GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176693088


From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Malaspina et al (2001)'s Cohens -- an answer ?
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:11:28 -0400


James wrote:

>The Wikipedia article now organises the data, and has links to the
>original papers:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
>
>The haplogroup numbers from Thomas et al (1998) count the number
>"xDE,PR" -- ie not in Hgs D, E, P, Q, R
>
>Behar et al (2003) have a more detailed breakdown of Cohanim numbers by
>haplotype, from a slightly enlarged sample.
>
>
>The article doesn't include Bonnie's wonderful breakthrough yet, which -
>with luck - means we may be getting close to finally getting the story
>sorted out!
>
James, thanks so much for your kind words, and for the very helpful link!

Sasson wrote:

>So the mystery of J21a Cohanim in Malaspina (2001) is resolved !
>
>
Thanks for that gracious comment, Sasson.

>And they are in - or near - Pre-J2a1k, not far from the point in the
>haplotype space where the cluster of Levites was also found ...
>
Well, I guess it all depends on what you call close.
Here's a section of the ISOGG J phylogenetic tree:

• J2 M172
• • J2* -
• • J2a M410
• • • J2a* -
• • • J2a1 DYS413≤18
• • • • J2a1* -
• • • • J2a1a M47, M322 (formerly J2a)
• • • • J2a1b M67 (S51) (formerly J2f)
• • • • • J2a1b* -
• • • • • J2a1b1 M92, M260 (formerly a part of J2f1)
• • • • • • J2a1b1* -
• • • • • • J2a1b1a M327 (formerly a part of J2f1)
• • • • • J2a1b2 M163, M166 (formerly J2f2)
• • • • J2a1c M68 (formerly J2b)
• • • • J2a1d M137 (formerly J2c)
• • • • J2a1e M158 (formerly J2d)
• • • • J2a1f M289
• • • • J2a1g M318 (formerly J2k)
• • • • J2a1h M319 (formerly J2l)
• • • • J2a1i M339 (formerly J2g)
• • • • J2a1j M419
• • • • J2a1k DYS445≤7 (formerly known as J2x)

I hope that formatting comes out OK.

Now, the already known Pre-J2a1k cluster and hopefully, the newly
discovered Cohen cluster as well, belong to J2a1, but with some special
marker values that indicate that they're very closely related, in an
ancestral way, to J2a1k.

The Levite cluster that I referred to belongs to J2a1b1, (M92+), which
is quite different.

>Then out of 106 Cohanim, only 17 (or 18) were outside of the Haplogroup J.
>
>Then of 89 Cohanim in Haplogroup J, only 54 were in CMH-6.
>
>
That's a huge group! It doesn't make sense to say "only" 54. Consider
that the next largest cluster had *6* members, compared to 54! That is,
this one I pointed out was the second-largest cluster, but it was only
1/9 the size of the CMH cluster, by far the largest.

>What about the other 35 ? They were at various distances from CMH-6.
>
>
Yes. The next two clusters in size had 4 members each; they were:
14 13 23 10 11 12, which could possibly be one of the interesting group
of J1 with 13 at 388, which Jim Honeychuck is researching; my family is
one of a small number in J2 that have 13 at 388, and none of these are
Jewish.
and
15 16 24 9 11 12, which is J2a1k.


Dienekes wrote:

>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.
>
In error? Hardly. All we need to say is that in those days, there was
only rudimentary knowledge of SNP and STR markers on the Y chromosome
and their uses. What was done in those older papers was perfectly
legitimate and not erroneous; like much older scientific research, it
will naturally be superseded by what comes after it.

>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.
>
These are simply false statements. Perhaps he feels that if such things
are just repeated enough times, people will come to believe them?

How can anyone take it seriously when he suggests that there is no
evidence to suggest that the CMH-12 is more frequent than other
haplotypes among Cohanim?

There's no question at this point that the CMH is the most common
haplotype among Cohanim, and there are only two clusters in haplogroup J
among whom the CMH is found: in J1 with YCAII=22-22, where the CMH-12 is
modal among Cohanim (and this modal haplotype can be extended to 67
markers), and in J2a1b, which has a different 67-marker modal haplotype.
Since as of today, not a single J2a1b who is a Cohen has been found,
while great numbers have been found among those in J1, I don't see much
room for ambiguity.

The attitude that such facts are not truthful or valid until they have
been published in a peer-reviewed journal contradicts the revolutionary
impact of the Internet on science: nowadays few scientists engaged in
research sit and wait for new findings to be formally published. Science
rushes forward with the information exchanged via email, web postings,
and online databases playing a leading role.

If the facts I've presented are to be challenged, let someone come
forward with specific examples of families and haplotypes that
contradict them.

>The CMH is not exclusively associated with J1 in Ashkenazi Jews. So it
>is not clear whether or not the Italian Ashkenazi Cohens belonged to
>the smaller (non-CMH) cluster that Bonnie has mentioned or to the CMH
>itself.
>
They were SNP'd as M172+, and had DYS413<18, so we know they were
somewhere in J2a1. They could have been in J2a1b, which has many Jewish
members who have the 6-marker CMH. But as I have repeatedly reported,
research by my collaborator, Dr. Jeffrey Schweitzer, M.D., among these
families has found that none of them have any Cohen tradition.
Apparently this is taken as some offhand, anecdotal statement that can
simply be discarded. I will see if Jeff can be persuaded to write
something about it for the list. I know that as a neurosurgeon, he has
little time for these debates, so I haven't wanted to trouble him with
such requests.

I don't really understand the fierce, die-hard resistance to the simple,
scientific reality of the J haplogroup's structure. If religion is not
the issue, what's provoking such opposition?

Bonnie








This thread: