Wexler is the best on the ethnogenesis, Coffman is the best look at the genetics (another complicated area that is being misused both by the Zionists and the anti-semites--but we know who gets to place pieces with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, misinterpreting genetic studies to show how linked the European Jews of Israel are to the Levant (never Mesopotamia! which is where much of the 'middle east genes' go back to). Coffman's work does show that Koestler and the scholars he draws on were on to something with the Khazar arguments.
http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm selected excerpts: Ironically, however, many scholars believe the Ashkenazi population probably had its earliest roots in Rome, where Jews began to establish communities as early as the second century B.C. While some of these Jews were brought to Rome as slaves, others settled there voluntarily. There were as many as 50,000 Jews in and around Rome by the first century CE, most who were “poor, Greek-speaking foreigners” scorned for their poverty and slave status (Konner 2003, p. 86). Eventually, however, many of these slaves gained their freedom, continuing to live in and around Rome. By the first century, however, the Jewish Diaspora had already spread to a number of regions of the world, many of which may have contributed to the make-up of the early Ashkenazi Jewish community. These include the Aegean Island of Delos, Ostia (a main port of Rome), Alexandria, and other places in Macedonia and Asia Minor (Konner 2003, p. 83). Jews also began to migrate north of the Alps, probably from Italy (Ostrer 2001). By 600 CE, Jews were present in many parts of Europe, with small settlements in Germany, France and Spain. More to the east, there were also small Jewish settlements along the Black Sea, as well as larger communities in Greece and the Balkans (Konner 2003, p. 110). By the 12th-13th centuries CE, Jews were expelled from many countries of Western Europe, but were granted charters to settle in Poland and Lithuania (Ostrer 2001). The Ashkenazi Jewish population expanded rapidly in Eastern Europe, growing from an estimated 15,000-25,000 people in the 13th-15th centuries, to two million by 1800 and eight million in 1939 (Ostrer 2001, Behar 2004b). Thus, Jewish settlement in Eastern Europe became the dominant culture of the European Jews, and then of most Jews throughout the world. -------------- The misinterpretation of the Cohanim results was damaging in some ways to the wider understanding of Jewish genetic ancestry. For example, one widely published media quote went like this: “This genetic research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar (sic) tribe – a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism.” Further, it was claimed that “[r]esearchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence” (Kleinman 1999). However, it would soon become very clear that Jewish DNA was much more complicated than was presented by the media in their reporting of the Cohanim data. And Jewish Khazarian ancestry would come to the public’s attention yet again when another DNA study was conducted, this time on the Jewish priestly group known as the Levites. ------------------ Given that the Khazarian kingdom arose in the area of today’s Ukraine, it is likely that there was a significant amount of indigenous Eastern European ancestry among this group. And, in fact, the various descriptions of the Khazars provided by ancient writers attest to the probable heterogeneous ethnic mixture in this group. According to an 11th century Arab chronicler Ibn-al-Balkhi, the Khazars are . . . to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes blue, their hair flowing and predominately reddish, their bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild” (Koestler 1976, p. 19). An Armenian writer described them as having “insolent, broad, lashless faces and long falling hair, like women. (Koestler 1976, p. 20). A slightly more flattering picture is provided by Arab geographer Istakhri: The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are black-haired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars [Black Khazars] who are swarthy verging on deep black as if they were kind of Indian, and a white kind [Ak-Khazars], who are strikingly handsome. (Koestler 1976, p. 20) However, Koestler (1976, p. 22) cautions the reader not to place too much weight on this description, since it was customary among Turkish peoples to refer to the ruling classes as “white” and the lower clans as “black.” It is clear that the Khazars were closely connected to the Huns, who themselves are an ethnic mystery. The Byzantine rhetorician Priscus, who was part of an embassy to Attila the Hun’s court in 448 CE, reported that a people known as the “Akatzirs” or “White Khazars” were subjects of the Huns. According to Koestler (1976, p. 23), “Priscus’s chronicle confirms that the Khazars appeared on the European scene about the middle of the fifth century as a people under Hunnish sovereignty, and may be regarded, together with the Magyars and other tribes, as a later offspring of Attila’s horde.” After the collapse of the Hunnish Empire following Attila’s death, the confederation of tribes known as the Khazars eventually gained supremacy in the southern half of Eastern Europe, retaining control of this region for nearly four centuries. What became a matter of dispute among historians was the fate of the Jewish Khazars after the destruction of their empire in the 12th- 13th centuries. Koestler argued that remnants of the Khazar tribes migrated into regions of Eastern Europe where the greatest concentrations of Jews were found, eventually merging with those pre-existing communities. In fact, Koestler’s controversial argument was that the Khazars emigrated in substantial enough numbers to have had a significant genetic impact on contemporary Jewish ancestry. With the advent of DNA studies, the question of whether contemporary Jews could trace any part of their ancestry back to the Khazars became a tantalizing mystery to try to solve. While the Cohanim DNA writers attempted to close the book on this question, evidence from another important genetic study, that of the Jewish Levite priests, made it apparent that the Khazarian debate was far from over. ----------------------------------- However, it appears that the most recently revised mutational dating techniques lend support to Behar’s (2003) later date when applied to Jewish R1a1 haplotypes. If we assume that R1a1 entered the Jewish community around 1300 CE, then there would need to be enough founders to leave a 12% genetic impact on the population. Given that the Ashkenazi population at that time is estimated to be approximately 25,000 persons, it would be nearly impossible for a single founder to make such a significant genetic impact (Behar et al. 2004b). Adopting this conservative estimate of 25,000 persons, approximately two to three thousand R1a1 males probably entered the Ashkenazi community between the 12th-13th centuries. Interestingly, there are no historical accounts of any large scale conversions or Eastern European groups entering the Jewish community at this time – except the Khazars. Additionally, given the relatively late date of introgression and the large number of founders, these males must have already been very closely related to each other, sharing the R1a1 haplotypes that are later reflected in the Levite results. Behar (2003) noted that the lack of Levite R1a1 haplotype diversity suggested that all the founding lineages were very closely related to each other if, in fact, a large number of founding lineages contributed to the Levite R1a1 gene pool. The ancient reports on the Khazars indicate that the majority of the Jewish converts were from the Khazarian royalty and ruling classes (Koestler 1976, p.15). Although speculative, it seems likely this group would have intermarried heavily amongst itself, helping to preserve the group’s elite status. Thus, it is probable that they would have already possessed a set of closely related R1a1 haplotypes which they simply passed on to their Levite descendants. Most importantly, the fact that these R1a1 founders were endowed with Levite status is highly revealing. Behar (2003), in fact, argues against the possibility of a large number of R1a founders because it would involve a breach of “a well-regulated rabbinically controlled barrier” and would “most likely leave some prominent trace in the historical record – which it has not.” However, he then suggests that the R1a introgression may indicate a lesser degree of stringency for the assumption of Levite status than for the assumption of Cohen status. He points to a passage in the Talmud involving a debate over whether Levite status should be accorded to a man whose father was a non-Jew and who mother was the daughter of a Levite. This suggests that assignment of Levite status other than through patrilineal descent could have been sanctioned by the rabbinical authorities. However, the Khazars were already Jewish, having converted hundreds of years before. Although of a different ethnic make-up than the Ashkenazim of the 13th century, they were not “non-Jews.” They probably already had their own Levite caste in place who may have simply continued their priestly functions among the Ashkenazim. Integration into the Levite priesthood would have secured for the Khazarian immigrants a place in their new community while helping them maintain a sense of elite status among a new people. Yet it is clear that the Khazars had become Jews long before they became part of the larger Ashkenazi community. Thus, it should not be surprising that six hundred years after their reported conversion, the Ashkenazim may have accorded them a special role among their Levite priesthood. ----------------------- The Khazars and the Smoking Gun of Haplogroup Q With the discovery of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazi Jews, DNA researchers may have found the “smoking gun” of Khazarian ancestry. In one of the few DNA studies to examine haplogroup Q among Jews, researchers made the surprising declaration that only 5-8% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is comprised of Y chromosomes that originated from non-Jewish European populations (Behar et al. 2004b). But since subsequent research has confirmed that R1a1 alone comprises nearly 12% of the Ashkenazi gene pool, it now appears that Behar’s estimate is much too low. Additionally, Behar’s (2004b, Supplementary Material) own data indicate that haplogroups R1b, R1a and I comprise more than a quarter of Ashkenazi DNA results. As for haplogroup Q, Behar (2004b) states that it is a “minor founding lineage” among the Ashkenazim, but does not discuss it any further in the study. Haplogroup Q appears in 23 out of 442 Ashkenazi results in Behar’s study, or approximately 5% of the total results (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary Material). Interestingly, out of 50 non-Jewish Hungarian results also appearing in this study, haplogroup Q did not appear at all (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary Material). ------------------------------------- In conclusion, it appears that some members of three very distinct populations—Scandinavian-Shetlanders, Native Americans and Ashkenazi Jews–may share common ancestors originating from the Altai regions of southern Siberia. However, the Q ancestors of the Native Americans appears to have departed from their Altai homeland much earlier than the other two groups, migrating to the New World sometime between 10,000 to 17,000 years ago, providing sufficient time for the Native Americans to develop their own unique subgroup of Q, known as Q3 (Zegura et al. 2004). The migration of R1a and Q groups into Scandinavia is presently unknown, though Faux postulates a group from Central Asia may have moved up into Scandinavia sometime around 400 CE. Only a few hundred years later, the Khazars of southern Russia make their first appearance in the historical record. And it is to the Khazars, who undoubtedly possessed a high frequency of this haplogroup, to which the Jews most likely owe their unique Q ancestry. --------------------------------------- Semino (2004) reports the following regarding the origins of J-M67* and J-M92*: …J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosporus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who reached southern Italy. J-M67* and J-M92 could represent, at least in part, the Y-chromosome component that King and Underhill (2002) found to correlate with the distribution, from Anatolia toward Europe, of archaeological painted pottery and anthropomorphic figurines . Thus, Semino has expertly merged the findings of both Di Giacomo and King/Underhill regarding the origin and expansions of J2 (Neolithic versus Post-Neolithic Aegean/Greek) into a cohesive interpretation regarding the multiple migrations of J2 throughout the Mediterranean world. The final sub-clade of J2 found among Jews is J-M172*. While 12.2% of Ashkenazim are in this sub-clade, Sephardim have a frequency nearly twice as high (Semino et al. 2004). This sub-clade appears in high percentages among Lebanese and Iraqi populations (20% and 10.2%, respectively) and its presence in this region can probably be attributed to J-M172* migrations out of Anatolia into the northern areas of the Levant (Semino et al. 2004). J-M172* is also found in a number of European populations, particularly among French Basque and Italian groups. Thus, its origin among Jewish populations remains unclear, though its absence among Spanish populations, but presence in Sephardic groups, supports the theory that at least some of Jewish J-M172* may be of Israelite origin. Behar (2004b) also acknowledges that J-M172* among the Ashkenazim may have originated with multiple ancestral sources. ----------------------- There are clearly some problems with Patai’s hypothetical scenario. It is unlikely, for instance, that the Ashkenazi population size remained completely static during an eight hundred year period. However, it is clear that the Jewish population grew very slowly during this time period and that the huge Ashkenazi population explosion did not happen until after 1300 CE. Ashkenazi population size remained much reduced for generations due to a history of dispersal, genetic bottlenecks and a high rate of endogamy. Further, it is unlikely that there was a constant rate of gene flow from European groups into the Ashkenazi population. Rather, such introgression probably occurred at an irregular rate, with occasional large groups like the Khazars integrating into the Jewish community and adding their genetic legacy to the already diverse gene pool of the Ashkenazim. Patai’s ultimate conclusion regarding admixture is particularly intriguing given the lack of DNA data available when he wrote his book. He relied heavily on other genetic data, including blood groups, fingerprint patterns, and genetic diseases, to reach his conclusions. Despite these limitations, Patai (1989, p. 294) concluded that while Jewish populations retain evidence of their Mediterranean and Middle Eastern origins, they have clearly experienced extensive admixture with their European neighbors. He cites various authors, including Cavalli-Sforza and Carmelli, who estimate such admixture rates to be approximately 40% for Ashkenazi Jews. ---------------------------- A close inspection of Jewish mtDNA results refutes any argument for lack of maternal admixture with European populations. According to Behar (2004a), only four mtDNA groups account for approximately 70% of Ashkenazi mtDNA results. These haplogroups are K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%) and J1 (7%). However, Behar indicates the origins of three out the four groups (H, K and J) are unknown. More importantly, he acknowledges that certain other haplogroups among the Ashkenazi – V and U5 in particular – appear to be of European origin, thereby negating altogether the assumption of no admixture. Finally, the slow mutational changes that occur within mtDNA are unlikely to be strongly influenced by population isolation and genetic drift occurring over a very short time span, as is the case with the Jewish Diaspora. Thus, there is a much greater probability that independent founder events occurring during the Jewish Diaspora rather than genetic drift are the cause of Jewish mtDNA variability and lower haplogroup diversity. However, it is also possible that both factors had an effect on Jewish mtDNA. The origin of Jewish mtDNA Haplogroup K is unclear at this time. The most common haplotypes, as distinguished by HVR1 mutations, are as follows: 223T-224C-234T-311C (33%); 224T-234C-311C (24%); 093C-224C-311C (19%); and 224C-311C (16%). The first two haplotypes are almost completely restricted to Ashkenazi populations, perhaps an indicator of pronounced genetic drift (Behar et al. 2004a). Shen (2004) found that the majority of Ashkenazi K lineages also shared transitions at nucleotide positions 11470 and 11914, which are specific to clade K1a. Except for the Ashkenazi, this particular K1a motif has only been reported in one Palestinian, one Romanian, one Czech, and one Basque (Shen, et al. 2004). Because of their near absence in non-Jewish populations, the most common Ashkenazi K1a haplotypes can be used as indicators of Ashkenazi ancestry. --------------------------- Eastern vs. Western Ashkenazim One important discovery made in Behar’s (2004a) study is the apparent differences in mtDNA haplogroup frequency between various Ashkenazi populations, particularly between eastern and western Ashkenazim. Behar divides the various Ashkenazi populations as follows: French Jews, German Jews, Austrian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews, Romanian Jews, Russian Jews, and Ukrainian Jews. One apparent difference is that eastern Ashkenazim, particularly Polish Jews, appear to have as great a diversity of mtDNA haplotypes as Middle Eastern and European populations. Thomas (2002) had noted this feature in the Ashkenazi results in his own study. Some of these haplotypes do not appear at all among the western Ashkenazim. In fact, the western Ashkenazim display a remarkably low diversity of haplogroups and haplotypes, much lower than that seen in either eastern Ashkenazim or non-Jewish European/Middle Eastern groups. Haplogroups that appear in eastern Ashkenazi, but are rare to absent in western Jewish groups, include HV*, HV1, pre-HV1, J1, J2, U1-6, W, V, and certain sub-clades of H (Behar et al; 2004a, Supplementary Material). This would strongly favor an independent founder hypothesis among these populations. It would appear that the Ashkenazim share a common set of founders of both European and Middle Eastern origin, while a separate group of maternal founders entered the population of eastern Ashkenazi communities sometime during the Diaspora. The fact that some of these mtDNA groups are rare to absent in western Ashkenazi populations argues in favor of a post-Diaspora European origin. Furthermore, many scholars believe that Eastern European Jewry has its genetic basis among the western Ashkenazim; Eastern communities were founded when Jews migrated from Germany and France after the 12th-13th centuries. Certain mtDNA haplogroups shared between the two populations, for example N1b and K, indicate that the eastern Ashkenazi communities do indeed share some common mtDNA genetic history with western groups, some of probable Middle Eastern origin. Yet it also appears that eastward moving Ashkenazim absorbed a number of separate European maternal founders once they settled in Eastern Europe. This absorption would explain a number of mtDNA haplotypes that Behar identifies as European in origin and are restricted primarily to eastern Ashkenazim, in particular, U5 and V. It may also explain the high frequency of mtDNA haplogroup J, as well as a number of H sub-clades, that are not present in the western groups. ---------------------- Conclusion: Future Jewish DNA Studies The DNA studies have revealed a high degree of genetic interrelatedness among Ashkenazi groups, particularly among those of Eastern Europe. This common ancestry can be attributed to a small founding population, coupled with rapid population growth and a high rate of endogamy over the past 500 years. The studies also indicate a sharing of genetic ancestry between eastern and western Ashkenazim, supporting the view that some portion of Eastern European Jewry was founded by western Ashkenazim. DNA research has also revealed significant genetic links between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, despite their separation for generations. With the Cohanim study, researchers found a clear genetic connection between the Jewish priests and a shared Israelite ancestor from the past. Additional genetic results suggest that the Ashkenazim can trace at least part of their ancestry to their Israelite forbearers. But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture. Diversity was present from Jewish beginnings, when various Semitic and Mediterranean peoples came together to form the Israelites of long ago. The genetic picture was clearly enriched during the Diaspora, when Jews spread far and wide across Europe, attracting converts and intermarrying over time with their European hosts. The most recent DNA evidence indicates that from this blending of Middle Eastern and European ancestors, the diverse DNA ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews emerged. Although the debate over the fate of the Khazars is far from over, DNA research suggests that remnants of these mysterious people continue to exist within the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, the Levite results indicate that the Khazars became fully integrated into the Ashkenazi communities and came to play an important role within the Jewish priesthood. The Cohanim results do not disprove the genetic contribution of the Khazars. Rather, the DNA studies indicate that Jews are not entirely Khazarian, Israelite or European in genetic makeup, but a complex and unique mixture of all these peoples. Genetic studies of the future will hopefully clarify many of the remaining mysteries surrounding the origins and formation of the Ashkenazi communities. For instance, the origins and distribution of the most common mtDNA haplogroup among Ashkenazim – haplogroup K – remains unexplored. Additionally, tantalizing differences in the genetic makeup of western and eastern Ashkenazi populations remain to be fully investigated by DNA researchers. In addition to the Ashkenazim, many other Jewish groups are ripe for study by genetic researchers. Examination of these groups will no doubt help illuminate their common genetic bonds as well as their differences with other Jewish populations. Groups such as the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews await study of their own unique DNA makeup. In conclusion, much remains to be explored regarding the DNA of various Jewish populations. Future DNA studies will undoubtedly provide a clearer picture of the various heterogeneous peoples who came together over time to form the Jewish people of today. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
