PDA

View Full Version : P78 and Ashkenazi Jews with German surname



ryanmccubbin
25-11-19, 05:03
"The P78 branch split into two clades A427 and Y7219 some 5,300 years ago, at the time of the Yamna culture in the Pontic Steppe. It is distributed mostly across Central and Northwest Europe, particularly in Poland, Germany and the Netherlands, but also in Romania, Hungary, Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland, France and Italy. Isolated samples have also been found in Greece, Turkey and Armenia. Like the L701 clade, it might well have originated in the Yamna culture and spread with Proto-Indo-European speakers to Central Europe. One branch of A427 is found among Ashkenazi Jews with mostly German surnames, probably through the convertion of Germans to Judaism during the Middle Ages. P78+ matches the I2 Continental 3a clade at Family Tree DNA."

This is posted in the Eupedia entry under I-M223 and I have found this to be true based on reviewing my SNP results... but marvel at how this came to be? Is there more information on this conversion of Germans to Judaism during the Middle Ages? This is the most plausible explanation but I'm wondering if there is anything else available about this possible scenario? Range of dates, location? Anyone? Thanks.

Yaniv
07-04-20, 21:36
Hi
same here , im looking for the same question...
i'm Jewish and tested positive for I-Y50708 (part of p78+)

Rmccubbin
08-04-20, 02:16
Hey Yaniv. I've turned up a few things since I originally posted. I assume you have done your Big-Y at FTDNA? DM me your email address and I'll send you a few links.

Rmccubbin
14-04-20, 03:12
Yaniv, did you do your Y testing at FTDNA?

Yaniv
07-05-20, 13:05
hi yes , BY2640

Yaniv
07-05-20, 13:10
i sent you a private message

Riverman
07-05-20, 15:40
This is posted in the Eupedia entry under I-M223 and I have found this to be true based on reviewing my SNP results... but marvel at how this came to be? Is there more information on this conversion of Germans to Judaism during the Middle Ages? This is the most plausible explanation but I'm wondering if there is anything else available about this possible scenario? Range of dates, location? Anyone? Thanks.

There was this study on Ashkenazi Jews which tried to discern the different ancestral components present among them. The results were not that unequivocal about the proportion of the Northern-Central European, basically German genetic contribution, but it was made fairly clear that some percentage of the Ashkenazi ancestry came in with Germans, in Europe.
The most likely timing is obviously before the Jews were expelled from most German territories and moved East. However, there is also the possibility of later admixture events, but these are less likely, because they should stick out - like if mixture would have happened between Germans and Jews in the few places within the Holy Roman Empire in which Jews were allowed to settle after the ban. If this would have happened, the differences between the Jewish groups should be more pronounced imho, which they aren't, with low diversity and high inbreeding. But that doesn't mean its impossible, as even one of the most recent studies mentioned possible admixture after the bottle neck.

But the exact way the German genetic contribution entered the Ashkenazi gene pool is unknown afaik. There could be different scenarios from conversions, to affairs, even violent acts. But conversions are the most likely scenario once again. We have these conversions going both ways. But considering that it was not that easy in later Medieval times, I would suggest an early conversion, before the Christian rule became more strict or efficient.

So if the interpretation of your branch is correct, its just one lineage (among many others) which proves that Central European males contributed to the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic make up in rather early Medieval times. The German ancestral component seems to have been spread quite evenly among all modern AJ.

This is one of the relevant studies on the subject you might find interesting:

We fixed the ancestry proportions to the ones inferred above for AJ (50% ME, 34% Southern EU, 8% Western EU, and 8% Eastern EU), and varied the admixture time. We then plotted the RFMix-inferred ME segment length vs the simulated segment lengths (Fig 3 (https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644#pgen-1006644-g003)). The simulated mean segment length that corresponded to the observed AJ value was around 6.6cM, implying an admixture time of ≈29 generations ago (bootstrapping 95% confidence interval: [27,30] generations).

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

Since the German sample is small and incomplete, future studies might lead to an increase imho.

Angela
07-05-20, 19:19
There was this study on Ashkenazi Jews which tried to discern the different ancestral components present among them. The results were not that unequivocal about the proportion of the Northern-Central European, basically German genetic contribution, but it was made fairly clear that some percentage of the Ashkenazi ancestry came in with Germans, in Europe.
The most likely timing is obviously before the Jews were expelled from most German territories and moved East. However, there is also the possibility of later admixture events, but these are less likely, because they should stick out - like if mixture would have happened between Germans and Jews in the few places within the Holy Roman Empire in which Jews were allowed to settle after the ban. If this would have happened, the differences between the Jewish groups should be more pronounced imho, which they aren't, with low diversity and high inbreeding. But that doesn't mean its impossible, as even one of the most recent studies mentioned possible admixture after the bottle neck.

But the exact way the German genetic contribution entered the Ashkenazi gene pool is unknown afaik. There could be different scenarios from conversions, to affairs, even violent acts. But conversions are the most likely scenario once again. We have these conversions going both ways. But considering that it was not that easy in later Medieval times, I would suggest an early conversion, before the Christian rule became more strict or efficient.

So if the interpretation of your branch is correct, its just one lineage (among many others) which proves that Central European males contributed to the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic make up in rather early Medieval times. The German ancestral component seems to have been spread quite evenly among all modern AJ.

This is one of the relevant studies on the subject you might find interesting:


https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

Since the German sample is small and incomplete, future studies might lead to an increase imho.

Bans were already in place concerning intermarriage between Jews and Christians before the fall of the Empire, so I doubt there were marriages going on when Jews moved to Germany, and the bans went both ways. The only way that a marriage would have been permitted would have been if the Jewish person converted to Christianity, which would not impact Jewish genetics.

As to the conversions, as I said, for it to impact Jewish genetics, we would be talking about conversion of "Gentiles" to Judaism, and there were already severe penalties for Jews converting Christians by the end of the Empire as well. I once came across a letter from Rome to a Bishop of Luni reprimanding him because a Jewish landowner in the area still had "Gentile" slaves, and given prior Jewish practice, might convert them. By the time there were a significant number of Jews in Germany, the penalty was death for both the Christian converting and the Jews, with the obvious addition of the fact that the punishment would affect the entire Jewish community.

That leaves rape, and in this particular case it makes eminent sense given that during the Crusades the German knights and their followers decided that before going on to kill infidels in the Holy Land they might as well kill the infidels living among them. It had the added benefit of wiping out all their debts to Jewish bankers.

It has often been speculated that these were the events which created the "Ashkenazi bottleneck" down to a few hundred people.

Of course, not all papers, especially the ones using IBD analysis see much "French/German" influence, which is usually how they describe it. Rather, they see the "Slavic" imprint, up to 10% if I remember correctly. Given the frequent pogroms over the centuries the same factors would be in play. I once heard a Rabbi lecture on the topic and speculate that this was perhaps why the practice arose of Ashkenazi women having to shave their heads and wear wigs or scarves: to make them less attractive during such raids.

It's not all as grim as that in the East, as the Jewish chronicles seem to indicate that in some areas Christianity had not yet completely taken hold. Perhaps it was easier to take "pagan" women as brides and convert them.

Riverman
07-05-20, 21:08
As to the conversions, as I said, for it to impact Jewish genetics, we would be talking about conversion of "Gentiles" to Judaism, and there were already severe penalties for Jews converting Christians by the end of the Empire as well. I once came across a letter from Rome to a Bishop of Luni reprimanding him because a Jewish landowner in the area still had "Gentile" slaves, and given prior Jewish practice, might convert them. By the time there were a significant number of Jews in Germany, the penalty was death for both the Christian converting and the Jews, with the obvious addition of the fact that the punishment would affect the entire Jewish community.

While that's true, I read about that particular case too, you have to consider that this was a very, very delicate case, going far beyond the usual. Because Jews were at various times highly active as slave owners and traders. As the masters of slaves, they were in an extremely powerful position and slavery wasn't something the church was that fond of anyway, yet a Jew having people under his control, so that he could force them to accept a cult, instead of letting them choose the right god from the Christian perspective would have been particularly problematic.

Yet we have the records of Jews in later Frankish, French and German areas and we can assume they were there much more often and widespread. So they could have been there when "the church" no longer existed and the new Catholicism of the Frankish kings was not firmly established. I mean they could have been there among Germans very early. And even in later times, there would be no need for a ban nor cases at court if it never happened. As it seems to me, conversion did actually happen in early medieval times.

I'd say the violent acts and rape are possible, on various occasions, but I'm personally convinced that there was actual conversion happening in both directions, especially in the earlier Medieval period. There is of course not too much evidence for the extend of this, but there is more than enough evidence that it did happen. Like here, p. 54:

R.Yaakov ben Mordechai, his student during the second half of the twelfth century, expressed astonishment at Rabbenu Tam, ruling regarding a female apostate to Christianity. His teacher had allowed her to return to Judaism and to remain married to a Gentile (who had meanwhile converted to Judaism) with whom she had lived during her apostasy. He attacked the weak points of Rabbenu Tam’s ruling from a halakhic perspective, but it seems clear that his opposition was based on the view that it was improper to ‘give a prize’ to one who had converted to Christianity, even if she thereby caused a Gentile Christian to embrace Judaism.

http://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e00b0ebe-89d5-42b3-b002-9267482c631e/644191.pdf

So we have the peculiar case of a Jewish woman converting to Christianity, probably because of her lover, but then both decide its better to live among Jews and her French husband did convert too! So this would be a classic case of how a French/German lineage could have entered the Jewish gene pool. Just imagine this couples descendents were among those which survived the persecution, the flight and the dire situation of the first pioneer generation in the East. From this father alone many, many modern Jews could descend. And in the same way do we know of a lot of Jews converting to Christianity. Their genetic profile would be unrecognisable, because most of the recognition of Ashkenazi ancestry is based on IBD, by shared segments from and after the bottleneck and founder effect. It would probably just appear here or there as "West Asian" or generally "Near Eastern" influenced, for one of the small segments which are still left in one individual.

There is even a story for proselytism, same source, p. 99:


This process finds full expression in a passage cited in the name of Rabbi Judah he-Hasid on the Talmudic adage: ‘The son of David will not come until all the souls within the body have been completed’ (b. Yevamot 62a). He states that there is a chamber in the Heavens whose name is ‘body’ in which are concentrated all those souls given to human beings that will be born. The angel ‘charged with pregnancy’ places the soul within the body of the pregnant woman. At times the angel makes a mistake and places a soul intended to be in the body of a Gentile in the body of a Jewish woman, or vice versa. Such a soul will then belong to a person who in the end will convert to Christianity, while that soul which is intended to be a Jew but was placed in the body of a Christian woman will ultimately become a righteous Jewish proselyte.


Another source:



Jewish ambivalence toward converts also appears in the literature of the medieval period. On the one hand, the Tosafists (talmudic scholars who lived in France during the 12th to 14th centuries) declared that Jewish law requires full acceptance of proselytes. They felt distinctly uncomfortable with Rabbi Helbo’s understanding of converts, and offered a number of interpretations of his statement to lessen the severity of its impact.


https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-attitudes-toward-proselytes/

So there was a whole literature and disputes among Jewish scholars about the position of proselytes and how to deal with them in 12th to 14th century France. I think that tells you something about the extend. If there were no cases, there would be no need to invest so much time, efforts and emotions into an issue. There were proselytes and they were there in sufficient numbers to be a big deal for both sides, the Jewish and the Christian.

I also know the genetic analysis is sometimes a very complicated matter, but my personal opinion, speculative once more, is that when more medieval German and French samples being out and modern ones too, probably even of more early Jews, the admixture will be detected and it will be significant. Most likely not much more than stated in the paper I quoted (<10 %), but its real.

Rapes were, in my opinion, if at all, more an issue of the very Eastern Polish provinces. But then where is the Cossack DNA in Jews? Should be easier to detect if its all that important.

Regio X
07-05-20, 22:27
@Angela
Btw, what do you think about the following?
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/ashkenazi-jewish-women-descended-mostly-from-italian-converts-new-study-asserts/
Over 75% of Ashkenazi Y-DNA would be Middle Eastern, while most of their mtDNA could be European (hard to say).

The following suggests they're ~50% Middle Eastern in Autosomal, ~37.5% South European and ~12.5% Eastern European:
https://shaicarmi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/aj_admixture_poster.pdf

Not sure later papers found different results, hence my question.

Riverman
07-05-20, 22:38
@Angela
Btw, what do you think about the following?
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/ashkenazi-jewish-women-descended-mostly-from-italian-converts-new-study-asserts/
Over 75% of Ashkenazi Y-DNA would be Middle Eastern, while most of their mtDNA could be European (hard to say).

The following suggests they're ~50% Middle Eastern in Autosomal, ~37.5% South European and ~12.5% Eastern European:
https://shaicarmi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/aj_admixture_poster.pdf

Not sure later papers found different results, hence my question.

That's the preliminary poster of the paper I quoted above. They later made it likely Western European admixture was present and stated that the sampling is still bad. The Eastern European contribution is safer though, the Westenr more disputed. Anyway, only more data and further studies will clear that up, finally.

This site is quite interesting as it lists common YDNA haplogroups among Ashkenazi Jews:
https://sites.google.com/site/levitedna/y-dna-haplogroups-of-ashkenazi-jews

Various Jewish forms of YDNA are clearly subclades of European clades, so they prove incidences of conversion or intermixture, whenever and however it happened.

Angela
07-05-20, 22:58
While that's true, I read about that particular case too, you have to consider that this was a very, very delicate case, going far beyond the usual. Because Jews were at various times highly active as slave owners and traders. As the masters of slaves, they were in an extremely powerful position and slavery wasn't something the church was that fond of anyway, yet a Jew having people under his control, so that he could force them to accept a cult, instead of letting them choose the right god from the Christian perspective would have been particularly problematic.

Yet we have the records of Jews in later Frankish, French and German areas and we can assume they were there much more often and widespread. So they could have been there when "the church" no longer existed and the new Catholicism of the Frankish kings was not firmly established. I mean they could have been there among Germans very early. And even in later times, there would be no need for a ban nor cases at court if it never happened. As it seems to me, conversion did actually happen in early medieval times.

I'd say the violent acts and rape are possible, on various occasions, but I'm personally convinced that there was actual conversion happening in both directions, especially in the earlier Medieval period. There is of course not too much evidence for the extend of this, but there is more than enough evidence that it did happen. Like here, p. 54:


http://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e00b0ebe-89d5-42b3-b002-9267482c631e/644191.pdf

So we have the peculiar case of a Jewish woman converting to Christianity, probably because of her lover, but then both decide its better to live among Jews and her French husband did convert too! So this would be a classic case of how a French/German lineage could have entered the Jewish gene pool. Just imagine this couples descendents were among those which survived the persecution, the flight and the dire situation of the first pioneer generation in the East. From this father alone many, many modern Jews could descend. And in the same way do we know of a lot of Jews converting to Christianity. Their genetic profile would be unrecognisable, because most of the recognition of Ashkenazi ancestry is based on IBD, by shared segments from and after the bottleneck and founder effect. It would probably just appear here or there as "West Asian" or generally "Near Eastern" influenced, for one of the small segments which are still left in one individual.

There is even a story for proselytism, same source, p. 99:



Another source:




https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-attitudes-toward-proselytes/

So there was a whole literature and disputes among Jewish scholars about the position of proselytes and how to deal with them in 12th to 14th century France. I think that tells you something about the extend. If there were no cases, there would be no need to invest so much time, efforts and emotions into an issue. There were proselytes and they were there in sufficient numbers to be a big deal for both sides, the Jewish and the Christian.

I also know the genetic analysis is sometimes a very complicated matter, but my personal opinion, speculative once more, is that when more medieval German and French samples being out and modern ones too, probably even of more early Jews, the admixture will be detected and it will be significant. Most likely not much more than stated in the paper I quoted (<10 %), but its real.

Rapes were, in my opinion, if at all, more an issue of the very Eastern Polish provinces. But then where is the Cossack DNA in Jews? Should be easier to detect if its all that important.

Actually, a leading hypothesis among researchers is that the Jews in the Rhineland came from Italy, although I personally don't think it's possible to prove that except perhaps for some specific families.

It's true that the first evidence of Jews, from Cologne, is from the 4th century, when the area was not yet Christian, so a few conversions could have occurred then, but if Greek and Roman men hesitated to undergo circumcision to convert, one of the reasons Christianity was more attractive, I don't think pagan Germans would have necessarily been too happy about it either. Women might be a different story.

It is impossible to tell, imo, from a few scattered instances, how many people did convert to Judaism in such early days. What we do know is that there was a lot of mass rape of Jewish women during the Crusades. I personally think it's far more likely that Jewish R1b line resulted from such violence. You're of course entitled to believe that it didn't, and that, of course, rape during raids or even what they might have considered a wa,r would be more common among Slavic men than among German men. Certainly, in modern times it wasn't the case, as we have the documentation for some Jewish women being raped by SS men in the camps. I always wondered how that squared with all the anti-miscegenation laws. Of course, given the state of their health, getting pregnant would have been a rarity, and if they did get pregnant there are records of them being executed. In Italy during that war, when such things happened, Catholic dogma or not, a lot of abortions were performed. I often think the German women must have done the same after the Russian mass rape of the women in Berlin and the other Russian territories after their arrival. If not, then some analyses showing "Slavic" in modern East Germans might have one more explanation to add to the rest.

I've forgotten how much non-Z93 R1a there is in Jews. I'd have to go back and check. Also, there are some other y lines in the area. Conversion of women would have been even more possible in the east because there were non Christian areas much later.

Regardless, although IBD analysis isn't foolproof, it clearly shows Slavic intrusion into the Ashkenazim, contrary to the levels it shows for western Europeans, Italians, etc.

The whole question of Jewish genetics is not going to be answered until we have quite a few late first millennium B.C.E. and Classical Era Jewish samples from not only Israel but the Jewish diaspora. Until then it's just one person's speculation versus another's. That's why I rarely discuss it anymore.

Riverman
08-05-20, 00:04
Actually, a leading hypothesis among researchers is that the Jews in the Rhineland came from Italy, although I personally don't think it's possible to prove that except perhaps for some specific families.

As we see with the ancient DNA from various places of the Roman empire, people similar to Italians were everywhere. So I'm pretty sure that Romans in the wider sense did convert, there are even hints for it being in Italy, which seems to be quite likely, but that's hard to prove, like you say.


It's true that the first evidence of Jews, from Cologne, is from the 4th century, when the area was not yet Christian, so a few conversions could have occurred then, but if Greek and Roman men hesitated to undergo circumcision to convert, one of the reasons Christianity was more attractive, I don't think pagan Germans would have necessarily been too happy about it either. Women might be a different story.

Wouldn't say so, they were the tougher guys quite often and might have converted for a variety of reasons, including socio-economic advantages and love, like in the case I quoted from many centuries later. Also, it mustn't have been that many. If the Jewish community up in the North was always rather small, what it seemed to have been, even a very small contribution per generation would have made a big difference on the long run. Whereas on the other hand, the Jewish converts to pagan and Christian denominations would have just disappeared in the gene pool of the majority with few traces left.


It is impossible to tell, imo, from a few scattered instances, how many people did convert to Judaism in such early days. What we do know is that there was a lot of mass rape of Jewish women during the Crusades. I personally think it's far more likely that Jewish R1b line resulted from such violence. You're of course entitled to believe that it didn't, and that, of course, rape during raids or even what they might have considered a wa,r would be more common among Slavic men than among German men.

The crusaders were, on average, quite religious and pious people. Its not as much about "Slavic vs. German" or something like that, this would become a nasty debate which is not my intention, but the crusaders of the high Middle Age. Also, I really doubt another thing, namely that a lot of children which were the result of such mass rapes would have survived among the Jews, in all times. Some would, but not a lot and especially not after such an incidence.


In Italy during that war, when such things happened, Catholic dogma or not, a lot of abortions were performed.

And Jews have no such dogma. Read up the Rabbinic tradition about it.


I often think the German women must have done the same after the Russian mass rape of the women in Berlin and the other Russian territories after their arrival. If not, then some analyses showing "Slavic" in modern East Germans might have one more explanation to add to the rest.

In Germany there are two such incidences on a bigger scale in recent history. One after the 1st World War in Western Germany (Rhineland, French and Colonial troops) and the second after the 2nd World War in the West, but especially in the Soviet East. In both cases many such children were born and raised by their German mothers, but its hard to get percentages in relation to abortions or infanticide and the total impact was very, very low everywhere. So it had no real influence on the German population overall, not at all.
Its worth to note that the worst rapists in the Red Army were either alcoholised, acted under group pressure or were, to a large extend, no Slavs, but actually people from the ethnic minorities of Russia. There were a lot of cases in which (ethnic) Russian officers warned women before they were raped, that after the fighing troops, which were under their control, "in the evening the scum will come" with the baggage and they should hide. And most women described the situation in the same manner: First they got drunk, then they came in groups...
Of course all soldiers are inclined to rape, especially in the situation of a brutal war, in the face of a hated enemy and if they don't know what's coming next for them, whether they survive the next day. But some more than others, depending on the circumstances, that's a statistical reality.
Yet the German mercenaries in the 30 year war might not have been the worst around, there were worse even in that war, but they did their share of brutal atrocities among their kinsmen too. So this can happen between a lot of groups and even among people of the same ethnicity of course.

But I think in Medieval Germany, among the German crusaders, they might have done all kind of things, but the majority was really believing in their cause. And they thought that every action would be seen by god and they didn't wanted to befoul their holy cause by acts which were deemed to be sinful. With that I don't want to say it didn't happen, but I don't think it was that influential.


I've forgotten how much non-Z93 R1a there is in Jews. I'd have to go back and check. Also, there are some other y lines in the area. Conversion of women would have been even more possible in the east because there were non Christian areas much later.

I think most of the European conversion of women happened in the Roman empire already and in later times there was much less of a sex bias. So the original founders were Jewish men from the Near East, which met on their journeys Greek and Roman women (mtDNA seems to point in that direction, doesn't it?) which they took as wives. That core group spread in various directions, but one of the most important ones happened to end up in the North, the Frankish kingdom. There admixture with locals of later French and German ancestry took place, before they moved to the East, towards Poland, where the majority of the surviving strains from the North mixed and a founder effect occured.


Regardless, although IBD analysis isn't foolproof, it clearly shows Slavic intrusion into the Ashkenazim, contrary to the levels it shows for western Europeans, Italians, etc.

Sure, its the newest contribution, from after the big medieval bottleneck.


The whole question of Jewish genetics is not going to be answered until we have quite a few late first millennium B.C.E. and Classical Era Jewish samples from not only Israel but the Jewish diaspora. Until then it's just one person's speculation versus another's. That's why I rarely discuss it anymore.


Agreed.

Angela
08-05-20, 00:09
@Angela
Btw, what do you think about the following?
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/ashkenazi-jewish-women-descended-mostly-from-italian-converts-new-study-asserts/
Over 75% of Ashkenazi Y-DNA would be Middle Eastern, while most of their mtDNA could be European (hard to say).

The following suggests they're ~50% Middle Eastern in Autosomal, ~37.5% South European and ~12.5% Eastern European:
https://shaicarmi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/aj_admixture_poster.pdf

Not sure later papers found different results, hence my question.

That's an old and suspect article, as you can tell by the fact that it mentions Elhaik without scoffing.

"The European Jews changed because of Italian mothers" hypothesis, or the related idea that the four founding mothers of the Ashkenazim, representing half of the mtDna in Ashkenazim were European is not universally accepted. It's Richards who went for the most extreme idea, that the majority of Ashkenazim have "European" mtDna. Others, including Costa et al go for a 40% number.

So far as I know, Doron Behar has never changed his opinion that this isn't true.

As to the fact that they were Italian, IBD analysis would indicate they were not.


https://i.imgur.com/55H4OHh.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Levon_Yepiskoposyan/publication/264390976/figure/fig4/AS:[email protected]/Average-identity-by-descent-sharing-between-different-population-groups-and-Ashkenazi.png

Another one: it just goes on and on...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j8neaeiS52o/UwncbDA6GXI/AAAAAAAAcdA/OR7avrsY6lg/s1600/genetic.png

Now, most IBD analysis by scholars, other than Ralph and Coop, doesn't go back beyond the fall of Rome, so maybe there was marriage with Greek and Anatolian women during the diaspora during the Classical Era. I don't know. Perhaps with all the new IBD tools coming out we'll figure it out.

I remember that after the Costa paper came out there was massive criticism based on the fact that the mtDna sequences could easily have been picked up in the Middle East.

We have to remember that the majority of European dna itself came from the Near East in the Neolithic or through the steppe admixture. Let's also not forget there are few unequivocally European hunter/gatherer west or east lines in modern Europeans. It's very difficult to distinguish without very, very, resolved mtDna data, which is not available for most modern people, or for most ancient samples where the founding mutation occurred. I had my full mitogenome analyzed, and professionally interpreted, and compared to my closest samples in the international compendium, and the closest I could come is that "maybe", "possibly", it branched off from a line in Switzerland, going to Italy, Germany, and the British Isles, sometime, perhaps, from the first millennium to about 400 AD. So, you can see the difficulties.

Or, it could have been picked up in the "Greek" cities of Anatolia or the Greek islands.

I'm not sure if this is the last paper on Ashkenazi genetics to come out, but it's pretty recent, and we've discussed all the papers here, including the Xue et al papers. I don't think anything new has come out which would drastically change the analysis, except that the Philistines are out as a source of the admixture. We wound up just spinning our wheels, which is why I gave up on it.

Last Xue paper:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35705-Time-and-place-of-European-admixture-into-Ashkenazi-Jews?highlight=Ashkenazi+genetics

Second Xue paper:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34002-Ashkenazi-ethnogenesis-redux-Xue-et-al?highlight=Xue

It should be clear they're not sure, either, and when the researchers aren't sure and they say we need ancient dna, I get bored endlessly speculating.

If there's a more recent major paper, just look it up in the search engine. I'm pretty sure we would have discussed it.

Angela
08-05-20, 00:21
As we see with the ancient DNA from various places of the Roman empire, people similar to Italians were everywhere. So I'm pretty sure that Romans in the wider sense did convert, there are even hints for it being in Italy, which seems to be quite likely, but that's hard to prove, like you say.



Wouldn't say so, they were the tougher guys quite often and might have converted for a variety of reasons, including socio-economic advantages and love, like in the case I quoted from many centuries later. Also, it mustn't have been that many. If the Jewish community up in the North was always rather small, what it seemed to have been, even a very small contribution per generation would have made a big difference on the long run. Whereas on the other hand, the Jewish converts to pagan and Christian denominations would have just disappeared in the gene pool of the majority with few traces left.



The crusaders were, on average, quite religious and pious people. Its not as much about "Slavic vs. German" or something like that, this would become a nasty debate which is not my intention, but the crusaders of the high Middle Age. Also, I really doubt another thing, namely that a lot of children which were the result of such mass rapes would have survived among the Jews, in all times. Some would, but not a lot and especially not after such an incidence.



And Jews have no such dogma. Read up the Rabbinic tradition about it.



In Germany there are two such incidences on a bigger scale in recent history. One after the 1st World War in Western Germany (Rhineland, French and Colonial troops) and the second after the 2nd World War in the West, but especially in the Soviet East. In both cases many such children were born and raised by their German mothers, but its hard to get percentages in relation to abortions or infanticide and the total impact was very, very low everywhere. So it had no real influence on the German population overall, not at all.
Its worth to note that the worst rapists in the Red Army were either alcoholised, acted under group pressure or were, to a large extend, no Slavs, but actually people from the ethnic minorities of Russia. There were a lot of cases in which (ethnic) Russian officers warned women before they were raped, that after the fighing troops, which were under their control, "in the evening the scum will come" with the baggage and they should hide. And most women described the situation in the same manner: First they got drunk, then they came in groups...
Of course all soldiers are inclined to rape, especially in the situation of a brutal war, in the face of a hated enemy and if they don't know what's coming next for them, whether they survive the next day. But some more than others, depending on the circumstances, that's a statistical reality.
Yet the German mercenaries in the 30 year war might not have been the worst around, there were worse even in that war, but they did their share of brutal atrocities among their kinsmen too. So this can happen between a lot of groups and even among people of the same ethnicity of course.

But I think in Medieval Germany, among the German crusaders, they might have done all kind of things, but the majority was really believing in their cause. And they thought that every action would be seen by god and they didn't wanted to befoul their holy cause by acts which were deemed to be sinful. With that I don't want to say it didn't happen, but I don't think it was that influential.



I think most of the European conversion of women happened in the Roman empire already and in later times there was much less of a sex bias. So the original founders were Jewish men from the Near East, which met on their journeys Greek and Roman women (mtDNA seems to point in that direction, doesn't it?) which they took as wives. That core group spread in various directions, but one of the most important ones happened to end up in the North, the Frankish kingdom. There admixture with locals of later French and German ancestry took place, before they moved to the East, towards Poland, where the majority of the surviving strains from the North mixed and a founder effect occured.



Sure, its the newest contribution, from after the big medieval bottleneck.



Agreed.

If you think the Crusaders, especially the "Franks" behaved like decent, pious people because they believed in their "cause" you are seriously, and I mean seriously, misinformed. I suggest you do some extensive reading on the Crusaders and on the havoc they wrought in Europe before they even left for the Holy Land.

As for the "well, northern Europeans were "tougher" so they thought circumcision" was nothing, please leave that kind of Nordicist "bragging" for sites where it would be appreciated.

Also, it's trivial, but Jews have varied opinions on abortion depending on the sect. Follow your own advice and read up on it.

You seem to specialize in taking a position on matters for which the deciding evidence doesn't exist, and then insisting on it obsessively. It's not a reasoned, academic approach, and that's not how we conduct ourselves here. It can seriously misinform newbies who aren't aware of the nuances.

Believe what you want to believe. Once again it's only your opinion, and there is no decisive proof either way. Are you incapable of grasping that fact?

You also seem to think we have been doing nothing here for the last more than five years except twiddle our thumbs, and that your function here is to inform us of all this knowledge you've accumulated. It's seriously annoying.

Before you pontificate please use the search engine. You'd find we've already debated many of these issues already. If you have something "new" to add, by all means do so.

Joey37
08-05-20, 00:27
There is an Ashkenazic clade in my L1029 subclade (R1a-M458); part of the YP 417 Eastern group (I am part of the Western group, YP445), with a MRCA of around 700 AD. Russia and Bulgaria are two countries with a lot of YP 417.

Riverman
08-05-20, 00:30
@Angela:
Now, most IBD analysis by scholars, other than Ralph and Coop, doesn't go back beyond the fall of Rome, so maybe there was marriage with Greek and Anatolian women during the diaspora during the Classical Era.

Its absolutely for sure that such mixyture did happen. The question is whether it were exactly those people with gentile women which founded European Jewry. And if so, why. I think a large portion of the Roman and Greek admixture was coming from the early Christian times. Because among the earliest Christians, being Jewish was still important and some considered it a honour to join the true religion of the son of god, to become fully part of it. There were some Judeo-Christian proselytes and for a time, probably not that long, the lines between Hebrews and Gentiles, between Jews and Christians were pretty much blurred. My interpretation of the events is, that there was a forward and backward even, between being "more Christian" or "more Jewish" in a lot of communities. Like in the case of the couple I quoted: First the Jewish woman converts to Christianity, than the Christian man to Judaism and after him, the woman goes back to Judaism too.
In that time, somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean or Italy, a rather mixed group came up, which decided to stay with Judaism, and they moved up to Europe - deliberately or because they were forced to. Another scenario is that they were already there, in the Western Roman sphere, and started to mix with locals just like that. A lot of options and I think some will never be proven or disproven, because even genetics don't go that far. We can't explore their motives without written accounts. And there are none it seems.

Angela
08-05-20, 00:34
There is an Ashkenazic clade in my L1029 subclade (R1a-M458); part of the YP 417 Eastern group (I am part of the Western group, YP445), with a MRCA of around 700 AD. Russia and Bulgaria are two countries with a lot of YP 417.

Thanks, Joey. That's good information to add to the discussion.

Angela
08-05-20, 00:37
@Angela:

Its absolutely for sure that such mixyture did happen. The question is whether it were exactly those people with gentile women which founded European Jewry. And if so, why. I think a large portion of the Roman and Greek admixture was coming from the early Christian times. Because among the earliest Christians, being Jewish was still important and some considered it a honour to join the true religion of the son of god, to become fully part of it. There were some Judeo-Christian proselytes and for a time, probably not that long, the lines between Hebrews and Gentiles, between Jews and Christians were pretty much blurred. My interpretation of the events is, that there was a forward and backward even, between being "more Christian" or "more Jewish" in a lot of communities. Like in the case of the couple I quoted: First the Jewish woman converts to Christianity, than the Christian man to Judaism and after him, the woman goes back to Judaism too.
In that time, somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean or Italy, a rather mixed group came up, which decided to stay with Judaism, and they moved up to Europe - deliberately or because they were forced to. Another scenario is that they were already there, in the Western Roman sphere, and started to mix with locals just like that. A lot of options and I think some will never be proven or disproven, because even genetics don't go that far. We can't explore their motives without written accounts. And there are none it seems.

Yes, we've discussed this a lot on prior threads.

The problem is it doesn't show up in IBD analysis.

As I said above, with new IBD kits perhaps it will.

Or, the admixture was with people who no longer exist, like the pre Turk arrival Anatolians, or they haven't done the analysis with Greek Islanders for another possibility.

There's lots of options, but no answers as of yet.

Riverman
08-05-20, 01:04
If you think the Crusaders, especially the "Franks" behaved like decent, pious people because they believed in their "cause" you are seriously, and I mean seriously, misinformed. I suggest you do some extensive reading on the Crusaders and on the havoc they wrought in Europe before they even left for the Holy Land.

I said they made a lot of troubes and did horrible things, but you have to consider how some behaviours were more accepted than others.


As for the "well, northern Europeans were "tougher" so they thought circumcision" was nothing, please leave that kind of Nordicist "bragging" for sites where it would be appreciated.

Such things like the mutilation of the own body is far more common in "Barbarian" and tribal, than in civilised and affluent societies. A lot of tribal people do a lot of cruel stuff to themselves and their relatives (like FGM). There is definitely difference in attitude to pain and the deformation of the own body between different people.


You seem to specialize in taking a position on matters for which the deciding evidence doesn't exist, and then insisting on it obsessively. It's not a reasoned, academic approach, and that's not how we conduct ourselves here. It can seriously misinform newbies who aren't aware of the nuances.

I usually say when a case is not closed yet and mention alternatives. On the other hand I argue stronger for the version which seems to be most likely to me. Would be absurd if I would do the opposite, wouldn't it? When I said that conversion of and mixture with Frankish people did take place, you said that's impossible. So you insisted on something which is not proven. Then I brought some evidence from the literature which proved the opposite of your assertion. I think that's a fair academic approach.

I am serious if I ask you to point me to something I said which is a "serious misinformation"? Because this was and will be never my intention.

You said the following things I just answered, because I felt an urge to:
- That there were no conversions to Judaism in Medieval times in the Frankish sphere, no proselytism (see quotations from above)
- The idea that most of the possible Western YDNA in Jews came from rapes by crusaders (debatable, but what kind of evidence do we have?)
- That Germans have possibly more Slavic/Eastern European ancestry because of rapes during and after World War 2 (the statistical impact was too small)

I just answered.


Believe what you want to believe. Once again it's only your opinion, and there is no decisive proof either way. Are you incapable of grasping that fact?

We discussed different things here. I don't want any sort of confrontation and just write what I deem to be correct, on the evidence available to me. I just say what I think is right (my opinion) and if possible, I point to evidence and arguments in favour of it and try to make my opinion reproducible. I'm not annoyed if someone else points to evidence which proves the opposite, extends my knowledge or broadens my perspective on the issue in question. Even on the contrary, I like to hear other arguments and facts I might have missed and will correct my position accordingly.
But if someone says I'm wrong, I want some evidence or good arguments. As long as I'm not convinced, and this is part of any fair academic debate, I won't change my mind. I don't expect others to change their mind if they are not convinced by what I said neither. In this case, I can just agree with you, the decisive evidence for some decisions is not there yet. So if I say Western European males converted and contributed to the AJ gene pool, this opinion is as good as the opposite. But I have the proofs for proselytism in the Medieval North, YDNA which seems to have come from the very same people and possible autosomal DNA, according to the study quoted (not sure yet, I know). Even if there is no decisive proof out there yet, there are probably indications which make one option or the other more likely.

Btw: I listened to a lot of academic debates which were much more speculative than anything I wrote here so far.

Regio X
08-05-20, 03:15
That's an old and suspect article, as you can tell by the fact that it mentions Elhaik without scoffing.

"The European Jews changed because of Italian mothers" hypothesis, or the related idea that the four founding mothers of the Ashkenazim, representing half of the mtDna in Ashkenazim were European is not universally accepted. It's Richards who went for the most extreme idea, that the majority of Ashkenazim have "European" mtDna. Others, including Costa et al go for a 40% number.

So far as I know, Doron Behar has never changed his opinion that this isn't true.

As to the fact that they were Italian, IBD analysis would indicate they were not.


https://i.imgur.com/55H4OHh.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Levon_Yepiskoposyan/publication/264390976/figure/fig4/AS:[email protected]/Average-identity-by-descent-sharing-between-different-population-groups-and-Ashkenazi.png

Another one: it just goes on and on...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j8neaeiS52o/UwncbDA6GXI/AAAAAAAAcdA/OR7avrsY6lg/s1600/genetic.png

Now, most IBD analysis by scholars, other than Ralph and Coop, doesn't go back beyond the fall of Rome, so maybe there was marriage with Greek and Anatolian women during the diaspora during the Classical Era. I don't know. Perhaps with all the new IBD tools coming out we'll figure it out.

I remember that after the Costa paper came out there was massive criticism based on the fact that the mtDna sequences could easily have been picked up in the Middle East.

We have to remember that the majority of European dna itself came from the Near East in the Neolithic or through the steppe admixture. Let's also not forget there are few unequivocally European hunter/gatherer west or east lines in modern Europeans. It's very difficult to distinguish without very, very, resolved mtDna data, which is not available for most modern people, or for most ancient samples where the founding mutation occurred. I had my full mitogenome analyzed, and professionally interpreted, and compared to my closest samples in the international compendium, and the closest I could come is that "maybe", "possibly", it branched off from a line in Switzerland, going to Italy, Germany, and the British Isles, sometime, perhaps, from the first millennium to about 400 AD. So, you can see the difficulties.

Or, it could have been picked up in the "Greek" cities of Anatolia or the Greek islands.

I'm not sure if this is the last paper on Ashkenazi genetics to come out, but it's pretty recent, and we've discussed all the papers here, including the Xue et al papers. I don't think anything new has come out which would drastically change the analysis, except that the Philistines are out as a source of the admixture. We wound up just spinning our wheels, which is why I gave up on it.

Last Xue paper:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35705-Time-and-place-of-European-admixture-into-Ashkenazi-Jews?highlight=Ashkenazi+genetics

Second Xue paper:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34002-Ashkenazi-ethnogenesis-redux-Xue-et-al?highlight=Xue

It should be clear they're not sure, either, and when the researchers aren't sure and they say we need ancient dna, I get bored endlessly speculating.

If there's a more recent major paper, just look it up in the search engine. I'm pretty sure we would have discussed it.Thank you for the explanations and links!