PDA

View Full Version : Jewish people, where they are from?



Pages : [1] 2

al-kochol
25-04-13, 09:09
Have we ever discussed here about Khazaria, the Eastern European state, and its Khazar rulers that converted to Judaism in the VIII century?

adamo
25-04-13, 09:44
The khazars where a Turkic people, is it jews you want to know about or khazars.....? There are varying accounts on the khazars, some say that when their empire collapsed under the pressure from Attila and his Huns and the Black Death, they moved towards Europe becoming today's Ashkenazi Jews, which makes sense since this is certainly the road they traveled from the Middle East to Europe, through the Caucasus. Some maintain that they where a Turkic people, but this is contradictory to the fact that all of khazars a converted to Judaism. As for the origins of Jews, they originally came from the Levantine coast, from a country called Israel, as you may know. The Jews are no "special" or very "homogenous" race as many may think, their just another middle eastern amalgamy of J1 , J2 , E3b and some are R1a or R1b. Regardless of wether it is J1 or J2 about 35-45% of Jewish men are haplogroup J, indicative of middle eastern origins. Another 20-30% are north-African E3b. 10-15 maybe 20% of them are R1b or R1a , European Jews in particular ( Sephardic and Ashkenazi) may have been subjected to Germanic/European blood. There are many different old Jewish communities known as "diasporas" that left Judah and Israel at different times during history due to persecutions or for other reasons. These communities can slightly/moderately differ in their genetic compositions depending on where they moved and which people's they where subjected to. There are also kurdish Jews, Mizrahim jews ( middle-eastern, etc) the Ashkenazi Jews moved from the Caucasus into east-central Europe long ago, the Sephardic Jews somehow reached Iberia (Spain/Portugal) there are also Jews in Yemen etc. predominantly they are a patrilineal amalgamy of J1, J2, E3b and sometimes European elements (R1a/1b) and/or rarer haplogroups, such as G for example ( at lower levels). Their genetic admixture thus indicates a probable middle eastern/ North African mix with later added European blood in certain diaspora communities.

al-kochol
26-04-13, 04:25
khazars.....moved towards Europe becoming today's Ashkenazi Jews, which makes sense

As about 95% of world's Jewry are Ashkenazi Jews with origins in the Khazar state, only a minority of modern Jews are linked genetically to the ancient "biblical" Jews. According to an Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, the original Jewish genes can be found in the population of modern Palestinians, who after the collapse of the Jewish state converted themselves to a Muslim faith. The mass migration of Jews from Jerusalem after the collapse of Jewish state in the 1st century is only a myth without any historical support.

adamo
26-04-13, 04:33
no. Palestines are the biblical philistines, or Peleset sub-type of sea people's that migrated out of the Aegean and to the southern levant coast near Israel, they are the philistines of " David and Goliath". With 35-45% of all Jewish men being either major group of hg J, most modern Jews are linked to ancient biblical Jews. This applies for Ashkenazi, Sephardic and middle eastern Jews. Also some hg E3b is also present at appreciable frequencies in Jews. Maternally, haplogroup K has also been linked to Jewish women. Mass migrations of Jews are no myth, there are ancient Jewish communities all across the Middle East ( outside of Israel) Europe and north-Africa. These "diasporas" had different times of movement, some as late as the medieval times/ Middle Ages. "Jewish genes can be found in Palestinians"....if you're referring to haplogroup J, then "Jewish" genes can be found in much more than just Palestine, trust me lollllll. Jewish males have many points of origin as I stated in my last post, although their dominant genetic element is the J combo ( J1+J2). Haplogroup E3b is a close runner-up and certain R1a/R1b elements can also be found depending on which particular "diaspora" we are referring to with the European Jews, obviously, having higher of these elements.

kamani
26-04-13, 08:11
if we're talking broadly about hg such as J1, J2, E1b1b, then we're talking about afro-semitic speakers, which is the whole north-africa and most of middle-east since the stone-age. It includes civilizations such as Carthage, Egypt, Caananites, Phoenicia, Arabs, Sarachens, Moors, turks etc. However, mass migrations of Israelites at various points in history are not a myth.

adamo
26-04-13, 09:21
Correct although J originated strictly in the Middle East whereas E originated in Africa, but you can find some J1 especially in certain North African countries and some E3b in the Middle East.

al-kochol
27-04-13, 11:59
mass migrations of Israelites at various points in history are not a myth.

You disagree then with Professor Shlomo Sand. Can you support your thesis statement?

adamo
27-04-13, 13:12
It's simply a well known-fact, that Jews where often displaced or migrated themselves, throughout history. The very first "exodus" if you will, was that caused by the assyrians in 722 B.C. when their king, Shalmaneser V conquered northern Israel and many jews where deported to parts of Medea and Persia. Then came the "Babylonian" exiles. In 600 B.C. ( about 2600 years ago) the Babylonias conquered Judea, destroyed the Jewish first temple and exiled the Jews to the city of Babylon, where they where allowed to live as a unified community. A second branch of Jews fled towards Egypt, setting up near the Nile, a decision which in time they would greatly regret. Already by about 600-550 B.C. There where Jewish communities in 3 main locales : Egypt, The city of Babylon and other few middle eastern cities and within Judea itself, modern day Israel. When the Persian empire came to rule under Cyrus circa 540 B.C., he gave the Jews the option to return "en masse" to Judea. Most of the Babylonian Jews decided to stay in Babylon, creating the Mizrahim community of Jews ( Iraqi Jews, Kurdish Jews, iranian Jews etc.) or "middle eastern Jews" outside of Judea of course, where there where still Jews established even there. In 66 B.C., when the Jews of Judaea where governed by the Romans, the "Jewish-Roman" war took place, leading to the destruction of the second temple. Jerusalem was destroyed ad Jews where forbidden to live there. Fast forward to the Middle Ages and there where Ashkenazi Jews established in east-central Europe, Sephardic Jews in Spain/Portugal that also some migrated to north-Africa (Moroccan Jews), the other earlier mentioned communities etc. there are even Yemenite Jews, certain Jewish communities in the Horn of Africa,etc. with all this direct historic and genetic evidence, and the well known presence of long established Jewish communities across Europe, how can one call the presence of Jews out of Israel a "myth"? Have you never heard of Ashkenazi Jews and the ww2 holocaust?

oriental
27-04-13, 20:01
We don't really know their true origin as the Bible is suspect in promoting a certain constructed history. There was a lot of borrowing from the Amorites who were attacked by the Sea Peoples. Ugarit was under seige with a young Hammarabi pleading for assistance from the Hittites. Many passages in the Bible originate from the Ras Shamra tablets such as the "Prophet Isaiah on Lucifer".

http://ptm.org/uni/QandA/Fundamental.htm

http://bible.org/seriespage/isaiah-14

adamo
27-04-13, 20:23
Yes but this "constructed history" that you refer to is supported by the genetic results which don't lie. 35-45% of Jewish males belong to the J lineage. That's significant middle eastern blood rivalling modern day Iran, or almost as much as Lebanon or turkey, for example. Jews fit in very well with their neighbouring middle eastern populations.

oriental
27-04-13, 21:13
According to the Bible Abraham around 1200 or 1500 BC was a shepherd so there were no Jews before that. R1b people were pastorialists and roamed around Middle East, Anatolia and Balkans. Of course, many people may have taken up shepherding as there was meat on the hooves - no need for hunting as all that is needed is feed the goats on pasture. The shepherds were a nuisance to the Babylonians till the Amorites who were shepherds under Hammarabi took over Babylon. These shepherd people might be the precursors to the Jews as the Ten Commandments come from the 'Hammarabi Code'. Around this time the phenomenon of the Sea Peoples occurred. Among the Sea Peoples who were killed were a few thousand circumcised dead when they attacked Egypt. The desert people were circumcised as sand getting into sensitive genital parts may have led to circumcision. The Sea Peoples were Haplogroup I, G and E driven out of Europe or from Anatolia. The I and G people may have stayed mainly in Anatolia but the E people may have joined the J people in settling in the Levant. J people originating from Arabia. Thus you have these people in the region of today's Israel. When Judaism arose these were the people J, E, R1b and maybe even some G. Of course no tribe is purely of a certain Haplogroup as families have boys and girls who knows what boys may be attracted by the girls and also tribes form confederation against a common enemy. There is going to be mingling.

adamo
27-04-13, 21:57
So false. The sea people's where E, G and ...I? Driven out of Europe? Excuse me, but E didn't arrive in the Middle East via Europe, it arrived from North Africa to the levant. R1b men where pastoralists that roamed around the Middle East Anatolia and Balkans? Where did you put this trash information in your brain? At what point? 4,000 years ago, the men of R1b where either near or in the Iberian refuge, not roaming the Middle East or the Balkans, I don't even think they ever reached the Balkans unless in low percentages very late in the game, in very recent times but R1b never even passed there. And thanks for basically re-saying what I said about the J,E,R1b and all that. And the sea people's had an overwhelming middle-eastern substratum they where not I or R1b, more like J2 predominance with minor T,E,G,J1 elements. Also you state that sea people's where circumcised as they where desert people's etc. , which is correct they where J2 predominance. The sea people's where from the Middle East and arrived in Europe from where they may have subsequently attacked/competed with North Africans/middle easterners that stayed in North Africa or the Middle East; they where not a European people's expelled from Europe, quite to the contrary.

oriental
27-04-13, 22:03
Considering you are 19 years old and teenagers tend to know it all. I will leave it to you to find out the truth.

kamani
28-04-13, 00:34
You disagree then with Professor Shlomo Sand. Can you support your thesis statement?

I found this in wikipedia, it seems the Khazar theory died a long time ago:
Genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jewry

A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAS) compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-hammer-138) According to Nicholas Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wade) "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-New_York_Times2000-139)

adamo
28-04-13, 04:53
The khazars being pure Jews is probably myth, but one can't deny the presence of Jewish diaspora groups all across Europe, parts of Middle East+north Africa etc.

al-kochol
28-04-13, 05:09
It's simply a well known-fact...

It is also a very well known fact that the father of history Herodotus, who travelled extensively through the whole known to him world (from Egypt to Scythia) in the 5th century BC, did not notice any Jews there.

al-kochol
28-04-13, 05:24
I found this in wikipedia, it seems the Khazar theory died a long time ago

Jewish geneticists and historians obviously do not like the truth about Khazars and are trying to kill the Khazar theory of the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Almost all today's Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. How then can there be a domination of J over R1a?

adamo
28-04-13, 05:43
Because they came from the the middle-east.In virtually EVERY Jewish community J dominates over any R1 lineage. By herodotus's time, Jews where in various parts of the Middle East, Judaea itself and Egypt.

al-kochol
28-04-13, 07:15
Because they came from the the middle-east.In virtually EVERY Jewish community J dominates over any R1 lineage. By herodotus's time, Jews where in various parts of the Middle East, Judaea itself and Egypt.

1 million Jews re-settled to Israel from the USSR and later Ukraine and Russia definitely did not carry the J stamp. Same applies to the Polish Jews. They often are tall, red haired and blue eyed, as Khazars incorporated into their Jewish khaganate Slavic tribes (such as Kievan Polans), as well as some Vikings (or Ruthenians, if you apply a Greek name to them).

LeBrok
28-04-13, 08:12
Jewish khaganate .

Are we creating new history here, lol. Maybe too much of alkochol?

adamo
28-04-13, 09:27
Yes 1 million JEWS resettled Israel from Russia, Ukraine etc. but they had originally come from the Middle East anyways, they're patrilineal and matrilineal lines may have been slightly/ moderately altered due to the people's they where exposed to but none the less they remain Jews, both culturally and predominantly genetically also. And yes even the Russian Jews have a lot of J "stamp", yes most European Ashkenazi Jews ( 40% if not slightly more) males DO have the J haplogroup.

al-kochol
29-04-13, 10:43
Are we creating new history here, lol. Maybe too much of alkochol?

You obviously don't know what "kochol" means in Polish

adamo
29-04-13, 12:39
If its not a synonym for vodka, we don't care. Lol I'm joking what is it

LeBrok
29-04-13, 16:56
You obviously don't know what "kochol" means in Polish
I don't know, please enlighten me.

Vallicanus
29-04-13, 20:08
As about 95% of world's Jewry are Ashkenazi Jews with origins in the Khazar state, only a minority of modern Jews are linked genetically to the ancient "biblical" Jews. According to an Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, the original Jewish genes can be found in the population of modern Palestinians, who after the collapse of the Jewish state converted themselves to a Muslim faith. The mass migration of Jews from Jerusalem after the collapse of Jewish state in the 1st century is only a myth without any historical support.

Your figures are outdated.

In 1939, over 90pc of the World's Jews were Ashkenazi.

Today the figure is much less, with 26pc being non-Ashkenazi, mostly Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries, but also Sephardi Jews in the narrowest sense (Spanish and Portuguese descent).

adamo
30-04-13, 03:02
Even European Jews are high in J patrilineally, STILL linking them to their middle eastern biblical roots.

al-kochol
01-05-13, 08:57
Even European Jews are high in J patrilineally, STILL linking them to their middle eastern biblical roots.
What do you mean under European Jews? Sephardim from Western Europe or Ashkenazim from Middle & Eastern Europe?

adamo
01-05-13, 14:46
Both of them Sephardic ad AshkenaziAshkenazi

Grubbe
11-05-13, 14:40
This study http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/01/new-study-sheds-light-on-the-origin-of-the-european-jewish-population/?goback=%2Egde_149691_member_207854681 supports the Khazarian hypothesis.

Kovijani
29-04-14, 19:38
In the Bible the world ashkenaz covered scythian.

Salbrox
30-04-14, 18:35
This study supports the Khazarian hypothesis.

Behar et al (2013) "No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews" which I can't link due to low post count but is easily searchable OTOH doesn't support that hypothesis. Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups share most IBD with each other.

IBD also seems a good way to differentiate Ashkenazi Jews from South Italians and Sicilians which may be hard to do with PCA's.

Semitic Duwa
04-06-14, 09:16
This study http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/01/new-study-sheds-light-on-the-origin-of-the-european-jewish-population/?goback=%2Egde_149691_member_207854681 supports the Khazarian hypothesis.

It actually doesn't, as outlandish as this "study" is, Elhaik still couldn't deny the fact that Jews have Semitic origins.
Of course, the whole study is absolute nonsense, the methodology is illegitimate and the paper isn't peer-reviewed... Without even mentionning the fact that it's riddled with grotesque mistakes and inaccuracies (and that, as Salbrox pointed out, it was shattered by a recent study authored by Behar et al).

Now on topic: The Khazar theory has suffered a very painful death at the hands of population genetics. Indeed western Jews (Ashkenazim, Sephardim & Syrian Jews form a single cluster) plot squarely in the Eastern Mediterranean between Cypriots and mainland Greeks.
Taking mtDNA, Y-DNA & autosomal DNA Jews seem to be mostly of Eastern Mediterranean & North Levantine extraction.

Anyone who says otherwise or spews fancy claims such as "Jews are Turkic steppe nomads" or "Jews are Europeans" is either deluding himself in denial of facts & reality or making fun of your sorry @ss.

John Doe
16-06-14, 15:49
It actually doesn't, as outlandish as this "study" is, Elhaik still couldn't deny the fact that Jews have Semitic origins.
Of course, the whole study is absolute nonsense, the methodology is illegitimate and the paper isn't peer-reviewed... Without even mentionning the fact that it's riddled with grotesque mistakes and inaccuracies (and that, as Salbrox pointed out, it was shattered by a recent study authored by Behar et al).

Now on topic: The Khazar theory has suffered a very painful death at the hands of population genetics. Indeed western Jews (Ashkenazim, Sephardim & Syrian Jews form a single cluster) plot squarely in the Eastern Mediterranean between Cypriots and mainland Greeks.
Taking mtDNA, Y-DNA & autosomal DNA Jews seem to be mostly of Eastern Mediterranean & North Levantine extraction.

Anyone who says otherwise or spews fancy claims such as "Jews are Turkic steppe nomads" or "Jews are Europeans" is either deluding himself in denial of facts & reality or making fun of your sorry @ss.


Ahhh.... I'm not entirely sure this is true, Ashkenazis don't plot in the Eastern Mediterranean between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks, I always plot in Southern Italy or in the Tyrrhenian Sea (west of mainland Italy). BTW, saying Ashkenazi Jews aren't European isn't entirely accurate either, Behar's recent study (2013) concluded that after Sephardi and North African Jews, Ashkenazis share closest genetic similarities with Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece and Cyprus, Ashkenazis (and Sephardis) according to that study have something called K5, and if that K5 is removed then Ashkenazis shift from Italians and Greeks to the Druze and Samaritans, according to Behar's study that K5 presence in Ashkenazis and Sephardis suggests admixture with Non Jewish Europeans. Behar also concluded that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry from Middle Eastern and European populations, so saying "Jews are Turkic steppe nomads" may be quite inaccurate, but saying "Jews are Europeans" isn't entirely inaccurate, genetically speaking and linguistically speaking, considering the fact that the Ashkenazi language is Yiddish, an Indo European High German language with it's main origin being in the Rhineland (being derived from old high German with minor Aramaic and Hebrew contributions). Here's the link of Behar's study, you may want to reexamine it.

Link: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 01:07
Ahhh.... I'm not entirely sure this is true, Ashkenazis don't plot in the Eastern Mediterranean between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks, I always plot in Southern Italy or in the Tyrrhenian Sea (west of mainland Italy). BTW, saying Ashkenazi Jews aren't European isn't entirely accurate either, Behar's recent study (2013) concluded that after Sephardi and North African Jews, Ashkenazis share closest genetic similarities with Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece and Cyprus, Ashkenazis (and Sephardis) according to that study have something called K5, and if that K5 is removed then Ashkenazis shift from Italians and Greeks to the Druze and Samaritans, according to Behar's study that K5 presence in Ashkenazis and Sephardis suggests admixture with Non Jewish Europeans. Behar also concluded that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry from Middle Eastern and European populations, so saying "Jews are Turkic steppe nomads" may be quite inaccurate, but saying "Jews are Europeans" isn't entirely inaccurate, genetically speaking and linguistically speaking, considering the fact that the Ashkenazi language is Yiddish, an Indo European High German language with it's main origin being in the Rhineland (being derived from old high German with minor Aramaic and Hebrew contributions). Here's the link of Behar's study, you may want to reexamine it.

Link: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints

Sicilians also plot in the Eastern Mediterranean, close to Cretan, Maltese and Aegean islanders (and of course, Ashkenazi Jews).

The main problem here is your assumption that "European" is a valid label in population genetics.
But for argument's sake, let's examine the claim... According to Lazaridis et al. 2013, Europeans derive from three ancestral population, Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF) and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
These are real components, unlike Behar's K5 analysis, since the latter (like all modern-day components) derive from the the aforementionned components.

This is what the authors had to say about Ashkenazi Jews:


While our three-way mixture model fits the data for most European populations, two sets of populations are poor fits. First, Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazi Jews have EEF estimates beyond the 0-100% interval (SI13) and they cannot be jointly fit with other Europeans (SI12). These populations may have more Near Eastern ancestry than can be explained via EEF admixture (SI13), an inference that is also suggested by the fact that they fall in the gap between European and Near Eastern populations in the PCA of Fig. 1B.

And this is what the authors say in the sup data (revised version, 2014):


In Fig. S14.13 we present the range of parameter estimates. Some of these appear quite stable, achieving very similar values regardless of which individual population is fit, while others are less so, with the extreme being the amount of WHG ancestry in "Hunter", ranging from 0 to 95.7%. In that particular case, it was Ashkenazi Jews, Maltese and Sicilians for whom the value was 0, and Sardinians who had the highest 95.7% value.

[...]

Fig. S14.14 shows the range of values of x that were compatible with each population. While a wide range of values is consistent with each population, with the exception of some populations which are consistent with no WHG ancestry (Albanian, Ashkenazi_Jew, Greek, Maltese, Sicilian)


[...]

In Fig. S14.15 we show populations pairs that are consistent with descent from identical "Farmer" and "Hunter" populations. Sicilians, Ashkenazi Jews and Maltese are only compatible with each other and not with any other populations, consistent with Fig. S14.14 and Table S14.9 which show them to have less or even no WHG ancestry in contrast to other populations. Greeks are compatible with their geographical neighbors in the Balkans (Albanians and Bulgarians) and Italy (Bergamo and Tuscans). Basques andd Spanish_North are incompatible with several populations from Mediterranean and Southeastern Europe. Mediterranean and Southeastern Europeans such as Spanish, Albanians, Bulgarians, Bergamo, Tuscans, Croatians and Hungarians are compatible with each other

[...]

We repeated the joint fitting of population pairs, but allowed each population in a pair to descend from a different "Hunter" population, i.e, with a variable WHG/(WHG+ANE) ratio. Almost all population pairs were now successful (264 of 325, Fig. S14.17), with the exception of Ashkenazi Jews, Maltese and Sicilians who could often not be fit with other populations. It appears that these populations have Near Eastern ancestry that is not well-modeled by the 3-population model. This is consistent with their position in Fig.1B, and the results of analysis of SI 17 which do not explicitly model deep population history.

[...]

Three other populations produce anomalous estimates in Extended Data Table 2: Ashkenazi Jews, Sicilians, and Maltese. We observed in SI14 that these populations cannot be co-fit in the same admixture graph with most other Europeans, and this suggests that they do not fully trace their ancestry to the same EEF/WHG/ANE elements as most of Europe. Further evidence for this is presented in Extended Data Fig. 4 where all three populations have a negative value of f4(Test, Stuttgart; Loschbour, Chimp), and thus are inconsistent with them being populations of Stuttgart-related ancestry with additional Loschbour-related input, since such populations would have a zero or positive value of the statistic, as most Europeans do. All three populations strongly deviate towards the Near East in Extended Data Fig.4 and Fig. 1B, and it is likely that they possess Near Eastern ancestry that is not mediated via Stuttgart.


Ashkenazim basically show up as 93.1% EEF and 6.9% ANE with no WHG.

Now you could argue that EEF is basically a mixture of Basal Eurasian with Near Eastern Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer components and some WHG, but if Ashkenazim truly were "Europeans" you'd also have to explain why they do not exhibit any WHG ancestry in such tests (remember, WHG is a true component, obtained from ancient DNA remains of European Hunter-Gatherers).

Last but not least.
The linguistic argument you put forth is self-defeating for two reasons:

1. Jewish languages merely reflect the host country where a given Jewish community emerged, if we were to follow your logic we could argue for instance that North African Jews (Moroccan and Algerian) are "arabs" or North Africans because they have their own Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Berber dialects despite the fact that they're ~90% identical to the allegedly "European" Ashkenazim (since they speak Yiddish, which is IE), that they overlap on PCA plots and that they have high IBD sharing.
2. All Jewish languages were written with the Hebrew alphabet (Ktav Ashuri), the reason for this was their incapacity to transcribe typical Hebrew or Aramaic expressions (such as "Bli 3ayn haRa3", "HaShem Yiqom Damo", "Mazel Tov", etc) using the Latin alphabet.

So the theory according to which Ashkenazi Jews are francisca-wielding Franks who mixed with Judeans doesn't really work in my book... That's the least I can say!

And I'm sparing you painful details such as the paucity of "European" markers in Ashkenazi Jews (*cough* just have a look at your own uniparental markers for a start *cough*).

Now it's quite possible that Jews mixed with Europeans at some point, though the insane absence of WHG surely deals a huge blow to all the theories which portray Jews as "Near Eastern-European hybrids"... In fact, Berber ancestry in NA Jews is far easier to uncover than the alleged European ancestry of AJ (since they cline quite clearly towards NA populations).
The amount of admixture has yet to be assessed and accurately quantified, and the main problem here is that much of our current assessment is biased towards contemporary populations.
There's much to bet that the genetic landscape was quite different a thousand years ago, not to say two thousand years ago.

If I had to guess at this point, I'd say that most of the European admixture in Western Jews (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) was acquired during the early stages of the diaspora in the Eastern Mediterranean (which is why the picture we get is so blurry), think of the Kitos war for instance.

Behar et al 2013 does a fine job brushing Elhaik's funny theories aside, however it fails miserably in assessing the amount of admixture Jews were subjected to as well as the direction of gene-flow when using IBD segments.

In the end, the only way to truly quantify the amount of admixture is to obtain genome-wide studies of pre-exilic Judean samples... And even then, we'll still be splitting hairs when we get our hands on such a study (since Western Jews plot squarely in the Eastern Mediterranean).
Until this is done, I'd take every single claim of "European" ancestry with a few tons of salt if I were you, unless someone manages to explain the absence of the WHG component amongst Ashkenazim of course (which is easier said than done).

LeBrok
22-06-14, 03:40
Nicely said Semitic Duva. Is WHG admixture found in some tested Ashkenazi Jews or it is extremely rare phenomenon?

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 04:11
Nicely said Semitic Duva. Is WHG admixture found in some tested Ashkenazi Jews or it is extremely rare phenomenon?

Well, using the custom WHG/EEF/ANE calculator, Ashkenazim tend to show up as ~4% WHG (John Doe scored ~5%) and this is pretty much the same for Maltese results I saw.

The problem though, is that this test is obsolete for West Asians (who get negative WHG scores) and that the Eastern Mediterranean, Jewish and Iberian (xBasque) scores are outlandish (that is to say, they contradict the study's observations and often exhibit big margins of error in some cases)... Though it works great for other European populations, the same cannot be said for West Asian & E. Med populations.
MfA at anthrogenica solved this issue by optimising the excel file, he basically ended up replicating the results published in the sup data, this is especially true for Abkhasians, Chechens, Druze, Cypriots, Maltese, Sicilians, Ashkenazim and SE Europeans (Greeks, Albanians, etc)...
Given the huge paucity of this component (even using the misleading version of this test), labeling Ashkenazim "European" is far-fetched to say the least.
The lack of WHG is a huge blow to all the theories which propose that Jews are basically half "European" (which is a very vague term in this context).

I think most of the European ancestry in Western Jews comes from the Eastern Mediterranean when the diaspora was taking form, and there's much to bet that the place looked quite different genes-wise (less WHG, no doubt).

All in all, if you lean back and take all the evidence we have into account, Western Jews basically look like a typically Eastern Mediterranean-North Levantine population.
They plot between Mainland Greeks (Thessaly) and Cypriots on PCA plots, which is rather telling since Cypriots might've retained much of the pre-islamic Levant's genetic make-up.

From an autosomal standpoint, the two main problems with the European admixture of Ashkenazim are:

1. The lack of WHG
2. The lack of IBD segments with Germans, Italians or other populations which supposedly provided converts (and we'd still have to figure out the direction of gene-flow)

Angela
22-06-14, 04:45
Excellent. So you're saying that the calculator that "MfA" has produced duplicates the Lazaridis results for the populations whose averages were published in the study?

Is there a link to a site that would show those population averages using this method? Also, is there a link to a site where interested people could run their 23andme data through his calculator?

Thanks.

(There were a lot of discussions about this at 23andme, and a recognition by some that these theories of partial European ancestry could not account for the fact that there was no observable genetic flow from Italians or Germans into the Ashkenazi gene pool.)

LeBrok
22-06-14, 07:24
Well, using the custom WHG/EEF/ANE calculator, Ashkenazim tend to show up as ~4% WHG (John Doe scored ~5%) and this is pretty much the same for Maltese results I saw.

The problem though, is that this test is obsolete for West Asians (who get negative WHG scores) and that the Eastern Mediterranean, Jewish and Iberian (xBasque) scores are outlandish (that is to say, they contradict the study's observations and often exhibit big margins of error in some cases)... Though it works great for other European populations, the same cannot be said for West Asian & E. Med populations.
MfA at anthrogenica solved this issue by optimising the excel file, he basically ended up replicating the results published in the sup data, this is especially true for Abkhasians, Chechens, Druze, Cypriots, Maltese, Sicilians, Ashkenazim and SE Europeans (Greeks, Albanians, etc)...
Given the huge paucity of this component (even using the misleading version of this test), labeling Ashkenazim "European" is far-fetched to say the least.
The lack of WHG is a huge blow to all the theories which propose that Jews are basically half "European" (which is a very vague term in this context).

I think most of the European ancestry in Western Jews comes from the Eastern Mediterranean when the diaspora was taking form, and there's much to bet that the place looked quite different genes-wise (less WHG, no doubt).

All in all, if you lean back and take all the evidence we have into account, Western Jews basically look like a typically Eastern Mediterranean-North Levantine population.
They plot between Mainland Greeks (Thessaly) and Cypriots on PCA plots, which is rather telling since Cypriots might've retained much of the pre-islamic Levant's genetic make-up.

From an autosomal standpoint, the two main problems with the European admixture of Ashkenazim are:

1. The lack of WHG
2. The lack of IBD segments with Germans, Italians or other populations which supposedly provided converts (and we'd still have to figure out the direction of gene-flow)
It is safe to say that Ashkenazi retained their uniqueness in general sense, but to completely deny even small mixing with Europeans is exaggeration, don't you think? The 23andme graph shows strong pull of many Ashkenazi towards Europe.
http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/within-variation.png
http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/the-uniqueness-of-ashkenazi-jewish-ancestry-is-important-for-health/

It is interesting to see that there is quite a distance between all Jewish groups. Can 2,000 year of insulation and separation of these groups explain these drifts, simply based on random mutation? If not then there are only two other possibilities. One being, non homogeneous population of Jews prior to separation and migration. Second, limited mixing with locals, or with someone else on their way to destination.

John Doe
22-06-14, 13:36
Sicilians also plot in the Eastern Mediterranean, close to Cretan, Maltese and Aegean islanders (and of course, Ashkenazi Jews).

The main problem here is your assumption that "European" is a valid label in population genetics.
But for argument's sake, let's examine the claim... According to Lazaridis et al. 2013, Europeans derive from three ancestral population, Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF) and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
These are real components, unlike Behar's K5 analysis, since the latter (like all modern-day components) derive from the the aforementionned components.

This is what the authors had to say about Ashkenazi Jews:



And this is what the authors say in the sup data (revised version, 2014):




Ashkenazim basically show up as 93.1% EEF and 6.9% ANE with no WHG.

Now you could argue that EEF is basically a mixture of Basal Eurasian with Near Eastern Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer components and some WHG, but if Ashkenazim truly were "Europeans" you'd also have to explain why they do not exhibit any WHG ancestry in such tests (remember, WHG is a true component, obtained from ancient DNA remains of European Hunter-Gatherers).

Last but not least.
The linguistic argument you put forth is self-defeating for two reasons:

1. Jewish languages merely reflect the host country where a given Jewish community emerged, if we were to follow your logic we could argue for instance that North African Jews (Moroccan and Algerian) are "arabs" or North Africans because they have their own Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Berber dialects despite the fact that they're ~90% identical to the allegedly "European" Ashkenazim (since they speak Yiddish, which is IE), that they overlap on PCA plots and that they have high IBD sharing.
2. All Jewish languages were written with the Hebrew alphabet (Ktav Ashuri), the reason for this was their incapacity to transcribe typical Hebrew or Aramaic expressions (such as "Bli 3ayn haRa3", "HaShem Yiqom Damo", "Mazel Tov", etc) using the Latin alphabet.

So the theory according to which Ashkenazi Jews are francisca-wielding Franks who mixed with Judeans doesn't really work in my book... That's the least I can say!

And I'm sparing you painful details such as the paucity of "European" markers in Ashkenazi Jews (*cough* just have a look at your own uniparental markers for a start *cough*).

Now it's quite possible that Jews mixed with Europeans at some point, though the insane absence of WHG surely deals a huge blow to all the theories which portray Jews as "Near Eastern-European hybrids"... In fact, Berber ancestry in NA Jews is far easier to uncover than the alleged European ancestry of AJ (since they cline quite clearly towards NA populations).
The amount of admixture has yet to be assessed and accurately quantified, and the main problem here is that much of our current assessment is biased towards contemporary populations.
There's much to bet that the genetic landscape was quite different a thousand years ago, not to say two thousand years ago.

If I had to guess at this point, I'd say that most of the European admixture in Western Jews (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) was acquired during the early stages of the diaspora in the Eastern Mediterranean (which is why the picture we get is so blurry), think of the Kitos war for instance.

Behar et al 2013 does a fine job brushing Elhaik's funny theories aside, however it fails miserably in assessing the amount of admixture Jews were subjected to as well as the direction of gene-flow when using IBD segments.

In the end, the only way to truly quantify the amount of admixture is to obtain genome-wide studies of pre-exilic Judean samples... And even then, we'll still be splitting hairs when we get our hands on such a study (since Western Jews plot squarely in the Eastern Mediterranean).
Until this is done, I'd take every single claim of "European" ancestry with a few tons of salt if I were you, unless someone manages to explain the absence of the WHG component amongst Ashkenazim of course (which is easier said than done).


Alright, thanks for the detailed explanation, as you might tell I'm no expert. I just have 2 more questions.

1. Do Sicilians, Maltese, Cypriots and Greeks score any WHG or are they pretty much like Ashkenazim?

2. Is it possible that there was European admixture from Southeastern European populations like Mainland Greeks, Greek islanders etc? Because first, I heard that during the Hellenistic era many Jews became "Hellenised", and second, you said yourself that Ashkenazim plot between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks.

Angela
22-06-14, 15:35
Excellent. So you're saying that the calculator that "MfA" has produced duplicates the Lazaridis results for the populations whose averages were published in the study?

Is there a link to a site that would show those population averages using this method? Also, is there a link to a site where interested people could run their 23andme data through his calculator?

Thanks in advance.

(There were a lot of discussions about this at 23andme, and a recognition by some that these theories of partial European ancestry could not account for the fact that there was no significant genetic flow from Italians or Germans into the Ashkenazi gene pool.)

Edited to state no "significant" genetic flow from Italians or Germans into the Ashkenazi gene pool. Also, to clarify, did MfA produce an alternate EEF/WHG/ANE calculator in addition to the NE calculator, as it seems pretty clear the existing one does not produce results consistent with those of the paper even for Europeans.

LeBrok
22-06-14, 16:52
Alright, thanks for the detailed explanation, as you might tell I'm no expert. I just have 2 more questions.

1. Do Sicilians, Maltese, Cypriots and Greeks score any WHG or are they pretty much like Ashkenazim? I would be shocked if they have 0% WHG. However, the percentage is so low that it is sometimes smaller than degree of uncertainty, mistake, or low resolution of current tests.


2. Is it possible that there was European admixture from Southeastern European populations like Mainland Greeks, Greek islanders etc? Because first, I heard that during the Hellenistic era many Jews became "Hellenised", and second, you said yourself that Ashkenazim plot between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks.
From chart in post 38 we can see that Greek and Italian Jews have similar distance to "general European" same as Ashkenazi, and also somewhat genetically different from each other. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about very isolated groups, and thanks to this high insulation they managed to survive in their genetic and cultural identity with small amount of "foreign blood". We also need to remember about possibly bigger number of Jews who got assimilated in local cultures, and we will never know about them, or their numbers, but we can find Jewish contribution in many modern Europeans. My wife is 1.5% Ashkenazi, and nobody can remember from what ancestor.

John Doe
22-06-14, 17:01
I would be shocked if they have 0% WHG. However, the percentage is so low that it is sometimes smaller than degree of uncertainty, mistake, or low resolution of current tests.


From chart in post 38 we can see that Greek and Italian Jews have similar distance to "general European" same as Ashkenazi, and also somewhat genetically different from each other. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about very isolated groups, and thanks to this high insulation they managed to survive in their genetic and cultural identity with small amount of "foreign blood". We also need to remember about possibly bigger number of Jews who got assimilated in local cultures, and we will never know about them, or their numbers, but we can find Jewish contribution in many modern Europeans. My wife is 1.5% Ashkenazi, and nobody can remember from what ancestor.



Alright thanks. :)


P.S I don't think AJs got 0 WHG, obviously the numbers are low, but not nil. According to that calculator I have around 5-6%, another bloke said it's around the percentage of Maltese, but that same bloke said that when it comes to Euro-Mediterranean populations like Sicilians, Maltese, Greeks, Cypriots and Ashkenazim that calculator doesn't work well.

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 20:16
Edited to state no "significant" genetic flow from Italians or Germans into the Ashkenazi gene pool. Also, to clarify, did MfA produce an alternate EEF/WHG/ANE calculator in addition to the NE calculator, as it seems pretty clear the existing one does not produce results consistent with those of the paper even for Europeans.

MfA's file was optimised specifically for West Asian populations, which often get negative WHG scores.
It basically weeds out WHG (including from EEF to some extent), which is why it tends to fit with the paper's figures (especially as far as Eastern Mediterranean pops, namely Maltese, Jews & Sicilians, are of concern).

It doesn't solve the outlandish scores non-Basque Iberians and other European populations (such as Greeks, Albanians, Tuscans, N. Italians etc) obtain, as you this calculator produces inconsistent results (with large margins of error).

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 20:30
It is safe to say that Ashkenazi retained their uniqueness in general sense, but to completely deny even small mixing with Europeans is exaggeration, don't you think? The 23andme graph shows strong pull of many Ashkenazi towards Europe.
http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/within-variation.png
http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/the-uniqueness-of-ashkenazi-jewish-ancestry-is-important-for-health/

It is interesting to see that there is quite a distance between all Jewish groups. Can 2,000 year of insulation and separation of these groups explain these drifts, simply based on random mutation? If not then there are only two other possibilities. One being, non homogeneous population of Jews prior to separation and migration. Second, limited mixing with locals, or with someone else on their way to destination.

Ashkenazim, due to their high degree of endogamy, do not fully reflect their ancestral populations' diversity... Though their placement in relation to other jewish communities certainly hints towards a complicated past (one which cannot be solved by using contemporary populations as proxies).

I already saw this graph by the past, it doesn't make much sense tbh... But again, we're comparing apples with oranges since Mizrahi Jews are thrown into the lot.
That's probably why Ashkenazim cline so strongly towards Europe.
In fact, Ashkenazim are extremely similar to Turkish, Bulgarian & Greek Jews (something like ~95% identical) with whom they overlap.
This graph doesn't make much sense mainly because Syrian, Italqi & Sephardic Jews appear closer to Mizrahim than to Ashkenazim... While the opposite is true (Sephardim, NA Jews, Syrian Jews & Ashkenazim basically form one big Western Jewish cluster).

Of course with enough resolution you can separate all of these Jewish groups, even though they have very high IBD sharing with one another.

I'm not denying the existence of European admixture in Ashkenazim, as you said this would be an exaggeration from my part.
What I am saying, though, is that this admixture is very difficult to isolate and quantify, and this is mainly due to the fact that Jews are so similar to Sephardim (hence the only reasonable amount of European admixture had to come from a Mediterranean population, and it's very likely that this population was extremely low on WHG when gene-flow took place).
Heck, even North African admixture in Sephardim is easier to uncover.

Actually, I wouldn't exactly be surprised if Ashkenazi endogamy is responsible for the extreme situation we're confronted with.

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 20:44
Alright, thanks for the detailed explanation, as you might tell I'm no expert. I just have 2 more questions.

1. Do Sicilians, Maltese, Cypriots and Greeks score any WHG or are they pretty much like Ashkenazim?

2. Is it possible that there was European admixture from Southeastern European populations like Mainland Greeks, Greek islanders etc? Because first, I heard that during the Hellenistic era many Jews became "Hellenised", and second, you said yourself that Ashkenazim plot between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks.


1. It depends which calculator you're using, and whether you're ready to take the study into account.

In the original calculator, all of these populations have a very small amount of WHG, just above noise level (like Ashkenazim).

In the study (Greeks aside), they simply don't have this component, and this is replicated in the optimised version of the test for WA populations (which is why this optimised version makes sense):

http://abload.de/img/desktop_2013_12_27_22nef0i.png

2. This is basically what I am saying: If there really is European admixture, it must've come from a population with very low to non-existent WHG, which is probably what the Eastern Mediterranean looked like during the emergence of the Diaspora (prior to the Temple's destruction).
It makes sense because, as you said, Jews went through a philhellenic period, and many had Greek names when they came to Europe (just read about the Kalonymos family).
Here again, the sole flaw with this model is the low amount of IBD sharing with Greeks... Another problem which arises from this model is that uncovering the real amount of pre-exilic Judean ancestry becomes a pain in the @ss because we'll be splitting hairs (much of what makes up Mainland Greek ancestry emanated from the Levant at some point, and since the pre-islamic Levant probably was Cypriot-like the difference becomes narrow and can only be obvious if more resolution is brought in.).

Angela
22-06-14, 21:01
MfA's file was optimised specifically for West Asian populations, which often get negative WHG scores.
It basically weeds out WHG (including from EEF to some extent), which is why it tends to fit with the paper's figures (especially as far as Eastern Mediterranean pops, namely Maltese, Jews & Sicilians, are of concern).

It doesn't solve the outlandish scores non-Basque Iberians and other European populations (such as Greeks, Albanians, Tuscans, N. Italians etc) obtain, as you this calculator produces inconsistent results (with large margins of error).

Outlandish indeed. I just had to look at the Tuscan and North Italian scores compared to those in the study. It's too bad. Perhaps he should consider putting another calculator out there.

I was thinking of asking you precisely that question, i.e. does the NE calculator also remove the WHG that is part of EEF.

Angela
22-06-14, 21:10
1. It depends which calculator you're using, and whether you're ready to take the study into account.

In the original calculator, all of these populations have a very small amount of WHG, just above noise level (like Ashkenazim).

In the study (Greeks aside), they simply don't have this component, and this is replicated in the optimised version of the test for WA populations (which is why this optimised version makes sense):

http://abload.de/img/desktop_2013_12_27_22nef0i.png

2. This is basically what I am saying: If there really is European admixture, it must've come from a population with very low to non-existent WHG, which is probably what the Eastern Mediterranean looked like during the emergence of the Diaspora (prior to the Temple's destruction).
It makes sense because, as you said, Jews went through a philhellenic period, and many had Greek names when they came to Europe (just read about the Kalonymos family).
Here again, the sole flaw with this model is the low amount of IBD sharing with Greeks... Another problem which arises from this model is that uncovering the real amount of pre-exilic Judean ancestry becomes a pain in the @ss because we'll be splitting hairs (much of what makes up Mainland Greek ancestry emanated from the Levant at some point, and since the pre-islamic Levant probably was Cypriot-like the difference becomes narrow and can only be obvious if more resolution is brought in.).

The IBD data has always been the fly in the ointment. My husband routinely gets Ashkenazim and Sephardim as, if not his number one match, within the first three matches, no matter what calculator is used.(along with Greek and southern Italian) Yet, there's no significant RF results with Ashkenazim and no IBD sharing that can't be explained by ancient gene flow from the Levant during the Neolithic or at a stretch the Bronze Age. I don't know if the geneticists will ever be able to disentangle the strands.

You mentioned the Kitos War. Are you thinking that the admixture, if any, took place during the Hellenization of the Near East, or are you thinking that it was an aftermath of the war?

LeBrok
22-06-14, 21:16
I was thinking of asking you precisely that question, i.e. does the NE calculator also remove the WHG that is part of EEF.I think it will be possible once we have genom of pure Ancient Near Eastern Farmer.

Angela
22-06-14, 21:23
Do you think this graph still makes sense?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/images/nature09103-f2.2.jpg

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 21:33
The IBD data has always been the fly in the ointment. My husband routinely gets Ashkenazim and Sephardim as, if not his number one match, within the first three matches, no matter what calculator is used.(along with Greek and southern Italian) Yet, there's no significant RF results with Ashkenazim and no IBD sharing that can't be explained by ancient gene flow from the Levant during the Neolithic or at a stretch the Bronze Age. I don't know if the geneticists will ever be able to disentangle the strands.

You mentioned the Kitos War. Are you thinking that the admixture, if any, took place during the Hellenization of the Near East, or are you thinking that it was an aftermath of the war?

Actually, the IBD data is beneficial for Southern Italians and other people who plot in the East Med, as it can tell you whether this is due to Jewish ancestry or not.

The only way to get a decent picture of the demographic effects which led to this situation is to obtain genome-wide samples of Iron Age Greeks, Aegeans, Sicilians, Cretans, Cypriots and Levantines.
^^ With this, we wouldn't be speculating anymore and we would finally be onto something (even if this means splitting hairs, which can be managed in the long term).

I think that if there was Greek admixture, we can expect gene-flow to have taken place since the beginning of the Iron Age (with the Sea Peoples).
The Judeans incorporated the Philistines amongst their midst, so that's the first major episode of Aegean gene-flow if you ask me.
Of course, the spread of Hellenization to the Near East plays a huge part as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many Judeans mixed with neighbouring Greeks (back when descent laws were lenient).
The diaspora was already established prior to the Temple's destruction, for me the Kitos war merely highlights the fact that Jews were already anchored in the Eastern Mediterranean world... Which is why I think that much of the admixture came from neighbouring Hellenic populations.
So I think it took place mainly prior to the Kitos War... But I could be wrong.

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 21:38
Do you think this graph still makes sense?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/images/nature09103-f2.2.jpg

It still does actually, this is how Jews cluster on PCA plots.

If you compare with the study's own PCA, you'll notice that not much has changed since Behar et al 2010:

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/06/22/europe.png

^^ Notice how close Ashkenazi and Turkish Jews are on this one, and reflect on the fact that Behar's Sephardic cluster is mainly made up of Turkish and Bulgarian Jews (there's a lot of IBD sharing between Ashkenazi and Turkish/Greek/Bulgarian Jews).

oriental
22-06-14, 22:35
Jews formed late (four or five thousand years ago) in human history and is just a religion anyway so those pre-existing groups in Israel would be included such as Canaanites and shepherds of all kinds. A lot 'sea people' would be part of the Jewish make up. Also the the Jewish definition of the mother defining a Jew screws up the male DNA. Inter-marriage and conversion sure add to the mix.

Semitic Duwa
22-06-14, 22:45
Jews formed late (four or five thousand years ago) in human history and is just a religion anyway so those pre-existing groups in Israel would be included such as Canaanites and shepherds of all kinds. A lot 'sea people' would be part of the Jewish make up. Also the the Jewish definition of the mother defining a Jew screws up the male DNA. Inter-marriage and conversion sure add to the mix.

That's a gross oversimplification, Jews are an ethno-religious group.
By such standards, Judaism is more than a mere religion, it's a culture.

Also, matrilineal descent actually contributed to the high levels of endogamy we observe, since it basically prevented Jews from mixing with neighbouring populations.
Keep in mind that one's Jewish status is patrilineally inherited (Kohanim cannot marry converts, mamzerim & divorcees, etc).

The Israelites themselves emerged out of a Canaanite background during the Bronze Age Collapse, ~3200 years ago.

oriental
22-06-14, 23:50
It is self-imposed. There are many mingling that were never sanctioned by the rabbi and all those lost tribes and so on. Over time it will be just like the general population with so much inter marriages. Look at the American biracial celebrities. Look at how many have either partly Jewish mother or father e.g. Prince, Rashida Jones, etc.

Ha, ha billionaire Mark Zuckerberg married his Chinese girlfriend from Harvard.

Aberdeen
23-06-14, 00:57
IMO, the autosomal results for Ashkenazi can be explained by their history - Jews who had been for a long time living in what is now Iraq migrated to the Khazar empire when its leaders converted to Judaism in an attempt to avoid the wars between the Christians and Moslems. Then, when the Khazars were conquered by an Arab army, they migrated into Europe where they multiplied considerably. The result is a people who are mostly EEF (more so than modern Middle Eastern populations) with some ANE. The fact that Sicilians and Maltese have a similar autosomal mix doesn't actually mean they're closely related to Ashkenazi Jews - they ended up with a similar autosomal makeup for different reasons, I think.

Semitic Duwa
23-06-14, 01:27
It is self-imposed. There are many mingling that were never sanctioned by the rabbi and all those lost tribes and so on. Over time it will be just like the general population with so much inter marriages. Look at the American biracial celebrities. Look at how many have either partly Jewish mother or father e.g. Prince, Rashida Jones, etc.

Ha, ha billionaire Mark Zuckerberg married his Chinese girlfriend from Harvard.

It is both imposed and self-imposed.
Remember, Jews weren't allowed to earn land for the major part of their diasporic history. There were serious disadvantages associated with Jewish status, persecution was constant (which makes a big German or Eastern Euro contribution look doubtful, I'm ready to bet that it was the other way around for the most).

The future of Jewry is interesting, on one hand I can picture some sort of "Israeli Jewish" type emerging from all the Sephardi-Ashkenazi-Mizrahi-Yemeni mixing going on.
On the other hand, the current intermarriage rates are bound to have some sort of influence, look at myself for instance.

Haredim also have high birthrates, and they practically never mix, so I doubt much will change with them (hell, they still speak Yiddish).

Semitic Duwa
23-06-14, 01:38
IMO, the autosomal results for Ashkenazi can be explained by their history - Jews who had been for a long time living in what is now Iraq migrated to the Khazar empire when its leaders converted to Judaism in an attempt to avoid the wars between the Christians and Moslems. Then, when the Khazars were conquered by an Arab army, they migrated into Europe where they multiplied considerably. The result is a people who are mostly EEF (more so than modern Middle Eastern populations) with some ANE. The fact that Sicilians and Maltese have a similar autosomal mix doesn't actually mean they're closely related to Ashkenazi Jews - they ended up with a similar autosomal makeup for different reasons, I think.

While I do think the Mesopotamian input in Jews is severely underestimated (especially in Mizrahim, who are pretty much identical to neighbouring Assyrians), this isn't the model which emerges when one looks closely at Ashkenazi population genetics & history.
The Khazars weren't "conquered" by an Arab army, they did lose the Transcaucasian parts of their empire to the arabs but it was the Kievian Rus who conquered them.

The problem with your theory is that it fails to take into account the fact that Ashkenazim are near-identical to Sephardic Jews (Syrian, North African, Turkish, Greek) since the latter have literally very little to do with Khazars.

In fact, I think that the high degree of similarity between Sicilians, Maltese and Western Jews is mainly due to the fact that their ancestral populations might've been pretty similar to start with: A large amount of Levantine ancestry (Judean for the Jews, Phoenician & Punic/Carthaginian for Sicilians & Maltese; both Canaanite) along with big chunks of Eastern Mediterranean ancestry (Sicily was intensively settled by the Greeks, so well that it was labeled "Magna Græcia" [also remember that Sicilians overlap with Cretans and Aegean islanders]; the Levant was linked to the Eastern Mediterranean world since the Middle Bronze Age [actually earlier than that, but I'm discussing gene-flow from the East Med, not the other way around] and has always been a crossroads region).

Angela
23-06-14, 02:55
Semitic Duwa;434394]Actually, the IBD data is beneficial for Southern Italians and other people who plot in the East Med, as it can tell you whether this is due to Jewish ancestry or not.

From what I've seen of the results, in the vast majority of cases it shows that there wasn't gene flow from Jews into the Italian gene pool, which is a surprise because I thought there would be some, given the documentary evidence of Jews who converted in the north in the late days of the Empire and of the ones in Sicily and Calabria who converted rather than go into exile when the Spanish introduced the Inquisition in the south. It may just be that the numbers were too small to make much of an impression.

On the other hand, I've seen no IBD evidence for gene flow from Italians into the Ashkenazim either, for all the talk of a Jewish population after the invasions taking gentile wives.


Of course, the spread of Hellenization to the Near East plays a huge part as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many Judeans mixed with neighbouring Greeks (back when descent laws were lenient).
The diaspora was already established prior to the Temple's destruction, for me the Kitos war merely highlights the fact that Jews were already anchored in the Eastern Mediterranean world... Which is why I think that much of the admixture came from neighbouring Hellenic populations.
So I think it took place mainly prior to the Kitos War... But I could be wrong.

Didn't the rules about matrilineal descent come about after this whole period? Before that, in addition to male Hellenes converting to Judaism, you would have had gentile women marrying into the community. Certainly, there didn't seem to be any rules prohibiting the marriage of Ruth and Boaz in a far earlier time period.


A large amount of Levantine ancestry (Judean for the Jews, Phoenician & Punic/Carthaginian for Sicilians & Maltese; both Canaanite

Except that a lot of these results hold true for southern Italians as well, (Calabrians, for example, in my husband's case and others, but also people from Bari that I know of first hand) and there was no Phoenician or Punic/Carthaginian settlement there. I think we're talking about older common ancestry, dating back to the Neolithic, and reinforced in southern Italy by the Cretans and later by the Greek settlements of the first millennium BC.

After all, you had some Balkan people still very Oetzi like way into the Iron Age, and I think Sicily, and perhaps much of far southern Italy as well, was not very impacted by the Indo-European migrations. The only reason why some mainland Greeks can be fitted into the three population Lazaridis model is, in my opinion, because they were impacted to some degree by the Slavic migrations which had no impact on Italy north or south. I do think there might have been some small amount of Punic input mixed with Berber in the Muslim settlers, particularly in Sicily, but also in other areas of the south, either through their short lived reigns there or through the relocation of Moorish soldiers on the peninsula to remove the threat they posed in Sicily. There was a famous settlement of them near Foggia and another one near Naples.

Aberdeen
23-06-14, 04:27
While I do think the Mesopotamian input in Jews is severely underestimated (especially in Mizrahim, who are pretty much identical to neighbouring Assyrians), this isn't the model which emerges when one looks closely at Ashkenazi population genetics & history.
The Khazars weren't "conquered" by an Arab army, they did lose the Transcaucasian parts of their empire to the arabs but it was the Kievian Rus who conquered them.

The problem with your theory is that it fails to take into account the fact that Ashkenazim are near-identical to Sephardic Jews (Syrian, North African, Turkish, Greek) since the latter have literally very little to do with Khazars.

In fact, I think that the high degree of similarity between Sicilians, Maltese and Western Jews is mainly due to the fact that their ancestral populations might've been pretty similar to start with: A large amount of Levantine ancestry (Judean for the Jews, Phoenician & Punic/Carthaginian for Sicilians & Maltese; both Canaanite) along with big chunks of Eastern Mediterranean ancestry (Sicily was intensively settled by the Greeks, so well that it was labeled "Magna Græcia" [also remember that Sicilians overlap with Cretans and Aegean islanders]; the Levant was linked to the Eastern Mediterranean world since the Middle Bronze Age [actually earlier than that, but I'm discussing gene-flow from the East Med, not the other way around] and has always been a crossroads region).

Actually, the Khazars were conquered by an Arab army and converted is Islam, although the actual Jews living among them apparently didn't convert. The Russians did later destroy the (largely Moslem) Khazar empire, which may have influenced the Jews in that area to migrate westward. And the fact that Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are both mainly Jewish is not a problem for my theory. But the Ashkenazi do differ somewhat from the Sephardic Jews, and a 2012 study by Eran Elhaik analyzed data collected for previous studies and concluded that the DNA of Eastern and Central European Jewish populations indicates that their ancestry is "a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries". A 2013 study claimed to have refuted that idea, but that was based on the assumption that modern populations in the Caucasus couldn't be taken as a proxy for the population of the Caucasus a few centuries ago - I'm not sure I find that convincing. I do agree with you that the most likely reason Sicilians and Maltese have a profile similar to that of Jews is because they have a lot of EEF. In fact, that's pretty much what I said before.

Sile
23-06-14, 07:24
here is an interesting article about jews...a bit old, but I don't think their was much change in migration of jews in last 10 yeras

http://www.jgsgp.org/Documents/Dr%20Schurr-DNA-%2012-04-2011.pdf

Aberdeen
23-06-14, 08:56
here is an interesting article about jews...a bit old, but I don't think their was much change in migration of jews in last 10 yeras

http://www.jgsgp.org/Documents/Dr%20Schurr-DNA-%2012-04-2011.pdf

There have been a lot of advances in DNA knowledge in the last ten years, so I wouldn't rely too much on old data. And even when one looks at the latest info, I think a lot depends on what assumptions one makes. Some people may look at the similarities between Sicilian and Jewish DNA and say "Either Sicilians are Jews or Jews originated in Sicily." However, I look at the same data and say "Jews and Sicilians must both be mostly of ancient Middle Eastern ancestry." Same data, different interpretation.

John Doe
23-06-14, 12:32
1. It depends which calculator you're using, and whether you're ready to take the study into account.

In the original calculator, all of these populations have a very small amount of WHG, just above noise level (like Ashkenazim).

In the study (Greeks aside), they simply don't have this component, and this is replicated in the optimised version of the test for WA populations (which is why this optimised version makes sense):

http://abload.de/img/desktop_2013_12_27_22nef0i.png

2. This is basically what I am saying: If there really is European admixture, it must've come from a population with very low to non-existent WHG, which is probably what the Eastern Mediterranean looked like during the emergence of the Diaspora (prior to the Temple's destruction).
It makes sense because, as you said, Jews went through a philhellenic period, and many had Greek names when they came to Europe (just read about the Kalonymos family).
Here again, the sole flaw with this model is the low amount of IBD sharing with Greeks... Another problem which arises from this model is that uncovering the real amount of pre-exilic Judean ancestry becomes a pain in the @ss because we'll be splitting hairs (much of what makes up Mainland Greek ancestry emanated from the Levant at some point, and since the pre-islamic Levant probably was Cypriot-like the difference becomes narrow and can only be obvious if more resolution is brought in.).


Okay got it, thanks for the answer, I heard of a recent study which said that pre Islamic Eastern Mediterranean pops were more Cypriot like than Bedouin like. Wait who AJs do share a large amount of IBD with? BTW what's IBD? xD

Sile
23-06-14, 12:44
There have been a lot of advances in DNA knowledge in the last ten years, so I wouldn't rely too much on old data. And even when one looks at the latest info, I think a lot depends on what assumptions one makes. Some people may look at the similarities between Sicilian and Jewish DNA and say "Either Sicilians are Jews or Jews originated in Sicily." However, I look at the same data and say "Jews and Sicilians must both be mostly of ancient Middle Eastern ancestry." Same data, different interpretation.

Maybe you right..............we can throw out the ancient finds and analysis as well , like otzi etc!!!

kamani
23-06-14, 13:54
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)

Ike
23-06-14, 15:35
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)


The same way they are bad at some other things. Natural selection...

Angela
23-06-14, 16:48
I think the Khazar hypothesis has been pretty much shredded by Behar: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints

Also, importantly, it contradicts all the PCA plotting of numerous studies, which shows that after whatever amount of mixing has taken place, most Jews have been dragged in a northwestern direction not much further than Cyprus, and that includes a big chunk of the Ashkenazim. (The slight pull toward the Adriatic and the Balkans for some Ashkenazim can be explained through Greek gene flow into Jewish populations, I think. The IBD analyses may not be showing it because the Greeks themselves have experienced some new gene flows? Perhaps some minor input from Khazarians and eastern Europeans is also a factor. Or, it could even be some central or western European gene flow. Fwiw, I’ve seen a number of calculator results where half Ashkenazim/half British Isles people plot either near northern Italy or in Romania.)


And, as Semitic Duwa pointed out, the Sephardic Jews, who would have no possible connection to Khazaria, overlap with the Ashkenazim.


That isn’t to say that there wasn’t some impact from the Khazarian Jews, in my opinion, as I suggested above. I’ve wondered whether that persistent 2% Siberian that the Ashkenazim get in the calculators could be traced to them. However, it now strikes me that perhaps that’s present in northern Near Easterners as well.


As for the overall genetic similarities between Sicilians, Cypriots, the Maltese and the Ashkenazim, I think the IBD data pretty much establishes that most of the similarities result from ancient common ancestors rather than modern admixture, as proposed by Aberdeen.


The other important factor in all of this is the actual history of these communities. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the genesis of the Ashkenazi community was in France and the Rhineland. Those Jewish communities were decimated by the horrors and the barbarity inflicted upon them by the Crusaders, creating the famous bottleneck which has marked their subsequent genetic history. They then fled east, where they experienced the massive expansion, and practiced the endogamy that created the modern Ashkenazi community.


In fact, looking at the history of the Near East and at the genetics as well, I think that one could argue that the people of the Near East, through the invasions from Central Asia, the movement north of Bedouin tribes, and the importation of African slaves, have changed more than have the Jews in the last 2,000 years.


Oh, one other thought…in all those comparisons with Oetzi, the Ashkenazim also show up as a very closely related population, which supports the idea, in my opinion, that they have preserved the EEF signature better than have modern populations of the Near East.

LeBrok
23-06-14, 17:07
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)
Constant bottlenecking due to persecution as minority, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, genocides (like WW2). The well off people (usually smarter than average) tend to survive and their children, while poor and average Jews were caught and killed. When you have money you can buy your freedom, or you can send your kids abroad to safety. Jews were going through these "bottlenecking good few times throughout their history, and not only in Europe.

Perhaps they started off from pretty good IQ base too. There were quite few brainy populations in this region in antiquity, together with Phoenicians and Greeks. IIRC Phoenicians and Jews belonged to Canaanite ethnicity, if I may say so. Do to high degree of insulation Jews retained this very high base, as other's base got diluted. As far as records go, Jewish diaspora was successful wherever they went around the known world. They adapted to different economic conditions, were more skillful traders than locals, always tended to do financially better than average citizen. When you come from far away and beat locals in their own game it really means something about their IQ.

LeBrok
23-06-14, 17:11
Oh, one other thought…in all those comparisons with Oetzi, the Ashkenazim also show up as a very closely related population, which supports the idea, in my opinion, that they have preserved the EEF signature better than have modern populations of the Near East.
As well it might be the case

Aberdeen
23-06-14, 17:53
I think the Khazar hypothesis has been pretty much shredded by Behar: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints
..............


The argument that Behar is refuting isn't the one I'm making. I realize that some people are allergic to the idea of any connection between the Ashkenazi and the Khazars, mostly because some racists have used that connection to advance a false argument that the Ashkenazis aren't real Jews, which is not at all what I'm saying. There is documentary evidence of Jewish people in that part of the world after the Khazar ruling class converted to Judaism in a vain attempt to stay out of the christian/muslim wars. That's not evidence that the Ashkenazi are anything other than mostly Jews from the Middle East, although Behar seems to assume that's the argument being made by anyone who mentions the idea that the Ashkenazi came out of southern Russia.

Behar said:

"Competing theories include a hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews descend largely from the Khazar Khaganate, a conglomerate of mostly Turkic tribes, who ruled in what is now southern Russia with the capital Atil in the Volga delta on the northwestern banks of the Caspian Sea approximately 1,400 to 1,000 years ago (Figure 1). According to this hypothesis, a portion of the Khazar population, among whom at least some had converted to Judaism, migrated north and west into Europe from their ancestral lands to become the ancestors of some or all of the Ashkenazi Jewish population."

But I think there's better historical evidence for the idea that only the ruling elite among the Khazars ever converted to Judaism but that Jews from what is now Iraq may have migrated to the Khazar Khanate and later migrated westward, which would explain the bottleneck effect that's apparent. That's why the Ashkenazi Jews are mostly ancient Middle Eastern but with a bit of Siberian ancestry. I'm not necessarily convinced that a Turkish khanate in southern Russia was necessarily mostly Turkish in ancestry, and I suspect there was only a small amount of gene flow from the Khazars to the Jews who settled among them.

Where's the evidence for Jewish communities in France and Germany during and after the Migration Period?

kamani
23-06-14, 18:10
Perhaps they started off from pretty good IQ base too. There were quite few brainy populations in this region in antiquity, together with Phoenicians and Greeks.
True, Greeks had their peak in the sciences right after their exchanges of ideas (and people) with Phoenicia and Egypt. And Sicilians are the smartest people of Italy when it comes to "unconventional" organizations.

Silesian
23-06-14, 18:26
It is self-imposed. There are many mingling that were never sanctioned by the rabbi and all those lost tribes and so on. Over time it will be just like the general population with so much inter marriages. Look at the American biracial celebrities. Look at how many have either partly Jewish mother or father e.g. Prince, Rashida Jones, etc.

Ha, ha billionaire Mark Zuckerberg married his Chinese girlfriend from Harvard.



Definition endogamy:Endogamy is the practice of marrying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) within a specific ethnic group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group), class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class), or social group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group),....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy

Ever read the account of Sarah and Pharoah[Egypt] -Amelech[Philistine]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah

What about Joseph and Asenath?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asenath


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asenath)

Maleth
23-06-14, 19:40
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)

In my opinion being smart has nothing to do with haplotypes. This reminds me of the thread where J's and I's are genetically posed to build better ships! The psyche, behavior and attitude of any homo sapien depends on its environment and priorities for survival besides the type of experiences it encounters with.



I think that Lebrok explained it well. The only thing I don't agree is the IQ bit. In regards to IQ, we know that EQ (emotional intelligence) plays a more important part in being successful on many layers of social strata.



I believe that Jews (as in religion, since dna is a far more complex subject then that) in more recent situations have lived mainly among Muslim and Christian communities, who according to their custom and religion had different views in regards to business practices. Both Christian and Muslim religions for a long time believed that profit was a sin (this is still a concept in Sharia law) and it was only good ethics to make ends meet and nothing more. Profit was regarded for a long time as a dirty word. The Jews had a different understanding on the issue and often used to be the bankers and money borrowers in the societies they lived in. This same system that lead to more wealth and prosperity could have been a main factor that steered the envy of the People they resided amongst and been one that led to persecution.

FrankN
23-06-14, 20:48
Ahhh.... I'm not entirely sure this is true, Ashkenazis don't plot in the Eastern Mediterranean between Cypriots and Mainland Greeks, I always plot in Southern Italy or in the Tyrrhenian Sea (west of mainland Italy). BTW, saying Ashkenazi Jews aren't European isn't entirely accurate either, Behar's recent study (2013) concluded that after Sephardi and North African Jews, Ashkenazis share closest genetic similarities with Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece and Cyprus, Ashkenazis (and Sephardis) according to that study have something called K5, and if that K5 is removed then Ashkenazis shift from Italians and Greeks to the Druze and Samaritans, according to Behar's study that K5 presence in Ashkenazis and Sephardis suggests admixture with Non Jewish Europeans. Behar also concluded that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry from Middle Eastern and European populations, so saying "Jews are Turkic steppe nomads" may be quite inaccurate, but saying "Jews are Europeans" isn't entirely inaccurate, genetically speaking and linguistically speaking, considering the fact that the Ashkenazi language is Yiddish, an Indo European High German language with it's main origin being in the Rhineland (being derived from old high German with minor Aramaic and Hebrew contributions). Here's the link of Behar's study, you may want to reexamine it.

Link: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints

While including a lot of useful data and analysis, the Behar study isn't free of methodological flaws, either:


Khazar homeland: Behar locates the Khazar homeland exclusively north of the Caucasus. Most sources, including Wikipedia, however, agree that the Khazars at least in the 10th and early 11th century also controlled Georgia and Armenia. Once you introduce those populations, and Georgian Jews, as Khazars into the analysis, Khazarian origin of Ashkhenazi Jews becomes much more difficult to refute.
"Post-Khazarians (1)": Behar postulates that no ethnic successors of Khazarians are known. This is also wrong - the Khalysians, who settled in Eastern Hungary, Eastern Slovakia, Galicia and Western Ukraine are reported by medieval historians as Khazars of either Mosaic or Muslim faith: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30109-Are-Suabi-behind-two-Galicias?p=433224&viewfull=1#post433224. Apparently, Behar didn't specifically sample Khalysian areas. Eastern Slovakia isn't covered at all, Hungary, Ukraine and Poland are only covered in general, and the data may rather refer to the respective capitals than the area in question, namely Galicia / the NE Carpathians.
"Post-Khazarians (2)": To approximate "Khazarians", Behar sampled a number of ethno-linguistic isolates along the periphery of the former Khazar empire, including various north-Caucasian groups, as well as Chuvash, and Tartars. Using ethno-linguistic isolates is obviously problematic, as the linguistic isolation may correspond to restricted gene flow. Furthermore, the Khazar elite that adopted Judaism, and the region's Jewish community anyway, may be assumed to have been primarily urban, so genetic admixture, if existing, should rather become apparent in and around historic urban centres than within periphery ethno-linguistic isolates.
To these isolates, "Ukrainians" and "Russians" were added. For the comparatively small "Ukrainian" sample, no regional breakdown is available. In the case of Russians, samples were taken from Kursk, Smolensk and Voronesh , locations either to the periphery (Kursk, Voronesh) or outside (Smolensk) historical Khazar territory. The Khazar homeland hasn't been sampled at all - neither the Khazar capital of Iti, todays Astrakhan, nor other relevant South Russian cities such as Volgograd, Krasnodar, or Rostov-on-Don. Whatever Behar compared Ashkenazi Jews with, I seriously doubt that you can call it representative of Khazars.
Ashkenazi Jews: Behar's sample of Ashkenazi Jews is split up into two groups - a western one (France, Germany, Netherlands), and a Central / Eastern European one (Austria, Belorussia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia). The central-Eastern group is obviously missing Ukrainian, including Galician Jews, which would be the Ashkenazi amongst whom most Khazarian ancestry could theoretically be expected to show up. In addition, some more "zooming in" for the Central / Easter European selection, e.g. by removing Baltic Jews here, could have made sense. Judged by the admixture diagram in the study annex, Central / Eastern European Ashkenazi appear to display quite a diversity, including a few individuals whose admixture is more similar to Georgian or Iranian than to Western European Jews.
Europe: Similar to the Khazarian region, the parts of Europe that might have contributed to the Ashkenazi admixture are hardly covered. Comparison is only made with "Southern Europe" (France, Italy, Spain), and "Eastern Europe" (Belorus, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Ukraine). First of all, one region that is known as source of substantial Jewish migration into north-central Europe during the 16th/ 17th century, namely Northern/ Central Portugal, is missing here [Several famous North German Jewish families, including the Warburgs and Heines, are known to have immigrated from Portugal]. More importantly, the alternative "homeland" of Ashkenazi, stretching from the Upper Rhine (Strasbourg, Worms) via the Rhineland (Cologne) into Flanders (Antwerp), the Netherlands (Amsterdam) and Northern Germany (Hamburg, Altona) isn't present at all. Considering the linguistic origin of Yiddish, at least the Rhineland and Flanders should have served as points of comparison.

For my taste, these flaws are a bit too widespread to have occurred accidentally. They rather suggest a hidden political agenda, namely proving a Jewish ethno-genetic unity. Ironically, indications for strong genetic coherence of the Jewish community, with substantial genetic roots in the Levante, are strong enough, have already been demonstrated by other studies before, and didn't require confirmation from Behar's work.
The equally interesting question of which other elements the Jewish diaspora has picked up during the last two millenniums, and from where, however, remains unanswered for the a/m flaws. I don't think that Cyprus, Sicily and Abruzzo (the three European regions with the closest genetical distance to Ashkenazi according to Behar's study) have been the last, most likely not even the most important stations of Jewish migrations [Though Sicily and Abruzzo deserve a closer look, especially considering Emperor Frederick II's policy of religious tolerance, which should have been reverted when both Sicilys fell to the Spanish crown]. More regionally focused studies, especially on the Caucasian / South Russian / Ukrainian / Galician relation, and on the upper and lower Rhine, will be required. Behar had the opportunity for such a regionalised analysis, but - opposite to his claims - failed to deliver it.

Angela
23-06-14, 21:08
The argument that Behar is refuting isn't the one I'm making. I realize that some people are allergic to the idea of any connection between the Ashkenazi and the Khazars, mostly because some racists have used that connection to advance a false argument that the Ashkenazis aren't real Jews, which is not at all what I'm saying. There is documentary evidence of Jewish people in that part of the world after the Khazar ruling class converted to Judaism in a vain attempt to stay out of the christian/muslim wars. That's not evidence that the Ashkenazi are anything other than mostly Jews from the Middle East, although Behar seems to assume that's the argument being made by anyone who mentions the idea that the Ashkenazi came out of southern Russia.

Where's the evidence for Jewish communities in France and Germany during and after the Migration Period?

Aberdeen, my allergies are killing me right now, but they're not to the Khazar theory. :) I just don't think it's supported by either the preponderance of the genetic evidence or the historical evidence.

I've also said that I think there's certainly the possibility that there was some input from the Khazars, although as you point out, only the upper classes seem to have converted. I do agree that there were Jews in that area, and that they may have fed into the emerging "Ashkenazi" ethnicity, but there's very little concrete data about their numbers and movements that I've ever been able to find.

I think there's quite a bit of documentation for the French and Rhineland Jewish communities.

This article provides a timeline for the establishment of these communities:
http://www.geni.com/projects/Jews-of-the-French-German-Nexus-Alsace-and-Lorraine/8610

This is another article on the establishment of the Rhineland communities:
http://judaisme.sdv.fr/histoire/historiq/anglais/history.htm

The Rhineland massacres during the First Crusade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

The Crusades and the Jewish community:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

Massacres related to the plague:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp

Movement of some European Jews to Poland, where Yiddish, a dialect of German, is said by some to have first coalesced:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Poland.html

Elkaim attempted to refute this evidence, in my opinion unconvincingly.

LeBrok
23-06-14, 21:19
In my opinion being smart has nothing to do with haplotypes. This reminds me of the thread where J's and I's are genetically posed to build better ships! The psyche, behavior and attitude of any homo sapien depends on its environment and priorities for survival besides the type of experiences it encounters with.



I think that Lebrok explained it well. The only thing I don't agree is the IQ bit. In regards to IQ, we know that EQ (emotional intelligence) plays a more important part in being successful on many layers of social strata. I agree, I should have used more general term Intelligence, regardless if Jew score high on IQ test.





I believe that Jews (as in religion, since dna is a far more complex subject then that) in more recent situations have lived mainly among Muslim and Christian communities, who according to their custom and religion had different views in regards to business practices. Both Christian and Muslim religions for a long time believed that profit was a sin (this is still a concept in Sharia law) and it was only good ethics to make ends meet and nothing more. Profit was regarded for a long time as a dirty word. The Jews had a different understanding on the issue and often used to be the bankers and money borrowers in the societies they lived in. This same system that lead to more wealth and prosperity could have been a main factor that steered the envy of the People they resided amongst and been one that led to persecution. I think the rule comes from Old Testament, however Jews understood this rule, as " One can't charge an Interest to his family, close kin. Making money of gentiles and not related Jews was OK.
Here is a history of money by Niall Ferguson.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28689-Favorite-Historical-Movies?p=434448&viewfull=1#post434448

Semitic Duwa
24-06-14, 00:10
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)

You're generalising, pilgrim... From personal experience, there are two types of AJs:

1. The extremely intelligent ones
2. The extremely dumb ones (usually the most inbred and religious, you'd be appalled if you knew how stupid some of them are)

The whole deal about AJ "intelligence" is a product of Jewish education (we absolutely loathe public education, for us education is a private matter) and history (most of the idiots and naive folks were weeded out by constant persecution).

Semitic Duwa
24-06-14, 00:18
The argument that Behar is refuting isn't the one I'm making. I realize that some people are allergic to the idea of any connection between the Ashkenazi and the Khazars, mostly because some racists have used that connection to advance a false argument that the Ashkenazis aren't real Jews, which is not at all what I'm saying. There is documentary evidence of Jewish people in that part of the world after the Khazar ruling class converted to Judaism in a vain attempt to stay out of the christian/muslim wars. That's not evidence that the Ashkenazi are anything other than mostly Jews from the Middle East, although Behar seems to assume that's the argument being made by anyone who mentions the idea that the Ashkenazi came out of southern Russia.

Behar said:

"Competing theories include a hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews descend largely from the Khazar Khaganate, a conglomerate of mostly Turkic tribes, who ruled in what is now southern Russia with the capital Atil in the Volga delta on the northwestern banks of the Caspian Sea approximately 1,400 to 1,000 years ago (Figure 1). According to this hypothesis, a portion of the Khazar population, among whom at least some had converted to Judaism, migrated north and west into Europe from their ancestral lands to become the ancestors of some or all of the Ashkenazi Jewish population."

But I think there's better historical evidence for the idea that only the ruling elite among the Khazars ever converted to Judaism but that Jews from what is now Iraq may have migrated to the Khazar Khanate and later migrated westward, which would explain the bottleneck effect that's apparent. That's why the Ashkenazi Jews are mostly ancient Middle Eastern but with a bit of Siberian ancestry. I'm not necessarily convinced that a Turkish khanate in southern Russia was necessarily mostly Turkish in ancestry, and I suspect there was only a small amount of gene flow from the Khazars to the Jews who settled among them.

Where's the evidence for Jewish communities in France and Germany during and after the Migration Period?


I'm not "allergic" to such a connection... In fact, I'm pretty sure that most AJs would be delighted to find out that they have Turkic roots, most of the people who're pushing this theory are AJs themselves (Koestler, Sand, etc).

The main problem with the Khazar model is that in any case, Mizrahim appear more "Khazar" than Western Jews, if we follow Elhaik's methodology which basically uses Armenians & Georgians as proxies for Khazar ancestry (don't laugh, he really did it).

Also, when subscribing to such a theory you'll find yourself at loss when trying to explain the incredible similarity between Ashkenazim and, say, Syrian Jews (I have Syrian and Lebanese Jewish relatives on RF myself, and I'm just half-Jewish).

The more we try to uncover traces of Khazar ancestry, the scarcer the evidence for it... Just read Rootsi et al. 2013's paper about R1a-M582, a marker which was long taken as actual proof of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazim!

Semitic Duwa
24-06-14, 00:26
Okay got it, thanks for the answer, I heard of a recent study which said that pre Islamic Eastern Mediterranean pops were more Cypriot like than Bedouin like. Wait who AJs do share a large amount of IBD with? BTW what's IBD? xD

I think the recent study you're referring to is Fernandez et al. 2014, which obtained MtDNA data from PPNB samples... It basically shows that Ashkenazim and Cypriots retain markers which have disappeared in the Near East.
Or perhaps is it Haber et al 2013?
This was significant for me because I've been saying for years now that Cyprus might've retained most of the pre-islamic Levant's genetic make-up.
Kind of what Sardinia is to Europe in a sense.

I mean, look at the picture emerging from genome-wide studies of Neolithic European samples... Population change is a reality, we've stumbled on a few surprises and I very much doubt continuity will ever regain the popularity it once enjoyed in academic circles (and that's coming from someone who speaks to archeologists on a daily basis).

No reason to believe that the Near East is any different, especially considering the data we have (take African admixture for instance, Moorjani et al. 2011 is very informative here)... I'm expecting even more surprises when we get our hands on Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean samples (as Angela said, the Iron Age Thracian shows that there were Ötzi-like people living in this area even during the Iron Age, that's a red flag if you ask me).

What's IBD?
You know they say that the shortest questions are the hardest to answer? :)
IBD = Identical By Descent [segment] (read about it, if you tested with 23&Me that's what enables you to find RF matches).

Semitic Duwa
24-06-14, 00:42
From what I've seen of the results, in the vast majority of cases it shows that there wasn't gene flow from Jews into the Italian gene pool, which is a surprise because I thought there would be some, given the documentary evidence of Jews who converted in the north in the late days of the Empire and of the ones in Sicily and Calabria who converted rather than go into exile when the Spanish introduced the Inquisition in the south. It may just be that the numbers were too small to make much of an impression.

On the other hand, I've seen no IBD evidence for gene flow from Italians into the Ashkenazim either, for all the talk of a Jewish population after the invasions taking gentile wives.

Well I do have a Greek relative and a few Italian matches in my RF... But that's rather trivial compared to other matches I get (Iranian Jews, Bukharan Jews, etc).

So I basically agree with what you're saying here.


Didn't the rules about matrilineal descent come about after this whole period? Before that, in addition to male Hellenes converting to Judaism, you would have had gentile women marrying into the community. Certainly, there didn't seem to be any rules prohibiting the marriage of Ruth and Boaz in a far earlier time period.

Matrilineal descent was established during the Tanna'im's time, so it's a relatively recent law (my personal opinion is that it was favoured because of the fact that Near Eastern women rarely tend to intermarry, hence reducing chances of assimilation). But some Jewish groups still retained the original patrilineal system (Karaites, Juhurim, Yemenite Jews until recent times, etc).
I'm pretty sure Judeans mixed intensively with Hellenes, the problem though as you might guess is that uniparental lineages are very similar so it's hard to figure it out most of the time.
I think the coastal Levant was mostly J2a during the Bronze Age so this complicates things further... The only paternal markers I'd associate with Greek ancestry are E-V13 and J2b (which aren't all that common either).
That's why I think it was mostly men marrying foreign women, even Ezra the scribe complained about it at some point and it only makes sense given the fact that Jewishness was transmitted patrilineally back then.
Marriage prohibitions were mainly designed to keep the Jewish people alive, it really took grotesque proportions... My paternal great-grandparents were 1st cousins for instance (and I'll spare you the whole ordeal about arranged marriages, this was pretty much the rule for thousands of years).


Except that a lot of these results hold true for southern Italians as well, (Calabrians, for example, in my husband's case and others, but also people from Bari that I know of first hand) and there was no Phoenician or Punic/Carthaginian settlement there. I think we're talking about older common ancestry, dating back to the Neolithic, and reinforced in southern Italy by the Cretans and later by the Greek settlements of the first millennium BC.

After all, you had some Balkan people still very Oetzi like way into the Iron Age, and I think Sicily, and perhaps much of far southern Italy as well, was not very impacted by the Indo-European migrations. The only reason why some mainland Greeks can be fitted into the three population Lazaridis model is, in my opinion, because they were impacted to some degree by the Slavic migrations which had no impact on Italy north or south. I do think there might have been some small amount of Punic input mixed with Berber in the Muslim settlers, particularly in Sicily, but also in other areas of the south, either through their short lived reigns there or through the relocation of Moorish soldiers on the peninsula to remove the threat they posed in Sicily. There was a famous settlement of them near Foggia and another one near Naples.

Indeed, it actually makes more sense if this Levantine component was more ancient because I'd expect mild IBD sharing if they really were descended from Phoenicians (who were basically the Judeans' civilized counterpart, pretty much the same people in a sense).

Aberdeen
24-06-14, 01:40
Aberdeen, my allergies are killing me right now, but they're not to the Khazar theory. :) I just don't think it's supported by either the preponderance of the genetic evidence or the historical evidence.

I've also said that I think there's certainly the possibility that there was some input from the Khazars, although as you point out, only the upper classes seem to have converted. I do agree that there were Jews in that area, and that they may have fed into the emerging "Ashkenazi" ethnicity, but there's very little concrete data about their numbers and movements that I've ever been able to find.

I think there's quite a bit of documentation for the French and Rhineland Jewish communities.

This article provides a timeline for the establishment of these communities:
http://www.geni.com/projects/Jews-of-the-French-German-Nexus-Alsace-and-Lorraine/8610

This is another article on the establishment of the Rhineland communities:
http://judaisme.sdv.fr/histoire/historiq/anglais/history.htm

The Rhineland massacres during the First Crusade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

The Crusades and the Jewish community:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

Massacres related to the plague:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp

Movement of some European Jews to Poland, where Yiddish, a dialect of German, is said by some to have first coalesced:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Poland.html

Elkaim attempted to refute this evidence, in my opinion unconvincingly.

Most of that information is about persecution of Jews during the Medieval period. There's some indication of small Jewish settlements in France and the Rhineland, but Jews don't seem to have been nearly as common in those areas as in Poland and Russia, at least not until the late Medieval period. And the fact that at least some of the Polish Jews spoke a dialect based partly on German certainly doesn't limit their origin point to somewhere within the boundaries of present day Germany. There were a lot of German speaking people in Eastern Europe until after WWII. I still think that most European Jews are descended from Jews who migrated from the Middle East north into Russia, then gradually moved west.

Aberdeen
24-06-14, 01:46
I'm not "allergic" to such a connection... In fact, I'm pretty sure that most AJs would be delighted to find out that they have Turkic roots, most of the people who're pushing this theory are AJs themselves (Koestler, Sand, etc).

The main problem with the Khazar model is that in any case, Mizrahim appear more "Khazar" than Western Jews, if we follow Elhaik's methodology which basically uses Armenians & Georgians as proxies for Khazar ancestry (don't laugh, he really did it).

Also, when subscribing to such a theory you'll find yourself at loss when trying to explain the incredible similarity between Ashkenazim and, say, Syrian Jews (I have Syrian and Lebanese Jewish relatives on RF myself, and I'm just half-Jewish).

The more we try to uncover traces of Khazar ancestry, the scarcer the evidence for it... Just read Rootsi et al. 2013's paper about R1a-M582, a marker which was long taken as actual proof of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazim!

Please read what I actually wrote. I think the Ashkenazi are descended from Jews who migrated from the Middle East into southern Russia with minimal gene flow from the Khazar empire. In any case, the Khazar empire may have been ruled by a Turkish elite, but it was probably made up primarily of Russians, Armenians and Georgians - the Turkish nomads were quite good at conquering huge empires made up primarily of non-Turks. Even modern Turkey isn't primarily Turkish in the genetic sense.

JS Bach
24-06-14, 06:05
Did you guys see this study: Admixture Estimation in a Founder Population. Y. Banda, ... http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130123362.htm They presented results involving 3,366 Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) that were genotyped at 674,000 SNPs. They included surrogate Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian, and Caucasus subgroups to represent the ancestral populations. And the results were: "For the AJ, we estimated mean ancestral proportions of 0.380, 0.305, 0.113, 0.041 and 0.148 for Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian and Caucasus ancestry, respectively."

I'd like to see this study repeated with different surrogate ancestral populations. I could see it plausibly getting similar results. I wonder if the 15% Caucasus ancestry would persist, and if so maybe that might represent the mysterious Khazar component.

Maleth
24-06-14, 08:24
I think the rule comes from Old Testament, however Jews understood this rule, as " One can't charge an Interest to his family, close kin. Making money of gentiles and not related Jews was OK.
Here is a history of money by Niall Ferguson.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28689-Favorite-Historical-Movies?p=434448&viewfull=1#post434448

Thats a great documentary Lebrok, Thanks for the link and it explains so well.

John Doe
24-06-14, 14:34
I think the recent study you're referring to is Fernandez et al. 2014, which obtained MtDNA data from PPNB samples... It basically shows that Ashkenazim and Cypriots retain markers which have disappeared in the Near East.
Or perhaps is it Haber et al 2013?
This was significant for me because I've been saying for years now that Cyprus might've retained most of the pre-islamic Levant's genetic make-up.
Kind of what Sardinia is to Europe in a sense.

I mean, look at the picture emerging from genome-wide studies of Neolithic European samples... Population change is a reality, we've stumbled on a few surprises and I very much doubt continuity will ever regain the popularity it once enjoyed in academic circles (and that's coming from someone who speaks to archeologists on a daily basis).

No reason to believe that the Near East is any different, especially considering the data we have (take African admixture for instance, Moorjani et al. 2011 is very informative here)... I'm expecting even more surprises when we get our hands on Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean samples (as Angela said, the Iron Age Thracian shows that there were Ötzi-like people living in this area even during the Iron Age, that's a red flag if you ask me).

What's IBD?
You know they say that the shortest questions are the hardest to answer? :)
IBD = Identical By Descent [segment] (read about it, if you tested with 23&Me that's what enables you to find RF matches).


Alright thanks for the answers, yes the study I was talking about was the 2013 Haber study, wait, there's a new study? May you perhaps post the link?

P.S Alright, but who do typical AJs share IBD segments with?

John Doe
24-06-14, 14:44
Did you guys see this study: Admixture Estimation in a Founder Population. Y. Banda, ... http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130123362.htm They presented results involving 3,366 Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) that were genotyped at 674,000 SNPs. They included surrogate Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian, and Caucasus subgroups to represent the ancestral populations. And the results were: "For the AJ, we estimated mean ancestral proportions of 0.380, 0.305, 0.113, 0.041 and 0.148 for Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian and Caucasus ancestry, respectively."

I'd like to see this study repeated with different surrogate ancestral populations. I could see it plausibly getting similar results. I wonder if the 15% Caucasus ancestry would persist, and if so maybe that might represent the mysterious Khazar component.



Very interesting! I wonder if it's reliable?

If it is, it basically says that unlike the African Americans, the AJ admixture is ancient (no surprise) and that the typical AJ ancestry is from the most predominant to the least:
1. Middle Eastern or Middle Eastern like
2. Italian or Italian like ancestry
3. French or French like ancestry
4. Russian or Russian like ancestry
5. Caucasian or Caucasian like ancestry

I'm no expert so I don't know if it's the right way to interpret the results, but I suppose someone who has knowledge concerning such subjects will go over this study and post his interpretation soon. :-P

Angela
24-06-14, 23:45
Most of that information is about persecution of Jews during the Medieval period. There's some indication of small Jewish settlements in France and the Rhineland, but Jews don't seem to have been nearly as common in those areas as in Poland and Russia, at least not until the late Medieval period. And the fact that at least some of the Polish Jews spoke a dialect based partly on German certainly doesn't limit their origin point to somewhere within the boundaries of present day Germany. There were a lot of German speaking people in Eastern Europe until after WWII. I still think that most European Jews are descended from Jews who migrated from the Middle East north into Russia, then gradually moved west.


I probably wasn't clear about it, but the links to the sites about the persecutions were mainly to support the hypothesis that the "genetic bottleneck" which affected the Ashkenazim but not the Sephardim could have taken place at this time and in this location. It's a good fit for it genetically, because the bottleneck has been estimated to have taken place around 1000 AD if I remember correctly. The articles also serve to show the number of Jewish communities that existed from 800 AD in this area. However, I also provided other links.

There's also this from Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia, Edited by John M. Jeep, a google book:
"In the ninth century there were only a few dozen Jewish families in Germany, probably a few hundred in the tenth century. It has been estimated that there were as many as 4,000 to 5,000 Jews by the end of the tenth century, and 20,000 to 25,000 Jews by the end of the eleventh century..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=p4uHav3mZLsC&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=Size+of+medieval+Jewish+communities+in+the+Rhin eland&source=bl&ots=2Bs2igQdoz&sig=APmbSVwZhJARhFP92dDyHTqDv2U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HsyoU7PuO8K1yATXuoKIAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Size%20of%20medieval%20Jewish%20communities%20in %20the%20Rhineland&f=false

Now, I'm always a little leery about population figures from this period, but I think it might be safe to say that there were a substantial number of Jews in the Rhineland and neighboring areas of France by the end of the eleventh century even if you halve the figures.

(There were also substantial communities in Italy, and France outside of Alsace, and Spain at the time. The Italian communities remained relatively undisturbed, but the French Jews were expelled in 1394, although there had been numerous expulsions and recalls since the beginning of the 1000's. They had to go somewhere; there is no indication that they all converted, and there's no indication that they went to Muslim lands. At least, I'm not aware of any. There are also the even better known expulsions involving the Spanish Jews, although in that case a high percentage of them went to North Africa or to regions ruled by Muslims and form the basis for the Sephardic communities. (and perhaps even to the New World. There's the case of the converso element in southwestern American "Hispanics" for example.) Even when they went to the Netherlands, they maintained their separate ritual and the use of Ladino, and seem to have practiced a great degree of endogamy even with regard to the Ashkenaz, a term meaning German Jew by the way.)

Now, this isn't to say that some Jews didn't return after the various "pogroms", because there is every indication they did. After the first crusade, for instance, there seems to have been an establishment of very small dispersed communities in the Rhineland, although they greatly diminish after the progroms surrounding the Black Death. This is a map of the Jewish communities, all small, from 1349 in the area of the Rhineland:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/JewishCommunities1349.html

Then there's this from the Jewish Virtual Library linked to above:
There is no specific date that marks Jewish immigration to Poland. A journal account of Ibrahim ibn Jakub, a Jewish traveler, merchant and diplomat from Spain mentions Cracow (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Cracow.html) and the First Duke of Poland, Mieszko I. More Jews arrived during the period of the first Crusade in 1098, while leaving persecution in Bohemia, according to the Chronicler of Prague. There is also archeological evidence, coins from the period with inscriptions in Hebrew, revealing that other Jewish merchants traveled to Poland in the 12th century. The coins may have belonged to 12th century Jewish traders, Holekhei Rusyah (travelers to Russia).

While persecution took place across Europe during the Crusades (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Crusader.html), in the 13th century, Poland served as a haven for European Jewry because of its relative tolerance. During this period, Poland began its colonization process. It suffered great losses from Mongol invasions in 1241 and therefore encouraged Jewish immigrants to settle the towns and villages. Immigrants flocked to Poland from Bohemia-Moravia, Germany, Italy, Spain and colonies in the Crimea. No central authority could stop the immigration. Refugees from Germany brought with them German and Hebrew dialects that eventually became Yiddish.

Now, I'm aware of the criticism of this theory from Jits Van Straten, but I didn't find it very convincing. The fact is that while the contemporaneous fragments we have from Jewish sources often indicate movement by the survivors to other "German" areas, some of those areas were indeed to the east, and some are in areas that are now part of Poland. I don't think the fact that these people didn't immediately make a beeline for Poland necessarily means that there wasn't a gradual movement east that was accelerated every time there was another persecution, especially given the favorable climate for them in the Poland of that time. Of course, it's far from a settled matter given that we don't have specific documentary evidence of the establishment of these kinds of communities in Poland by the exiles.
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/vanStratenJewishMigrations.pdf

Also, when I said I had looked for documentation of the existence of any signficant Jewish settlements in Poland or the Ukraine before, say, 1000 AD, and the proposed movements of Jewish exiles from the west, I was specifically thinking of this Van Straten article. I thought perhaps he would include such data, but he advances no alternative hypothesis to explain the presence of Jewish communities in Poland.

In that regard, have you found documentary evidence of such settlements? There is that teasing reference above to Crimean Jews also moving to Poland, but that's the only thing I've ever seen, and there's no citation for it. I'm not playing gotcha here, as I hope you realize. I've looked, and I've never found any. Certainly, data like that would have to be factored into the equation.

I do also now get how your hypothesis differs from the "Khazarian" one.

Angela
25-06-14, 00:00
Did you guys see this study: Admixture Estimation in a Founder Population. Y. Banda, ... http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130123362.htm They presented results involving 3,366 Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) that were genotyped at 674,000 SNPs. They included surrogate Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian, and Caucasus subgroups to represent the ancestral populations. And the results were: "For the AJ, we estimated mean ancestral proportions of 0.380, 0.305, 0.113, 0.041 and 0.148 for Middle Eastern, Italian, French, Russian and Caucasus ancestry, respectively."

I'd like to see this study repeated with different surrogate ancestral populations. I could see it plausibly getting similar results. I wonder if the 15% Caucasus ancestry would persist, and if so maybe that might represent the mysterious Khazar component.

I'm going to try to find the actual study and take a look. Off the cuff, I'd say that if they had that much French and Russian and Italian (unless they were all Sicilians and far southern Italians), I don't see how they wind up with virtually 0 WHG in Lazaridis et al.

JS Bach
25-06-14, 02:11
Greg Cochran (co-author of “The 10,000 Year Explosion”) has an article on his blog today titled “Ashkenazi Ancestry”: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/ His take seems to be that Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) are about half Middle Eastern and half European. He says: “From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.”

This, to me seems somewhat at odds with this Dodecad “K12a Spreadsheet”: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc
which breaks down a sample of 18 AJs as being: 29.5% Mediterranean, 13.3% North European, 34.8% Caucasus, 13.2% Southwest Asian, and 4.3% Northwest African, and another sample of 17 AJs as having a similar breakdown. This clustering suggests to me as being much more than “almost zero WHG or ANE”, although Cochran may be exaggerating there -- and Italians on that spreadsheet do have a lot of the "Caucasus" component (very unlike the Northwest European samples).

In one of Cochran’s comments to the article, he states: “Their mtDNA is unambiguously Italian, Y -chromosomes mostly middle Eastern, which data autosomal analysis fully confirms.” Again, I wonder whether that AJ Caucasus component is more Middle Eastern, Italian, or more Caucasus mountains?

He also seems to think that the AJ population hit a bottleneck of only about 350 individuals, and that this occurred at around 900 A.D.

kamani
25-06-14, 07:47
He also seems to think that the AJ population hit a bottleneck of only about 350 individuals, and that this occurred at around 900 A.D.

that would be very strange if it was true, since the y-dna of AJ-s reflects very well their historic periods of mixing with Caananites (Phoenicians E-M123), mixing with Greeks (E-V13, J2a), mixing in Eastern Europe (R1a), mixing in Mesopotamia (J1) etc. It is pretty hard to get that after a bottleneck of 350 in 900 AD. Maybe marrying inside a small community brings slow growth, which I guess could be mistaken for a bottleneck.

Semitic Duwa
25-06-14, 17:32
Greg Cochran (co-author of “The 10,000 Year Explosion”) has an article on his blog today titled “Ashkenazi Ancestry”: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/ His take seems to be that Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) are about half Middle Eastern and half European. He says: “From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.”

This, to me seems somewhat at odds with this Dodecad “K12a Spreadsheet”: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc
which breaks down a sample of 18 AJs as being: 29.5% Mediterranean, 13.3% North European, 34.8% Caucasus, 13.2% Southwest Asian, and 4.3% Northwest African, and another sample of 17 AJs as having a similar breakdown. This clustering suggests to me as being much more than “almost zero WHG or ANE”, although Cochran may be exaggerating there -- and Italians on that spreadsheet do have a lot of the "Caucasus" component (very unlike the Northwest European samples).

In one of Cochran’s comments to the article, he states: “Their mtDNA is unambiguously Italian, Y -chromosomes mostly middle Eastern, which data autosomal analysis fully confirms.” Again, I wonder whether that AJ Caucasus component is more Middle Eastern, Italian, or more Caucasus mountains?

He also seems to think that the AJ population hit a bottleneck of only about 350 individuals, and that this occurred at around 900 A.D.

The problem with Greg's analysis is that if Ashkenazim really were 50% Near Eastern and 50% Italian, you'd expect much more WHG... Which obviously isn't what we're seeing here.
Heck, he even says "with some southern french", which makes the whole thing sound even more outlandish!
He blatantly contradicts himself here, before acknowledging the fact that "The Middle East isn't what it used to be - more South Arabian and African ancestry"... I guess straight answers just aren't what they used to be.

Also, his claim that Ashkenazi MtDNA is Italian (based on Costa et al. 2013) died a quick death with the recent Fernandez et al. 2014 paper, so he's out of touch with what's going on in this field right now.

Even funnier is the fact that he seems to assume some sort of correlation between uniparental lineages frequencies and MtDNA... Which is ridiculous of course, since Ashkenazim are ~90% identical to Sephardim who have very different uniparental lineages frequencies (especially if we focus on MtDNA haplogroups).

All in all, I find the Italian model wholly unconvincing.

Semitic Duwa
25-06-14, 17:46
that would be very strange if it was true, since the y-dna of AJ-s reflects very well their historic periods of mixing with Caananites (Phoenicians E-M123), mixing with Greeks (E-V13, J2a), mixing in Eastern Europe (R1a), mixing in Mesopotamia (J1) etc. It is pretty hard to get that after a bottleneck of 350 in 900 AD. Maybe marrying inside a small community brings slow growth, which I guess could be mistaken for a bottleneck.

In fact, E-M34, J1 and J2a probably all were to be found in Canaan at non-negligible frequencies (I think the coastal Levant was mostly J2a during the Bronze Age).

E-V13 could possibly hint towards Greek admixture, the problem though is that it isn't all that common and that it seems to have spread with the Neolithic first & foremost (in fact, I'd be ready to bet it was born in N. Africa since all of its sister-clades are mainly found in Africa).

R1a in Jews is most common in Levites, and they belong to a subclade of Z93: M582. Rootsi et al. 2013 showed that this marker is Near Eastern (found in Azeris, Iranians and Kurds), it's a classic Indo-Iranian marker... Non-Levites usually test positive for another Z93 subclade (Z2123).
So far, I've only seen a handful of Jewish individuals who tested positive for one of R1a's Slavic subclades and this was L1029(-A, the "Jewish" subclade), which is commonly found in Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia)... Which isn't a big deal since Jews are overrepresented in most databases.

So most of the Jewish Y-DNA actually comes from the Near East (same thing for R1b in Jews), and a huge majority of these lineages can be traced back to the Levant.

Angela
25-06-14, 19:55
Greg Cochran (co-author of “The 10,000 Year Explosion”) has an article on his blog today titled “Ashkenazi Ancestry”: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/ His take seems to be that Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) are about half Middle Eastern and half European. He says: “From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.”

This, to me seems somewhat at odds with this Dodecad “K12a Spreadsheet”: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc
which breaks down a sample of 18 AJs as being: 29.5% Mediterranean, 13.3% North European, 34.8% Caucasus, 13.2% Southwest Asian, and 4.3% Northwest African, and another sample of 17 AJs as having a similar breakdown. This clustering suggests to me as being much more than “almost zero WHG or ANE”, although Cochran may be exaggerating there -- and Italians on that spreadsheet do have a lot of the "Caucasus" component (very unlike the Northwest European samples).

In one of Cochran’s comments to the article, he states: “Their mtDNA is unambiguously Italian, Y -chromosomes mostly middle Eastern, which data autosomal analysis fully confirms.” Again, I wonder whether that AJ Caucasus component is more Middle Eastern, Italian, or more Caucasus mountains?

He also seems to think that the AJ population hit a bottleneck of only about 350 individuals, and that this occurred at around 900 A.D.

I'll be interested to see the Carmi paper(s) when they come out, particularly as they used whole genomes. However,what they posit and what Cochran is repeating is, and has been for quite a while the leading hypothesis for Ashkenazi ethnogenesis. (i.e. a movement from the Italian peninsula north to the Rhineland, a bottleneck there straddling somehow the millennial mark, and then a gradual movement of many of them to the east. So, there's nothing new there.)

It still has to correlate, as Semitic Duwa has pointed out, with the Lazaridis et al results showing virtually nil WHG results in the modern Ashenazim. Just to add a gloss to what he stated, today's Sicilians can indeed be fitted, like the Jews, as an EEF/ANE population. Modern Northern Italians and Tuscans cannot. Yet, the Jewish population that then moved into the Rhineland spent the majority of its sojourn in northern Italy. If Carmi et al are correct, the mixing would have to have taken place in Sicily and far southern Italy before the move to northern Italy, and they would have had to have started practicing strict endogamy there in the south.

Or, they may be misinterpreting their data. I could make a pretty good argument, I think, that the populations of Sicily and far southern Italy of that time were largely indistinguishable from those of the Aegean and Greek western Turkey, and so a possibility that Semitic Duwa had previously raised is still possible, i.e. that the mixing took place in the Near East itself, with possibly the Philistines, but definitely during the Hellenistic period. It remains to be seen if Carmi et al even tested Aegean Greeks, or Cretans, or Anatolian Greeks.
Ed. Also, it's extremely important that a comprehensive IBD analysis is done with all these populations.

(Just as an aside, I long ago raised, to vociferous opposition, I might add :), that based on the results of the Ralph and Coop et al paper, it was my opinion that the Italian populations, not just those of Sardinia, harbored very old genes which had been more diluted and recombined in other parts of Europe and that this was part of the reason that earlier incarnations of the 23andme calculator found such high levels of "Italian" in north Africa, the Levant, parts of Greece and Spain etc. I think the change to the modern "European" genomes in southern Europe and even Central Europe to some degree may have taken place quite a bit later than has been proposed. The survival of a very "Oetzi like" Thracian into the Iron Age supports that contention, in my opinion. Certainly, I think there was some change in mainland Greece due to "Slavic" migrations, even if they weren't large scale changes. See: Ralph and Coop et al, based on a very sophisticated IBD analysis:
http://www.plosbiology.org/;jsessionid=1FA5565A5C633DA8EC319810AA6287BA)

In terms of the R1a1 yDNA, Semitic Duwa is quite correct. We now know that the Jewish version is not "Slavic". As to the mtDNA, the analyses are sadly lacking. The only way to make judgments is through the use of full sequences of the mtDNA, which has not been done, and which is why Costa et al is totally unconvincing, in my opinion. The same applies to mtDNA analyses of the Etruscans. With the truncated data being used, it's impossible to determine whether those Etruscan sequences came to Italy in the first millennium B.C. or five thousand years earlier in the Neolithic, as the authors who originally proposed a Bronze Age migration from Anatolia have themselves stated in the most recent studies. None of it is as yet settled. Just another wrinkle is that a study of Cretan mtDNA shows it's basically the same as "European" mtDNA, as is, by the way, most of the DNA in the Levant. (the major difference being the amount of U4 and U5 in Europe, and the higher levels of L in the Near East.) The differences seem to stem mostly from differences in the yDNA.

As to the calculator results, I personally don't think they can tell us much about ancient population movements. As Dienekes was at pains to point out many times, but which was largely ignored, these are autosomal components or "clusters" according to where they are most prevalent geographically today. They "cover" older strata or layers. This was specifically pointed out by Dienekes in a number of his threads from 2012. I'll just provide a few of the ones where he specifically discussed it, since this is really off topic for the thread.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

( I think some of what he pointed out here is amazing, given what we are now learning from very recent papers.


Northwest African appears to be Caucasus + a minority Sub Saharan



Gedrosia appears to be Caucasus + a slice of Siberian
East Asian on the other hand, appears to be mostly Southeast Asian + minority Siberian
Atlantic Med appears to be Caucasus + a slice of North European
North European appears to be Atlantic Med + Gedrosia with a slice of Siberian
South Asian appears to be Caucasus + East Asian
East African appears to be Sub Saharan + minority Caucasus
Caucasus appears Atlantic Med + Gedrosia + slices of Northwest African and Southwest Asian)



That isn't to say that the calculators can't tell you things about your own ancestry. They're very good for letting you see how you compare to other people of your ethnicity. Let's say, for example, as in my case, that you know your ethnicty, or ethnicities, or at least think you do. You then get your 23andme data or Family Finder data and run it through the calculators. Then, you can compare your figures to the population averages that he provides for each calculator. If you're doing the Globe 13, for example, just go to Dodecad and search for the Globe 13 spreadsheet. All the population averages for the academic populations as well as for the study participants are listed. You can check how you compare. They might confirm what you believe, or they might refute it.

(If you really are interested in how the calculators were developed, and what they can and can't show, you can use the search engine on his sites. They're pretty good. His sites are also a good reference for discussions of numerous genetics and archaeology papers.)

John Doe
26-06-14, 12:20
The problem with Greg's analysis is that if Ashkenazim really were 50% Near Eastern and 50% Italian, you'd expect much more WHG... Which obviously isn't what we're seeing here.
Heck, he even says "with some southern french", which makes the whole thing sound even more outlandish!
He blatantly contradicts himself here, before acknowledging the fact that "The Middle East isn't what it used to be - more South Arabian and African ancestry"... I guess straight answers just aren't what they used to be.

Also, his claim that Ashkenazi MtDNA is Italian (based on Costa et al. 2013) died a quick death with the recent Fernandez et al. 2014 paper, so he's out of touch with what's going on in this field right now.

Even funnier is the fact that he seems to assume some sort of correlation between uniparental lineages frequencies and MtDNA... Which is ridiculous of course, since Ashkenazim are ~90% identical to Sephardim who have very different uniparental lineages frequencies (especially if we focus on MtDNA haplogroups).

All in all, I find the Italian model wholly unconvincing.


Do you have a link for Fernandez et al. 2014 paper? I didn't even hear of it, I thought no study yet was made in response to Costa. :-P

John Doe
26-06-14, 12:59
In fact, E-M34, J1 and J2a probably all were to be found in Canaan at non-negligible frequencies (I think the coastal Levant was mostly J2a during the Bronze Age).

E-V13 could possibly hint towards Greek admixture, the problem though is that it isn't all that common and that it seems to have spread with the Neolithic first & foremost (in fact, I'd be ready to bet it was born in N. Africa since all of its sister-clades are mainly found in Africa).

R1a in Jews is most common in Levites, and they belong to a subclade of Z93: M582. Rootsi et al. 2013 showed that this marker is Near Eastern (found in Azeris, Iranians and Kurds), it's a classic Indo-Iranian marker... Non-Levites usually test positive for another Z93 subclade (Z2123).
So far, I've only seen a handful of Jewish individuals who tested positive for one of R1a's Slavic subclades and this was L1029(-A, the "Jewish" subclade), which is commonly found in Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia)... Which isn't a big deal since Jews are overrepresented in most databases.

So most of the Jewish Y-DNA actually comes from the Near East (same thing for R1b in Jews), and a huge majority of these lineages can be traced back to the Levant.


My paternal haplogroup is E-M35, I know it originated in East Africa about 20,000 years ago and reached the Mediterranean region after the Ice age, I think today it's most common among Berbers in North Africa, does it reach any considerable frequency in the Middle East and/or Europe? What's the frequency of E-M35 among AJs?

Do AJs, Maltese, Sicilians, Cypriots, Greeks and Greek Islanders get around the same WHG admixture? Are they all pretty much entirely EEF with some ANE? Or not?


P.S I'm glad there's someone like you who knows a thing or 2 about genetics, I'm just an amateur but I'm very interested in it because I've always been confused, who am I as an AJ? My recent ancestry is German, Polish and Polish Galitzianer but according to Jewish tradition the AJs descend from the Levantine Israelites, was there any admixture with Europeans, if so then how much and from where? I'm sorry if I'm bombarding you with questions such as these, it's just that I never really had anyone to ask these questions. :)

kamani
26-06-14, 14:23
My paternal haplogroup is E-M35, I know it originated in East Africa about 20,000 years ago and reached the Mediterranean region after the Ice age, I think today it's most common among Berbers in North Africa, does it reach any considerable frequency in the Middle East and/or Europe? What's the frequency of E-M35 among AJs?


E-M35 is the ancestral version of "everybody". In Europe it is rare, but its "nephew" E-v13 is quite common in the Balkans/Italy, possibly the mutation happened there and back-migrated in the Levant with the Greeks (after Trojan War, Philistines, Romans etc).
Subclade E-M123 possibly happened in the Levant sometime in the late Paleolithic/Neolithic and some say it was big with the Canaanite/Phoenicians. Although it is also spread in small percentages all over Italy, Iberia, Balkans, and Turkey, in areas where there were no Phoenicians or AJ-s and most E-M123* is found in Iberia, so most probably it came in Europe with the Neolithic farmers.
Subclade E-M81 is the North African mutation that happened on the E-m35 that stayed in North-Africa. In Europe it is common in Iberians because of the Moors and other late migrations from Northwest-Africa.

So the birth of Civilization is a big mess of various tribes of E1b1b going around the Mediteranean coast, mixing and fighting with each-other.

John Doe
26-06-14, 14:30
E-M35 is the ancestral version of "everybody". In Europe it is rare, but its "nephew" E-v13 is quite common in the Balkans/Italy, possibly the mutation happened there and back-migrated in the Levant with the Greeks (after Trojan War, Philistines, Romans etc).
Subclade E-M123 possibly happened in the Levant sometime in the late Paleolithic/Neolithic and some say it was big with the Canaanite/Phoenicians. Although it is also spread in small percentages all over Italy, Iberia, Balkans, and Turkey, in areas where there were no Phoenicians or AJ-s and most E-M123* is found in Iberia, so most probably it came in Europe with the Neolithic farmers.
Subclade E-M81 is the North African mutation that happened on the E-m35 that stayed in North-Africa. In Europe it is common in Iberians because of the Moors and other late migrations from Northwest-Africa.

So the birth of Civilization is a big mess of various tribes of E1b1b going around the Mediteranean coast, mixing and fighting with each-other.



Alright, thanks, where is E-M35.1 most common in the world? And where is it most common in Europe? And what's it's frequency among AJs?

kamani
26-06-14, 17:48
Alright, thanks, where is E-M35.1 most common in the world? And where is it most common in Europe? And what's it's frequency among AJs?
those I'm not sure. Maybe someone else can help this guy..

John Doe
26-06-14, 17:59
those I'm not sure. Maybe someone else can help this guy..


Okay, thanks anyway mate. :)

Drac II
26-06-14, 23:08
Subclade E-M81 is the North African mutation that happened on the E-m35 that stayed in North-Africa. In Europe it is common in Iberians because of the Moors and other late migrations from Northwest-Africa.

Quite unlikely, since its declining west-to-east instead of south-to-north distribution pattern does not follow historical patterns. Since it's also over 5000 years old, there is nothing preventing it from actually being of ancient introduction into the peninsula.

John Doe
28-06-14, 12:53
I have another question. If it's unlikely there was admixture between Jews and Italians, then how come on Gedmatch AJs and Italians tend to be close, and why did Behar include Tuscans and Abruzzo Italians in the non Jewish group that was closest to AJs?
Thanks in advance. :-)

Angela
29-06-14, 17:53
I have another question. If it's unlikely there was admixture between Jews and Italians, then how come on Gedmatch AJs and Italians tend to be close, and why did Behar include Tuscans and Abruzzo Italians in the non Jewish group that was closest to AJs?
Thanks in advance. :-)

I'm not sure I'm following you, but, just using myself as an example...

While I don't use gedmatch very much, I do check my countries of ancestry at 23andme every once in a while. For the longest time, I had only about 70 matches, TOTAL. I now have a grand total of 184.:smile:

However, I think anything below their 7cM threshold (they picked that number for a reason) is very questionable as to direction of gene flow or even whether it's a real or "phantom" segment in terms of descent. At that level of resolution, all but two of my matches are from northwestern Italy or Tuscany, which is exactly where my ancestors have been for at least the last 500 years, and probably a good 1000 years before that. The only two exceptions are one family of Scandinavian descent, and one of Irish descent. That's it.

I have no full AJ matches at any resolution. I do have a few part AJ ones, but at vary small matches, and, of course, the likelihood is that I match them on their "other" ancestry.

John Doe
29-06-14, 19:23
I'm not sure I'm following you, but, just using myself as an example...

While I don't use gedmatch very much, I do check my countries of ancestry at 23andme every once in a while. For the longest time, I had only about 70 matches, TOTAL. I now have a grand total of 184.:smile:

However, I think anything below their 7cM threshold (they picked that number for a reason) is very questionable as to direction of gene flow or even whether it's a real or "phantom" segment in terms of descent. At that level of resolution, all but two of my matches are from northwestern Italy or Tuscany, which is exactly where my ancestors have been for at least the last 500 years, and probably a good 1000 years before that. The only two exceptions are one family of Scandinavian descent, and one of Irish descent. That's it.

I have no full AJ matches at any resolution. I do have a few part AJ ones, but at vary small matches, and, of course, the likelihood is that I match them on their "other" ancestry.

Okay, the thing is I'm not talking about 500 or even 1,000 years, I'm talking about pre Christian Italy, so more than 1,600 years at least, that was also before the bottleneck caused the birth of the AJ ethnicity.

Sile
29-06-14, 20:49
Okay, the thing is I'm not talking about 500 or even 1,000 years, I'm talking about pre Christian Italy, so more than 1,600 years at least, that was also before the bottleneck caused the birth of the AJ ethnicity.

this might help in your jewish pursuit

https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites/2014-klyosov-article-on-jewish-dna-genealogy

John Doe
29-06-14, 20:58
this might help in your jewish pursuit

https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/origins-of-r1a1a-ashkenazi-levites/2014-klyosov-article-on-jewish-dna-genealogy


Thanks, but I already know that the AJ Levy R1a lineage has a Near Eastern Indo Iranian source rather than a Slavic East European one.

Angela
30-06-14, 06:25
Okay, the thing is I'm not talking about 500 or even 1,000 years, I'm talking about pre Christian Italy, so more than 1,600 years at least, that was also before the bottleneck caused the birth of the AJ ethnicity.

It's certainly possible to track gene flow back 1600 years or so. After all, Ralph and Coop's algorithms allowed them to track IBD sharing back to 2300 BC using 2cM segments. See this graphic, for example:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=F3oENsCySjmYxM&tbnid=jTaUfQckPLUj2M:&ved=0CAIQjBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosbiology.org%2Farticle%2Fi nfo%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555.g005%2F largerimage&ei=xtiwU6CyCYiayATN-ILQCQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNG4y0oa4YlNJups0GOa7xGRD_ueKw&ust=1404185155397089

Unfortunately, Jewish populations weren't included.


Dienekes has done a Fast IBD analysis that includes European Jews, and while unfortunately he didn't include all Europeans, he did include Italian and Balkan and Anatolian populations. This is it:
FastIBD Analysis of Iberia, France, Italy, Balkans, Anatolia, and European Jews:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/fastibd-analysis-of-iberia-france-italy.html

This is the heat map:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/fastibd-analysis-of-iberia-france-italy.html

I don't see anything earth shattering, but there does seem to be a bit going on with Central Italians. (From the information that some project members posted, and from discussions at 23andme when I was more active there, there may be some actual Lazio people in the group, but I do know it's heavily Abruzzi in origin.)

I'll have to take another look at it.

(As a project member, I got individual results, and they bear out what I see at 23andme, which is to say, no real evidence of IBD sharing with Ashkenazim.)

As far as this 500 year limit for 23andme is concerned, it doesn't mean that you don't share IBD segments with people that point to much older connections. Ralph and Coop have proved that.

John Doe
30-06-14, 09:08
It's certainly possible to track gene flow back 1600 years or so. After all, Ralph and Coop's algorithms allowed them to track IBD sharing back to 2300 BC using 2cM segments. See this graphic, for example:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=F3oENsCySjmYxM&tbnid=jTaUfQckPLUj2M:&ved=0CAIQjBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plosbiology.org%2Farticle%2Fi nfo%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555.g005%2F largerimage&ei=xtiwU6CyCYiayATN-ILQCQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNG4y0oa4YlNJups0GOa7xGRD_ueKw&ust=1404185155397089

Unfortunately, Jewish populations weren't included.


Dienekes has done a Fast IBD analysis that includes European Jews, and while unfortunately he didn't include all Europeans, he did include Italian and Balkan and Anatolian populations. This is it:
FastIBD Analysis of Iberia, France, Italy, Balkans, Anatolia, and European Jews:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/fastibd-analysis-of-iberia-france-italy.html

This is the heat map:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/fastibd-analysis-of-iberia-france-italy.html

I don't see anything earth shattering, but there does seem to be a bit going on with Central Italians. (From the information that some project members posted, and from discussions at 23andme when I was more active there, there may be some actual Lazio people in the group, but I do know it's heavily Abruzzi in origin.)

I'll have to take another look at it.

(As a project member, I got individual results, and they bear out what I see at 23andme, which is to say, no real evidence of IBD sharing with Ashkenazim.)

As far as this 500 year limit for 23andme is concerned, it doesn't mean that you don't share IBD segments with people that point to much older connections. Ralph and Coop have proved that.

Alright thanks, I understand that even though we're making advancements every day in technology, we still have a way to go. I suppose that the close proximity to Sicilians and South Italians comes first of all from a common EEF/Mediterranean heritage, possibly also through admixture with Greeks (I heard that there were Greek colonies there so that may be another connection) and perhaps some admixture during Roman times, from what you wrote I'm pretty sure you're of Tuscan/North Italian ancestry (correct me if I'm wrong)? I wasn't talking about these, I know that Tuscans and North Italians, unlike South Italians and Sicilians, do have WHG ancestry, I was talking about the proximity to Sicilians/South Italians, but I guess it didn't have to be mainly from Roman times, it could have come from Hellenistic/Bronze age or even Pre Historic times.

FrankN
30-06-14, 14:04
Jewish communities in the Rhineland are very old - the community in Worms (Borbetomagus) is said to have been founded in the 5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. During Roman times, Jewish communities were established in many larger towns. The first written evidence on the Cologne community is a regulation issued by Constantine the Great in the early 4th century.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews were outside traditional "tribal laws" (Saxon, Frankish, etc.), and regulated by foreigner laws (applying to all merchants from "abroad", irrespectively of their religion) instead. This implied that Jews did not pay their taxes to local nobility or the cities, but directly to the Emperor. Consequently, during the high middle age (10th-13th century), several emperors, as well as territorial bishoprics (Trier, Mainz, Cologne) that also acted as Imperial institutions, actively encouraged Jewish settlement in order to strengthen their tax base, in the case of bishoprics also to counteract the attempt of cities to emancipate from bishop control. They appear to have in particular targeted Jewish communities from areas threatened by the Arab expansion, i.e. Sicily and Southern Italy.
http://home.allgaeu.org/kschroep/Stammesfremde/Gemeinden.jpg

As to the "Abruzzi connection", it might be worthwhile to investigate the fate of the citizens of Lucera: Frederick II in 1224 re-established the city as a "refuge" for Saracenes from Sicily, who were granted religious freedom there. In 1300, Charles II of Naples sacked the city and massacred or exiled most of its inhabitants. I could imagine that the promise of religious freedom did not only attract Muslims, but also Jews to Lucera. After the prosecutions during the first Crusade, the situation of Central European Jews had stabilised - a new wave of pogroms only set in around 1350. So in 1300 the Rhineland might have appeared a safe place to go for Lucera Jews.

On the Khazars: Georgia and Armenia had a sizeable Jewish population, and several Jewish communities there claim to have been established in the 6th/5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. When East Georgia was under Persian rule in the 17th and 18th century, several thousand Jews were forcefully relocated to Iran. As such, genetic similarity between Georgian and Persian Jews should not come as a surprise, and is no argument against a "Khazar connection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Jews
http://en.shater-izhaka.ru/judaism/georgia/

The economic base of the Khazar empire was intermediate trade between the Arab Kalifates and the Baltic Sea region. Baghdad, the Khazar capital of Ity (Astrakhan) and the Varangian trade hub of Staraya Ladoga were more or less established simultaneously between 750 and 760 AD. Soon after, massive inflow or Arab Denars into the Baltic Sea region commenced that lasted until approximately 990 AD, attested by various coin finds e.g. in Lübeck. It is reasonable to assume that Jews played a major role in this trade network - for their traditional role as merchants, and as Judaism had become the official religion of the Khazar elite. Such a role should have re-inforced (genetic) links to the Jewish community in Bagdad, and also have spread Jewish communities along the main trade routes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Varangian_routes.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trade_Route_from_the_Varangians_to_the_Greeks

John Doe
30-06-14, 15:21
Jewish communities in the Rhineland are very old - the community in Worms (Borbetomagus) is said to have been founded in the 5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. During Roman times, Jewish communities were established in many larger towns. The first written evidence on the Cologne community is a regulation issued by Constantine the Great in the early 4th century.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews were outside traditional "tribal laws" (Saxon, Frankish, etc.), and regulated by foreigner laws (applying to all merchants from "abroad", irrespectively of their religion) instead. This implied that Jews did not pay their taxes to local nobility or the cities, but directly to the Emperor. Consequently, during the high middle age (10th-13th century), several emperors, as well as territorial bishoprics (Trier, Mainz, Cologne) that also acted as Imperial institutions, actively encouraged Jewish settlement in order to strengthen their tax base, in the case of bishoprics also to counteract the attempt of cities to emancipate from bishop control. They appear to have in particular targeted Jewish communities from areas threatened by the Arab expansion, i.e. Sicily and Southern Italy.
http://home.allgaeu.org/kschroep/Stammesfremde/Gemeinden.jpg

As to the "Abruzzi connection", it might be worthwhile to investigate the fate of the citizens of Lucera: Frederick II in 1224 re-established the city as a "refuge" for Saracenes from Sicily, who were granted religious freedom there. In 1300, Charles II of Naples sacked the city and massacred or exiled most of its inhabitants. I could imagine that the promise of religious freedom did not only attract Muslims, but also Jews to Lucera. After the prosecutions during the first Crusade, the situation of Central European Jews had stabilised - a new wave of pogroms only set in around 1350. So in 1300 the Rhineland might have appeared a safe place to go for Lucera Jews.

On the Khazars: Georgia and Armenia had a sizeable Jewish population, and several Jewish communities there claim to have been established in the 6th/5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. When East Georgia was under Persian rule in the 17th and 18th century, several thousand Jews were forcefully relocated to Iran. As such, genetic similarity between Georgian and Persian Jews should not come as a surprise, and is no argument against a "Khazar connection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Jews
http://en.shater-izhaka.ru/judaism/georgia/

The economic base of the Khazar empire was intermediate trade between the Arab Kalifates and the Baltic Sea region. Baghdad, the Khazar capital of Ity (Astrakhan) and the Varangian trade hub of Staraya Ladoga were more or less established simultaneously between 750 and 760 AD. Soon after, massive inflow or Arab Denars into the Baltic Sea region commenced that lasted until approximately 990 AD, attested by various coin finds e.g. in Lübeck. It is reasonable to assume that Jews played a major role in this trade network - for their traditional role as merchants, and as Judaism had become the official religion of the Khazar elite. Such a role should have re-inforced (genetic) links to the Jewish community in Bagdad, and also have spread Jewish communities along the main trade routes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Varangian_routes.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trade_Route_from_the_Varangians_to_the_Greeks


Interesting, I'm no expert but I suppose it makes sense.

Angela
30-06-14, 17:13
Jewish communities in the Rhineland are very old - the community in Worms (Borbetomagus) is said to have been founded in the 5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. During Roman times, Jewish communities were established in many larger towns. The first written evidence on the Cologne community is a regulation issued by Constantine the Great in the early 4th century.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews were outside traditional "tribal laws" (Saxon, Frankish, etc.), and regulated by foreigner laws (applying to all merchants from "abroad", irrespectively of their religion) instead. This implied that Jews did not pay their taxes to local nobility or the cities, but directly to the Emperor. Consequently, during the high middle age (10th-13th century), several emperors, as well as territorial bishoprics (Trier, Mainz, Cologne) that also acted as Imperial institutions, actively encouraged Jewish settlement in order to strengthen their tax base, in the case of bishoprics also to counteract the attempt of cities to emancipate from bishop control. They appear to have in particular targeted Jewish communities from areas threatened by the Arab expansion, i.e. Sicily and Southern Italy.
http://home.allgaeu.org/kschroep/Stammesfremde/Gemeinden.jpg

As to the "Abruzzi connection", it might be worthwhile to investigate the fate of the citizens of Lucera: Frederick II in 1224 re-established the city as a "refuge" for Saracenes from Sicily, who were granted religious freedom there. In 1300, Charles II of Naples sacked the city and massacred or exiled most of its inhabitants. I could imagine that the promise of religious freedom did not only attract Muslims, but also Jews to Lucera. After the prosecutions during the first Crusade, the situation of Central European Jews had stabilised - a new wave of pogroms only set in around 1350. So in 1300 the Rhineland might have appeared a safe place to go for Lucera Jews.

On the Khazars: Georgia and Armenia had a sizeable Jewish population, and several Jewish communities there claim to have been established in the 6th/5th century BC, i.e. during the first diaspora. When East Georgia was under Persian rule in the 17th and 18th century, several thousand Jews were forcefully relocated to Iran. As such, genetic similarity between Georgian and Persian Jews should not come as a surprise, and is no argument against a "Khazar connection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Jews
http://en.shater-izhaka.ru/judaism/georgia/

The economic base of the Khazar empire was intermediate trade between the Arab Kalifates and the Baltic Sea region. Baghdad, the Khazar capital of Ity (Astrakhan) and the Varangian trade hub of Staraya Ladoga were more or less established simultaneously between 750 and 760 AD. Soon after, massive inflow or Arab Denars into the Baltic Sea region commenced that lasted until approximately 990 AD, attested by various coin finds e.g. in Lübeck. It is reasonable to assume that Jews played a major role in this trade network - for their traditional role as merchants, and as Judaism had become the official religion of the Khazar elite. Such a role should have re-inforced (genetic) links to the Jewish community in Bagdad, and also have spread Jewish communities along the main trade routes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Varangian_routes.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trade_Route_from_the_Varangians_to_the_Greeks

Thanks for the links, FrankN. Do you have a citation for the proposition that the southern Italian Jewish communities were specifically solicited as a source of migration for Germany? I ask because the hypotheses that I've seen are that the population movement wasn't from the south or Sicily directly to the German lands, but a gradual one up through the Italian peninsula.

FWIW, in my research of my own area, I came across documentation from the early centuries after the invasions of the presence of a Jewish community in the eastern Liguria/northern Tuscany area. (This is doubtless due to the fact that Luni still retained some of its former glory as a trading city.) In 594, for example, Pope Gregory was prompted to rebuke the Bishop of Luni upon receiving reports that members of the Jewish community were still converting their slaves and even free estate workers in contravention of Church law. Although, typically, the Bishop ignored the infraction, there is, a century or so later, no further mention of a Jewish community in the area. Intriguingly, a Bishop of Luni also records that he will be responsible for the purchase of wedding garments for a young Jewish woman who had converted and was to marry a Christian. So, there was at least a little bit of admixture at that time.

See:http://www.scribd.com/doc/175236095/Princeton-University-Press-Living-Together-Living-Apart-Rethinking-Jewish-Christian-Relations-in-the-Middle-Ages-2007
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in this issue, although free access is restricted.

By the time you get to the early Medieval period in Germany, I think we're talking about a very different situation, one where the only admixture would have been whatever resulted from rape or those Jews who, through a sense of self preservation, decided to remain part of the Christian community after their forcible conversion. Although, I don't know if at that time they actually would have been accepted into the Christian community. Certainly, in the 20th century converted German Jews, and even half and quarter Jews, Christian in religious observance or not, were still killed. In Spain, conversos were to some degree separated, and the entire concept of the "limpieza" or "purity" documentation rests on the fact that they weren't quite accepted. Of course, there is documentation that once they left Spain some conversos returned to Jewish religious rituals.

Also, I'm aware of the trade links in the east, but is there any documentation of any actual Jewish communities along these trade routes of the kind that we see in the west?

Ed. Lucera is in Apulia, not the Abruzzi, and the Muslim community, mostly warriors and their families, were pretty strictly regulated to that area, as it was question of controlling them. Regardless, the community, and their reprieve, lasted at the most 75 years before they were sold into slavery or exiled. Of course, some might have remained and dispersed, but I don't know why they would all have gone to the Abruzzi. Also, I've never seen any documentation as to a Jewish presence amongst them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_settlement_of_Lucera

From historical sources of a later period, there is evidence for a sizable Jewish community in Sicily, some of whose members dispersed to Calabria when the Inquisition was first instituted in Sicily by its new Spanish rulers. Of the remainder, what little actual documentation I've seen seems to indicate a movement to Muslim territories in the east, which were more tolerant at that time, although I would think some exiles would have made their way to central and eastern Europe as well.

oriental
30-06-14, 22:11
One can see that the Jewish revolted against the Romans a lot and they were defeated and taken as slaves to Rome or wherever. In the New testament the Apostles went all over Anatolia and Southern Italy to proselytize among the Jews in the Jewish synagogs. There seemed to be a lot of them. There were so many poor people and slaves a religion of the poor was an attraction. Jews also flourished in the Hellenic community look at the Greek version of the Bible. Look at the Maccabees. They were in the Greek period.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 03:24
how do you guys explain that Ashkenazim are "smarter" than Sicilians or Greeks, even-though genetically are very similar? (based on number of famous scientists, current average IQ, chess champions etc)

Were Ashkenazim, in their whole history, always smarter than Sicilians (just a regional population, nowadays) or Greeks? I guess not.

Assuming hypothetically that they are, when did Ashkenazim become smarter? If you find when, you'll find the reason why.

LeBrok
01-07-14, 04:07
Were Ashkenazim, in their whole history, always smarter than Sicilians (just a regional population, nowadays) or Greeks? I guess not.

Assuming hypothetically that they are, when did Ashkenazim become smarter? If you find when, you'll find the reason why. What if process was gradual and incremental, without one big event making people smarter?

Aberdeen
01-07-14, 04:10
One can see that the Jewish revolted against the Romans a lot and they were defeated and taken as slaves to Rome or wherever. In the New testament the Apostles went all over Anatolia and Southern Italy to proselytize among the Jews in the Jewish synagogs. There seemed to be a lot of them. There were so many poor people and slaves a religion of the poor was an attraction. Jews also flourished in the Hellenic community look at the Greek version of the Bible. Look at the Maccabees. They were in the Greek period.

There were apparently a lot of Jews taken to Italy as slaves by the Romans, but I doubt they had a high reproductive rate or much ability to preserve their culture unless a significant number managed to win their freedom while they were young enough to reproduce and to recreate their culture in a new location, so although I'm not familiar with their history, I'm assuming that the Jews who in settled Jewish communities in Europe during the Roman period were traders and not freed slaves. But the reason I was assuming there might have been a lack of continuity in the Jewish communities in France and the Rhineland is because of the massive disruptions and sometimes wholesale loss of life that occurred during the Dark Age period. I may be wrong about that, but I have to wonder how Jewish communities in the Rhineland would have survived all those upheavals. That's why I had assumed that the Jewish communities in places like Germany and Poland might be in large part made up of immigrants from Russia, whose ancestors originally came from Baghdad and thereabouts. Perhaps that wasn't the case, but there seems to be more information available about Jewish communities in Europe before 600 A.D. or after 1000 A.D. than during the crucial period in between those dates.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 05:02
What if process was gradual and incremental, without one big event making people smarter?

I agree, process could be gradual. Is it possible to wonder when approximately it started? I'm first asking myself.

From 8th century BC, Sicily was an extension of Ancient Greece. For example, scientist Archimedes was born in Syracuse, modern-day Sicily. While western Sicily had some Phoenician colonies in the same period. Were Ashkenazi already formed as a sub-group of the Jews at that time?

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 05:05
Alright thanks, I understand that even though we're making advancements every day in technology, we still have a way to go. I suppose that the close proximity to Sicilians and South Italians comes first of all from a common EEF/Mediterranean heritage, possibly also through admixture with Greeks (I heard that there were Greek colonies there so that may be another connection) and perhaps some admixture during Roman times,,

I agree with that. The close proximity to Sicilians and South Italians of Ashkenazis is due first to a common EEF/Mediterranean heritage, also through admixture with Ancient Greeks.

Sicily and Southern Italy were known as Magna Grecia (Μεγάλη Ἑλλάς) meaning Great Greece. Greeks settled in Southern Italy about 8th century BC and they were assimilated by Romans starting from 212 BC. Phoenicians also settled in Western Sicily around 8th century BC and were defeated by Romans on 241 BC. Sicily was a typical Mediterranean melting pot since antiquity.


from what you wrote I'm pretty sure you're of Tuscan/North Italian ancestry (correct me if I'm wrong)? I wasn't talking about these, I know that Tuscans and North Italians, unlike South Italians and Sicilians, do have WHG ancestry, I was talking about the proximity to Sicilians/South Italians, but I guess it didn't have to be mainly from Roman times, it could have come from Hellenistic/Bronze age or even Pre Historic times.

Tuscans are much closer to Northern Italians. In Northern Tuscany are almost the same of Northerns. Tuscans shouldn't considered as separated population from the rest of Northern and Central Italians but I guess they are because in the last decade genetists have been searching for the Etruscan heritage, without finding that much so far. So probably most of the Tuscan samples used for those genetic researches could be even not so representative of the whole region.

LeBrok
01-07-14, 06:09
I agree, process could be gradual. Is it possible to wonder when approximately it started? I'm first asking myself.

From 8th century BC, Sicily was an extension of Ancient Greece. For example, scientist Archimedes was born in Syracuse, modern-day Sicily. While western Sicily had some Phoenician colonies in the same period. Were Ashkenazi already formed as a sub-group of the Jews at that time?
I think some of this "smartening up" happened during millennia of farming. Farmers fend for themselves, their individual families and on their own land. On other hand Hunter-gatherers hunt together and always share the spoils of hunt equally. The smart and not so smart get the same amount of food therefore not much of genetic forcing rewarding intelligence of individual. Well, there is some exaggeration on my part, however this process happens much faster in farming communities. Just my observation.

John Doe
01-07-14, 09:32
I agree with that. The close proximity to Sicilians and South Italians of Ashkenazis is due first to a common EEF/Mediterranean heritage, also through admixture with Ancient Greeks.

Sicily and Southern Italy were known as Magna Grecia (Μεγάλη Ἑλλάς) meaning Great Greece. Greeks settled in Southern Italy about 8th century BC and they were assimilated by Romans starting from 212 BC. Phoenicians also settled in Western Sicily around 8th century BC and were defeated by Romans on 241 BC. Sicily was a typical Mediterranean melting pot since antiquity.



Tuscans are much closer to Northern Italians. In Northern Tuscany are almost the same of Northerns. Tuscans shouldn't considered as separated population from the rest of Northern and Central Italians but I guess they are because in the last decade genetists have been searching for the Etruscan heritage, without finding that much so far. So probably most of the Tuscan samples used for those genetic researches could be even not so representative of the whole region.

Alright, thanks for the confirmation and the extra info. :)
As for the origin of the modern Tuscans, I'm pretty sure there was a study that concluded that most Tuscans have European maternal haplogroups, of course, that doesn't represent the entire ancestry, but I reckon that modern Tuscans are pretty much Central/North Italians. A good example would be the Hungarians, traditionally the Hungarians trace their ancestry to the Magyars of the Volga Ural region, but genetically, modern Hungarians seem to be pretty much Central/Eastern European.

AgnusDei
01-07-14, 10:04
AJs are a highly endogamous group, and because of that certain characteristics and traits are very common among them.

Evolution weeded out the less unfortunate Ashkenazim that weren't smart enough to survive their persecution in Europe,as a result only the intelligent ones could pass down their genes to the next generation.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 12:08
I think some of this "smartening up" happened during millennia of farming. Farmers fend for themselves, their individual families and on their own land. On other hand Hunter-gatherers hunt together and always share the spoils of hunt equally. The smart and not so smart get the same amount of food therefore not much of genetic forcing rewarding intelligence of individual. Well, there is some exaggeration on my part, however this process happens much faster in farming communities. Just my observation.

Agree, but I guess that in Sicily and Greece there were also farmers at that time. It explains how farmers began to be smarter than hunter-gatherers, but not how and when Ashkenazis became smarter than Sicilians and Greeks, despite genetically are very similar.

LeBrok
01-07-14, 18:02
Agree, but I guess that in Sicily and Greece there were also farmers at that time. It explains how farmers began to be smarter than hunter-gatherers, but not how and when Ashkenazis became smarter than Sicilians and Greeks, despite genetically are very similar.
They are all with long history of farming. In ancient times there were many high achievers: the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Phoenicians/Canaanites related to Jews. Some people think that extra boost of IQ in Jews came from constant persecutions and killing of Jewish minorities. The idea behind this is that rich Jews and their families (being smarter than average) tend to survive paying their way out, while poor can't buy their freedom and are killed. Few episodes like this during last 3 thousand years might be behind heightened IQ.

LeBrok
01-07-14, 18:04
AJs are a highly endogamous group, and because of that certain characteristics and traits are very common among them.

Evolution weeded out the less unfortunate Ashkenazim that weren't smart enough to survive their persecution in Europe,as a result only the intelligent ones could pass down their genes to the next generation.
Good post AgnusDei, welcome to Eupedia.

Doesn't your mtDNA says Libia, L1b1a. :shocked:

Angela
01-07-14, 19:00
Alright, thanks for the confirmation and the extra info. :)
As for the origin of the modern Tuscans, I'm pretty sure there was a study that concluded that most Tuscans have European maternal haplogroups, of course, that doesn't represent the entire ancestry, but I reckon that modern Tuscans are pretty much Central/North Italians. A good example would be the Hungarians, traditionally the Hungarians trace their ancestry to the Magyars of the Volga Ural region, but genetically, modern Hungarians seem to be pretty much Central/Eastern European.

I realize we're getting off-topic here, but Tuscans are not Northern Italians. Neither are they "Central" Italians genetically, although they are in central Italy geographically. There is more genetic distance between Italians from different parts of Italy than there is between members of many European nation states. If you're interested in the topic, the best analysis so far, in my opinion, is in the Ralph and Coop et al paper that uses a sophisticated IBD analysis to examine European genetic variation and differential gene flows.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555
(Ralph and Coop used the Popres data set. I'd like to see the same analysis done with more samples, perhaps selected by surname analysis, as was done by Boattini et al)


See also these Globe 13 admixture averages. There are numerous Tuscan academic samples, including those from Li et al HGDP, Hap Map 3, and 1000 genomes. Regardless of the sample source, the results are consistent. (They are listed as TSI, Tuscan etc. by academic paper.)

There is also a North Italian academic sample, as well as Dienekes' group of Northern Italian participants. The results are nearly identical for the two groups, by the way. In addition, there are the Central Italian, Sicilian, and Southern Italian/Sicilian groups formed from participants in Dienekes' project.

You can compare the scores quite easily.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9ka UE#gid=2

Oh, there is the OT group, or Other Italians. I'm not sure of their geographic origin. Given the scores, I thought they might be a mixed Northern Italian/Southern Italian group, but I've seen claims they are from mountainous northeastern Italy. The bottom line is...I don't know.

Ed. I am a mixture of Emilian(northern Italian), eastern Ligurian/northwest Tuscan, and my scores are always right in between the scores for northern Italians and Tuscans, as would be expected given the cline in Italian genetic variation.

John Doe
01-07-14, 19:46
They are all with long history of farming. In ancient times there were many high achievers: the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Phoenicians/Canaanites related to Jews. Some people think that extra boost of IQ in Jews came from constant persecutions and killing of Jewish minorities. The idea behind this is that rich Jews and their families (being smarter than average) tend to survive paying their way out, while poor can't buy their freedom and are killed. Few episodes like this during last 3 thousand years might be behind heightened IQ.


Possibly, although the main persecutions happened only since the Crusades (for Ashkenazis obviously), before that, well, persecutions happened once in a blue moon, I can number them all in fact, well, there's the Assyrian exile, the Babylonian captivity, the Judeo-Hellenistic wars, the Judeo-Roman wars, the growing restrictions on Jews within the Roman empire when Christianity became the state religion, also many persecutions during the early middle ages but in the Byzantine region, by this time I suppose the Proto-Ashkenazis were already in the Italian peninsula/Gaul/Western Germania. After the Crusades, well, then you get those many persecutions, but the first Crusade is not even a 1,000 years old.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 20:32
Some people think that extra boost of IQ in Jews came from constant persecutions and killing of Jewish minorities. The idea behind this is that rich Jews and their families (being smarter than average) tend to survive paying their way out, while poor can't buy their freedom and are killed. Few episodes like this during last 3 thousand years might be behind heightened IQ.

I think it's a credible hypothesis.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 20:40
I realize we're getting off-topic here, but Tuscans are not Northern Italians. Neither are they "Central" Italians genetically, although they are in central Italy geographically. There is more genetic distance between Italians from different parts of Italy than there is between members of many European nation states. If you're interested in the topic, the best analysis so far, in my opinion, is in the Ralph and Coop et al paper that uses a sophisticated IBD analysis to examine European genetic variation and differential gene flows. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555)
(Ralph and Coop used the Popres data set. I'd like to see the same analysis done with more samples, perhaps selected by surname analysis, as was done by Boattini et al)

Italy is a patchwork, smaller is the sample greater are the differences with the rest of the population. Northern Italians also aren't an homogeneous ethnic group. Ligurians differ from Veneti and Trentini, Piedmontese people differ from Friulani or Romagnoli, and Aosta Valley people are not the same of South Tyroleans. It's quite obvious: if you compare a smaller portion of Italy (Tuscans or Ligurians or Romagnoli) with a bigger one (Northern Italians, Southern Italians, Central Italians, Italians) you find differences. Even northerns Tuscans differ from southern Tuscans.


See also these Globe 13 admixture averages. There are numerous Tuscan academic samples, including those from Li et al HGDP, Hap Map 3, and 1000 genomes. Regardless of the sample source, the results are consistent. (They are listed as TSI, Tuscan etc. by academic paper.)

The numerous Tuscan academic samples come often from the numerous researchs on the Etruscan genetic heritage. In that case the samples are not the average modern-day Tuscan people. Etruscans are the only reason why Tuscans started to be classified as separated from the rest of Italians.



There is also a North Italian academic sample, as well as Dienekes' group of Northern Italian participants. The results are nearly identical for the two groups, by the way. In addition, there are the Central Italian, Sicilian, and Southern Italian/Sicilian groups formed from participants in Dienekes' project.

You can compare the scores quite easily.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9ka UE#gid=2

Oh, there is the OT group, or Other Italians. I'm not sure of their geographic origin. Given the scores, I thought they might be a mixed Northern Italian/Southern Italian group, but I've seen claims they are from mountainous northeastern Italy. The bottom line is...I don't know.

There is a good number of samples on Italy but for its characteristics of lack of homogeneity I think we need many more studies. Considering that Italians who have made the DNA tests are still few.

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 20:49
Possibly, although the main persecutions happened only since the Crusades (for Ashkenazis obviously), before that, well, persecutions happened once in a blue moon, I can number them all in fact, well, there's the Assyrian exile, the Babylonian captivity, the Judeo-Hellenistic wars, the Judeo-Roman wars, the growing restrictions on Jews within the Roman empire when Christianity became the state religion, also many persecutions during the early middle ages but in the Byzantine region, by this time I suppose the Proto-Ashkenazis were already in the Italian peninsula/Gaul/Western Germania. After the Crusades, well, then you get those many persecutions, but the first Crusade is not even a 1,000 years old.

Very interesting. Romans have their share of responsibility.

About Proto-Ashkenazis in the Italian peninsula, have you already discussed this?

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages

"The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (including 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)26 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref26). Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types2 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref2), likely the result of gene flow from Mediterranean Europe. K1a1b1a is also present at low frequencies in Spanish-exile Sephardic Jews, but absent from non-European Jews, including a database of 289 North African Jews2 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref2), 25 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref25). Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews25 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref25), who are known to have a distinct Near Eastern ancestry, with no known influx from Spanish-exile immigrants (although Djerban Jews, with a similar history, have not been tested to date for mtDNA, they closely resemble Libyan Jews in autosomal analyses27 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref27)). Thus the Ashkenazi subclade of K1a1b1 most likely had a west European source."

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html

Angela
01-07-14, 21:53
Pax Augusta;434751]Italy is a patchwork, smaller is the sample greater are the differences with the rest of the population. Northern Italians also aren't an homogeneous ethnic group. Ligurians differ from Veneti and Trentini, Piedmontese people differ from Friulani or Romagnoli, and Aosta Valley people are not the same of South Tyroleans. It's quite obvious: if you compare a smaller portion of Italy (Tuscans or Ligurians or Romagnoli) with a bigger one (Northern Italians, Southern Italians, Central Italians, Italians) you find differences. Even northerns Tuscans differ from southern Tuscans.

You're rather making my point for me, aren't you? Yes, of course, with a fine enough resolution, you could tell northern Italian regions from one another. (With a fine enough resolution, as is being done in Britain, where the differences are so much smaller, you can still find regional and sub-regional differences.) Nevertheless, northern Italians cluster together, and Tuscans cluster together, and although there is some overlap in the PCA's in some studies, the two groups are generally separate. The Tuscan cluster is also separate from the Central Italian cluster, and all of them are separate from the southern Italian/Sicilian cluster. (I would love to see where the people of Umbria and the Marche cluster; they have not yet been tested.)

As for northern Tuscans versus southern Tuscans, or, say, Florentines vs the people of Siena or the people of Grossetto, perhaps, I've never seen an analysis that shows a difference. In fact, I've never seen an analysis that addresses the issue at all. If you have one, I'd really appreciate a link to it. From my Tuscan shares at 23andme, I don't see it.

If you're talking about Massa Carrara, or what is sometimes called northwest Tuscany, which is one of my ancestral areas, it is not part of the sampled Tuscan areas for autosomal DNA. No autosomal analysis of its people has ever been done, so it's impossible to use them to advance any argument whatsoerver. By the way, it has been Tuscan administratively since the Renaissance because of the Medici, but various parts of it have been part of Liguria, Emilia and Toscana over the last 2,000 years.

From my own family results, I would say it is leaning more toward a "Tuscan" orientation. Emilian DNA, on the other hand, which is my other ancestral area, is very like Lombard DNA if my family's results are any indication, although again I don't know of any scientific analysis. Generally, what has to be kept in mind is that Italian genetic variation is clinal, so the results blend into one another at the margins, while at the same time there are definite regional clusters. In terms of actual breaks within the cline, I don't think the finding that the big break in the cline is at the Alps, separating all Italians from central Europeans, with a lesser cline just south of Rome, has ever been challenged.



The numerous Tuscan academic samples come often from the numerous researchs on the Etruscan genetic heritage. In that case the samples are not the average modern-day Tuscan people. Etruscans are the only reason why Tuscans started to be classified as separated from the rest of Italians.

There seems to be some confusion here. There are no autosomal analyses of Etruscans. There is no yDNA analysis either, and no full sequence mtDNA analyses. The scientists have been attempting to draw inferences from modern Tuscan DNA comparisons to other European groups and to Anatolians.

All of the samples of Tuscans in any academic sample, or in the calculators, are indeed of average, modern-day, Tuscan people, people whose four grandparents, at a minimum, were born in Tuscany. (That is, by the way, the standard for any academic samples: all four grandparents must be from the area in question, at a minimum. Typically, researchers also look for more rural, isolated places, rather than urban, more admixed areas.)

Of course, it goes without saying that the more studies the better. If I hit the lotto, I have a few I'd love to fund. :)

John Doe
01-07-14, 22:59
Very interesting. Romans have their share of responsibility.

About Proto-Ashkenazis in the Italian peninsula, have you already discussed this?

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages

"The K1a1b1 lineages within which the K1a1b1a sequences nest (including 19 lineages of known ancestry) are solely European, pointing to an ancient European ancestry. The closest nesting lineages are from Italy, Germany and the British Isles, with other subclades of K1a1b1 including lineages from west and Mediterranean Europe and one Hutterite (Hutterites trace their ancestry to sixteenth-century Tyrol)26 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref26). Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types2 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref2), likely the result of gene flow from Mediterranean Europe. K1a1b1a is also present at low frequencies in Spanish-exile Sephardic Jews, but absent from non-European Jews, including a database of 289 North African Jews2 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref2), 25 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref25). Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews25 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref25), who are known to have a distinct Near Eastern ancestry, with no known influx from Spanish-exile immigrants (although Djerban Jews, with a similar history, have not been tested to date for mtDNA, they closely resemble Libyan Jews in autosomal analyses27 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html#ref27)). Thus the Ashkenazi subclade of K1a1b1 most likely had a west European source."

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html


I did hear of this study, although I heard it has been discredited by most experts on this site at least.

If it is right however, then I guess my maternal haplogroup has a Mediterranean European source, if not, then, I guess it has a Levantine source. That's what's been puzzling me since October when it was first released, Behar said he'll release his critique which he failed to do as of yet as far as I know, so what does that mean? Is Richards right or wrong?

Pax Augusta
01-07-14, 23:04
There seems to be some confusion here. There are no autosomal analyses of Etruscans. There is no yDNA analysis either, and no full sequence mtDNA analyses. The scientists have been attempting to draw inferences from modern Tuscan DNA comparisons to other European groups and to Anatolians.

All of the samples of Tuscans in any academic sample, or in the calculators, are indeed of average, modern-day, Tuscan people, people whose four grandparents, at a minimum, were born in Tuscany.

Thanks, but I knew that there are no autosomal analyses of Etruscans. However, analysis on ancient Etruscan DNA there have been.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055519

Of course, I was talking exactly about this: "to draw inferences from modern Tuscan DNA comparisons to other European groups and to Anatolians". Please, could you make examples of academic researches using indeed average, modern-day, Tuscan people? I remember a famous research that used samples from Murlo, Casentino, Volterra, that can't be considered average, modern-day, Tuscan people.

"The origin of the Etruscan people has been a source of major controversy for the past 2,500 years, and several hypotheses have been proposed to explain their language and sophisticated culture, including an Aegean/Anatolian origin. To address this issue, we analyzed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of 322 subjects from three well-defined areas of Tuscany and compared their sequence variation with that of 55 western Eurasian populations. Interpopulation comparisons reveal that the modern population of Murlo, a small town of Etruscan origin, is characterized by an unusually high frequency (17.5%) of Near Eastern mtDNA haplogroups. Each of these haplogroups is represented by different haplotypes, thus dismissing the possibility that the genetic allocation of the Murlo people is due to drift. Other Tuscan populations do not show the same striking feature; however, overall, ~5% of mtDNA haplotypes in Tuscany are shared exclusively between Tuscans and Near Easterners and occupy terminal positions in the phylogeny. These findings support a direct and rather recent genetic input from the Near East—a scenario in agreement with the Lydian origin of Etruscans. Such a genetic contribution has been extensively diluted by admixture, but it appears that there are still locations in Tuscany, such as Murlo, where traces of its arrival are easily detectable."

I would really like to continue this conversation, but now we're indeed off-topic. I propose to find a space in the forum where to continue.

Pax Augusta
02-07-14, 00:35
I did hear of this study, although I heard it has been discredited by most experts on this site at least.

If it is right however, then I guess my maternal haplogroup has a Mediterranean European source, if not, then, I guess it has a Levantine source. That's what's been puzzling me since October when it was first released, Behar said he'll release his critique which he failed to do as of yet as far as I know, so what does that mean? Is Richards right or wrong?

I guess you mean Doron Behar.

I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but I understand a bit historical research methodology. So I don't find it hard to believe that conclusions of some genetics studies should be taken with great caution.

FrankN
02-07-14, 05:42
Thanks for the links, FrankN. Do you have a citation for the proposition that the southern Italian Jewish communities were specifically solicited as a source of migration for Germany? I ask because the hypotheses that I've seen are that the population movement wasn't from the south or Sicily directly to the German lands, but a gradual one up through the Italian peninsula.
I took that information from a German-language website. It was illustrated by an early 11th century statement by the Bishop of Speyer, who prided himself to have turned Speyer "from a village to a city" by settling Jews. In the meantime, I have learnt from another website that said Bishop primarily advertised Speyer among Jews from nearby Mainz. Thus, aside from the Jewish community in Mainz being numerous enough to nourish other communities along the Rhine in the early 11th century, I currently can't contribute any further details on the sources and magnitude of Jewish migration from Italy to the Rhine.


By the time you get to the early Medieval period in Germany, I think we're talking about a very different situation, one where the only admixture would have been whatever resulted from rape or those Jews who, through a sense of self preservation, decided to remain part of the Christian community after their forcible conversion. Although, I don't know if at that time they actually would have been accepted into the Christian community.
I agree for the High Medieval period, from the 13th century onwards. For the early Medieval, I wouldn't be that sure:

Cologne had been one of the largest Roman cities north of the Alps, with an estimated population of 45-50 thousand during the second century AD (the city walls enclosed 120 hectares). There is some archaeological evidence of Jewish settlement commencing shortly after the Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Ursurpator Postumus in 260 made Cologne the capital of his short-lived Gallic Empire that covered Iberia, Gaul, Britannia and Germania west of the Rhine. Roman civil wars, and several Frankish incursions, caused a population drop during the late 3rd to early 5th century to 15-20 thousand inhabitants, still a very sizeable city for the period. Cologne survived the migration period relatively unharmed - Attila, e.g., bypassed the city during his incursion into Gallia in 451. By the 6th century, the population still spoke Latin. A good part of the Roman infrastructure, including the water supply from the Eiffel mountains, was maintained and occasionally refurbished during the early middle ages. There is furthermore archaeological evidence of the co-existence of Germanic paganism with Christianity during the 6th century, which probably means that Jews as well didn't have much acceptance problems.
Cologne quickly became the capital of the Ripuarian Franks, initially subjugated to the Salingian Franks, but from the 7th century on the leading Frankish tribe. Most Major Domi under the Merovingian kings resided in Cologne. It lost the function of capital in 751, when Pippin the Younger took over power from the Merovings, and relocated the capital to Aachen. Population during the early middle ages is assumed to have at least remained at around 15,000. By 1180 (extension of city walls to enclose 400 ha), Cologne is estimated to have had around 40,000 inhabitants, and may even have come close to 50,000 in the late 14th century. It was by far the largest high Medieval German city, and the fifth or sixth-largest in Western / Central Europe (after Paris, Milan, Prague and Florence; Brussels may have had a population equal to Cologne).

Mainz (Mogontiacum) may have been almost as populous as Cologne during its time as capital of Germania Superioris and later Germania Prima- the 4th century Roman city walls enclosed an area of 96 ha. There is archeological evidence of Jewish presence during Roman times, a 15th century document even claims that a Jewish community already existed during the 1st century BC, when Mogontiacum was still a Celtic town. The city may have suffered quite a bit during the migration period - the famous crossing of the Rhine in 406 AD occurred nearby, and Vandals devastated the town. Attila also passed through, and a few decades later Franks fought with the Alemanni over control of Mainz and the Upper Rhine. Nevertheless, from the 6th century on the city was rebuilt, partly following the original Roman layout, so destruction has most likely not been complete. Under the Carolingians, Mainz became an important political and religious centre; the Archbishop of Mainz held not only territorial authority over the town and the region, but also supervised most bishops in Southern and Eastern Germany (including, e.g., Prague), and the clergy at the royal court. The power culminated in the late 10th century when Archbishop Williges ruled the Frankish Empire on behalf of his godson, Emperor Otto III.
It is probably not a coincidence that during the same period Mainz' Jewish community became the largest and most influential within the Frankish realm. The first evidence of such a community is from the records of a late 9th century Synod in Mainz. The Mainz Yeshiva (Jewish Academy) founded by Gershorn ben Judaa became the intellectual centre of Central European Judaism over the next four centuries. Some sources (including the Wikipedia article below) speak of up to 6,000 members of the Jewish community in Mainz. Considering that the city as a whole is estimated to have had some 5-10 thousand inhabitants during the High Medieval, the figure seems exaggerated. However, some 20-25% Jewish share in the total population seems easily possible.
From the twelfth century on, nearby Frankfurt/ Main started to politically and economically overshadow Mainz. Frankfurt's Jewish community grew correspondingly.

Strasbourg (Argentoratum) was only a medium-sized Roman provincial town. It was destroyed by the Allemans in 355-357, and again by Attila in 451, to be re-established by the Franks in 496. Initially rather small (only 1,500 inhabitants during the 8th century) it grew rapidly in the 11-12th century to around 10,000 inhabitants. A late 14th century extension of the city walls, which afterwards enclosed 200 ha, suggests further population growth to around 20,000.
I couldn't find sources on the establishment of the Jewish community in Strasbourg, but it most likely happened simultaneously with the general population expansion, i.e. sometimes in the late 10th century. In any case, before the Strasbourg Pogrom of 1349, 1,884 Jews lived in the city (half of which were killed during the pogrom). This would mean a Jewish population share of at least 10-15%.

Worms, (Borbetomagus) is another medium-sized Roman provincial town that suffered heavily from the Vandal's crossing of the Rhine. Claims are made for a Jewish community already existing there in the 5th century BC, but the first written evidence to such a community dates from the second half of the 10th century AD. Unlike Strasbourg, Worms was already an important Carolingian residence during the 9th and 10th century. At the onset of the Investiture Controversy, the citizens of Worms in 1073 expelled their local bishop (who had sided with the pope), and opened the city gates to Emperor Henry IV. Henry returned the favour by in 1074 granting the city a customs privilege, addressed to "Judai et coetieri" ("Jews and others"), which indicates that Jews were dominating the local economy, and probably also made up a substantial part of the city's population. The death toll during the First Crusade is estimated at some 800 Jews from Worms, which would be 10-15% of the city's estimated population of 5,000-8,000.

According to Wikipedia (first article from the list below), "about 12,000 Jews are said to have perished in the Rhenish cities alone between May and July 1096" (i.e. during the First Crusade). Adding up the city populations given above, and furthermore including Trier (5,000-10,000 inhabitants) yields a total population of at maximum 50,000 in the cities concerned (note that Jews in Speyer were spared, and there is also no mentioning of Jews from Bonn being prosecuted). This would mean that some 25% of the total city population were massacred, and imply an even higher share of Jews (some of which fled or converted) in the urban population. If the figure of 12,000 is correct, most of it should furthermore relate to Cologne (800 Jews killed in Worms, "a few hundred" in Mainz, etc.). That would mean that up to 50% of Cologne's population had been Jews before the First Crusade.
All in all, figures on the Jewish death toll during the First Crusade appear to be greatly exaggerated. I nevertheless think that Rhenish cities had a sizeable share, possibly 15-25%, of Jewish inhabitants. And, while the First Crusade undoubtedly damaged the Jewish communities, they remained strong enough to flourish for another 300 years in the region. Below is a map that shows all Jewish communities in the Rhineland during the early 14th century (black dots indicate Jewish cemeteries), which demonstrates that during the High Medieval Judaism expanded also to the countryside:
http://www.hstad-online.de/ausstellungen/online/juden_der_vormodernen_zeit/Geschichte_der_Juden/Virtuelle_Ausstellung/Eintr%C3%A4ge/2007/11/18_Die_J%C3%BCdische_SIedlungsentwicklung_am_Mitte lrhein%3A_Mittelalter_files/Media/Judensiedlung/Judensiedlung.jpg?disposition=download

What does this mean in relation to the original question?

The Jewish community in the Rhineland may already date back to early Roman times. Ashkenazi may have arrived directly from Judea, and survived the migration period relatively unharmed in Cologne, possibly also in Mainz and Worms. During early Roman, and especially early Frankish times, external social barriers to marrying non-Jews should have been relatively low, certainly not higher than in contemporary Italy.
If the Jewish community does not date back to Roman times, it must have grown quickly from the early 10th century onwards. Possible migration sources include France (where the overall climate towards Jews appears to have been far less favourable during that period), Southern Italy (threatened by Arab invasions), and the Byzantine Empire. The latter deserves specific attention due to the marriage of Emperor Otto II with the Byzantian princess Theophanu. Theophanu ruled the empire together with the Archbishop of Mainz, Williges, from 985 to 994, until her son, Otto III, had become old enough to take over,
It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism. Jews were outside of traditional tribal laws. This meant in particular that they were freed from armed service, and also from paying excises. They were furthermore not subjugated to traditional local courts (headed by Germanic counts or dukes), but had their legal matters directly settled by the royal court. Not too bad, especially if you are living close to the main royal palaces, i.e. in the Rhineland. [[In fact, a lot of the pogroms may be explained as either connected to anti-royal opposition, or as attempt to counteract a perceived "unfair" Jewish preference in economical matters; see the first Wikipedia article below. Don't get me wrong: Perceived "unfair competition" does not make discrimination and murder legitimate, neither in the 11th or 14th century, nor between 1933 and 1945!]
Whatever was their origin, the urban Jewish population should have been sizeable (and wealthy / influential) enough to leave genetical traces in the non-Jewish population. Conversion is one issue here, faithfulness another (note that Imperial decrees allowed Jews to employ non-Jewish house servants).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Cultural_and_religi ous_centre_of_European_Jewry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Cologne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Judengasse
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom_de_Strasbourg(in French - the article is much more detailed than the English version)

John Doe
02-07-14, 10:19
I took that information from a German-language website. It was illustrated by an early 11th century statement by the Bishop of Speyer, who prided himself to have turned Speyer "from a village to a city" by settling Jews. In the meantime, I have learnt from another website that said Bishop primarily advertised Speyer among Jews from nearby Mainz. Thus, aside from the Jewish community in Mainz being numerous enough to nourish other communities along the Rhine in the early 11th century, I currently can't contribute any further details on the sources and magnitude of Jewish migration from Italy to the Rhine.


I agree for the High Medieval period, from the 13th century onwards. For the early Medieval, I wouldn't be that sure:

Cologne had been one of the largest Roman cities north of the Alps, with an estimated population of 45-50 thousand during the second century AD (the city walls enclosed 120 hectares). There is some archaeological evidence of Jewish settlement commencing shortly after the Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Ursurpator Postumus in 260 made Cologne the capital of his short-lived Gallic Empire that covered Iberia, Gaul, Britannia and Germania west of the Rhine. Roman civil wars, and several Frankish incursions, caused a population drop during the late 3rd to early 5th century to 15-20 thousand inhabitants, still a very sizeable city for the period. Cologne survived the migration period relatively unharmed - Attila, e.g., bypassed the city during his incursion into Gallia in 451. By the 6th century, the population still spoke Latin. A good part of the Roman infrastructure, including the water supply from the Eiffel mountains, was maintained and occasionally refurbished during the early middle ages. There is furthermore archaeological evidence of the co-existence of Germanic paganism with Christianity during the 6th century, which probably means that Jews as well didn't have much acceptance problems.
Cologne quickly became the capital of the Ripuarian Franks, initially subjugated to the Salingian Franks, but from the 7th century on the leading Frankish tribe. Most Major Domi under the Merovingian kings resided in Cologne. It lost the function of capital in 751, when Pippin the Younger took over power from the Merovings, and relocated the capital to Aachen. Population during the early middle ages is assumed to have at least remained at around 15,000. By 1180 (extension of city walls to enclose 400 ha), Cologne is estimated to have had around 40,000 inhabitants, and may even have come close to 50,000 in the late 14th century. It was by far the largest high Medieval German city, and the fifth or sixth-largest in Western / Central Europe (after Paris, Milan, Prague and Florence; Brussels may have had a population equal to Cologne).

Mainz (Mogontiacum) may have been almost as populous as Cologne during its time as capital of Germania Superioris and later Germania Prima- the 4th century Roman city walls enclosed an area of 96 ha. There is archeological evidence of Jewish presence during Roman times, a 15th century document even claims that a Jewish community already existed during the 1st century BC, when Mogontiacum was still a Celtic town. The city may have suffered quite a bit during the migration period - the famous crossing of the Rhine in 406 AD occurred nearby, and Vandals devastated the town. Attila also passed through, and a few decades later Franks fought with the Alemanni over control of Mainz and the Upper Rhine. Nevertheless, from the 6th century on the city was rebuilt, partly following the original Roman layout, so destruction has most likely not been complete. Under the Carolingians, Mainz became an important political and religious centre; the Archbishop of Mainz held not only territorial authority over the town and the region, but also supervised most bishops in Southern and Eastern Germany (including, e.g., Prague), and the clergy at the royal court. The power culminated in the late 10th century when Archbishop Williges ruled the Frankish Empire on behalf of his godson, Emperor Otto III.
It is probably not a coincidence that during the same period Mainz' Jewish community became the largest and most influential within the Frankish realm. The first evidence of such a community is from the records of a late 9th century Synod in Mainz. The Mainz Yeshiva (Jewish Academy) founded by Gershorn ben Judaa became the intellectual centre of Central European Judaism over the next four centuries. Some sources (including the Wikipedia article below) speak of up to 6,000 members of the Jewish community in Mainz. Considering that the city as a whole is estimated to have had some 5-10 thousand inhabitants during the High Medieval, the figure seems exaggerated. However, some 20-25% Jewish share in the total population seems easily possible.
From the twelfth century on, nearby Frankfurt/ Main started to politically and economically overshadow Mainz. Frankfurt's Jewish community grew correspondingly.

Strasbourg (Argentoratum) was only a medium-sized Roman provincial town. It was destroyed by the Allemans in 355-357, and again by Attila in 451, to be re-established by the Franks in 496. Initially rather small (only 1,500 inhabitants during the 8th century) it grew rapidly in the 11-12th century to around 10,000 inhabitants. A late 14th century extension of the city walls, which afterwards enclosed 200 ha, suggests further population growth to around 20,000.
I couldn't find sources on the establishment of the Jewish community in Strasbourg, but it most likely happened simultaneously with the general population expansion, i.e. sometimes in the late 10th century. In any case, before the Strasbourg Pogrom of 1349, 1,884 Jews lived in the city (half of which were killed during the pogrom). This would mean a Jewish population share of at least 10-15%.

Worms, (Borbetomagus) is another medium-sized Roman provincial town that suffered heavily from the Vandal's crossing of the Rhine. Claims are made for a Jewish community already existing there in the 5th century BC, but the first written evidence to such a community dates from the second half of the 10th century AD. Unlike Strasbourg, Worms was already an important Carolingian residence during the 9th and 10th century. At the onset of the Investiture Controversy, the citizens of Worms in 1073 expelled their local bishop (who had sided with the pope), and opened the city gates to Emperor Henry IV. Henry returned the favour by in 1074 granting the city a customs privilege, addressed to "Judai et coetieri" ("Jews and others"), which indicates that Jews were dominating the local economy, and probably also made up a substantial part of the city's population. The death toll during the First Crusade is estimated at some 800 Jews from Worms, which would be 10-15% of the city's estimated population of 5,000-8,000.

According to Wikipedia (first article from the list below), "about 12,000 Jews are said to have perished in the Rhenish cities alone between May and July 1096" (i.e. during the First Crusade). Adding up the city populations given above, and furthermore including Trier (5,000-10,000 inhabitants) yields a total population of at maximum 50,000 in the cities concerned (note that Jews in Speyer were spared, and there is also no mentioning of Jews from Bonn being prosecuted). This would mean that some 25% of the total city population were massacred, and imply an even higher share of Jews (some of which fled or converted) in the urban population. If the figure of 12,000 is correct, most of it should furthermore relate to Cologne (800 Jews killed in Worms, "a few hundred" in Mainz, etc.). That would mean that up to 50% of Cologne's population had been Jews before the First Crusade.
All in all, figures on the Jewish death toll during the First Crusade appear to be greatly exaggerated. I nevertheless think that Rhenish cities had a sizeable share, possibly 15-25%, of Jewish inhabitants. And, while the First Crusade undoubtedly damaged the Jewish communities, they remained strong enough to flourish for another 300 years in the region. Below is a map that shows all Jewish communities in the Rhineland during the early 14th century (black dots indicate Jewish cemeteries), which demonstrates that during the High Medieval Judaism expanded also to the countryside:
http://www.hstad-online.de/ausstellungen/online/juden_der_vormodernen_zeit/Geschichte_der_Juden/Virtuelle_Ausstellung/Eintr%C3%A4ge/2007/11/18_Die_J%C3%BCdische_SIedlungsentwicklung_am_Mitte lrhein%3A_Mittelalter_files/Media/Judensiedlung/Judensiedlung.jpg?disposition=download

What does this mean in relation to the original question?

The Jewish community in the Rhineland may already date back to early Roman times. Ashkenazi may have arrived directly from Judea, and survived the migration period relatively unharmed in Cologne, possibly also in Mainz and Worms. During early Roman, and especially early Frankish times, external social barriers to marrying non-Jews should have been relatively low, certainly not higher than in contemporary Italy.
If the Jewish community does not date back to Roman times, it must have grown quickly from the early 10th century onwards. Possible migration sources include France (where the overall climate towards Jews appears to have been far less favourable during that period), Southern Italy (threatened by Arab invasions), and the Byzantine Empire. The latter deserves specific attention due to the marriage of Emperor Otto II with the Byzantian princess Theophanu. Theophanu ruled the empire together with the Archbishop of Mainz, Williges, from 985 to 994, until her son, Otto III, had become old enough to take over,
It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism. Jews were outside of traditional tribal laws. This meant in particular that they were freed from armed service, and also from paying excises. They were furthermore not subjugated to traditional local courts (headed by Germanic counts or dukes), but had their legal matters directly settled by the royal court. Not too bad, especially if you are living close to the main royal palaces, i.e. in the Rhineland. [[In fact, a lot of the pogroms may be explained as either connected to anti-royal opposition, or as attempt to counteract a perceived "unfair" Jewish preference in economical matters; see the first Wikipedia article below. Don't get me wrong: Perceived "unfair competition" does not make discrimination and murder legitimate, neither in the 11th or 14th century, nor between 1933 and 1945!]
Whatever was their origin, the urban Jewish population should have been sizeable (and wealthy / influential) enough to leave genetical traces in the non-Jewish population. Conversion is one issue here, faithfulness another (note that Imperial decrees allowed Jews to employ non-Jewish house servants).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Cultural_and_religi ous_centre_of_European_Jewry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Cologne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Judengasse
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom_de_Strasbourg(in French - the article is much more detailed than the English version)



Very interesting, it was a great reading, and although most Gedmatch calculators do indicate some Northern European ancestry among AJs (for example on K15 I get 20% Atlantic, 8% North Sea, 4% Baltic and 2% East Euro) I still can't get what the user "Semitic Duwa" (forgive me if I spelled your name incorrectly :-P) said of the possibility of such admixture, from what I heard he knows a thing or 2 about genetics, and he said that the lack of IBD sharing between AJs and Germans pretty much destroys such a possibility, maybe I misunderstood him? I'm not sure, I'm just a rookie but such subjects are very interesting for me.

Angela
02-07-14, 17:13
The Jewish community in the Rhineland may already date back to early Roman times. Ashkenazi may have arrived directly from Judea, and survived the migration period relatively unharmed in Cologne, possibly also in Mainz and Worms. During early Roman, and especially early Frankish times, external social barriers to marrying non-Jews should have been relatively low, certainly not higher than in contemporary Italy.
If the Jewish community does not date back to Roman times, it must have grown quickly from the early 10th century onwards. Possible migration sources include France (where the overall climate towards Jews appears to have been far less favourable during that period), Southern Italy (threatened by Arab invasions), and the Byzantine Empire. The latter deserves specific attention due to the marriage of Emperor Otto II with the Byzantian princess Theophanu. Theophanu ruled the empire together with the Archbishop of Mainz, Williges, from 985 to 994, until her son, Otto III, had become old enough to take over,
It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism. Jews were outside of traditional tribal laws. This meant in particular that they were freed from armed service, and also from paying excises. They were furthermore not subjugated to traditional local courts (headed by Germanic counts or dukes), but had their legal matters directly settled by the royal court. Not too bad, especially if you are living close to the main royal palaces, i.e. in the Rhineland. [[In fact, a lot of the pogroms may be explained as either connected to anti-royal opposition, or as attempt to counteract a perceived "unfair" Jewish preference in economical matters; see the first Wikipedia article below. Don't get me wrong: Perceived "unfair competition" does not make discrimination and murder legitimate, neither in the 11th or 14th century, nor between 1933 and 1945!]
Whatever was their origin, the urban Jewish population should have been sizeable (and wealthy / influential) enough to leave genetical traces in the non-Jewish population. Conversion is one issue here, faithfulness another (note that Imperial decrees allowed Jews to employ non-Jewish house servants).
[/LIST]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Cultural_and_religi ous_centre_of_European_Jewry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Cologne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Judengasse
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom_de_Strasbourg(in French - the article is much more detailed than the English version)


Thanks for the context, FrankN; very informative.

However, it seems that you, like I, have found no documentary evidence either in Jewish chronicles or government or church documents which indicate any conversion of locals to Judaism. Saying that "It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism" is not the same thing.

That's not to say it didn't happen, but intermarriage between Jews and Christians would have been no easy matter. It was forbidden by Jewish law and Christian law, and also by government decree from the days of the late Empire. (I would have to check for the precise date) That's why in Italy in the late 500's, early 600's, a Jewish girl who wished to marry a Christian had to convert to Christianity. Jewish law would demand the same thing in any case of intermarriage.

I have managed to find one documented case of such a situation, which would, in fact, have brought "Jewish" genes into the gentile gene pool. I also found one situation of Jewish landowners still converting gentile slaves to Judaism in the late 500's, but it was in contravention of Church law and civil law, and a significant enough such infraction that it merited a rebuke from the Pope. Frankly, I saw the fact that the Bishop of Luni allowed it to happen as just another example of the Italian predilection for ignoring laws when they conflict with local reality and relationships. In any event, as I said, the fact that it resulted in such a rebuke indicates to me that it certainly wasn't a widespread phenomenon at that late date. Earlier, it would have been a different matter, but I don't think there's much documentation for a Jewish presence in Germany for the period before the adoption of Christianity as the Roman religion and the subsequent issuance of the decrees against conversion from Christianity to Judaism.

Regardless, the genetic data clearly shows that European Jews still plot with Cypriots. Whatever admixture with Europeans moved them from the Levantine coast to Cyprus genetically, if indeed there was that much difference between those peoples at the time, had to be with a very low WHG population, which the Germans most assuredly were not.

So, in this case, I think the lack of historical documentation for any sizable gene flow even in early medieval Germany from gentiles into the Jewish population is in agreement with the available genetic data.

If anything, I think there is more evidence later on for gene flow from Jews into the gentile community through the forced conversions, although as I said, it's not clear how many took the opportunity to "pass" into the gentile community, and how many merely left and resumed Jewish practice. Certainly, the Pope and the Bishops of that time and place decreed that the Jews were not bound by those conversions. It was far different in Spain with the conversos, where the choice was sincere conversion or exile, and where insincere converts were hunted out and executed by the Spanish Inquisition.

oriental
02-07-14, 21:38
There were apparently a lot of Jews taken to Italy as slaves by the Romans, but I doubt they had a high reproductive rate or much ability to preserve their culture unless a significant number managed to win their freedom while they were young enough to reproduce and to recreate their culture in a new location, so although I'm not familiar with their history, I'm assuming that the Jews who in settled Jewish communities in Europe during the Roman period were traders and not freed slaves. But the reason I was assuming there might have been a lack of continuity in the Jewish communities in France and the Rhineland is because of the massive disruptions and sometimes wholesale loss of life that occurred during the Dark Age period. I may be wrong about that, but I have to wonder how Jewish communities in the Rhineland would have survived all those upheavals. That's why I had assumed that the Jewish communities in places like Germany and Poland might be in large part made up of immigrants from Russia, whose ancestors originally came from Baghdad and thereabouts. Perhaps that wasn't the case, but there seems to be more information available about Jewish communities in Europe before 600 A.D. or after 1000 A.D. than during the crucial period in between those dates.

There is a video on YouTube Hungarians have Jewish Kharian heritage (I don't know how accurate it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEidv66-58c

Romans did not persecute Jews. It was the Christians who were fed to the lions. So Jews flourished in the Roman Empire just like in the Seleucid Empire.

Aberdeen
02-07-14, 22:41
There is a video on YouTube Hungarians have Jewish Kharian heritage (I don't know how accurate it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEidv66-58c

Romans did not persecute Jews. It was the Christians who were fed to the lions. So Jews flourished in the Roman Empire just like in the Seleucid Empire.

Well, there was the small matter of the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus, and the resulting enslavement of many Jewish men to use as forced labour in the construction of the Roman Colosseum. Plus the subsequent razing of Jerusalem by Hadrian. The Romans played pretty rough with anyone who resisted or rebelled against Roman authority. They didn't persecute Jews for being Jewish, but they did persecute any and all who defied them in any way, and that sometimes included Jews in their native setting.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 00:03
Good post AgnusDei, welcome to Eupedia.

Doesn't your mtDNA says Libia, L1b1a. :shocked:
Thanks for the warm welcome LeBrok!
lol
I never thought of my mtDNA haplogroup as LIBIA ! lol

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 00:23
The whole smartening-up scenario does not make sense to me.Regardless of the environmental factors,intelligence is determined by multiple sets of genes interacting with each other(memory,learning abilities,spacial reasoning,creativity,openness to experience and intellectual curiosity).
People tend to forget that genes aren't SNPs,a single mutation in any given SNP is less likely to alter the main function of a gene.


Bottom line;it would require a tremendous amount of mutations to alter a gene's fuction let alone multiple sets of genes.

FrankN
03-07-14, 00:25
Thanks for the context, FrankN; very informative.

However, it seems that you, like I, have found no documentary evidence either in Jewish chronicles or government or church documents which indicate any conversion of locals to Judaism. Saying that "It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism" is not the same thing.
In fact, in one of the many documents that I have read, there were a few quotes from early medieval clergymen that complained about such a conversion. I unfortunately can't find the document again (it was most likely in one of the various French Wikipedia articles about the history of Jews in specific parts of France).


That's not to say it didn't happen, but intermarriage between Jews and Christians would have been no easy matter. It was forbidden by Jewish law and Christian law, and also by government decree from the days of the late Empire. (I would have to check for the precise date) That's why in Italy in the late 500's, early 600's, a Jewish girl who wished to marry a Christian had to convert to Christianity. Jewish law would demand the same thing in any case of intermarriage.

I have managed to find one documented case of such a situation, which would, in fact, have brought "Jewish" genes into the gentile gene pool. I also found one situation of Jewish landowners still converting gentile slaves to Judaism in the late 500's, but it was in contravention of Church law and civil law, and a significant enough such infraction that it merited a rebuke from the Pope. Frankly, I saw the fact that the Bishop of Luni allowed it to happen as just another example of the Italian predilection for ignoring laws when they conflict with local reality and relationships. In any event, as I said, the fact that it resulted in such a rebuke indicates to me that it certainly wasn't a widespread phenomenon at that late date. Earlier, it would have been a different matter, but I don't think there's much documentation for a Jewish presence in Germany for the period before the adoption of Christianity as the Roman religion and the subsequent issuance of the decrees against conversion from Christianity to Judaism.
There is clear documentation of Roman-time Jewish presence on the Rhine, namely Constantine's the Great regulation on the Jewish Community in Cologne from 321 AD. In order for such a document to be issued, the community must have been quite sizeable, and probably also already a bit older.
Christianity only became official Roman state religion under Theodosius in the late 4th century, and it required a civil war to impose it on Germania, Gallia and Britannia. Between the decisive Battle of the Frigidus in 394, and the ultimate loss of control over Britannia and much of Gallia in 407-410 AD, there wasn't much time to put government decrees in practice. One may even wonder whether part of the Germanic advance, e.g. Lugdunum (Lyon) voluntarily opening the city to the Burgundians, was related to the hope for more religious tolerance under Germanic rule. The Visigoths were actively supported by local Jewish communities (see French Wikipedia Article on the history of Jews in France), there is also no indication of North African Jewish communities suffering under the rule of the Arianic Vandals. While Chlodwig I converted to Catholicism around 498 AD, this initially seems to have had little practical consequences for the eastern part of the Frankish realm. The last documented Roman bishop of Mainz died in 436, the next, Frankish bishop was only installed around 565. Around the same time, the first monastery (St. Goar) was established in the Rhineland. Systematic missioning of the Rhineland only took place from the mid-7th century on, further east of the Rhine it started in the early eighth century (St. Bonifatius). From all that I have read, legal discrimination of Jews only commenced after the First Crusade. Because of the Investiture Dispute, I have serious doubts that any Church regulation against Jews (which, as the atrocities during the First Crusade, were obvious attempts of the Vatican to weaken the Emperor's financial and power base) became implemented in earnest before the 1122 Concordate of Worms.
I am anything but an expert on Jewish law. However, I have noted that the founder of the Mainz Yeshiva, Gershom ben Judaa, is famous for having introduced several new Jewish laws, among others a ban on polygamy. If polygamy was an issue in the Jewish community during the late 10th century, I doubt that much attention was given to whether Jews married other Jews, or Christians, or pagans ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_Worms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah

I will come back on genetic issues in a separate post. For the moment, let me just say that the Rhineland has a quite specific genetic mix compared to the remainder of Germany. In an older version of Maciamo's list on yDNA by specific regions, I noted an elevated share of haplogroup J2 (11% ?) in Cologne. Unfortunately, Maciamo has in the meantime taken down the individual results and replaced them with regional averages from multiple studies, so I will have to find the original data somewhere on the internet.



Angela: Ed. Lucera is in Apulia, not the Abruzzi, and the Muslim community, mostly warriors and their families, were pretty strictly regulated to that area, as it was question of controlling them. Regardless, the community, and their reprieve, lasted at the most 75 years before they were sold into slavery or exiled. Of course, some might have remained and dispersed, but I don't know why they would all have gone to the Abruzzi. Also, I've never seen any documentation as to a Jewish presence amongst them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_...ment_of_Lucera

Of course Luccera is in Apulia. But it's not that far from Abruzzi either. Since Behar did not cover Apulians in his study, he might actually have captured some "Apulian" element in his Abruzzi sample. For the Jewish presence in Lucera, look at the following extract taken from your Wikipedia link:

The Muslim colony of Lucera was evangelized by the Dominican friars who, under Imperial licence, as requested by the Pope, were authorized to preach and to attempt to convert the infedeli (unbelievers), including the Jews, in the city. The results were, usually, decidedly disappointing, in spite of the attempt by the Church in 1215 to carry out highly discriminatory measures, in the Fourth Council of the Lateran, that Muslims and Jews (defined as servi camerae, that is personal property of the Crown [9]) wear clothes that allowed for their easy identification.[10] (..)
With the death of Charles I the situation changed drastically. His son and successor, Charles II, in 1289 had already made plans to expel the Jews from his dominions of Anjou and Maine. In 1300 an identical definitive solution was taken to solve the problem of the Muslims of Lucera.

If my rudimentary Italian does not deceive me, the Italian version of the article also lists a contemporary massacre on the Jews in Naples.
Where would survivors go? One place is known from the Wikipedia article, namely (San Paolo di) Civitate. Still in Apulia, but directly at the Molise border (I guess Molise already counts as Abruzzi). Where else? Sicilian lands were obviously no option after the massacres, and the Vatican territories also wouldn't have seemed to be a particular good idea. Since Frederick II had installed a trade fair in Lucera, there must have been a sizeable merchant community. An intelligent ruler (which Frederick II undoubtedly was) would have tried to link up that community with other regions under his rule, including the Staufen homeland in Alsace, Baden and Würtemberg. There isn't any documentary evidence of respective migrations, but the early 14th century saw the emergence of many new Jewish communities, including Freiburg, Offenburg and Reutlingen, as well as quick recovery of already existing communities (Heilbronn) from the 1298 pogroms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rintfleisch_massacres

Finally, you asked for evidence of a spread of Jewish communities along the Varangian trade routes. Here is what I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Lithuania

As early as the 8th century Jews lived in parts of the Lithuanian territory[citation needed]. Beginning with that period[citation needed] they conducted trade between Russia, Lithuania, and the Baltic, especially with Danzig, Julin (Vineta or Wollin, in Pomerania), and other cities on the Vistula, Oder, and Elbe.

The origin of the Jews of Lithuania has been the subject of much speculation. It is believed that they were made up of two distinct streams of Jewish immigration. The older and significantly smaller of the two entered the territory that would later become the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the east. These early immigrants spoke Judeo-Slavic dialects which distinguished them from the later Jewish immigrants who entered the region from the Germanic lands.

While the origin of these eastern Jews is not certain, historical evidence places Jewish refugees from Babylonia, Palestine, the Byzantine Empire and other Jewish refugees and settlers in the lands between the Baltic and Black Seas that would become part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The later and much larger stream of immigration originated in the 12th century and received an impetus from the persecution of the German Jews by the Crusaders. The traditional language of the vast majority of Jews of Lithuania, Yiddish, is based largely upon the Medieval German spoken by the western Germanic Jewish immigrants

Yes I have noted [citation needed]. Maybe Lithuanian forum members can help here...

oriental
03-07-14, 00:26
Romans retaliated against those who questioned their political power but if they went about their religion quietly they were left alone. There were many Jews who had political connections with high-level Romans. Of course the Roman Empire was far from a paradise for sure.

Angela
03-07-14, 02:33
In fact, in one of the many documents that I have read, there were a few quotes from early medieval clergymen that complained about such a conversion. I unfortunately can't find the document again (it was most likely in one of the various French Wikipedia articles about the history of Jews in specific parts of France).


There is clear documentation of Roman-time Jewish presence on the Rhine, namely Constantine's the Great regulation on the Jewish Community in Cologne from 321 AD. In order for such a document to be issued, the community must have been quite sizeable, and probably also already a bit older.
Christianity only became official Roman state religion under Theodosius in the late 4th century, and it required a civil war to impose it on Germania, Gallia and Britannia. Between the decisive Battle of the Frigidus in 394, and the ultimate loss of control over Britannia and much of Gallia in 407-410 AD, there wasn't much time to put government decrees in practice. One may even wonder whether part of the Germanic advance, e.g. Lugdunum (Lyon) voluntarily opening the city to the Burgundians, was related to the hope for more religious tolerance under Germanic rule. The Visigoths were actively supported by local Jewish communities (see French Wikipedia Article on the history of Jews in France), there is also no indication of North African Jewish communities suffering under the rule of the Arianic Vandals. While Chlodwig I converted to Catholicism around 498 AD, this initially seems to have had little practical consequences for the eastern part of the Frankish realm. The last documented Roman bishop of Mainz died in 436, the next, Frankish bishop was only installed around 565. Around the same time, the first monastery (St. Goar) was established in the Rhineland. Systematic missioning of the Rhineland only took place from the mid-7th century on, further east of the Rhine it started in the early eighth century (St. Bonifatius). From all that I have read, legal discrimination of Jews only commenced after the First Crusade. Because of the Investiture Dispute, I have serious doubts that any Church regulation against Jews (which, as the atrocities during the First Crusade, were obvious attempts of the Vatican to weaken the Emperor's financial and power base) became implemented in earnest before the 1122 Concordate of Worms.
I am anything but an expert on Jewish law. However, I have noted that the founder of the Mainz Yeshiva, Gershom ben Judaa, is famous for having introduced several new Jewish laws, among others a ban on polygamy. If polygamy was an issue in the Jewish community during the late 10th century, I doubt that much attention was given to whether Jews married other Jews, or Christians, or pagans ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_Worms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah

I will come back on genetic issues in a separate post. For the moment, let me just say that the Rhineland has a quite specific genetic mix compared to the remainder of Germany. In an older version of Maciamo's list on yDNA by specific regions, I noted an elevated share of haplogroup J2 (11% ?) in Cologne. Unfortunately, Maciamo has in the meantime taken down the individual results and replaced them with regional averages from multiple studies, so I will have to find the original data somewhere on the internet.


Of course Luccera is in Apulia. But it's not that far from Abruzzi either. Since Behar did not cover Apulians in his study, he might actually have captured some "Apulian" element in his Abruzzi sample. For the Jewish presence in Lucera, look at the following extract taken from your Wikipedia link:

If my rudimentary Italian does not deceive me, the Italian version of the article also lists a contemporary massacre on the Jews in Naples.
Where would survivors go? One place is known from the Wikipedia article, namely (San Paolo di) Civitate. Still in Apulia, but directly at the Molise border (I guess Molise already counts as Abruzzi). Where else? Sicilian lands were obviously no option after the massacres, and the Vatican territories also wouldn't have seemed to be a particular good idea. Since Frederick II had installed a trade fair in Lucera, there must have been a sizeable merchant community. An intelligent ruler (which Frederick II undoubtedly was) would have tried to link up that community with other regions under his rule, including the Staufen homeland in Alsace, Baden and Würtemberg. There isn't any documentary evidence of respective migrations, but the early 14th century saw the emergence of many new Jewish communities, including Freiburg, Offenburg and Reutlingen, as well as quick recovery of already existing communities (Heilbronn) from the 1298 pogroms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rintfleisch_massacres

Finally, you asked for evidence of a spread of Jewish communities along the Varangian trade routes. Here is what I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Lithuania

Yes I have noted [citation needed]. Maybe Lithuanian forum members can help here...


It's too bad there's no citation for the presence of Jewish settlements in the East. I've done some research myself on and off to find evidence of them at this early date in Lithuania, but have come up empty. That doesn't mean I think there were no Jews in the east prior to the arrival of refugees from the west. There's that reference in the Jewish chronicles to Jews from the Crimea heading to Poland and Lithuania, for instance. It just means I haven't yet found documentation for actual settlements.

As for the rest, it's all very interesting, but I'm afraid that it looks like suppositions, or possibilities, not proof, to me, with the exception of the documents you have read of Bishops complaining that some locals had converted to Judaism. As I said, there's some evidence for a similar occurrence in northern Italy. I just doubt that it occurred in large enough numbers to make a significant impact, and in the case of German admixture certainly, it is inconsistent, in my opinion, with AJ genetic results.

We may just have to agree to disagree as to the likelihood of significant gene flow during the Medieval period from Germans into the AJ gene pool. I think there's actually more evidence for gene flow in the opposite direction.

Pax Augusta
03-07-14, 04:30
Of course Luccera is in Apulia. But it's not that far from Abruzzi either. Since Behar did not cover Apulians in his study, he might actually have captured some "Apulian" element in his Abruzzi sample. For the Jewish presence in Lucera, look at the following extract taken from your Wikipedia link:

If my rudimentary Italian does not deceive me, the Italian version of the article also lists a contemporary massacre on the Jews in Naples.
Where would survivors go? One place is known from the Wikipedia article, namely (San Paolo di) Civitate. Still in Apulia, but directly at the Molise border (I guess Molise already counts as Abruzzi). Where else? Sicilian lands were obviously no option after the massacres, and the Vatican territories also wouldn't have seemed to be a particular good idea. Since Frederick II had installed a trade fair in Lucera, there must have been a sizeable merchant community. An intelligent ruler (which Frederick II undoubtedly was) would have tried to link up that community with other regions under his rule, including the Staufen homeland in Alsace, Baden and Würtemberg. There isn't any documentary evidence of respective migrations, but the early 14th century saw the emergence of many new Jewish communities, including Freiburg, Offenburg and Reutlingen, as well as quick recovery of already existing communities (Heilbronn) from the 1298 pogroms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rintfleisch_massacres

Probably here you can find more about Jews in Italy. I'm sorry, but it's all in Italian.

Italia Judaica.
Gli ebrei in Sicilia
sino all'espulsione del 1492
Atti del V convegno internazionale
Palermo, 15-19 giugno 1992

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/dga/uploads/documents/Saggi/Saggi_32.pdf

Italia Judaica.
Gli ebrei in Italia tra Rinascimento ed età barocca
atti del 2. Convegno internazionale : Genova, 10-15 giugno 1984.
Roma : Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Ufficio centrale per i beni archivistici, 1986. – (Pubblicazioni degli archivi di Stato. Saggi; 6).

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/dga/uploads/documents/Saggi/Saggi_6.pdf


Italia Judaica
"Gli ebrei in Italia dalla segregazione alla prima emancipazione"
Atti del III Convegno internazionale
Tel Aviv 15-20 giugno 1986

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/dga/uploads/documents/Saggi/Saggi_11_A.pdf

Pax Augusta
03-07-14, 04:46
Studies: A Documentary History of the Jews in Italy

Historical Lexicon of the Jews in Italy

Classified Bibliography of the History of the Jews in Italy

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/ggcenter/pitaly.html

kamani
03-07-14, 06:11
The whole smartening-up scenario does not make sense to me.Regardless of the environmental factors,intelligence is determined by multiple sets of genes interacting with each other(memory,learning abilities,spacial reasoning,creativity,openness to experience and intellectual curiosity).
People tend to forget that genes aren't SNPs,a single mutation in any given SNP is less likely to alter the main function of a gene.


Bottom line;it would require a tremendous amount of mutations to alter a gene's fuction let alone multiple sets of genes.

agree, they have always been smarter on average, since the neolithic farmers. It is not just learning and tradition. There is a lot of smart people in other groups ofcourse, but not that kind of high concentration of them. I think we're too used to being politically correct and saying we're all the same, when in fact we're not.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 07:18
agree, they have always been smarter on average, since the neolithic farmers. It is not just learning and tradition. There is a lot of smart people in other groups ofcourse, but not that kind of high concentration of them. I think we're too used to being politically correct and saying we're all the same, when in fact we're not.
I can't agree more,we're different on so many levels,as a species and also as individuals but we're essentially not that different !
I personally think that Ashkenazim ended up with relatively more intelligent people mainly due to two important factors !
Endogamy and polygamy!

The Rabbis had played a very important socioeconomical role in the Jewish life,they were wealthier and had more power .
I think that the Rabbis chose the brightest/smarter students as grooms to their daughters and because polygamy was allowed for religious and political reasons(oppression) the brightest students could marry more than one (Rabbi) girl/daughter and have more kids/progeny.
The wealthier Rabbis would then financially help their sons-in-law.
The relatively less intelligent Jews weren't financially successful and couldn't afford to marry more women .

This is how the Askhenazim ended up with more intelligent people in their community,IMO.




It would be interesting to hear what others have to say about my reasoning!

LeBrok
03-07-14, 07:29
The whole smartening-up scenario does not make sense to me.Regardless of the environmental factors,intelligence is determined by multiple sets of genes interacting with each other(memory,learning abilities,spacial reasoning,creativity,openness to experience and intellectual curiosity).
People tend to forget that genes aren't SNPs,a single mutation in any given SNP is less likely to alter the main function of a gene.
Mind you that we are not starting from scratch. These types of intelligences you mentioned already exists. We are talking about kicking it up a notch or two.



Bottom line;it would require a tremendous amount of mutations to alter a gene's fuction let alone multiple sets of genes. We don't need new mutations. People have already all verities of genes needed to be very intelligent. It is more about combination of them and number of copies. If someone is not lucky (wrong parents) you can be "blessed" with bad memory and less than good logic, and no amount of education will make a doctor out of you. If you have right DNA you can excel in education, finance and sciences. All from combination of existing mutations.
Under environmental conditions the "right" genes can be emphasised generation after generation till it will show in statistic of certain populations.

LeBrok
03-07-14, 07:33
I can't agree more,we're different on so many levels,as a species and also as individuals but we're essentially not that different !
I personally think that Ashkenazim ended up with relatively more intelligent people mainly due to two important factors !
Endogamy and polygamy!

The Rabbis had played a very important socioeconomical role in the Jewish life,they were wealthier and had more power .
I think that the Rabbis chose the brightest/smarter students as grooms to their daughters and because polygamy was allowed for religious and political reasons(oppression) the brightest students could marry more than one (Rabbi) girl/daughter and have more kids/progeny.
The wealthier Rabbis would then financially help their sons-in-law.
The relatively less intelligent Jews weren't financially successful and couldn't afford to marry more women .

This is how the Askhenazim ended up with more intelligent people in their community,IMO.




It would be interesting to hear what others have to say about my reasoning!
This might be one part of the whole puzzle.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 08:46
Mind you that we are not starting from scratch. These types of intelligences you mentioned already exists. We are talking about kicking it up a notch or two.
I have to disagree with you,those aren't types of intelligence,those are factors that determine a person's intelligence and they tend to have a very strong correlation with each other only in humans !
Elephants have an exceptional memory yet they are nowhere near intelligent as humans .

I think it is politically correct to state that there is a verbal intelligence among other types of intelligence,but the truth is you would rarely find an exceptionally gifted person that scores low in the so called verbal intelligence tests since it would require them to have a very strong memory in order to be able learn in general .
Anyways,intelligence is a very controversial topic to discuss there are so many factors that determine a person's intelligence and most of them are genetic .

What I really wanted to say in my previous post is that it would be nearly impossible for any human group to evolve into a more intelligent group in just a matter of tens of thousands of years .
In fact, I think that the first hunter-gather to ever paint onto a cave in Europe was more intelligent that Leonardo Da vinci !

John Doe
03-07-14, 11:02
Thanks for the context, FrankN; very informative.

However, it seems that you, like I, have found no documentary evidence either in Jewish chronicles or government or church documents which indicate any conversion of locals to Judaism. Saying that "It is not unlikely that a relevant part of locals converted to Judaism" is not the same thing.

That's not to say it didn't happen, but intermarriage between Jews and Christians would have been no easy matter. It was forbidden by Jewish law and Christian law, and also by government decree from the days of the late Empire. (I would have to check for the precise date) That's why in Italy in the late 500's, early 600's, a Jewish girl who wished to marry a Christian had to convert to Christianity. Jewish law would demand the same thing in any case of intermarriage.

I have managed to find one documented case of such a situation, which would, in fact, have brought "Jewish" genes into the gentile gene pool. I also found one situation of Jewish landowners still converting gentile slaves to Judaism in the late 500's, but it was in contravention of Church law and civil law, and a significant enough such infraction that it merited a rebuke from the Pope. Frankly, I saw the fact that the Bishop of Luni allowed it to happen as just another example of the Italian predilection for ignoring laws when they conflict with local reality and relationships. In any event, as I said, the fact that it resulted in such a rebuke indicates to me that it certainly wasn't a widespread phenomenon at that late date. Earlier, it would have been a different matter, but I don't think there's much documentation for a Jewish presence in Germany for the period before the adoption of Christianity as the Roman religion and the subsequent issuance of the decrees against conversion from Christianity to Judaism.

Regardless, the genetic data clearly shows that European Jews still plot with Cypriots. Whatever admixture with Europeans moved them from the Levantine coast to Cyprus genetically, if indeed there was that much difference between those peoples at the time, had to be with a very low WHG population, which the Germans most assuredly were not.

So, in this case, I think the lack of historical documentation for any sizable gene flow even in early medieval Germany from gentiles into the Jewish population is in agreement with the available genetic data.

If anything, I think there is more evidence later on for gene flow from Jews into the gentile community through the forced conversions, although as I said, it's not clear how many took the opportunity to "pass" into the gentile community, and how many merely left and resumed Jewish practice. Certainly, the Pope and the Bishops of that time and place decreed that the Jews were not bound by those conversions. It was far different in Spain with the conversos, where the choice was sincere conversion or exile, and where insincere converts were hunted out and executed by the Spanish Inquisition.

That's not entirely accurate, according to the study you gave me, AJs, together with Sicilians and Maltese, plot in the gap between Europe and the Near East, between Cypriots and Greeks, so AJs don't plot with Cypriots, they plot between Cypriots and Greeks, suggesting perhaps Ancient Greek admixture, perhaps this is the same case for Sicilians, the Greeks colonised and Hellenised both the Levant and Sicily, as for the Maltese, well, the Greeks didn't colonise Malta, the Phoenicians did, but the Byzantines did control the island until the 7th century C.E, perhaps the Greek admixture came from there?

Pax Augusta
03-07-14, 13:37
That's not entirely accurate, according to the study you gave me, AJs, together with Sicilians and Maltese, plot in the gap between Europe and the Near East, between Cypriots and Greeks, so AJs don't plot with Cypriots, they plot between Cypriots and Greeks, suggesting perhaps Ancient Greek admixture, perhaps this is the same case for Sicilians, the Greeks colonised and Hellenised both the Levant and Sicily, as for the Maltese, well, the Greeks didn't colonise Malta, the Phoenicians did, but the Byzantines did control the island until the 7th century C.E, perhaps the Greek admixture came from there?

You're right, no proof of a Greek colonisation despite a "folk tradition" of an ancient Greek colony in Malta (Anthony Bonanno, "The tradition of an ancient Greek colony in Malta", Hyphen IV, 1 (Malta 1983): 1-17).

http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/Hyphen/Hyphen.%204(1983)1/01.pdf

Greek admixture in Malta could have more explanations. One, as you said, due to the Byzantine dominion. Another due to little but constant migrations and human exchanges between Malta and Sicily (and former Magna Grecia territories in Southern Italy) from early ages. The linguistic origin of a surname isn't automatically related to an ethnic origin but Malta still today shares many surnames with modern-day Sicily (and viceversa), even if not all the Maltese surnames are spread in Sicily. Many of common surnames between Malta and Sicily are just typically Sicilian.

Dr Cassar explained that Maltese surnames may easily be divided into three surname groups: Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew), Romance (mainly Italian, Sicilian, Spanish and French), and English (as well as Scottish, Irish and Welsh). Today one also has to factor in other European and international family names which accumulated through recent ethnic intermarriages.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140209/local/Why-most-Maltese-share-the-same-100-surnames.506018

kamani
03-07-14, 13:43
The Rabbis had played a very important socioeconomical role in the Jewish life,they were wealthier and had more power .
I think that the Rabbis chose the brightest/smarter students as grooms to their daughters and because polygamy was allowed for religious and political reasons(oppression) the brightest students could marry more than one (Rabbi) girl/daughter and have more kids/progeny.


That sounds plausible. There might be more to it thou since Judaism is relatively "young" in the area; the Phoenicians (1000 BC) and other Levantines believed in Baal and other forms of Bull worship. And we still have some of the advanced centers of neolithic civilization in the Levant/Anatolia area.

Angela
03-07-14, 16:55
[QUOTE=AgnusDei;434823 What I really wanted to say in my previous post is that it would be nearly impossible for any human group to evolve into a more intelligent group in just a matter of tens of thousands of years . [/QUOTE]


I don't think it has anything to do with evolution in the sense of new mutations undergoing positive selection. It's about whether a group composed of people of above average intelligence, the founding population, can produce, through the practice of endogamy, descendents that are also above average intelligence.

Let's assume for the moment that the geneticists are correct who claim that the majority of the Ashkenazim alive today are descended in large part from a bottle-necked population of about 1,000 Jews from western Europe. Those Jews would be the survivors of the various pogroms of the Middle Ages. I think it's pretty clear that the ones who survived would have been the most intelligent members of their community, the ones who had the wit to figure out a way to survive, or the money to buy their freedom, like the merchants, and bankers, and physicians, or the rabbis who would have been guarded by their community. Those people then intermarried only with each other.

The selection for intelligence would also have been ongoing, as the persecution followed them to eastern Europe. In addition, I think that the AJ community practiced its own selection. To be a real member of the community, even at that time, you had to be intelligent enough to be able to read from the Torah at your Bar Mitzvah. (This was at a time when the vast majority of Europeans were illiterate.) The high esteem in which the erudite and highly intelligent rabbis were held, and their high reproductive levels is another factor, as has been pointed out by another poster.

(And yes, a group of that size can swell into the millions in 1,000 years. You just need to look at the size of the French Canadian community in relationship to the number of original settlers, or the size of the modern Amish and related communities, and this is after only a few hundred years.)


I personally find it all highly plausible.

There are even general genetic studies (previously discussed on this site) for the proposition that some degree of endogamy does seem to result in higher IQ scores in some groups. As I said, it all depends on the characteristics of the founding population. It can work in the inverse as well.

The endogamy comes with a cost in some cases, however. The AJ community is beset with unusual levels of certain genetic diseases. (as are the French Canadians and the Amish, for that matter.)

LeBrok
03-07-14, 17:30
I have to disagree with you,those aren't types of intelligence,those are factors that determine a person's intelligence and they tend to have a very strong correlation with each other only in humans !... I think it is politically correct to state that there is a verbal intelligence among other types of intelligence,but the truth is you would rarely find an exceptionally gifted person that scores low in the so called verbal intelligence tests since it would require them to have a very strong memory in order to be able learn in general .
We could open a separate thread and still argue after thousands of posts what real intelligence is. One can argue that intelligence is making smart decisions in life and inventing new things, others that it is everything which take computational power of the brain with speech and even smell included. Let's leave it till then. ;)


Elephants have an exceptional memory yet they are nowhere near intelligent as humans . and yet, good memory adds to their intelligence. It is much easier to compute when data is readily available.


Anyways,intelligence is a very controversial topic to discuss there are so many factors that determine a person's intelligence and most of them are genetic . my exact view on the subject.


What I really wanted to say in my previous post is that it would be nearly impossible for any human group to evolve into a more intelligent group in just a matter of tens of thousands of years . I don't see how you can conclude this. As I mentioned before we don't need new mutations. We just need the right once to accumulate more in certain populations to make them statistically more intelligent as a group. This is not that difficult to achieve by continues environmental forcings.

Extreme examples which happened in last few thousands of years, or even hundreds:
from this: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRg-g2qeM1ghfBKSBSFIc6C3NrpSa0m4oKUGOWXae5iffeaSixR to this: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBzX4I2n58r2yroK2FDO71FW64UmR07 rwGoOqRlkS1ypZ3ZeD06A
Not only look but also behaviour changed. From reserved, timid hunter to friendly, engaged and playful toy.






In fact, I think that the first hunter-gather to ever paint onto a cave in Europe was more intelligent that Leonardo Da vinci ! In many aspects of intelligence yes, like hunting and environmental awareness to perhaps even hand eye coordination and art (they were painting real art in dark caves with fingers). However I don't think they would be doing well in our civilization in general. Just look at modern hunter gatherers, the Prairie Indians or Australian Aborigines and how they do in today's world in general, and the picture is not that rosy.

Angela
03-07-14, 17:39
That's not entirely accurate, according to the study you gave me, AJs, together with Sicilians and Maltese, plot in the gap between Europe and the Near East, between Cypriots and Greeks, so AJs don't plot with Cypriots, they plot between Cypriots and Greeks, suggesting perhaps Ancient Greek admixture, perhaps this is the same case for Sicilians, the Greeks colonised and Hellenised both the Levant and Sicily, as for the Maltese, well, the Greeks didn't colonise Malta, the Phoenicians did, but the Byzantines did control the island until the 7th century C.E, perhaps the Greek admixture came from there?


O.K., in the Lazaridis study, which I believe is the most up to date and accurate, they plot near the Cypriots.

There is a lot we still don't know. We don't know, for instance, how similar the Levantines of pre-Islamic, pre-African slavery were to the Cypriots of the same time or modern Cypriots. We don't know how similar the Hellenized Jews of the Classical Era were to the Jews of the pre-or post-Babylonian captivity period. We don't how close genetically the ancient Greeks of the mainland or the islands were to any of these people. We won't know until we get ancient DNA from those peoples, as Semitic Duwa pointed out up thread.

I think you are searching for a certainty that cannot be attained with the level of information we now possess. Given how quickly the discoveries are coming, however, it may not be that long before there is some more clarity.

The point I was making about the plotting of AJ's near the Cypriots, to be more precise, is that if there had been substantial admixture in AJ genetic history with populations with WHG numbers on the order of, say, .36 to .46, like the Germans or the Slavs or the Lithuanians, then I don't see how they would be plotting in that gap or coming out as 0 WHG.

That isn't to say that some admixture didn't take place with more northerly Europeans than Greek islanders. Historically, there are the examples for conversion of locals in the pre-high Medieval period that were provided by FrankN and myself. There's also genetic evidence in some yDNA sub-clades that are completely Ashkenazi but that are likely to be of "gentile" origin. I'm thinking here of a far downstream R1b clade. (I'd have to look up the precise name.) I don't think the mtDNA data is dispositive because unfortunately, in order to make reasonable conclusions about mtDNA you need full genome sequences and we just don't have them from enough populations. Again, ancient DNA can provide a lot more clarity.

In fact, the pull away from the Levant and even away from the Cypriots could be, in part, the result of these smaller amounts of admixture with more northerly Europeans.

Angela
03-07-14, 17:49
Studies:

A Documentary History of the Jews in Italy

Historical Lexicon of the Jews in Italy

Classified Bibliography of the History of the Jews in Italy



http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/ggcenter/pitaly.html

The problem as far as these texts are concerned is getting access to them. Believe me, I've tried; I'm particularly interested in the ones that cover Lucca, Livorno and Genova, in the hope that they would also cover the Jewish communities of Pontremoli and Bagnone, but each volume is about three hundred dollars if you purchase it, and there are numerous volumes. Unfortunately, I don't have institutional access to them presently.

The Italian language beni culturali sites you posted are accessible and make for fascinating reading, but reading them all is beyond what I can devote to the topic in terms of time, as its not my major area of interest. I have dipped into them and skimmed the contents a bit, but that's about all. That is where I did find, however, documentation that some Jews remained in Sicily and converted after the imposition of the Spanish style Inquisition and the subsequent exile of most of the Jews.

John Doe
03-07-14, 18:09
O.K., in the Lazaridis study, which I believe is the most up to date and accurate, they plot near the Cypriots.

There is a lot we still don't know. We don't know, for instance, how similar the Levantines of pre-Islamic, pre-African slavery were to the Cypriots of the same time or modern Cypriots. We don't know how similar the Hellenized Jews of the Classical Era were to the Jews of the pre-or post-Babylonian captivity period. We don't how close genetically the ancient Greeks of the mainland or the islands were to any of these people. We won't know until we get ancient DNA from those peoples, as Semitic Duwa pointed out up thread.

I think you are searching for a certainty that cannot be attained with the level of information we now possess. Given how quickly the discoveries are coming, however, it may not be that long before there is some more clarity.

The point I was making about the plotting of AJ's near the Cypriots, to be more precise, is that if there had been substantial admixture in AJ genetic history with populations with WHG numbers on the order of, say, .36 to .46, like the Germans or the Slavs or the Lithuanians, then I don't see how they would be plotting in that gap or coming out as 0 WHG.

That isn't to say that some admixture didn't take place with more northerly Europeans than Greek islanders. Historically, there are the examples for conversion of locals in the pre-high Medieval period that were provided by FrankN and myself. There's also genetic evidence in some yDNA sub-clades that are completely Ashkenazi but that are likely to be of "gentile" origin. I'm thinking here of a far downstream R1b clade. (I'd have to look up the precise name.) I don't think the mtDNA data is dispositive because unfortunately, in order to make reasonable conclusions about mtDNA you need full genome sequences and we just don't have them from enough populations. Again, ancient DNA can provide a lot more clarity.

In fact, the pull away from the Levant and even away from the Cypriots could be, in part, the result of these smaller amounts of admixture with more northerly Europeans.

According to the many plots on this study http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf AJs, Sicilians and Maltese plot between Cypriots and Greeks, I'm pretty sure this is the Lazaridis study.

It's true that we don't know a lot of things and that I'm basically speculating here, hopefully this uncertainty will be clarified soon.

Maleth
03-07-14, 18:22
That's not entirely accurate, according to the study you gave me, AJs, together with Sicilians and Maltese, plot in the gap between Europe and the Near East, between Cypriots and Greeks, so AJs don't plot with Cypriots, they plot between Cypriots and Greeks, suggesting perhaps Ancient Greek admixture, perhaps this is the same case for Sicilians, the Greeks colonised and Hellenised both the Levant and Sicily, as for the Maltese, well, the Greeks didn't colonise Malta, the Phoenicians did, but the Byzantines did control the island until the 7th century C.E, perhaps the Greek admixture came from there?


Present day Maltese Gene pool would know its origins from 1048/49 - In 870 The Aglibaids (coming from Tunisia) left Byzantine Malta an uninhabited 'hirba' (ruin) and was only repopulated from Sicily in 1048/49. This is according the Maghrebi scholar Al-Imyari. Al-Imyari also explains that the uninhabited Island was visited for fishing, honey harvest and wood. We also know in dna age that the haplogroups percentages are closest to those of Sicily. So this means that any present day gene pool does not represent any population prior to this time (including Neolithic Temple builders, Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Byzantines). Todays Gene pool after this time would have to include Thousands af Rodians that moved in with the Knights of St. John, some other thousand that came from Celano in Italy that were expelled to Malta, besides the numerous intermarriages (documented mostly in the churches around the harbour area) Between locals and some continental and other southern Europeans during the rule of the Knights of St John.

Please excuse my ignorance as I find the numbers and terminologies slightly overwhelming at times. Is there for example a Jewish marker!? - If there is what is it? example can one make a distinction between a J2a found in Greece which belongs and mutated in Greece and a J2a found in Lebanon which definably belongs to Lebanon?

Maleth
03-07-14, 18:49
The linguistic origin of a surname isn't automatically related to an ethnic origin but Malta still today shares many surnames with modern-day Sicily (and viceversa), even if not all the Maltese surnames are spread in Sicily. Many of common surnames between Malta and Sicily are just typically Sicilian.



That is very correct

Angela
03-07-14, 18:59
According to the many plots on this study http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf AJs, Sicilians and Maltese plot between Cypriots and Greeks, I'm pretty sure this is the Lazaridis study.

It's true that we don't know a lot of things and that I'm basically speculating here, hopefully this uncertainty will be clarified soon.

I think a decent argument could be made that the northern mainland Greeks who were tested in Lazaridis et al plot "north" of the Sicilians, and AJ's, and Cypriots, for that matter, and probably the Islanders, although they weren't tested in Lazaridis, because they (the northern mainlanders) were somewhat impacted by the Slavic migrations of the early medieval period, and these other groups most definitely were not. There could also have been some impact from Celtic groups passing through the Balkans, or a differential impact of the Indo-European migrations.

There are many factors that affect where different groups plot genetically other than admixture with each other.

John Doe
03-07-14, 19:26
I think a decent argument could be made that the northern mainland Greeks who were tested in Lazaridis et al plot "north" of the Sicilians, and AJ's, and Cypriots, for that matter, and probably the Islanders, although they weren't tested in Lazaridis, because they (the northern mainlanders) were somewhat impacted by the Slavic migrations of the early medieval period, and these other groups most definitely were not. There could also have been some impact from Celtic groups passing through the Balkans, or a differential impact of the Indo-European migrations.

There are many factors that affect where different groups plot genetically other than admixture with each other.

Of course, it's possible that Pre Islamic Pre Arab slave trade Levantines were by default Sicilian/Maltese/Cypriot/East Mediterranean like which means that the AJs didn't have to admix to be in this position, they were there already for being Phoenician/Cypriot/Sicilian/Maltese like Canaanites in origin. That would make a lot of sense in fact, considering the fact that the Phoenicians colonised both Sicily and Malta, and later on when the Maltese population was wiped out, it was repopulated by Sicilians who were probably heavily influenced by the Phoenicians.

FrankN
03-07-14, 19:50
As a German, I am allergic to any attempts to assign specific traits to (ethnic) groups for presumed genetic reasons - that line of argument has caused too much disaster in history, especially in recent German history. I don't have problems, however, to state that a specific social situation tends to culturally emphasize certain talents within the group concerned - a process that already starts in early childhood education, with parents encouraging certain behaviour, while discouraging or ignoring some other activities. In Germany, e.g., there are multiple studies, which demonstrate that even today, educational success is closely linked to the parents' educational and professional background (but much less to their income).

In that sense, we may look at the AJ cultural package as follows:

High appreciation of formal education (school, religious studies, academics, etc.);
Strong focus on literacy, including the ability to read several scripts (Latin and Hebrew);
Multi-lingualsm (Yiddish at home, Hebrew in the Synagogue, other languages on the local market or when engaging in longer-distance trade) - note in this respect that linguistic ability / training is typically also linked to musical abilities;
Systematic and relatively early training in text comprehension and interpretation (Thora);
Strong community spirit, orientation on values and ethical norms (including the ability to question such norms);
Attention to financial management, including related algebraic and mathematical skills;
Trained in psychological and social diagnostics (the kids on the street are somehow different, eat other kind of foods, celebrate other holidays, etc.). Note that this is a passive trait. There would typically be little encouragement to "learn to behave like other kids", i.e. actively acquire social and leadership skills that are applicable outside the Jewish community.

All in all a cultural package that should score extremely well in most IQ tests. However, while there is certainly no lack of AJ among distinguished 19th and 20th century scientists, doctors, musicians, authors and bankers, they don't seem to be that well represented in painting, sculpture, engineering, design or architecture. Apparently, manual skills weren't held in particular high esteem within the Jewish community, which of course relates to the fact that from the High Medieval onwards, Ashkenazi Jews were hardly allowed to practice crafts except for jewellery. [This, in turn, related to their specific status outside traditional tribal and city laws, which implied that they could not enter the trade guilds that were established under such laws in the high middle ages.]

Angela
03-07-14, 19:52
Present day Maltese Gene pool would know its origins from 1048/49 - In 870 The Aglibaids (coming from Tunisia) left Byzantine Malta an uninhabited 'hirba' (ruin) and was only repopulated from Sicily in 1048/49. This is according the Maghrebi scholar Al-Imyari. Al-Imyari also explains that the uninhabited Island was visited for fishing, honey harvest and wood. We also know in dna age that the haplogroups percentages are closest to those of Sicily. So this means that any present day gene pool does not represent any population prior to this time (including Neolithic Temple builders, Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Byzantines). Todays Gene pool after this time would have to include Thousands af Rodians that moved in with the Knights of St. John, some other thousand that came from Celano in Italy that were expelled to Malta, besides the numerous intermarriages (documented mostly in the churches around the harbour area) Between locals and some continental and other southern Europeans during the rule of the Knights of St John.

Please excuse my ignorance as I find the numbers and terminologies slightly overwhelming at times. Is there for example a Jewish marker!? - If there is what is it? example can one make a distinction between a J2a found in Greece which belongs and mutated in Greece and a J2a found in Lebanon which definably belongs to Lebanon?




Well, thank goodness we have a Maltese who knows his history.:)

I do think it's true, however, that though the Sicilians, the genes of Neolithic Temple builders, the "Italic" tribes, the Phoenicians/Carthaginians (although I personally doubt they settled in any large numbers), Greek Islanders, Greek settlers of the first millennium BC, Romans, and then Byzantines, would have fed into the Maltese gene pool.(some proportion of Berber as well) Then, the Rhodians would, I'm sure, have contributed some of these same strands, as would have other people the Knights brought to Malta.

As to your other question, in general I think that if you get to a fine enough resolution, there are numerous sub-clades which are specifically "Ashkenazi". I'll leave the finer points to experts in yDNA.

In terms of autosomal DNA, there is definitely an Ashkenazi "signature" . It's because their founding population was small, and they have been so highly endogamous for at least the last 1000 years. As a result, at 23andme, for example, specifically Ashkenazi ancestry can be found even in someone who is only 1/64 Ashkenazi. They are flooded with RF matches to full Ashkenazim. In fact, based on the proportion of AJ, there is a thread there where people can figure out exactly when the admixture must have happened.

There have been quite a few people who suddenly discovered an Ashkenazi grandparent or great grandparent of whom they were previously unaware. After their emancipation and release from the ghettos, some Ashkenazim obviously took the opportunity to "pass". In some cases, it was even an NPE, and it turned out that a biological parent was Ashkenazi. There were some who found the idea untenable, for various reasons, but the data doesn't lie. (The moral of that story is if you don't want to know, don't test.) It even happened to a leading researcher in population genetics. He is one of the people who published his entire genome on line in the interests of science. Dienekes ran it through his software and discovered it. I think it was a great grandparent whom he thought was Italian. The researcher then investigated further with his family and through genealogical records and found out that it was indeed true.

It doesn't work the same way for Sephardim. They don't form a discrete cluster.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 20:03
I don't see how you can conclude this. As I mentioned before we don't need new mutations. We just need the right once to accumulate more in certain populations to make them statistically more intelligent as a group. This is not that difficult to achieve by continues environmental forcings.

Extreme examples which happened in last few thousands of years, or even hundreds:
from this: to this:
Not only look but also behaviour changed. From reserved, timid hunter to friendly, engaged and playful toy.

.

That's a very good observation!
Human selection is indeed a very powerful tool, and for some reasons Askhenzim have been selecting particular traits for hundred of years,in my humble opinion .
What I simply meant is that natural selection is a random and a long process compared with Human selection.


In many aspects of intelligence yes, like hunting and environmental awareness to perhaps even hand eye coordination and art (they were painting real art in dark caves with fingers). However I don't think they would be doing well in our civilization in general. Just look at modern hunter gatherers, the Prairie Indians or Australian Aborigines and how they do in today's world in general, and the picture is not that rosy
If you look at Da Vinci's sketches you'd notice that he paid a great attention to details,he was a very detail-oriented person and that's what made him arguably one of the best artists in human history .
Unlike Da Vinci,the first human to ever paint onto a cave in Europe was unique and revolutionary because he didn't feel the need to copy others and came up with a new way to depict the living.
The Chauvet Cave artist had an amazing Da Vinci-like ability clearly reflected in his art .
He also had an extraordinary memory to remember details since he couldn't possibility have brought in animals to the cave.
I think it's an insult to compare this particular artists to other cave dwellers around the world .

FrankN
03-07-14, 20:26
Of course, it's possible that Pre Islamic Pre Arab slave trade Levantines were by default Sicilian/Maltese/Cypriot/East Mediterranean like which means that the AJs didn't have to admix to be in this position, they were there already for being Phoenician/Cypriot/Sicilian/Maltese like Canaanites in origin. That would make a lot of sense in fact, considering the fact that the Phoenicians colonised both Sicily and Malta, and later on when the Maltese population was wiped out, it was repopulated by Sicilians who were probably heavily influenced by the Phoenicians.Note in this respect that the Phoenician / Punic trade network included the Iberian peninsula (including the tin and copper mines in NW Spain/ northern Portugal), i.e. the home of Sephardic Jews. Purely speculative, I know - but wouldn't it make sense, if there has already been a two thousand year-old trade tradition between the Levante and the Western Mediterranean / Iberia, that some of the Jews expelled during the first or second diaspora follow their ancient forefathers and settle along these trade routes?

Let's also not forget that there is documented evidence of Jews possessing Roman citizenship, including a certain Saulus/ Paulus. Not all Jews relocated as Roman slaves. Paulus' missioning, which focused on existing Jewish communities, is an excellent source to trace Jewish communities during the 1st century AD. They included Damascus, Antioch, Tarsus (Paulus' home town), Cyprus, Perga, Ephesus, Miletus, Rhode, Tyre, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, and Spain. Not villages, but the leading economic centres. And in at least some of them, the Jewish community was obviously powerful enough to get Paulus officially banned from the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

John Doe
03-07-14, 20:29
Note in this respect that the Phoenician / Punic trade network included the Iberian peninsula (including the tin and copper mines in NW Spain/ northern Portugal), i.e. the home of Sephardic Jews. Purely speculative, I know - but wouldn't it make sense, if there has already been a two thousand year-old trade tradition between the Levante and the Western Mediterranean / Iberia, that some of the Jews expelled during the first or second diaspora follow their ancient forefathers and settle along these trade routes?Let's also not forget that there is documented evidence of Jews possessing Roman citizenship, including a certain Saulus/ Paulus. Not all Jews relocated as Roman slaves. Paulus' missioning, which focused on existing Jewish communities, is an excellent source to trace Jewish communities during the 1st century AD. They included Damascus, Antioch, Tarsus (Paulus' home town), Cyprus, Perga, Ephesus, Miletus, Rhode, Tyre, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, and Spain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

Also true.

oriental
03-07-14, 20:44
People keep on calling cave drawings as 'art' as if the cave people were in sofa and having parties and discussing politics. That is not how it was. There were no encyclopedia and no instruction manuals. Their kids were asking questions. The drawings were instruction manuals for the kids and teens for training future hunters. It was a library as it were for the family or community if all a lot of people lived there.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 20:45
I don't think it has anything to do with evolution in the sense of new mutations undergoing positive selection. It's about whether a group composed of people of above average intelligence, the founding population, can produce, through the practice of endogamy, descendents that are also above average intelligence.

Let's assume for the moment that the geneticists are correct who claim that the majority of the Ashkenazim alive today are descended in large part from a bottle-necked population of about 1,000 Jews from western Europe. Those Jews would be the survivors of the various pogroms of the Middle Ages. I think it's pretty clear that the ones who survived would have been the most intelligent members of their community, the ones who had the wit to figure out a way to survive, or the money to buy their freedom, like the merchants, and bankers, and physicians, or the rabbis who would have been guarded by their community. Those people then intermarried only with each other.

The selection for intelligence would also have been ongoing, as the persecution followed them to eastern Europe. In addition, I think that the AJ community practiced its own selection. To be a real member of the community, even at that time, you had to be intelligent enough to be able to read from the Torah at your Bar Mitzvah. (This was at a time when the vast majority of Europeans were illiterate.) The high esteem in which the erudite and highly intelligent rabbis were held, and their high reproductive levels is another factor, as has been pointed out by another poster.

(And yes, a group of that size can swell into the millions in 1,000 years. You just need to look at the size of the French Canadian community in relationship to the number of original settlers, or the size of the modern Amish and related communities, and this is after only a few hundred years.)


I personally find it all highly plausible.

There are even general genetic studies (previously discussed on this site) for the proposition that some degree of endogamy does seem to result in higher IQ scores in some groups. As I said, it all depends on the characteristics of the founding population. It can work in the inverse as well.

The endogamy comes with a cost in some cases, however. The AJ community is beset with unusual levels of certain genetic diseases. (as are the French Canadians and the Amish, for that matter.)

Even thought I think it's due to endogamy,I don't think that other environmental factors like oppression had played a role in this since there are so many groups that have been oppressed throughout history,besides neither oppression nor evolution seem to favor intelligent people because the majority ended up burned at the stake for being highly controversial and stubborn.

Maleth
03-07-14, 20:49
Well, thank goodness we have a Maltese who knows his history.:)

Grazie per il compliemnto :)


In terms of autosomal DNA, there is definitely an Ashkenazi "signature" . It's because their founding population was small, and they have been so highly endogamous for at least the last 1000 years. As a result, at 23andme, for example, specifically Ashkenazi ancestry can be found even in someone who is only 1/64 Ashkenazi. They are flooded with RF matches to full Ashkenazim. In fact, based on the proportion of AJ, there is a thread there where people can figure out exactly when the admixture must have happened.There have been quite a few people who suddenly discovered an Ashkenazi grandparent or great grandparent of whom they were previously unaware. After their emancipation and release from the ghettos, some Ashkenazim obviously took the opportunity to "pass". In some cases, it was even an NPE, and it turned out that a biological parent was Ashkenazi. There were some who found the idea untenable, for various reasons, but the data doesn't lie. (The moral of that story is if you don't want to know, don't test.)

Yes I notice these results from other members and they seem more exciting then the ones I got from FTDna. They seem to be more specific. I never got any percentages breakdowns which would have made things a little more interesting. Probably I would need to buy new tests as there are more accurate ones now. Defiantly it gets more interesting the more refined it gets.

AgnusDei
03-07-14, 21:45
As a German, I am allergic to any attempts to assign specific traits to (ethnic) groups for presumed genetic reasons - that line of argument has caused too much disaster in history, especially in recent German history. I don't have problems, however, to state that a specific social situation tends to culturally emphasize certain talents within the group concerned - a process that already starts in early childhood education, with parents encouraging certain behaviour, while discouraging or ignoring some other activities. In Germany, e.g., there are multiple studies, which demonstrate that even today, educational success is closely linked to the parents' educational and professional background (but much less to their income).

In that sense, we may look at the AJ cultural package as follows:

High appreciation of formal education (school, religious studies, academics, etc.);
Strong focus on literacy, including the ability to read several scripts (Latin and Hebrew);
Multi-lingualsm (Yiddish at home, Hebrew in the Synagogue, other languages on the local market or when engaging in longer-distance trade) - note in this respect that linguistic ability / training is typically also linked to musical abilities;
Systematic and relatively early training in text comprehension and interpretation (Thora);
Strong community spirit, orientation on values and ethical norms (including the ability to question such norms);
Attention to financial management, including related algebraic and mathematical skills;
Trained in psychological and social diagnostics (the kids on the street are somehow different, eat other kind of foods, celebrate other holidays, etc.). Note that this is a passive trait. There would typically be little encouragement to "learn to behave like other kids", i.e. actively acquire social and leadership skills that are applicable outside the Jewish community.


All in all a cultural package that should score extremely well in most IQ tests. However, while there is certainly no lack of AJ among distinguished 19th and 20th century scientists, doctors, musicians, authors and bankers, they don't seem to be that well represented in painting, sculpture, engineering, design or architecture. Apparently, manual skills weren't held in particular high esteem within the Jewish community, which of course relates to the fact that from the High Medieval onwards, Ashkenazi Jews were hardly allowed to practice crafts except for jewellery. [This, in turn, related to their specific status outside traditional tribal and city laws, which implied that they could not enter the trade guilds that were established under such laws in the high middle ages.]

I understand and respect your P.C. but science shouldn't be subjective.
The fact that most identical twins reared apart have similar I.Q scores is a strong argument in favor of genetics .

I had also read somewhere that intelligent people don't tend to become artists despite the fact that most of them greatly appreciate art.

LeBrok
04-07-14, 00:43
People keep on calling cave drawings as 'art' as if the cave people were in sofa and having parties and discussing politics. What is discussion or arguing between tribe members, whether they should expend hunting area into other tribe's area, pros and cons, possible war, perhaps voting by tribe members, not politics? It is in simple and primitive form but still politics. And where would be the best place than in this cave/temple around the firepit?


That is not how it was. There were no encyclopedia and no instruction manuals. Their kids were asking questions. The drawings were instruction manuals for the kids and teens for training future hunters. It was a library as it were for the family or community if all a lot of people lived there. It doesn't mean that this manual, or spiritual/animalistic drawings, were not done by artist in form of an art. Your argument doesn't exclude the one you are arguing against.

LeBrok
04-07-14, 01:00
That's a very good observation!
Human selection is indeed a very powerful tool, and for some reasons Askhenzim have been selecting particular traits for hundred of years,in my humble opinion .
What I simply meant is that natural selection is a random and a long process compared with Human selection.
Not completely. The mutation is blind indeed, but selection of mutation is done by environment. Natural one or controlled by humans it doesn't matter. Environment is environment. If the new mutation give a positive survival trait it is duplicated and enforced in new offspring. If not, and sadly and usually it is not, is "weeded" out by dying of individual or lack of offspring, the end of genetic line.


Even thought I think it's due to endogamy,I don't think that other environmental factors like oppression had played a role in this since there are so many groups that have been oppressed throughout history, Not that many were oppressed and persecuted every couple of hundreds of years for 3-4 thousand years, still keeping own language and traditions. Many also gave up under oppression and got assimilated and don't exist anymore. I think we are talking about very unique case.



besides neither oppression nor evolution seem to favor intelligent people because the majority ended up burned at the stake for being highly controversial and stubborn Yes, that's true, but also the wiser ones being usually better off than average, tend having more children surviving and financial ability to send kids to safety if bad times come.

FrankN
04-07-14, 04:42
According to the many plots on this study http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf AJs, Sicilians and Maltese plot between Cypriots and Greeks, I'm pretty sure this is the Lazaridis study.

It's true that we don't know a lot of things and that I'm basically speculating here, hopefully this uncertainty will be clarified soon.
Actually, the study's plots (especially Figure 1b in the Annex) tell a fascinating story - thanks for the link! As so many other studies, it doesn't cover Western-Central Europe (no data from Eastern France/Alsace, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland), so everything relating directly to the Rhineland, and the areas where many Ashkenazi settled in the late middle ages, is again remaining a mystery. Nevertheless, the following becomes clear:

There are three distinct clusters of Jews. One is Yemenite Jews, genetically very close to Bedouins, Palestinians and a subset of Lebanese (no general surprise here, though the fact that the genetic distance between Yemenite Jews and Palestinians is in several cases smaller than, e.g., the distance between people from Bergamo and Tuscany, is a bit astonishing). The second cluster comprises Iraqi, Iranian and Georgian Jews, again very close to each other, as to Druzes (closer to Iraqi Jews) and Armenians (closer to Georgian Jews). The third cluster, finally, is stretched out somewhat further, and made up by North African, Turkish and Ashkenazi Jews. The geometrical centre of these three clusters is - surprise, surprise - somewhere between Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese. However, the three Jewish clusters are more distant from each other than, for example, Finns are from Hungarians, or Icelanders are from (northern) French This seems to indicate a relatively early split of the three lines.
None of the Hungarians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians plots anywhere near Georgian or Iranian Jews. Neither do Georgians or North Caucasians. However, especially Armenians, but also many Turks, plus a single Greek, plot very close to Georgian Jews. I take that as indication of quite a gene flow between Caucasian/ Black Sea Jews and non-Jews during antiquity, but very little thereafter. I think it is also safe to conclude that Khazar Judaism wasn't a mass movement that has substantially shaped the genetic make-up of Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews. Nevertheless, if my eyes don't deceive me (the PDF's resolution isn't very fine, and it is high time for me to start wearing eye-glasses), one or two of the Ashkenazi dots (6-8 in total) seem to cluster together with Iranian Jews. That would mean some, though not the major, contribution of Khazar (Georgian / Iranian) Jews to the Eastern European Jewish community
The Mediterranean Jewish / Ashkenazi cluster is quite spread out between Libyan and Tunisian Jews at one end, and Ashkenazi Jews at the other end. We are talking of a genetic distance here that is similar to the one between Croats and Greeks, or between Basques and Sardinians. Moroccan and Turkish Jews cluster in-between, but the former are closer to Tunisian Jews, and the latter closer to Ashkenazi. So, most likely, there were two migration waves - a Phoenician / Punic one along the southern Mediterranean coast, and a Roman-age one along the northern coast. As Lazaris et al. did not include Iberian Jews, we can speculate which of the two waves was more important there (but I am quite sure both played there roles).
Ashkenazi, finally, plot extremely close to Sicilians, plus that single "South Italian" dot that I have been able to spot. The genetic distance of Ashkenazi to Sicilians is much smaller than their distance to Moroccan Jews, not even speaking of Tunisian Jews. Maltese aren't that distant from Ashkenazi either, but, as we have learnt from Maleth (Ti ringrazio!), Malta has been repopulated from Sicily. Cyprus plots already a bit distant, but still closer than Tunisian Jews. Unsurprisingly, Cypriots and Turkish Jews are quite close to each other (did I say unsurprisingly? Both Turkish and Greek Cypriots are probably going to hate me now...). Anyway, since Ashkenazi must somewhere have learnt German in order to turn it into Yiddish, there should have been substantial migration from Sicily into Germany, and from there towards Eastern Europe. The migration into Germany may have taken place in two waves - one, primarily to the Rhineland, during the 9th/ 10th century, and the second one, more towards Alsace and Swabia, during the Hohenstaufen rule over both Sicilys (13th century). The second wave may have included a "stop-over" in Lucera, which would explain the "South Italian" dot amidst the Ashkenazi cluster. Jewish migration from western Germany, where they were expelled from most cities, into central-eastern Europe alongside German colonists during the mid 14th to 15th century can anyway be regarded as established historical fact.

Mystery solved? Well, I would still like to see some genetic data from the Rhineland, Poland and Galicia analysed together with genes of Ashkenazi and Georgian / Armenian Jews. I also think genes can tell us a bit more about Portuguese Jews, who became major constituents of the Jewish communities of Antwerp, Amsterdam and Hamburg (and at least in Hamburg, the distinction between Ashkenazi and Sephardim disappeared after the Napoleonic emancipation). But otherwise, I personally feel that I now have a relatively good idea of the general patterns.

AgnusDei
04-07-14, 08:14
The reason why Ashkenazim and some Southern Europeans plot together is the combination of Middle Eastern&European genes found in both populations,I know two half Levantine-half euros that plot near Ashkenazim and other SE on McDonald's BGA.

ftDNA had assigned 10% of my DNA to the Jewish Diaspora,it seems like most NA score that much Ashkenazi on 23Andme most likely due to the shared Euro&ME ancestry .

John Doe
04-07-14, 09:02
Actually, the study's plots (especially Figure 1b in the Annex) tell a fascinating story - thanks for the link! As so many other studies, it doesn't cover Western-Central Europe (no data from Eastern France/Alsace, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland), so everything relating directly to the Rhineland, and the areas where many Ashkenazi settled in the late middle ages, is again remaining a mystery. Nevertheless, the following becomes clear:

There are three distinct clusters of Jews. One is Yemenite Jews, genetically very close to Bedouins, Palestinians and a subset of Lebanese (no general surprise here, though the fact that the genetic distance between Yemenite Jews and Palestinians is in several cases smaller than, e.g., the distance between people from Bergamo and Tuscany, is a bit astonishing). The second cluster comprises Iraqi, Iranian and Georgian Jews, again very close to each other, as to Druzes (closer to Iraqi Jews) and Armenians (closer to Georgian Jews). The third cluster, finally, is stretched out somewhat further, and made up by North African, Turkish and Ashkenazi Jews. The geometrical centre of these three clusters is - surprise, surprise - somewhere between Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese. However, the three Jewish clusters are more distant from each other than, for example, Finns are from Hungarians, or Icelanders are from (northern) French This seems to indicate a relatively early split of the three lines.
None of the Hungarians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians plots anywhere near Georgian or Iranian Jews. Neither do Georgians or North Caucasians. However, especially Armenians, but also many Turks, plus a single Greek, plot very close to Georgian Jews. I take that as indication of quite a gene flow between Caucasian/ Black Sea Jews and non-Jews during antiquity, but very little thereafter. I think it is also safe to conclude that Khazar Judaism wasn't a mass movement that has substantially shaped the genetic make-up of Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews. Nevertheless, if my eyes don't deceive me (the PDF's resolution isn't very fine, and it is high time for me to start wearing eye-glasses), one or two of the Ashkenazi dots (6-8 in total) seem to cluster together with Iranian Jews. That would mean some, though not the major, contribution of Khazar (Georgian / Iranian) Jews to the Eastern European Jewish community
The Mediterranean Jewish / Ashkenazi cluster is quite spread out between Libyan and Tunisian Jews at one end, and Ashkenazi Jews at the other end. We are talking of a genetic distance here that is similar to the one between Croats and Greeks, or between Basques and Sardinians. Moroccan and Turkish Jews cluster in-between, but the former are closer to Tunisian Jews, and the latter closer to Ashkenazi. So, most likely, there were two migration waves - a Phoenician / Punic one along the southern Mediterranean coast, and a Roman-age one along the northern coast. As Lazaris et al. did not include Iberian Jews, we can speculate which of the two waves was more important there (but I am quite sure both played there roles).
Ashkenazi, finally, plot extremely close to Sicilians, plus that single "South Italian" dot that I have been able to spot. The genetic distance of Ashkenazi to Sicilians is much smaller than their distance to Moroccan Jews, not even speaking of Tunisian Jews. Maltese aren't that distant from Ashkenazi either, but, as we have learnt from Maleth (Ti ringrazio!), Malta has been repopulated from Sicily. Cyprus plots already a bit distant, but still closer than Tunisian Jews. Unsurprisingly, Cypriots and Turkish Jews are quite close to each other (did I say unsurprisingly? Both Turkish and Greek Cypriots are probably going to hate me now...). Anyway, since Ashkenazi must somewhere have learnt German in order to turn it into Yiddish, there should have been substantial migration from Sicily into Germany, and from there towards Eastern Europe. The migration into Germany may have taken place in two waves - one, primarily to the Rhineland, during the 9th/ 10th century, and the second one, more towards Alsace and Swabia, during the Hohenstaufen rule over both Sicilys (13th century). The second wave may have included a "stop-over" in Lucera, which would explain the "South Italian" dot amidst the Ashkenazi cluster. Jewish migration from western Germany, where they were expelled from most cities, into central-eastern Europe alongside German colonists during the mid 14th to 15th century can anyway be regarded as established historical fact.

Mystery solved? Well, I would still like to see some genetic data from the Rhineland, Poland and Galicia analysed together with genes of Ashkenazi and Georgian / Armenian Jews. I also think genes can tell us a bit more about Portuguese Jews, who became major constituents of the Jewish communities of Antwerp, Amsterdam and Hamburg (and at least in Hamburg, the distinction between Ashkenazi and Sephardim disappeared after the Napoleonic emancipation). But otherwise, I personally feel that I now have a relatively good idea of the general patterns.


Very interesting. The cluster of AJs, Turkish Jews and North African Jews, however distant and large, indicates I guess a common Pre Islamic Canaanite/Phoenician common ancestry. Let's not forget that AJs, Sicilians and Maltese plot in the East Mediterranean in the gap between Europe and the Middle East, perhaps suggesting mainland European ancestry which shifted them northward, even so, the fact that they lack WHG ancestry, the main ancestry that really unites all Europeans, puts into doubt admixture from interior European populations, perhaps suggesting a Pre Slavic Hellenic population which lacked WHG ancestry, even so, the shared ancient Near Eastern ancestry of all European Mediterranean populations, and AJs, Maltese and Sicilians in particular due to the lack of WHG ancestry, is visible to the eye.

Maleth
04-07-14, 09:49
Dr Cassar explained that Maltese surnames may easily be divided into three surname groups: Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew), Romance (mainly Italian, Sicilian, Spanish and French), and English (as well as Scottish, Irish and Welsh). Today one also has to factor in other European and international family names which accumulated through recent ethnic intermarriages.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140209/local/Why-most-Maltese-share-the-same-100-surnames.506018

The top 10 surnames in Malta make around 25% of the population and all names are listed in high medieval times and deep rooted in Maltese society. These are the results we have so far:-






G2a x 2






I2b x 2




R1b x2




J x1



E-V13 x1
Not tested x2

oriental
07-07-14, 22:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWXCLQ3DBqw

JS Bach
09-07-14, 07:24
After looking at these ADMIXTURE results for k=13: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=24 I now agree less with the other posts I made in this thread. It does seem to me now that Ashkenazi Jews cluster close to Sicilians. Sicily was invaded by Normans about 1000 years ago, so maybe some of that 16.5% "North European" component is from that source. However, the similar amount of "North European" in Ashkenazi Jews I would think was from some different populations. Sephardic Jews show as 9.2% "North European" there. Having some Ashkenazi ancestry myself, I'll be interested to see what finer dna resolution will show in the future.

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 02:38
Actually, the study's plots (especially Figure 1b in the Annex) tell a fascinating story - thanks for the link! As so many other studies, it doesn't cover Western-Central Europe (no data from Eastern France/Alsace, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland), so everything relating directly to the Rhineland, and the areas where many Ashkenazi settled in the late middle ages, is again remaining a mystery. Nevertheless, the following becomes clear:

There are three distinct clusters of Jews. One is Yemenite Jews, genetically very close to Bedouins, Palestinians and a subset of Lebanese (no general surprise here, though the fact that the genetic distance between Yemenite Jews and Palestinians is in several cases smaller than, e.g., the distance between people from Bergamo and Tuscany, is a bit astonishing). The second cluster comprises Iraqi, Iranian and Georgian Jews, again very close to each other, as to Druzes (closer to Iraqi Jews) and Armenians (closer to Georgian Jews). The third cluster, finally, is stretched out somewhat further, and made up by North African, Turkish and Ashkenazi Jews. The geometrical centre of these three clusters is - surprise, surprise - somewhere between Palestinians, Jordanians and Lebanese. However, the three Jewish clusters are more distant from each other than, for example, Finns are from Hungarians, or Icelanders are from (northern) French This seems to indicate a relatively early split of the three lines.
None of the Hungarians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians plots anywhere near Georgian or Iranian Jews. Neither do Georgians or North Caucasians. However, especially Armenians, but also many Turks, plus a single Greek, plot very close to Georgian Jews. I take that as indication of quite a gene flow between Caucasian/ Black Sea Jews and non-Jews during antiquity, but very little thereafter. I think it is also safe to conclude that Khazar Judaism wasn't a mass movement that has substantially shaped the genetic make-up of Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews. Nevertheless, if my eyes don't deceive me (the PDF's resolution isn't very fine, and it is high time for me to start wearing eye-glasses), one or two of the Ashkenazi dots (6-8 in total) seem to cluster together with Iranian Jews. That would mean some, though not the major, contribution of Khazar (Georgian / Iranian) Jews to the Eastern European Jewish community
The Mediterranean Jewish / Ashkenazi cluster is quite spread out between Libyan and Tunisian Jews at one end, and Ashkenazi Jews at the other end. We are talking of a genetic distance here that is similar to the one between Croats and Greeks, or between Basques and Sardinians. Moroccan and Turkish Jews cluster in-between, but the former are closer to Tunisian Jews, and the latter closer to Ashkenazi. So, most likely, there were two migration waves - a Phoenician / Punic one along the southern Mediterranean coast, and a Roman-age one along the northern coast. As Lazaris et al. did not include Iberian Jews, we can speculate which of the two waves was more important there (but I am quite sure both played there roles).
Ashkenazi, finally, plot extremely close to Sicilians, plus that single "South Italian" dot that I have been able to spot. The genetic distance of Ashkenazi to Sicilians is much smaller than their distance to Moroccan Jews, not even speaking of Tunisian Jews. Maltese aren't that distant from Ashkenazi either, but, as we have learnt from Maleth (Ti ringrazio!), Malta has been repopulated from Sicily. Cyprus plots already a bit distant, but still closer than Tunisian Jews. Unsurprisingly, Cypriots and Turkish Jews are quite close to each other (did I say unsurprisingly? Both Turkish and Greek Cypriots are probably going to hate me now...). Anyway, since Ashkenazi must somewhere have learnt German in order to turn it into Yiddish, there should have been substantial migration from Sicily into Germany, and from there towards Eastern Europe. The migration into Germany may have taken place in two waves - one, primarily to the Rhineland, during the 9th/ 10th century, and the second one, more towards Alsace and Swabia, during the Hohenstaufen rule over both Sicilys (13th century). The second wave may have included a "stop-over" in Lucera, which would explain the "South Italian" dot amidst the Ashkenazi cluster. Jewish migration from western Germany, where they were expelled from most cities, into central-eastern Europe alongside German colonists during the mid 14th to 15th century can anyway be regarded as established historical fact.

Mystery solved? Well, I would still like to see some genetic data from the Rhineland, Poland and Galicia analysed together with genes of Ashkenazi and Georgian / Armenian Jews. I also think genes can tell us a bit more about Portuguese Jews, who became major constituents of the Jewish communities of Antwerp, Amsterdam and Hamburg (and at least in Hamburg, the distinction between Ashkenazi and Sephardim disappeared after the Napoleonic emancipation). But otherwise, I personally feel that I now have a relatively good idea of the general patterns.

I'm ready to bet that the only reason for the gap between Tunisian/Moroccan/Libyan Jews and Ashkenazim is entirely due to North African admixture.
Indeed, if you include NA populations (such as Mozabites) there's a clear cline of NA Jews towards these populations, suggesting admixture which makes sense given that Tunisian & Libyan Jews were amongst the first Jews to settle this area, with the Carthaginians thus giving them plenty of time to mix with neighbouring Berbers (there was a Judaic trend for quite some time and many Berber tribes eventually converted to Judaism).

This is easily picked up by most calculators and there is a non-negligible amount of IBD sharing between NA Jews and Mozabites for instance.
Moroccan & Algerian Jews seem to have absorbed much less admixture and might have more actual Sephardic ancestry per se.

Turkish Jews basically haven't changed much since their ancestors left the Iberian peninsula, and they overlap with French & Ashkenazi Jews accordingly so.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the diaspora's forefathers plotted around Turkish Jews, who happen to overlap with Ashkenazim.
If you put all Western Jewish populations on a PCA plot, there's a clear cline of all Jewish groups towards Lebanese-leaning Cypriots... And if you ask me, I think that's where pre-exilic Judeans plotted.

Yemeni Jews probably have more Arabian ancestry than anything else, and if you ask me they're very good proxies for what the Arabian peninsula looked like prior to Islam... Actually, they're the best we've got so far, since they've remained endogamous ever since (this also explains why Palestinians, Jordanians, Negev Bedouins etc cline towards Yemeni Jews).
If there's a case to be made for mass conversion, it would lie with Teymanim/Yemeni Jews.


Mizrahim seem to have absorbed a lot of Mesopotamian DNA, this is both apparent in their autosomal DNA & uniparental lineages. This is why they plot with Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox christians... Here again, we're dealing with communities which have been in Mesopotamia-Iran (and the Caucasus later on) for a very long time (at least since the Babylonian exile).
I do have Mizrahi relatives so they obviously have retained some of the original Israelite admixture... Still, I think the Mesopotamian contribution to Mizrahi Jews is greatly underestimated.

^^ These are all educated guesses, I could be wrong... Needless to say, I'd be rather surprised if I really were wrong.

I'd be very cautious with any model implying high amounts of European ancestry, unless you can explain the insane paucity of WHG.

FrankN
11-07-14, 14:26
I'm ready to bet that the only reason for the gap between Tunisian/Moroccan/Libyan Jews and Ashkenazim is entirely due to North African admixture.
Indeed, if you include NA populations (such as Mozabites) there's a clear cline of NA Jews towards these populations, suggesting admixture which makes sense given that Tunisian & Libyan Jews were amongst the first Jews to settle this area, with the Carthaginians thus giving them plenty of time to mix with neighbouring Berbers (there was a Judaic trend for quite some time and many Berber tribes eventually converted to Judaism).

This is easily picked up by most calculators and there is a non-negligible amount of IBD sharing between NA Jews and Mozabites for instance.
Moroccan & Algerian Jews seem to have absorbed much less admixture and might have more actual Sephardic ancestry per se.
Below is a representation of Lazarides' admixture results, copied from http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29705-Corded-Ware-Iranic-Aryan-split-of-IE/page11?p=434227#post434227 (poster Alan).
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png
I am not sure where it comes from. It is not part of Lazarides' original study, the colouring differs from Lazarides' admixture graphs, and the legend uses terminology (yDNA hgs) not used by Lazarides. Maybe Alan wants to give more detail on his source. Nevertheless, visual comparison suggests that the admixtures are at least very similar to those in Lazarides' original plots, so for the time being I take it as a fair representation of Lazarides' results.
And, in fact, the main difference between AJ and those from the South Mediterranean appears to be that the latter have picked up quite some Mozabite genes. AJ also have a bit of Mozabite genes, but far less. Instead, they have picked up quite some North European genes (mid-blue, peak in Fenno-Scandians and Balts), plus a tiny dose of dark blue North Eurasian genes (peak in Nganasan). The latter suggests some, very limited additional admixture in Eastern Europe. The Fenno-Scandian component is extremely close to the one found in Sicilians and Maltese, and may relate to various admixtures in the region, including (but most likely not restricted to) the Norman conquest of Sicily in the 10th century AD.


Turkish Jews basically haven't changed much since their ancestors left the Iberian peninsula, and they overlap with French & Ashkenazi Jews accordingly so.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the diaspora's forefathers plotted around Turkish Jews, who happen to overlap with Ashkenazim.
If you put all Western Jewish populations on a PCA plot, there's a clear cline of all Jewish groups towards Lebanese-leaning Cypriots... And if you ask me, I think that's where pre-exilic Judeans plotted.
I think you are overlooking the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Jews_from_Sicily

At the time of expulsion from Sicily, the Jewish community in Sicily dated back to early Roman times, and they were relatively untroubled on the island until the acceptance of the Crown of Aragon in Sicily in 1412. A great number of Jews had reached Sicily after Pompey's 63 BC sacking of Jerusalem, and additionally by Roman Proconsul Crassus, who is traditionally said to have sold more than 30,000 Jewish slaves on the island.
After the enslavement under Roman rule, Jews in Sicily eventually assimilated into society, working in professions such as philosophy, medicine, artisanal pursuits, and farming.

The exact number of Jews in Sicily at the time of expulsion is not certain, However, some have put the number of Jewish refugees at 36,000.[1] Also, in 1492, it is known the Jewish populations of Palermo, Messina, and several other cities were considerable, and that there were Giudeccas, or Jewish settlements, in over 50 places in Sicily, ranging in anywhere population from 350 to 5,000. At their height, Jewish Sicilians probably constituted from five to eight percent of the island's population.[2]

In 1492, as part of an attempt to maintain Catholic orthodoxy and purify their kingdom of Moorish influence, Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the forced expulsion or conversion of all Jews on pain of death. The date of the expulsion was extended from 18 September 1492 to 12 January 1493, in order to allow the extortion of opportunist tax levies. Many Sicilian Jews fled to neighboring Calabria where the Spanish Inquisition caught up with them again fifty years later. Not all of the Sicilian Jews departed. A large number of Sicily's Jews converted to Catholicism and remained on the island.

Actually, the Jewish population share might have been much larger. There is a high medieval petition by Jews from a Sicilian city (Catania? - I really should bookmark everything I read!) to adjust their tax due to their population share of 11%. In Southern Italy, especially Calabria, there have been many exclusively Jewish agricultural communities, and one paper puts the share of Jews among medieval Calabrians as high as 50%. Note in this respect that we are not talking "some Mediterranean island" here. Italian and German Wikipedia put Palermo's population under Arab rule (late 9th/ early 10th century) at 300,000. Other sources are more conservative, but there seems to be consensus that Arab Palermo had more than 100,000 inhabitants and equalled Byzantium in size. In spite of obvious population decline, mid-15th century Palermo is still believed to be among the top 10 European cities with a population close to 50,000. Naples had gained similar size by then, and Syracuse may not have been much smaller.
As is indicated by Paulus' missioning, Judaism enjoyed quite a popularity in the hellenisized population of the Roman empire. As such, it wouldn't be surprising if many Southern Italians had voluntarily adopted Judaism already by the time of Paulus' missioning. And, under Arab rule, it was probably better to be a Jew than to continue believing in ancient Greek gods. Or, put differently: If "Catholic" means Spanish/ Roman, "Orthodox" means Byzantine, and "Muslim" means Arab, what do you take for "None of the above" (e.g. former Greek colonists, or post-Vandal ex-Arianist, or "I want my good old Staufen emperors back, not these Spanish papist a..h..s")? Essentially, what I am trying to say is that there were probably hardly barriers to genetic exchange between Sicilian / South Italian Jews and non-Jews between antiquity and the end of Hohenstaufen rule around 1,300 AD, and Lazarides' results support this hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Sicily

The exiles found protection under Ferdinand I of Naples in Apulia, Calabria and Naples. On the death of Ferdinand in 1494, Charles VIII of France invaded Naples. At that time a serious disease, known as "French fly," broke out in that region, and the responsibility for the outbreak was fixed upon the Jews, who were accordingly driven out of the Kingdom of Naples. They then sought refuge in Turkish territory, and settled chiefly in Constantinople, Damascus, Salonica, and Cairo. To remain in Sicily, a significant number of Sicily's Jewish population converted to Catholicism. Many of these converts remained Crypto-Jews, known as neofiti.

I think that explains why AJ/ Sicilians are quite close to Turkiish Jews, and especially the well-visible fenno-scandian and Mozabite elements in the latter's gene pool, both of which are almost completely absent in Mesopotamian / Caucasian Jews. Cypriots are quite different from Turkish Jews: Much more Caucaso-Gedrosian, no Maozabites, and just a little fenno-scandian element (which might, among others, relate to survivors from the Crusaders' states settling there).


Mizrahim seem to have absorbed a lot of Mesopotamian DNA, this is both apparent in their autosomal DNA & uniparental lineages. This is why they plot with Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox christians... Here again, we're dealing with communities which have been in Mesopotamia-Iran (and the Caucasus later on) for a very long time (at least since the Babylonian exile).
I do have Mizrahi relatives so they obviously have retained some of the original Israelite admixture... Still, I think the Mesopotamian contribution to Mizrahi Jews is greatly underestimated.
Some Georgian Jewish communities (e.g. the one in Kutaisi) claim direct descent from the first diaspora, and it is said that some Jews released from the Babylon exile went to Georgia instead of returning to Jerusalem. Considering archaeological evidence of copper trade from the Caucasus into today's Israel since almost 10,000 years, I think there is quite a likelihood of Mesopotamian and Caucasian Jewish communities having been established more or less simultaneously. There has obviously been strong interaction between both areas, not only during Khazar times, but also as Persians have over several periods in antiquity, and in the late Medieval, controlled part or all of the area south of the Greater Caucasus. Moreover, as I have reported in a previous post, a substantial number of Georgian Jews were deported into Iran in the 17th century. So, speculation on Caucasian-Mesopotamian genetic interchange, including the effects on the area's Jewish community, may turn into an "hen and egg" question. Lazarides' admixture analysis clusters them both as Caucaso-Gedrosian.
Iranians appear to incorporate some South Asian (light green) element, traces of which may be also spotted among Georgian and Iranian, but not Iraqian Jews. That would rather speak for gene flow from the Iranian plateau than from Mesopotamia into Mirzahi Jews. In any case, what distinguishes all Jewish populations most strongly from their host populations is elevated "Bedouin 2" genes. If I recall correctly, that would be Bedouins from the Sinai. Apparently, (proto-) Jews spent more than just 40 years walking through the desert.....


I'd be very cautious with any model implying high amounts of European ancestry, unless you can explain the insane paucity of WHG.
Indeed, Lazarides' results point at a pretty straight migration of AJ from Sicily into Eastern Europe (though it still would have been nice to have had some Rhineland data for comparison). Strangely, while the biographies of various noted South Italian Jewish scholars demonstrate emigration towards Northern Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean, there is hardly any historical evidence for emigration into Eastern Europe. Might we have had two distinct patterns - the South Italian Jewish urban elite settling in other larger cities, and the Jewish artisan/ farmers rather going into the (newly colonised) Eastern European countryside? That would still leave unanswered why AJ spoke Yiddish, and not some mix of Hebrew and South Italian.

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 15:20
Once more, the main problem with a model proposing such a high amount of alledgedly Mesolithic European ancestry is the paucity (not so say absence) of WHG.
Another problem we face is the lack of IBD sharing between Jews & Italians, that's the most problematic part of the story if you ask me.

I'd take Alan's K20 admix with a few tons of salt if I were you, not exactly the gospel so to speak.

Also, there is no archeologic evidence for the Exodus, so it's highly unlikely that the Proto-Israelites spent 40 years in the desert... In fact, the present concensus is that the Israelites were Canaanites themselves.
What might've happened is that they incorporated the neighbouring Shasu cattle nomads (resulting in high frequencies of J1 & E-M34?).

Finally, I wouldn't assume a 1/1 correlation between genes and language, though there are some fits they simply don't work the same way.
All in all, I think Cyprus might've retained much of the pre-Islamic Levant's genetic make up, and this would explain why Western (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, etc) and Iraqi Jews cline towards Lebanese-leaning Cypriots.

Pax Augusta
11-07-14, 16:19
The top 10 surnames in Malta make around 25% of the population and all names are listed in high medieval times and deep rooted in Maltese society. These are the results we have so far:-






G2a x 2






I2b x 2




R1b x2



J x1


E-V13 x1
Not tested x2

































Thanks, Maleth.

John Doe
11-07-14, 17:30
Once more, the main problem with a model proposing such a high amount of alledgedly Mesolithic European ancestry is the paucity (not so say absence) of WHG.
Another problem we face is the lack of IBD sharing between Jews & Italians, that's the most problematic part of the story if you ask me.

I'd take Alan's K20 admix with a few tons of salt if I were you, not exactly the gospel so to speak.

Also, there is no archeologic evidence for the Exodus, so it's highly unlikely that the Proto-Israelites spent 40 years in the desert... In fact, the present concensus is that the Israelites were Canaanites themselves.
What might've happened is that they incorporated the neighbouring Shasu cattle nomads (resulting in high frequencies of J1 & E-M34?).

Finally, I wouldn't assume a 1/1 correlation between genes and language, though there are some fits they simply don't work the same way.
All in all, I think Cyprus might've retained much of the pre-Islamic Levant's genetic make up, and this would explain why Western (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, etc) and Iraqi Jews cline towards Lebanese-leaning Cypriots.

I thought Ashkenazis plot along with Sicilians and Maltese, in the gap between Cypriots and Greeks, the gap between Europe and the Near East, not next to Cypriots. I wonder why Sicilians and Maltese have no WHG either.

FrankN
11-07-14, 18:55
Once more, the main problem with a model proposing such a high amount of alledgedly Mesolithic European ancestry is the paucity (not so say absence) of WHG.Another problem we face is the lack of IBD sharing between Jews & Italians, that's the most problematic part of the story if you ask me.I'd take Alan's K20 admix with a few tons of salt if I were you, not exactly the gospel so to speak.Also, there is no archeologic evidence for the Exodus, so it's highly unlikely that the Proto-Israelites spent 40 years in the desert... In fact, the present concensus is that the Israelites were Canaanites themselves.What might've happened is that they incorporated the neighbouring Shasu cattle nomads (resulting in high frequencies of J1 & E-M34?).Finally, I wouldn't assume a 1/1 correlation between genes and language, though there are some fits they simply don't work the same way.All in all, I think Cyprus might've retained much of the pre-Islamic Levant's genetic make up, and this would explain why Western (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian, etc) and Iraqi Jews cline towards Lebanese-leaning Cypriots.Whether it's Alan's admix, the original Lazarides one (as I said- on visual inspection identical to Alan's, you just can't spot smaller admixture elements that well there), or the admix Excel table that JS Bach has linked to, they all show AJs genetically very close to Sicilians, and further away from Cypriots. Below are, for easy comparison, the respective results from JS Bach's table (smaller admix components combined; AJ1 from Dodecad, AJ2 from Behar):



Component



AJ1



AJ2



Sic



Cyp



Pal



Mediterranean (peak: Basques)

37.8

37.5

40.4

36.6

25.6



SW Asian (peak: Yemen Jews)

20.6

20.4

17.6

23.9

36.4



W Asian (peak: Georgians)

22.4

23.1

23.7

33.6

29.2



North European (peak: Lithuanians)

16.7

16.0

16.5

5.1

0.7



Arctic, Siberian, Amerindian, East Asian

1.4

1.8

0.2





E African, Australasian

1.1

1.3

1.1

0.8

4.6



W African, Paleo-African



0.4


2.8



S Asian (peak: Paniya)





0.6











Clearly, AJ are as "northern European" as Sicilians, and much more than Cypriots. Whether that means they were originally like the Cypriots, and picked up another 10% of "northern Europeaness" in the Rhineland & CE Europe (JS Bach's assumption), or obtained that mix in Sicily / Southern Italy, and maintained it mostly unchanged, except for a bit of North Eurasian inflow, in CE Europe - who knows. Admixture analysis can't tell it.

I don't get the WHG argument, but that may be because I don't think you can trace such old ancestry via admix analysis. Over the last 8,000 years, mankind has grown from a few 100,000 to close to 10 billion - just too much additional genetic diversity to find that handful of original HGs in the mix. I mean, look at that tiny "Australasian" element that always pops up alongside "East African", even in cases (e.g. AJ) where such an admixture is extremely implausible. Of course, there are very basal, Palaeolithic lines that East Africans and Australasians (and for all we know, all other humans) share. For some reason, admix analysis seems to recognise these lines as Australasian instead of East African. In a similar way, European Mesolithic ancestry gets somehow pooled into "Mediterranean" and/ or "North European" (probably into both), but that does not mean that every "North European" has Mesolithic ancestors.

I certainly don't believe that genes and language are 1/1 correlated. Otherwise, Germany would have around 1/3 each speakers of German, Celtic and Slavic, with the remainder speaking Latin. Those figures actually represent quite well what was going on German territory at certain points during the last 3,000 years, but they are linguistically absolutely meaningless today. My point was simply that AJ must have learnt (Middle Low) German somewhere before turning it into Yiddish, and that was most likely neither on Cyprus nor on Sicily...

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 20:53
I thought Ashkenazis plot along with Sicilians and Maltese, in the gap between Cypriots and Greeks, the gap between Europe and the Near East, not next to Cypriots. I wonder why Sicilians and Maltese have no WHG either.

They do plot with them, between Greeks & Cypriots. In the meantime, they cline towards Cypriots like most Jewish populations (even Iraqi Jews) for that matter... Which is suggestive of some sort of divergence from a source population lying at the end of this cline.

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 21:05
Whether it's Alan's admix, the original Lazarides one (as I said- on visual inspection identical to Alan's, you just can't spot smaller admixture elements that well there), or the admix Excel table that JS Bach has linked to, they all show AJs genetically very close to Sicilians, and further away from Cypriots. Below are, for easy comparison, the respective results from JS Bach's table (smaller admix components combined; AJ1 from Dodecad, AJ2 from Behar):



Component

AJ1


AJ2


Sic


Cyp


Pal



Mediterranean (peak: Basques)
37.8
37.5
40.4
36.6
25.6


SW Asian (peak: Yemen Jews)
20.6
20.4
17.6
23.9
36.4


W Asian (peak: Georgians)
22.4
23.1
23.7
33.6
29.2


North European (peak: Lithuanians)

16.7
16.0
16.5

5.1


0.7



Arctic, Siberian, Amerindian, East Asian

1.4


1.8


0.2





E African, Australasian

1.1


1.3


1.1


0.8


4.6



W African, Paleo-African



0.4



2.8



S Asian (peak: Paniya)





0.6











Clearly, AJ are as "northern European" as Sicilians, and much more than Cypriots. Whether that means they were originally like the Cypriots, and picked up another 10% of "northern Europeaness" in the Rhineland & CE Europe (JS Bach's assumption), or obtained that mix in Sicily / Southern Italy, and maintained it mostly unchanged, except for a bit of North Eurasian inflow, in CE Europe - who knows. Admixture analysis can't tell it.

I don't get the WHG argument, but that may be because I don't think you can trace such old ancestry via admix analysis. Over the last 8,000 years, mankind has grown from a few 100,000 to close to 10 billion - just too much additional genetic diversity to find that handful of original HGs in the mix. I mean, look at that tiny "Australasian" element that always pops up alongside "East African", even in cases (e.g. AJ) where such an admixture is extremely implausible. Of course, there are very basal, Palaeolithic lines that East Africans and Australasians (and for all we know, all other humans) share. For some reason, admix analysis seems to recognise these lines as Australasian instead of East African. In a similar way, European Mesolithic ancestry gets somehow pooled into "Mediterranean" and/ or "North European" (probably into both), but that does not mean that every "North European" has Mesolithic ancestors.

I certainly don't believe that genes and language are 1/1 correlated. Otherwise, Germany would have around 1/3 each speakers of German, Celtic and Slavic, with the remainder speaking Latin. Those figures actually represent quite well what was going on German territory at certain points during the last 3,000 years, but they are linguistically absolutely meaningless today. My point was simply that AJ must have learnt (Middle Low) German somewhere before turning it into Yiddish, and that was most likely neither on Cyprus nor on Sicily...

The K20 analysis makes little sense since the components are derived from WHG, ANE, EEF, BE, ENA, etc... Which is why these ancestral components are so crucial to our understanding.
The paucity of WHG in Jews makes any amount of Northern European ancestry highly doubtful, unless you're willing to count the WHG contained within EEF... And even then, you'd have to weed it out perfectly so as to avoid mixing it up with other HG components.
I seriously doubt Cypriots have any Northern European ancestry, especially since they get negative WHG scores.

The lack of WHG in Ashkenazim above noise level is the biggest problem with any model implying a high amount of N. Euro admixture.

As you pointed out, Yiddish is merely Middle Low German infused with Hebrew & Aramaic expressions written in the Aramaic script... Which fits precisely in the pattern of Jewish languages, consider Ladino for instance, pretty much the same story, yet another language frozen in time with Hebrew & Aramaic expressions.
Same thing for Judaeo-Arabic, Judaeo-Berber, Judaeo-Georgian and so on.
So Yiddish isn't really that odd, it merely reflects classic linguistic patterns Jews exhibit in diaspora.

FrankN
11-07-14, 21:56
The K20 analysis makes little sense since the components are derived from WHG, ANE, EEF, BE, ENA, etc... Which is why these ancestral components are so crucial to our understanding.The paucity of WHG in Jews makes any amount of Northern European ancestry highly doubtful, unless you're willing to count the WHG contained within EEF... And even then, you'd have to weed it out perfectly so as to avoid mixing it up with other HG components.Considering that Sardinians are the prototypical EEF (80% or so) - yes, I think that a lot of Cantabrian LGM refuge HG DNA is contained within EEF. Sardinians were ne ver really famous for farming. Instead, they exported their obsidian across most of the Western Mediterranean during the early Neolithic, and supplied their copper to most of Europe, including Scandinavia and Greece, during the Bronze Age. So, to me, EEF looks more like EEMT (Early European Miner & Trader). And that might blend quite well into Jewish traditions (the trading part more than the mining part, obviously). Remembering furthermore that a good part of the show was later on run by Phoenicians and Punics, the link gets even more obvious.

North Europeans, especially those in the admix in my table above, which peak in Lithuanians, are some kind of mix of Steppe people, NHG (the Motala DNA, not considered further by Lazarides), HG from the Pontic refuge, and those early farmers that didn't enter Europe along the Mediterranean coast, but along the Danube (split at latest around 6.500 BC, sufficient to develop a different genetic profile). They would have come to the Mediterranean as retired Germanic / British / Belgian legionnaires, with the Goths and Vandals, as Varangian traders, Normans, and Crusaders. Possibly, the Celtic incursion into the Balkans and Anatolia in the 4th century BC, and Avars and Slavs on / near the Dalmatian coast also played a role. And, don't forget that the Motala NHGs had yDNA I2a-Din, which today peaks on the Dalmatian coast. Some of these "North Europeans" must have gotten there rather early, or the other way round - anyway, "North European" has quite a bit of Balkan in it.

John Doe
11-07-14, 21:57
They do plot with them, between Greeks & Cypriots. In the meantime, they cline towards Cypriots like most Jewish populations (even Iraqi Jews) for that matter... Which is suggestive of some sort of divergence from a source population lying at the end of this cline.

I see. I heard that that divergence between Ashkenazi/Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews happened around 2,500 years ago in the Middle east/Mesopotamia, perhaps during the Babylonian captivity?

John Doe
11-07-14, 22:00
The K20 analysis makes little sense since the components are derived from WHG, ANE, EEF, BE, ENA, etc... Which is why these ancestral components are so crucial to our understanding.
The paucity of WHG in Jews makes any amount of Northern European ancestry highly doubtful, unless you're willing to count the WHG contained within EEF... And even then, you'd have to weed it out perfectly so as to avoid mixing it up with other HG components.
I seriously doubt Cypriots have any Northern European ancestry, especially since they get negative WHG scores.

The lack of WHG in Ashkenazim above noise level is the biggest problem with any model implying a high amount of N. Euro admixture.

As you pointed out, Yiddish is merely Middle Low German infused with Hebrew & Aramaic expressions written in the Aramaic script... Which fits precisely in the pattern of Jewish languages, consider Ladino for instance, pretty much the same story, yet another language frozen in time with Hebrew & Aramaic expressions.
Same thing for Judaeo-Arabic, Judaeo-Berber, Judaeo-Georgian and so on.
So Yiddish isn't really that odd, it merely reflects classic linguistic patterns Jews exhibit in diaspora.

The authors of the study did say that the WHG component isn't exactly absent from Ashkenazi Jews/Maltese/Sicilians, but that it's inside the EEF ancestry.
As for the second part, it's true, Yiddish is basically Judeo-German, just like there's Judeo-French, Judeo-Provence, Judeo-Latin, Judeo-Greek etc.

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 22:34
I see. I heard that that divergence between Ashkenazi/Sephardi Jews and Mizrahi Jews happened around 2,500 years ago in the Middle east/Mesopotamia, perhaps during the Babylonian captivity?

Indeed, the Babylonian captivity probably resulted in the current split we can observe between Mizrahim & Western Jews... That's the best explanation as to why they overlap with Assyrians & Syriac Orthodox christians.

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 22:40
The authors of the study did say that the WHG component isn't exactly absent from Ashkenazi Jews/Maltese/Sicilians, but that it's inside the EEF ancestry.
As for the second part, it's true, Yiddish is basically Judeo-German, just like there's Judeo-French, Judeo-Provence, Judeo-Latin, Judeo-Greek etc.

Absolutely, yet the fact that WHG doesn't actually show up per se in AJs/Maltese/Sicilians is very troubling, since other Near Eastern populations also end up having high amounts of EEF even though we're pretty much sure they don't have any WHG. In some populations, WHG are even negative... Populations such as Cypriots for instance (or N. Caucasians).

Either way, if we are to quantify the total amount of WHG in Jews we barely end up with an amount warranting any large-scale N. Euro contribution. Which is why I think most of the admixture took place in the Eastern Mediterranean (there clearly was a lot of intermarriage going on prior to the Tanna'im's shift to matrilineal descent, which led to the emergence of sizeable Jewish communities in the Mediterranean along with the subsequent Kitos war).

As I said, Yiddish is underwhelmingly normal in regards to other Jewish languages, it's basically the same story in a different place from a purely linguistic POV.

John Doe
11-07-14, 22:55
Either way, if we are to quantify the total amount of WHG in Jews we barely end up with an amount warranting any large-scale N. Euro contribution. Which is why I think most of the admixture took place in the Eastern Mediterranean (there clearly was a lot of intermarriage going on prior to the Tanna'im's shift to matrilineal descent, which led to the emergence of sizeable Jewish communities in the Mediterranean along with the subsequent Kitos war).

Which leads us back to the high possibility of the European admixture in Western Jews (as well as Sicilians and Maltese) being mainly pre Slavic migration Hellenistic East Mediterranean like pre Slavic migration Hellenistic period South Greeks or Pre Slavic migration Hellenistic Greek Islanders, as a reminder, during that time many Jews followed the Hellenistic denomination of Judaism, known as "Hellenistic Judaism" (which tried to mix Jewish and Greek religious and philosophical outlooks yet falling short of completely severing the Jewish roots as Christianity did later), the day to day languages of most Jews by that time were Aramaic and Greek, and usually many Jews back then had both Hebrew and Greek names, and of course the fact that back then Judaism passed from the Dad, making it much easier to marry non Jewish women, and in this case, possibly Greek women.



Indeed, the Babylonian captivity probably resulted in the current split we can observe between Mizrahim & Western Jews... That's the best explanation as to why they overlap with Assyrians & Syriac Orthodox christians.

Thanks for the clarification. BTW when you said "That's the best explanation as to why they overlap with Assyrians & Syriac Orthodox Christians" did you imply the Mizrahis when you said "they"?

Semitic Duwa
11-07-14, 23:45
Which leads us back to the high possibility of the European admixture in Western Jews (as well as Sicilians and Maltese) being mainly pre Slavic migration Hellenistic East Mediterranean like pre Slavic migration Hellenistic period South Greeks or Pre Slavic migration Hellenistic Greek Islanders, as a reminder, during that time many Jews followed the Hellenistic denomination of Judaism, known as "Hellenistic Judaism" (which tried to mix Jewish and Greek religious and philosophical outlooks yet falling short of completely severing the Jewish roots as Christianity did later), the day to day languages of most Jews by that time were Aramaic and Greek, and usually many Jews back then had both Hebrew and Greek names, and of course the fact that back then Judaism passed from the Dad, making it much easier to marry non Jewish women, and in this case, possibly Greek women.

Absolutely, that's definitely a possibility we must entertain and the fact that many Jews had Greek names when they appear in Europe's historical record for the first time further reinforces such a model if you ask me.
Which is troubling in the end as well because we'll end up splitting hairs: We'll be dealing with Eastern Mediterranean populations all the way through, it would be much easier to distinguish between them if there were clear traces of N. European introgression.


Thanks for the clarification. BTW when you said "That's the best explanation as to why they overlap with Assyrians & Syriac Orthodox Christians" did you imply the Mizrahis when you said "they"?

Absolutely, you can see for yourself:

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/07/11/pca%20plot%20mizrahim.jpg

Iraqi Jews are contained within the red cluster, Iranian Jews in grey, Kurdish Jews in light blue and Assyrians+Iraqi Mandeans in pink.
Keep in mind that Syriac Orthodox cline towards the west and end up just within the reaches of the Iraqi Jewish cluster.
I think Mizrahim absorbed a lot of Mandean-like admixture, since Mandaens probably fit right where Babylonians once were.

So I think it's anything but delusional to assume that Mizrahim have absorbed a fair deal of Mesopotamian genes, in fact that's the most likely scenario.
Not really surprising, they had at least a thousand years to intermarry prior to the emergence of christendom & Islam, by then they probably plotted the way they do nowadays.

John Doe
12-07-14, 10:54
Absolutely, that's definitely a possibility we must entertain and the fact that many Jews had Greek names when they appear in Europe's historical record for the first time further reinforces such a model if you ask me.
Which is troubling in the end as well because we'll end up splitting hairs: We'll be dealing with Eastern Mediterranean populations all the way through, it would be much easier to distinguish between them if there were clear traces of N. European introgression.



Absolutely, you can see for yourself:

http://pichoster.net/images/2014/07/11/pca%20plot%20mizrahim.jpg

Iraqi Jews are contained within the red cluster, Iranian Jews in grey, Kurdish Jews in light blue and Assyrians+Iraqi Mandeans in pink.
Keep in mind that Syriac Orthodox cline towards the west and end up just within the reaches of the Iraqi Jewish cluster.
I think Mizrahim absorbed a lot of Mandean-like admixture, since Mandaens probably fit right where Babylonians once were.

So I think it's anything but delusional to assume that Mizrahim have absorbed a fair deal of Mesopotamian genes, in fact that's the most likely scenario.
Not really surprising, they had at least a thousand years to intermarry prior to the emergence of christendom & Islam, by then they probably plotted the way they do nowadays.


Thanks for the explanations and confirmations.

John Doe
12-07-14, 17:07
Absolutely, that's definitely a possibility we must entertain and the fact that many Jews had Greek names when they appear in Europe's historical record for the first time further reinforces such a model if you ask me.
Which is troubling in the end as well because we'll end up splitting hairs: We'll be dealing with Eastern Mediterranean populations all the way through, it would be much easier to distinguish between them if there were clear traces of N. European introgression.


Well there is a way to distinguish Western Jews/Maltese/Sicilians from other Pre Islamic East Mediterraneans, the fact that they plot between Europe and the Near East (between Greeks and Cypriots), not in the Near East (While not in Europe either). Suggesting perhaps that if at first they (Western Jews) were next to Cypriots on the tip of the Near East, something got them into the gap between Europe and the Near East, and I guess the best answer would be intermarriage with Greeks during the Hellenistic period, because if modern Greeks have around 6% of visible WHG ancestry i.e after the Slavic migrations during the early middle ages, then the Greeks of the Hellenistic period would probably have even lower WHG ancestry, so low that it would not be visible in the case of intermarriage, let's not forget that Western Jews/Maltese/Sicilians, while having 0 WHG ancestry, don't have negative ancestry like for example the Cypriots, who provide the best example of pre Islamic East Mediterranean Near Easterners. Also, of course, they have WHG ancestry in their EEF ancestry, and they (Western Jews/Sicilians/Maltese) do seem to have more WHG ancestry than for example the Stuttgart bloke who also plots in the gap between Europe and the Near East.

Semitic Duwa
13-07-14, 00:47
Well there is a way to distinguish Western Jews/Maltese/Sicilians from other Pre Islamic East Mediterraneans, the fact that they plot between Europe and the Near East (between Greeks and Cypriots), not in the Near East (While not in Europe either). Suggesting perhaps that if at first they (Western Jews) were next to Cypriots on the tip of the Near East, something got them into the gap between Europe and the Near East, and I guess the best answer would be intermarriage with Greeks during the Hellenistic period, because if modern Greeks have around 6% of visible WHG ancestry i.e after the Slavic migrations during the early middle ages, then the Greeks of the Hellenistic period would probably have even lower WHG ancestry, so low that it would not be visible in the case of intermarriage, let's not forget that Western Jews/Maltese/Sicilians, while having 0 WHG ancestry, don't have negative ancestry like for example the Cypriots, who provide the best example of pre Islamic East Mediterranean Near Easterners. Also, of course, they have WHG ancestry in their EEF ancestry, and they (Western Jews/Sicilians/Maltese) do seem to have more WHG ancestry than for example the Stuttgart bloke who also plots in the gap between Europe and the Near East.

There must be a way, of course... And if you ask me, the best way to do so is to get good coverage of the Eastern Mediterranean archeogenetic record.
The main problem when quantifying the actual amount of admixture, especially if pre-exilic Judeans were Cypriot-like as I suspect they were, is that we'll have to split hairs since we're dealing with fairly similar populations here... That is to say that the actual amount of admixture will not be easy to uncover since it will've come from a similar Eastern Mediterranean population in the first place.

Depending on the admixture models we'll end up with using a Cypriot-like population mixed with a Hellenistic proxy, estimates can vary from ~75% "Judean" + ~25 "Hellene" to ~80% "Hellene" + ~20 "Judean"...
^^ That's not good news if you ask me... I'd rather have Jews with obvious amounts of European admixture, at least it would give clear estimates and the mystery would finally be solved.

FrankN
13-07-14, 09:04
The issue of Yiddish has been brushed away a bit lightly here as "well, just another adaptation to the local language such as Judeo-Georgian or Judeo-Berber". It's actually not as simple as that:

In Eastern Europe, which was the prime settlement area of Ashkenazi from the 14th century onwards, the dominating local language wasn't German, but Slavic (Polish/ Ukranian) or Baltic (Lithuanian). However, Ashkenazi didn't develop Judeo-Polish or Judeo-Lithuanian, but Yiddish. This means they must either (a) have previously settled in Germany, or (b) have come to Eastern Europe together with German colonists, or (c) if already present in Eastern Europe since Khazar times, their settlement focus must have come under significant German cultural influence. Option (c) implies concentration on the major cities, many of which (including Kiev) adopted German law in the 14th/15th century and attracted significant German merchant and craftsmen communities. From a linguistic point of view, I think we can exclude the possibility of a significant spread of Judaism into rural CE Europe under the Khazars.
German language is far from being homogeneous. It is split into various dialects. A simplified division runs from north to south. Low (northern) German has preserved the original Germanic consonants that are still found in English or Dutch today, e.g. English "to eat"->Low German "eten", but High German "essen". Conversely, Upper (southern) German has undergone a number of consonant shifts. Dialects spoken in the area in-between are classified as "Middle German" but in fact consist of several zones that have adopted some, but not all of the High German consonant shifts. In addition, a special feature of most Middle German dialects is replacing "g" by "j", e.g. Berlinish "jut" for "gut" (good).
As the German colonialisation of Eastern Europe has been carried out by settlers from specific regions, the dialect differentiation was also transferred into Eastern Europe. Below is a simplified Wikipedia map of the German dialect landscape that had emerged around the late 19th century. As we know that Yiddish was derived from Middle German, we can conclude it didn't form in Bavaria, Austria or Hungary, nor north of Warszaw.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Deutsche_Mundarten.png/800px-Deutsche_Mundarten.png
In addition to the north-south division, there are a number of features that change from west to east. I save you the details, but instead invite you to watch the video below. The Bavarian origin of the German guy is easily detectable (at least for a German), so I hope at least the Jewish guy has a half-way authentic pronunciation. Pay attention to Yiddish "ich" (I), the pronunciation of "g" (e.g. "morgen"(tomorrow) at 1:50), and the Yiddish vowel shifts in otherwise similar German words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qQSAEMq5ko
Let's start with the Yiddish vowel shifts: They are typical for (now mostly extinct) East German dialects that used to be spoken in Silesia and East Prussia (Ost-Preussen->"Ast-Preissen", schön->"scheen"), and probably reflect sound adaptation to local Slavic and Baltic dialects. Another feature of Silesian German was its maintenance of the "g" sound, instead of the shift to "j" that is found in most other Middle German dialects. Both features attest that Yiddish has mostly been formed in CE Europe.
Yiddish has hardened the "ch" sound into "kh", which is uncommon in German dialects. Most dialects have either dropped the sound completely, similar to English (Bavarian, Austrian), use the "k" instead (Low German), or have "celticised" the sound into "sh" (Rhineland, Hesse, Swabian). The High German "ch" is actually only found in Saxon-Thuringian and Silesian dialects. And there is only one dialect region, namely Alemannic (Swiss German, Alsatian, Baden) that uses the hardened "kh" instead of the softer "ch". So, if the guy in the video really speaks authentic Yiddish, then I an quite certain that AJ must have spent some time along the upper Rhine before moving on into CE Europe. I assume Hebrew has a similar 'kh' sound, which helped Ashkenazi to maintain that Alemannic feature amidst German colonists that used the softer "ch" instead. If they had come directly into CE Europe from somewhere in the Mediterranean, they would most likely have taken over the local soft "ch", as they have done with most other features of Eastern German dialects.

Anybody wanting to get a feel how Swiss German sounds can use the link below (I am only allowed to embed one video per post):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HilyK7YAE

Otherwise, I assume people are acquainted with this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26803-I2c-frequency-and-diversity-maps
As Sparkey notes:

Eastern Europe data came entirely from the FTDNA Project. Eastern European I2c is dominated by Jews, many of whom are diaspora who have taken tests on their own

John Doe
13-07-14, 09:19
There must be a way, of course... And if you ask me, the best way to do so is to get good coverage of the Eastern Mediterranean archeogenetic record.
The main problem when quantifying the actual amount of admixture, especially if pre-exilic Judeans were Cypriot-like as I suspect they were, is that we'll have to split hairs since we're dealing with fairly similar populations here... That is to say that the actual amount of admixture will not be easy to uncover since it will've come from a similar Eastern Mediterranean population in the first place.

Depending on the admixture models we'll end up with using a Cypriot-like population mixed with a Hellenistic proxy, estimates can vary from ~75% "Judean" + ~25 "Hellene" to ~80% "Hellene" + ~20 "Judean"...
^^ That's not good news if you ask me... I'd rather have Jews with obvious amounts of European admixture, at least it would give clear estimates and the mystery would finally be solved.

I see. Thanks again for the deep explanation.

Semitic Duwa
13-07-14, 17:44
FrankN:

There actually was a Judaeo-slavic language, Knaanic... But it became extinct during the late middle ages & was eventually replaced by Yiddish.
The retention of Yiddish was mainly due to the fact that Ashkenazim were highly endogamous and rarely interacted with the locals, they kept to themselves for the most.

LeBrok
13-07-14, 17:57
The retention of Yiddish was mainly due to the fact that Ashkenazim were highly endogamous and rarely interacted with the locals, they kept to themselves for the most. For exactly same reason we can wonder why they switched to Yiddish in first place?

Perhaps in the future will see two separate Jewish migrations to Central Europe. One (Yiddish) mainly the city dwellers and other population who came from South/East and lived mainly in rural area. I have no clues myself just thinking outloud. In many Polish cities official language was German till pretty much 17-18 century, making Yiddish very useful in the cities.

Did rural Jews from Ukraine and Russia (east part of Siolo) use Yiddish or Hebrew?

AgnusDei
13-07-14, 22:09
For exactly same reason we can wonder why they switched to Yiddish in first place?

Perhaps in the future will see two separate Jewish migrations to Central Europe. One (Yiddish) mainly the city dwellers and other population who came from South/East and lived mainly in rural area. I have no clues myself just thinking outloud. In many Polish cities official language was German till pretty much 17-18 century, making Yiddish very useful in the cities.

Did rural Jews from Ukraine and Russia (east part of Siolo) use Yiddish or Hebrew?

As far as I know,Hebrew was a dead language only used during services,in fact it is the only dead language that has been successfully revived .

John Doe
14-07-14, 07:53
As far as I know,Hebrew was a dead language only used during services,in fact it is the only dead language that has been successfully revived .
Possibly, it's been basically dead as a day to day language from the Babylonian captivity to the 19th century. The language which replaced Hebrew was Aramaic, soon after another language was added to the Jewish vocabulary, Greek. In fact, I read somewhere that an early Ashkenazi Jewish community leader in the Rhineland, during the times of the 1st Crusade, wanted to fight back at those that rioted against the Jews, he gathered the men and they fought until they had to "sanctify the name", the connection is, that his name was Greek, Kalykomos or something like that.
Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews adopted Old High German and mixed it with Hebrew/Aramaic and some Greek/Latin before the first Crusade, i.e before the great persecutions began, while it's true that under the Frankish empire (including East Francia which would turn into the Holy Roman empire), Jews were regarded as foreigners, property of the king/kaiser, and as heretics by the church, but before the Crusades, until the late 11th century, the church still had a difficult time placing it's authority in the region (in fact, one of the reasons Pope Urban the II called for a Crusade in response to the request of a few experienced mercenaries was to expand his authority), and so Jews had it easier until that time, and perhaps they adopted the local language by interacting with the locals via trade, money landing etc.

FrankN
14-07-14, 23:48
Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews adopted Old High German and mixed it with Hebrew/Aramaic and some Greek/Latin before the first Crusade, i.e before the great persecutions began, while it's true that under the Frankish empire (including East Francia which would turn into the Holy Roman empire), Jews were regarded as foreigners, property of the king/kaiser, and as heretics by the church, but before the Crusades, until the late 11th century, the church still had a difficult time placing it's authority in the region (in fact, one of the reasons Pope Urban the II called for a Crusade in response to the request of a few experienced mercenaries was to expand his authority), and so Jews had it easier until that time, and perhaps they adopted the local language by interacting with the locals via trade, money landing etc.
As I said before, the foreigner status of the Jews during the early middle age was no discrimination but a privilege. It implied direct jurisdiction by the king/emperor instead of by local courts, freedom from armed services, and freedom from local excises and customs duties. The king/emperor could request the local nobility for armed service (knights), but could not levy taxes on them. So the royal finances depended strongly on the king's direct subjects, i.e. prince-bishops and Jews. In the late 11th century, a power struggle between king/emperor and Pope emerged over the right to install bishops. That struggle had a lot to do with who gains the tax revenue from the German prince-bishoprics (Cologne, Mainz, Trier, etc.) - and these prince-bishoprics used to control the largest and richest cities of the Frankish realm. As part of this power struggle, which was meant to reap the king/emperor of his financial base, the Vatican also targeted the Jews via the 1st Crusade. Some prince-bishops loyal to the emperor, e.g. the Bishop of Speyer, successfully protected the Jews against the Crusaders. Others, e.g. Mainz, initially protected the Jews but gave in to the Crusaders after a few days. The Bishop of Cologne from the outset seems to have given the Crusaders free hand.

In the High Middle Ages, the situation became more complicated, as Free Cities (also directly subject to / taxable by the emperor) arose as additional power factor. The Cologne Jews often found themselves forced to take side in the endless power struggle between the prince-bishop and the city magistrate, sometimes ending with the winning, sometimes with the losing side, but always a welcome scapegoat. The 1298 Rintfleisch massacres along the upper Danube took place against the background of the fights between Adolf of Nassau and Albert I of Austria (Habsburg). The magistrates of Augsburg and Regensburg, both loyal to Albert, protected their Jewish communities [In turn, Augsburg Jews, while theoretically freed from paying local taxes, agreed to contribute to repairing the heavily damaged city walls "in honour of the city"]. Cities favouring Adolf (Heilbronn, Rothenburg etc.), OTOH, allowed the mob to slaughter Jews there. When Albert had finally emerged victorious, he reinforced Jewish privileges. Cities that had allowed massacres to happen had to pay compensation - not to the surviving Jews, but to the emperor for foregone Jewish tax revenue.
The 1349 Strassburg pogroms formed part of the local power struggle between the magistrate, controlled by local merchants and supported by the Jewish community, and a coalition between bishop, local nobility and craftsmen. The local power struggle was embedded into the throne dispute between Charles IV (Luxemburg) and Ludwig of Bavaria (Wittelsbach). After a craftsmen revolt against the magistrate had failed, the bishop and noblemen orchestrated the pogroms just five days later, which ultimately gave them the upper side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_massacre
A much-disputed issue is why Charles IV didn't protect his Jewish subjects in Strasbourg, Cologne and elsewhere. One of the theories is that he had lost financial interest, since, for lack of funds, he had leased out the Jewish tax revenue to third parties (in the case of Strasbourg this had even been done twice, by Charles as well as by his opponent). Destruction of the Jewish community would have made the leases void, and allowed the king to re-establish (and newly lease out) taxation rights on any successor community.
Charles' son, Emperor Sigismund (1411-1437), who was chronically short of cash, in 1414 requested a "coronation gift" on top of regular taxes from his Jewish subjects. The "gift" was to amount to the "third penny", i.e. 1/3 of Jewish mobile property, and to be collected by all cities in question. City magistrates were anything but happy, especially as they in 1385 had gained taxation rights on their Jewish citizens as compensation for a payment of 40,000 Gulden to King Wenzel, but after long protests ultimately complied. Sigismund levied another "third penny" on Jews on the occasion of becoming Emperor in 1433/34. His successor (again after a civil war). Albrecht II of Austria (Habsburg), in 1438 regarded a "third penny" at coronation already as established practice, as did Frederick III in 1442 (coronation as king) and 1452 (coronation as Emperor), and most of his successors.
There is indication of several cities expelling the Jews as "temporary measure" in order to get rid of the obligation to pay the "third penny" to the Emperor and re-collect it afterwards from the Jewish community. The city of Augsburg, e.g., in 1433/34 intervened massively in favour of "our Jewish citizens" against Sigismund's "third penny". The 1438 expulsion of Jews from the city, announced after Albrecht II claimed his "third penny", included a 2-year grace period, which was obviously meant to gain time until the outcome of the fight for the crown was clear. The temporary expulsion from Mainz between 1438 and 1445, after which the synagogue and other Jewish structures were returned to their original purposes, seems to have followed the same motivation. It also appears that the expulsion of Jews from Cologne in 1424 was initially more of a tactical measure, geared at winning time until the dispute between the Emperor and the city of Frankfurt / Main on the general legitimacy of the "third penny" had been decided - many Jews just moved to suburbs across the Rhine. The 1442 expulsion from some Bavarian territories including Munich, expulsion from Erfurt in 1453, and the expulsion wave from NE Germany after 1492 are also coinciding with attempts to levy the "third penny" via the cities/ counts/ dukes in question. In several other cities, however, expulsion cannot be linked to the "third penny", and other motives (debt cancelation, getting rid of competition, using the Jewish quarters for urban projects as in Nuremberg 1349, etc.) may have played a role as well.

The various "third pennies" eroded the financial power of Jewish communities, and also their relevance to the city budgets. When the liquidity crisis of the 13th/14th century was overcome by fresh minting of Bohemian and later South American silver, Jewish trade finance lost relevance, and non-Jewish merchants saw the opportunity to engage in previously Jewish-dominated banking and long-distance trade (e.g. Augsburg's famous Fugger and Welser families). Imperial protection had already for some time not been worth the paper it was written on, former privileges turned into massive financial burdens, urban power and social struggles increased in violence and number (e.g. Hussite wars), with Jews always serving as welcome scapegoats, and the once supportive local "merchant aristocracy" gradually turned away - no wonder many Jews decided to leave towards CE Europe.

Note that Jewish expulsion/ emigration wasn't universal: The Jewish community of Frankfurt / Main existed, except for a short break between 1349 and 1360, continuously until the early 1940s. A key event here was the 1422-1424 dispute between city magistrate and Emperor Sigismund on taxation rights over local Jews. Somehow, the magistrate managed to win the dispute, remained free from having to levy the "third penny", and refuted further attempts to expel Jews, e.g. in 1515. Consequently, Frankfurt attracted many Jews expelled elsewhere, which in turn helped the city to become a major European financial centre. In nearby Worms (1487) and Mainz (1515), expulsions ordered by the local bishops were cancelled by the Emperors, who wanted to preserve the remains of their Jewish tax base. Worms' Jewish cemetery has been used continuously from the 11th century until 1911. Many Ashkenazi also settled in the German countryside, where they especially focused on cattle and horse trade, though may of them became impoverished.

However, coming back to the issue of Yiddish, any direct relation of Eastern European to Rhine-Main Ashkenazi is rather unlikely. Rhine-Main dialects haven't fully taken part in the Celtic softenting of "ch" into "sh", but also show no signs of the Alemannic hardening into "kh". I definitely think that Yiddish evolved somewhere around Basel, Strasbourg and Freiburg, and probably rather in the 13th/ 14th century than before the 1st Crusade. Berne (pogroms in 1294 and 1348, expulsion 1427) and Zurich (expulsion 1436, but no pogroms before) would be even more plausible accent-wise. Here, we are also talking 13/14th century; the first Jewish community in Switzerland was recorded in 1213.


Semitic Duwa:
There actually was a Judaeo-slavic language, Knaanic... But it became extinct during the late middle ages & was eventually replaced by Yiddish.


That should indicate (post-) Khazar Jewish settlement, of which I am quite sure that it took place (and I think there are also a few genetic traces of it). Wikipedia names a 9th century letter from Ruthenia as first evidence of Knaanic - time-wise and geographically quite closely connected to the Khazars. Unfortunately, Ruthenia has not been covered by any of the genetic studies that we are discussing in this thread. In the 12/13th century, i.e. before the start of the German colonisation, coins with Hebrew letters were minted in Kalisz, Poland. That suggests that Jews were anything but irrelevant in the High Medieval Polish business society. However, I would assume they mostly settled in the towns and cities (as, e.g., Georgian Jews did), not in the countryside. This also implies that their genetic traces, if existing, should rather be searched for in those cities than in remote valleys. [ This valley (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni,_Georgia), might be an exception, and I would be really curious about the results if it ever became DNA-sampled]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knaanic_language

John Doe
15-07-14, 09:24
As I said before, the foreigner status of the Jews during the early middle age was no discrimination but a privilege. It implied direct jurisdiction by the king/emperor instead of by local courts, freedom from armed services, and freedom from local excises and customs duties. The king/emperor could request the local nobility for armed service (knights), but could not levy taxes on them. So the royal finances depended strongly on the king's direct subjects, i.e. prince-bishops and Jews. In the late 11th century, a power struggle between king/emperor and Pope emerged over the right to install bishops. That struggle had a lot to do with who gains the tax revenue from the German prince-bishoprics (Cologne, Mainz, Trier, etc.) - and these prince-bishoprics used to control the largest and richest cities of the Frankish realm. As part of this power struggle, which was meant to reap the king/emperor of his financial base, the Vatican also targeted the Jews via the 1st Crusade. Some prince-bishops loyal to the emperor, e.g. the Bishop of Speyer, successfully protected the Jews against the Crusaders. Others, e.g. Mainz, initially protected the Jews but gave in to the Crusaders after a few days. The Bishop of Cologne from the outset seems to have given the Crusaders free hand.

In the High Middle Ages, the situation became more complicated, as Free Cities (also directly subject to / taxable by the emperor) arose as additional power factor. The Cologne Jews often found themselves forced to take side in the endless power struggle between the prince-bishop and the city magistrate, sometimes ending with the winning, sometimes with the losing side, but always a welcome scapegoat. The 1298 Rintfleisch massacres along the upper Danube took place against the background of the fights between Adolf of Nassau and Albert I of Austria (Habsburg). The magistrates of Augsburg and Regensburg, both loyal to Albert, protected their Jewish communities [In turn, Augsburg Jews, while theoretically freed from paying local taxes, agreed to contribute to repairing the heavily damaged city walls "in honour of the city"]. Cities favouring Adolf (Heilbronn, Rothenburg etc.), OTOH, allowed the mob to slaughter Jews there. When Albert had finally emerged victorious, he reinforced Jewish privileges. Cities that had allowed massacres to happen had to pay compensation - not to the surviving Jews, but to the emperor for foregone Jewish tax revenue.
The 1349 Strassburg pogroms formed part of the local power struggle between the magistrate, controlled by local merchants and supported by the Jewish community, and a coalition between bishop, local nobility and craftsmen. The local power struggle was embedded into the throne dispute between Charles IV (Luxemburg) and Ludwig of Bavaria (Wittelsbach). After a craftsmen revolt against the magistrate had failed, the bishop and noblemen orchestrated the pogroms just five days later, which ultimately gave them the upper side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_massacre
A much-disputed issue is why Charles IV didn't protect his Jewish subjects in Strasbourg, Cologne and elsewhere. One of the theories is that he had lost financial interest, since, for lack of funds, he had leased out the Jewish tax revenue to third parties (in the case of Strasbourg this had even been done twice, by Charles as well as by his opponent). Destruction of the Jewish community would have made the leases void, and allowed the king to re-establish (and newly lease out) taxation rights on any successor community.
Charles' son, Emperor Sigismund (1411-1437), who was chronically short of cash, in 1414 requested a "coronation gift" on top of regular taxes from his Jewish subjects. The "gift" was to amount to the "third penny", i.e. 1/3 of Jewish mobile property, and to be collected by all cities in question. City magistrates were anything but happy, especially as they in 1385 had gained taxation rights on their Jewish citizens as compensation for a payment of 40,000 Gulden to King Wenzel, but after long protests ultimately complied. Sigismund levied another "third penny" on Jews on the occasion of becoming Emperor in 1433/34. His successor (again after a civil war). Albrecht II of Austria (Habsburg), in 1438 regarded a "third penny" at coronation already as established practice, as did Frederick III in 1442 (coronation as king) and 1452 (coronation as Emperor), and most of his successors.
There is indication of several cities expelling the Jews as "temporary measure" in order to get rid of the obligation to pay the "third penny" to the Emperor and re-collect it afterwards from the Jewish community. The city of Augsburg, e.g., in 1433/34 intervened massively in favour of "our Jewish citizens" against Sigismund's "third penny". The 1438 expulsion of Jews from the city, announced after Albrecht II claimed his "third penny", included a 2-year grace period, which was obviously meant to gain time until the outcome of the fight for the crown was clear. The temporary expulsion from Mainz between 1438 and 1445, after which the synagogue and other Jewish structures were returned to their original purposes, seems to have followed the same motivation. It also appears that the expulsion of Jews from Cologne in 1424 was initially more of a tactical measure, geared at winning time until the dispute between the Emperor and the city of Frankfurt / Main on the general legitimacy of the "third penny" had been decided - many Jews just moved to suburbs across the Rhine. The 1442 expulsion from some Bavarian territories including Munich, expulsion from Erfurt in 1453, and the expulsion wave from NE Germany after 1492 are also coinciding with attempts to levy the "third penny" via the cities/ counts/ dukes in question. In several other cities, however, expulsion cannot be linked to the "third penny", and other motives (debt cancelation, getting rid of competition, using the Jewish quarters for urban projects as in Nuremberg 1349, etc.) may have played a role as well.

The various "third pennies" eroded the financial power of Jewish communities, and also their relevance to the city budgets. When the liquidity crisis of the 13th/14th century was overcome by fresh minting of Bohemian and later South American silver, Jewish trade finance lost relevance, and non-Jewish merchants saw the opportunity to engage in previously Jewish-dominated banking and long-distance trade (e.g. Augsburg's famous Fugger and Welser families). Imperial protection had already for some time not been worth the paper it was written on, former privileges turned into massive financial burdens, urban power and social struggles increased in violence and number (e.g. Hussite wars), with Jews always serving as welcome scapegoats, and the once supportive local "merchant aristocracy" gradually turned away - no wonder many Jews decided to leave towards CE Europe.

Note that Jewish expulsion/ emigration wasn't universal: The Jewish community of Frankfurt / Main existed, except for a short break between 1349 and 1360, continuously until the early 1940s. A key event here was the 1422-1424 dispute between city magistrate and Emperor Sigismund on taxation rights over local Jews. Somehow, the magistrate managed to win the dispute, remained free from having to levy the "third penny", and refuted further attempts to expel Jews, e.g. in 1515. Consequently, Frankfurt attracted many Jews expelled elsewhere, which in turn helped the city to become a major European financial centre. In nearby Worms (1487) and Mainz (1515), expulsions ordered by the local bishops were cancelled by the Emperors, who wanted to preserve the remains of their Jewish tax base. Worms' Jewish cemetery has been used continuously from the 11th century until 1911. Many Ashkenazi also settled in the German countryside, where they especially focused on cattle and horse trade, though may of them became impoverished.

However, coming back to the issue of Yiddish, any direct relation of Eastern European to Rhine-Main Ashkenazi is rather unlikely. Rhine-Main dialects haven't fully taken part in the Celtic softenting of "ch" into "sh", but also show no signs of the Alemannic hardening into "kh". I definitely think that Yiddish evolved somewhere around Basel, Strasbourg and Freiburg, and probably rather in the 13th/ 14th century than before the 1st Crusade. Berne (pogroms in 1294 and 1348, expulsion 1427) and Zurich (expulsion 1436, but no pogroms before) would be even more plausible accent-wise. Here, we are also talking 13/14th century; the first Jewish community in Switzerland was recorded in 1213.



That should indicate (post-) Khazar Jewish settlement, of which I am quite sure that it took place (and I think there are also a few genetic traces of it). Wikipedia names a 9th century letter from Ruthenia as first evidence of Knaanic - time-wise and geographically quite closely connected to the Khazars. Unfortunately, Ruthenia has not been covered by any of the genetic studies that we are discussing in this thread. In the 12/13th century, i.e. before the start of the German colonisation, coins with Hebrew letters were minted in Kalisz, Poland. That suggests that Jews were anything but irrelevant in the High Medieval Polish business society. However, I would assume they mostly settled in the towns and cities (as, e.g., Georgian Jews did), not in the countryside. This also implies that their genetic traces, if existing, should rather be searched for in those cities than in remote valleys. [ This valley (link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni,_Georgia), might be an exception, and I would be really curious about the results if it ever became DNA-sampled]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knaanic_language


Very interesting, thanks for the info.

FrankN
15-07-14, 14:58
(Knaanic) should indicate (post-) Khazar Jewish settlement, of which I am quite sure that it took place (and I think there are also a few genetic traces of it). Wikipedia names a 9th century letter from Ruthenia as first evidence of Knaanic - time-wise and geographically quite closely connected to the Khazars. Unfortunately, Ruthenia has not been covered by any of the genetic studies that we are discussing in this thread.
This is one of the places where I would strongly suspect that genetic traces of Khazar Jews might be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halicz

Halych (Ukrainian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language): Галич, Halych; Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Галич, Galich, German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): Halytsch, Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_language): Halicz) is a historic city on the Dniester River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dniester_River) in western Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine). The town gave its name to the historic province and the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia%E2%80%93Volhynia), of which it was the capital until the early 14th century, when the seat of the local princes was moved to Lviv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv). (..)
The origin of the Slavic toponym "Halych" is after the Khwalis/Kaliz/Khalisioi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalyzians) who occupied the area from the time of the Magyars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars). (..)
According to excavated finds, the population of Halych became especially significant from 8-9 c. AD. (..)
In 1870, the population of Halicz was 4142, including 1609 Roman Catholics, 1690 Greek-Catholics, and 839 Jews.

On the Khwals, after which Halych has been named, Wipedia notes (link in the quote above):

The Chalyzians or Khalyzians or Khalis or Khwalis (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): Khwarezmian, Byzantine Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Greek): Χαλίσιοι, Khalisioi, Magyar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language): Kaliz (pronounced Kalish)) were a people mentioned by the 12th-century Byzantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) historian John Kinnamos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cinnamus).

Kinnamos in his epitome twice mentions Khalisioi in the Hungarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_people) army. He first describes them as practising Mosaic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah); though whether they were actually Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) is unclear because other editions state that they were Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim). They were said to have fought against the Byzantine Empire as allies of the tribes of Dalmatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia) in 1154, during Manuel Comnenus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Comnenus)'s campaign in the Balkans.
Prior to the years 889–92 some Khalis and Kabars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabar) (Kavars) of the Khazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar) realm had joined the Hungarian (Magyar) federation that had conquered and settled in Hungary. Another group had joined the Pechenegs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs). Al-Bakri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Bakri) (1014–1094) states that around 1068 A.D. there were considerable numbers of al-Khalis amongst the nomadic Muslim Pechenegs (Hungarian: Besenyő), that lived around the southern steppes of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia).
He also mentions that the original al-Khalis living within the Khazar realm may have been foreign slaves from Byzantine Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople) and/or other lands. The Pechenegs gave them the choice of staying in their country, where they could inter-marry or leave for another country of their choice. Anna Komnena in her Alexiad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexiad) mentions a Petcheneg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petcheneg) chief named Khalis.

John Doe
15-07-14, 16:12
This is one of the places where I would strongly suspect that genetic traces of Khazar Jews might be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halicz

On the Khwals, after which Halych has been named, Wipedia notes (link in the quote above):

My maternal grandpa's parents came from the not so far Boryslaw, in Galicia, west of Lwow (now Lviv). Would there be some traces there?

FrankN
15-07-14, 17:27
My maternal grandpa's parents came from the not so far Boryslaw, in Galicia, west of Lwow (now Lviv). Would there be some traces there?
No idea, I have never been there. Galicia in general, and Lviv in particular, used to be a centre of Eastern European Judaism, but the holocaust, resettlement following Galicia's annexation by the USSR, and the post-1990 exodus of remaining Jews to Israel, the USA and elsewhere may have eroded many traces. In any case, from all I have heard, Lviv seems to be a nice city with a lot of flair. The old town is listed as UNESCO World Heritage site. Why not go there and see what you still can find? Ukraine should be cheap these days, and Lviv is several hundred km away from Crimea and Donetsk. It also doesn't appear to be much of a problem to get there from Poland, and Krakow seems another place well worth a visit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_Ghetto

John Doe
16-07-14, 09:28
No idea, I have never been there. Galicia in general, and Lviv in particular, used to be a centre of Eastern European Judaism, but the holocaust, resettlement following Galicia's annexation by the USSR, and the post-1990 exodus of remaining Jews to Israel, the USA and elsewhere may have eroded many traces. In any case, from all I have heard, Lviv seems to be a nice city with a lot of flair. The old town is listed as UNESCO World Heritage site. Why not go there and see what you still can find? Ukraine should be cheap these days, and Lviv is several hundred km away from Crimea and Donetsk. It also doesn't appear to be much of a problem to get there from Poland, and Krakow seems another place well worth a visit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_Ghetto

Alright thanks, but my family didn't come from the big city i.e Lwow, they came from a smaller town called "Boryslaw" (now Borislav), those that didn't leave for England and later Australia probably died during the war (WW2), I read that in June 1941 the Nazis captured Boryslaw, the Jews were rounded up and escorted to the nearby forest, where they were shot, I suppose that's how some of my relatives ended up. But yeah, my point is that they came from a rural area of Eastern Galicia.

FrankN
17-07-14, 00:16
Alright thanks, but my family didn't come from the big city i.e Lwow, they came from a smaller town called "Boryslaw" (now Borislav), those that didn't leave for England and later Australia probably died during the war (WW2), I read that in June 1941 the Nazis captured Boryslaw, the Jews were rounded up and escorted to the nearby forest, where they were shot, I suppose that's how some of my relatives ended up. But yeah, my point is that they came from a rural area of Eastern Galicia.
Sorry to hear about your family. I can assure you that none of my close relatives had anything to do with Galicia. My grandfather actually supported his Jewish neighbours in Hamburg, and the sons, who had emigrated to Latin America, in return helped him to re-start his business after WW II. My cousin 2nd degree was married to this lady's brother: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefanie_Zweig (I only met him once, when still a teenager, but have seen my cousin 3rd degree, a non-practicing Ashkenazi, occasionally).
My grandfather-in-law, OTOH, had been in Galicia as German soldier. He spent several years in Siberia as Russian POW, and never talked to my father-in-law about the war and his time as POW. Quite an unfortunate chapter of Jewish and German history!

In any case, I had understood your family was from Borislaw, not Lviv. I just thought if you decided to delve into your family history, see if your grandparent's house is still standing, walk to that forest, etc., it might be good to know that there are more pleasant places nearby.

John Doe
17-07-14, 09:09
Sorry to hear about your family. I can assure you that none of my close relatives had anything to do with Galicia. My grandfather actually supported his Jewish neighbours in Hamburg, and the sons, who had emigrated to Latin America, in return helped him to re-start his business after WW II. My cousin 2nd degree was married to this lady's brother: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefanie_Zweig (I only met him once, when still a teenager, but have seen my cousin 3rd degree, a non-practicing Ashkenazi, occasionally).
My grandfather-in-law, OTOH, had been in Galicia as German soldier. He spent several years in Siberia as Russian POW, and never talked to my father-in-law about the war and his time as POW. Quite an unfortunate chapter of Jewish and German history!

In any case, I had understood your family was from Borislaw, not Lviv. I just thought if you decided to delve into your family history, see if your grandparent's house is still standing, walk to that forest, etc., it might be good to know that there are more pleasant places nearby.


Thanks for the kind words and the information. It's alright, even if some of your relatives had something to do with it (which they don't) it doesn't mean it's your fault, also considering the fact that your relatives were in fact indifferent or even opposed to Nazism from what I can assume. As for your relative in the Wehrmacht (correct me if I'm wrong), well I reckon conscription existed in Germany during the war, that's okay (if I was in his position, I'd probably not resist either), in fact, my relative from Galicia (whose still alive, he's 92), was a Soviet officer during the battle of Stalingrad, he was in charge of an armoured train which carried anti aircraft guns (and POWs), he was wounded and sent to Moscow, he then escaped (even though during his time in the Red army where everyone spoke Russian, he always, to this day, considers himself Polish) to England, from there to Australia and then to Israel where he opened the first train museum.
Indeed, it's quite an unfortunate part, but it's possible to start anew! In fact, it's already happening, many Israeli Jews come to work in Germany, and Germans also have the ability to work in Israel (there's an agreement between the 2 countries), many Jews of German descent are reclaiming their citizenship or their ancestors citizenship. I hoped Germany would win the world cup after Australia lost. ;)

Also, the relative I typed about's dad was in a Polish regiment in the Austro-Hungarian army during world war 1, of which I'm very proud of, unfortunately he was murdered during world war 2, but never mind that. Yeah Lviv is geographically close to Boryslaw, and it was a center of Jewish Hasidism before the war (although from what I know, the last religious generation on my Galician side was quite a long time ago, in fact, the last religious generation on any part of my family was a long time ago, my grandma still claims to believe in god and refuses to eat pork, but apparently during the last Passover I ate Bacon and shrimps without even being aware twas Passover, my grandma insisted we read the Hagada, but non of us really knew what to do and what to read, I reckon the only thing that keeps me Jewish is that I'm Ashkenazi genetically). Galicia was (and still is) a diverse area, Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, Romany, Tatars etc.
I might go there one day, hopefully, but I don't know if it's such a good idea to visit the Ukraine ATM, even though it's the far Western part of the Ukraine (the area was predominantly Polish until 1945), I suppose I'll have to wait a little bit.

John Doe
19-07-14, 20:35
Even though the Eastern European ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews is supposedly low, here's a quote from Behar's 2013 study (http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints): "Figure 6 reports the mean genomic sharing between Ashkenazi Jews and the 11 population groups, and Supplemental Table 2 gives p-values for tests of the null hypotheses of equal mean
IBD sharing with Ashkenazi Jews for pairs of population groups. The greatest level of sharing
was observed with Sephardi Jews, considerably greater than with other populations. Substantial
sharing with Eastern Europeans was also observed, though at a much lower level. Sharing with
most other populations was lower still, and with Caucasus populations, the level of sharing was
similar to that observed for the Middle East. In accordance with the results from other analyses,
the IBD sharing of Caucasus populations with Ashkenazi Jews was relatively low".

What's the explanation for that?

FrankN
19-07-14, 22:29
Even though the Eastern European ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews is supposedly low, here's a quote from Behar's 2013 study (http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints): "Figure 6 reports the mean genomic sharing between Ashkenazi Jews and the 11 population groups, and Supplemental Table 2 gives p-values for tests of the null hypotheses of equal mean
IBD sharing with Ashkenazi Jews for pairs of population groups. The greatest level of sharing
was observed with Sephardi Jews, considerably greater than with other populations. Substantial
sharing with Eastern Europeans was also observed, though at a much lower level. Sharing with
most other populations was lower still, and with Caucasus populations, the level of sharing was
similar to that observed for the Middle East. In accordance with the results from other analyses,
the IBD sharing of Caucasus populations with Ashkenazi Jews was relatively low".

What's the explanation for that?
In Georgia, they appear to have sampled Svaneti - a very isolated plateau that includes Europe's highest village, Svanetian is a specific language that is distinct to, though related to Georgian. iWhen I worked in Georgia in the late 1990s, (when the roads were still rather poor), it was some 8-9 hours drive from Kutaisi, which would be the closest Jewish community. I am pretty sure, had they sampled any place in Georgia that is within - say - 50 km distance to a Jewish community, results would have been different.
Your link is broken, but if I remember correctly, they also didn't sample SE Poland or Galizia. In fact, the only East European place with significant historically attested Jewish population in their study appears to have been Lithuania. They also didn't sample the Rhineland, Belgium and the Netherlands. As such, one may interpret the results as an indication of how urban or rural medieval Jews have been - and the results indicate a bit of rural East European Jews, but otherwise a concentration of Jewish settlement in cities and towns along the major trade routes. Once somebody starts to sample these towns or their periphery, we are going to get meaningful results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svaneti

John Doe
20-07-14, 00:19
In Georgia, they appear to have sampled Svaneti - a very isolated plateau that includes Europe's highest village, Svanetian is a specific language that is distinct to, though related to Georgian. iWhen I worked in Georgia in the late 1990s, (when the roads were still rather poor), it was some 8-9 hours drive from Kutaisi, which would be the closest Jewish community. I am pretty sure, had they sampled any place in Georgia that is within - say - 50 km distance to a Jewish community, results would have been different.
Your link is broken, but if I remember correctly, they also didn't sample SE Poland or Galizia. In fact, the only East European place with significant historically attested Jewish population in their study appears to have been Lithuania. They also didn't sample the Rhineland, Belgium and the Netherlands. As such, one may interpret the results as an indication of how urban or rural medieval Jews have been - and the results indicate a bit of rural East European Jews, but otherwise a concentration of Jewish settlement in cities and towns along the major trade routes. Once somebody starts to sample these towns or their periphery, we are going to get meaningful results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svaneti


So your point is that because Behar didn't sample Periphery Jews or indeed any Jewish population other than those in Lithuania, and because he didn't sample the Rhineland, therefore this study may not be entirely reliable or meaningful to Jews who have no ancestry from Lithuania?


P.S Just to make sure, here's the link, I hope this one isn't broken.


http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints

John Doe
20-07-14, 13:26
I have another question. So AJs plot between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Sicilians and Maltese, so we're a pre Islamic east Mediterranean population, but then a question arises, are we European? Are we Middle eastern? Maybe something in the middle? If we're Middle eastern where does that put Sicilians and Maltese (who also lack WHG ancestry and plot in the gap)?

Thanks in advance. :)

LeBrok
20-07-14, 21:54
I have another question. So AJs plot between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Sicilians and Maltese, so we're a pre Islamic east Mediterranean population, but then a question arises, are we European? Are we Middle eastern? Maybe something in the middle? If we're Middle eastern where does that put Sicilians and Maltese (who also lack WHG ancestry and plot in the gap)?

Thanks in advance. :)
Politically or by self designation they are Europeans. Genetically however, there is no one "pure" to be declared only European. We have to look at this issue through spectrum glasses, otherwise we will always argue about the "proper" labels.
The biggest problem in it is our human nature loving to compartmentalize everything in effort to understand the world, or like in this case, to find one's "place" on the planet and a tribe to belong.

FrankN
20-07-14, 23:42
So your point is that because Behar didn't sample Periphery Jews or indeed any Jewish population other than those in Lithuania, and because he didn't sample the Rhineland, therefore this study may not be entirely reliable or meaningful to Jews who have no ancestry from Lithuania?


P.S Just to make sure, here's the link, I hope this one isn't broken.


http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints
That link works.
My point is not that Behar didn't sample Periphery Jews, my point is that he sampled periphery non-Jews to compare Jews with, just to find out the two don't have much of common ancestry. If you look at Georgian Jews, according to Behar they are extremely close to non-Jewish Armenians, much closer than to Druze, Syrian Jews or Georgians (Figure 4 in the Annex). The fact that Georgian Jews, after 2,500 years in the country, are genetically so far away from non-Jewish Georgians signifies to me that their non-Jewish Georgian sample is flawed. And, while Behar finds signals of Eastern European admixture in AJ, I feel that their sampling could have focused closer on those regions where we know sizeable Jewish populations to have existed, e.g. Galizia.

In any case, according to their Figure 4, AJs don't "plot between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Sicilians and Maltese". Eastern AJs are genetically closest to Sicily and Abruzzo, closer than to any other Jews, including Western AJ! And Western AJ are genetically closest to Sicilians, closer than to any other Jews, including Eastern AJ. Those diagrams tell the story pretty clearly: Western AJ lived for a long time in Sicily, then moved to Western Central Europe, where they picked up some (anyway quite similar) Sephardic ancestry. Eastern AJ stayed somewhat longer in Southern Italy (hence the high genetic similarity to Abruzzi), and picked up comparatively less of Sephardic ancestry. They also are closer related to Greeks than Western AJ, which may indicate a bit of Byzantine Jewish inflow into Eastern Europe.

I personally think the opportunity to play with several possible identities has a lot of charme. Of course, Jews are Levantine - but most Europeans also have substantial Levantine ancestry. Does it make a difference that the non-Jewish Levantine ancestors already arrived in Europe some 8-9,000 years ago, and the Jews only some 2,000 years ago? It's your decision, but I think none of us will be able to name that forefather who first set foot on the European continent.
AJ are obviously Sicilian / South Italian - most likely ancestral, but in any case culturally: Levantine trading tradition, Hellenism, post-Roman empire, cultural (and linguistic) links to the Arab world, economically and intellectually flowering during the early middle ages, until the inquisition took over.
AJ are germanicised - linguistically (even English is a Germanic language), Western AJ also geographically.
Eastern AJ are of course Central-Eastern European, part of that mish-mash of Slavic, Baltic, German and Yiddish languages; Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity - the Babylon of the 2nd millennium AD.
Last but not least, AJ are global citizens, with a millennium-old tradition of wandering between and temporarily settling in the most important urban centres of their times, and connecting them commercially and intellectually.
Now choose what you want to be....

One last note on the Behar study: Their admixture graph (Supplemental Figure 3) for K=17 maximises AJ ancestry as red, and may be interpreted as the genetic footprint AJ have left in their various host populations: None in French Basques, very little in Sardinians, well present in other Italians, a little less in the Eastern Mediterranean, and a small but visible trace in Eastern Europe.

John Doe
21-07-14, 09:19
Politically or by self designation they are Europeans. Genetically however, there is no one "pure" to be declared only European. We have to look at this issue through spectrum glasses, otherwise we will always argue about the "proper" labels.
The biggest problem in it is our human nature loving to compartmentalize everything in effort to understand the world, or like in this case, to find one's "place" on the planet and a tribe to belong.


I see... Thanks for the answer! I guess no one is really pure anything genetically. :)

John Doe
21-07-14, 09:28
That link works.
My point is not that Behar didn't sample Periphery Jews, my point is that he sampled periphery non-Jews to compare Jews with, just to find out the two don't have much of common ancestry. If you look at Georgian Jews, according to Behar they are extremely close to non-Jewish Armenians, much closer than to Druze, Syrian Jews or Georgians (Figure 4 in the Annex). The fact that Georgian Jews, after 2,500 years in the country, are genetically so far away from non-Jewish Georgians signifies to me that their non-Jewish Georgian sample is flawed. And, while Behar finds signals of Eastern European admixture in AJ, I feel that their sampling could have focused closer on those regions where we know sizeable Jewish populations to have existed, e.g. Galizia.

In any case, according to their Figure 4, AJs don't "plot between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Sicilians and Maltese". Eastern AJs are genetically closest to Sicily and Abruzzo, closer than to any other Jews, including Western AJ! And Western AJ are genetically closest to Sicilians, closer than to any other Jews, including Eastern AJ. Those diagrams tell the story pretty clearly: Western AJ lived for a long time in Sicily, then moved to Western Central Europe, where they picked up some (anyway quite similar) Sephardic ancestry. Eastern AJ stayed somewhat longer in Southern Italy (hence the high genetic similarity to Abruzzi), and picked up comparatively less of Sephardic ancestry. They also are closer related to Greeks than Western AJ, which may indicate a bit of Byzantine Jewish inflow into Eastern Europe.

I personally think the opportunity to play with several possible identities has a lot of charme. Of course, Jews are Levantine - but most Europeans also have substantial Levantine ancestry. Does it make a difference that the non-Jewish Levantine ancestors already arrived in Europe some 8-9,000 years ago, and the Jews only some 2,000 years ago? It's your decision, but I think none of us will be able to name that forefather who first set foot on the European continent.
AJ are obviously Sicilian / South Italian - most likely ancestral, but in any case culturally: Levantine trading tradition, Hellenism, post-Roman empire, cultural (and linguistic) links to the Arab world, economically and intellectually flowering during the early middle ages, until the inquisition took over.
AJ are germanicised - linguistically (even English is a Germanic language), Western AJ also geographically.
Eastern AJ are of course Central-Eastern European, part of that mish-mash of Slavic, Baltic, German and Yiddish languages; Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity - the Babylon of the 2nd millennium AD.
Last but not least, AJ are global citizens, with a millennium-old tradition of wandering between and temporarily settling in the most important urban centres of their times, and connecting them commercially and intellectually.
Now choose what you want to be....

One last note on the Behar study: Their admixture graph (Supplemental Figure 3) for K=17 maximises AJ ancestry as red, and may be interpreted as the genetic footprint AJ have left in their various host populations: None in French Basques, very little in Sardinians, well present in other Italians, a little less in the Eastern Mediterranean, and a small but visible trace in Eastern Europe.


I see... Thanks for answering both of my questions! in truth I wouldn't be surprised if I have Sicilian/South Italian/Abruzzo Italian ancestry, on Gedmatch I plot next to them all the time! Indeed, they seem to be the closest populations to me on Gedmatch, in some cases closer than other AJs. I'm pretty sure I'm mostly Eastern Ashkenazi, my entire maternal family came either from Galizia or the Posnen region which was in the eastern part of Prussia, paternally my ancestors came from Germany and Poland. Yes I suppose it is quite complex, but I guess the best way to sum it up without entering a lecture would just be Ashkenazi Jewish. I suppose it's not much of a difference, also if AJs do have Sicilian/South Italian/Abruzzo Italian ancestry, then we also have pre historic EEF ancestry. BTW Behar's study wasn't the study that claimed AJs plot between Cypriots and Greeks, twas this study:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

So I suppose Behar's study, while not perfect, is reliable?

Anyway, thanks. :)


P.S There's an interesting free program called Spatial Ancestry Analysis (or SPA), I think that 23andme raw data is required, it can place you on a place in the world according to your raw data, and I was placed in the middle of the Tyrrhenian sea, southwest of Naples, northwest of Palermo and east of Cagliari. Here's the link:
http://genetics.cs.ucla.edu/spa/

joeyc
22-07-14, 18:49
Even though the Eastern European ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews is supposedly low, here's a quote from Behar's 2013 study (http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints): "Figure 6 reports the mean genomic sharing between Ashkenazi Jews and the 11 population groups, and Supplemental Table 2 gives p-values for tests of the null hypotheses of equal mean
IBD sharing with Ashkenazi Jews for pairs of population groups. The greatest level of sharing
was observed with Sephardi Jews, considerably greater than with other populations. Substantial
sharing with Eastern Europeans was also observed, though at a much lower level. Sharing with
most other populations was lower still, and with Caucasus populations, the level of sharing was
similar to that observed for the Middle East. In accordance with the results from other analyses,
the IBD sharing of Caucasus populations with Ashkenazi Jews was relatively low".

What's the explanation for that?

The explanation is that Ashkenazim have very little Khazar ancestry (Chuvash+North Caucasus). They are most likely a mix of Sephardim and North Slavs (85% and 15% respectively)


I see... Thanks for answering both of my questions! in truth I wouldn't be surprised if I have Sicilian/South Italian/Abruzzo Italian ancestry, on Gedmatch I plot next to them all the time! Indeed, they seem to be the closest populations to me on Gedmatch, in some cases closer than other AJs. I'm pretty sure I'm mostly Eastern Ashkenazi, my entire maternal family came either from Galizia or the Posnen region which was in the eastern part of Prussia, paternally my ancestors came from Germany and Poland. Yes I suppose it is quite complex, but I guess the best way to sum it up without entering a lecture would just be Ashkenazi Jewish. I suppose it's not much of a difference, also if AJs do have Sicilian/South Italian/Abruzzo Italian ancestry, then we also have pre historic EEF ancestry. BTW Behar's study wasn't the study that claimed AJs plot between Cypriots and Greeks, twas this study:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

So I suppose Behar's study, while not perfect, is reliable?

Anyway, thanks. :)


P.S There's an interesting free program called Spatial Ancestry Analysis (or SPA), I think that 23andme raw data is required, it can place you on a place in the world according to your raw data, and I was placed in the middle of the Tyrrhenian sea, southwest of Naples, northwest of Palermo and east of Cagliari. Here's the link:
http://genetics.cs.ucla.edu/spa/

The oracle software from Gedmatch is not reliable.

1) Because it is based on the ADMIXTURE analysis, which is an approximation of the genome.

2) Because it doesn't count the FST distances between the components.

Indeed AJs have a significant amount of African like ancestry (10% of Red Sea+SSA+NE African) which is enough to pull them away from Europeans. The best way is to look at a Global PCA plot (based on the genome). Like this from Behar et al. 2013.

http://i.imgur.com/aNaQLL6.jpg

The plot on the left show the first two most significant components. AJs (labeled as AshJ) are closest to North African and Sephardi Jews, then Sicilians (ItS), Armenians (Arm), Druzes (Dru) and Cypriots (Cyp).

Other Italians and South Europeans are quite far from the AJs.

John Doe
22-07-14, 20:37
The explanation is that Ashkenazim have very little Khazar ancestry (Chuvash+North Caucasus). They are most likely a mix of Sephardim and North Slavs (85% and 15% respectively)



The oracle software from Gedmatch is not reliable.

1) Because it is based on the ADMIXTURE analysis, which is an approximation of the genome.

2) Because it doesn't count the FST distances between the components.

Indeed AJs have a significant amount of African like ancestry (10% of Red Sea+SSA+NE African) which is enough to pull them away from Europeans. The best way is to look at a Global PCA plot (based on the genome). Like this from Behar et al. 2013.

http://i.imgur.com/aNaQLL6.jpg

The plot on the left show the first two most significant components. AJs (labeled as AshJ) are closest to North African and Sephardi Jews, then Sicilians (ItS), Armenians (Arm), Druzes (Dru) and Cypriots (Cyp).

Other Italians and South Europeans are quite far from the AJs.


I read Behar's study, he did indeed note that AJs share closest genetic similarities with Sephardi and north African Jews, followed by Sicilians, Cypriots, Greeks, Armenians, Druze etc.
I already thought Gedmatch isn't entirely reliable, but I wasn't entirely certain.


This leads me to my final question,what does that make Ashkenazis? Does it make us simply an east Mediterranean population with very little European admixture, with the only arguable European population we share genetic similarities with being Sicilians because of Phoenician influence? Or is there European admixture? Perhaps in the form of Slavic admixture due to IBD sharing with east Europeans being the highest after SJs?

joeyc
22-07-14, 20:54
Ashkenazim should have a lot of European Mtdna. Their Y-dna is mostly Levantine and Turkic AFAIK.

Sicilians have a non trivial amount of Moorish ancestry beside West Asian admix rich in ANE like ancestry from the late neolitich/copper age.

John Doe
22-07-14, 21:28
Ashkenazim should have a lot of European Mtdna. Their Y-dna is mostly Levantine and Turkic AFAIK.

Sicilians have a non trivial amount of Moorish ancestry beside West Asian admix rich in ANE like ancestry from the late neolitich/copper age.

Yeah that's true, except for about 40% of AJs (including myself) who belong to 4 specific subclades that are exclusive to AJs and seem to be most likely of West Asian, specifically Levantine, origin, most AJs belong to mainly European maternal lineages like the plain H etc. But if you didn't know, Y-dna and Mtdna represent only a fraction of ones ancestry, the real ancestry is in the autosomal DNA, and that seems to show AJs plot in the gap between Europe and the near east, between Greeks and Cypriots (according to the Lizardis 2014 study), alongside Sicilians and Maltese, whether that's due to European admixture/genetic isolation (or both reasons) that we plot there rather than next to Cypriots (who probably best represent pre Islamic Levantines), I'm not certain, I just wanted to know what plotting in the gap, and sharing closest genetic similarities with Sicilians, Greeks, Armenians and Druze (according to the Behar 2013 study) means, does that make us European? Near eastern? Both? Non of the above? What does that make traditionally European populations such as Sicilians and Maltese? What does that make Cypriots? These are questions that I'm not entirely sure there's a definitive answer to at the moment.


P.S May I please have the link to those plots? I don't seem to find them on Behar's official study page.

joeyc
22-07-14, 22:13
You have to download the paper in this link.

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/41/

http://i.imgur.com/I3bATv3.png

The most likely explaination is that the original Jews were similar to modern Druzes. The Mizrahim later mixed with Iranic/Caucasian people while the Sephardim/Ashkenazim mixed with Iberians and to a much lesser extent North Slavs, Khazars and North West Africans IMHO.

John Doe
22-07-14, 23:23
You have to download the paper in this link.

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/41/

http://i.imgur.com/I3bATv3.png

The most likely explaination is that the original Jews were similar to modern Druzes. The Mizrahim later mixed with Iranic/Caucasian people while the Sephardim/Ashkenazim mixed with Iberians and to a much lesser extent North Slavs, Khazars and North West Africans IMHO.

Alright. As you can see this is the Lizardis plot, which clearly shows AJs plot between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Maltese and Sicilians, whether this is the result of admixture with Iberians, and to a much lesser extent northern Slavs, Khazars and northwest Africans, I don't know, however, that would explain why on K13 I get this:


Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 33.95
2 North_Atlantic 21.11
3 West_Med 19.23
4 West_Asian 13.53
5 Baltic 5.45
6 Red_Sea 4.46
7 Northeast_African 0.86
8 East_Asian 0.86
9 Oceanian 0.33
10 Sub-Saharan 0.22


Single Population Sharing:


# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 4.94
2 Ashkenazi 7.45
3 Sephardic_Jewish 7.66
4 Greek 9.29
5 Tuscan 11.95
6 Cyprian 16.41
7 North_Italian 18.4
8 Lebanese_Muslim 19.4
9 Bulgarian 20.53
10 Syrian 20.84
11 Turkish 21.47
12 Romanian 22.17
13 Lebanese_Druze 22.23
14 Samaritan 22.5
15 Palestinian 22.83
16 Jordanian 22.97
17 Lebanese_Christian 23.41
18 Algerian 24.9
19 Azeri_Jewish 25.69
20 Spanish_Extremadura 25.71


Mixed Mode Population Sharing:


# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 55.1% Lebanese_Druze + 44.9% Spanish_Valencia @ 2.25
2 54.2% Lebanese_Druze + 45.8% Spanish_Andalucia @ 2.4
3 56.2% Lebanese_Druze + 43.8% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 2.69
4 58.2% Lebanese_Druze + 41.8% Spanish_Aragon @ 2.71
5 55.8% Lebanese_Druze + 44.2% Spanish_Cataluna @ 2.74
6 58.2% Lebanese_Druze + 41.8% Spanish_Cantabria @ 2.76
7 59.7% Lebanese_Druze + 40.3% Southwest_French @ 2.79
8 54.8% North_Italian + 45.2% Lebanese_Druze @ 2.82
9 54.3% Lebanese_Druze + 45.7% Spanish_Murcia @ 2.87
10 65.5% Tuscan + 34.5% Lebanese_Druze @ 2.87
11 55.8% Lebanese_Druze + 44.2% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 3.17
12 65.9% Lebanese_Druze + 34.1% French_Basque @ 3.24
13 53.7% Lebanese_Druze + 46.3% Spanish_Extremadura @ 3.31
14 54% Lebanese_Druze + 46% Portuguese @ 3.4
15 85.8% Sephardic_Jewish + 14.2% Southeast_English @ 3.84
16 85% Sephardic_Jewish + 15% German @ 3.84
17 54.6% Lebanese_Christian + 45.4% Spanish_Cataluna @ 3.86
18 55.5% Lebanese_Druze + 44.5% Spanish_Galicia @ 3.94
19 86.5% Sephardic_Jewish + 13.5% Danish @ 3.95
20 86.6% Sephardic_Jewish + 13.4% Orcadian @ 3.95



P.S As for your comment on the Mizrahis, I agree, considering the fact that they plot next to Christian Assyrians, Kurds etc.

P.P.S Thanks for the link. :)

John Doe
23-07-14, 09:39
The explanation is that Ashkenazim have very little Khazar ancestry (Chuvash+North Caucasus). They are most likely a mix of Sephardim and North Slavs (85% and 15% respectively)



The oracle software from Gedmatch is not reliable.

1) Because it is based on the ADMIXTURE analysis, which is an approximation of the genome.

2) Because it doesn't count the FST distances between the components.

Indeed AJs have a significant amount of African like ancestry (10% of Red Sea+SSA+NE African) which is enough to pull them away from Europeans. The best way is to look at a Global PCA plot (based on the genome). Like this from Behar et al. 2013.

http://i.imgur.com/aNaQLL6.jpg

The plot on the left show the first two most significant components. AJs (labeled as AshJ) are closest to North African and Sephardi Jews, then Sicilians (ItS), Armenians (Arm), Druzes (Dru) and Cypriots (Cyp).

Other Italians and South Europeans are quite far from the AJs.

What's the difference between the plot on the left and the one on the right? The one on the right shows AJs plotting between South Italians and Cypriots, the one on the left strangely puts AJs away from the gap and closer to Iraqi Jews than to Sephardi Jews and Italqim, that doesn't seem right...

joeyc
23-07-14, 09:40
1) He is called Lazaridis. Jews have a very high mean verbal IQ, PLEASE!

2) You seem to be closer to Druzes than to Valencians. But then Eurogenes and its oracle sofware are amateur stuff, so not vey reliable.

Keep in mind that Behar kept only the longest shared IBD segments, which means that the IBD analysis shows only the most recent admixture events (last 500 years or so).

From the paper.


IBD was analyzed using GERMLINE 1.5.1 (Gusev and others, 2009) on the phased unpruned data.We ran GERMLINE with default parameters (-min_m 3 –bits 128 –err_hom 4 –err_het 1) to detect
pairwise IBD sharing for all pairs of study samples. Following previous work (Gusev and others,
2012), we searched for genomic regions in which sparse SNP coverage yields false positive IBD
calls, and excised them from the GERMLINE-estimated IBD segments; specially, we divided the
genome into non-overlapping 1-Mb blocks and excised blocks with <100 SNPs. We then kept
only the shared IBD segments whose length, following excisions, exceeded 3 Mb. Finally, we
discarded from the analysis chromosomes 6, 11 and 12, which presented a high level of
excessive false-positive sharing, similar to effects observed previously (Gusev and others, 2012).

Regarding the PCA plot.


Figure 2a presents the first two principal components (PCs) of genetic variation at three levelsof magnification, color-coding the samples by geographic region. The two plots at lower
magnification indicate that PC placement of most Jewish populations, including the Ashkenazi
Jews, is far from such geographically distant populations as East Asians, South Asians, and Sub-
Saharan Africans.


The Ashkenazi Jewish samples produce a relatively tight cluster that overlaps with someJewish and non-Jewish populations. Among the Jewish populations, Ashkenazi Jews fall closest
to Italian Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, North African Jews, and Sephardi Jews, positioned
continuously with other Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations along PC1. Among non-Jewish
populations, Ashkenazi Jews lie nearest to Armenians, Cypriots, Druze, Greeks, and Sicilians.
Four Ashkenazi Jews fall outside the main Ashkenazi cluster and lie closer to Europeans.

joeyc
23-07-14, 09:43
@John Doe the plot on the right shows the first and third important components.

They are less important. The greatest amount of genetic diversity is showed on the left.

Keep in mind that it's quite hard to represent a Global PCA plot with just only 2 dimensions. It would be a grossly approximation.

John Doe
23-07-14, 09:45
1) He is called Lazaridis. Jews have a very high mean verbal IQ, PLEASE!

2) You seem to be closer to Druzes than to Valencians. But then Eurogenes and its oracle sofware are amateur stuff, so not vey reliable.

Keep in mind that Behar kept only the longest shared IBD segments, which means that the IBD analysis shows only the most recent admixture events (last 500 years or so).

From the paper.



Regarding the PCA plot.

lol My mistake, I forgot his surname, I usually don't get typos, I was just tired at that time and didn't look up his surname. I suppose that would make sense, considering the fact that I'm not entirely sure AJs were ever in Spain. :-\

John Doe
23-07-14, 09:46
@John Doe the plot on the right shows the first and third important components.

They are less important. The greatest amount of genetic diversity is showed on the left.

Keep in mind that it's quite hard to represent a Global PCA plot with just only 2 dimensions. It would be a grossly approximation.

I see. That makes sense. So basically the left plot doesn't show that AJs plot closer to Iraqi Jews than to Sephardi and Italian Jews? It's just because the plot is 2 dimensional? That plot also seem to show we're closer to Armenians than to south Italians, that also took me by surprise, but according to what you said AJs are closer to Sicilians according to the plot. And besides, Armenians and Georgians also seem to be in this gap.

JS Bach
24-07-14, 06:43
Here are the Eurogenes K15 results for AJs and West-Sicilians:



Population
Ashkenazi
West_Sicilian
Norwegian
French
Danish


North_Sea
9.89
9.763333333
39.74
28.25
36.56333


Atlantic
10.7
18.32
23.47
26.05
27.75667


Baltic
6.74
4.696666667
13.26
8.22
11.58667


Eastern_Euro
5.17
3.27
11.48
6.32
10.71333


West_Med
14.82
17.75666667
6.36
15.53
5.99


West_Asian
13.05
10.64333333
2.24
4.66
3.34


East_Med
26.61
26.74666667
0.8
6.72
2.036667


Red_Sea
8.07
5.373333333
0.14
2.83
0.29


South_Asian
1.2
0.566666667
0.81
0.71
1.026667


Southeast_Asian
0.6
0.19
0.08
0.09
0.08


Siberian
0.58
0.083333333
0.5
0.09
0.093333


Amerindian
0.32
0.01
0.72
0.2
0.186667


Oceanian
0.24
0.52
0.32
0.15
0.073333


Northeast_African
1.63
1.326666667
0.06
0.11
0.186667


Sub-Saharan
0.39
0.723333333
0.04
0.07
0.07



The two components that the West-Sicilians most clearly have more of are the Atlantic and West_Med components. This seems plausibly to be in alignment with the theory of them having Norman admixture, since those two components are very West-European, and are carried in fairly high proportions among the French, Norwegian and Danish populations, from which the Normans are said to be descended. The components in order where the AJs are most clearly higher are: Red_Sea, West_Asian, Baltic, and Eastern_Euro, and they are not much higher in those components than the West_Sicilians. The North_Sea component is marginally higher in the AJs. The largest difference is clearly in the Atlantic component. In light of this, maybe I wouldn't rule out just yet the AJs having a bit of that Khazar admixture - albeit a very small proportion. Here's the source table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHRPeVdMUDNjOVZETVoxZHpqVG5qN Hc&usp=sharing

joeyc
24-07-14, 09:20
AJs are actually closer to Eastern Sicilians on the Eurogenes amateur crap.

John Doe
24-07-14, 09:55
Here are the Eurogenes K15 results for AJs and West-Sicilians:



Population
Ashkenazi
West_Sicilian
Norwegian
French
Danish


North_Sea
9.89
9.763333333
39.74
28.25
36.56333


Atlantic
10.7
18.32
23.47
26.05
27.75667


Baltic
6.74
4.696666667
13.26
8.22
11.58667


Eastern_Euro
5.17
3.27
11.48
6.32
10.71333


West_Med
14.82
17.75666667
6.36
15.53
5.99


West_Asian
13.05
10.64333333
2.24
4.66
3.34


East_Med
26.61
26.74666667
0.8
6.72
2.036667


Red_Sea
8.07
5.373333333
0.14
2.83
0.29


South_Asian
1.2
0.566666667
0.81
0.71
1.026667


Southeast_Asian
0.6
0.19
0.08
0.09
0.08


Siberian
0.58
0.083333333
0.5
0.09
0.093333


Amerindian
0.32
0.01
0.72
0.2
0.186667


Oceanian
0.24
0.52
0.32
0.15
0.073333


Northeast_African
1.63
1.326666667
0.06
0.11
0.186667


Sub-Saharan
0.39
0.723333333
0.04
0.07
0.07



The two components that the West-Sicilians most clearly have more of are the Atlantic and West_Med components. This seems plausibly to be in alignment with the theory of them having Norman admixture, since those two components are very West-European, and are carried in fairly high proportions among the French, Norwegian and Danish populations, from which the Normans are said to be descended. The components in order where the AJs are most clearly higher are: Red_Sea, West_Asian, Baltic, and Eastern_Euro, and they are not much higher in those components than the West_Sicilians. The North_Sea component is marginally higher in the AJs. The largest difference is clearly in the Atlantic component. In light of this, maybe I wouldn't rule out just yet the AJs having a bit of that Khazar admixture - albeit a very small proportion. Here's the source table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHRPeVdMUDNjOVZETVoxZHpqVG5qN Hc&usp=sharing


Here are my K15 results:





Population



North_Sea
8.44%


Atlantic
19.52%


Baltic
4.00%


Eastern_Euro
1.99%


West_Med
14.60%


West_Asian
16.32%


East_Med
26.20%


Red_Sea
6.79%


South_Asian
-


Southeast_Asian
0.62%


Siberian
-


Amerindian
-


Oceanian
0.29%


Northeast_African
1.24%


Sub-Saharan
-







I seem to get double the Atlantic component than an average AJ, but I suppose that just like Joey commented above, Gedmatch isn't very reliable. Is it possible that the similarities between AJs and west Sicilians come from a common Canaanite ancestry (the Phoenicians colonized west Sicily and like the Israelites they were Canaanites)?

John Doe
24-07-14, 10:06
AJs are actually closer to Eastern Sicilians on the Eurogenes amateur crap.

LOL, and that's not supposed to be the case? Anyways, In conclusion, I suppose AJs are simply a pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian population, with close proximity to other Jews (specifically Sephardi Jews i.e north African, Greek, Turkish and Syrian Jews, as well as non Sephardi Italian and Greek Jews), as well as other pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian populations such as Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians etc. With the only "European" populations AJs have a proximity to being Sicilians and Maltese who themselves have been influenced by Canaanites (Phoenicians) and Arabs/Berbers.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

joeyc
24-07-14, 13:26
Yeah pretty much that. Eastern Euro Ashkenazis have also a small amount of Turkic ancestry, that Sephardim lack.

FrankN
25-07-14, 02:37
LOL, and that's not supposed to be the case? Anyways, In conclusion, I suppose AJs are simply a pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian population, with close proximity to other Jews (specifically Sephardi Jews i.e north African, Greek, Turkish and Syrian Jews, as well as non Sephardi Italian and Greek Jews), as well as other pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian populations such as Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians etc. With the only "European" populations AJs have a proximity to being Sicilians and Maltese who themselves have been influenced by Canaanites (Phoenicians) and Arabs/Berbers.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
You are certainly right here. But one shouldn't underestimate the importance of Sicily and Southern Italy during the early Medieval. As I said before, Arab Palermo was at least as large, possibly larger than Byzantium. Add to that other relevant cities such as Syracuse, Messina, Naples, Salerno, Taranto and Trani, and we are definitely talking about the economic and demographic centre of the Mediterranean and all of Europe during the 8th-11th century. Sicilian Jews played a strong economic role (Palermo's Jewish archives have been preserved and are a prime source for research on the early medieval Mediterranean economy). Estimates about their population shares vary, but Jews should have accounted for at least some 5-10% of the urban population. Significant rural Jewish communities are documented in place names, and I have read estimates that up to 50% of the rural Calabrian population may have been Jewish.

A first-hand "census" on Jewish populations is given by Benjamin of Tudela's account of his travel around the Mediterranean in the second half of the 12th century. The figures probably relate to households rather than individuals. Around the Central/ Eastern Mediterranean, the largest Jewish communities he lists are:

Alexandria 3,000
Constantinople: 2,000 Rabbinites, 500 Karaites
Thebes 2,000 (silk-weaving community, partly resettled by Normans into Sicily prior to Benjamin's journey)
Palermo 1,500
Salerno 600
Naples, Otranto, Thessaloniki, Tyros: 500

Other relevant South Italian cities he visited included Capua (300), Taranto (300), Benevento (200), Melfi (200), Messina (200) and Trani (200).

For reference: Rhodes 400, Marseille, Corinth 300, Rome, Jerusalem 200, Lucca 40, Antioch 10, Genoa 2.
http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/masaos_binyomin_mitudela_with_english.pdf

All those South Italian Jews must have gone somewhere after their expulsion in the 14th/ 15th century. And the communities were certainly ancient - we are talking about old Greek colonies here.

JS Bach
25-07-14, 03:36
@joeyc: Yes, I didn't see the East-Sicilians in the table there. And yes, the East-Sicilians (ES) do look closer to the AJs than the West-Sicilians - quite similar actually. The largest differences between the AJ and ES in order are the Eastern_Euro, Atlantic, and West_Med components. Some might not find the table worthwhile, but I feel the percentages are worthy of posting anyway:



Population
East_Sicilian
Ashkenazi
West_Sicilian


North_Sea
9.75
9.89
9.763333333


Atlantic
13.27
10.7
18.32


Baltic
6.393333333
6.74
4.696666667


Eastern_Euro
2.26
5.17
3.27


West_Med
17.35666667
14.82
17.75666667


West_Asian
14.43
13.05
10.64333333


East_Med
26.94333333
26.61
26.74666667


Red_Sea
6.763333333
8.07
5.373333333


South_Asian
0.52
1.2
0.566666667


Southeast_Asian
0.03
0.6
0.19


Siberian
0.003333333
0.58
0.083333333


Amerindian
0.063333333
0.32
0.01


Oceanian
0.25
0.24
0.52


Northeast_African
1.596666667
1.63
1.326666667


Sub-Saharan
0.36
0.39
0.723333333

LeBrok
25-07-14, 03:45
You are certainly right here. But one shouldn't underestimate the importance of Sicily and Southern Italy during the early Medieval. As I said before, Arab Palermo was at least as large, possibly larger than Byzantium. Add to that other relevant cities such as Syracuse, Messina, Naples, Salerno, Taranto and Trani, and we are definitely talking about the economic and demographic centre of the Mediterranean and all of Europe during the 8th-11th century. Sicilian Jews played a strong economic role (Palermo's Jewish archives have been preserved and are a prime source for research on the early medieval Mediterranean economy). Estimates about their population shares vary, but Jews should have accounted for at least some 5-10% of the urban population. Significant rural Jewish communities are documented in place names, and I have read estimates that up to 50% of the rural Calabrian population may have been Jewish.

A first-hand "census" on Jewish populations is given by Benjamin of Tudela's account of his travel around the Mediterranean in the second half of the 12th century. The figures probably relate to households rather than individuals. Around the Central/ Eastern Mediterranean, the largest Jewish communities he lists are:

Alexandria 3,000
Constantinople: 2,000 Rabbinites, 500 Karaites
Thebes 2,000 (silk-weaving community, partly resettled by Normans into Sicily prior to Benjamin's journey)
Palermo 1,500
Salerno 600
Naples, Otranto, Thessaloniki, Tyros: 500

Other relevant South Italian cities he visited included Capua (300), Taranto (300), Benevento (200), Melfi (200), Messina (200) and Trani (200).

For reference: Rhodes 400, Marseille, Corinth 300, Rome, Jerusalem 200, Lucca 40, Antioch 10, Genoa 2.
http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/masaos_binyomin_mitudela_with_english.pdf

All those South Italian Jews must have gone somewhere after their expulsion in the 14th/ 15th century. And the communities were certainly ancient - we are talking about old Greek colonies here.

Most likely only man of the house was counted. Number for Alexandria might mean 3,000 families, times 5 members per family (at least), can give 15,000 Jews altogether.

FrankN
25-07-14, 06:28
Here are my K15 results:






Population


Diff. AJ



North_Sea


8.44%


-1.55




Atlantic

19.52%

+9.52



Baltic

4.00%

-2.74




Eastern_Euro

1.99%

-3.18




West_Med

14.60%

+0.18




West_Asian

16.32%

+3.27




East_Med

26.20%

+0.19



Red_Sea

6.79%

-1.28




South_Asian

-

-1.20




Southeast_Asian

0.62%

+0.02



Siberian

-

-0.58




Amerindian

-

-0.32




Oceanian

0.29%

+0.05



Northeast_African

1.24%

-0.39



Sub-Saharan

-

-0.39









I seem to get double the Atlantic component than an average AJ, but I suppose that just like Joey commented above, Gedmatch isn't very reliable. Is it possible that the similarities between AJs and west Sicilians come from a common Canaanite ancestry (the Phoenicians colonized west Sicily and like the Israelites they were Canaanites)?
Well, the high Atlantic component is not your only difference to the average AJ. You are also more West Asian, and less North Sea / Baltic / Eastern Euro (see my addition to your table above). That would suggest that you have taken up very little ancestry from Eastern Europe, and some Sephardim ancestry instead.

But even a AJ/ Sephardim mix wouldn't make you that "Atlantic", Sephardim also have just 14% of it. Actually, there aren't many populations that are high on "Atlantic" but at the same time low on "North Sea". The best here is French Basques (45% Atlantic vs. 17% North Sea) - in terms of a relevant, ancient Jewish community that should mean Narbonne.
The "best fit" population, as you probably already have realised, is West Sicilians. But West Sicilians, and even more so French Basques lack the West Asian component and are too Western Mediterranean. So I looked for a population that is high on "West Asian" but at the same time low on "Eastern European" and "Siberian". Best fit here is Georgian Jews. From the three together one can already pretty well emulate your ancestry structure, but they miss an East African & Red Sea component. Yemenite Jews fill the gap perfectly. That's not meaning you have actually Yemenite Jewish ancestry, they should rather compensate for the specifically Jewish element that is missing within French Basques. So here is my result:



Population

Georgian Jewish

West Sicilian

Yemenite Jewish

French Basque

Mix

John Doe




35.6%

26.1%

9.1%

29.2%

100%





North_Sea

2.27

9.76

0.27

16.85

8.30

8.44



Atlantic

2.67

18.32

1.05

45.40

19.08

19.52



Baltic

1.63

4.70

0.16

4.79

3.22

4.00



Eastern_Euro

2.91

3.27

0.11

2.82

2.72

1.99



West_Med

6.95

17.76

4.40

25.04

14.82

14.60



West_Asian

35.22

10.64

5.41

0.83

16.05

16.32



East_Med

36.66

26.75

54.11

2.74

25.76

26.20



Red_Sea

8.06

5.37

27.46

0.73

6.99

6.79



South_Asian

2.77

0.57

0.48

0.13

1.22

0.00



Southeast_Asian

0.17

0.19

0.06

0.28

0.20

0.62



Siberian

0.10

0.08

0.10

0.04

0.08

0.00



Amerindian

0.16

0.01

0.08

0.03

0.08

0.00



Oceanian

0.11

0.52

0.18

0.10

0.22

0.29



Northeast_African

0.29

1.33

6.11

0.17

1.06

1.24



Sub-Saharan

0.04

0.72

0.01

0.04

0.21

0.00




Except for the South Asian component that comes with the Georgian Jews, it fits quite nicely.
Otherwise, you appear to be a living proof of Jewish settlement in Eastern Europe (Galizia) during Khazar times.

joeyc
25-07-14, 10:06
@FrankN

All Jews were completelly expelled from Southern Italy in the XVI century, including all the half breeds and the converts.

Their descendants would become the Italkim of central and northern Italy. All the Sephardim and Ashkenazim of Italy lived in the North (Rome, Trieste, Livorno, Venice....)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_della_Sicilia_ebraica

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_degli_ebrei_in_Italia

AJs are much closer to Eastern Sicilians (Siracusa) than to Western ones (Trapani). Which is funny considering that Siracusa was never occupied by Phoenicians and the Arab influences were quite insignificant.

John Doe
25-07-14, 10:45
Well, the high Atlantic component is not your only difference to the average AJ. You are also more West Asian, and less North Sea / Baltic / Eastern Euro (see my addition to your table above). That would suggest that you have taken up very little ancestry from Eastern Europe, and some Sephardim ancestry instead.

But even a AJ/ Sephardim mix wouldn't make you that "Atlantic", Sephardim also have just 14% of it. Actually, there aren't many populations that are high on "Atlantic" but at the same time low on "North Sea". The best here is French Basques (45% Atlantic vs. 17% North Sea) - in terms of a relevant, ancient Jewish community that should mean Narbonne.
The "best fit" population, as you probably already have realised, is West Sicilians. But West Sicilians, and even more so French Basques lack the West Asian component and are too Western Mediterranean. So I looked for a population that is high on "West Asian" but at the same time low on "Eastern European" and "Siberian". Best fit here is Georgian Jews. From the three together one can already pretty well emulate your ancestry structure, but they miss an East African & Red Sea component. Yemenite Jews fill the gap perfectly. That's not meaning you have actually Yemenite Jewish ancestry, they should rather compensate for the specifically Jewish element that is missing within French Basques. So here is my result:



Population
Georgian Jewish
West Sicilian
Yemenite Jewish
French Basque
Mix
John Doe



35.6%
26.1%
9.1%
29.2%
100%



North_Sea
2.27
9.76
0.27
16.85
8.30
8.44


Atlantic
2.67
18.32
1.05
45.40
19.08
19.52


Baltic
1.63
4.70
0.16
4.79
3.22
4.00


Eastern_Euro
2.91
3.27
0.11
2.82
2.72
1.99


West_Med
6.95
17.76
4.40
25.04
14.82
14.60


West_Asian
35.22
10.64
5.41
0.83
16.05
16.32


East_Med
36.66
26.75
54.11
2.74
25.76
26.20


Red_Sea
8.06
5.37
27.46
0.73
6.99
6.79


South_Asian
2.77
0.57
0.48
0.13
1.22
0.00


Southeast_Asian
0.17
0.19
0.06
0.28
0.20
0.62


Siberian
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.00


Amerindian
0.16
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.00


Oceanian
0.11
0.52
0.18
0.10
0.22
0.29


Northeast_African
0.29
1.33
6.11
0.17
1.06
1.24


Sub-Saharan
0.04
0.72
0.01
0.04
0.21
0.00



Except for the South Asian component that comes with the Georgian Jews, it fits quite nicely.
Otherwise, you appear to be a living proof of Jewish settlement in Eastern Europe (Galizia) during Khazar times.

My family does have a tradition that AJs descend from Sephardis who came to Poland after the expulsion, my mum is indeed darker than my biological dad (my mum looks Mediterranean, she was mistaken for a local in Italy, my biological dad was fair, dark blonde, green/blue eyes, I got the fairness from him, I'm dark blonde, green eyed and fair skinned, I was mistaken for an Anglo-German).

As for the French Basque, well look at my K15 results:

Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 26.2
2 Atlantic 19.52
3 West_Asian 16.32
4 West_Med 14.6
5 North_Sea 8.44
6 Red_Sea 6.79
7 Baltic 4
8 Eastern_Euro 1.99
9 Northeast_African 1.24
10 Southeast_Asian 0.62
11 Oceanian 0.29


Single Population Sharing:


# Population (source) Distance
1 Ashkenazi 9.1
2 Sephardic_Jewish 9.48
3 Tuscan 10.37
4 Greek 10.57
5 North_Italian 16.43
6 Bulgarian 16.92
7 Cyprian 17.15
8 Turkish 18.23
9 Romanian 18.75
10 Lebanese_Muslim 19.17
11 Syrian 20.2
12 Serbian 21.68
13 Spanish_Andalucia 22.16
14 Spanish_Extremadura 22.31
15 Spanish_Murcia 22.54
16 Jordanian 23.15
17 Portuguese 23.16
18 Samaritan 23.47
19 Spanish_Valencia 23.63
20 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 23.85


Mixed Mode Population Sharing:


# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 64.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 35.2% French_Basque @ 2.51
2 57.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 42.2% Spanish_Aragon @ 3.25
3 55.9% Lebanese_Muslim + 44.1% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 3.28
4 51.9% Assyrian + 48.1% Spanish_Aragon @ 3.35
5 55.3% Lebanese_Muslim + 44.7% Spanish_Valencia @ 3.43
6 53.7% Lebanese_Muslim + 46.3% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.48
7 59.4% Lebanese_Muslim + 40.6% Southwest_French @ 3.52
8 52.3% Spanish_Andalucia + 47.7% Assyrian @ 3.54
9 50% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha + 50% Assyrian @ 3.58
10 50.6% Spanish_Valencia + 49.4% Assyrian @ 3.72
11 59.3% Assyrian + 40.7% French_Basque @ 3.81
12 58.6% Lebanese_Muslim + 41.4% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4
13 51.9% Spanish_Murcia + 48.1% Assyrian @ 4.38
14 54.2% Lebanese_Muslim + 45.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.4
15 55.7% Lebanese_Muslim + 44.3% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 4.43
16 53.5% Assyrian + 46.5% Southwest_French @ 4.44
17 56% Lebanese_Muslim + 44% Spanish_Cataluna @ 4.47
18 63.8% Syrian + 36.2% French_Basque @ 4.5
19 52.7% Assyrian + 47.3% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4.69
20 50.4% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon + 49.6% Assyrian @ 4.71


As for the Khazar admixture, maybe, but that still wouldn't explain so much Atlantic admixture. Also I highly doubt I have Yemenite or even Georgian Jewish ancestry, in the case of the former, I'd expect much more red sea and a much closer proximity to Palestinians, Jordanians, Bedouins and Saudis, with Yemenite Jews being Judaised Arabs and all.

John Doe
25-07-14, 10:46
You are certainly right here. But one shouldn't underestimate the importance of Sicily and Southern Italy during the early Medieval. As I said before, Arab Palermo was at least as large, possibly larger than Byzantium. Add to that other relevant cities such as Syracuse, Messina, Naples, Salerno, Taranto and Trani, and we are definitely talking about the economic and demographic centre of the Mediterranean and all of Europe during the 8th-11th century. Sicilian Jews played a strong economic role (Palermo's Jewish archives have been preserved and are a prime source for research on the early medieval Mediterranean economy). Estimates about their population shares vary, but Jews should have accounted for at least some 5-10% of the urban population. Significant rural Jewish communities are documented in place names, and I have read estimates that up to 50% of the rural Calabrian population may have been Jewish.

A first-hand "census" on Jewish populations is given by Benjamin of Tudela's account of his travel around the Mediterranean in the second half of the 12th century. The figures probably relate to households rather than individuals. Around the Central/ Eastern Mediterranean, the largest Jewish communities he lists are:

Alexandria 3,000
Constantinople: 2,000 Rabbinites, 500 Karaites
Thebes 2,000 (silk-weaving community, partly resettled by Normans into Sicily prior to Benjamin's journey)
Palermo 1,500
Salerno 600
Naples, Otranto, Thessaloniki, Tyros: 500

Other relevant South Italian cities he visited included Capua (300), Taranto (300), Benevento (200), Melfi (200), Messina (200) and Trani (200).

For reference: Rhodes 400, Marseille, Corinth 300, Rome, Jerusalem 200, Lucca 40, Antioch 10, Genoa 2.
http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/masaos_binyomin_mitudela_with_english.pdf

All those South Italian Jews must have gone somewhere after their expulsion in the 14th/ 15th century. And the communities were certainly ancient - we are talking about old Greek colonies here.

I suppose you have a point, however Behar's plot still shows AJs in a gap, with Cypriots and south Italians on the left and Armenians on the right.

John Doe
25-07-14, 10:46
@FrankN

All Jews were completelly expelled from Southern Italy in the XVI century, including all the half breeds and the converts.

Their descendants would become the Italkim of central and northern Italy. All the Sephardim and Ashkenazim of Italy lived in the North (Rome, Trieste, Livorno, Venice....)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_della_Sicilia_ebraica

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_degli_ebrei_in_Italia

AJs are much closer to Eastern Sicilians (Siracusa) than to Western ones (Trapani). Which is funny considering that Siracusa was never occupied by Phoenicians and the Arab influences were quite insignificant.

Yeah, ironic huh? Go figure, maybe there was Greek admixture after all.

joeyc
25-07-14, 22:13
Your turkic ancestry is most likely hided in the Baltic and Eastern Euro clusters AFAIK.

John Doe
25-07-14, 22:17
Your turkic ancestry is most likely hided in the Baltic and Eastern Euro clusters AFAIK.

AFAIK? What does that mean? Are you sure that Baltic and eastern Euro doesn't just mean Baltic for the former and Slavic for the latter?

FrankN
26-07-14, 07:18
@Joh Doe: In the case of French Basque/ Atlantic admix I of course forgot Bordeaux and Toulouse as relevant and ancient Jewish communities. Both were within the Visigothic realm, which appear to have crafted a specific political alliance with the Jews. They didn't issue any discriminations, as Ostrogtothic Theodoric, and Jews are reported to have been among the most ardent supporters of Visigothic rule. Moreover, the region was part of the Norman/ English realm, and thus out of reach of earlier Medieval French discrimination and prosecution during the First Crusade. Especially Jews from Tolouse, however, became implicated in French prosecution of the heresy of the Albigenses in the 13th century - Alsace / Switzerland, and in the mid-14h century from there to Eastern Europe looks like a plausible migration path. Otherwise, Southern Italy with its high religious tolerance under 13th century Hohenstaufen rule would probably be the place to go if you wanted to escape the inquisition yet continue trade in Mediterranean commodities.
http://www.midi-france.info/190214_jews.htm

Eurogenes K15 West Asian admix centres in on the Greater Caucasus. After 200 years of Russian control, all North Caucasian populations have picked up some 6-10% East European ancestry, which makes them a rather poor fit for your case. So I took the Georgian Jews as a proxy of a lowly-russified Caucasian ancestry. Such ancestry appears to be stronger present with you then with the average AJ - whether due to direct Georgian-Jewish ancestry, or some Caucasian-Khazarian-Jewish ancestry that was picked up in Galizia, is something my amateurish approach cannot tell.
Noting from your Eurogenes admix results that Lebanese Muslims appear to capture the original Jewish (East Med/ Red Sea/ East African) ancestry component quite well, I have run another simulation where Yemenite Jews are replaced by Lebanese Muslims. The caveat here is that Lebanese Muslims have a bit of South Asian and Sub-Saharan African admix. Both tend to somewhat reduce the component's weight, but are probably not a fair representation of how the Levante's genetic mix looked 2,000 years ago. So I constructed an artificial Lebanese Muslim structure where these components are proportionally distributed onto all other components. Since that should capture the Jewish component, I also replaced Georgian Jews by Georgians. Moreover, as your father looks Anglo-German, I took in a fourth component. I have experimented with various options (Dutch, English, West German etc.), Northern German works best for its elevated Baltic admix.
That still left one problem - that 0.6% SE Asian admix in your genes, and with the average AJ, which is neither European nor Levantine. Thus, I looked for a population that maximises SE Asian ancestry with at little as possible Siberian and South Asian admix. Best choice here are the Dai (SW China), though in fact we are probably talking about some Himalayan component transferred via Afghanistan / Central Asia. Its highest frequencies in Europe (1.5-3%) are found among some North Caucasian populations, Ukraine is 0.5% (though Belgorod/Lviv only 0.2%). As such, the Georgian-Dai mix may be taken as a proxy of how the North Caucasian (Khazar) gene pool looked prior to Russification.

Here is the result (f²=0.46):


Population

Lebanese Muslim 2

French Basque

Georgian

North German

West Sicilian

Dai

Mix

John Doe




58.0%

32.1%

4.3%

3.7%

1.6%

0.4%

100%




North_Sea

2.50

16.85

4.68

33.08

9.76

0.17

8.44

8.44



Atlantic

5.79

45.40

3.90

27.46

18.32

0.17

19.39

19.52



Baltic

2.15

4.79

3.69

13.41


4.70

0.29

3.52

4.00




Eastern_Euro

1.26

2.82

3.27

9.95

3.27

0.29

2.20

1.99



West_Med

10.06

25.04

4.64

6.11

17.76


0.12


14.57

14.60



West_Asian

22.94

0.83

53.85

5.24

10.64

0.20

16.24

16.32



East_Med

41.06

2.74

19.63

2.50

26.75

0.15

26.04

26.20



Red_Sea

11.04

0.73

3.24

0.70

5.37

0.07


6.88

6.79



South_Asian


0.13

2.12

0.83

0.57

2.70


0.18

0.00



Southeast_Asian

0.12

0.28

0.16

0.02

0.19

91.41


0.52

0.62



Siberian

0.09

0.04

0.23

0.08

0.08

2.02

0.09

0.00



Amerindian

0.04

0.03

0.34

0.22

0.01

0.57

0.06

0.00



Oceanian

0.56

0.10

0.08

0.14


0.52

1.47


0.38

0.29



Northeast_African

2.40

0.17

0.13

0.19

1.33


0.17

1.48

1.24



Sub-Saharan


0.04

0.05

0.08

0.72

0.20

0.03

0.00





Except for the Baltic admix, which is still a bit too low, this looks quite good. The under-representation of the Baltic admix is related to its low share within Georgians. If I had taken North Caucasian populations (e.g. Adygei or Balkars) instead, the Baltic admix would have been fine (but in that case I would have gotten too much Eastern European admix).

I also checked which of the above components can be removed without significantly worsening the mix:

West Sicilian: Only slight worsening (f²=0.48). Of the 1.6% West Sicilian, 1% goes to Lebanese Muslims, 0.6% to French Basques. The Atlantic component actually gets better, but West Med is now slightly under- and Red Sea bit more overestimated.
Dai: Somehow worse (f²=0.56), as the SE Asian admix cannot anymore be approximated. The mix gets more Sicilian (2.3%), and less Basque/ Lebanese.
North German: Substantially worse fit (f²=1.29). The simulation is now pushing up Sicily to 12%, Georgians up to 6% and Lebanese Muslims down to 51%,which improves a bit the East Med/ Red Sea/ East African components. However the mix becomes far too West Mediterranean and underestimates the North Sea and Baltic components by 0.5-0.7%.
Georgian: Far worse. In order to somehow fit your West Asian admixture, the model tries to maximise the Lebanese Muslim component to such an extent that the Sicilian component turns negative. The best valid result has an f² of 2.84, it maximises Lebanese Muslims at 63%, and reduces the Sicilian component to zero. Still, the West Asian component is clearly underrepresented, Red Sea gets too high. Otherwise, it doesn't work too badly. By pushing up the Northern German component to 5.6%, the European components (Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic, Western Med) are reasonably well approximated, though North Sea and Eastern Europe are now also getting slightly too high.


Bottom line: The Sicilian component can be eliminated without significantly worsening the mix, the others are required. Essentially, your ancestry can be modelled as 59% Levantine, 32.5% Aquitaine (French Basque), 4.5% Khazarian (Georgian plus additional SE Asian & Baltic admix) and 4% North German. Alternatively to North German, Southern Dutch isn't a bad fit either(f²=0.56), but misses a bit on the Baltic component; Northern Dutch are a bit too North Sea (f²=0.54).
That North German ancestry may of course have been picked up somewhere in Eastern Europe from a German colonist - say 5 generations ago. Otherwise, if some of your ancestors lived as Jews for a longer time in Medieval Germany, one could, aside from Cologne, consider the following places:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_05356.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_07723.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12995.html
http://www.lzt-thueringen.de/files/races_of_jewish_life.pdf (http://www.lzt-thueringen.de/files/races_of_jewish_life.pdf)

joeyc
26-07-14, 07:49
A few things.1) Only eastern AJs have a significant amount of supposed Khazar ancestry. Georgians are not a good proxy for the Khazars.2) The Sephardi cluster is made up of Bulgarian and Turkish Sephardim now AFAIK. The original Behar paper from 2009 had the Belmonte Jews from Portugal, who better represent the original Sephardim.

John Doe
26-07-14, 10:14
@Joh Doe: In the case of French Basque/ Atlantic admix I of course forgot Bordeaux and Toulouse as relevant and ancient Jewish communities. Both were within the Visigothic realm, which appear to have crafted a specific political alliance with the Jews. They didn't issue any discriminations, as Ostrogtothic Theodoric, and Jews are reported to have been among the most ardent supporters of Visigothic rule. Moreover, the region was part of the Norman/ English realm, and thus out of reach of earlier Medieval French discrimination and prosecution during the First Crusade. Especially Jews from Tolouse, however, became implicated in French prosecution of the heresy of the Albigenses in the 13th century - Alsace / Switzerland, and in the mid-14h century from there to Eastern Europe looks like a plausible migration path. Otherwise, Southern Italy with its high religious tolerance under 13th century Hohenstaufen rule would probably be the place to go if you wanted to escape the inquisition yet continue trade in Mediterranean commodities.
http://www.midi-france.info/190214_jews.htm

Eurogenes K15 West Asian admix centres in on the Greater Caucasus. After 200 years of Russian control, all North Caucasian populations have picked up some 6-10% East European ancestry, which makes them a rather poor fit for your case. So I took the Georgian Jews as a proxy of a lowly-russified Caucasian ancestry. Such ancestry appears to be stronger present with you then with the average AJ - whether due to direct Georgian-Jewish ancestry, or some Caucasian-Khazarian-Jewish ancestry that was picked up in Galizia, is something my amateurish approach cannot tell.
Noting from your Eurogenes admix results that Lebanese Muslims appear to capture the original Jewish (East Med/ Red Sea/ East African) ancestry component quite well, I have run another simulation where Yemenite Jews are replaced by Lebanese Muslims. The caveat here is that Lebanese Muslims have a bit of South Asian and Sub-Saharan African admix. Both tend to somewhat reduce the component's weight, but are probably not a fair representation of how the Levante's genetic mix looked 2,000 years ago. So I constructed an artificial Lebanese Muslim structure where these components are proportionally distributed onto all other components. Since that should capture the Jewish component, I also replaced Georgian Jews by Georgians. Moreover, as your father looks Anglo-German, I took in a fourth component. I have experimented with various options (Dutch, English, West German etc.), Northern German works best for its elevated Baltic admix.
That still left one problem - that 0.6% SE Asian admix in your genes, and with the average AJ, which is neither European nor Levantine. Thus, I looked for a population that maximises SE Asian ancestry with at little as possible Siberian and South Asian admix. Best choice here are the Dai (SW China), though in fact we are probably talking about some Himalayan component transferred via Afghanistan / Central Asia. Its highest frequencies in Europe (1.5-3%) are found among some North Caucasian populations, Ukraine is 0.5% (though Belgorod/Lviv only 0.2%). As such, the Georgian-Dai mix may be taken as a proxy of how the North Caucasian (Khazar) gene pool looked prior to Russification.

Here is the result (f²=0.46):


Population
Lebanese Muslim 2
French Basque
Georgian
North German
West Sicilian
Dai
Mix
John Doe



58.0%
32.1%
4.3%
3.7%
1.6%
0.4%
100%



North_Sea
2.50
16.85
4.68
33.08
9.76
0.17
8.44
8.44


Atlantic
5.79
45.40
3.90
27.46
18.32
0.17
19.39
19.52


Baltic
2.15
4.79
3.69
13.41

4.70
0.29
3.52
4.00



Eastern_Euro
1.26
2.82
3.27
9.95
3.27
0.29
2.20
1.99


West_Med
10.06
25.04
4.64
6.11
17.76

0.12

14.57
14.60


West_Asian
22.94
0.83
53.85
5.24
10.64
0.20
16.24
16.32


East_Med
41.06
2.74
19.63
2.50
26.75
0.15
26.04
26.20


Red_Sea
11.04
0.73
3.24
0.70
5.37
0.07

6.88
6.79


South_Asian

0.13
2.12
0.83
0.57
2.70

0.18
0.00


Southeast_Asian
0.12
0.28
0.16
0.02
0.19
91.41

0.52
0.62


Siberian
0.09
0.04
0.23
0.08
0.08
2.02
0.09
0.00


Amerindian
0.04
0.03
0.34
0.22
0.01
0.57
0.06
0.00


Oceanian
0.56
0.10
0.08
0.14

0.52
1.47

0.38
0.29


Northeast_African
2.40
0.17
0.13
0.19
1.33

0.17
1.48
1.24


Sub-Saharan

0.04
0.05
0.08
0.72
0.20
0.03
0.00




Except for the Baltic admix, which is still a bit too low, this looks quite good. The under-representation of the Baltic admix is related to its low share within Georgians. If I had taken North Caucasian populations (e.g. Adygei or Balkars) instead, the Baltic admix would have been fine (but in that case I would have gotten too much Eastern European admix).

I also checked which of the above components can be removed without significantly worsening the mix:

West Sicilian: Only slight worsening (f²=0.48). Of the 1.6% West Sicilian, 1% goes to Lebanese Muslims, 0.6% to French Basques. The Atlantic component actually gets better, but West Med is now slightly under- and Red Sea bit more overestimated.
Dai: Somehow worse (f²=0.56), as the SE Asian admix cannot anymore be approximated. The mix gets more Sicilian (2.3%), and less Basque/ Lebanese.
North German: Substantially worse fit (f²=1.29). The simulation is now pushing up Sicily to 12%, Georgians up to 6% and Lebanese Muslims down to 51%,which improves a bit the East Med/ Red Sea/ East African components. However the mix becomes far too West Mediterranean and underestimates the North Sea and Baltic components by 0.5-0.7%.
Georgian: Far worse. In order to somehow fit your West Asian admixture, the model tries to maximise the Lebanese Muslim component to such an extent that the Sicilian component turns negative. The best valid result has an f² of 2.84, it maximises Lebanese Muslims at 63%, and reduces the Sicilian component to zero. Still, the West Asian component is clearly underrepresented, Red Sea gets too high. Otherwise, it doesn't work too badly. By pushing up the Northern German component to 5.6%, the European components (Baltic, North Sea, Atlantic, Western Med) are reasonably well approximated, though North Sea and Eastern Europe are now also getting slightly too high.


Bottom line: The Sicilian component can be eliminated without significantly worsening the mix, the others are required. Essentially, your ancestry can be modelled as 59% Levantine, 32.5% Aquitaine (French Basque), 4.5% Khazarian (Georgian plus additional SE Asian & Baltic admix) and 4% North German. Alternatively to North German, Southern Dutch isn't a bad fit either(f²=0.56), but misses a bit on the Baltic component; Northern Dutch are a bit too North Sea (f²=0.54).
That North German ancestry may of course have been picked up somewhere in Eastern Europe from a German colonist - say 5 generations ago. Otherwise, if some of your ancestors lived as Jews for a longer time in Medieval Germany, one could, aside from Cologne, consider the following places:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_05356.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_07723.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12995.html
http://www.lzt-thueringen.de/files/races_of_jewish_life.pdf (http://www.lzt-thueringen.de/files/races_of_jewish_life.pdf)

Wow, that's very interesting! Thanks. :)

FrankN
27-07-14, 23:59
@FrankN

All Jews were completelly expelled from Southern Italy in the XVI century, including all the half breeds and the converts.

Their descendants would become the Italkim of central and northern Italy. All the Sephardim and Ashkenazim of Italy lived in the North (Rome, Trieste, Livorno, Venice....)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_della_Sicilia_ebraica

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_degli_ebrei_in_Italia

AJs are much closer to Eastern Sicilians (Siracusa) than to Western ones (Trapani). Which is funny considering that Siracusa was never occupied by Phoenicians and the Arab influences were quite insignificant.
From your second Wikipedia link:

Si stima che nel 1492 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1492) gli ebrei componessero oltre il 6% della popolazione della Sicilia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilia).[9] (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_degli_ebrei_in_Italia#cite_note-tracingthetribe-9) Molti ebrei siciliani inizialmente andarono in Calabria (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabria), che già aveva una comunità ebraica sin dal IV secolo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/IV_secolo). Nel 1524 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1524) gli ebrei furono espulsi dalla Calabria e nel 1540 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1540) da tutto il Regno di Napoli (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regno_di_Napoli), poiché queste regioni caddero sotto il dominio degli spagnoli (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impero_spagnolo) e furono oggetto dell'editto di espulsione dell'Inquisizione spagnola (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisizione_spagnola).
Ci fu uno spostamento graduale degli ebrei durante tutto il XVI secolo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/XVI_secolo) dal sud d'Italia verso il nord, con il peggioramento delle condizioni per gli ebrei a Roma dopo 1556 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1556) e a Venezia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezia) negli anni 1580 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anni_1580). Molti ebrei da Venezia e aree circostanti emigrarono verso la Polonia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonia) e la Lituania (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lituania) in questo period.
If my rudimentary Italian doesn't deceive me, it says that some 6% of Sicily's population in 1492 were Jews. Out of which total? Surely more than half a million, possibly one million (Sicily's population today is around 5 million, in spite of heavy emigration to the US and elsewhere). That means that at least 50,000, possibly 100,000 or more Jews had to emigrate from Sicily and Southern Italy. I furthermore understand that the stop-over in Central/ Northern Italy was only short, and after 1580 many (most?) of the Sicilian / Southern Italian Jews moved on to Poland (probably meant to include Galicia) and Lithuania.
That would explain why AJ plot so close to Sicilians / South Italians. I'd guess if you "mix" West Sicilians with South Italians (especially Calabrians), the result should genetically resemble East Sicilians.

John Doe
28-07-14, 08:03
From your second Wikipedia link:

If my rudimentary Italian doesn't deceive me, it says that some 6% of Sicily's population in 1492 were Jews. Out of which total? Surely more than half a million, possibly one million (Sicily's population today is around 5 million, in spite of heavy emigration to the US and elsewhere). That means that at least 50,000, possibly 100,000 or more Jews had to emigrate from Sicily and Southern Italy. I furthermore understand that the stop-over in Central/ Northern Italy was only short, and after 1580 many (most?) of the Sicilian / Southern Italian Jews moved on to Poland (probably meant to include Galicia) and Lithuania.
That would explain why AJ plot so close to Sicilians / South Italians. I'd guess if you "mix" West Sicilians with South Italians (especially Calabrians), the result should genetically resemble East Sicilians.

Indeed, it may also be due to Phoenician influence.

joeyc
06-08-14, 16:17
From your second Wikipedia link:

If my rudimentary Italian doesn't deceive me, it says that some 6% of Sicily's population in 1492 were Jews. Out of which total? Surely more than half a million, possibly one million (Sicily's population today is around 5 million, in spite of heavy emigration to the US and elsewhere). That means that at least 50,000, possibly 100,000 or more Jews had to emigrate from Sicily and Southern Italy. I furthermore understand that the stop-over in Central/ Northern Italy was only short, and after 1580 many (most?) of the Sicilian / Southern Italian Jews moved on to Poland (probably meant to include Galicia) and Lithuania.
That would explain why AJ plot so close to Sicilians / South Italians. I'd guess if you "mix" West Sicilians with South Italians (especially Calabrians), the result should genetically resemble East Sicilians.

That is unsourced as the original link says nothing like that. Indeed in the last 1000 years of Italian history, the total number of Jews never went beyond 20.000 units out of a total population of about 10-20 milions of people. This is all documented by many studies.

Almost all European/Turkish/North African Jews are the descendants of the expelled Iberian Jews actually. There was even a study regarding to Jewish Y-Dna supporting that.

Semitic Duwa
11-08-14, 15:44
The Khazar contribution is greatly overrated & overestimated.
Moreover, I find most Gedmatch runs wholly unconvincing given the nature of the components (derived from actual components such as WHG, EEF, ANE, ASI, ANI, etc).
Which is why I'm kind of amused when someone claims that "Eastern Ashkenazi Jews" have more "Khazar" or "Slavic" ancestry than "Western AJs". In fact, one of the Behar et al. 2013 paper's conclusions was that "relatively little observable genetic difference exists between representatives of eastern and western Ashkenazi Jewish populations, suggesting that genetically, the Ashkenazi Jewish population approximates a single large community (Guha and others, 2012)".

Regarding the Basque, I think you might be onto something here (no indication of gene-flow though, so the ~65% Lebanese figure is wrong, same story with the ~50% Iberian fits):

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ashkenaziibd1.png

The above is an IBD map taken from Vadim Verenich's blog. As you can see, there's a non-negligible amount of IBD sharing with Basques... Along with Sardinians.
IMO this might have something to do with the fact that EEF-like ancestry was much more common around the first couple of centuries CE and managed to remain until the Ashkenazi bottleneck took place.
There's also high IBD sharing with the Greeks, so I'm more & more enclined to think that the Aegean played a big part in the formation of Western (Ashkenazi-Sephardi) Jewry.
In fact, I'm ready to say that some of the Aegean admixture might even go back to the Middle Bronze Age, when contacts between the Minoans (and Mycenaeans later on) and the Levant were thriving. This definitely isn't good news since this means that we'll be grasping at straws and splitting hairs when pre-exilic genome-wide results come in, as it strengthens the case for a Cypriot-like Levantine population prior to the emergence & spread of the arabs (which had already started a few centuries prior to the appearance Islam, mind you).
There's also a noticeable degree of IBD sharing with Eastern Ukrainians, in this case I think it has to do with prolonged cohabitation and the direction of gene-flow would be mostly Jewish to non-Jew given the region's history (replete with examples corroborating such a model, think of the Jewish cossacks for instance) and the paucity (not to say absence) of WHG in Jews.
Also of interest is the level of IBD sharing with Iranians, possibly a remnant of the Babylonian exile (would explain why I have Iranian and Uzbek Jewish relatives on my RF).
The Khazar theory takes yet another blow here, given the low to non-existent amounts of IBD sharing between Turkic speakers and Jews (save Uyghurs and Anatolian Turks, which are special species in their own right, so to speak).

Finally, I can't help but notice the fact that the level of IBD sharing with Italians is pretty low (lower than the amount of IBD sharing with Basques or Greeks, and on par with the level of IBD sharing with Turks & Iranians), which is surprising given the high similarity to Eastern Sicilians and Maltese (though in a sense you could say that AJs are even more similar to Aegean islanders and Cretans, but that's another story).

Oh, and Jewish uniparental lineages seem to be Near Eastern for the most, and yes that includes mtDNA as well.

John Doe
11-08-14, 18:51
The Khazar contribution is greatly overrated & overestimated.
Moreover, I find most Gedmatch runs wholly unconvincing given the nature of the components (derived from actual components such as WHG, EEF, ANE, ASI, ANI, etc).
Which is why I'm kind of amused when someone claims that "Eastern Ashkenazi Jews" have more "Khazar" or "Slavic" ancestry than "Western AJs". In fact, one of the Behar et al. 2013 paper's conclusions was that "relatively little observable genetic difference exists between representatives of eastern and western Ashkenazi Jewish populations, suggesting that genetically, the Ashkenazi Jewish population approximates a single large community (Guha and others, 2012)".

Regarding the Basque, I think you might be onto something here (no indication of gene-flow though, so the ~65% Lebanese figure is wrong, same story with the ~50% Iberian fits):

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ashkenaziibd1.png

The above is an IBD map taken from Vadim Verenich's blog. As you can see, there's a non-negligible amount of IBD sharing with Basques... Along with Sardinians.
IMO this might have something to do with the fact that EEF-like ancestry was much more common around the first couple of centuries CE and managed to remain until the Ashkenazi bottleneck took place.
There's also high IBD sharing with the Greeks, so I'm more & more enclined to think that the Aegean played a big part in the formation of Western (Ashkenazi-Sephardi) Jewry.
In fact, I'm ready to say that some of the Aegean admixture might even go back to the Middle Bronze Age, when contacts between the Minoans (and Mycenaeans later on) and the Levant were thriving. This definitely isn't good news since this means that we'll be grasping at straws and splitting hairs when pre-exilic genome-wide results come in, as it strengthens the case for a Cypriot-like Levantine population prior to the emergence & spread of the arabs (which had already started a few centuries prior to the appearance Islam, mind you).
There's also a noticeable degree of IBD sharing with Eastern Ukrainians, in this case I think it has to do with prolonged cohabitation and the direction of gene-flow would be mostly Jewish to non-Jew given the region's history (replete with examples corroborating such a model, think of the Jewish cossacks for instance) and the paucity (not to say absence) of WHG in Jews.
Also of interest is the level of IBD sharing with Iranians, possibly a remnant of the Babylonian exile (would explain why I have Iranian and Uzbek Jewish relatives on my RF).
The Khazar theory takes yet another blow here, given the low to non-existent amounts of IBD sharing between Turkic speakers and Jews (save Uyghurs and Anatolian Turks, which are special species in their own right, so to speak).

Finally, I can't help but notice the fact that the level of IBD sharing with Italians is pretty low (lower than the amount of IBD sharing with Basques or Greeks, and on par with the level of IBD sharing with Turks & Iranians), which is surprising given the high similarity to Eastern Sicilians and Maltese (though in a sense you could say that AJs are even more similar to Aegean islanders and Cretans, but that's another story).

Oh, and Jewish uniparental lineages seem to be Near Eastern for the most, and yes that includes mtDNA as well.

Very interesting... Does this map represent all AJs or just west AJs?
So what you're saying is that the large IBD sharing between AJs and Greeks could go as far back as the middle bronze age due to contact between the Minoans and Mycenaeans on one hand and Levantines on the other, and later on through the Hellenistic and Roman periods?
The relation to eastern Ukraine could be also from that fact that many Jewish women were raped by Cossacks.

P.S Talking about Anatolian Turks, don't forget that Anatolian Turks aren't exactly Turkmen, I reckon they largely descend from Indigenous Anatolians who were Turkefied and Islamised by the actual Turks, just like modern Hungarians represent a largely indigenous population conquered and assimilated by a Magyar elite.
P.P.S Yeah I'm aware of the fact that Gedmatch is hardly as reliable as Behar and Lazaridis.
P.P.P.S Where did you get that map from?