GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176482855


From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cohen does not equal CMH,CMH does not equal Cohen -- only in J1 do they coincide
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:47:35 -0700
References: <461F9F20.9010003@comcast.net><f3f05ce80704130916g7b750ceeqa4134f1d83ecc78b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3f05ce80704130916g7b750ceeqa4134f1d83ecc78b@mail.gmail.com>


I would also like to add that the advertisement of a particular
haplotype (e.g., the CMH-12/J1 combination) as the "real" Cohen
haplotype is methodologically suspect, especially when dealing with
commercial samples that have a real issue of self-selection bias.

For example, a Cohen might get a genetic test and seeing that he does
not match the CMH-12/J1 combination he might be unwilling to come
forward as a Cohen fearing that this would expose his patrilineage and
surname as "suspect". One simply cannot rely on this type of
commercially gathered sample to make inferences about a population.

On 4/13/07, Dienekes Pontikos <> wrote:
> It is puzzling why 10 years after "Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests"
> appeared in Nature there has been no scientific followup on the
> question of Cohen Y chromosomes.
>
> The debate is not likely to end unless an authoritative study with
> known samples, known markers, is submitted to peer review and gets
> published in the literature. Until then speculation will be rife, and
> rightly so. Right now there are simply no data except hidden data
> which is no data at all.
>
> It is not as if the relevant markers or population samples are not
> available. The DNA samples from Cohanim have been collected for over a
> decade now and were used in the original study, and relevant markers
> such as M172 or M267 have also been known for many years, many times
> the usual cycle of peer review.
>
> It is also not the case that the public or the scientific community
> lacks interest in this issue, since a simple look at any public
> genetic database will convince anyone that there is great Jewish
> interest in their ancestry, and every year there appear to be several
> papers on Jewish genetics.
>
> The original research suggested a link with the Jewish priesthood by
> noting that 50%+ Cohen Y chromosomes had the YAP-, DYS19B combination.
> It is, however, not at all clear what percentage of them has the full
> CMH-6, or the CMH-12/J1 combination. Data is simply lacking.
>
> We can only be certain that the J1/CMH-12 combination will be found in
> some minority of modern Cohanim, although the exact percentage is
> unknown. Indeed, the percentage could be so small that the whole idea
> of modern Cohanim having a connection to the first Israelite priest
> would need to be rethought. Stating that there is a cluster of
> J1/CMH-12 individuals with known religious Cohanim status is not
> sufficient:
>
> Only if a majority or sizable minority of Cohen Y chromosomes belong
> to this cluster, and only if the coalescence time to the patrilineal
> ancestor is roughly consistent with Late Bronze Age is there a case
> for a connection of Cohanim with the Israelite priesthood. Otherwise,
> we simply have an interesting cluster of Y chromosomes and nothing
> more.
>
> Hopefully scientists interested in Jewish origins will present the
> evidence fully in the open light in the near future.
>
> On 4/13/07, Bonnie Schrack <> wrote:
> > I feel really tired of this debate, which seems to be never-ending, no
> > matter how many times it's discussed clearly -- baseless assertions are
> > brought up over and over. But it looks as though I had better try
> > again, since my name gets dragged into it. :-( It seems to be my
> > responsibility, since as administrator of the J project, I have easier
> > access than some to a lot of information.
> >
> > As Ellen pointed out,
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>We've debated on the List before whether the
> > >>CMH as it associated with the Cohamin caste are
> > >>
> > >>Actually within haplogroups J1 and J2. Again,
> > >>listers, you can check the archives.
> > >>
> > >>I believe I have previously asserted that the strong suspicion is that
> > >>it is in J1. I think Bonnie also suggested this, as
> > >>well as some other researchers of haplogroup J.
> > >>
> > Thanks, Ellen -- and I haven't just suggested it, I've stated the fact:
> > In J1, there is a very large, well-studied and definitely known cluster
> > of ancestrally related Cohanim -- in the traditional, religious sense --
> > who have both the old 6-marker CMH and FTDNA's newly refined 12-marker
> > CMH, with a YCAII value of 22-22. They can be seen in our J Haplogroup
> > Project results table with their own category. I should note that there
> > are probably others in the project who could be put in this category,
> > but I have just started out by placing those there which fit the strict
> > definition of the 12-marker CMH.
> >
> > Please note that I don't consider FTDNA a great authority based on their
> > being the largest company in the field; rather, because they work with
> > the very scientists who discovered and defined the original CMH, and
> > have continued their research, with access to a vast amount of relevant
> > data, so they are in the best position to make these definitions, at
> > this point. Bennett Greenspan is deeply involved in Jewish genealogy,
> > he attends many large conferences and knows the world's leading
> > researchers, and he certainly is aware of which families are true
> > Cohanim. It would be completely illogical for him to propose a
> > 12-marker haplotype that was not found in religious Cohanim. And this
> > 12-marker haplotype is found frequently in J1, specifically among Jews,
> > and is virtually never found in J2.
> >
> > >But others pointed out that the question is not yet settled, and both
> > >options are possible.
> > >
> > >
> > The question is not settled only in the sense that Sasson and a few
> > others insist on claiming that it isn't.
> >
> > Ellen also wrote:
> >
> > >>The bottom line is that CMH is not mainly found in J2a1b as you have asserted.
> > >>
> > >>
> > Sasson wrote:
> >
> > >CMH is mainly found in J1.
> > >But outside of J1, it is mainly found in J2a1.
> > >
> > >
> > Why should it be of any interest where else the old 6-marker CMH is
> > found, when the people carrying those marker values are NOT COHANIM in
> > the religious sense? See my further comments below.
> >
> > Ellen asked,
> >
> > >>Please cite the DNA studies that support this contention.
> > >>
> > >>
> > Sasson replied:
> >
> > >
> > >It was mentioned by Bonnie and Al on this List.
> > >
> > OK, if you're going to try to cite me as the source for various
> > misleading assertions, I hope you are ready for me to refute them.
> >
> > One aspect that bugs me is this lingering sense of some kind of a
> > mystical connection between the 6-marker CMH in particular, and being a
> > real Cohen, as if merely having these marker values somehow endows a
> > person with a priestly status. I keep suspecting that somewhere, people
> > are invoking numerology.
> >
> > The reality is that in J2, there are some true Cohanim, yes; and there
> > are people who have the old 6-marker CMH, yes. But THEY ARE NOT THE
> > SAME PEOPLE! They are two totally *separate and distinct groups*, who
> > belong to different haplogroups. Somehow, you all are going to have to
> > break down this mental link between having a few Y DNA markers, and
> > having a religious status. There is no inherent connection! I should
> > think this would go without saying for any religious person.
> >
> > And without any religious feeling at all, a person who studies DNA even
> > a little bit can see that a 6-marker CMH can be found in different
> > contexts, surrounded by other quite different marker values -- pick any
> > 6 marker values, and you can find them scattered about in many
> > haplogroups and clusters. Simply finding those 6 values in someone says
> > nothing about the rest of their haplotype, or what phylogenetic clade
> > they may belong to.
> >
> > I have been researching this in great detail for at least two years, and
> > there is no question about it. We have investigated it with families
> > who have very good knowledge of their family history. The group in
> > J2a1b who have the 6-marker CMH are devoid of any Cohen traditions in
> > their families, which Jeff Schweitzer, my co-administrator and a member
> > of this large group, who is very knowledgeable about Jewish history and
> > genealogy, has searched for systematically among them. I don't believe
> > there is any tradition of a Levite status, either. There are no Levites
> > mentioned as close matches in their RAO or Haplogroup pages. Even if
> > there were Levites among them, this would not fit with your assertions,
> >
> > > The Jewish Cohanim are said to come from the Tribe of Levi, so the null
> > > hypothesis would be that the Tribe of Levi is almost as high in CMH as the
> > > Cohanim themselves.
> > >
> > > The fact that - among the J2 lineages - CMH is mostly found in J2a1b was
> > > stated on earlier in one of the discussions on this List.
> >
> > >The abundance of CMH points towards J2a1b (old J2f) as the Tribe of Levi.
> > >
> > Since you appear to take the Bible as literal truth, I gather you are
> > trying to find two haplogroups that would be in an ancestor-descendant
> > relationship, as the tribe of Levi and the Cohanim lineage are said to
> > be. However, this won't work if you're trying to do it in J2a1b, where
> > neither Cohanim nor Levites have been found! If you ever find any,
> > please bring the specific information to the list -- not just, "they
> > must exist." And by all means, please send me their surnames or Ysearch
> > IDs, if you can actually find any.
> >
> > The J2 group who *do* have a Cohen religious tradition and are proud of
> > it, are *NOT* *in J2a1b*, and *do not have the 6-marker or any other
> > CMH*. They belong to a unique, small offshoot of J2a1* which I believe
> > to be a predecessor of the J2a1k clade. They may be seen in the
> > category in our test results chart labeled, "Pre-J2a1k." I will not go
> > into the technical explanation at this moment, but it's very
> > interesting. There are a good number of Ashkenazi Jewish members of
> > this cluster, who have a well-organized project of their own, and so
> > they have not all joined our J haplogroup project. ( Note that one of
> > our members listed here is from India, and is Christian. He is a
> > descendent of ancient Jewish settlers on the Malabar coast of Kerala.)
> >
> > In case you are wondering, there are some Jews in J2a1k proper, but the
> > families do not know of any Cohen tradition.
> >
> > Also, there is a large group of Jewish families who I have been known
> > for some while, as I've been assisting Herb Huebscher, who has done such
> > an excellent job of studying and coordinating their group, and has been
> > giving presentations on them at international Jewish genealogy
> > meetings. Many of them do have Levite traditions, and they are in the
> > later-arising haplogroup, J2a1b1 (J2f1). I don't know of any other such
> > group of Levites in the J haplogroup.
> >
> > J2a1b1 (J2f1) is considered by scholars to be the most recently formed
> > branch of the J haplogroup. It has the further M92 SNP in addition to
> > the M67 SNP that defines J2a1b. So it cannot be ancestral to the J2a1b
> > people who have the CMH -- who are not Cohanim, anyway.
> >
> > Sasson also wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >From the fact that they are not all CMH but some are just close to
> > > CMH, in
> > > conjunction with the assumption that they all are from the same family, we
> > > can deduce that they are in J2,
> > > because in J1 CMH is much tighter. So 50%-80% are in strict CMH-6, but
> > > there
> > > are many in close haplotypes.
> > >
> > > If the Cohanim sampled back in ninties where mostly in J1, they would form
> > > much more tight network. We can conclude that if the sampled Cohanim
> > > were mostly from haplogroup J2.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There are a great number
> > of Jews -- and non-Jews for that matter -- who have haplotypes that are
> > slightly, or a good ways, off the CMH in J1. I can't fathom by what
> > logic you could try to claim that a broad network of related haplotypes
> > would imply J2 rather than J1. This kind of broad network is exactly
> > what we see in J1 around the Cohen cluster.
> >
> > The scientists who did those studies you cite, themselves, are the ones
> > who are saying the Cohen group is in J1, not J2. Hammer and other
> > colleagues work for, or are friends of FTDNA. The 12-marker CMH which
> > FTDNA is definining, is distinctively a J1 phenomenon.
> >
> > In conclusion, let me say that rather than seeking to equate haplogroups
> > with tribes or peoples, a person who respected the knowledge and
> > information accumulated by all the work of anthropology and human
> > population genetics, would realize that the Jewish people, like any
> > other people or large tribe, were formed by a gathering of families from
> > different haplogroups that were present in the region. If they had been
> > exclusively members of one haplogroup, in the ancient times when they
> > were small in number, it would have been very unhealthy, genetically!
> > There is no major ethnic group yet found in the world that has only one
> > haplogroup in it. People have long been aware of the dangers of
> > inbreeding, and have made efforts to maintain a healthy level of genetic
> > diversity, with a few exceptions.
> >
> > Bonnie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Dienekes' Anthropology Blog
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com
>


--

Dienekes' Anthropology Blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com

This thread: