GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1110146419


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA] Jewish DNA haplotypes: Misinterpretation based on FTDNA
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:00:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: 6667


Oy vey! Malcolm, your misunderstanding Nebel's
research as well as my response to it.

First, I think you find many of the studies I
mentioned as part of FTDNA's website. Also, most are
available without subscription, so if you simply
google the author and title, you should have access to
these.

Yes, Nebel and other researchers like to talk a lot
about "low-level" gene flow from outside groups into
Jewish groups. The bottom line, however, is that on
the Y chromosome results alone, about 30-40% of the Y
results can be attributed to this supposed "low
level." Either the gene flow was higher than
postulated, or the community was so very small that
these low levels had a tremendous impact. In any
case, the genetic impact is the same.

In my opinion, this is part of the agenda of many of
these studies - European ancestry is minimized in
light of the Israelite results, which are greatly
emphasized by the researchers. To get to the European
Ashkenazi results, you have to dig - and I mean DIG -
to find them.

I mean, if you are an Ashkenazi Jew with R1b or I or Q
results, what do the studies really tell you about
your ancestry? Not much, unless you dig into the
supplementary data (assuming you can access it) and
try to figure it out by yourself comparing your
sub-clade and haplotype information to non-Jewish
Europeans. But my gosh, there is a wealth of
information on Ashkenazi J results, isn't there?

Studies on Ashkenazi R1a are picking up speed, thank's
to Nebel's recent study. Behar insisted that R1a
results were limited to Ashkenazi Levites, but Nebel's
own data contradicts Behar's findings and indicates
that 8% of non-Levites also are R1a. So the
researchers aren't even agreeing these days.

Now, let's talk about Nebel's 2000 study. Look at the
populations he compared Jews to - all Transcaucasians
& Middle Easterners. Well, some Middle Easterners.
No Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese, Jordanians, etc. And
No Europeans. How about throwing a few Italians in
there? We know that J2 is very prevelant among
non-Jewish Europeans, particularly in the Balkans,
Greek, Italian and to a lesser extent, French groups.
Why? Because J2, which originated in
Anatolia/Iran/Iraq, moved out of this area into both
Europe and well as moving south into the northern area
of the Levant - today's Syria, Lebanon and Israel. But
the further you get from the area of origin, the more
J2 petters out. Thus, all these populations -
Syrians, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Jews, etc - are ALL
related in the sense that they all have high
frequencies of haplogroup J2.

Are they in the same sub-clades though? Do they have
the same or similar haplotypes? Well, you won't find
that out from Nebel's study. For sub-clade
information, you need to look to Semino. For haplotype
info., there is unfortunately at this point in time,
no place to go for this information. Nothing
published. Nada. Nothing that I know of, at least.

So as to Nebel's study, Jews are similar to
populations of the northern Levant and the Caucasus
because they have a high frequency of J2. Beyond
that, the study tell you nothing. It certainly
doesn't address the myriad of other DNA results among
Ashkenazi Jews. And if Nebel had included Italians as
part of his study, I'm guessing that Jews would be
closer to them based on their J2 results than
Palestinians, who have very, very little J2.

Here's why the sub-clade information is so important.
I mentioned Semino's J-M92* data. Ashkenazim have
nearly 5% of this sub-clade. Sephardim have none.
Same for Muslim Kurds, Palestinians and Bedouin. This
isn't Israelite in origin, in my opinion.

Other DNA results do reflect probable Israelite
origins. But you have to pick apart the data very
carefully before making this determination.

One more thing - we know now that the CMH is only
properly found in J1. There are cross-over results
with J2. You can't compare Kurdish J2 results with a
haplotype identical to the CMH with Jewish J1 results
with the CMH - your comparing apples with oranges.

Ellen Coffman

--- Malcolm Dodd <> wrote:
> Concerning -
> >
> The so-called Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) is shown
> in the study to be
> found in populations as follows
>
> KURDISH JEW40%
> ASHKENAZI JEW24%
> PALESTINIAN ARAB12%
> SEPHARDIC JEW 8%
> NORTH AFRICA BERBERS AND ARABS8%
> BULGARIANS4%
> MUSLIM KURDS4%
>
> This seems to me clear evidence of the origins in
> Kurdish geographic
> areas (44%).
> Is that information also out of date and likely to
> mislead?
> Note that Turkey is not included in the study.
> Malcolm Dodd
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million
> records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the
> world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: