GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176680694


From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cohen does not equal CMH,CMH does not equal Cohen -- only in J1 do they coincide
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:54 -0700
References: <3b2a446a0704141641xbb2429fob68d408e4b59af47@mail.gmail.com><334110.80820.qm@web52107.mail.re2.yahoo.com><3b2a446a0704151510v9af8e63xbfbfe223d9d47d5a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3b2a446a0704151510v9af8e63xbfbfe223d9d47d5a@mail.gmail.com>


Cohen status is inherited patrilineally, so we expect a number of
different haplotypes, corresponding to independent founders to appear
in the Cohen gene pool. These founders will represent the different
individuals who became Cohens one way or another. The situation is
analogous to a regular surname project.

It may turn out that one of the various haplotypes clearly emerges as
authentic, if e.g., it occurs at a substantial frequency and its
haplotype cluster has the greatest antiquity, consistent with a Bronze
Age ancestor. If that is true, then we can say that this group of
modern Cohens are descended from the earliest ancestor and the
haplotype in question represents the genuine lineage of Cohanim
descent, while other lines represent independent and later
acquisitions of Cohen status.

Alternatively, it may be revealed that no single haplotype emerges as
unambiguously earlier or of an appropriate age. In that case, one of
the different haplotypes may in fact be the genuine one, but we are
not in a position to determine this with sufficient confidence.

Ultimately, the question will depend on seeing actual haplotype data
from a large representative sample of Cohens. It is clear now that the
early reports linking modern Cohens' patrilineages with the Israelite
priesthood were in error, making use of insufficient binary and
microsatellite markers to suggest a unique proto-Cohen lineage. It
remains to be seen whether or not such a proto-Cohen lineage can be
identified with more detailed Y-DNA data.

The CMH-12 is an interesting candidate, but there has been really no
evidence to suggest that it, rather than some other haplotype, is the
more frequent, or oldest. We simply know that there are several
examples of Cohens bearing it.

My guess is that there are probably several competing candidates none
of which emerges clearly as the Proto-Cohen lineage. If a strong case
could be made, then this would have been detected and published years
ago: the markers and samples are there. It is an unfortunate
complication that Aaron and the Bible were brought into the scientific
discussion from the outset, and the issue became religiously loaded;
this has probably made it more difficult to come out with the revised
facts about the CMH and the whole Y-chromosome Aaron issue.

On 4/15/07, Sasson Margaliot <> wrote:
> On 4/15/07, ellen Levy <> wrote:
> >
> > Sasson:
> >
> > I won't respond for Bonnie, but I will say that my own
> > grandfather is Cohanim (surname "Cohen") and matches
> > many other Cohanim (surname "Cohen" or "Katz," and
> > those with Cohanim tradition.) Thus far, I haven't
> > heard of one that has not SNP'd J1.
>
>
> Elen
>
> I do not question at all the existence of a large cluster of J1 Cohanim,
> whose modal haplotype is so called CMH-12.
>
>
> No, of course there is no published studies. We all
> > keep waiting for Behar or Hammer to get it done. So
> > all evidence thus far eminates from either lay DNA
> > research or personal experience.
>
>
> There was no QUANTITATIVE evidence presented even from lay DNA research and
> personal experience.
>
>
> I will say this. When you claim this discussion has
> > nothing to do with Jews and, furthermore, start making
> > unfounded statements concerning "Proto-Israelites"
> > (and whom does this refer to exactly?) leaving Egypt
> > at the end of the Old Kingdom (cites, Sasson, what are
> > your citations and sources?), thereby "evolving" into
> > various linguistic and religious entities, then I
> > start getting very worried indeed.
>
>
>
> Already in early 80es the orthodox religious scientists
> in Israel came to clear conclusion that the Tribes of
> Israel left Egypt at the end of Old Kingdom,
> much earlier than usually assumed.
>
> Of course, at the time the "official science" dismissed
> these statements because "everyone knows that
> Exodus was in days of New Kingdom".
>
> Today the new data clearly shows that there was
> no Exodus of Israel during the times of the "right"
> dynasties of New Kingdom.
>
> Did anybody admit that the religious intellectuals
> in Israel were correct. Of course not!
>
> The official logic today says:
> a) The date of Exodus is so and so
> b) We know that at that time there was no Exodus
> So, there was no Exodus
>
> And they do not notice how hilarious it is:
> if they say that there was no Exodus,
> how can they state its date as a fact ??? !!!!!
>
>
> When I say "proto-Israelis", I mean the people
> who entered Kenaan much earlier than official
> beginning point of "Israelite" period.
>
> Elen, you wrote that archaeologists see continuity
> between "Proto-Israelite" and "Israelite" periods.
>
> Following archaeologists, you would call them "Cnaanites",
> but I call then "Proto-Israelites".
>
> I think, this answers your question about what do I mean
> by "Proto-Israelites".
>
> Given the time-frame for Exodus established by Israeli
> Torah-believing scientists, there is no contradiction
> between the archaeological data and the biblical story
> of Exodus - this period of time is completely beyond
> the reach of the science that exists today.
>
>
> You hint at an
> > argument endorsed by the likes of the British
> > Israelite movement, claiming Jews are not the actual
> > or true descendants of their Israelite forebearers (or
> > in this case, the Cohanim priestly class),
>
>
>
> My position is:
>
> JEWS ARE THE ACTUAL DESCENDANTS
> OF THEIR ISRAELITE ANCESTORS.
>
> There is no doubt about it whatsoever.
>
>
> but
> > Anglo-Saxons or the Celts or some other group can lay
> > claim to this genetic history - they are the true Jews
> > (or in the case of Brit-Am, they get to share
> > Israelite ancestry with the Jews).
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> Are you J2a1b, Sasson (I did ask this before)?
>
>
> I already answered that I did not do any tests, and I do not know.
>
>
> Are
> > you asserting that this Cohanim J2a1b group traveled
> > to Europe or France or some such place as a
> > "proto-Israelite" group and, therefore, contemporary
> > French or English J2a1b's are actually descendants of
> > the biblical figure Aaron?
>
>
> We know of no migrations whatsoever during proto-Israelite period.
> The dispersal of Israelites was the work of Neo-Assyrian Kingdom
> much later.
>
> TRACING THE NORTHERN ISRAEL POPULATIONS
> IN THEIR EXILE INTO MEDIAN REGION
> IS EXCITING SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE
>
> If this project does not fit with your own religious beliefs,
> you can just ignore it.
>
> So far, no conclusive evidence about regular JEWISH Cohanim
> being in J1 or J21a was presented. You are repeatedly
> criticizing me for not accepting the insufficient
> and anecdotal evidence and, basically, for
> not trusting your own conclusions.
>
> This discussion over the last three days revealed some
> very important *NEW* information about Cohanim and a Levitic cluster
> in (and around) J2a1k, that was not shared with as before.
>
>
>
>
> Sasson
>
> -------------------------------
> 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

This thread: