GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-03 > 1141533256
From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Is the CMH J1?
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:34:16 -0500
> Bennett passed this haplotype along when I had asked for the CMH almost a year ago:
> 19 =14
Yes, that's what I understand it to be, too.
A lot of folks who have the key CMH markers (and I include DYS389 in
them) have 11 at DYS439, which is modal for J, but it may be that the 12
is more linked to the Cohanim, for all I know. Likewise, the DYS385 is
often 13-18 in J1, but it may be that 13-15 is found more in Cohens.
Sasson is right that this information has not ever been published, and
is being kept close to the chest by those who have it, but at the same
time, it's being shared unofficially with some people who show an
interest, or who match it.
>When I Googled for <site:www.familytreedna.com CMH>, I found this page.
Hey, thanks, Anne, that's an interesting page! Some questionable
statements . . .wonder how long ago it was written. Funny that it takes
the position that if you have no oral tradition in your family of being
a Cohen, yet match this, you are not from a true Cohen lineage;
likewise, if you match it but have no tradition of being Jewish, you are
probably descended from Neolithic farmers. If we follow that logic, you
might as well just listen to your family's oral tradition to begin with,
because it overrides the DNA every time! They say:
> Therefore if you have an oral tradition of being Cohanim, then you
> most likely are genetically a Cohen. If you have no oral tradition of
> the Cohanim, and if your ancestors were Jewish, then you certainly
> appear to come from the same genetic Gene Pool, and while not being
> directly from the line of Aaron, you could be descended from one of
> his numerous male relatives. The CMH is found in 3% of Jews who
> identify as Yisrael.
> If you have no oral tradition of either being a Cohen, or of
> being Jewish, your Y chromosome is still part of Haplogroup J, or
> perhaps a subset, J2, and most likely your deepest ancestor was part
> of the Neolithic farming expansion that began about 9500 years ago
> from the Fertile Crescent.
Then they make this further intriguing statement:
> We believe that our 25 marker test is providing enough 'signal' to
> separate Neolithic farmers from more recent migrations of Jews out of
> the Middle East and into Europe and North Africa, which happened in
> the last 2,000 years.
Notice that they speak of their 25 marker test, as though that's the
latest news. That makes me suspect that this is an old page. The idea
that they could separate Neolithic farmers from Jews, using STRs, is
something I have never heard them even hint at elsewhere . . . wonder if
that was something they hoped they'd be able to do soon, which hasn't
materialized. If they could really distinguish Jews from non-Jews with
25 markers, there would be an awful lot of people who'd want to know,
and I'd imagine they would want to do something with that capability if
they had it. What I think is far more feasible is to distinguish J1
from J2 -- that's not too hard if you go beyond 12 markers.
Personally, I think from what we've learned, especially from Ellen
Coffman's studies, there is really no way to distinguish Jews from
non-Jews genetically, as some have dreamed of doing, for good or ill.
And even within the J haplogroup, there has been too much mingling and
conversion among the peoples of the Mediterranean basin to make any
broad distinctions. The best we can do, I think, is identify particular
narrowly-defined clusters that are clearly concentrated among Jewish
families -- that's what the CMH is, and there are others.
>Do you think this information is also known but also kept a secret (perhaps
>because more markers would distinguish J1 and J2 CMHs?)
Well, I don't see why being able to distinguish the J1 and J2 CMH
haplotypes, in itself, would be a reason to want to keep it secret. (I
may be missing Gareth's point, since it's late in the evening!) It's
true that this 12-marker version is hardly ever seen in J2; I don't
think I've seen even one haplotype in J2 that matches all 12 markers
that Gary shared (maybe someone else on the list has?)
This is why I have always said that the true CMH lineage is almost
certain to be J1, if those 12 markers are really the ones found among
the Cohanim. I saw the study Dienekes brought up, but that was a small,
local community they studied, which I strongly suspect was not
And as far as what is not made public, it appears to me that most
information that isn't shared is simply seen as a commercial asset that
people are looking for a way to make the best use of. And it may also
be because enough scientific evidence hasn't been accumulated yet to
make it publishable or accepted by the scientific community.
While I would like to see information shared as freely as possible, I
can understand some desire to release it in a controlled way that allows
for some profit to be made, to bring in some income. It's one thing if
you are fortunate enough to have a secure professional salary -- or
tenure -- and another, having to compete in the market.
The librarian and the scientist in me would like to see free and open
access to all information, but on the other hand, I'm coming to realize
that information is a valuable commodity in our economy, and if we
produce it, it's really nice to have a chance to be paid or receive
benefits from it. Better that, than mindless drudgery, which I'm all
too familiar with!
I do hope some clear new information on this will get published sometime
in the not-too-distant future -- maybe in Dr. Behar's upcoming paper on
|Re: [DNA] Is the CMH J1? by Bonnie Schrack <>|