Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

J2f

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • josh w.
    replied
    Jeff, good to hear your voice again. Agree with all your points especially the first paragraph.
    Josh
    Last edited by josh w.; 21 June 2007, 08:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dentate
    replied
    Hello Josh,

    Stumbled by the forum today after many months of absence--sometimes the discussions just get too bizarre and irrational and I can't tolerate the mix of science and biblical literalism anymore.

    I am a member of the Jewish J2a1b "sigma" group which has over 80 members in the FTDNA database. Yet I agree that there is absolutely no way of knowing when the MRCA became Jewish. It is well documented that there was great mutual interest between Hellenic and Judaic civilizations in the ancient Near East and conversions into Judaism probably continued up until the rise of Christianity. The whole Mediterranean Basin including Greece and Rome is so full of J2 that all bets are off as far as differentiating between a lineage that was Jewish in 3000 BCE and one that became Jewish in 200 BCE. Lacking genetic data from those time, we cannot conclude much because of time, bottlenecks, and drift. And unlike mtDNA, Y chromosomes don't preserve well.

    The predominant CMH haplotype falls into J1 and overlaps with my group at the 12 marker level. NOT ONE of the J2a1b folks who have this haplotype in my 80+ group has a family tradition of being Cohanim, as far as any have communicated to me. There IS a J2 group with a Cohen tradition that Bonnie Schrack has studied, and which she calls "pre-J2a1k" because of its STR resemblance to classic J2a1k. There were competing clans of Cohanim even in Biblical times, so the dominance of one over the other today may not say much about which one is more ancient.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Clarification, the Levite R1a pattern was probably due to a single founder effect. The source population could not be identified, i.e. there are a number of possible canditates in the region. Of course, the modal haplogroup for Sephardic Levites is J.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeKiller
    replied
    levite j1

    I have matches to levite j1's.I'm assuming that j1 is just a higher percentage in the cohen modal.I think we can discuss this until we are blue in the fingers but the conclusion will not come out until more samples are given or they advance in anthropology techniques.


    TK

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Lawrence I agree. It would be nice if FTDNA publishes it's findings on it's new definition of the CMH and the relations between the CMH and J subclades (others on RootsWeb and the author of the Wikipedia article on haplogroup J share this view). So far, around 70% of those in the "old" CMH "cluster" fall within J1.

    As for Levites, the genetic history is probably complex. There may have been other conversions in the Black Sea and eastern European areas beside Khazar conversions that contributed to the presence of R1a among Levites. Some of my J2 matches have Levite backgrounds.
    Last edited by josh w.; 17 May 2007, 12:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Originally posted by LernerTzvi
    There far are more Jews classified as J2 than J1. Moreover, many J2a1b individuals are assigned the Cohen Modal and have an oral tradition of being a Cohen. And there appear to be a significant amount of levites as J2 which justifies J2 Cohens.
    What we really need are statistically valid unbiased samples. Until then, you may make assertions, but others make contrary assertions.

    To be fair, please do remember that FTDNA is very interested in this topic, and does have access to a large body of statistics that we don't have. However, FTDNA does not use the larger term 'priestly class', only the more specific 'Cohen'.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Man
    replied
    Originally posted by ylgitn
    That's odd, J Man. I am J2a* and am also long-headed. It seems to run in the family, at least as far back as my paternal line great-grandfather.

    Intersting stuff ylgitn. The only other person in my family who has also measured their head dimensions is my brother and he is also long headed. I am not really completely sure but to me my paternal grandfather's head looks like it may be what they call either brachycephalic (broad headed) or mesocephalic which is in the middle. My father I think is also either brachycephalic or mesocephalic.

    Leave a comment:


  • ylgitn
    replied
    Originally posted by J Man
    I am a J2a1* man who is very long headed. I actually measured my head dimensions before with calipers and my head legnth was 201mm and my head breadth was 149mm.
    That's odd, J Man. I am J2a* and am also long-headed. It seems to run in the family, at least as far back as my paternal line great-grandfather.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Man
    replied
    I am a J2a1* man who is very long headed. I actually measured my head dimensions before with calipers and my head legnth was 201mm and my head breadth was 149mm.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Scull shape has great importance in anthropology. The point of the article was simply that there are many sources of variance influencing scull shape, factors which complicate interpretation.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregKiroKH2
    replied
    James D. Watson has an interesting head shape . . . skull shapes have tribal histories . . .

    Originally posted by lgmayka
    Contrary to the crackpot science of 1905, cranial shape is not a reliable indication of ancestry. Behaviors as trivial as sleep position can significantly change cranial shape:

    http://www.uchicagokidshospital.org/...ead-shape.html

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    That too. Thanks lgmayka

    Leave a comment:


  • lgmayka
    replied
    Contrary to the crackpot science of 1905, cranial shape is not a reliable indication of ancestry. Behaviors as trivial as sleep position can significantly change cranial shape:

    http://www.uchicagokidshospital.org/...ead-shape.html

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Tzvi, thanks for the article. Too bad the ossuary was empty.

    TimeKiller, the article illustrated problems in reaching generalizations about Jewish origins. The issue is under debate, but in my view a high percentage of Jews (perhaps as much as 50%) entered the faith through conversion rather than having origins in ancient Israel. On the other hand around 50% or more did have Levantine, i.e. Semitic origins. Jewish dna haplogroup patterns seem to support this picture with respect to modern non-Jewish Semitic dna patterns. A non-random sample of Jewish skulls might lead to the erroneous conclusion that Jews were not from ancient Israel.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeKiller
    replied
    Article

    This is the article I was reffering to I don't know if it's a crap article from the internet of course don't believe everything you read but I'm not a anthropologist. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/hittites.htm


    TK

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X