PDA

View Full Version : The genetic background of Ashkenazi Jews, what is known so far?



John Doe
09-30-2014, 05:05 PM
I'm curious as to what is known so far about the AJ's genetic background, I'm AJ myself, and what I tend to think about every now and then is, what are we? Fully middle eastern? Partially European? What?
What appeared on some sites and some newspapers is this study:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html

Humanist
09-30-2014, 05:28 PM
I'm curious as to what is known so far about the AJ's genetic background, I'm AJ myself, and what I tend to think about every now and then is, what are we? Fully middle eastern? Partially European? What?
What appeared on some sites and some newspapers is this study:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html

There has been a lot of discussion of this question for many years. A search of the forum for "Ashkenazi" will return a number of relevant threads you may wish to peruse:

Rootsi et al. (2013) Ashkenazi Levite R1a Discussion Thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1738-Rootsi-et-al-(2013)-Ashkenazi-Levite-R1a-Discussion-Thread&highlight=Ashkenazi)

New paper on Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1419-New-paper-on-Ashkenazi-mtDNA-lineages&highlight=Ashkenazi)

No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2235-No-Evidence-from-Genome-Wide-Data-of-a-Khazar-Origin-for-the-Ashkenazi-Jews&highlight=Ashkenazi)

The Ashkenazi Jewish Genome (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1303-The-Ashkenazi-Jewish-Genome&highlight=Ashkenazi)

The Khazar Hypothesis & Jews: Confirmed? (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?85-The-Khazar-Hypothesis-amp-Jews-Confirmed&highlight=Ashkenazi)

John Doe
09-30-2014, 05:39 PM
There has been a lot of discussion of this question for many years. A search of the forum for "Ashkenazi" will return a number of relevant threads you may wish to peruse:

Rootsi et al. (2013) Ashkenazi Levite R1a Discussion Thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1738-Rootsi-et-al-(2013)-Ashkenazi-Levite-R1a-Discussion-Thread&highlight=Ashkenazi)

New paper on Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1419-New-paper-on-Ashkenazi-mtDNA-lineages&highlight=Ashkenazi)

No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2235-No-Evidence-from-Genome-Wide-Data-of-a-Khazar-Origin-for-the-Ashkenazi-Jews&highlight=Ashkenazi)

The Ashkenazi Jewish Genome (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1303-The-Ashkenazi-Jewish-Genome&highlight=Ashkenazi)

The Khazar Hypothesis & Jews: Confirmed? (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?85-The-Khazar-Hypothesis-amp-Jews-Confirmed&highlight=Ashkenazi)

Thanks. :) But I must admit I already went through these threads. :P

J Man
09-30-2014, 06:04 PM
Ashkenazi Jews genetically are mainly a mix between Middle Eastern and European ancestries with the Middle Eastern mix making up the majority. The AJ have their origins in the early Middle Ages in Germany and initially their population was very small and experienced a number of genetic bottlenecks.

John Doe
09-30-2014, 06:50 PM
Ashkenazi Jews genetically are mainly a mix between Middle Eastern and European ancestries with the Middle Eastern mix making up the majority.

If that's the case then why did the study I show said 46-50% European?

Erik
09-30-2014, 07:53 PM
If that's the case then why did the study I show said 46-50% European?

Possibly because the Middle Eastern could be 50-54.

J Man
09-30-2014, 09:45 PM
If that's the case then why did the study I show said 46-50% European?

I stand corrected. They may be a fairly even mix.

Erik
09-30-2014, 11:12 PM
I just saw this, it's very interesting: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ashkenazi-jewish-matrilineages-mainly.html

Agamemnon
10-01-2014, 12:25 AM
If that's the case then why did the study I show said 46-50% European?

Because this study relies on the assumption that contemporary populations can be used to proxy past demographic events... Which is idiosyncratically self-defeating, ultimately.

Also, "European" and "Middle Eastern" are very misleading labels.

John Doe
10-01-2014, 11:14 AM
Possibly because the Middle Eastern could be 50-54.
Good point.

John Doe
10-01-2014, 11:16 AM
Because this study relies on the assumption that contemporary populations can be used to proxy past demographic events... Which is idiosyncratically self-defeating, ultimately.

Also, "European" and "Middle Eastern" are very misleading labels.
True, however, unfortunately there's yet to be a full genome comparison of pre exile Jews and modern Ashkenazi Jews. Also, AJs are roughly 93% EEF, and the EEF is made up of roughly 44% (plus minus 10%) Basal Eurasian, and the rest is unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer that is related to the WHG component, looking at it through this point though, the words "European" and "middle eastern" become arbitrary and utterly meaningless.

Link for the model:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png


P.S But wait, if this study is meaningless, then I just can't see how it would have been published in the first place after the EEF/WHG/ANE study, and also to wide circulation in the press and on the internet, I also failed to hear of any objection by an expert (let's also not forget that they sequenced 128 full genomes, something that wasn't possible until not long ago). I also highly doubt they say the admixture itself took place 600-800 years ago (because then AJs would be expected to have WHG ancestry outside of their EEF component), rather, that's when the bottleneck happened, but the population itself was already admixed, meaning that the admixture may have taken place in the period between the late bronze age and the Hellenistic period, with mainly southeastern Europeans like the Mycenaeans, the Minoans, and the Hellenistic Greeks.

John Doe
10-01-2014, 12:34 PM
I stand corrected. They may be a fairly even mix.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

Agamemnon
10-01-2014, 09:18 PM
True, however, unfortunately there's yet to be a full genome comparison of pre exile Jews and modern Ashkenazi Jews. Also, AJs are roughly 93% EEF, and the EEF is made up of roughly 44% (plus minus 10%) Basal Eurasian, and the rest is unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer that is related to the WHG component, looking at it through this point though, the words "European" and "middle eastern" become arbitrary and utterly meaningless.

Link for the model:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YbYK8NzQNAY/UrihRsR5eSI/AAAAAAAAJbo/TYynaV4cO4Y/s1600/model.png


P.S But wait, if this study is meaningless, then I just can't see how it would have been published in the first place after the EEF/WHG/ANE study, and also to wide circulation in the press and on the internet, I also failed to hear of any objection by an expert (let's also not forget that they sequenced 128 full genomes, something that wasn't possible until not long ago). I also highly doubt they say the admixture itself took place 600-800 years ago (because then AJs would be expected to have WHG ancestry outside of their EEF component), rather, that's when the bottleneck happened, but the population itself was already admixed, meaning that the admixture may have taken place in the period between the late bronze age and the Hellenistic period, with mainly southeastern Europeans like the Mycenaeans, the Minoans, and the Hellenistic Greeks.

Loads of irrelevant studies with outdated methodology and flawed conclusions make it through the peer-review process, this is especially true of mtDNA and Y-DNA studies.
This study isn't particularly special in such regards, in fact it brings nothing new to this issue at all.

The admixture could not have taken place ~800 years ago since Sephardic Jews are pretty much identical to Ashkenazi Jews. So the only thing the IBD analysis confirmed is that a bottleneck took place ~800 years BP.
I also agree that most of the admixture must've been Greek and that it might've inscribed itself in a continuous pattern of gene flow since the Middle Bronze Age back when the Aegean was a hub of Bronze Age economy.
At least that sounds far more likely than some dull model "50% N. Italian" model, which isn't supported by the evidence at hand (very low IBD sharing with Italians, lack of uniparental clades in common, etc).

Finally, I wouldn't make much of the media coverage this study enjoyed... I mean, Elhaik's funny paper (where he claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars) and Costa et al. 2013's mtDNA study (which relied on sloppy phylogeographic analysis and a self-defeating conclusion) both received wide media coverage despite their obvious flaws. From the looks of it, it'll take at least 20 years for the public to get to odds with recent discoveries in this field... And things certainly aren't looking any better judging from some of the ASHG excerpts I've seen.
One can only hope for more aDNA in this case.

dp
10-01-2014, 09:55 PM
The admixture could not have taken place ~800 years ago since Sephardic Jews are pretty much identical to Ashkenazi Jews.
I was surprised by the 800 coalescence in the admixture data. The mitochondrial of Behar & Costa indicated about 1800-1850 ybp. That seemed a huge difference. That being said, a vast assemblage of ancestors make up one persons autosomal DNA vs that in one mtDNA lineage. Do you know studies with appreciable Sephardic DNA. In GENBANK there was only one kit identified as "Ashkenazim/Sephardic Jew" and none as Sephardic when I was studying the K mtDNA clade 2 yrs ago.
dp :-)

John Doe
10-02-2014, 05:59 AM
Loads of irrelevant studies with outdated methodology and flawed conclusions make it through the peer-review process, this is especially true of mtDNA and Y-DNA studies.
This study isn't particularly special in such regards, in fact it brings nothing new to this issue at all.

The admixture could not have taken place ~800 years ago since Sephardic Jews are pretty much identical to Ashkenazi Jews. So the only thing the IBD analysis confirmed is that a bottleneck took place ~800 years BP.
I also agree that most of the admixture must've been Greek and that it might've inscribed itself in a continuous pattern of gene flow since the Middle Bronze Age back when the Aegean was a hub of Bronze Age economy.
At least that sounds far more likely than some dull model "50% N. Italian" model, which isn't supported by the evidence at hand (very low IBD sharing with Italians, lack of uniparental clades in common, etc).

Finally, I wouldn't make much of the media coverage this study enjoyed... I mean, Elhaik's funny paper (where he claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars) and Costa et al. 2013's mtDNA study (which relied on sloppy phylogeographic analysis and a self-defeating conclusion) both received wide media coverage despite their obvious flaws. From the looks of it, it'll take at least 20 years for the public to get to odds with recent discoveries in this field... And things certainly aren't looking any better judging from some of the ASHG excerpts I've seen.
One can only hope for more aDNA in this case.
I see.
Yeah, the gradual admixture with Greeks from the bronze age to the Hellenistic age does sound more likely than admixture with north Italians, genetically and historically, there's little IBD sharing with north Italians, but there is significant IBD sharing with Greeks, also Greeks are the mainland Europeans with the lowest level of WHG outside of the EEF that is above noise level. Historically speaking, I can think of the significant trade relations between the Aegean and the Levant in the late bronze age (as you said) (Many items that have been found in modern day Israel are of Aegean/Greek origin, getting there probably thanks to trade), in the Hellenistic age I can think of many Jews adopting Hellenistic customs, while at the time Judaism passed from the dad, so marrying Greek women wouldn't have been impossible. As for the relation of AJs/SJs, very true, especially in the case of Turkish/Greek/Bulgarian Sephardis and AJs.

John Doe
10-02-2014, 11:55 AM
I'm pretty sure both Costa and this new study were published on Nature communications, if these studies are just BS, then how come Nature let them be published on their site?

Agamemnon
10-02-2014, 02:43 PM
I'm pretty sure both Costa and this new study were published on Nature communications, if these studies are just BS, then how come Nature let them be published on their site?

Well, these studies aren't just "BS", but they are irrelevant in the sense that they fail to bring anything new to the topic at hand.
The peer-review standards aren't stringent enough, in that they allow contradictory studies to be published (the Costa et al. 2013 study is one such paper).
The Paschou et al. 2014 study also suffers from this IMO (models the spread of Neolithic farmers throughout the Aegean by using contemporary populations as proxies), though it does bring a whole new set of (Cappadocian) samples... Nevertheless, there's a lot of room for improvement.

John Doe
10-02-2014, 03:21 PM
Well, these studies aren't just "BS", but they are irrelevant in the sense that they fail to bring anything new to the topic at hand.
The peer-review standards aren't stringent enough, in that they allow contradictory studies to be published (the Costa et al. 2013 study is one such paper).
The Paschou et al. 2014 study also suffers from this IMO (models the spread of Neolithic farmers throughout the Aegean by using contemporary populations as proxies), though it does bring a whole new set of (Cappadocian) samples... Nevertheless, there's a lot of room for improvement.
I see... Perhaps the reason so far there hasn't been full genome analysis of pre exile Jews is due to the lack of suitable corpses that yield enough DNA? Am I correct?

Generalissimo
10-02-2014, 10:34 PM
I'm pretty sure both Costa and this new study were published on Nature communications, if these studies are just BS, then how come Nature let them be published on their site?

The problem isn't with Nature, or any other science journal, it's with academia.

If the science in the papers is flawed, but by and large found by academia to be acceptable for the time being, then Nature has no choice but to publish the papers. This of course means that a lot of suspiciously strange results, even to people who aren't scientists, get published in journals, including the most prestigious ones.

But science is self-correcting and things move pretty quickly, so it's only a matter of time until someone gets it right and their papers supersede the old papers.

Unfortunately though, a lot of people aren't aware of how things work in science, and just assume that if a paper gets published in a journal like Nature, and the authors are well known, then the results being presented are beyond reproach and shouldn't even be debated. This can sometimes get very annoying on boards such as these when these people simply appeal to authority and don't accept any arguments that contradict what they've read.

John Doe
10-03-2014, 05:12 AM
The problem isn't with Nature, or any other science journal, it's with academia.

If the science in the papers is flawed, but by and large found by academia to be acceptable for the time being, then Nature has no choice but to publish the papers. This of course means that a lot of suspiciously strange results, even to people who aren't scientists, get published in journals, including the most prestigious ones.

But science is self-correcting and things move pretty quickly, so it's only a matter of time until someone gets it right and their papers supersede the old papers.

Unfortunately though, a lot of people aren't aware of how things work in science, and just assume that if a paper gets published in a journal like Nature, and the authors are well known, then the results being presented are beyond reproach and shouldn't even be debated. This can sometimes get very annoying on boards such as these when these people simply appeal to authority and don't accept any arguments that contradict what they've read.

Let's also not forget the fact that it's highly unlikely for the European admixture in AJs to be non southeastern European (specifically Greek) due to the 0 WHG ancestry outside of the EEF component. Yeah, I mean, who remembers Costa? It has already been refuted not just be studies that came before, but of one that came afterwards. Also this study used modern populations which is self defeating, while Lazaridis used ancient DNA which is more reliable.

Generalissimo
10-03-2014, 06:49 AM
Let's also not forget the fact that it's highly unlikely for the European admixture in AJs to be non southeastern European (specifically Greek) due to the 0 WHG ancestry outside of the EEF component.

Not necessarily, because Ashkenazi Jews have much more recent and more considerable Near Eastern ancestry than almost all other Europeans. This actually gives them room for some extra WHG or WHG-like ancestry on top of what was carried by Stuttgart, which is potentially being cancelled out by this Near Eastern admixture.

In other words, their Jewish origins plus some admixture from Central and Eastern Europe might be creating a pseudo-EEF effect, which has much more recent origins than the Neolithic.

John Doe
10-03-2014, 07:57 AM
Not necessarily, because Ashkenazi Jews have much more recent and more considerable Near Eastern ancestry than almost all other Europeans. This actually gives them room for some extra WHG or WHG-like ancestry on top of what was carried by Stuttgart, which is potentially being cancelled out by this Near Eastern admixture.

In other words, their Jewish origins plus some admixture from Central and Eastern Europe might be creating a pseudo-EEF effect, which has much more recent origins than the Neolithic.
Perhaps, I mean, there is IBD sharing with east Europeans and AJs, but there is higher level of IBD sharing with Greeks than with east Europeans. I guess this will remain uncertain until there will be a full genome analysis of pre exilic Jewish DNA and its comparison with modern populations, or more generally ancient genome analysis of pre Islamic near easterners, the genetic landscape of the pre Islamic near east is uncharted territory.

John Doe
10-09-2014, 04:51 PM
Not necessarily, because Ashkenazi Jews have much more recent and more considerable Near Eastern ancestry than almost all other Europeans. This actually gives them room for some extra WHG or WHG-like ancestry on top of what was carried by Stuttgart, which is potentially being cancelled out by this Near Eastern admixture.

In other words, their Jewish origins plus some admixture from Central and Eastern Europe might be creating a pseudo-EEF effect, which has much more recent origins than the Neolithic.

Wait, can you please try to explain that in another way? I know that there is without a doubt a WHG/UHG west Eurasian like ancestry outside of the AJs' EEF component, and what would be that "Jewish origin"? Levantine? And truth be told, what does 'Levantine' mean, late iron age/early Roman age Levantine to be specific, could just as well be Cypriot/Anatolian like? So perhaps a pre Islamic Levantine component with central and eastern European ancestry would make up the main AJ makeup? Is that possible? And if that's the case, why is there significant gene flow from Greeks according to this map?

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ashkenaziibd1.png

P.S there does seem to be gene flow from east Euros though...

ThrashRaghead
04-10-2015, 08:07 PM
This is more evidence that the ashkenazi "jews" are not really semitic, and certainly not Middle Eastern. They are whites that cluster with greeks and italians.

also Dr. Eran Elhaik proved that they are from europe, from a people known as the khazars.

Longbowman
04-11-2015, 01:02 PM
This is more evidence that the ashkenazi "jews" are not really semitic, and certainly not Middle Eastern. They are whites that cluster with greeks and italians.

They don't cluster with [most] Greeks, maybe some Islanders. But anyhow, clustering with, say, Sicilians, which they kind of do, doesn't make you Sicilian. Looking at other evidence - haplogroups, IBD sharing - it's clear they aren't Sicilians. They're probably a mixture of two populations that together, resemble Sicilians - the North Italian/Levantine model some members scoffed at (though IBD sharing with N. Italians and Palestinians from AJs is at similar levels, a little closer for North Italians. I'm not sure why it's seen as so laughable).


also Dr. Eran Elhaik proved that they are from europe, from a people known as the khazars.

Contradicts your first point because the Khazars weren't Greeks or Sicilians.

Elhaik was wrong. Really wrong.

John Doe
04-11-2015, 01:29 PM
They don't cluster with [most] Greeks, maybe some Islanders. But anyhow, clustering with, say, Sicilians, which they kind of do, doesn't make you Sicilian. Looking at other evidence - haplogroups, IBD sharing - it's clear they aren't Sicilians. They're probably a mixture of two populations that together, resemble Sicilians - the North Italian/Levantine model some members scoffed at (though IBD sharing with N. Italians and Palestinians from AJs is at similar levels, a little closer for North Italians. I'm not sure why it's seen as so laughable).



Contradicts your first point because the Khazars weren't Greeks or Sicilians.

Elhaik was wrong. Really wrong.

Thanks for the extra info. Yeah, it's clear the Ashkenazis don't plot right next to Greeks, but between Greeks and Cypriots according to Lazaridis, and next to Maltese and Sicilians, AJs do seem to share IBD with mainland Greeks though. Thing is, we're speculating here, can we assume Palestinians best represent the proxy population to the Levantine component? And can we assume north Italians best represent the proxy population of the European component? I'm afraid this enigma will elude us until ancient DNA from the ancient near east will (if it ever will) be found, only then we might just actually get out of the world of speculation. One thing is for certain though, AJs don't predominantly descend from a Turkic speaking population which resembles Tartars, that's something every study indicates.

Longbowman
04-11-2015, 02:00 PM
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah, it's clear the Ashkenazis don't plot right next to Greeks, but between Greeks and Cypriots according to Lazaridis, and next to Maltese and Sicilians, AJs do seem to share IBD with mainland Greeks though. Thing is, we're speculating here, can we assume Palestinians best represent the proxy population to the Levantine component? And can we assume north Italians best represent the proxy population of the European component? I'm afraid this enigma will elude us until ancient DNA from the ancient near east will (if it ever will) be found, only then we might just actually get out of the world of speculation. One thing is for certain though, AJs don't predominantly descend from a Turkic speaking population which resembles Tartars, that's something every study indicates.

Palestinians probably have some degree of admixture from non-Levantine sources, but AJs aren't similar to Samaritans or Druze either.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 02:55 PM
They definitely plot next to sicilians and southern italians. Can you post PCA plots that demonstrate this? I've seen one or two.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 02:58 PM
Couldn't the khazars have been some unique genetic group in europe? why would they have to plot with turkic people or caucuses people? they could be southern italians genetically living in this part of europe. still doesn't make them semitic.

J Man
04-11-2015, 03:16 PM
Ashkenazi Jews are genetically basically a mix of mainly Near Eastern, Mediterranean (including European Mediterranean) and Eastern European type ancestries. There do seem to be some small East Eurasian type of influences as well but these may come via Eastern European type admixture which I already mentioned.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 03:31 PM
their near eastern ancestry is Neolithic ancestry like other europeans have. that's when the Middle Eastern males invaded europe.

ashkenazi's are whites not semitic.

John Doe
04-11-2015, 03:51 PM
They definitely plot next to sicilians and southern italians. Can you post PCA plots that demonstrate this? I've seen one or two.

I can upload my Eurogenes K8 PCA, Davidski puts me in the south Italian cluster.

John Doe
04-11-2015, 03:52 PM
Couldn't the khazars have been some unique genetic group in europe? why would they have to plot with turkic people or caucuses people? they could be southern italians genetically living in this part of europe. still doesn't make them semitic.

The Khazars spoke a Turkic language and lives in the northern Caucasus along the Volga, maybe that's the reason.

John Doe
04-11-2015, 03:53 PM
their near eastern ancestry is Neolithic ancestry like other europeans have. that's when the Middle Eastern males invaded europe.

ashkenazi's are whites not semitic.

Semitic is a language family, not a race, and the term White has been redefined many times.

John Doe
04-11-2015, 03:55 PM
but AJs aren't similar to Samaritans or Druze either.

Perhaps this is due to admixture that Samaritans and Druze didn't face, at least not to large a degree as AJs, I'm talking mainly about Mediterranean European admixture that did have the Mesolithic component of WHG in it, thus putting AJs not among modern middle easterners, even the "fairest" ones such as Druze, or even among Cypriots who many consider European.

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 04:11 PM
Thank you please post your PCA plot.

Tell me, do ashkenazi's mostly plot next to south italians and close to greeks? Or is this just some ashkenazis?

ThrashRaghead
04-11-2015, 04:18 PM
I can't find too many PCA plots on google.

Tomenable
06-30-2016, 05:37 AM
We have a lot of new genomes from the Middle East now (Lazaridis 2016 paper about farmers etc.). What happens if we model Ashkenazi Jews as a mix of Bronze Age Levant + Europeans? Samples from BA Levant are for example I1705, I1706 and I1730. After all, Jewish ancient ancestors were Iron Age Hebrews, and it is believed that Hebrews descended from Bronze Age Canaanites, who had lived in the Levant. Some scholars also believe that Hebrews were new immigrants to the region, who replaced Canaanites. But we don't have Iron Age samples yet, so let's examine BA_Levant.

kingjohn
06-30-2016, 08:06 AM
indid and one of the bronze age jordanian
score only 2.2% italian in eurogenes k36
as oposed to most aschenazi who score 15% and more italian and
the bronze age levant sample also not score east -central euro like 4-5% in other modern aschenazi
so there was significant european admixture.
regards
adam

p.s but chad here said we should not use those calculator as they
are fitt for modern people so i dont know.

Piquerobi
06-30-2016, 09:33 AM
We have a lot of new genomes from the Middle East now (Lazaridis 2016 paper about farmers etc.). What happens if we model Ashkenazi Jews as a mix of Bronze Age Levant + Europeans? Samples from BA Levant are for example I1705, I1706 and I1730.

The best would be a comparison based on Hebrew samples from Roman times, when the diaspora is said to have happened.

tippy
06-30-2016, 09:38 AM
Surely they should model the AJs as half Samaritan, quarter Russian and quarter Romanian (or similar)? I would say Samaritans are probably a good representation of how Canaanites/Roman-Era Levantines would have been.

kingjohn
06-30-2016, 09:41 AM
the east central euro component was not
present in the ancient hebrews i am sure about it...:)
there was some geneflow in diaspora from poles .... not alot but there was.
but you are right that we need pre-diaspora samples
and ancient israel were more effected by the philstines or other aegean people than jordan
any way mizrachi jews resemble assyrians autosomally
so there is already diffrnet genetic makeup between the diffrent jewish groups.
regards
adam

tippy
06-30-2016, 10:27 AM
Sorry kingjohn, I'm just confused by something. How would ancient Israel have been represented by the Aegean groups or the Philistines? Also - do you not think the Samaritans - being so close in proximity to the Hebrews and if I remember my bible correctly, being sons of Joseph/one of the tribes of Israel- surely these people are more representative than folks from the Aegean/Asia Minor/Greece/Cyprus/wherever?

kingjohn
06-30-2016, 09:59 PM
i mean that on contrary to jordanians the hebrews were effected by aegean people that all.
there were phlistines on coast of israel and not inland levant like jordan.
and yes i do believe the samaritan could be snap shot of the iron age levant the only problem that they practice endogomy and drift thats what agamemnon talled me.
regards
adam

wombatofthenorth
07-01-2016, 01:24 AM
If that's the case then why did the study I show said 46-50% European?

I don't know. I heard someone ran some 100% Ashkenazi raw files through tests that had no Ashkenazi category and I thought it came back mostly Middle Eastern (and I thnk maybe far Southeastern European and maybe a bit Mediterranean) and basically no Eastern European or Northern European at all.

John Doe
07-01-2016, 01:40 AM
I don't know. I heard someone ran some 100% Ashkenazi raw files through tests that had no Ashkenazi category and I thought it came back mostly Middle Eastern and basically no Eastern European.

You mean like FTDNA? They can define it whatever way they like, in the end it's arbitrary, the only actual genetic populations that are based on fact are the ones that are now being discovered through Ancient DNA, with Ancient DNA from the Near East 2,000 years ago we can then (assuming we ever get a sample) see to what degree they resemble modern day populations, but that cannot be done with modern populations, Middle Eastern or otherwise.

Sikeliot
07-01-2016, 01:49 AM
Without an Ashkenazi category, they'd come up half Italian, half Levantine.

Cinnamon orange
07-01-2016, 06:21 AM
Are there differences in Ashkenazis by region? Do some have more Sephardic ancestry than others, say from areas like Odessa and parts of Russia, where they mixed.

Sikeliot
07-01-2016, 06:45 AM
also Greeks are the mainland Europeans with the lowest level of WHG outside of the EEF that is above noise level.


This is actually not true, it's people in Calabria.

Also, despite living amongst Slavs, even Greeks have more Slavic and NE European BaltoSlavic DNA than Ashkenazi Jews do.

kingjohn
07-02-2016, 12:52 PM
but i dont believe aschenazi are only a mixture of
middle eastern and italian converts in in north central italy
:
dna tribes which check for genetic signitures found slavic genetic signiuters in me {russian tver or russian kursk to be more presice}
and even after i show her the answere of ftdna she still insist that there is substanial overlap in genetic signitures between aschenazi and eastern european .{probably russian maybe poles}

so lets put it that way most eastern aschenazi score 10% baltic on avarage in eurogenes k13
in ftdna because there is aschenazi refrence which based on polish and lithaunian jews afcorse we will match them .
but if you go by unlinked snp i scre 13% vologda russia

and also if you go by genetic signitures there is sharing i believe dna tribes in this matter she has no interes to trick me
thats what she saw. {and let me tell you you that the chances the ancient hebrews share genetic signitures with russians is probly 0.0000000%
regards
adam


p.s about the greeks they were more exposed to slavic invaders and less isolated than aschenazi
but genetic signutures show that there was some geneflow between aschenazi and russians or poles.