Jewish people, where they are from?

[LeBrok]

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]

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:doi/10.1371/journal.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=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#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]

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]

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]

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)

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=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#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]

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. Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types², 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 Jews^{2, 25}. Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews²⁵, 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). 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]

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]

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. Typing/HVS-I results have also indicated several from Northwest Africa, matching European HVS-I types², 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 Jews^{2, 25}. Notably, it is not seen in Libyan Jews²⁵, 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). 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]

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:doi/10.1371/journal.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]

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]

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:

What does this mean in relation to the original question?

1. 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.
2. 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,
3. 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!]
4. 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/Histor...ltural_and_religious_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[/U](in French - the article is much more detailed than the English version)

 

[John Doe]

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:

What does this mean in relation to the original question?

1. 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.
2. 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,
3. 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!]
4. 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/Histor...ltural_and_religious_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[/U](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 ) 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]

[*]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/Histor...ltural_and_religious_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[/U](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]

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:

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.