GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176839385


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Malaspina et al (2001)'s Cohens -- an answer ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <462504B9.1070609@sbcglobal.net>


Al:

I'm not clear how it is that you feel I've discounted
your observations. I actually place great weight on
them.

But I think it would be helpful to step back a bit on
this debate. I also think it would be useful to go
back and reread Bonnie's post about J2 among the
Cohamim samples, because I found them quite helpful in
addressing this issue and they probably address some
of your questions concerning whether there is some J2
Cohanim in the samples (according to Bonnie, there is,
but they don't have the CMH).

Also, I think it needs to be remembered that this
debate began not as a call for further research on
this issue, with better resolution of the Cohanim
data, but from wildly speculative assertions tinged
with strong religious and troubling racial/ethnic
overtones devoid of any solid genetic and
archaeological data (not even ancedotal evidence from
a DNA project was presented). That was highly
disturbing to me, and certainly set a negative tone.
This appears to have resulted in the intermixing of
two groups that really are separate in their goals -
one seeking additional DNA research with new markers
and data for clarification of older DNA studies, and
the other group seeking to assert a
religiously-charged racial agenda. That group seems
to have become silent (thankfully), but I have a
feeling that they may simply be riding on the
coattails of the other group, which is asserting
legitimate concerns regarding lack of SNP results and
dating method discrepancies.

When you meet a person with the surname "Cohen," I
don't think you can automatically assume you are
speaking with someone who is a member of the Jewish
priestly caste. Often times surname can be indicative
of such membership, but I think Elise did an excellent
job of explaining why, in some cases, it is not.

On the other hand, I think it very meaningful if one
is named "Cohen" (or a variant) or has a tradition of
Cohanim status, and has the 12-marker CMH as well (or
frankly, is in any Jewish Cohanim cluster). I think
that Bonnie, Elise and I have been trying to saying
that such a group (and it is a very, very large group,
also Elise emphasized in her email) is a meaningful
cluster. Just what that meaning is - particularly
when that cluster can be dated to - is not a question
that has been definitely answered by a more recent DNA
study on the topic.

I have no problem with someone asserting that such a
study would be helpful, even necessary, in light of
advances in genetic research since the earlier studies
were conducted. I do have a problem with asserting
that what we do as lay genetic genealogists is not
worthy of scientific weight. Not many of us have
training in genetic research. Yet I have found the
research of many on the list to be invaluable in
addressing issues that are not addressed fully by the
DNA studies.

Ellen Coffman





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

This thread: