GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-06 > 1275760554


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genetics of the Jews
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:55:54 -0700 (PDT)


Ah, Mr. Vizachero.  I had nearly forgotten how wonderfully caustic your responses can be.

That said, I suggest you go back and re-read my post, which cites to the authors contentions that Ashkenazim most closely matched Northern Italians, French and Sardinians.  In fact, I utilized the exact language of the study in discussing this point.

Specifically, it appears that populations from Bergamo and Tuscany were used to represent the Northern Italian population. Given Mr. McDonald's comments and work on Southern Italians, it is a pity that the authors do not have such a population in their study for comparison purposes.

I think the relevancy of the Adygei is that it has now been found in more than one study.  For those interested, the Adygei are part of the Circassian peoples of the Russian Caucasus.  I believe the earlier study I was thinking of may have been the one on the Druze.

Mr. Vizachero, I think you may be speculating on the genetic relatedness of the Adygei to other populations.  Are there any studies that show the genetic relatedness of the Adygei to Iraqis and Iranians?  To other populations in the Caucasus?  To Armenains and Turkish peoples?  That would be interesting to find out.  How isolated have the Circassian peoples been from other populations - and from each other?

I agree with Lawrence that the authors have not focused on (and therefore neither refute nor support) the potential contribution from Slavic or Khazarian ancestors.  I also agree that there is no one out there (other than perhaps Koestler himself) that proposed that the major compontent of the Ashkenazim was of Khazarian origin. 

And of course all such theories remain a "hypothesis."  The genetics of the past isn't an exact science.  All we are left with is a reasonable and supportable "hypothesis."  You are always free to argue that the Khazarian hypothesis isn't the most reasonable one out there and then present the evidence you believe better supports your hypothesis.  I rather think that this the purpose of this list.

Ellen Coffman




--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote:

> From: Vincent Vizachero <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Genetics of the Jews
> To:
> Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 1:41 AM
>
> On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:35 AM, ellen Levy wrote:
>
> >
> > The study neither refutes nor supports the hypothesis
> that 
> > Ashkenazim, particularly those of Eastern European
> descent, descend 
> > in some part from an ancient Khazarian source. 
> On that subject, the 
> > authors state: "Admixture with local populations,
> including Khazars 
> > and Slavs, may have occurred subsequently during the
> 1000 years (2nd 
> > millennium) history of the European Jews."
>
> You did a great job of selectively omitting the author's
> conclusion 
> that contradicts you.
>
> "Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian
> Jewish 
> populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to
> French, 
> Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea
> of non-
> Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the
> Euro- pean/
> Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that
> Ashkenazi 
> Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of
> converted 
> Khazars or Slavs.
>
> In other words, the idea that converted Khazars represent a
> major (or 
> THE major) source of ancestry for modern Jews is laid to
> rest.
>
> That converted Khazars could represent "some part" of
> Jewish ancestry 
> remains a possibility, as they say, but other than legend
> it seems 
> that the Khazars played no more important role than any
> other recently 
> converted Eurasian source.
>
> VV
>

> -------------------------------
> 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
>







This thread: