Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Ashkenazi Jewish Origins Thread
#16
(03-05-2024, 03:02 AM)RBHeadge Wrote:
(03-01-2024, 01:36 PM)Riverman Wrote:
(03-01-2024, 01:12 PM)Pylsteen Wrote: Can we say that the branches that remained in Germany are undertested?

Testing in Germany is generally worse than in other regions

Almost none of those families are still living in Germany. The kits we see now are from those who immigrated prior to 1940 and their descendants.


(03-01-2024, 01:36 PM)Riverman Wrote: So my best guess is that they simply didn't reproduce as successfully, on average, as those which remained in a more traditional context in the East.

Its basically a similar pattern, even if not as extreme, as if you compare German lineages which moved out with Mennonites and Amish vs. regular bourgeois Germans. Its pretty obvious which side of the family with have been biologically more successful and more widespread in most if not all instances.

My hunch is that the same applies to some German vs. Eastern European Jewish lineages. The latter had way more offspring on average.

I manage a lot of YDNA and atDNA kits and they're either Pennsylvania Dutch kits or AJ and their family trees. Both groups had more offspring and surviving offspring than those that remained in Germany.

AFAIK, Dad's last fully autosomal [Rhine] Ashkenazi ancestor was his 2nd Great Grandfather, born 1805.  He doesn't carry a large amount of E. Euro (unless it's already in Erfurt?).
Besides the above, he is West German and colonial-era British, with one of the British lines being French [Huguenots?] a generation before the Mayflower sailed.

Target: DewslothDad_scaled
Distance: 0.3145% / 0.00314514
13.4 Germanic*(AD*100–630): Goth: POL_Weklice:R10626__AD_85__Coverage_53.76%
12.4 Germanic*(AD*100–630): Longobard:HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ9__AD_508__Coverage_71.94%
12.0 Roman*Gaul*(AD*130–500): Roman*Gaul:FRA_Sarrebourg:R11557
11.8 Italic*and*Etruscan*(900–200*BC): Etruscan: ITA_Etruscan_PoggioRenzo
9.0 European*Jew*(AD*1160–1400): Erfurt*Jew: DEU_MA_Erfurt1:I13861
4.8 Pict*(AD*300–500): Pict: Scotland_LIA:I27385__AD_34__Coverage_72.43%
4.4 France*(AD*130–1400): France*(AD*130–1400):FRA_Sarrebourg:R11557__AD_337__Coverage_71.66%
4.4 Pict*(AD*300–500): Pict: Scotland_Orkney_VA:VK203__AD_361__Coverage_56.71%
3.0 Germanic*(AD*700–1000):Scandinavian*Viking*(Nordland):VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK547___AD_900___Coverage_98.60%
3.0 Sardinian*(AD*770–1000):Sardinian*(Middle*Ages):ITA_Sardinia_EMA:COR001
3.0 Lazica:Lazica:Georgian_West:WG3
3.0 Italic*and*Etruscan*(900–200*BC):Latin:ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA:RMPR851__BC_650__Coverage_53.04%
2.4 Iberian*(AD*300–1200):Iberian*(AD*300–1200):Iberia_Northeast_RomP:I8339__AD_173__Coverage_23.45%
1.8 Germanic*(AD*700–1000):Scandinavian*Viking*(Sealand):VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK284___AD_950___Coverage_64.88%
1.8 Insular*Celt*(AD*100–1000): Pict:Scotland_Orkney_VA:VK203__AD_361__Coverage_56.71%
1.8 Baltic*(AD*260–540):Baltic:Baltic_LTU_Marvele:R10836__AD_468__Coverage_49.21%
1.6 Germanic*(AD*700–1000):Scandinavian*Viking*(Oxford):VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK151___AD_940___Coverage_66.26%
1.4 Insular*Celt*(AD*100–1000): Pict:Scotland_LIA:I27385__AD_34__Coverage_72.43%
1.4 Italian*(AD*650–1450):Central*Italian*(March*of*Tuscany):ITA_Chiusi_EMA:ETR013
1.0 Roman*Iberia*(AD*260–500):Roman*Iberia:Iberia_Northeast_RomP:I8339__AD_173__Coverage_23.45%
1.0 Sarmatian*(AD*50–450):Sarmatian*(Caspian*Steppe):RUS_Caspian_steppe_Sarmatian: DA134__BC_350__Coverage_28.13%
0.8 Italian*(AD*650–1450):South*Italian*(Longobard*Period):ITA_Venosa_EMA:VEN016
0.4 Italian*(AD*650–1450):South*Italian*(Longobard*Period):ITA_Venosa_EMA:VEN001
0.2 Southeast*Asian*(2000*BC–AD*1800):Vietnam*(Late*Neolithic):VNM_LN:Vt833__BC_2218__Coverage_14.19%
0.2 Pygmy:Mbuti

Aggregated:
Show Content
Rodoorn and JMcB like this post
R1b>M269>L23>L51>L11>P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833 >S4281>S4268>Z17112>FT354149

Ancestors: Francis Cooke (M223/I2a2a) b1583; Hester Mahieu (Cooke) (J1c2 mtDNA) b.1584; Richard Warren (E-M35) b1578; Elizabeth Walker (Warren) (H1j mtDNA) b1583; John Mead (I2a1/P37.2) b1634; Rev. Joseph Hull (I1, L1301+ L1302-) b1595; Benjamin Harrington (M223/I2a2a-Y5729) b1618; Joshua Griffith (L21>DF13) b1593; John Wing (U106) b1584; Thomas Gunn (DF19) b1605; Hermann Wilhelm (DF19) b1635
Reply
#17
Man I wish Vinshlusen was hereZ
Reply
#18
I'm curious about your opinion about the following case.  My Y-DNA is E-V22/ E-L1401. And I seriously suspect that this is a Jewish (Ashkenazim)  lineage. Why?

E-L1401 is in North-Dutch context a white raven Y-DNA. There are indeed connections on Yfull, but those connections go back 5,000 years and are - on Yfull - with a Palestinian, an Iraqi and FTDNA adds a Turk. So a solitary line.
[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-09-42-04.png]

I have the Eurasia modern on your DNA portalorigins admixture was done on my father's sample, where the total chromosome was divided into 200 parts.

The result was as follows:
[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-09-43-34.png]

Typical for a Frisian-Groningen DNA, with a high Scandinavian content but with an atypical 1% Druze. The Druze belong to the core of the Semitic peoples.

Because the percentages are so small, I decided to do some admixtures at chromosome level. This appeared to confirm the Semitic suspicion.

Three examples, chromosome 20

[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-09-46-20.png]
[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-09-46-42.png]



And chromosome 3:
[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-09-47-19.png]
[Image: temp-Image-QBxv-BX.avif]

Last but not least chromosome 4:
[Image: temp-Imagel-U9-Qt-G.avif]
[Image: temp-Imagej-Fefbc.avif]
[Image: temp-Imagey-Sh-QHS.avif]
Reply
#19
Part II.

And overall the Semitic/Jewish results:

[Image: temp-Image1-Jc-Xi-I.avif]

\
[Image: temp-Image-Ufs-CT5.avif]
[Image: temp-Image-BRPD7a.avif]

The result - even if we take it with a spoonful of salt - it is clear that there is a semitic content on various chromosomes that goes beyond the noise and that clearly differs from other Northern Dutch people such as my mother. I have asked some here who are absolutely knowledgable about admixtures,  they have severe problems with admixtures like this. I can understand that, but at the same time on a basic level I get semitic results in the case of my father but not in the case of my mother. So even if I don't trust the numbers, the simple presence is there in the case of my father and not there in the case of my mother. Anyhow it stays speculative!

I asked chatgpt, assuming 1% Semitic now (my father) what would a 100% Semitic ancestor be?
Answer: “Approximately 6.64 generations ago, there was a 100% Semitic  ancestor. Given that generations are discrete, we can say about 7 generations ago.”
So 7 generations from my father: a Semitic ancestor.

In my genealogy 7 steps back from my father we have:  Jan Haijes born around 1685. These are his parents:
Idaarderadeel, marriages 1682
Mention: Confirmation of marriage on December 18, 1682
Man: Haye Jans from Wartena
Woman: Jeltie Foockes from Wartena

This concerns a Frisian skipper family from Wartena, which is located close to the Frisian capital Leeuwarden. Typical Frisian names. What they were not typical in: they belonged to a small minority of Roman Catholics in Friesland.

Nothing points to Semitic roots. Until last weekend I read Siem van der Woude,“Jewish life in Friesland” (2010). It states that the Jews in Leeuwarden at the end of the 17th century shared a house of worship with: the Roman Catholics! Both religions then led a hidden existence. They probably didn't have much together, but they probably met each other. With options for: illegitimate child, adoption, foundling etc. And it also explains that this was completely covered up, it was a taboo... And the child was given a Frisian name: Jan Hayes. Only his Y-DNA and a fragment of autosomal DNA in his distant descendants, 7 generations later, betray not Frisian but Jewish/Semitic roots! Obviously no proof and I never expect to get it.
But is it a realistic scenario... ?
Vinitharya likes this post
Reply
#20
(05-17-2024, 11:46 PM)Dewsloth Wrote: Aggregated:
Show Content

Could you provide those samples in a G25 model Dewsloth? Even it is in my fathers case a needle in a haystack?
Reply
#21
(02-21-2024, 12:20 AM)Riverman Wrote: What I wonder about is how common actually rare yDNA-subclades among Ashkenazi Jews are, which have a deeper Jewish history, to put it that way. Like going back to the Medieval period and earlier.
Because most Ashkenazi lineages are both widespread and well-tested, due to Medieval and later founder events, as well as Ashkenazi Jews being more willing and able to test than many other populations from around the world. But are there actually proven, historically Jewish lineages which are more rare? Its hard to prove they are Jewish without ancient DNA and when there is no more than 1 Jewish tester.
I tried to find such rare lineages with say less than 3 modern testers which are clearly Jewish, but with no luck so far. All proven Jewish subclades have, if consulting FTDNA and YFull, got more testers and experienced a founder event. That's why I'm asking whether there are any known rare ones at all.

The criteria would be:
- Less than 4, but more than 1 tester with FTDNA and YFull being combined
- A TMRCA pointing to an old branching event from within the Jewish population, not a recent (after 1700) proselyte, NPE or other such scenarios.

This is my quest with E-L1401 too. As such is this E-V22 quit core semitic in my view (see elsewhere on gene archivist about the rise of the  pastoralist, semitic and E-V22).

Nevertheless E-L1401 is not among the known Ashkenazim branches (I cooperate very well with the  Jewish YDNA expert Wim Penninx, https://jewishdna.net).

On the other side E-L1401 is seldom and probably from before 1700 AD so not a present line. And from the Frisian Jews only a few survived the holocaust. So is it fully excluded that not  all present Ashkenazim lines are not the complete picture? Penninx thinks that the change of getting new hitherto unknown Ashkenazim Y-DNA is near zero....
Reply
#22
(05-18-2024, 08:03 AM)Rodoorn Wrote: I'm curious about your opinion about the following case.  My Y-DNA is E-V22/ E-L1401. And I seriously suspect that this is a Jewish (Ashkenazim)  lineage. Why?

E-L1401 is in North-Dutch context a white raven Y-DNA. There are indeed connections on Yfull, but those connections go back 5,000 years and are - on Yfull - with a Palestinian, an Iraqi and FTDNA adds a Turk. So a solitary line.

I very much doubt yours is an Ashkenazi lineage, since downstream Ashkenazi testers in your lineage are absent.
These are the two Ashkenazi E-V22 lineages known to me, note their typical characteristics:
E-BY7521
E-FT264745

The lack of relatives in your line after ca. 3500 BC make it difficult to say anything about its journey from likely the Levant to the Netherlands.
Personally, I think the Roman communities along the Rhine might be responsible for a lot of (Eastern) Mediterranean lineages in our lands; if I remember correctly, there will be more results from the (Late) Roman/Merovingian period from the NRW area soon.
Rodoorn likes this post
Reply
#23
(05-18-2024, 08:57 AM)Pylsteen Wrote:
(05-18-2024, 08:03 AM)Rodoorn Wrote: I'm curious about your opinion about the following case.  My Y-DNA is E-V22/ E-L1401. And I seriously suspect that this is a Jewish (Ashkenazim)  lineage. Why?

E-L1401 is in North-Dutch context a white raven Y-DNA. There are indeed connections on Yfull, but those connections go back 5,000 years and are - on Yfull - with a Palestinian, an Iraqi and FTDNA adds a Turk. So a solitary line.

I very much doubt yours is an Ashkenazi lineage, since downstream Ashkenazi testers in your lineage are absent.
These are the two Ashkenazi E-V22 lineages known to me, note their typical characteristics:
E-BY7521
E-FT264745

The lack of relatives in your line after ca. 3500 BC make it difficult to say anything about its journey from likely the Levant to the Netherlands.
Personally, I think the Roman communities along the Rhine might be responsible for a lot of (Eastern) Mediterranean lineages in our lands; if I remember correctly, there will be more results from the (Late) Roman/Merovingian period from the NRW area soon.

Agree. Nevertheless an influx during migration time, let's say John Troeng (2003) got it right with his rune thesis and Nabateans were among the Danish in Roman times, and some solitary E-V22 went with it to Friesland (450 AD>). 

Chat GPT:

What are the changes in numbers when a solitary Y-DNA  branch flows in 450 AD into a population that this Y-DNA branch still survives today in this population?

To understand the changes in numbers when a solitary Y-DNA branch enters a population and still survives today, we need to consider several factors including population size, growth rates, and genetic drift. Here's a simplified outline of how we can approach this scenario:

1. **Initial Introduction (450 AD):**
  - A single male carrying the solitary Y-DNA branch enters a population.
  - Assume this individual successfully integrates and reproduces.

2. **Population Dynamics:**
  - The population size and structure at the time of introduction.
  - Population growth rates over the centuries.
  - Social and cultural factors affecting reproduction and lineage survival.

3. **Survival and Propagation of Y-DNA:**
  - Each generation, the Y-DNA is passed from father to son.
  - Factors influencing whether this Y-DNA lineage survives include:
    - The number of male offspring.
    - Survival rates of those offspring.
    - The probability of those offspring having their own male offspring.

4. **Genetic Drift and Bottlenecks:**
  - Genetic drift can cause significant changes in the frequency of the Y-DNA haplotype, especially in small populations.
  - Population bottlenecks (periods when the population size is drastically reduced) can affect the survival of specific lineages.

### Mathematical Model (Simplified Example)

Let's assume a basic model with some simplifications:

- **Starting point (450 AD):** 1 male with the solitary Y-DNA branch.
- **Generational span:** Approximately 25 years per generation.
- **Number of generations:** 2024 AD - 450 AD = 1574 years / 25 = ~63 generations.

### Population Growth Model

Assume a simple exponential growth model for the population:

\[ P(t) = P_0 \times (1 + r)^t \]

Where:
- \( P(t) \) is the population at time \( t \).
- \( P_0 \) is the initial population size.
- \( r \) is the growth rate per generation.
- \( t \) is the number of generations.

Assume an initial population size of 1,000 and an average growth rate of 1% per generation:

\[ P(63) = 1,000 \times (1 + 0.01)^{63} \]
\[ P(63) \approx 1,000 \times 1.819 \]
\[ P(63) \approx 1,819 \]

### Probability of Survival of Y-DNA

Given the complexity of accurately modeling genetic inheritance, let's simplify further:

1. **Survival Rate:** Assume each male has a 50% chance of having a male offspring.
2. **Lineage Survival:** Probability of the Y-DNA lineage surviving through each generation:

\[ P_{survival}(n) = 0.5^n \]

For 63 generations:

\[ P_{survival}(63) = 0.5^{63} \approx 1.084 \times 10^{-19} \]

This extremely low probability highlights the high likelihood of extinction over many generations. However, if this lineage does survive, it indicates a successful propagation strategy.

### Real-World Considerations

- **Intermarriage and Gene Flow:** Y-DNA can spread more widely if the individuals with this haplotype intermarry within the population.
- **Selection Pressures:** Certain lineages may have had selective advantages or disadvantages, affecting their survival.
- **Cultural Practices:** Patrilineal inheritance, social structure, and historical events (e.g., wars, migrations) play significant roles.

### Conclusion

While a solitary Y-DNA branch introduced in 450 AD has a low probability of survival purely through random inheritance, various factors such as population dynamics, cultural practices, and historical events can influence its persistence. The actual numbers would depend on these complex interactions, but understanding this process highlights the importance of both genetic and socio-historical factors in shaping modern genetic diversity.

Makes a scenario around 1700 more likely.....or my forefather was a Frisian Genghis Khan Wink
Reply
#24
And an add, an influx of E-V22, a semitic forefather, around 450 AD (or even 1450 AD), would leave no trace in my fathers autosomal which seems like the case (on trace level).
Pylsteen likes this post
Reply
#25
@Pylsteen, I like the chat gpt use of the world "real world consideration".

In the E-L1401 Frisian case I would like to add that.

But first from the numeric perspective  a solitary E-L1401 still surviving today has more likely a more recent entre- the last few hundred years, than before that. Even more when there is traceable amount in the autosomal. In my case I have evidence- testing by Maarten Larmuseau- of distant cousins that E_L1401 is at least 4 generations before my father in the family. Potential 3 generations before a possible entrance so 7 generations before (based on about 1% Semitic in the overall autosomal). That's end 17th century.

Now the real world consideration when there is a transference from a Jewish/ Ashkenazim into the Frisian population there must be (flowers en bees) a real life met! These changes were real seen very small in the Frisian case. Let alone that we could suggest a NON Jewish but Arab Y-DNA  influx into Frisians. Of course we can take this in consideration but that kind of thought is imho very very fare fetched.

So let's concentrate on the Jews. This is information from the Leeuwarden municipal, and can be underlined (is likely derived from) Siem van der Woude, Jewish life in Friesland (2010).

"In 1645, the city council of Leeuwarden ordered all Jewish residents to be registered. They probably came from Emden in East Friesland, Germany.

The Jewish cemetery at the Oldenhoof on the Bolwerk was purchased as early as 1670. This cemetery would be expanded in 1739, 1760 and 1771.
Religious services were held in Leeuwarden from about  1700 onwards, initially in a building near the Amelandspipe on the Oude Ee.

This building had to be shared with the Catholics, the other unofficially recognized religious minority in Protestant Leeuwarden."

As I already stated that the shared house of worship  with the Roman Catholics shaped the circumstance of with options for: illegitimate child, adoption, foundling etc. And fore sure may be in many ways in the taboo sphere.

The number of Jews were quite small in the 17th century (so till about 1700) and "developed very gradual" according to Van der Woude (2010). The situation staid very preciar for the Jews in Leeuwarden, in 1712 the guardians of the ports of Leeuwarden got the order to withhold the Jews to prevent that the 'scum of the earth went in', they were accused of spreading infectious diseases at that time. Nevertheless in 1720 Jacob Eleanor Emmerik was mentioned as the first rabbi of Leeuwarden, in 1755 they got a synagoge. But that's already past the end 17th century situation.

I don't know what kind of Jewish population Leeuwarden contained in the initial situation before about 1700- the entrance was via Emden, East-Friesland in Germany.  And there were of course relationships with Amsterdam (later on). Nevertheless I refer to this Pylsteen:

"Besides the Rhineland and Kna'anim groups there was likely more substructure we dont know of yet. In any case, both groups contributed to the modern Ashkenazim in different proportions (a cline is still seen from German jews to Russian jews). Of course there are many complex details due to the many expulsions. Additionally, Sephardim, perhaps Italkim and jews from the Levant/Mesopotamia also came to Central/Eastern Europe."

How fare is it possible that the Leeuwarder Jews contained E-L1401 which has without any doubt Semitic roots, but can't be traced to any living Jewish line anno 2024?
Reply
#26
I think the 17th century Leeuwarden jews (from which I partly descend!) will largely be similar to German jews from that era, indeed Emden was an important point of origin. They will be largely descended from the "Rhineland"-jews (as seen in the Chapelfield and Erfurt-ME samples) and likely also a partly from the "Slavic" jews (the Erfurt-EU samples) and traces of Italian and Sephardic jews. In any case, this will mean that I think their Y-DNA lineages will be fairly similar to what is seen in modern Ashkenazim.

More than 95% of modern Ashkenazi Y-dna lineages traces back to only less than 100 specific lineages, with mostly a TMRCA during the early and high middle ages. The lineages are very recognizable, most of them include signals of population expansions during the late middle ages. Your lineage does not fit that pattern at all; can it be (1) a non-Ashkenazi jewish lineage that was (2) transmitted by the Ashkenazim to Leeuwarden? That cannot be excluded but has two assumptions for which there are no indications whatsoever. That you see 1% Levantine or similar percentages in some autosomal calculators is interesting but indeed not relevant since how would you know it is connected to your direct paternal lineage and why would it stick around for more than 4 centuries? It might be noise as well... my very dutch mother has it too, but it disappears when I model her as a Belgian.

I think it is best to let go of the idea of a Jewish paternal origin and explore other possibilities which I know you've done a lot already. Best to wait for ancient samples (which might take ages). And to continue this topic in your E-V22 thread.
Reply
#27
(05-18-2024, 01:00 PM)Pylsteen Wrote: I think the 17th century Leeuwarden jews (from which I partly descend!) will largely be similar to German jews from that era, indeed Emden was an important point of origin. They will be largely descended from the "Rhineland"-jews (as seen in the Chapelfield and Erfurt-ME samples) and likely also a partly from the "Slavic" jews (the Erfurt-EU samples) and traces of Italian and Sephardic jews. In any case, this will mean that I think their Y-DNA lineages will be fairly similar to what is seen in modern Ashkenazim.

More than 95% of modern Ashkenazi Y-dna lineages traces back to only less than 100 specific lineages, with mostly a TMRCA during the early and high middle ages. The lineages are very recognizable, most of them include signals of population expansions during the late middle ages. Your lineage does not fit that pattern at all; can it be (1) a non-Ashkenazi jewish lineage that was (2) transmitted by the Ashkenazim to Leeuwarden? That cannot be excluded but has two assumptions for which there are no indications whatsoever. That you see 1% Levantine or similar percentages in some autosomal calculators is interesting but indeed not relevant since how would you know it is connected to your direct paternal lineage and why would it stick around for more than 4 centuries? It might be noise as well... my very dutch mother has it too, but it disappears when I model her as a Belgian.

I think it is best to let go of the idea of a Jewish paternal origin and explore other possibilities which I know you've done a lot already. Best to wait for ancient samples (which might take ages). And to continue this topic in your E-V22 thread.

I understand your point of view. Although I don't rule out to draw in the end the conclusion to let go the idea of a Jewish paternal origin, but for now too early.

Basically because E-L1401 is essential in the Frisian/ North Dutch population a solitary DNA.  It's given fact that the more in the past the less likely the (nowadays) survival rate of such a solitary Y-DNA...So a 'recent' entre is more likely than a entre 500 or 1000 years ago.  In the end if it were not the Jews who could brought such a semitic line in (in a reasonable timeframe)? 

Even more when we have no sight on the Emden Jewish influx from before 1700! Because: "will largely be similar to German jews from that era, indeed Emden was an important point of origin. They will be largely descended from the "Rhineland"-jews (as seen in the Chapelfield and Erfurt-ME samples) and likely also a partly from the "Slavic" jews (the Erfurt-EU samples) and traces of Italian and Sephardic jews. In any case, this will mean that I think their Y-DNA lineages will be fairly similar to what is seen in modern Ashkenazim". This is an assumption. It can be right or not, but we don't know.

So don't rule out your own caveat:
"Besides the Rhineland and Kna'anim groups there was likely more substructure we dont know of yet. In any case, both groups contributed to the modern Ashkenazim in different proportions (a cline is still seen from German jews to Russian jews). Of course there are many complex details due to the many expulsions. Additionally, Sephardim, perhaps Italkim and jews from the Levant/Mesopotamia also came to Central/Eastern Europe."

"More than 95% of modern Ashkenazi Y-dna" indeed, modern, but we talk about end 17th century. Afterwards there is a real possibility that complete branches went extinct, see the holocaust. I guess that's sad but true. If we reduce all Y-DNA of the Ashkenazi to all the lines after the holocaust we are in danger to be too reductionist, certainly for a time before 1700 AD.

Indeed the autosomal admixture results are based on all ancestors and that are a lot of them when we go back to about 1700. Nevertheless when my mother has only very few noise traces in the admixture (0,5% or so in the case of two chromosomes), my father goes imho beyond noise traces. And then we must take in account that even in the days of when the Jewish population was at high height in Friesland during 1870-1880 even then it represented not 1% of the Frisian population (Van der Woude 2010).  I guess your mom is not Frisian, traceable Jewish autosomal, beyond noise, are seldom in Friesland (/North Dutch). That's kind of factual.

So may be in the end I have to let go the idea of some Jewish roots, but still too much considerations to leave that idea (option) at this moment. Because what would be the real alternative narrative?
Reply
#28
There are reasons not to think that modern Ashkenazi are 100% the Erfurt ones, see Razib Khan:

"The Erfurt community dates to the 1300’s. Interestingly it shows variation in Eastern European ancestry. The authors suggest that genetically there are actually two clusters here, though sociocultural they’re identical. The best guess is that the Eastern European enriched population migrated to Erfurt from the east (there is some difference in the isotope analysis for the teeth). Modern Ashkenazi Jews show less variability and are positioned between the two Erfurt communities in PCA and admixture space. The group without Eastern European ancestry seems to resemble Sephardi and Italian Jews. This isn’t surprising, since they confirm Ashkenazi Jews are some proportional mix of a Middle Eastern population, Italians, and Eastern Europeans, while Sephardi and Italian Jews clearly just lack the last.

The Erfurt community experienced a strong bottleneck, stronger than the one in modern Ashkenazi Jews. This implies that there are other groups out there unsampled, and modern Ashkenazim descend from that. This isn’t surprising, one feedback I got is that there are so many medieval Jews for the inferred population size during this period (going by the texts). I think one issue might be a lot of the medieval Jewish communities simply went extinct. Many of them were undergoing similar dynamics, but not all contributed to future Ashkenazi ancestry.

The homogeneity (relative) of modern Ashkenazim is probably due to late-medieval metapopulation dynamics."

A line like E-L1401 which is in essence a semitic (/Southern Levant) kind of Y-DNA could well be a line that was there in the Jewish community before 1700, but went extinct afterwards and doesn't belong to the modern Ashkenazim Y-DNA.


Add food for thought also by Khan:

"But now, we know the modern Ashkenazim are a fusion of distinct and disparate Jewish communities that established separate footholds in Northern Europe in the centuries around 1000 AD, perhaps dozens of small diasporas, many still awaiting discovery."
Dewsloth likes this post
Reply
#29
(05-18-2024, 08:17 AM)Rodoorn Wrote:
(05-17-2024, 11:46 PM)Dewsloth Wrote: Aggregated:
Show Content

Could you provide those samples in a G25 model Dewsloth? Even it is in my fathers case a needle in a haystack?

Sure. it's just a wide-open run on all the sources from this:
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=264
Rodoorn likes this post
R1b>M269>L23>L51>L11>P312>DF19>DF88>FGC11833 >S4281>S4268>Z17112>FT354149

Ancestors: Francis Cooke (M223/I2a2a) b1583; Hester Mahieu (Cooke) (J1c2 mtDNA) b.1584; Richard Warren (E-M35) b1578; Elizabeth Walker (Warren) (H1j mtDNA) b1583; John Mead (I2a1/P37.2) b1634; Rev. Joseph Hull (I1, L1301+ L1302-) b1595; Benjamin Harrington (M223/I2a2a-Y5729) b1618; Joshua Griffith (L21>DF13) b1593; John Wing (U106) b1584; Thomas Gunn (DF19) b1605; Hermann Wilhelm (DF19) b1635
Reply
#30
(05-18-2024, 03:41 PM)Dewsloth Wrote:
(05-18-2024, 08:17 AM)Rodoorn Wrote:
(05-17-2024, 11:46 PM)Dewsloth Wrote: Aggregated:
Show Content

Could you provide those samples in a G25 model Dewsloth? Even it is in my fathers case a needle in a haystack?

Sure. it's just a wide-open run on all the sources from this:
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=264

Thanks Dewsloth! ...may be hidden in something  Italic*and*Etruscan*....but ok....
[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-05-18-om-17-54-45.png]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)