Topic: In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Archeotypery,: About all these peoples relationship to the buried individual. Since we have an alleged Israelite grave where one individual carried Y-DNA haplogroup J2 then it is what we have. Until we find more tombs, or can access more human Israelite remains everything else just become speculations.
Everything is speculation. Everything I have said as well as everyone else. Because as you just said, the "Israelite" gravesite is alleged. The title of this thread even has "Ancient Israelites" in quotations. Without the DNA of one of the patriarchs, everything is speculation in terms of whether or not anyone is an ethnic Israelite when it comes to DNA.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a table from 2013 which shows the haplogroups of Samaritans. As in the Bronze age samples both J1, J2 and E (E1b1b1) are present.
In the Wikipedia article they only mention the study from 2004. One must read both of the studies in detail to see if they came to the same or different conclusions.
2013
Genetics and the history of the Samaritans: Ychromosomal microsatellites and genetic affinity between Samaritans and Cohanim
The two articles have 3 of the same authors and use the same data, 12 Samaritans as in the above chart the are all Haplogroup J except 2 Samaritan Cohens who were E1b1b1a1 (aka E3b aka E-M78) (2 Samaritan Cohens, not exactly a big sample of them)
Genetics and the history of the Samaritans: Y chromosomal microsatellites and genetic affinity between Samaritans and Cohanim 2013
Among a number of Jewish populations of either Ashkenazi or Sephardic origin, an important component in the sharing of Y-chromosomes is the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), first described by Thomas et al. (1998). The CMH is defined by alleles 14, 16, 23, 10, 11, and 12 at the STR loci DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393, respectively (Table 3). The CMH was observed 23 times in the present study: in
eight of our 25 Cohanim,
three Ashkenazi,
two Iraqi,
one Libyan and one Yemenite Jew,
as well as three Brahui,
two Turks,
one Baluch,
and one Italian,
respectively.
Nine of our 12 Samaritans (Table 1) were only one step removed from the CMH, as was the case for eight Cohanim, six Bedouins, five Turks, two Palestinians, two Moroccan Jews, two Druze, one Baluch, and one Libyan, Iraqi and Yemenite Jew each.
Y-chromosome similarities reflected the large number of haplotypes in the sample, which was too small to include only those haplotypes that are observed in at least one population (e.g., Thomas et al. 2000 used a threshold of ten percent) in the calculation of identity. It is interesting that in terms of the number of single repeats separating the haplotypes of the Samaritan lineages from the CMH, the distances between CMH and C1 and C2 were 6 and 7, respectively, while the distances between CMH and the other Samaritan haplotypes were 1, with the single exception of D1. This suggests that, contrary to expectation on the basis of their family names, the Tsdaka, Joshua-Marhiv and Danfi lineages share a common ancestor with the paternally inherited Jewish high priesthood more recently than does the Samaritan Cohen lineage.
There are two main hypotheses for the origin of Samaritans. The first, which is argued by the orthodox Jewish authorities and a few modern scholars (Kaufman 1956), is that Samaritans are not Israelites at all but were brought to Israel by the Assyrian king when he conquered Israel (722–720 BC) and exiled its people (II Kings 17: 23–24). If this view were true, assuming that modern Jewish populations are continuous with the ancient Jewish populations, we would not expect similarity of Samaritans and modern Jewish populations. The second hypothesis, which is argued by the Samaritans themselves, is that they are descendants of Israelites who remained in Israel after the Assyrian conquest and diverged from the mainstream more than 2500 years ago. They remained isolated until the present time (although foreign elements from the surrounding Arabic people have been incorporated into their style of life). The Israeli historian S. Talmon June 27, 2013 25 (2002) supports the Samaritans’ claim that they are mostly descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Menasseh that remained in Israel after the Assyrian conquest. His opinion is that the statement in the Bible (II Kings 17: 24) is tendentious and intended to ostracize the Samaritans from the rest of Israel’s people (see also Cogan and Tadmor 1988). In fact, II Chronicles 30: 1 may be interpreted as confirming that a large fraction of the tribes of Ephraim and Menasseh (i.e., Samaritans) remained in Israel after the Assyrian exile. In comparing Samaritans to Jews and to Palestinians, the latter comprise a local neighboring reference population. In his book, Ben Zvi (1957) indicates that under the rule of the Moslems (end of the thirteenth century), the Samaritan population gradually declined and they were moved to Egypt, Syria, and to other Middle Eastern locations. Gene flow from these local populations to the Samaritans could then have occurred.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Damn, you sure dropped a bomb there, DJ! Looks like Taz will have to claim that his “pure Natufian Israelites” weren’t actually in the Levant anymore by Chalcolithic times.
EDIT: Although, to be fair, the Bronze Age Levantines do seem to vary when it comes to affinity with the earlier Chalcolithic populations, with the southern ones showing less affinity than the northerners.
Exactly! Not to mention that Natufians in all studies are an outlier compared to the other populations and the closest populations to Natufians were the PPN people.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I never claimed the natufians were still in the Levant in the chalcolithic, nor that the Israelites were "pure natufian". I only said the natufians would have passed down E markers to the Israelites..........smh.
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
Also, "Tazarah" did not write any of the peer-reviewed papers I referenced.
It's funny how you can both see that Elmaestro is not letting me comment in the thread anymore (yet Djehuti comments "crickets" for some reason as if I am ignoring him) and it's funny how Djehuti completely ignored the points raised in my 2 previous comments, as well as the invite to discuss this topic with an actual geneticist.
Djehuti, if you want to challenge actual professionals with decades of experience in the genetics community and tell them that they are wrong on this topic, let me know right now. I've already sent Elmaestro a private message about setting something up.
I'm not commenting in here anymore.
They obviously know way more than I do on the topic since genetics isn't something I hold to, so let's set something up so you can correct them.
Nobody is denying that ancient Israelites carried E, but what evidence is there that E defines the Israelite lineage proper allegedly from Jacob let alone Abraham?! LOL What "expert" told you Abraham carried E??! Aren't you the same person who said we don't even have the physical remains of the Hebrew Patriarchs, yet you are the one jumping to conclusions about what haplogroup Abraham had!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
Where do you see the word "expert" in what you quoted?... not saying they aren't experts, but that isn't the word I used.
I already referenced the information and gave a link to the website where a professional says Abraham had E, I am not going to repost it again.
Also, not even 4 comments ago, I said to Archeotypery:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Everything is speculation. Everything I have said as well as everyone else. Because as you just said, the "Israelite" gravesite is alleged. The title of this thread even has "Ancient Israelites" in quotations. Without the DNA of one of the patriarchs, everything is speculation in terms of whether or not anyone is an ethnic Israelite when it comes to DNA.
I have consistently pointed out multiple times in this thread that nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If you are referring to Dr. Elhaik, you do realize that he promotes the Khazarian Hypothesis albeit in a modified form suggesting that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews lies in Iranian nomads. The problem is that there is no historical basis for his claim much like the historical basis of E since the common haplotype found in ALL Jews besides E is J and that J is associated with Levites and particularly Cohen across all Jewish sects. Not to mention the fact that Ashkenazi genetics debunks his claims.
^ Despite the claims of the person saying they descend from converts, all Ashkenazi show close affinities with populations in the Mediterranean known to have had historical Judean presence.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
How is J associated with Levites ("cohen") when there is no ancient Levite DNA let alone Aaron's DNA?
But speaking to your point, I referenced a source several comments ago showing that the biggest and most important Samaritan family ("Cohens") are haplogroup E and "Levites" according to tradition. And as we know, Samaritans have supposedly never left Israel and have always been there.
But again, no one even has Aaron's DNA or any ancient Levite DNA.
Let me know if you would be interested in dialoguing with Dr. Elhaik though. I find it strange how people take shots at him yet the US government website publishes his peer-reviewed research -- even the peer-reviewed paper he wrote about khazars.
(National Library of Medicine/National Center for Biotechnology Information)
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
How is J associated with Levites ("cohen") when there is no ancient Levite DNA let alone Aaron's DNA?..
LOL Are you serious?! I already told you that we have modern DNA from Levites and Cohen from different communities of Jews whether Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Teimani (Yemeni), and Bukhari (Iranian). Do you think this is purely coincidence??
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Early splitting of the J1a1a1-P58 branch results in the minor branches and singleton lineages distributed overwhelmingly among the modern populations of the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, southern Mesopotamia, and East Africa (Supplementary Table S4). These are J1a1a1b-Z18315, J1a1a1a2-ZS1280, J1a1a1a3-B2146 and J1a1a1a1b-B2062. In the northern parts of West Asia, they are virtually absent. The ancient distribution of these branches mirrors the current one (Supplementary Table S3). A notable exception is J1a1a1b1-L817, a sub-branch of J1a1a1b-Z18315; while its modern members are found among the Ashkenazi Jews and central and northeastern Europeans, it is also found in a 300–500 CE individual from Rome. The TMRCA of J1a1a1b1-L817—1.5 kya (95% HPD = 0.9–2.1 kya) (Table 1)—corresponds to the age of other Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosome founders29. The distribution of these branches in the southern regions of West Asia suggests the origin of the J1a1a1-P58 branch there.
A sub-branch of J1a1a1-P58—J1a1a1a1a-Z1853—coalesces ~ 7.3 kya (95% HPD = 5.7–9.0 kya) (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). This branch retains an important phylogeographic mark as the branch to which most of the northern West Asian J1a1a1-P58 lineages belong (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1). Nevertheless, the J1a1a1a1a-Z1853 branch occurs primarily in the southern regions of West Asia. Most of the ancient members are found in the Levant and Egypt (Supplementary Table S3). Among them is the oldest known aDNA, belonging to haplogroup J1a1a1-P5846 (Supplementary Table S3). Minor branches of the J1a1a1a1a-Z1853 contain samples from Europe as well. These are J1a1a1a1a1b-Z18297, J1a1a1a1a1a2-ZS2524 and J1a1a1a1a1a1b-B2069 (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1), coalescing ~ 4–6 kya (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). Another sub-branch—J1a1a1a1a1a1a2-B877—is specific to the Jewish Cohens (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1). Its TMRCA of ~ 3.2 kya (95% HPD = 2.4–4.0 kya) overlaps with the previous estimate (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). It exceeds the TMRCA of J1a1a1b1-L817, another Jewish lineage in haplogroup J1-M267. Intriguingly, an ancient member of the J1a1a1a1a1a1a2-B877 branch is found again in Rome, this time in the Imperial period (27 BCE—300 CE), which is characterized by an increase in genome-wide ancestry from the eastern Mediterranean region...
Haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 in ancient populations was found only in the Bronze Age Levant. It is worth to note that the aDNA studies lack samples from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, leaving us with only a few male samples of the appropriate age from the southern regions of West Asia. The initial low absolute number of people bearing haplogroup J1a1a1-P58, as we see through our demographic analysis (Fig. 4), further complicates our possibility to find them in the early Holocene assemblages. Ne was increasing starting from the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age periods (Fig. 4), the time when haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 appeared in the archaeological record of the Levant. These are the oldest haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 members found so far in the world, further supporting its origin in the southern regions of West Asia. Thus, the apparent contradiction mentioned above, could be instead the expected outcome. In regions with an insufficient number of human fossils and low preservation of aDNA, demographic studies with contemporary samples are currently the only insight we have.
Abraham's arrival in Canaan dates to the Bronze Age which coincides with the arrival of J1 in the area.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
But no ancient Levite DNA to compare to right? So it's speculation, just like trying to assign a haplogroup to Abraham.
They did not get actual ancient Levite DNA and compare it to these modern populations.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested. But it is an interesting inference that so many Levites and Cohens today from different communities of Jews share that same clade and NOT E. So the circumstantial evidence of today's populations do not favor your desire.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Bro, you are calling modern people "Levites" and "Cohen" without any actual Levite DNA to test and compare against. And your reason is because they share similar DNA. And out of all the other reasons why they might share similar DNA, it just has to be because they are Levites right? Arabs have J too, I guess they are "Levites" as well. Lol.... let me know if you are willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him since you know so much more than him on the topic. I'm not concerned with or troubled by genetic theories that lack "conclusive evidence", in your own words. Especially when genetic methodology does not even line up with the Bible.
Seriously, let me know if you want to dialogue with an actual professional. I'm not going to risk getting banned by going back and forth with you over something that you can discuss with an actual geneticist who has actually researched the topic.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Bro, they are called "Levite" and "Cohen" DNA in the first place because they come from men whose family names are Levi and Cohen who traditionally only marry others of those surnames and are therefore the most endogamous group within the already endogamous orthodox Jewish communities! LOL Oh and the specific J1 marker that modern Cohen and Levi have are different from most Arab J1 types or did you not read the paper I cited earlier??
I know that irks you because their shared haplotype is J NOT E but oh well.
Now here are some autosomal data courtesy of Parahu
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meanwhile as it pertains to black Jews, the most prominent group is the Beta Israel of Ethiopia yet they lack the Cohen Modal haplotype, but there is another black group that does have it.
The Cohanim (singular: Cohen) are members of a priestly lineage maintained by the mainstream Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish communities. Traditionally, they are considered to be the descendents of Aaron, the brother of Moses, who served the Israelites as the first High Priest (Cohen Gadol). It is accepted in the mainstream biblical scholarship that the priesthood in ancient Israel has been hereditary (e.g. Exodus 28), passed paternally. Recent DNA studies, as reported in Jon Entine’s 'Abraham’s Children', confirmed the existence of a shared genetic lineage among those who maintain the Cohenic descent today. This lineage scientifically traces to about 3,300 years, which is the most commonly presumed time period of Aaron.
Although the Beta Israel — the Ethiopian Jews, a minority of today’s Israeli population, who mostly came to the country in two waves in the 1980s and early 1990s—maintain the priesthood tradition, they are unique in that they do not consider it to be hereditary. Instead, the Beta Israel priest, called as Kes or Kahin (Cohen), is elected by his community. Traditionally, Keses, as Ken Blady explains, “were for the most part drawn from the general population, and each was selected based on his own merits” (p. 363).
Genetic studies also find no Cohenic genetics among the Beta Israel, which is often considered by scholars as further proof to the theory that the group has no ancient Jewish descent. *The problem with this suggestion is of course the false assumption that the genetics of Cohanim are exclusively determinative for the existence of an ancient Jewish lineage. In reality, this genetic trait reflects only a certain purported family lineage, that of Aaron.*
And the fact that genetic studies have found the Cohenic lineage existent among the Lemba—black African group from Zimbabwe and South Africa — is cited by scholars in context of the Beta Israel as being exceptional among the presumably Jewish black-Africans for not having ancient Jewish genetics. Jessica Mozersky provides an expressive summary of this situation:
Thomas et al. (2000) discovered that some of the Lemba carried the Cohen model haplotype and this was used as evidence that they were likely descended from Jews in ancient Israel, as their oral history suggests. Another group of Jews in Ethiopia who claim also to be descended from Jews in ancient Israel were tested and did not carry the haplotype, and this was taken as proof that they were not Jewish.” (p. 46)
Yet, it is clearly unreasonable to define the Jewish roots of the Beta Israel–whose Jewishness spans all historical, religious, and ethnic ground—against the Lemba, with whom they share nothing in common other than broad continental African origins. The two populations are radically different in genetics, traditions, culture and history...
You can read the rest for yourself. Of course the CM haplotype only shows Aaronic descent from the priesthood and not necessarily Jewish descent in general especially since as was explained before Hebrew/Israelite admittance was primarily from the maternal line. All other lineages of tribe and house came from the father.
And here is more autosomal G25 findings on different Jewish groups:
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
This you?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
I rest my case. So I'm guessing you are not willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him right? Since you keep ignoring the opportunity. You would rather argue back and forth about theory with me on here. Very telling
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm considering locking this thread because at this point we're going in circles and both parties are just frustrating themselves especially when they KNOW they will never come to an agreement of some sort.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I can't speak for Tazarah, but no I'm not frustrated at all. I just cite the evidence as is. He can interpret however he wants.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: This you?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
I rest my case. So I'm guessing you are not willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him right? Since you keep ignoring the opportunity. You would rather argue back and forth about theory with me on here. Very telling
Funny how you cut off the rest of my post that we instead have the rather strong circumstantial evidence of Cohen Modal Haplotype in living members of Levite and Cohanim families. I just cited another source showing how that haplotype is preserved among *all* communities of Jews which practice endogamy among Cohanim families including Lemba of Southern Africa but NOT the Beta Israel because membership in the Cohanim in that culture is not hereditary. You can hold out on the simple fact that they haven't tested ancient Cohanim yet but when they do and it's confirmed what you gonna do, bro?? There's only so long your wishful thinking can hold out.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
Funny how you keep ignoring my offer for you to discuss your accusations of error with an actual geneticist. You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required and in your own words there is no conclusive evidence. Not even the people at the Maury show are this sloppy when it comes to genetics. Why are you asking "what if" when you are ALREADY making matter of fact statements while at the same time admitting there is no conclusive evidence?
What I don't understand is why you are so focused on going back and forth with me (even if it means the thread will be closed) if I'm so wrong about everything?
Ancient archaeology/artwork does not match up with them, Biblical prophecy does not match up with them, historical firsthand eyewitness accounts from ancient times and early centuries do not match up with them, and some of their own higher ups openly admit that they do not descend from the ancient Hebrews. A lot of ordinary jewish people say this as well. The only thing in their favor is "DNA" which as you already admit lacks conlusive evidence, and which can also be maniupated to further narratives because of biases. Most importantly, nobody has any of the patriarch's (Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's) DNA.
Does this mean I hate them? No. Does this mean I wish harm or misfortune on them? No. I strive to live peacefully with all people. But this also does not mean I have to buy into all this, especially when Israeli geneticists like Dr. Eran Elhaik say that tens of thousands of ancient Israelite skeletons that demonstrate the entire history of Israel are being hidden in the basement of some university in Israel for "political reasons". It's the same game that gets played with ancient Egypt.
Anyone who thinks that after all this time and after decades of digging up skeletons in Israel, only 2 "ancient Israelite" samples have been found is gullible and naive. But you can believe what you want, my faith lies in the Bible and genetic methodology does not line up with the Bible at all. Evolution (genetics) and the Bible are not congruent.
*** But Askia is right. We will never agree. While we are both free to believe what we want, there is literally no point in continuing this discussion.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Funny how you keep ignoring my offer for you to discuss your accusations of error with an actual geneticist. You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required and in your own words there is no conclusive evidence. Not even the people at the Maury show are this sloppy when it comes to genetics. Why are you asking "what if" when you are ALREADY making matter of fact statements while at the same time admitting there is no conclusive evidence?
Most importantly, nobody has any of the patriarch's (Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's) DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik in which you can question him about his methodology. He's the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper published on the government website which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors, and he also says that Abraham had an E marker and that ancient Israelites had E.
Eran Elhaik is the Chief of Science Officer of Ancient DNA Origins. Ancient DNA Origins is a private DNA testing company that sells test kits purporting to be able to determine not only someone has DNA matching the ancient Israelites but sells separate testing kits for each of the tribes.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Thank you for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the website belonged to Dr. Elhaik. Anyway; this would be a good opportunity for Djehuti (or you) to speak directly with Dr. Elhaik (an actual geneticist) and present any opposition. Are you interested?
Keep in mind, Djehuti has claimed multiple times that Levi had J. Are you going to call him out on that? If not, then you should have no problem with the ancient origins website assigning DNA to tribes with little to no evidence.
But of course you won't... because you are a hypocrite who is unecessarily obsessed with Tazarah.
I can 100% guarantee you won't reach out to ancient origins or Dr. Elhaik either, you're just going to type at me.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe you should have a discussion with him. You said "You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required" yet he's doing it and selling test kits. The man is selling a commercial product. I would rather speak to a geneticist who doesn't have that extent of conflict of interest. I also have no desire to speak with a geneticist who makes an aside remark on genetics but in an article about historical linguistics. I only care about what the author tries to prove in the article with evidence and test results. If they make some aside remark that is never developed in the article, there is nothing really on the table. It's not worth responding to until there is an article about it. If someone mentions Natufians once in a article and the article is focused on Ashkenazic Jews, Yiddish etc there is no there there. When he writes an article about his theory that the Natufians are the progenitors of the Israelites then I'll look into it as a possibility but thus far you have been like a broken record about this for 10 pages for one aside remark made in an article and it is not even clear if he wrote that or the lead author of the article (although it is fair to assume they agree on it) Why don't you go set up discussion with Elhaik and have him lay out theory with test results and evidence? There is nothing on the table yet to even react to but a one sentence claim in an article. Also the quote is
quote:
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)"
They say "some of" there They did not say> "an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians, the most likely Judaean progenitors" They leave open the possibility of "not all of" when they said "some of" But since the article is not even about this and this is just a one-off, undeveloped side remark , there is nothing even on the table. You could be the one that interviews him and puts it on the table so he can present evidence and detail and get a cut of any test kits sales that come out of it
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ I'm not the one trying to discredit the work of a professional geneticist with a Ph.D and decades of experience in the field so why would I need to say anything to him? You are more than welcome to draft an email and I will forward it to him and we can all see what he says, my bet is that he has access to papers and research that you have never seen or heard of and that you did not even know existed.
Djehuti references information about how J is supposed to be Levi and you say literally nothing about it, how many people are walking around claiming to be Levi and Cohen with 0 ancient DNA to prove it? Yet you are completely silent. I know what your problem is, I see right through you.
Yeah the paper says the natufians are some of the most likely Judaean progenitors, a group of professionals would not say that for no reason and the US government website would not publish it if it had no basis. And I doubt that the people attacking the paper on this website (including you) know more than actual professionals who have dedicated their lives to researching the topic.
Dr. Elhaik also wrote that Abraham would have been an E carrier. You are more than welcome to reference another paper that assigns who the progenitors of the Israelites are and you are more than welcome to private message me with some oppositions that you would like for me to forward to Dr. Elhaik.
Otherwise, there is literally nothing else for us to talk about. I'm not going back and forth with a troll, especially when I'm the only one who gets reprimanded.
**** Do not even respond if you are not interested in talking with Dr. Elhaik.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think you're mistaken if you think I'm "assigning" any genetic lineage to an ancient population without proof. I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence we have now. Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
As for Dr. Elhaik his thesis is based on the premise that Proto-Semitic speakers carred E. The problem is that there is no evidence that Abraham or even the Hebrew people at large were the original Proto-Semitic speakers. In fact their culture as documented in Genesis is very much Mesopotamian, specifically northern Mesopotamian and their culture shows more affinities to Hurrians than anyone else. Linguistics and population while related are not necessarily the same. You and I speak English does that mean we are genetically descended from Anglo-Saxons??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I think you're mistaken if you think I'm "assigning" any genetic lineage to an ancient population without proof. I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence we have now. Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
As for Dr. Elhaik his thesis is based on the premise that Proto-Semitic speakers carred E. The problem is that there is no evidence that Abraham or even the Hebrew people at large were the original Proto-Semitic speakers. In fact their culture as documented in Genesis is very much Mesopotamian, specifically northern Mesopotamian and their culture shows more affinities to Hurrians than anyone else. Linguistics and population while related are not necessarily the same. You and I speak English does that mean we are genetically descended from Anglo-Saxons??
Which passages in Genesis points to the Hurrian origin of Abraham?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
...which means absolutely nothing. The biggest and most important Samaritan Cohen family (Samaritans "never left Israel" remember?) has E markers and they are also said to descend from Levi. But without actual ancient Levite DNA it's all guesswork.
Are you willing to discuss this topic with Dr. Eran Elhaik, a seasoned geneticist with a Ph.D and decades worth of experience in genetics?
I find it extremely hard to believe that a professional geneticist with that much experience and accolades is wrong while some random person on egypt search is right.
Going back and forth with me literally proves nothing.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
"Eran Elhaik (born 1980) is an Israeli-American geneticist and bioinformatician, an associate professor of bioinformatics at Lund University in Sweden and Chief of Science Officer at an ancestry testing company called Ancient DNA Origins owned by Enkigen Genetics Limited, registered in Ireland.His research uses computational, statistical, epidemiological and mathematical approaches to fields such as complex disorders, population genetics, personalised medicine, molecular evolution, genomics, paleogenomics and epigenetics."
"After completing undergraduate studies in Israel, he obtained a PhD in molecular evolution under the supervision of Dan Graur at the University of Houston in 2009, followed by postdoctoral research fellowships at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and School of Public Health. In 2011 the Genographic Project, after concerns emerged about the retention of private genetic data of individuals in surveyed populations, hired Elhaik and asked him to design a method that would enable analysts to extract only historical information from the accumulating genomic evidence of populations in such a way that individual's right to keep their private health profile was collected from individuals, without infringing their personal health data private. From 2014 to 2019 he worked at the University of Sheffield Department of Animal and Plant Sciences in the United Kingdom. Since 2019 he has been an associate professor of bioinformatics at the Department of Biology at Lund University in Sweden."
The Response:
-- removed by Tazarah
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Over the past week I've been doing research into this topic specifically and in this short amount of time I've learned there is just as much scholarly information out there that goes against the claims of haplogroup J and other things that have been said in this thread. There is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.
Dr. Elhaik's mention of autosomal DNA reminded me of this paper I came across 2-3 years ago, also written by an Israeli geneticist (Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin) with a Ph.D in human population genetics and anthropological genetics from Tel Aviv University.
According to this peer-reviewed paper he wrote, eastern european Jews (askenazim included), the majority of whom carry J markers, are all likely the descendants of proselytes/converts according to their autosomal DNA.
And there is so much more information out there like this, it's not even worth posting it all.
But most importantly and as I have been saying this entire time, nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA to begin with. Or any of the other patriarch's DNA -- and there is no reason to fight or get disrespectful over this topic.
DISCLAIMER: I do not and have not ever hated or wished to harm any races or groups of people nor do I or have I ever instructed anybody else to. I simply have an opinion on things just like everyone else. Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: *Dr. Eran Elhaik's response*
[i] short bio:
"Eran Elhaik
we don't care. Do we, when we post science articles, and somebody disputes them do we then try to bolster our position by listing the geneticist's resume ten times as if that is proving whatever his opinion is? It's spamming at this point Are you in love with guy or something?
People, if you feel like replying to these letters to Eran Elhaik from Tazarah please use the below,
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:
Re: Question About Your Research Inbox x Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾ Hello, I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
12:00 PM (5 hours ago) There is continuity in the data and there is an Israelite signature that is persistent throughout time. So you can not only know who are Israelites but also who are the migrants and what have the groups they brought with them and when. Best, Eran
On Nov 21, 2023 8:44 PM, Greetings Dr. Elhaik, wrote: I hope this email finds you well. I have been studying your work and find it interesting. I wanted to ask some brief questions about one of the papers you wrote titled "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Azhkenazic Jews, and Yiddish". In the paper, it says the Natufians are some of the most likely Judean progenitors. I have referenced this paper in a discussion with other ordinary individuals like myself and they claim it isn't possible for the Natufians to have been the progenitors of the Judeans/Israelites. They claim that haplogroup J is a better fit because it supposedly came from Mesopotamia like how the Torah says Abraham came from, etc. They overall feel that haplogroup J is a better fit for the Judeans and they say that just because proto-semitic speakers were known to have haplogroup E, this does not mean they were the ancestors of the Judeans because proto-semitic is just a language. However, on the ancient origins website I also saw that you wrote Abraham was likely an E carrier. If it won't take too much of your time can you please explain how how/why you believe the natufians were some of the most likely progenitors of the Judeans and also how you came to the conclusion that E is a better fit for Abraham instead if J? Thank you for your time!
All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups, he goes by autosomal DNA. > but provides zero details. And forget about haplogroup E, J or T he does not go by that
He mentions no data or article of which he proves that the 5 Natufians that have been tested for DNA link them to the Israelites. And a question that would stem from this is what sample of Israelites does he have to compare to?
So like I've been saying in the article "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Azhkenazic Jews, and Yiddish" > he does not mention anything further about the Natufians except for he one remark you brought up 50 million times obsessively in a state of panic. It's an undeveloped side remark, aka nothing on the table except a claim, not deserving of 10 pages of discussion
When he puts out an article on the autosomal DNA of Natufians compared to the autosomal DNA of ancient Israelites remains then it would be worth replying to
There is no point in mentioning his progenitors remark another 50 million times, there is no article yet
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:
to Eran▾ 12:15 PM (5 hours ago) Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question: What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?
Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that. 4:04 PM (1 hour ago) ☆ Using ancient GPS, a tool that I developed and will soon be available on https://www.ancientdnaorigins.com/, we see a migration from Turkey to Israel around the time of the Abraham story. You will also be able to see the haplogroups of those migrants. I am also in the process of uploading some videos to YouTube, which will provide more information on these migrants, but, I don't know the answer now. It will take some time, I suggest following me on YouTube and signing up to https://www.ancientdnaorigins.com/. Best, Eran Thank you for the answer. Thank you for the information. Ok, thank you for your help. ← Reply Forward
All we have here is the obvious, no remains of Abraham for the science minded to me tested
although Ur of the Chaldeans is a city mentioned in the OT as the birthplace of Abraham and his father. Apparently he does not care about bible verses but seems to have an axe to grind with Ashkenazi Jews
Can you stop feeding us nothing sandwiches?
I suggest you by one of his test kits and tests yourself for Israelite DNA > I guarantee it will purport to some, you saw the brother in the video 15% Levite If you believe this guy, put your money where your mouth is. For just $40 you can take the autosomal test for Southern Kingdom, all three tribes
DISCLAIMER: I do not and have not ever hated or wished to harm any races or groups of people nor do I or have I ever instructed anybody else to. I simply have an opinion on things just like everyone else. [/QB]
Your view is that Ashkenazi Jews and anybody you define as a gentile will be servants of people, including yourself you believe are descended from the Hebrew Israelites
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyinass: All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups
He did not say this. Here we go with the BS as usual.
I offered all who were in opposition (including you) the opportunity to form your own line of questioning for me to forward to him and you all kept ignoring the opportunity. I was begging you to form a line of questioning. You, for example, just want to type and troll, and everybody knows that's all you do 90% of the time.
So no, you don't get to complain about his response or how the conversation went, troll.
You also ignore the other paper I referenced by another Israeli geneticist that supports what Elhaik says when it comes to modern jewish populations, let me guess he also has an "axe to grind"? Both of these men are Israeli and likely ashkenazi themselves.
I listed his bio and accolades to show that he's not a troll who haunts internet forums all day everyday, but an actual professional with decades of experience who is known worldwide.
*** Also, Elhaik mentions Turkey because the Bible says Turkey is one of the locations where Abraham and his caravan lived before he made it to the promised land. Ancient mesopotamia also encompassed this part of modern Turkey.
Lastly, I believe that anyone who is not an Israelite is going to be below the Israelites in the coming kingdom in terms of hierarchy, and that includes myself if I am not an Israelite.
Jewish people believe the exact same thing because it's in the Bible you clown, but that doesn't mean I hate anybody or want to harm them.
Get a damn life already.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
then get back to us
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Sure, as soon as you post some evidence of you criticizing jewish people for their religious beliefs. We all know you won't though and we all know WHY...
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups
He did not say this. Here we go with the BS as usual.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
quote: Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾
I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
E, J , whatever, out the window
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
First of all, I pointed out several times how he wrote that Abraham is E. Secondly, in the second email I posted he makes reference to the haplogroups of migrants. So how on earth did you come to the conclusion that he doesn't go by haplogroups? He literally said haplotypes, it's right there in the email.
Can't believe you were dumb enough to double down.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"Spazarah"
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ok, that was a good one lol.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah: Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah: I'm just going to leave this here. Dr. Eran Elhak's website says that Israelite samples (yes, the same Israelites whose ancestor(s) came from Mesopotamia) have E1b1 and T1 markers.
Keep in mind, this is the same geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper about natufians being the most likely Judaean progenitors -- the same paper that was published on the government website.
"...This is the only match from prehistoric times to date, but it is reasonable to expect many more to come as ancient DNA from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus will be sequenced. Interestingly, the Y chromosomal haplotypes of the ancient Israelites are typically E1b1 and T1 haplotypes, commonly found today in Africa with lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe."
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
P.S.......... as Doug intelligently pointed out, and as I have also pointed out: nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E,
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:
to Eran▾ (Spaz) 12:15 PM (5 hours ago) Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question: What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?
Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that. 4:04 PM (1 hour ago)
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote: Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that.
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
P.S.......... as Doug intelligently pointed out, and as I have also pointed out: nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA....
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E,
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Also, probably most important of all: NOBODY HAS ABRAHAM'S DNA....... so literally any conversation about who his descendants are is speculation.
does anybody need to debate you when you and Eran are debating yourselves?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the Lyinass,
The fact that nobody has Abraham's DNA doesn't stop you or anyone else from making and supporting certain arguments does it? Try to stop being a hypocrite. I've already made it clear dozens of times that my faith isn't in genetics.
Dr. Elhaik's response was to the hypothesis or idea that Abraham was a J carrier, as was being claimed in this thread.
You just demonstrated that you do not even know the difference between a haplogroup versus a haplotype, so I doubt you even understand what Dr. Elhaik is saying in his email.
Go back and chop up all the previous comments you want. You literally read a word in his email that was not even there so it's clear that your reading/comprehension skills are not at a level where I should even take you seriously.
Either that or you are being intentionally deceptive. Either way, I don't plan on going back and forth with you any longer. I just wanted to share what an actual genticist said on the topic.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾
I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
E, J , whatever, out the window
A haplotype (haploid genotype) is a group of alleles in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent A haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor of this single parent.
Autosomal DNA is a different type of DNA inherited from both parents.
So again, Eran Elhaik bases his arguments on autosomal DNA not haplotype/haplogroup and you have no idea of what you are talking about. And his company and the software he uses to sell DNA test kits is autosomal based
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
A haplotype is not a haplogroup. You were trying to make it seem like they are the same word and can be used interchangeably but they are two completely different things. Haplotypes help predict a haplogroup (keyword: predict). So when he said his arguments are not based on imaginary haplotypes, he is saying that he does not rely on incomplete or speculative data to draw conclusions. He instead analyzes autosomal signatures which show the full, entire picture.
The other Israeli geneticist (Ph.D) that I referenced also said the ashkenazi (whom largely carry J markers) are likely all early century converts according to their autosomal DNA, so don't forget to attack that guy too.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tazarah. Dr. Eran Elhaik doesn't agree with you. He says that there's a migration from Turkey which can be picked up Autosomally, which corresponds with the movement of biblical israelites. At least three posters have told you something similar.
He also corrected you about his study which you've been misquoting. His study yielded conclusions based on autosomes. I have already broken that down for you.
And dismissing Abraham's paternal lineage inquiry was not a win for you either. He said you can refer to the expansion from the caucus region for their haplogroups after his study is released. (spoiler alert, some of us in this thread already did)
My brother, you ethered yourself.
I'll give you your piece then I'll lock this thread. Please don't drag Dr. Elhaik's name through the mud in the meantime, piece.
//MODPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it even ethical to post screenshots of your email correspondence with a scholar on a public forum without their permission? Even if their emails are publicly available, I don't think most scholars want their private correspondences posted anywhere that all the world can see. I remember a former ES poster named Morpheus (aka Mansa Musa, not to be confused with the later-arriving Mansamusa) would post his correspondences with Keita in various forum debates, but he stopped doing that after Keita told him not to.
The only time I have no qualms with posting a private email correspondence publicly is if it's a troll giving me grief, or it otherwise exposes severe misbehavior (e.g. death threats, slurs, or sexual harassment). That, of course, doesn't apply to this situation.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Elmaestro
Uh... I literally asked him how he came to the conclusion that the natufians were some of the most likely progenitors of the Israelites when taking J into consideration, and how he came to the conclusion that Abraham was an E carrier. I even inserted some of the other arguments people in this thread were making for J and how you guys were trying to say his research was wrong.
I even referenced the paper in which he said the nafufians were some of the most likely progenitors for clarification.
He basically responded by saying that he came to these conclusions by not basing his arguments on haplotypes.
I asked him about his conclusion and he explained how he came to it. I also very clearly referenced in the email how he wrote that Abraham was an E carrier on the ancient origins website.
Nothing that he wrote about the natufians or Abraham being E has changed and he made that clear in the email so I'm not sure why you are trying to make it seem like he somehow did a 180 or that I somehow misunderstood him.
You and others were claiming that he was wrong about his conclusions but now he ethered me? Make that make sense. He explained how he reached his conclusions, basically clarifying and explaining his research methods.
Then you say I'm dragging his name through the mud yet you and others were in here saying that he was wrong the whole entire time while I was defending him?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Is it even ethical to post screenshots of your email correspondence with a scholar on a public forum without their permission? Even if their emails are publicly available, I don't think most scholars want their private correspondences posted anywhere that all the world can see. I remember a former ES poster named Morpheus (aka Mansa Musa, not to be confused with the later-arriving Mansamusa) would post his correspondences with Keita in various forum debates, but he stopped doing that after Keita told him not to.
The only time I have no qualms with posting a private email correspondence publicly is if it's a troll giving me grief, or it otherwise exposes severe misbehavior (e.g. death threats, slurs, or sexual harassment). That, of course, doesn't apply to this situation.
Just to be safe, I removed the photos of the email. I didn't think he would have a problem with it because all he was doing was explaining how he came to the conclusions that he came to, which I assumed would be something that isn't personal or secret.
Also, people in this thread were saying he was wrong and questioning his research so if anything I wanted to give some clarification and input from Dr. Elhaik himself.
But this is a good point that you made Bradon, so I did go back and remove the screenshots.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Pitfalls of the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) Approach Applied to Human Genetic History: A Case Study of Ashkenazi Jews
Pavel Flegontov,1,2,3,*† Alexei Kassian,4,5,*† Mark G. Thomas,6 Valentina Fedchenko,7 Piya Changmai,1 and George Starostin5,8
Abstract In a recent interdisciplinary study, Das et al. have attempted to trace the homeland of Ashkenazi Jews and of their historical language, Yiddish (Das et al. 2016. Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz. Genome Biol Evol. 8:1132–1149). Das et al. applied the geographic population structure (GPS) method to autosomal genotyping data and inferred geographic coordinates of populations supposedly ancestral to Ashkenazi Jews, placing them in Eastern Turkey. They argued that this unexpected genetic result goes against the widely accepted notion of Ashkenazi origin in the Levant, and speculated that Yiddish was originally a Slavic language strongly influenced by Iranian and Turkic languages, and later remodeled completely under Germanic influence. In our view, there are major conceptual problems with both the genetic and linguistic parts of the work. We argue that GPS is a provenancing tool suited to inferring the geographic region where a modern and recently unadmixed genome is most likely to arise, but is hardly suitable for admixed populations and for tracing ancestry up to 1,000 years before present, as its authors have previously claimed. Moreover, all methods of historical linguistics concur that Yiddish is a Germanic language, with no reliable evidence for Slavic, Iranian, or Turkic substrata.
Das et al. (2016) have recently presented an unorthodox interpretation of the history of Ashkenazi Jews, suggesting that they originated from a “Slavo–Iranian confederation”. This claim is essentially based on application of the geographic population structure (GPS) approach (Elhaik et al. 2014) to high-density autosomal single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data.
Conclusions In our view, Das et al. have attempted to fit together a marginal and unsupported interpretation of the linguistic data with a genetic provenancing approach, GPS, that is at best only suited to inferring the most likely geographic location of modern and relatively unadmixed genomes, and tells little or nothing of population history and origin. Using explication of the GPS workflow and examples from the original GPS publication (Elhaik et al. 2014), as well as from the paper discussed here (Das et al. 2016) we find that this inference methodology provides no more information on an individual’s population origin than a few generations of family history. As opposed to GPS and similar tools (Kozlov et al. 2015) operating on highly reduced data, we advocate the use of more data-intensive and sophisticated approaches for the study of population history within the last 5,000 years: Rarecoal (Schiffels et al. 2016), ChromoPainter, fineSTRUCTURE (Lawson et al. 2012), and GLOBETROTTER (Hellenthal et al. 2014), among others.
Das et al. support the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, placing their alleged “Irano-Turko-Slavo Jewish merchants” within the Khazar Empire. Note that Das et al. designate this empire as the “Slavo-Iranian confederation”—a historically meaningless term invented by the authors under review. Having been popular in the mid-20th century, the idea that the Khazars directly contributed to Ashkenazi ancestry is currently abandoned by practically all historians and linguists. To say more, according to a recent analysis of historical sources (Stampfer 2013), the conversion of Khazars to Judaism might have never happened, being a medieval legend. The Khazar hypothesis has previously been advocated in a genetic study (Elhaik 2013) reanalyzing autosomal SNP data from Behar et al. (2010). As no ancient DNA of Khazars was available, modern Armenians and Georgians were chosen by the author as genetic proxies for the ancient Khazar population (Elhaik 2013). This questionable choice of modern proxies may have biased the conclusions of the study, and a further analysis of a significantly extended dataset, spanning Europe, the Middle East, and the region historically associated with the Khazar Khaganate, has found no particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus, including populations in the Khazar region (Behar et al. 2013). A large-scale study based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has also found no evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, estimating that >80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs were probably assimilated within Europe, and virtually no mtDNAs were traced to the North Caucasus (Costa et al. 2013). A study focused on the Y chromosome has found strong support for the Near Eastern origin of a significant portion of Ashkenazi Y chromosomes (Rootsi et al. 2013). In summary, genetic studies support the traditional view on the history of the European Jewish diaspora: its Levantine origin, migration to the North Mediterranean followed by substantial local admixture, especially on the maternal side, and subsequent limited East European admixture in the Ashkenazi community (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010, 2013; Costa et al. 2013; Rootsi et al. 2013).
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ I can link sources where Dr. Elhaik critiques other scholars, or other scholars critiquing other scholars, etc. So what?
Dr. Elhaik is actually the one who published a study showing how most popular/common genetic testing method was extremely flawed, affecting up to 216,000 studies.
But there's no reason to go back and forth about this any longer, we are all beating a dead horse at this point.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic