GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1214070804


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:53:24 +0000


Dear Ellen,

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to many of them repeatedly, and you repeat them again and again.

We here have different backgrounds and different training. You use the word "Ashkenazi,", and I use "haplogroups", in context of DNA genealogy. Ashkenazim fall into at least 15 different haplogroups and their major groups. I am talking on the Jews in haplogroups Q, R1a1, K, T, R2, J1, J2, etc. In this context I do not need to use the word "Ashkenazim", because they belong - in different extent - to all those haplogroups. You might disagree with that, but it means that we both operate with different categories. As an argument you called for linguistic, cultural, etc. differences, however, it means again that we operate with different categories. Haplogroups often appeared well before linguistic, cultural, etc. things. Hence, there is no point in discussing that.

You repeat again and again - " I see you wanting to analyze the results and create trees without reference to sub-clade designations". I am tired to explain you that it is not true.

One of the most striking examples of your confusion and - yes - double standards, is the following: I'd refer you back to Elise's earlier posting. As she noted so succinctly:... "It is impossible to conclude that all Jews in haplogroup E1b1b shared a common ancestor only 6800 years ago... E1b1b1 is estimated to have arisen somewhere around 25,000 years ago" - this is the common ancestor for E1b1b and the derived subclades - Jewish and non-Jewish both".

What is striking (to me) here - have you considered, HOW this 25,000 year figure appeared? HOW was it calculated? Which mutation rates were used? For how many common ancestors? For just one??? Taking into account and separating subclades? Indeed?

I bet you do not know. However, you are quick to accept that figure without any scrutiny, and at the same time you question my figure - again without ANY understanding how was it calculated. What is plain funny - you quote the 25,000 year figure for ALL - Jews and not Jews, while I gave 6,800 years BP figure FOR JEWS of haplogroup E (and subgroups) only. Where do you see a contradiction?

I have to repeat - I just love culture of discussions which is showed by some in this Forum.

Regards

Anatole Klyosov

*****************************

ellen Levy wrote:

I'd like to address your final comment first as I had something of a visceral reaction to reading it. Let me see if I understand your argument. Your asserting there are no "subdivisions of the Jews" as you put it because "very many" have their "roots in the Middle East"? You also argue that there is "no Ashkenazim in DNA genealogy."

I disagree. First, all the DNA studies explore the genetic history of specific Jewish ethnic groups. For instance, if you read the study on Ashkenazi Levites, the focus is on a particular ethnic group (Ashkenazi Jews) and a particular caste within that group. Clearly, researchers are separating out the various Jewish ethnic groups for their studies and are doing so for good reason, so your assertion that "there is no Ashkenazim in DNA genealogy" gains no support within the DNA studies themselves.

These various Jewish ethnic groups differ from each other in a number of ways (linguistic, cultural, etc.); they also differ from each other genetically. In fact, it remains to be seen whether the various groups are more alike or or different from each other genetically.

Do they then really share a common Middle Eastern genetic past? It appears among the mtDNA results, at least, that they are in fact more different from each other and don't appear to share that past you are asserting, at least among most of the mtDNA lineages. Rather, each community appears to have had its own group of founding mothers that originated from the non-Jewish host population.

Regarding the Ashkenazi Y lineages, some of the results suggest a common Levantine/Judean ancestry and some do not. More in-depth studies really need to be performed before this can be determined more conclusively.

On a slightly different topic, I disagree with your approach in determining the common ancestor of Jewish lineages. You cannot ignore sub-clade designations in favor of forming groupings based exclusively or primarily on STR data. You state that you cannot understand why two persons would have very similar 67 marker haplotypes but belong to different sub-clades; thus you ignore the sub-clade mutation that sets these groupings apart. However, sub-clade mutations are going to trump the STR's every time in sorting out various genetic groupings. You cannot obtain accurate results when you mix up the various sub-clades and create your trees based on haplotype similarities.

You state you want to "understand" subclades from a "different point of view." I don't see a different point of view here. I see you wanting to analyze the results and create trees without reference to sub-clade designations.

I assume your approach allows you to find commonality among the results you appear to be seeking. You might benefit, however, in exploring some of the previous postings on this list discussing convergence of haplotypes between various sub-clades and even different haplogroups. You can access these postings in the list archives.

Your approach reminds me of a friend who frequently sent me genetic charts containing a number of Ashkenazi E3b families. The charts were arranged on haplotype data he had collected. He was always excited because the haplotypes were so similar in many cases; thus, by focusing on the closeness of the haplotypes, he was able to emphasize the close-knit nature of the families and the likelihood of sharing a common ancestor in the very recent past.

The only problem was that many of the families fell into completely different E3b sub-clades which, of course, did not factor at all into his analysis. That would only undermine his goal of emphasizing the unity of Ashkenazi E3b results.

I'd refer you back to Elise's earlier posting. As she noted so succinctly: "It is impossible to conclude that all Jews in haplogroup E1b1b shared a common ancestor only 6800 years ago...Jews are in all major E1b1b subclades - E1b1b1*, E1b1b1a, E1b1b1b, E1b1b1c - therefore their most recent common ancestor would be an E1b1b1. E1b1b1 is estimated to have arisen somewhere around 25,000 years ago" - this is the common ancestor for E1b1b and the derived subclades - Jewish and non-Jewish both.

Ellen Coffman


This thread: