The Ashkenazi founder event pre-dated the 14th century (discussion)

[vettor]

https://sites.google.com/view/ashken...ashkenazi-jews

they mixed the 3 branches of T ............T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3 .............so you need to sort via the snp

these 3 branches formed 13500 years ago

In the link ...................I am not Jewish and my line sits with the group noted as T-CTS8862 ( T-pages00113 subcluster )
I am positive for Cts8862 ..............but negative for pages00113
I am positive for Z19945

So, I think , one needs to take care on what they check in this site

[vettor]

T-Y91965, which is a bit bigger than T-FGC30190.

There’s a tiny one here, as well: https://www.yfull.com/tree/T-Y110311/

IIRC, samples which begin with ERS are from the 17th century ..............thats what I was informed by Yfull staff

who also said ...............HG samples are medical samples of current people

YF are living people

[Pylsteen]

Some thoughts

- Russians as proxy for Slavic admixture may not be the best option, although apparent this is because of the availabity of datasets.
- I see they may have used Egyptian in some of the ME compinent runs, but I don't see the use of Berber-like components.
- East Asian admixture was already present, although they remain cautious of it later in the text.
- good to see there was substructure among the Ashkenazi during this period; the variance in "Slavic admixture" among Erfurt EU suggests to me it may have been quite recent.

[Piquerobi]

This should set a good precedent so that other remains will be tested:

Jewish rabbinical law, which was followed by EAJ (SI 1) prohibits exhumation of Jews for most purposes, and also proscribes disturbing the dead. Established rabbinical ruling on ancient DNA studies of Jewish individuals did not exist before the advent of the technology [44], and there is no centralized authority for establishing Jewish rabbinical guidance. As part of this study, we engaged with rabbinical authorities who reviewed our proposed research plan and approved the project under the conditions that only detached teeth are collected and that the analysis is performed only on already-excavated individuals and does not involve excavation specifically for the purpose of ancient DNA research.

[hartaisarlag]

This should set a good precedent so that other remains will be tested:

Yes, truly game-changing

[Pylsteen]

This matches predictions made based on convergent evidence from old genealogies and statistical methods, as early as 2019, which you'll find on this forum, identifying E-Y6940 with the earliest medieval Jews of "Bohemia/Austria/Bavaria", and J-Y15234 (and most other large Ashkenazi Y-DNA branches) with the earliest medieval Jews of the Rhineland.

I remember there was a thread which attempted to list the early Ashkenazi subgroups (Rhineland, Bavarian/Austrian etc.), but I can't find it anymore... or was it buried in the large thread?

[hartaisarlag]

I remember there was a thread which attempted to list the early Ashkenazi subgroups (Rhineland, Bavarian/Austrian etc.), but I can't find it anymore... or was it buried in the large thread?

Probably buried within the large thread. Many follow-ups have made it clear that E-Y6940 is the odd one out among the 9 major AJ Y branches, and is probably joined by several Y branches in the next tier (R-A11720, R-FGC8564-Ivanhoe, G-FGC228, J-L254) as not being Rhineland-associated.

[ADW_1981]

Just go through the uniparentals, there is not much, and mtDNA is hard to trace, but its enough to say there was some gene flow. And we do know from historical sources in France and Germany that people, even Frankish Christian males, did convert. We have the accounts, we have the laws and prohibition from both the Christian and Jewish side.

The only one in this small sample that seems most likely the case is R-L4, whose ancestor was probably from Iberia or Italy. The others are not deep enough subclades, and I'm rather certain Z2103 were not Franks, and a major leap to assume they were European at all.

[Riverman]

The only one in this small sample that seems most likely the case is R-L4, whose ancestor was probably from Iberia or Italy. The others are not deep enough subclades, and I'm rather certain Z2103 were not Franks, and a major leap to assume they were European at all.

I wasn't speaking about the recent samples, but general modern AJ.

[ADW_1981]

It is puzzling that despite high Slavic admixture they don't have any obviously Slavic mtDNA or Y. Or do they?

Is it Slavic or just Eastern Euro? What about N9a3, H11b1, U1b1.
I think the E sample is probably the one mentioned earlier, or E-M84.