GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-05 > 1178557975


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] The new J2 Cohen-Levi Modal Haplotype (so-called)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f3f05ce80705020704s17e01fcdvce288b6676521daf@mail.gmail.com>


Dienekes:

Sorry to come into this discussion so late, but after
reading your post this morning, I really must comment
on it.

First, I find certain criticisms empty and circular in
reasoning, such as, "No other group has demonstrated
genetic descent from a Bronze Age group," therefore
one needs to doubt a group that does make such a
claim. What does this really mean? Because no one
has done this yet to your satisfaction, then it is
unlikely the CMH among Cohanim Jews could be shown to
date back to the Bronze Age? You invalidate such a
theory based on the assertion that no one in genetic
research has yet validated a Bronze Age link with any
other group, therefore, this one certainly couldn't be
valid either?

This makes about as much sense as your next criticism,
which is essentially, "Sometimes groups claim a common
ancestor which don't really have one." Yes, and
sometimes they do, so again, how is such a criticism
helpful? And it is not the "group" that has made the
claim, it is the scientists involved in the research
who made the claim based on the genetic evidence
presented in their papers. This "skeptical" comment
seems meaningless to me.

What does having an "agnostic" belief have to do with
the genetic research here, Dienekes? That comment has
certainly piqued my curiosity. I hope you'll address
it.

Regarding the criticism of "reasonable rates of
non-paternity would dilute a founders genetic
signature," what would such "reasonable rates" look
like applied to rather unique religious caste such as
the Cohanim that was subject to strict intermarriage
laws (with both other Jewish castes and non-Jews)?
It would appear that among Ashkenazi Y lineages in
general, there was much, much less admixture with
non-Jewish Europeans than among the mtDNA lineages.
In other words, there was a rather remarkable
preservation over two thousand years of Levantine
genetic origins despite living outside the Levant. I
don't frankly know if it was 40% or 50% or, as some
like Behar argue, 80% or more, but it certainly has
been asserted in multiple DNA studies. So is it that
farfetched really that the CMH among Cohanim would
also have a Levantine/Israelite point of origin?

>From which paper are you obtaining the information
that 20% Ashkenazi Cohens share the CMH with 56% of
Sephardic Cohens?

I have a problem with the constant reliance on the
Malaspina study as therefore invalidating the CMH
research by Hammer, Thomas, etc. (and correct me if
I'm wrong, but didn't Malaspina use only four markers.
You've been critic of the CMH studies because they
used six markers, but you're relying on a study that
uses even fewer markers?) So what if Malaspina found
a group of Ashkenazi Cohens in J2a1? There may be a
smaller, Ashkenazi Cohen cluster in R1b as well.
Clearly, strictures against Cohanim intermarriage were
never 100% effective. Some non-paternity and
intermarriage and a simple lessening of caste
restrictions had to have occured over two thousand
years. You are never going to find a 100% "pure" group
of descendants, especially dating back to the Bronze
Age (or at least the Iron Age).

Dienekes, I have much respect for you and your blog,
as I hope you know. Your quoted in my paper on Jewish
DNA at the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. I certainly
support the idea of healthy skepticism concerning DNA
research, but are your comments really reflective of
"healthy" skepticism? You have attempted on your blog
not only to invalidate the CMH, but also the common
Levite R1a haplotype, which isn't even believed to be
Israelite in origin. That concerns me, particularly
when I pulled up your blog on haplogroup J2a1
asserting this group to be "Greek-Balkan" in origin
rather than "West Asian." I found that interesting,
particularly since you've latched on the Malaspina
data which appears to have some significant problems
itself. You've asserted J2a1's presence in upper
Brahmin caste in India to be the result of
intermixture with "Indo-Aryans" that you assert
originated in Macedonia, or in the alternative,
intermixture with Bactrian Greek aristocracy.

This makes me curious if your ultimate goal isn't to
prove that the upper castes of two religious systems -
the Brahmins and the Jews - ultimately descend from
Greek/Macedonian aristocracy, or Indo-Aryans who you
believe ultimately founded this aristocracy?

Ellen Coffman

---






____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

This thread: