convhull" function and plotted around the cluster centroids. Relatedness between two populations of interest was estimated by the commensurate overlap of their clusters. Small populations (<7 samples) were excluded from the analysis.Estimating the Biogeographical Origins of PopulationNovembre et al. (2008) proposed a PCA-based approach, accurate to a few hundred kilometers within Europe, to identify the current biogeographical origin of a population. Although this approach has no implied historical model, it correlates genetic diversity with geography and can thus be a useful tool to study biogeography. To decrease the bias caused by multiple populations of uneven sizes (Patterson et al. 2006; McVean 2009), we adopted the dual-population framework with three outgroup populations and two populations of interest: a population of known geographical origin during the relevant time period shown to cluster with the population in question (e.g., Armenians) and the population in question (e.g., Eastern European Jews). The first four populations were used as a training set for the population in question. PCA calculations were carried out as described earlier. The rotation angle of PC1–PC2 coordinates was calculated as described by Novembre et al. (2008). Briefly, in each figure the PC axes were rotated to find the angle that maximizes the summed correlation of the median PC1 and PC2 values of the training populations with the latitude and longitude of their countries. Latitudinal and longitudinal data were obtained from the literature or by the country's approximate centroid. Geodesic distances were calculated in kilometers using the Matlab function "distance."Admixture AnalysisA structure-like approach was applied in a supervised learning mode as implemented in ADMIXTURE (Alexander et al. 2009). ADMIXTURE provides an estimation of the individual's ancestries from the allele frequencies of the designated ancestral populations. ADMIXTURE's bootstrapping procedure with default parameters was used to calculate the standard errors. We observed low (<0.05) standard errors in all our analyses. With the exception of Southern Europeans, populations were sorted by their mean African and Asian ancestries. In this analysis, the three Netherland Jews were grouped with Eastern European Jews.IBD AnalysisTo detect IBD segments, we ran fastIBD 10 times using different random seeds and combined the results as described by Browning and Browning (2011). Segments were considered to be IBD only if the fastIBD score of the combined analysis was less than e–10. This low threshold corresponds to long shared haplotypes (1 cM) that are likely to be IBD. Short gaps (<50 indexes) separating long domains were assumed to be false-negative and concatenated (Browning and Browning 2011). Pairwise-IBD segments between European Jews and different populations were obtained by finding the maximum total IBD sharing between each European Jew and all other individuals of a particular population.Allele Sharing DistancesAllele sharing distances (ASD) was used for measuring genetic distances between populations as it is less sensitive to small sample sizes than other methods. Pairwise ASD was calculated using PLINK (Purcell et al. 2007), and the average ASD between populations I and J, was computed as
Sitatwhere Wij is the distance between individuals i and j from populations I and J of sizes n and m, respectively. To verify that these ASD differences are significant, a bootstrap approach was used with the null hypothesis: H0: ASD (p1, p2)¼ASD (p1, p3), where the ASD between populations p1 and p2 is compared with the ASD between populations p2 and p3 (supplementary note S2, Supplementary Material online). To compare continental Jewish communities, individuals were grouped by their continent and the comparison was carried as described.Uniparental AnalysisTo infer the migration patterns of European Jews, we integrated haplogroup data from over 11,300 uniparental chromosomes with geographical data. The haplogroup frequencies were compared between populations to obtain a measure of distance between populations. Pairwise genetic distances between population haplogroups (supplementary tables S1 and S2, Supplementary Material online) were estimated by applying the Kronecker function as implemented in Arlequin version 3.1 (Excoffier et al. 2005). In brief, similarity between populations was defined as the fraction of I haplogroups that the two populations shared as measured by the Kronecker function dxy(i):
Sitatwhich equals 1 if the haplogroup frequency of the ith haplogroup is nonzero for both populations and equals 0 otherwise. In other words, populations sharing the same exact haplogroups or their mutual absence are considered more genetically similar than populations with different haplogroups. For brevity, we considered only haplogroups with frequencies higher than 0.5%. This measure has several desirable properties that make it an excellent measure for estimating genetic distance between populations, such as a simple interpretation in terms of homogeneity and applicability to both mtDNA and Y- chromosomal data.ResultsTo confirm that the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses indeed portray distinct ancestries, we assessed the degree of background admixture between Caucasus and Semitic populations. We calculated the f3 statistics between Palestinians and six Caucasus and Eurasian populations using African San as an outgroup, for example, f3(Palestinians, San, Armenians). The f 3 results for Turks (–0.0013), Armenians and Georgians (–0.0019), Lezgins and Adygei (–0.0015), and Russians (–0.0011) indicated a minor but significant admixture (–26<Z-score<–13) between Palestinians and the populations tested. Because Armenians and Georgians diverged from Turks 600 generations ago (Schonberg et al. 2011), we can assume that the lion's share of their admixture derived from that ancestry and within the expected levels of background admixture typical to the region rather than recent admixture with Semitic populations. Therefore, similarities between European Jews and Caucasus populations will unlikely be due to a shared Semitic ancestry. PCA was next used to identify independent dimensions that capture most of the information in the data. PCA was applied using two frameworks: the "multipopulation" carried for all populations (fig. 3) and separately for Eurasian populations along with Pygmies and Han Chinese (supplementary fig. S2, Supplementary Material online) and our novel "dualpopulation" framework (supplementary fig. S3, Supplementary Material online). In all analyses, the studied samples aligned along the two well-established geographic axes of global genetic variation: PC1 (sub-Saharan Africa vs. the rest of the Old World) and PC2 (east vs. west Eurasia) (Li et al. 2008). Our results reveal geographically refined groupings, such as the nearly symmetrical continuous European rim extending from Western to Eastern Europeans, the parallel
SitatCaucasus rim, and the Near Eastern populations (supplementary fig. S1, Supplementary Material online) organized in Turk–Iranian and Druze clusters (fig. 3). Middle Eastern populations form a gradient along the diagonal line between Bedouins and Near Eastern populations that resembles their geographical distribution. The remaining Egyptians and the bulk of Saudis distribute separately from Middle Eastern populations. European Jews are expected to cluster with native Middle Eastern or Caucasus populations according to the Rhineland or Khazarian hypotheses, respectively. The results of all PC analyses (fig. 3, supplementary figs. S2 and S3, Supplementary Material online) show that over 70% of European Jews and almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Jews within the Caucasus rim (fig. 3 and supplementary fig. S3, Supplementary Material online). Approximately 15% of Central European Jews cluster with Druze and the rest cluster with Cypriots. All European Jews cluster distinctly from the Middle Eastern cluster. Strong evidence for the Khazarian hypothesis is the clustering of European Jews with the populations that reside on opposite ends of ancient Khazaria: Armenians, Georgians, and Azerbaijani Jews (fig. 1). Because Caucasus populations remained relatively isolated in the Caucasus region and because there are no records of Caucasus populations mass-migrating to Eastern and Central Europe prior to the fall of Khazaria(Balanovsky et al. 2011), these findings imply a shared origin for European Jews and Caucasus populations.To assess the ability of our PCA-based approach to identify the biogeographical origins of a population, we first sought to identify the biogeographical origin of Druze. The Druze religion originated in the 11th century, but the people's origins remain a source of much confusion and debate (Hitti 1928). We traced Druze biogeographical origin to the geographical coordinates: 38.6± 3.45 N, 36.25±1.41 E (supplementary fig. S4, Supplementary Material online) in the Near East (supplementary fig. S1, Supplementary Material online). Half of the Druze clustered tightly in Southeast Turkey, and the remaining were scattered along northern Syria and Iraq. These results are in agreement with the findings of Shlush et al. (2008) using mtDNA analysis. The inferred geographical positions of Druze were used in the subsequent analyses.The geographical origins of European Jews varied for different reference populations (fig. 4 and supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online), but all the results converged to Southern Khazaria along modern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Eastern European Jews clustered tightly compared with Central European Jews in all analyses.
SitatThe smallest deviations in the geographical coordinates were obtained with Armenians for both Eastern (38 ±2.7 N, 39.9±0.4 E) and Central (35±5 N, 39.7 ±1.1 E) European Jews (fig. 4). Similar results were obtained for Georgians (supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online). Remarkably, the mean coordinates of Eastern European Jews are 560 km from Khazaria's southern border (42.77 N, 42.56 E) near Samandar—the capital city of Khazaria from 720 to 750 CE (Polak 1951).The duration, direction, and rate of gene flow between populations determine the proportion of admixture and the total length of chromosomal segments that are identical by descent. Admixture calculations were carried out using a supervised learning approach in a structure-like analysis. This approach has many advantages over the unsupervised approach that not only traces ancestry to K abstract unmixed populations under the assumption that they evolved independently (Chakravarti 2009; Weiss and Long 2009) but also is problematic when applied to study Jewish ancestry, which can be dated only as far back as 3,000 years (fig. 2). Moreover, the results of the unsupervised approach vary based on the particular populations used for the analysis and the choice of K, rendering the results incomparable between studies. Admixture was calculated with a reference set of seven populations representing largely genetically distinct regions: Pygmies (South Africa), Palestinians (Middle East), Armenians (Caucasus), Turk–Iranians (Near East), French Basque (West Europe), Chuvash (East Europe), and Han Chinese (East Asia) (fig. 5). The ancestral components grouped all populations by their geographical regions with European Jews clustering with Caucasus populations. As expected, Eastern and WesternEuropean ancestries exhibit opposite gradients among European populations. The Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestries are dominant among Central (38%) and Eastern (32%) European Jews followed by Western European ancestry (30%). Among non-Caucasus populations, the Caucasus ancestry is the largest among European Jews (26%) and Cypriots (31%). These populations also exhibit the largest fraction of Middle Eastern ancestry among non–Middle Eastern populations. As both Caucasus and Middle Eastern ancestries are absent in Eastern European populations, our findings suggest that Eastern European Jews acquired these ancestries prior to their arrival to Eastern Europe. Although the Rhineland hypothesis explains the Middle Eastern ancestry by stating that Jews migrated from Palestine to Europe in the 7th century, it fails to explain the large Caucasus ancestry, which is nearly endemic to Caucasus populations.Although they cluster with Caucasus populations (fig. 5), Eastern and Central European Jews share a large fraction of Western European andMiddle Eastern ancestries, both absent in Caucasus populations. According to the Khazarian hypothesis, the Western European ancestrywas imported to Khazaria by Greco–Roman Jews, whereas the Middle Eastern ancestry alludes to the contribution of both early Israelite Proto-Judeans as well as Mesopotamian Jews (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976; Sand 2009). Central and Eastern European Jews differ mostly in their Middle Eastern (30% and 25%, respectively) and Eastern European ancestries (3% and 12%, respectively), probably due to late admixture.Druze exhibits a large Turk–Iranian ancestry (83%) in accordance with their Near Eastern origin (supplementary fig. S4, Supplementary Material online). Druze and Cypriot
Sitatappear similar to European Jews in their Middle Eastern and Western European ancestries, though they differ largely in the proportion of Caucasus ancestry. These results can explain the genetic similarity between European Jews, Southern Europeans, and Druze reported in studies that excluded Caucasus populations (Price et al. 2008; Atzmon et al. 2010; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010). Overall, our results portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Near Eastern-Caucasus, Western European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries in decreasing proportions.To glean further details of the genomic regions contributing to the genetic similarity between European Jews and the perspective populations, we compared their total genomic regions shared by IBD. If European Jews emerged from Caucasus populations, the two would share longer IBD regions than with Middle Eastern populations. The IBD analysis exhibits a skewed bimodal distribution embodying a major Caucasus ancestry with a minor Middle Eastern ancestry (fig. 6), consistent with the admixture results (fig. 5). The total IBD regions shared between European Jews and Caucasus populations (9.5cM on average) are significantly larger than regions shared with Palestinians (5.5 cM) (Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit test, P<0.001). To the best of our knowledge, these are the largest IBD regions ever reported between European Jews and non- jewish populations. The decrease in total IBD between European Jews and other populations combined with the increase in distance from the Caucasus support the Khazarian hypothesis.We next estimated the level of endogamy among Eurasian Jewish communities and compared their genetic distances with non-Jewish neighbors, Caucasus, and Middle Eastern populations.Our results expand the previous report of high endogamy in Jewish populations (Behar et al. 2010) and narrow the endogamy to regional Jewish communities (table 1, left panel). Jews are significantly more similar to members of their own community than to other Jewish populations (P<0.01, bootstrap t test), with the conspicuous exception of Bulgarian, Turkish, and Georgian Jews. These results stress the high heterogeneity among Jewish communities across Eurasia and even within communities, as in the case of the Balkan and Caucasus Jews.When compared with non-Jewish populations, all Jewish communities were significantly (P<0.01, bootstrap t test) distant from Middle Eastern populations and, with the exception of Central European Jews, significantly closer to Caucasus populations (table 1, right panel). Similar findings were
Sitatreported by Behar et al. (2010) although they were dismissed as "a bias inherent in our calculations." However, we found no such bias. The close genetic distance between Central European Jews and Southern European populations can be attributed to a late admixture. The results are consistent with our previous findings in support of the Khazarian hypothesis. As the only commonality among all Jewish communities is their dissimilarity from Middle Eastern populations (table 1, right panel), grouping different Jewish communities without correcting for their country of origin, as is commonly done, would increase their genetic heterogeneity.Finally, we carried uniparental analyses on mtDNA and Y-chromosome comparing the haplogroup frequencies between European Jews and other populations. The Rhineland hypothesis depicts Middle Eastern origins for European Jews' paternal andmaternal ancestries both, whereas the Khazarian hypothesis depicts a Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European and Near Eastern contributions of migrates from Byzantium and the Caliphate, respectively. Because Judaism was maternally inherited only since the 3rd century CE (Patai and Patai 1975), the mtDNA is expected to show a stronger local female-biased founder effect compared with the Y-chromosome. Haplogroup similarities between European Jews and other populations were plotted as heat maps on the background of their geographical locations (fig. 7). The pairwise distances between all studied populations are shown in supplementary fig. S6, Supplementary Material online.Our results shed light on sex-specific processes that, although not evident from the autosomal data, are analogous to those obtained from the biparental analyses. Both mtDNA and Y-chromosomal analyses yield high similarities between European Jews and Caucasus populations rooted in the Caucasus (fig. 7) in support of the Khazarian hypothesis. Interestingly, the maternal analysis depicts a specific Caucasus founding lineage with a weak Southern European ancestry (fig. 7A), whereas the paternal ancestry reveals a dual Caucasus–Southern European origin (fig. 7B). As expected, the maternal ancestry exhibits a higher relatedness scale with narrow dispersal compared with the paternal ancestry.Dissecting uniparental haplogroups allows us to delve further into European Jews' migration routes. As the results do not specify whether the Southern Europe–Caucasusmigration was ancient or recent nor indicate the migration's direction, that is, from Southern Europe to the Caucasus or the opposite, there are four possible scenarios. Of these, the only historically supportable scenarios are ancient migrations from Southern Europe toward Khazaria (6th–13th centuries) and more recent migrations from the Caucasus to Central and Southern Europe (13th–15th centuries) (Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975; Straten 2003; Brook 2006; Sand 2009). A westward migration from the diminished Khazaria toward Central and Southern Europe would have exhibited a gradient from the Caucasus toward Europe for both matrilineal and patrilineal lines. Such a gradient was not observed. By contrast, Judaized Greco–Roman male-driven migration directly to Khazaria is consistent with historical demographic migrations and could have created the observed pattern. Moreover, we found little genetic similarity between European Jews and populations
Sitateastward to the Caspian Sea and southward to the Black Sea, delineating the geographical boundaries of Khazaria (table 1 and fig. 1).DiscussionEastern and Central European Jews comprise the largest group of contemporary Jews, accounting for approximately 90% of over 13 million worldwide Jews. Eastern European Jews made up over 90% of European Jews before World War II. Despite their controversial ancestry, European Jews are an attractive group for genetic and medical studies due to their presumed genetic history (Ostrer 2001). Correcting for population structure and using suitable controls are critical in medical studies, thus it is vital to determine whether European Jews are of Semitic, Caucasus, or other ancestry.Though Judaism was born encased in theological–historical myth, no Jewish historiography was produced from the time of Josephus Flavius (1st century CE) to the 19th century (Sand 2009). Early historians bridged the historical gap simply by linking modern Jews directly to the ancient Judeans (fig. 2), a paradigm that was later embedded in medical science and crystallized as a narrative.Many have challenged this narrative (Koestler 1976; Straten 2007), mainly by showing that a sole Judean ancestry cannot account for the vast population of Eastern European Jews in the beginning of the 20th century without the major contribution of Judaized Khazars and by demonstrating that it is in conflict with anthropological, historical, and genetic evidence (Patai and Patai 1975; Baron 1993; Sand 2009).With uniparental and whole genome analyses providing ambiguous answers (Levy-Coffman 2005; Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010), the question of European Jewish ancestry remained debated mainly between the supporters of the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses. Although both theories oversimplify complex historical processes they are attractive due to their distinct predictions and testable hypotheses. We showed that the hypotheses are also genetically distinct and that the miniscule Semitic ancestry in Caucasus populations cannot account for the similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations. The recent availability of genomic data from Caucasus populations allowed testing the Khazarian hypothesis for the first time and prompted us to contrast it with the Rhineland hypothesis. To evaluate the two hypotheses, we carried out a series of comparative analyses between European Jews and surrogate Khazarian and Judean populations posing the same question each time: are Eastern and Central European Jews genetically closer to Khazarian or Judean populations? Under the Rhineland hypothesis, European Jews are also expected to exhibit high endogamy, particularly across their Eurasian communities, and be more similar to Middle Eastern populations compared with their neighboring non-Jewish populations, whereas the Khazarian hypothesis predicts the opposite scenario. We emphasize that these hypotheses are not exclusive and that some European Jews may have other ancestries.Our PC, biogeographical estimation, admixture, IBD, ASD, and uniparental analyses were consistent in depicting a Caucasus ancestry for European Jews. Our first analyses revealed tight genetic relationship of European Jews and Caucasus populations and pinpointed the biogeographical origin of European Jews to the south of Khazaria (figs. 3 and 4). Our later analyses yielded a complex ancestry with a slightly dominant Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry, large Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestries, and a minor Eastern European contribution; the latter two differentiated Central and Eastern European Jews (figs. 4 and 5 and table 1). Although the Middle Eastern ancestry faded in the ASD and uniparental analyses, the Southern European ancestry was upheld, probably attesting to its later time period (table 1 and fig. 7).We show that the Khazarian hypothesis offers a comprehensive explanation for the results, including the reported Southern European (Atzmon et al. 2010; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010) and Middle Eastern ancestries (Nebel et al. 2000; Behar
Sitatet al. 2010). By contrast, the Rhineland hypothesis could not explain the large Caucasus component in European Jews, which is rare in non-Caucasus populations (fig. 5), and the large IBD regions shared between European Jews and Caucasus populations attesting to their common and recent origins. Our findings thus reject the Rhineland hypothesis and uphold the thesis that Eastern European Jews are Judeo– Khazars in origin. Consequently, we can conclude that the conceptualization of European Jews as a "population isolate," which is derived from the Rhineland hypothesis, is incorrect and most likely reflects sampling bias in the lack of Caucasus non-Jewish populations in comparative analyses.A major difficulty with the Rhineland hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multimigration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten 2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from fifty thousand (15th century) to eight million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7–2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th–17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007). This growth could not possibly be the product of natural population expansion, particularly one subjected to severe economic restrictions, slavery, assimilation, the Black Death and other plagues, forced and voluntary conversions, persecutions, kidnappings, rapes, exiles, wars, massacres, and pogroms (Koestler 1976; Straten 2003; Sand 2009). Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennium and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible—it is explained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem—it is not science. The question of how the Rhineland hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (Sand 2009).The most parsimonious explanation for our findings is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo–Khazarian ancestry forged over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus and later Khazaria was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road (fig. 1), the decline of Judah (1st–7th centuries), and the uprise of Christianity and Islam (Polak 1951). Greco–Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were intensified following the Khazars' conversion to Judaism (Polak 1951; Brook 2006; Sand 2009).The eastward male-driven migrations (fig. 7) from Europe to Khazaria solidified the exotic Southern European ancestry in the Khazarian gene pool (fig. 5), and increased the genetic heterogeneity of the Judeo–Khazars. The religious conversion of the Khazars encompassedmost of the empire's citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years (Polak 1951; Baron 1993) until the invasion of the Mongols (Polak 1951; Dinur 1961; Brook 2006). At the final collapse of their empire (13th century), many of the Judeo–Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the neighboring populations.Historical and archeological findings shed light on the demographic events following the Khazars' conversion. During the half millennium of their existence (740–1250 CE), the Judeo–Khazars sent offshoots into the Slavic lands, such as Romania and Hungary (Baron 1993), planting the seeds of a great Jewish community to later rise in the Khazarian diaspora. We hypothesize that the settlement of Judeo–Khazars in Eastern Europe was achieved by serial founding events, whereby populations expanded from the Caucasus into Eastern and Central Europe by successive splits, with daughter populations expanding to new territories following changes in socio-political conditions (Gilbert 1993). These events may have contributed to the higher homogeneity observed in Jewish communities outside Khazaria's borders (table 1).After the decline of their empire, the Judeo–Khazars refugees sought shelter in the emerging Polish kingdom and other Eastern European communities where their expertise in economics, finances, and politics was valued. Prior to their exodus, the Judeo–Khazar population was estimated to be half a million in size, the same as the number of Jews in the Polish–Lithuanian kingdom four centuries later (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976). Some Judeo–Khazars were left behind, mainly in the Crimea and the Caucasus, where they formed Jewish enclaves surviving into modern times. One of the dynasties of Jewish princes ruled in the 15th century under the tutelage of the Genovese Republic and later of the Crimean Tartars. Another vestige of the Khazar nation is the "Mountain Jews" in the North Eastern Caucasus (Koestler 1976).The remarkable close proximity of European Jews and populations residing on the opposite ends of ancient Khazaria, such as Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijani Jews, and Druze (fig. 3 and supplementary figs. S2, S3, and S5, Supplementary Material online), supports a common Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry. These findings are not explained by the Rhineland hypothesis and are staggering due to the uneven demographic processes these populations have experienced in the past eight centuries. The slightly higher observed genetic similarity between European Jews and Armenians compared with Georgians (figs. 4 and supplementary figs. S5–6, Supplementary Material online and table 1) is particularly bewildering because Armenians and Georgians are very similar populations that share a similar genetic background (Schonberg et al. 2011) and long history of cultural relations (Payaslian 2007). We speculate that there is a small Middle Eastern ancestry in Armenians that does not exist in Georgians and is likely responsible for the high genetic similarity between Armenians and European Jews (supplementary fig. S6, Supplementary Material online). Because the Khazars blocked the Arab approach to the Caucasus, we suspect that this ancestry was introduced by the Judeans arriving at a very early date to Armenia and was absorbed into the populations, whereas Judeans arriving to Georgia avoided assimilation (Shapira 2007). The relatedness between European Jews and Druze reported here and in the literature (Behar et al. 2010) is explained by Druze Turkish–Southern Caucasus origins. Druze migrated to Syria, Lebanon, and eventually to Palestine between the 11th and 13th centuries during the Crusades, a time when the Jewish population in Palestine was at a minimum. The genetic similarity between European Jews and Druze therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin (fig. 5). We emphasize that testing the Middle Eastern origin of European Jews can only be done with indigenous Middle Eastern groups. Overall, the similarity between European Jews and Caucasus populations underscores the genetic continuity that exists among Eurasian Jewish and non-Jewish Caucasus populations.This genetic continuity is not surprising. The Caucasus gene pool proliferated from the Near Eastern pool due to an Upper Paleolithic (or Neolithic) migration and was shaped by significant genetic drift, due to relative isolation in the extremely mountainous landscape (Balanovsky et al. 2011; Pagani et al. 2011). Caucasus populations are therefore expected to be genetically distinct from Southern European and Middle Eastern populations (fig. 5) but to share certain genetic similarity with Near Eastern populations such as Turks, Iranians, and Druze. In all our analyses, Middle Eastern samples clustered together or exhibited high similarity along a geographical gradient (fig. 3) and were distinguished from Arabian Peninsula Arab samples on one hand and from Near Eastern–Caucasus samples on the other hand.Our study attempts to shed light on the forgotten Khazars and elucidate some of the most fascinating questions of their history. Although the Khazars' conversion to Judaism is not in dispute, there are questions as to how widespread and established the new religion became. Despite the limited sample size of European Jews, they represent members from the major residential Jewish countries (i.e., Poland and Germany) and exhibit very similar trends. Our findings support a largescalemigration from South–Central Europe and Mesopotamia to Khazaria that reshaped the genetic structure of the Khazars and other Caucasus populations in the central and upper Caucasus. Our findings also support a large-scale conversion followed by admixture of the newcomers with the Judeo– Khazars. Another intriguing question touches upon the origins of the Khazars, speculated to be Turk, Tartar, or Mongol (Brook 2006). As expected from their common origin, Caucasus populations exhibit high genetic similarity to Iranian and Turks with mild Eastern Asian ancestry (fig. 5 and supplementary fig. S6, Supplementary Material online). However, we found a weak patrilineal Turkic contribution compared with Caucasus and Eastern European contributions (fig. 7). Our findings thus support the identification of Turks as the Khazars' ancestors but not necessarily the predominant ancestors. Given their geographical position, it is likely the Khazarian gene pool was also influenced by Eastern European populations that are not represented in our data set.Our results fit with evidence from a wide range of fields. Linguistic findings depict Eastern European Jews as descended from a minority of Israelite–Palestinian Jewish emigrants who intermarried with a larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Germano–Sorb lands (Wexler 1993). Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, began as a Slavic language that was relexified to High German at an early date (Wexler 1993). Our findings are also in agreement with archeological, historical, linguistic, and anthropological studies (Polak 1951; Patai and Patai 1975; Wexler 1993; Brook 2006; Kopelman et al. 2009; Sand 2009) and reconcile contradicting genetic findings observed in uniparental and biparental genome data. The conclusions of the latest genome-wide studies (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010) that European Jews had a single Middle Eastern origin are incomplete as neither study tested the Khazarian hypothesis, to the extent done here. Finally, our findings confirm both oral narratives and the canonical Jewish literature describing the Khazars' conversion to Judaism (e.g., "Sefer ha-Kabbalah" by Abraham ben Daud [1161 CE], and "The Khazars" by Rabbi Jehudah Halevi [1140 CE]) (Polak 1951; Koestler 1976).Although medical studies were not conducted using Caucasus and Near Eastern populations to the same extent as with European Jews, many diseases found in European Jews are also found in their ancestral groups in the Caucasus (e.g., cystic fibrosis and a-thalassemia), the Near East (e.g., factor XI deficiency, type II), and Southern Europe (e.g., nonsyndromic recessive deafness) (Ostrer 2001), attesting to their complex multiorigins.Because our study is the first to directly contrast the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses, a caution is warranted in interpreting some of our results due to small sample sizes and availability of surrogate populations. To test the Khazarian hypothesis, we used a crude model for the Khazars' population structure. Our admixture analysis suggests that certain ancestral elements in the Caucasus genetic pool may have been unique to the Khazars. Therefore, using few contemporary Caucasus populations as surrogates may capture only certain shades of the Khazarian genetic spectrum. Further studies are necessary to test the magnitude of the Judeo–Khazar demographic contribution to the presence of Jews in Europe (Polak 1951; Dinur 1961; Koestler 1976; Baron 1993; Brook 2006). These studies may yield a more complex demographic model than the one tested here and illuminate the complex population structure of Caucasus populations. Irrespective of these limitations, our results were robust across diverse types of analyses, and we hope that they will provide new perspectives for genetic, disease, medical, and anthropological studies.ConclusionsWe compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian–European–Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogates to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis depictinga large Near Eastern–Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions. We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.Supplementary MaterialSupplementary notes S1 and S2, figures S1–S6, and tables S1–S7 are available at Genome Biology and Evolution online (http://www.gbe.oxfordjournals.org/).AcknowledgmentsThe author is grateful to Brian and Sharon Browning for their help with the IBD analysis and to his colleagues for their valuable comments. He thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.Literature CitedAlexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K. 2009. Fast model-based estimationof ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 19:1655–1664.Atzmon G, et al. 2010. Abraham's children in the genome era: majorJewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters withshared Middle Eastern ancestry. Am J Hum Genet. 86:850–859.Balanovsky O, et al. 2011. Parallel evolution of genes and languages in theCaucasus region. Mol Biol Evol. 28:2905–2920.Baron SW. 1993. A social and religious history of the Jews. New York:Columbia University Press.Behar DM, et al. 2003. Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosomeevidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries. Am JHum Genet. 73:768–779.Behar DM, et al. 2010. The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.Nature 466:238–242.Bonne´ -Tamir B, Adam A. 1992. Genetic diversity among Jews: diseasesand markers at the DNA level. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Brook KA. 2006. The Jews of Khazaria. Lanham (MD): Rowman &Littlefield.Browning BL, Browning SR. 2011. A fast, powerful method for detectingidentity by descent. Am J Hum Genet. 88:173–182.Carmeli DB. 2004. Prevalence of Jews as subjects in genetic research:figures, explanation, and potential implications. Am J Med Genet A.130:76–83.Chakravarti A. 2009. Being human: kinship: race relations. Nature 457:380–381.Conrad DF, et al. 2006. A worldwide survey of haplotype variation andlinkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nat Genet. 38:1251–1260.Dinur BZ. 1961. Israel in exile [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv (Israel): Devir and MosadBialik.Dvornik F. 1962. The Slavs in European history and civilization. NewBrunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S. 2005. Arlequin (version 3.0): an integratedsoftware package for population genetics data analysis. EvolBioinform Online. 1:47–50.Finkelstein I, Silberman NA. 2002. The Bible unearthed: archaeology's newvision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. New York:Simon and Schuster.Gilbert M. 1993. The atlas of Jewish history. New York: William Morrowand Company.Hammer MF, et al. 2000. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populationsshare a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 97:6769–6774.Hitti PK. 1928. The origins of the Druze people and religion, with extractsfrom their sacred writings. New York: Columbia University Press.Koestler A. 1976. The thirteenth tribe: the Khazar Empire and its heritage.New York: Random House.Kopelman NM, et al. 2009. Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewishancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations.BMC Genet. 10:80.Levy-Coffman E. 2005. A mosaic of people: the Jewish story and a reassessmentof the DNA evidence. J Genet Geneal. 1:12–33.Li JZ, et al. 2008. Worldwide human relationships inferred fromgenome-wide patterns of variation. Science 319:1100–1104.McVean G. 2009. A genealogical interpretation of principal componentsanalysis. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000686.Nebel A, et al. 2000. High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeliand Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantialoverlap with haplotypes of Jews. Hum Genet. 107:630–641.Novembre J, et al. 2008. Genes mirror geography within Europe. Nature456:98–101.Ostrer H. 2001. A genetic profile of contemporary Jewish populations. NatRev Genet. 2:891–898.Ostrer H. 2012. Legacy: a genetic history of the Jewish people. New York:Oxford University Press.Pagani L, et al. 2011. High altitude adaptation in Daghestani populationsfrom the Caucasus. Hum Genet. 131:423–433.Patai R, Patai J. 1975. The myth of the Jewish race. New York: Scribner.Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D. 2006. Population structure and eigenanalysis.PLoS Genet. 2:e190.Payaslian S. 2007. The history of Armenia: from the origins to the present.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Pickrell JK, Pritchard JK. 2012. Inference of population splits and mixturesfrom genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet. 8:e1002967.Polak AN. 1951. Khazaria—the history of a Jewish kingdom in Europe [inHebrew]. Tel-Aviv (Israel): Mosad Bialik and Massada PublishingCompany.Price AL, et al. 2008. Discerning the ancestry of European Americans ingenetic association studies. PLoS Genet. 4:e236.Price AL, et al. 2006. Principal components analysis corrects forstratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 38:904–909.Purcell S, et al. 2007. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome associationand population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 81:559–575.Reich D, Thangaraj K, Patterson N, Price AL, Singh L. 2009. ReconstructingIndian population history. Nature 461:489–494.Sand S. 2009. The invention of the Jewish people. London: Verso.Schonberg A, Theunert C, Li M, Stoneking M, Nasidze I. 2011.High-throughput sequencing of complete human mtDNA genomesfrom the Caucasus and West Asia: high diversity and demographicinferences. Eur J Hum Genet. 19:988–994.Shapira DDY. 2007. Armenian and Georgian sources on the Khazars: are-evaluation. In: Golden PB, Ben-Shammai H, Ro´ na-Tas A, editors.The world of the Khazars: new perspectives—selected papers fromthe Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium. Leiden (TheNetherlands): Brill. p. 307–352.Shlush LI, et al. 2008. The Druze: a population genetic refugium of theNear East. PLoS One 3:e2105.Straten JV. 2003. Jewish migrations from Germany to Poland: theRhineland hypothesis revisited. Mankind Quarterly 44:367–384.Straten JV. 2007. Early modern Polish Jewry. The Rhineland hypothesisrevisited. Historical Methods 40:39–50.Tian C, et al. 2008. Analysis and application of European genetic substructureusing 300 K SNP information. PLoS Genet. 4:e4.Weiss KM, Long JC. 2009. Non-Darwinian estimation: my ancestors, mygenes' ancestors. Genome Res. 19:703–710.Wexler P. 1993. The Ashkenazic Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of aJewish identity. Colombus (OH): Slavica.Zoossmann-Diskin A. 2010. The origin of Eastern European Jews revealedby autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms. BiolDirect. 5:57.
SitatThe Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.SitatHis Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
SitatHis Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
SitatPreface to the English-Language EditionThis book was originally written in Hebrew. My mother tongue is actually Yiddish, but Hebrew has remained the language of my imagination, probably of my dreams and certainly of my writing. I chose to publish the book in Israel because initially my intended readers were Israelis, both those who see themselves as Jews and those who are defined as Arabs. My reason was simple enough: I live in Tel Aviv, where I teach history.When the book first appeared in early 2008, its reception was somewhat odd. The electronic media were intensely curious, and I was invited to take part in many television and radio programs. Journalists, too, turned their attention to my study, mostly in a favorable way. By contrast, representatives of the "authorized" body of historians fell on the book with academic fury, and excitable bloggers depicted me as an enemy of the people. Perhaps it was this contrast that prompted the readers to indulge me—the book stayed on the bestseller list for nineteen weeks....Furthermore, the tight grip of the national myths has long been loosened. A younger generation of journalists and critics no longer echoes its parents' collectivist ethos, and searches for the social models cultivated in London and New York. Globalization has sunk its aggressive talons into the cultural arenas even of Israel and has, in the process, undermined the legends that nurtured the "builders' generation." An intellectual current known as post- Zionism is now found, though marginally, in various academic institutions, and has produced unfamiliar pictures of the past. Sociologists, archaeologists, geographers, political scientists, philologists, and even filmmakers have been challenging the fundamental terms of the dominant nationalism.But this stream of information and insights has not reached the plateau on which resides a certain discipline, called "The History of the Israelite People" in Hebrew academies. These institutions have no departments of history as such, but rather departments of general history—such as the one I belong to—and separate departments of Jewish (Israelite) history. It goes without saying that my harshest critics come from the latter. Aside from rioting minor errors, they chiefly complained that I had no business discussing Jewish historiography because my area of expertise is Western Europe. Such criticism was not leveled against other general historians who tackled Jewish history, provided they did not deviate from the dominant thinking. "The Jewish people," "the ancestral land," "exile," "diaspora," "aliyah," "Eretz Israel," "land of redemption" and so forth are key terms in all reconstructions within Israel of the national past, and the refusal to employ them is seen as heretical.I was aware of all this before I began writing this book. I expected my attackers to claim that I lacked a proper knowledge of Jewish history, did not understand the historical uniqueness of the Jewish people, was blind to its biblical origin, and denied its eternal unity. But it seemed to me that to spend my life at Tel Aviv University amid its vast collection of volumes and documents about Jewish history without taking time to read and tackle them would have been a betrayal of my profession.
SitatRoss McKitrick har sagt noe om "incestuøse trekk" i miljøet rundt Klimapanelet - kan de være i slekt?
SitatAdmittedly, the disparity between what my research suggested about the history of the Jewish people and the way that history is commonly understood— not only within Israel but in the larger world—shocked me as much as it shocked my readers. Generally speaking, educational systems teach you to begin writing after you have finished your thinking—meaning that you should know your conclusion before you start writing (that was how I obtained my doctoral degree). But now I found myself being shaken repeatedly as I worked on the composition. The moment I began to apply the methods of Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and others, who instigated a conceptual revolution in the field of national history, the materials I encountered in my research were illuminated by insights that led me in unexpected directions.
Sitat...Unfortunately, few of my colleagues—the teachers of history in Israel— feel it their duty to undertake the dangerous pedagogical mission of exposing conventional lies about the past. I could not have gone on living in Israel without writing this book. I don't think books can change the world, but when the world begins to change, it searches for different books. I may be naive, but it is my hope that the present work will be one of them. Tel Aviv, 2009
SitatAs stated earlier, before the invention of printing, court scribes and priests did not have the means of communication to reach the masses, nor did they need them. The divine right of royalty conveyed ideological legitimacy primarily to the administrative circles and landed aristocracy, and these groups controlled the territory. It is true that the religious elite slowly began its effort to reach the generality, namely, the peasant population, but it also avoided close contact with it. Gellner gives a good description of the intellectual mechanism in agricultural societies:SitatThe tendency of liturgical languages to become distinct from the vernacular is very strong: it is as if literacy alone did not create enough of a barrier between cleric and layman, as if the chasm between them had to be deepened, by making the language not merely recorded in an inaccessible script, but also incomprehensible when articulated.
SitatThe tendency of liturgical languages to become distinct from the vernacular is very strong: it is as if literacy alone did not create enough of a barrier between cleric and layman, as if the chasm between them had to be deepened, by making the language not merely recorded in an inaccessible script, but also incomprehensible when articulated.
SitatCHAPTER THREEThe Invention of the Exile: Proselytism and ConversionAfter being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.—The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 1948As a result of the historic catastrophe in which Titus of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and Israel was exiled from its land, I was born in one of the cities of the Exile. But always I regarded myself as one who was born in Jerusalem.—S. I. Agnon, accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature, 1966
SitatEven Israelis who are not familiar with the historic opening passage of their Proclamation of Independence must have held a fifty-shekel note that bears the moving words spoken by S. I. Agnon when he received the Nobel Prize. Just like the authors of the proclamation, and like most of Israel's citizens, the eminent author knew that the "Jewish nation" was exiled after the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE, then wandered about the world, inspired by the "twothousand- year-long hope ... of being a free people" (in the words of the Israeli national anthem) in its ancient homeland.Uprooting and deportation are concepts deeply embedded in Jewish tradition in all its forms. But their significance has changed over the history of the religion; they did not always bear the secular meaning with which they came to be imbued in modern times. Jewish monotheism began to take shape among the cultural elites who were forcibly deported after the fall of the kingdom of Judah in the sixth century BCE, and the imagery of exile and wandering already reverberates, directly or metaphorically, in a major part of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (the final section of the Old Testament). From the expulsion from Eden, through Abraham's migration to Canaan and Jacob's descent into Egypt, to the prophesies of Zachariah and Daniel, Jewish religion gazed back through a perspective of wanderings, uprootings, and returns. The Torah already stated: "And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from one end of the earth even unto the other, and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known" (Deut. 28:64). The fall of the First Temple was asociated with expulsion, and this literary-theological memory helped shape subsequent Jewish religious sensibilities.1However, a close examination of the historical event that apparently engendered the "second exile" in the year 70 CE, and an analysis of the Hebrew term golah (exile) and its connotation in late Hebrew, indicate that the national historical consciousness was a patchwork of disparate events and traditional elements. Only in this way could it function as an effective myth that provided modern Jews with a pathway to ethnic identity. The ultra-paradigm of deportation was essential for the construction of a longterm memory wherein an imaginary, exiled people-race could be described as the direct descendants of the former "people of the Bible." As we shall see, the myth of uprooting and exile was fostered by the Christian tradition, from which it flowed into Jewish tradition and grew to be the truth engraved in history, both the general and the national.
SitatTHE "PEOPLE" EXILED IN 70 CEIt must first of all be emphasized that the Romans never deported entire peoples. We might add that neither did the Assyrians and Babylonians move entire populations from the countries they conquered. It did not pay to uproot the people of the land, the cultivators of produce, the taxpayers. But even the efficient policy of deportation practiced by the Assyrian, and later the Babylonian, empire—in which whole sections of local administrative and cultural elites were deported—was not followed by the Roman Empire. Here and there in the western Mediterranean countries, local farming communities were displaced to make room for the settling of Roman soldiers, but this exceptional policy was not applied in the Near East. Roman rulers could be utterly ruthless in suppressing rebellious subject populations: they executed fighters, took captives and sold them into slavery, and sometimes exiled kings and princes. But they definitely did not deport whole populations in the countries they conquered in the East, nor did they have the means to do so.Flavius Josephus, the historian of the Zealot revolt in the year 66 CE, is almost the only source for this exile, aside from archaeological findings dating to that time. His book Wars of the Jews describes the tragic outcome of that period's conflict. The devastation did not spread throughout the kingdom of Judea, but affected mainly Jerusalem and a number of other fortified cities. Josephus estimated that 1.1 million people died in the siege of Jerusalem and the great massacre that followed, that 97,000 were taken captive, and that a few thousand more were killed in other cities.Like all ancient historians, Josephus tended to exaggerate his numbers. Today most scholars believe that virtually all demographic figures from antiquity are overstated, and that a good many have numerological significance. Josephus does state that a large number of pilgrims had gathered in Jerusalem before the uprising, but the assumption that more than a million people were killed there is not credible. The population of the city of Rome at the height of the empire in the second century CE might have approached the size of a medium modern conurbation, but there was no such metropolis in the little kingdom of Judea. A cautious estimate suggests that Jerusalem at that time could have had a population of sixty thousand to seventy thousand inhabitants.
SitatHer er et eksempel som viser befolkningsutviklingen fra 1933 til 1948.1933:1948:Dette er skremmende, og et vitnesbyrd over grusomheter det er vanskelig å sette navn på. Vær vennlige å studer tallene nøye. Deretter kan dere på egenhånd søke fram flere opplysninger enn dette ene dokumentet. Det kan dere gjøre her:http://vault.fbi.gov/Dr. Heller var formann for sionistene i USA, og denne uttalelsen lagret, kopiert, og senere frigitt av FBI, er fra 1943:
SitatWe also have little information about the second messianic revolt, which shook Judean history in the second century CE. The uprising that broke out in 132 CE, in the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, popularly known as the Bar Kokhba revolt, is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian Cassius Dio, and by Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea and author of Ecclesiastical History. Echoes of the events appear in the Jewish religious texts as well as in archaeological findings. Regrettably, there was no historian of the stature of Josephus at that time, so any reconstruction of events can only be fragmentary. The question arises, was the traditional story of the expulsion due to the traumatic consequences of that revolt? Describing the conclusion of the revolt, Cassius Dio wrote:SitatFifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate.The characteristic exaggeration is plain to see (the figures used by ancient historians always seem to call for the subtraction of a zero), but even this grim report says nothing about deportations....By the end of the second century and beginning of the third, not only had most of the farming population recovered and agricultural production stabilized, but the country's culture attained what came to be thought of as its golden age in the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi.10 The year 220 CE saw the completion and final arrangement of the six parts of the Mishnah—a far more decisive historical event than the Bar Kokhba revolt in the development of Jewish identity and religion. So what was the origin of the great myth about the exiling of the Jewish people following the destruction of the Temple?
SitatFifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate.
SitatIsrael Jacob Yuval, a historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, went further. He proposed to show that the renewed Jewish myth about the exile in fact arose fairly late, and was due mainly to the rise of Christian mythology about the Jews being exiled in punishment for their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. It seems that the source of the discourse regarding the anti-Jewish exile lies in the writings of Justin Martyr, who in the mid-second century linked the expulsion of circumcised men from Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt with divine collective punishment. He was followed by other Christian authors who regarded the presence of Jews outside their sacred land as the punishment and proof of their sins. The myth of exile began to be slowly appropriated and integrated into Jewish tradition.It was in the Babylonian Talmud, however, that the first statements appear linking the exile with the fall of the Second Temple. A Jewish community had existed in Babylonia continuously since the sixth century BCE, and not even during the powerful Hasmonean kingdom did it ever seek to "return" to Zion. Perhaps, following the destruction of the Second Temple, this gave rise to the narrative linking the fall with renewed exile as an echo of an ancient event, a catastrophe that provided a religious rationale for "weeping by the rivers"— rivers that flowed not very far from Jerusalem.With the triumph of Christianity in the early fourth century CE, when it became the religion of the empire, Jewish believers in other parts of the world also began to adopt the notion of exile as divine punishment. The connection between uprooting and sin, destruction and exile, became embedded in the various definitions of the Jewish presence around the world. The myth of the Wandering Jew, punished for his transgressions, was rooted in the dialectic of Christian-Jewish hatred that would mark the boundaries of both religions through the following centuries.
SitatArthur Koestler (født 5. september 1905 i Budapest, død 3. mars 1983 i London) var en ungarskfødt jøde i daværende Østerrike-Ungarn, og ble engelsk forfatter. Han behersket og skrev også på tysk, fransk og jiddisch (og konstruerte et av de første kjente kryssord på jiddisch), og behersket arabisk etter et lengre opphold i Palestina før den annen verdenskrig.
SitatThe Thirteenth Tribe (1976) is a book by Arthur Koestler, which advances the thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people. Koestler's hypothesis is that the Khazars (who converted to Judaism in the 8th century) migrated westwards into Eastern Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries when the Khazar Empire was collapsing.
SitatIn 1983 he and his wife committed suicide at home in London.
SitatOn December 10, 2004, Gary Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head. Sacramento County coroner Robert Lyons ruled that it was suicide, noting that a suicide note was found at the scene.
SitatArthur Cherep-Spiridovich (1858 — 22 October 1926) was a Russian Count who moved to the United States following the Bolshevik Revolution. He was a Tsarist general and white Russian loyalist. He was involved in Pan-Slavism and White Russian activism, including various chivalric orders and cultural organisations, amongst the diaspora community in America. Spiridovich is perhaps best known for authoring a book positing a concise conspiracy consisting of 300 Jewish families entitled "Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand".BiographySpiridovitch was President of the Slavonic Society of Russia and of the Latino-Slavic League of Paris and Rome. Politically he was a supporter of the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and an opponent of Bolshevism.According to Walter Laqueur:SitatCount (General) Cherep-Spiridovich had his headquarters in the United States; he was even more obviously a clinical case than some of his colleagues. He introduced himself in his books as 'The Slav Pope', 'The Slav Bismarck','The possessor of the faculty to foresee events'Walter Laqueur, Russia and Germany (1965), p. 120. Laqueur does not, however, offer any evidence that Cherep-Spiridovich was a "clinical case", nor does he dispute any statements made by the Count in any of his books. He only gives his own opinion of Cherep-Spiridovich.Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich died in Staten Island, at a hotel, with the Gas Line Pipe, stuck to his mouth-throat, as if to say that he committed suicide. The Police filed that in the only report. However, when the body was discovered at the hotel by the staff, the Gas line was shut off. No autopsy was done. There was no further investigation put into the case... He had a catholic and an orthodox funeral service.
SitatCount (General) Cherep-Spiridovich had his headquarters in the United States; he was even more obviously a clinical case than some of his colleagues. He introduced himself in his books as 'The Slav Pope', 'The Slav Bismarck','The possessor of the faculty to foresee events'
SitatAccording to Mulders, Hitler's dominant haplogroup, E1b1b, is relatively rare in Western Europe - but strongest in some 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians, who apparently acquired the genes from Africa: Between 50 percent and 80 percent of North Africans share Hitler's dominant group, which is especially prevalent among in the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and Somalis. More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews.
SitatThe English word "Aryan" is borrowed from the Sanskrit word ārya meaning 'Noble'; but apparently, it was initially used as a national name to designate those who worshipped the Vedic deities (especially Indra) and followed Vedic culture (e.g. performance of sacrifice, Yajna). The Zend airya 'venerable' and Old Persian ariya are also thought to be national names.
SitatPropaganda betegner i moderne språkforståelse en ensidig fremstilling av informasjon for at mennesker skal ta stilling til en sak på en bestemt måte; ikke egentlig forskjellig fra reklame i sin metode, men som regel knyttet til politiske og/eller religiøse spørsmål.
Sitat fra: Spiren på februar 12, 2014, 22:05:16 PM07/02/2014 In this revealing interview, Brien Foerster sheds lights on DNA testing undertaken on one of the Paracas elongated skulls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qsj5QyB1bk
SitatAre Paracas Elongated Skulls a New Species, Aliens or a Hoax?Initial DNA analysis of one of the 3,000-year-old elongated skulls found in Paracas, Peru, has revealed that they may not have been come from humans but from a completely new species, according to Paracas Museum assistant director Brien Foerster.Foerster, who also runs his own tour group company in Peru and has authored 11 books on ancient history, told Ancient Origins that a geneticist who tested skull samples has found that they contain mutated DNA that does not match any known genetic DNA information in GenBank, an open-access sequence database of all the known genetic data in the world.The unidentified geneticist told Foerster: "It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.""I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree," the geneticist added.