GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-06 > 1275834238


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genetics of the Jews
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 10:23:58 -0400
References: <427693.26713.qm@web52102.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <427693.26713.qm@web52102.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:55 PM, ellen Levy wrote:

> I think the relevancy of the Adygei is that it has now been found in
> more than one study.

The only supportable thing you can say about the Adygei, as it
relates to this matter , is that they happened to be genotyped. In
order to say anything more you would need, as I said, genotype data
from other populations from Europe and West Asia.


> Mr. Vizachero, I think you may be speculating on the genetic
> relatedness of the Adygei to other populations.

No, I'm not speculating. I'm merely pointing out that we won't know
anything about the relatedness of the Adygei to their neighbors
unless their neighbors are genotyped.


> 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.

Well the authors (and I) disagree with you. The study demonstrates
pretty clearly that the potential contribution of Slavic or Khazarian
ancestors to current Jewish populations - as a whole - was decidedly
minor.

Not every finding needs to be surprising to be useful.

As Lawrence points out, there may be some utility in additional study
focused on Jewish subgroups (e.g. Levites or Kohanim). I agree with
him that an additional level of detail would be required to detect any
differential impact of Khazars on those subgroups and that the current
study does not delve to that layer of resolution.

But to claim that the current study "says nothing" about the genetic
contribution of Khazars to modern Jews is to misrepresent the study's
findings.

VV

This thread: