Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Responses" section

User:DGG recently wrote:

General speculation This is an article on Y chromosomal Aaron, not the origin of the Jewish people, or even the origin of the Coheninc tradition. I have removed some recently inserted peripheral and unsourced speculation. there's a lot more that could be removed: whether of not the biological data matches the biblical might be better discussed in a different article--this article is on the alleles of a particular chromosome. I'll support anyone who wants to cut further. DGG (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second that, especially in relation to the present version of the "Responses" section.

As previously constituted, the Responses section was intended as a quick review of what reactions the early papers had led to -- ie verifiable external published responses, not a section for general discussion of consequences and issues with the theory (although this might have a place further down the article), and definitely not a section for airing personal unpublished opinions.

Furthermore, the main purpose of the article is to set out the science, in an orderly way. Reviews of the interpretative consequences (if any) should very much follow that, and above all this is not an appropriate venue for Original research.

The classic way for dealing with issues like this on Wikipedia is the Bold - Revert - Discuss cycle. This material has been Boldly added to the article. But because of the concerns above, I propose to cut it (at least for the time being) to this Talk page (the "Revert" stage). Here, can we discuss it, and can we bring in some other editors to also discuss it, before forming a WP:CONSENSUS about what of the material (if any) ought to be in the article, and where.

In particular, for each of the sections following, can we consider whether the material is accurate, and can be identifiably sourced; and whether it is relevant to the main focus of this article. Jheald (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Chromosomal Aaron IS a discussion about the origins of the Jewish people...you can not divorce CMH from the Jewish people. Abraham MUST have been the actual CMH. Abraham was the first Jew and the first Cohen, Aaron, was the 7th generation after Abraham...7 generations = 7x25 years (genetic generation) or approximately 175 years...add a few more years for longer time to birth of son...no matter they MUST have the same haplotype at 12 markers, which then should be the ancestral haplotype of all Cohenim...and, in theory, the Israelite-Jewish ruling class that traced their lineage back to Abraham. This is pretty much the most basic concept. Geneticists have been attempting to use CMH as a means to identify "Jewish" ancestry (Nebel 2007). You can't divorce Y Chromosomal Aaron from Abraham. The VERY concept of the Cohenim or Aaron IS a biblical concept as descendants of Abraham.

It seems strange to want to separte Y Chromosomal Aaron from the Jewish people, since Y Chromosomal Aaron was the first Jewish Cohen. To want to study the Cohenim divorced from the Jewish people and the origins of the Cohen tradition is, sorry to say and I assume wasn't your intent, equivalent to the Nazis trying to determine who is a Jew by the size of our noses. You can not discuss Y Chromosomal Aaron and not discuss the origins of the Jewish people. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

non-Arabian roots ?

Material under discussion:

The most basic difficulty with Y-chromosomal Aaron being identified with J1 CMH is that it implies Abraham and the Semitic tribes originated from the Levant or Mesopotamia and not Southern Arabia/Ethiopia, where tradition, both written and oral, indicates their origin. Archaeologists have mapped ancient Semitic tribes to modern Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and regions of Saudi Arabia bordering these countries. The only exception to these were the tribes of Aram (Aram-Damascus), Asshur, and Elam as small cluster groups in Mesopotamia eventually overshadowed by the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires (both listed as Hamitic; see Beresh't[Genesis] 10). This suggests a Southern Arabian/Ethiopian origin for the Semites and Abraham, which does not correspond to the evolution of haplogroup J in the Levant.

The biblical tradition of Abraham's origin suggests that he migrated northward from "Ur of the Chaldeans" located in Southern Arabia, with his father Terah, and settled for a time in Haran, located in the Northern Levant (cf. Beresh't[Genesis] 11:31). Biblical tradition also indicates that his extended family also settled in Aram (cf. Beresh't[Genesis] 22:20-4; 28:5; 25:6, 29:1).

The exact location of Ur of the Chaldeans or Ur-Kasdim has been commonly identified with Ur in ancient Sumer (Beresh't[Genesis] 11:27-8). The biblical association of Ur with the Chaldean Empire (consolidated circa 900 BCE) is noteworthy as this connects the biblical tradition of Ur to a specific historical and geographical context during the Chaldean period. The implication is that the naming tradition of "Ur of the Chaldeans" dates to approximately 1300 years or later after the traditional date of Abraham (2200 BCE). It is possible that Ur of the Chaldeans or Ur-Kasdim was located elsewhere in Southern Arabia.

Along these lines, Nebel (2007), et al, found a distinction in J1 (J-p12f2*) haplotypes between Jewish and Arab populations. While a common “early lineage” of J1 (J-p12f2*) was shared between Jewish and Arab populations derived from the Neolithic (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) Levant (i.e. Canaanites, etc) they concluded that, “the modal haplotypes of the Muslim Palestinians, the Galilee and the Bedouin, were most likely introduced by more-recent tribal immigrations from the Arabian Peninsula” to their Neolithic (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) region of origin. This finding suggests the entry of J1 (J-p12f2*) into the Jewish gene pool was directly from the Levant, before the Byzantine period (324 – 640 CE) and Muslim conquest (633 – 640 CE), while only the haplotypes of the Muslim Palestinians (note distinction between Christian Palestinians), the Galilee and the Bedouin could be attributed to a second wave of migration, in fact, a return to the "Southern Levant and North Africa" from the Arabian Peninsula by "Arab tribal expansions and the Islamic conquest." Thus, the connection between J1 CMH (J-p12f2*) and Y Chromosomal Aaron stands out as a strong contradiction to the biblical tradition of the Southern Arabian origin of the Semitic tribes from which Abraham descended, and an unlikely haplogroup to connect directly with the biblical tradition of the paternal lineage of Y Chromosomal Aaron, and his descendants, the Cohenim of ancient Israel.

(1) Who is this objection being ascribed to?

Who is at ascribed to? The concept and researchers adherents and believers of those that assert that J1 CMH which originates in the Levant is the haplogroup/ancestral haplotype of Abraham to Aaron and all other lineages that derive from them. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

No, not "who is this objection directed at?" What I asked is "who is this objection ascribed to?" -- ie, who can we show has made an objection like this? Jheald (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) IMO, this is almost entirely peripheral to discussion of the CMH, or even the Cohens. This isn't an article for Genetic Origins of the Jewish people. This much text is completely out of balance. Jheald (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Cohenim are supposed to be the purest lineage of Jews...thus the genetic origin of the Jewish people...Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus Levi and his descendants, including Y Chromosomal Aaron all must descend from Souther Arabia. Geneticists try to use CMH to find traces of "jewish ancestry" Nebel 2007. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

(3) Looking at the substance of this section, it's true that if you look at 37 markers, there is a distinctive haplotype associated with present-day Arabia and the Arab expansion after the 7th Century; and that this is distinctively different from the CMH. But so what? Abraham (if he existed) was 3,000 years earlier; and the Biblical tradition is that he came from rather further North; so you would expect him to be substantially genetically different. And even then, so what? Why should Abraham have Cohen DNA, rather the Levite or other Israelite patterns?

Not sure what 37 makers has to do with this...did you read the Nebel 2007 paper? Marina Faerman one of the authors and professor here at Hebrew University told me their paper was based on 6 marker analysis...like you said...Wikipedia doesn't like original research...only that documented from sources. Anyway, Aaron the first Cohen, is the 7th generation descendant of Abraham, 7 generations = 7x25 years or approximately 175 years...they would have had the exact same haplotype since a mutation occurs about every 500 years. The very concept of the Cohenim is based on the biblical, talmudic, and oral tradition of the Jewish people...you can't divorce one from the other. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

In any case, this section is about reactions. Who is it, that is raising this as an issue? Jheald (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am raising this...it is not "reactions" it is "responses" using the genetics literature, archaeology, and primary source material (biblical tradition) to address the problems with J1 CMH. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

If you are the one raising it, that makes it WP:OR.

But actually the whole section doesn't make much sense to me, because according to tradition, "A wandering Aramean was my father"; and Ur of the Chaldees was traditionally placed in Northern Mesapotamia. Not Southern Arabia.

With regard to 6 markers and 37 markers: with six markers there just isn't the resolution to distinguish different groups with completely different lineages. A lot of genetic genealogy work is done with 37 markers, and that reveals different groups much more clearly. So that's why I raised it. Work done on the basis of only markers should be treated with considerable caution, because there may be considerable structuring in the sample population, that only 6 markers simply is not enough to reveal.

Secondly, there is enough to say about the science of the CMH that the article should concentrate on that. The science we can be reasonably clear and dispassionate about.

But discussion of the kind above is much more dubious, and relies on much more contentious speculation. We know that the Cohen tradition exists; it doesn't require much context beyond that, to discuss what the DNA says about likely early Cohens. But the amount of speculation involved in the context for the section above is of a completely different order of magnitude, treats subjects which are open to huge debate, and huge amounts of highly-charged subjective interpretation -- did Abraham exist? where might the Israelites have come from? And fundamentally, it's not clear that the Cohen data says anything useful on these topics.

Maybe some short points could be made. (And maybe we will be able to elucidate what those should be). But if that is the case, they should be at the end of the article, after the science has been fully explored; and they should rely not at all on original speculation. Jheald (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates; comparison with Abraham ?

A secondary difficulty with the dating of the CMH (which properly can only include J1 CMH) is that the traditional date for Abraham is not known, but often cited as ca. 2200-2000 BCE; Aaron and Moses were exactly 7 generations after Abraham (Exodus 6:14-25). The traditional date for the Conquest of Canaan is 1450 BCE. Moses and Aaron would have lived before the Conquest. Thomas' date of 3000 BP or 1000 BCE falls short of the dates of the same biblical tradition upon which the Cohen tradition was founded.

(1) Who is this reaction being ascribed to ?

Who is at ascribed to? The concept and researchers adherents and believers of those that assert that J1 CMH is the haplogroup/ancestral haplotype of Abrham to Aaron and all other lineages that derive from them. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Yes. But who is on record as saying there is a problem here? If there's no source, it's WP:OR. Jheald (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) This is to ignore the huge uncertainty in Thomas et al's coalescence date, due to mutation rates, and unknown generation times; but even more, a huge uncertainty in number of generations, which Thomas et al's calculation fails to properly reflect. (A 5/5 match between two lineages is compatible with a 90% credible interval stretching from 2 to 150 generations. [1] So working back to coalescence, this is the minimum uncertainty in time remaining, even when you have got back to only two lineages.) -- Jheald (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make up Thomas' date...he did...the traditional date for Aaron...i.e. the original source of Y Chromosomal Aaron MUST pre-date 1450BCE or 3500 years before present...Thomas' date falls short. It's basic math, no? Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Probability calculations don't give you a single date. It's the range of dates that's important.

Thomas et al themselves estimated that range of dates as 2100-3250 ybp; and longer ago, if the mutation rate was smaller, or the generation time was longer. But we now know that that calculation is not reliable. In particular, the uncertainty should have been in excess of a range of 4000 years. Six-marker data is pretty much useless for estimating a TMRCA with any accuracy. Jheald (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates; very recent?

A third difficulty, is that the Cohen Modal Type at 12 STR markers, does not extend beyond a 2 step genetic distance from the Modal Type, suggesting all J1 Cohenim are descended from a father in the last 1500 years, following current genetic theory, that a one-step YDNA mutation occurs every 500 years (0=500, 1=1000, 2=1500). Thus, those outside of the 2 step-genetic distance from the J1 CMH are highly likely descended from Canaanites or other people groups of the Southern Levant or North Africa, but not with any high degree of probability, descended from the common ancestor of the J1 CMH Cohen families.

(1)Who has made this response ?

This is standard Family Tree DNA response. In fact, if you look at the sources for the original article you will see Bonnie Schrack (spelling?) addressing the same issue...that CMH at 12 markers is limited. Here is the original reference not from the article: Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

(2) The same TMRCA calculator shows that a 12/12 match may be associated with a 90% probability range of anything from 1 generation to 62 generations [2] -- ie anything from 25 years to 1500 years; and that is on top of the time it takes, tracing back the lineages, for them to get to a 12/12 match.

Thomas' original calculation included J2 as well as J1. Take out J2 and you've limited it. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Yes, but Thomas' calculation was deeply flawed, and should basically be binned. A 10/12 match can indicate a TMRCA of anything from 450 years to 3600 years. Jheald (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is true is that most Ashkenazi Cohens are very closely related. When you look at 37-marker matches, they probably have medieval ancestors in common. That is entirely unsurprising, given the very small Ashkenazi founder population (only 3% of world Jewry even by 1100), and its subsequent very pronounced growth (to 92% of world Jewry by 1931).

But what is still an open question is how closely related the Sephardi Cohens examined in the original studies are to the Ashkenazim. AFAIK, that data simply isn't available. It is only Ashkenazi Cohens that there is widespread publicly available data for, at this time at least. Jheald (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know all studies of Cohenim have included Ashkenazi and Sephardim...perhaps not enough Mizrahi. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Yes, but they haven't looked at more than 6 markers. You can't distinguish different unrelated ancestries with only 6 markers -- see eg the pictures in the article. And you can't get reliable TMRCA dates from them either.

What's needed is much higher resolution - 12 markers, or 37 even better. But data of that resolution simply isn't yet known for Sephardi Cohens. Jheald (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Siddur theory?

By analogy the distribution of J1 CMH among Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jewish populations may have followed the distribution path of the Siddur, the Jewish prayer book formally compiled several centuries after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the 1st Century CE (70 CE). It is possible that it was distributed and taught by Cohenim, and today, this accounts for the use of the Siddur among all Jewish communities. The earliest existing codification of the Siddur was compiled by Rav Amram Gaon of Sura, Babylon circa 850 CE. Judaism has always welcomed converts and one of the greatest Rabbis in Judaism, arguably the founder of rabbinical Judaism, Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (ca.50–ca.135 CE), was himself a convert or a son of a convert who by tradition, married into a wealthy and influential Jewish family in ancient Jerusalem. Thus, in objection, evidence of J1 CMH among Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations does not itself indicate its 2nd Temple period origins, as the Siddur is known to be post-2nd Temple. Nevertheless, regardless of paternal ancestor of orgin, the majority of Cohenim today are from families that have intermarried with other Cohen families on the basis of their Cohen traditions with no awareness or discretion as to the genetic legitimacy of their lineage before DNA testing of Cohenim was introduced in the late 1990s.

The claim here seems to be that a majority of Cohens worldwide, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, might share a common genealogical origin, eg near Babylon of the 9th century, long after the fall of the Second Temple accelerated the Jewish diaspora.

What essentially this idea requires is that before that time there were almost no Cohens, in the sense of Judaic law, anywhere else, that have left surviving lineages.

No, it's an argument by analogy (although history does indicate that very few Cohen lineages would have survived to present...not discussed in my responses). The Siddur is directly analogous to the CMH, distribution among all Jewish communites but clearly post-Temple Diaspora period (as is sourced in the original response...follow the links) but is distributed in all Synagouges is basically the same. Have you ever been to a Synagouge? Are you saying you want a source to prove that the Siddur, which is the foundation of contemporary Judaic liturty, is found among Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi synagogues just like the CMH? Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Is this idea credible?

What does this mean, credible? The Siddur? or what explain? Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

More importantly, is the idea sourceable?

It is fully sourced in my responses...do you want a source to state that the same Siddur is used in Synagogues in Jewish communities around the world? Well then just visit the Siddur entry on Wikipedia...c'mon guys. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

Original Research is deeply frowned upon in Wikipedia. Can any Reliable Sources be identified that discuss it? Jheald (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain what does this mean...original research...you mean research that is not sourced or compilin the research of others as every encyclopedia since the dawn of the encyclopedia has done? Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

As far as I know, the argument that "because the Siddur originated in one place comparatively recently and spread across the world, so Cohens may also have done so similarly" is original to you, or at any rate has not previously been published in a WP:RS. That would make it WP:OR. -- Jheald (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Israelites, Canaanites, and Cohens?

A fourth difficulty is that the ancient Israelite ruling class that compiled the biblical text, both royal families and Cohenim, codified the tradition that they were not genetically related to the people groups of Canaan, the various Canaanite tribes, nor the Canaanite-Phoenicians (cf. Beresh't[Genesis] 10:7-19) except through their distant common paternal ancestor, Noah. Dr. Pierre Zalloua and Dr. Spencer Wells, funded by a $1 million dollar grant from National Geographic, identified the haplogroup of the ancient Canaanite-Phoenicians as J2 (M172). While Nebel, et al, identified J1 CMH (J-p12f2*) as Canaanite or another people group originating in the Neolithic Levant (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) thousands of years before Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldeans in Southern Arabia, ca. 2200-2000 BCE. According to the biblical tradition in Beresh't[Genesis] 10, the ancient Israelites descended from Shem, should belong to an entirely different branch of the YDNA phylogenetic tree than Ham. The YDNA phylogenetic tree breaks down into three divisions after the "Eurasian Adam" (M168). M168 had "three sons", M216 (National Geographic labelled as M130), YAP, and M89, which bears remarkable similarity to the tradition of Noah and his three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham. Applying the work of Dr. Zalloua and Dr. Wells to the biblical tradition, M89 is the likely identifcation of "Ham" as it is under M89 that both J1 CMH (J-p12f2*) associated with the Canaanites, etc., and J2 (M172) associated with the ancient Canaanite-Phoenicians are found. This suggests that the ancient Semitic-Israelites were descended from M216 or YAP; E3b, and its subclades, is the second most common haplogroup among Jewish populations, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi, and is found on the YDNA phylogenetic tree under YAP. Many Cohenim found in E3b bear a genetically distinctive haplotype, such as the E3b1a Cohen family found among the Samaritan peoples, which by tradition, oral and written (biblical), is believed to be of Israelite origin from the Tribe of Levi (see Y-chromosomal Levi below for more on the Samaritans.). Haplogroup E and its subclade, E3b1a (M78), originated in East Africa; E3b1a (M78) is also found in Southern Arabia. E3b1a Cohenim, Levites, and Israelites are found among all Jewish populations. Genetic distinctiveness is the basis for all Cohenim haplotypes, including J1 CMH.

Nevertheless, in this light, J1 CMH is the most likely candidate for a clearly defined ancient Canaanite-Israelite Cohen modal haplotype (cf. 1 Melachim[Kings] 12:31-32; 13:33-34; for examples of non-Levi Cohenim appointed from non-ruling class citizens during 1st Temple Period in the Northern Kingdom of Israel), while J2 Cohen haplotypes may represent Canaanite-Phoenician admixture into the Israelite population, as was already noted in the ancient biblical tradition in regards to the building of the First Temple of Solomon (cf. 1 Melachim[Kings] 7:13-14). Archaeologists suggest that the Northern Kingdom of Israel was ruled by the Israelite royal class, but was by a far majority made up of the indigenous Canaanite population. It is possible that J1 and J2 are more strongly associated with the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and thus, the exiled Northern Tribes after the Assyrian conquest and deportation that began already in 734 BCE. All Samaritan families were found in haplogroups J1 and J2, with the exception of the Samaritan Cohen family which was found in haplogroup E3b1a. The biblical tradition holds that there was only one authentic Cohen family among the Samaritans who was sent back from among the exiled Israelite Cohenim to Samaria by the King of Assyria (cf. 2 Melachim[Kings] 17:27-28; see Y-chromosomal Levi below). Samaria (Hebrew: שומרון‎ Shomron), became the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the reign of Omri, King of Israel (ca. 885–874 BCE), and later became a province bearing the same name in the Southern Levant under the Assyrian Empire ruled by Sargon II and subsequently the area retained the geographical designation of Samaria (Hebrew: שומרון‎ Shomron). Samaria (Hebrew: שומרון‎ Shomron) is most likely the origin of the name Samaritan (Hebrew: שומרוני‎ Shomroni), which later evolved into a religious designation (see Samaritan).

If Y Chromosomal Aaron is found in J1 CMH, then the only alternative interpretation is that the ancient Semitic-Israelites that authored the biblical text were, in fact, merely Canaanites who descended from the Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant, these being the people groups generally identified with haplogroups J1 and J2, and that the Israelite ruling class authored a false tradition to justify the Israelite Monarchy. The implication for the biblical tradition, which is the foundation for the faith of billions of people in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is devastating as it then contains no historical basis for the origins of the Jewish people and the Aaronic Cohenim/priesthood; the indigenous Canaanite origin of the ancient Israelites is a view currently accepted by many archaeologists. In contrast, archaeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem holds the view that there was a "nuclear group" of Semitic-Israelites of non-Canaanite origin, who formed the “Israelite confederation...which initiated Yahwism and was responsible for the traditions concerning slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, Mount Sinai, and the role of Moses.” If so, the descendants of the original Semitic-Israelite tribal leadership are more likely to be found in a haplogroup other than J1 or J2, both of which evolved in the Levant.

The relevance of any of this seems to rest on the assumption that different "tribes" (or historical ethnic groups) are associated with different pure haplogroups. That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Indeed, I would question whether there is any recent reliable source that would make such a claim.

The point of this is to indicate, that E3b1a as found among the Samaritans is an alternative for the Y Chromosomal Aaron...which is why this is listed under responses. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

All the evidence I am aware of suggests that haplogroups E3b, J1 and J2 have been thoroughly mixed (even if in different proportions) in all populations in the Middle East, for a very long time. Jheald (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of this is to indicate, that E3b1a as found among the Samaritans is an alternative for the Y Chromosomal Aaron...which is why this is listed under responses. Hkp-avniel (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008

We don't know what haplogroup the original Samaritan Cohens belonged to. The last one died out in 1624. The present Samaritan Cohens were previously Levites. Jheald (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true, the Samaritan (Shromoni) Cohen that held descent from Aaron died out, but the living Shomroni Cohen family (HaLevi Cohen) claim descent from Aaron's grandfather, Kohath, son of Levi. But grandsons of Kohath, like Aaron and Moses and the ancestor of the Shomroni Cohen family would share the same haplogroup and ancestral haplotype assuming the validity of the tradition; low probability of mutation in 3 generations at 12 markers. This is significant enough to make the Shomroni Cohen family a viable possiblity since it is the only Cohen family that we can safely link to the 1st and 2nd Temple period (2 Kings 17)...and, to be sure, the biblical text was used in archaeology as a source text to find Tels (archaeological sites) and is still referenced all the time in Israel and worldwide. At this time with the available data, the Cohen family from Shomron is the most likely Cohen family from the actual, historical Tribe of Levi from a historical and archaeological point of view. Shromon (Samaria) is one of the most undisputed biblical sites in the archaeological record and the 1:1 correlation between a biblical tradition of the origin of the Shomroni Cohen and the actual geographical city and region of Shomron (Samaria) with a genetic reality is very significant; again, all other Samaritans were found in J1 and J2 and they are suppossed to be non-Israelites who were relocated to the area by the Assyrians. The Shomroni Cohen haplogroup, E3b1a-M78, is linked to Eastern Africa-Southern Arabia (the Cruciani subclade is not known at this time), which also accords with the Judaic-Islamic tradition that Abraham and the Semitic Tribes were from Southern Arabia. Also, the almost 100% total absence of Levites from J1 CMH only makes this more relevant as there are Levi in E3b from all Jewish pops (but mostly in R1a1, Sephardic and Ashkenazi). As an aspiring archaeological-geneticist, I'm looking for a tribe of people in multiple but related subclades of a general haplogroup, not just one Cohen Modal Haplotype. Haplogroup E (E3b, E3b1, E3b1a, E3b3a, etc) fits the data better for what I would expect the ancient Israelites to look like genetically than J-clade clustered around a few Cohenim, and an African origin is a perfect fit with a people and culture that is built around oral tradition, as codified in the Talmud and popular-culturized in Fidler on the Roof..."tradition"...as well as singing, dancing, and the essence of every Jewish holiday, good food..

I have the Shomroni Cohen family haplotypes (from Family Tree DNA) and they do, in fact, cluster with other Cohenim in two ways: 1) genetic distinctiveness as would be expected from the historical Cohenim as it is most logical to assume that the missing "links" to connect Cohen haplotypes should be missing as we know that Cohenim and the Israelite ruling classes were executed, deported, and assimilated by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Romans, and/or during the 1492 Spanish Inquisition and Holocaust, very, very few are expected to have survived (but did); 2) the Shomroni Cohen haplotypes do cluster in genetic distance in relation to an E3b Cohen modal haplotype with other genetically distinct Cohenim and Levi. Interestingly, I've found that many families with the tradition of descent from the House of David (Beth David) are found in E3b1a. Y Chromosomal E3b1a Aaron cannot simply be relegated to a footnote. Ethiopian Jews are also found in E31ba as the Samaritan study reported. Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find independent, third party sources that say that present-day Levites, rather than present-day Cohens, are more likely to be closely related to Biblical Cohens, then it might be worth adding something to that effect, to the section on "Y-chromosomal Levi", which is where the genetic patterns found in present-day Levites are discussed.

But if there is no third party WP:RS that can be cited for this claim, then that would leave this theory as your own unsubstantiated WP:OR, and not appropriate for this site. Jheald (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When I write and publish my Master's thesis I'll add it to the site, ;-) by that time I'm sure you'll see an abundance of "third-party sources" Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

...and one final comment for today before I break the fast (soon as per Israeli time)...the Shomroni Cohen are no less Cohenim than any other Cohen family among Jewish populations; their family name is Cohen just like Sephardi Cohen families in E3b and other Cohen families who use a different surnames because of anti-Semitism but hold the tradition of being Cohenim (surnames such as: among Sephardim - Kahuna; in Hungary - Kovacs; in Eastern Europe in general: Katz, Rosenzweig, Kaplan, etc., etc. (See Rabbi Kleiman's book: DNA and Tradition). In fact, to be precise, no Cohen family has actual lineage (yichus) to Aaron, and thus, all Cohenim today are more correctly identified as Levites, those descended from the Tribe of Levi, versus direct paternal descent from Aaron. Many in the Orthodox Jewish community will argue that no one has direct lineage to Aaron or in the case of Bet David to David, no pure lineage. If you take the minimalist position, then you will agree that all Cohenim today, can only identify as Levites, but their oral traditions of being Cohenim represents something, but there is no "magic Cohen gene" involved here that makes people into Cohenim that otherwise weren't or aren't. Y Chromosomal Aaron article attempts to indicate this and I will find sources as per lineage (yichus) to clarify this further and post it to the article. Chag Sameach Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

General Comments on the above

• Why not simply write two article "'Y-chromsomal Aaron"', and Genetics of the Cohens"' The first article will deal with biology, and we should be able to get general agreement here, since its based upon peer-reviewed science. The second is a little more problematic, since it involves general conclusions, some of which are based upon science, some on history, some on traditional history, and some on religion.

A statement ;like "Y Chromosomal Aaron IS a discussion about the origins of the Jewish people...you can not divorce CMH from the Jewish people." is not really helpful--it would imply discussing everything dealing with the Jewish priesthood in its role throughout history in this article. If the priesthood is viewed as essential to the nation or the religion, it would involved discussing n this article everything related to the history of the people or the religion. Normally, we discourage attempts to discuss a subject in every possible related article. A statement like "Abraham MUST have been the actual CMH" is not science. Assuming Abraham's historical existence is not appropriate in a scientific article. The great interest of what i consider this very spectacular finding, and the appropriate focus of the second article, is the possibility that there may actually have been an historical Aaron; it can not be taken as the basis of the article. We do not write WP articles for the purpose of demonstrating the historicity of the Bible. DGG (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC) There are a great many thinbgs related to this information--not just the history of the cohens, but DGG (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is, an article about Y Chromosomal Aaron. Who is the "Aaron" that is being discussed? You cannot just assume that J1 CMH is Y Chromosomal Aaron and ignore all the other genetic data...that is in my opinion the basic problem. There is no "Y Chromosomal" ancestor of all priests or Cohenim, this is a specific Cohen lineage in the context of the history of Israel. Y Chromosomal Aaron is not the equivalent to mitoChondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve was used as a metaphor to relate to the biblical tradition of Eve, from whom all mtDNa today is believed to have mutated. Y Chromosomal Aaron is not the same. Y Chromosomal Aaron is suppsed to be the YDNA lineage of a historical person, Aaron from the Israelite Tribe of Levi. Perhaps, this is the difference. The very concept of the Cohenim is built on the Jewish biblical tradition...you cannot divorce the two...and talk about the genetics of "Aaron" in abstract...who would you be talking about? This is not an issue of Science versus the Tanakh. We can debate whether Aaron historically existed, but you cannot talk about the Y Chromosome of Aaron without reference to the historical person. It is like trying to talk about the Y Chromosome of Thomas Jefferson after finding out that there are 7 different haplogroups that he could belong to and then choosing the one that is most common, without bothering to see if it fits the historical and geographical data of his life. The same is true of the Cohenim,who are all Jewish, but are in multiple haplogroups, including those which are associated with the Neolithic Levant and those associated with East Africa and Southern Arabia. We must discuss them all. Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. "Y-chromosomal Aaron" means the common ancestor of the appropriate Cohen lineages, whoever that happens to be. It is intended as a slightly facetious nickname, exactly parallel to "Mitochondial Eve" and "Y-chromosmal Adam". It is not seriously meant to suggest an identification with Biblical Aaron.

The Biblical Aaron may or may not have existed - we don't know. But this is not an article about him. This is an article about "Y-chromosomal Aaron", who definitely did exist. (Though perhaps given what we now know about different clades of Cohens, perhaps "Y-chromosomal Aaronim" (plural) would now be more appropriate  :-P ) Jheald (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think DGG's proposed split into two articles makes sense. The two proposed articles would necessarily be so deeply intertwined, that IMO I do think the only way is to continue to treat both topics together, here. After all, it's the genetics of the Cohens which define Y-chromosomal Aaron. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is so, then why did you delete my bit on the Neolithic Levantine origins of J1 from Nebel, et al, and their findings of the two waves of J1 in present day Levantine populations and the data of Zalloua and Wells on J2 and its association with the Canaanite-Phoenicians as it bears on J2 CMH? I assume then, I can safely repost those parts. Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So: there was J2 in the Holy Land for a long time BCE; there was J1 in the Holy Land for a long time BCE. So either is compatible with the founding of a priesthood some time BCE. We can say that, in relation to the genetics of the present-day Cohens.

But speculative WP:OR comments linking haplogroups to the Biblical "table of nations" without any scientific foundation or scientific prospect of verifiability is something very different.

We can indeed probably identify some particular distinctive J1 haplotypes with later migrations in Moslem times. The (extended) CMH is not one of these haplotypes. But for J2 and the remaining J1 haplotypes, these are likely to have been in the southern Levant for a much longer time; and there is no convincing evidence to identify them each with separate distinct populations -- we have no reason not to suspect that their ancestors had been in the area for thousands of years, and they were completely commingled. (and with E3b, as well). Jheald (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ok...one more one last comment for today. Yes, precisely the J1 CMH is not identified with a migration that returned to the Levant, it entered the Jewish gene pool directly from the Levant, thus, J1 CMH has no Southern Arabian origin (this is a problem for the traditional J1 CMH genetics community hegemony as then it follows that C=Canaanite, but not a problem for Cohenim or the biblical tradition). But as for admixture, here, my anonymous unknown wikipedia poster, you seem to be confusing the relevance of "comingling." Admixture between J1, J2, E3b, G, K, R1a1, and any other haplogroup will only impact recombining, auto-somal DNA, and has no effect whatsoever on YDNA. J1 and J2 are, in fact, completely distinct haplogroups with unique and different founder events with a common ancestor that is thousands of years before Abraham or the Israelite Kingdom, consolidated circa 1000 BCE, even existed. The J1/J2 split also just happens to correspond perfectly to the Southern Levant-Northern Levant clustering of archaeological sites in the Levant during the Neolithic period (my unpublished research; planned forthcoming, but someone will probably beat me to it). To quote Bonnie Schrack, the Family Tree DNA administrator of Haplogroup J: "The 12-marker CMH which FTDNA is definining, is distinctively a J1 phenomenon." (see: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1176477472). J2 Cohenim are not included in this. There's no shame in being of Canaanite origin or Canaanite-Phoencian or Canaanite-Israelite-Philistine origin or Ethiopian-Israelite origin; they are all part of the family. The Canaanite-Phoenicians did, after all, invent the alphabet, and yes, many, if not the majority of ancient Israelites were assimilated from the local, indigenous population to Canaan; not a controversial fact among archaeologists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I meant that, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence but that by Canaanite times everyone was living together in a single population combining J1, J2 and E3b; rather than the different haplogroups being located in different cultural or geographic parts of the society. I wasn't talking about recombining of genes; but of apparent population homogeneity.

If you can identify different archaeological associations for J1 and J2, that's interesting (particularly if you can source it, or get it academically reviewed); but presumably that's reflecting an early stage of history than presumed Biblical times?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "traditional J1 CMH genetics community hegemony". The genetics community that I know of I don't think would be particularly looking for a Southern Arabian origin rather than anywhere else. Recent results showing the very high prevalence of J1 in some parts of the Caucausus surely throw any question of where J1 may first have originated into considerable doubt.

If there are some who are suggesting a J1 CMH migration from a Southern Arabian origin on an "Abrahamic" timescale (circa 2000 BCE?), I haven't come across them; nor do I know of any scientific evidence pointing to such a scenario in particular; and nor I think is there anything in the article curently suggesting such a scenario (?).

Of course, if theories do get put forward in the scientific literature associating distinctive haplotype clusters in J1 with distinctive neolithic historical areas or historical migrations, that would be very interesting. But so far as I am aware, such suggestions aren't currently in play, at least not with regard to the (extended) J1 CMH. And, to be credible, any such associations would have to be defined on the basis of haplotype clusters identified far more conclusively and distinctively, by testing far more markers, rather than from studies on just six STR markers. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that any geneticist or archaeologist that is part of or seeks to join the Quest for Y Chromosomal Aaron should start with a map of the people groups of the Ancient Near East as determined by archaeologists, who have specialized in the field of historical geography and are acknowledged world experts (for example, Anson Rainey, Tel Aviv University), to determine where the Semitic people groups originated. This is, in my opinion, in direct continuity with the hypothesis that gave birth to the CMH that was first put forth by Professor Karl Skorecki who was interested to discover if there was any genetic commonality between himself, an Ashkenazi Cohen, and a Mizrachi Cohen who was at his synagogue in Toronto, Canada. Along these lines, it is worthwhile to add this image as a thumbnail/sidebar to the main article for Y-chromosomal Aaron, a satellite image of the Middle East plus the added research of 4 (four) Israeli archaeologists who mapped Ham and Shem (click on image to see reference):

File:Middle East Shem-Ham v2.jpg

The Middle East through the eyes of the ancient Israelites
Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

...and just so the ancient historians don't feel left out of the Quest, here's a relevant quote from the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, on the origin of the Israelites. He wrote that “many, again, say that they [the Israelites] were a race of Ethiopian origin” (Histories (Tacitus), Book 5, Paragraphs 2 & 3). Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link for those interested: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h05000.htm Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the "Ethiopia" mentioned by Tacitus in reference to the Jews has nothing to do with the Ethiopia in Africa. It is mythological "Aethiopia", a Phoenican kingdom, based in the area of the Levant. Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia_(Mythology) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hey cool...don't take this as a challenge...I've noticed people are fairly touchy on wikipedia...but can you give me 2 or 3 scholarly sources on this as I'd like to read the research. thanks. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An entirely new study needs to be done on this topic, outside of that done by FtDNA and the J project administrator Bonnie Schrack

Part of the problem is that it is precisely FtDNA that is attempting to define what is a true "Cohen Modal Haplotype" and who is a true Cohen. The J project administator, Bonnie Schrack, has not released the data and criteria used in determining these all-important definitions, and she engages in polemics against those who respond to her that the supposed definition of the CMH in J1 simply does not tally with the core haplotype associated with Jews, which is clearly in J2. I mean no disrespect to Bonnie Schrack, but a study like this must be approached from more than one angle and cannot be the exclusive domain of one particular company, particularly in light of the fact that the data has not been made available for perusal. In the discussion forum quotes here http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1176477472 Bonnie Schrack begins on a path to finding a solution to the discrepancy, but alas, she does not appear to follow through with it: "The J2 group who *do* have a Cohen religious tradition and are proud of it, are *NOT* *in J2a1b*, and *do not have the 6-marker or any other CMH*. They belong to a unique, small offshoot of J2a1* which I believe to be a predecessor of the J2a1k clade. They may be seen in the category in our test results chart labeled, "Pre-J2a1k." I will not go into the technical explanation at this moment, but it's very interesting. There are a good number of Ashkenazi Jewish members of this cluster, who have a well-organized project of their own, and so they have not all joined our J haplogroup project."

An interesting response was made by Sasson Margaliot: "This discussion over the last three days revealed some very important *NEW* information about Cohanim and a Levitic cluster in (and around) J2a1k, that was not shared with as before." http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1176675023

I believe that Mr. Margaliot has his finger on a solution to the problem. It is simply not correct to view the Cohanim as some sort of entity apart from the rest of the Jews, including the Levites. This is ahistorical. If there is a Cohen modal haplotype, it MUST make sense in the understanding that the Cohens themselves are a subset of the wider Jewish population. Mr. Margaliot proposes a common Cohen-Levi Haplotype in J2. "When the 6-marker haplotypes in Thomas et al (1998) and Behar et al (2003) are assigned to the Haplogroups, it becomes immediately apparent that both J2 Cohanim and J2 Leviim form a network around a central haplotype (15, 15, 23, 10, 11, 12) which can be considered their modal haplotype.

The 6-marker CLMH is two steps from the well known 6-marker CMH.

The Network of the Haplotypes (estimated as J2) at 1, 2 and 3 steps from CLMH appears older than CMH, and importantly has significantly more known Cohen and Levi haplotypes than the small cluster of known J1 Cohen and Levi haplotypes centered around the regular CMH." http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1177404677

the bottom line is: this issue is far from being resolved, and declaring one particular haplotype to be the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" based on current information is a risky proposition, if credibility is at all important. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Six markers are too few to draw reliable network conclusions from. It simply does not have the distinguishing power to say whether groups and individuals are related closely, or not for thousands of years.
• J1, J2 and E3b are all core haplogroups associated with Jews, and have been as far as we know since the earliest times.
• A higher resolution study, testing the original academic sample set for J1/J2 and for more STRs would be very desirable.
• However, in the meantime Wikipedia has to go with the material that has been published and/or otherwise released, and take account of the large number of Cohens who do appear to be related to the FTDNA CMH-12 lineage; even though that sample is predominantly self-selected and Ashkenazi. Jheald (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  
  

All good observations, but we can't ignore the work of Harvard educated geneticists, Dr. Pierre Zalloua and Dr. Spencer Wells who spent $1,000,000 on researching the ancient Phoenicians - Canaanite-Phoenicians back in 2004. Links:

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=57215

and also see National Geographic Magazine, October 2004 issue, for discussion of the ancient Phoenicians and J2(M172) and its "parent" group of M89. Available online: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/1 [accessed: March 10, 2008]

While it was not applied explicitly to the CMH, it was definitely implied, Wells pushed for M89 to be Canaanite-Phoenician, which would have indicated that all haplogroups are under M89 be excluded from CMH according to the tradition non-Canaanite origin of the Israelites, except A,B,C,D, and E., while Zalloua pushed for and won that J2 was the Canaanite-Phoenician haplogroup. FYI...and neutral poinv of view goes to Wells and Zalloua, neither of which are Cohenim as far as I know. Not controversial for those who hold to the viewpoint, like archaeologist Israel Finkelstein etc...that all Israelites were Canaanites (indigenous origin theory, non-migration)...but not all hold this view. Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section is missing!

This topic is controversial and politically loaded: much of its research is done by jewish extremists. They hope to find new and genetically authentic "kohen priests", who could ritually sacrifice red calfs and other animals for YHWH, in case the current muslim Rock Dome Mosque gets demolished by jewish army and a third jewish temple is built on the same site. This is an extremist viewpoint even among the zionist entity and few jews support such aggression. Most jews need no new kohen priests or any return to ritual animal sacrifice practices.

A new paragraph should be added to the article to thoroughly address this issue. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Err... no. The research has been done primarily by secular scientists and secular genealogists. Even amongst the most Orthodox Jews, I think there are very few who would want to knock down the Dome of the Rock Mosque. Rather, Kohen status is seen as an important link to the past, and part of the overall laws the Orthodox obey, and there is a special ancestral part they can play in synagogue services.

It is fascinating as a connection with the past, an example of a cultural tradition which has survived continuously from so long ago; and in its own genetic and genealogical terms, as an example of a group identity with a distinctive patrilineage, that has been preserved for so long. That's why there is wide interest in this, not just among Orthodox Jews, not just among Reform Jews, but from Jews and non-Jews alike. Jheald (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Jheald, once again, the Cohen Modal Haplotype has NOT been revealed to be linked with J1 in particular, but J in general. Both J1 and J2 are still both viable candidates for the CMH. Please do not refer to J1 at the beginning of the text, until you have proven beyod a reasonable doubt that this is the true haplotype, which you have not done. You have proven nothing so far. J2 is almost twice as common among Jews in general than J1. You did not taken into accound the Levites, which are linked with the Cohens. Until you come up with evidence, you can say nothing beyond the fact that the CMH belongs to the general J haplogroup.

http://israelplug.com/art-and-culture/jewish-priests-geneology-and-roles/

"Complicating the issue, Skorecki reported that he and his research team have discovered not one but two Cohen Modal Haplotypes, which he called J1 and J2. Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2, he suggested."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5