Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

April 5, 2018

The Jewish people: genetic unity in diversity

Filed under: Genetics,History,Jews,science — Razib Khan @ 4:17 am
The Western Wall

The religion of the Jews has had a great influence on the history of the world. Both Christianity and and Islam look to the Jewish tradition. Figures such as Moses are iconic in the Abrahamic context as lawgivers, setting a precedent for modern nation-states. The stories of the Bible suffuse Western civilization.

David and Goliath

But the Jews are also a people with their own history. For the past 2,000 years the custom among most Jews has been to determine one’s Jewishness through the maternal line, irrespective of religious practice. And yet as Jews have spread across the world, from Spain to China, they have mixed with local populations. Conversion to Judaism enables one to become a Jew. Like Ruth, becoming a Jew confers membership in the Hebrew tribes.

Jews are identified with a religion and a “tribe”

Today there are brown-skinned South Indian Jews, fair-haired Lithuanian Jews, and olive-skinned Persian Jews. They may all be united by religious custom, but clearly there are differences in heritage.

Though Jews have been part of the landscape of human history for millennia, only within the last 20 years has their genetic ancestry been well studied. This research has highlighted the fact that most Jewish people seem to exhibit both commonalities from shared ancestors and differences shaped by more recent history.

The high priest Aaron

In 1997 researchers noticed a pattern in the Y chromosomes of men who belonged to the Cohen lineage — the priestly caste of Jews descended in a direct male line from the brother of Moses, Aaron. They have a very similar subtype of haplogroup J1. The religious tradition that these men descend from a common male ancestor seems to be true genetically. Using molecular methods the authors eventually estimated that the common ancestor lived about ~3,000 years ago…the time when the Biblical Aaron supposedly lived!

Jewish men with the surname Cohen descend in a direct paternal line from the brother of Moses, Aaron

Since its discovery there has been a great deal of discussion about the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” (CMH) and its origins. Not all Cohens carry the CMH, and not all carriers of CMH are Cohens, or even Jews. The CMH and its brother lineages happen to be common among many peoples in the Middle East, and one of them is frequent in people who claim descent from the Prophet Muhammed!

But what these results showed is that Jews, whether they be German Jews or the Bene Israel of India, share a genetic commonality through the CMH. Jewish men from all over the world, irrespective of region, were very frequently carriers of the CMH. This was the first major clue that Jews are a people in more than ideology, but also as a group with common shared ancestors. And, those common ancestors were rooted in the Middle East, just as the Jewish tradition says.

Most Jews have ancestry from the Middle East

There are also maternal lineages shared in the mtDNA. For the Ashkenazi Jews of Northern Europe it turns out that these lineages are often similar to Europeans, not to Middle Easterners. The plot thickens….did the male and female ancestors of modern Jews differ?

Two papers in 2010 clarified the issue using genome-wide data. That is, hundreds of thousands of markers across the whole genome were analyzed to explore the genealogy of both the maternal and paternal ancestors of hundreds of Jews.

Emmanuelle Chriqui is Sephardic Jewish

The first result was to confirm what Y and mtDNA implied: Jews from varied regions are genetically similar to each other, but they also exhibit differences. The origins of the Jewish people in any given region indicate shared ancestry from a group in the Middle East — the pattern seen in their Y chromosomes. But as Jews spread across Eurasia and North Africa they mixed with local populations, as suggested by the mtDNA.

Jewish communities may have formed through the union of Jewish men with gentile women

European Jews mixed with European peoples, while Jews in North Africa mixed with Berber peoples of that region. Jews in the Near East resemble the peoples who have lived there since time immemorial, while Yemenite Jews resemble the tribes of southern Arabia. Finally, Jews from more exotic locales such as those of India also have mixed with the native groups there, a fact evident in their features and complexion.

Source: The time and place of European admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish history

Today, the most recent work has elucidated the demographic history of Ashkenazi Jews in much greater detail. The Ashkenazim are the the most numerous of the various Jewish cultural groups, and one whose origins are somewhat mysterious. While Ashkenazi Jews have ancestors in the Middle East, but how did they get to distant Russia?

Researchers have known for almost a decade that the Ashkenazi are a mix of Middle Eastern and European. But now they have confirmed rather definitively that their forebears were predominantly a Levantine population, mixed with Southern Europeans such as Italians and Iberians. But the big surprise is that a minority of their ancestry seems to be Northern European, probably Slavic.

Ashkenazi Jews have Levantine, Southern European, and Northern European ancestors
Fred Savage is Ashkenazi Jewish

Genetically Ashkenazi Jews are quite similar to each other, and form a coherent cluster in a way that is less true of Sephardic Jews. This is because the genetic data indicates that the ancestors of these Northern European Jews went through a bottleneck, or reduction in population size, around ~1,000 years ago. The community may have had fewer than 1,000 peoples this point. From this small group — which had migrated from the Mediterranean to western Germany — arose the vast millions who eventually settled in much of Central and Eastern Europe. And it was after the bottleneck as the community was expanding to the east that it likely integrated gentile women from the surrounding Eastern European populations.

Each Jewish community tells similar tales, though that of the Ashkenazi has been explored the furthest genetically. Ancient roots and new syntheses, bound by a shared faith, and bound together by a common genetic lineage.

Explore your Regional Ancestry story today.

The Jewish people: genetic unity in diversity was originally published in Insitome on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

March 6, 2018

On the semiotics of “Judeo-Christian” as a misdirection

Filed under: Jews,Judeo-Christian,world history — Razib Khan @ 11:21 pm

Recently on Twitter there emerged another flare-up of the debate as to whether the term “Judeo-Christian” was coherent, useful, and defensible. In general, I take a very skeptical view of the term, because I think it misleads the public as to the nature of some important facts and dynamics in the history of the West.

Perhaps intellectuals can agree amongst themselves that the term has utility for manipulating the masses, but oftentimes it seems even intellectuals don’t have enough of a grasp of religious history to understand why the usage is literally problematic (I’m not using problematic in a euphemistic catchall manner, I think it’s semantically confusing, not offensive).

First, traditionally Jews and Muslims have been much clearer in recognizing each other as non-idolatrous monotheists, as against Christians. The dominant non-Unitarian nature of Christianity, and the importance of divine representation in both medieval Eastern and Western traditions (with statuary in the latter1), were the key issues for Muslims and Jews. This point is not dispositive, but it’s not irrelevant.

In the Western context, it seems American Christians in particular are attached to the term Judeo-Christian. I believe this is the outcome of a specific American history, where different European immigration streams were forged into a common people in the 20th century, especially in the post-World War II era. The general model is the one outlined by Will Herberg in Protestant, Catholic, Jew, the emergence of a white America united by shared values, with establishment mainline Protestantism at the center, and Roman Catholicism and Judaism as helpmates. Though the title of the book points to the real religious particularism still prevalent in that period, it was an early form of what Rod Dreher and his fellow travelers would term “morally therapeutic Deism.” The idea that it didn’t matter as to the details of the confession and practice of your faith, so long as you believed in God and were a good person.

Of course not all people who assert the utility of Judeo-Christian as a category are so religiously naive. But most Christians who adhere to the category seem to have a hard time not understanding Judaism as anything other an earlier form of their religion. In other words, Judaism as Christianity without the Christ.

I think this is very misleading. Rather, Judaism as it evolved after the rise of Christianity, and then Islam, was a distinct religion from the Judaism which Christians are familiar with from their Old Testament. Jewish religion in the first millennium A.D. became the religion of the Pharisees. That is, Talmudic Judaism, or Rabbinical Judaism. What we in the West often term Orthodox Judaism. Though there were schismatic sects, such as the Karaites, developments such as Hasidism, and isolated groups such as the Bene Israel of western India who seem to have practiced a more archaic form of the religion, over time Judaism qua Judaism became the religion which evolved out of the same milieu of Roman antiquity as Christianity. Though Christianity evolved out of the religion of the Hebrews, the Jews, the religion of the Jews evolved at the same time as well. It was not static, in chrysalis.

A whole Jewish Diaspora, what became the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim (and Yemenite Jews and other assorted groups), developed a parallel cultural world to that of Western and Eastern Christianity, as well Islam.* Though Jews interacted with gentiles in a professional capacity, whether as physicians, merchants, or money-lenders, the intellectual exchange was relatively limited (Al-Andalus being an exception).

This may surprise many people, because Jews are extremely prominent intellectually in the West today. But this is a feature of the last few centuries, as they became absorbed by Western culture during the Jewish Enlightenment. Even a Jew who predates this period and influenced the course of early modern Western philosophy, Baruch Spinoza, did so after being expelled from the Jewish community, and occupying a sort of gray land of Deism. Neither Christian nor Jew.

What this gets to is that even if Judeo-Christian has some abstract ideal reality, there was no Judeo-Christian civilization before large numbers of Jews abandoned the civilization of Judaism as it had developed organically over the centuries. The civilization only became labeled Judeo-Christian in rhetoric after most Western Jews had abandoned their customary and traditional religion, whether for a congregational faith more recognizable to Christians in the form of the Reform movement, out and out secularism, and in a large number of cases, conversion to Christianity (to name three individuals of Jewish familial origin who were raised Christian no matter their adult faith, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, and Karl Marx).

The civilizational tension among Jews is evident today in the world’s only Jewish state, Israel. Many secular Jews are for all practical purposes members of Western civilization who happen to have a Jewish ethnic and nominal religious identity. In contrast, Haredi Jews are fully steeped in the mores and orientation of the classical Jewish civilization that matured in early modern Europe. The conflict between the Haredim and secular Jews is not just one of religious observance but of civilizational identity and affinity (with Masortim occupying the middle ground).

Western civilization as a project after Late Antiquity and before the modern period was never a partnership between the Jews and Western Christians. It was the project of Western Christian societies, which eventually fractured during the Reformation, and repaired themselves back into some sort of whole in the wake of the Peace of Westphalia. The transformations of the 18th century ushered in the revolutionary changes which allowed for Jews to become participants in Western civilization as something besides Christians.

In general, though I understand that for the public history is often a useful fiction, I prefer attempting to model the past with the greatest fidelity to the reality we can reconstruct among those with the will and ability to understand. The emergence of Western civilization as we understand it, post-Christian civilization, the nymph stage of the universal liberal democratic civilization which was to conquer the 21st century (but hasn’t, and may never!), is historically contingent on particular peoples, places, and cultural threads. Those threads properly constituted simply make the term Judeo-Christian seem peculiar and inappropriate. Therefore, amongst those who aim to know, the proper appellations must be applied so as to illuminate rather than obscure and obfuscate.**

* Some Jews also existed outside of the world of Christianity and Islam, such as the Cochin Jews of southern India, or the Jews of Kaifeng, who were probably originally an extension of Central Asian Jewry. These groups were part of the Diaspora intellectual and culturally, at least initially (the Jews of Kaifeng eventually lost their last rabbi, probably in the 19th century, and assimilated into the Han majority or converted to Islam).

** I have no written much about Islam in this post, but the term Judeo-Christian also misleads many people into thinking that traditional Christianity and traditional Judaism have more similarities of belief and practice than either do with Islam. In fact Islam and Judaism are arguably more similar than either is to Christianity due to the emphasis on prescribed ritual and law incumbent upon the laity guided by a non-priestly scholarly class, whether it be rabbis or the ulema.

August 12, 2012

The Jewish Diaspora: not an empire of the mind

Berber queen?

In light of the previous post you know that I was going to post on the new paper in PNAS, North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters. Additionally, the press people at Albert Einstein did reach out to me. That doesn’t mean I’ll blog a paper, but it does mean that I’ll give it an extra look. If the authors or people associated with the paper care to have their work publicized, and reach out to humble bloggers, then that’s all good in my book. Also, I suppose over the past two years I’ve become a locus of “Jewnetics” commentary.

In some ways this is the Golden Age of Jewnetics, though we are approaching the epoch of silver. There has to be diminishing marginal returns at some point, and I think the 2010 papers which I reviewed earlier really established the broad outlines of the scientific genealogy of the Jewish people. But just because the broad outlines are established doesn’t mean that there isn’t something to say on specific aspects which haven’t been deeply explored. Some of the commentary on this weblog ...

May 15, 2012

Abraham’s genetic threads

Filed under: Anthroplogy,Human Genetics,Jews — Razib Khan @ 10:46 pm

Every few days my Google Alerts have been dropping in my inbox reviews of Harry Osters’ Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. The latest is in the The Tablet, A Case for Genetic Jewishness:

For a Jewish genetics researcher, being told in print that ‘Hitler would certainly have been very pleased’ by your work can’t be pleasant. But that’s what happened in 2010 to Harry Ostrer, a geneticist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, when he and his colleagues published a study showing that Jews in three different geographical areas had certain collections of genes that made them more biologically similar to one another than they were to non-Jews in the same regions. The work also showed that Jews around the world could trace their ancestry to a group of people who lived in the Middle East 2,000 years ago; that meant, however, that certain genetic signatures could be used to identify Jews, indicating that Jews share a common biological identity beyond their religious affiliation—which is what inspired the Hitler crack.

I don’t plan on reading Legacy because I already read the paper which it is based on, Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora ...

February 13, 2012

Clusters where they “shouldn’t be”….

Filed under: Human Genetics,Human Genomics,Jews — Razib Khan @ 11:25 pm

Uyghur girls

A few people have pointed me to the paper, Implications for health and disease in the genetic signature of the Ashkenazi Jewish population. You should check it out if you don’t have academic access to papers, it’s not gated. Rather, I want to focus on a methodological issue.

In the genetics reader survey only 20 percent of you agreed that you understood how to read an ADMIXTURE plot. After looking at some of the results in this paper I have a lot of sympathy. Understanding what’s going on requires more prior information than is often present in the legends of the figures.

It is known that to a first approximation Ashkenazi Jews, that is, the Jews of Europe, can be understood as an admixture between a European population and a Middle Eastern one. But Ashkenazi Jews also exhibit their own genetic distinctiveness, probably due to long term endogamy. This shows up in various genetic statistics. In this paper the authors show that Ashkenazi form their own cluster in both PCA and ADMIXTURE, two ways in which to ascertain population structure. Below I’ve reedited and highlighted some populations of note in one of their ADMIXTURE plots. It’s rather informative of the bigger problem with interpreting these sorts of results in the absence of context.

As you can see there is an ancestral element which is predominant in the Ashkenazi. A individual analysis also implies that most of those with a lower fraction of this element who identify as Ashkenazi probably have recent admixture (e.g., only three out of four grandparents were Jewish). What I found striking is that the Uyghur and Hazara both also shook out as of a particular ancestral element. The reality is that we know this is a total artifact of the ADMIXTURE software; the Hazara have a historical narrative of being the product of intermarriage between Mongols and Persians. The historical evidence for the origin of the Uyghur is sketchier and more confused, but it can be reconstructed. And the genetics make it likely that both these groups emerged over the past 2,000 years, as an admixture between a Western and Eastern Eurasian set of populations.

What does this have to do with Ashkenazi Jews? I think one should be skeptical of an “Ashkenazi Jewish” modal element when we already know that this plot has useless clusters. It does not seem like they included any “real” East Asian reference populations, so the Hazara and Uyghur stepped up and took that position, despite both populations having ~50 percent West Eurasian admixture. The ADMIXTURE software transformed a clearly hybridized population into its own ‘ancestral’ population. Something similar might be happening with the Jews, especially in light of the fact that the authors had a relatively large Jewish population their data, geared to exploring the nature of Jewish genetic relationships. This is a case where we know that we probably don’t know that much.

The moral: don’t think you can read a scientific figure plainly without any context.

Image credit: Wikipedia

January 17, 2011

The Assyrians and Jews: 3,000 years of common history

Filed under: Anthroplogy,Assyrians,Genetics,Genomics,History,Jews — Razib Khan @ 1:23 am

2 Kings, 17:

[5] Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.

[6] In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

[18] Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.

Most Americans are aware of the term “Assyria,” if they are, through the Bible. The above quotation is of some interest because it alludes to the scattering of the ten northern tribes of Israel during their conquest and assimilation into the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Neo because the Assyrian polity, based around a cluster of cities in the upper Tigris valley in northern Mesopotamia, pre-dates what is described in the Hebrew Bible by nearly 1,000 years. During the first half of the first millennium before Christ they were arguably the most antique society with a coherent self-conception still flourishing aside from their Babylonian cousins to the ...

July 16, 2010

More Jews, fewer markers

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Jewish Genetics,Jews — Razib Khan @ 10:43 am

At around the same time that the two big Jewish genetics papers came out, there was another one in BMC Genetics which I had overlooked. It’s open access so you can read the whole thing, but seems like they used 32 STR’s as markers. Their primary finding about Jewish populations was that there was a north vs. south distinction, illustrated in this map:


June 10, 2010

Genetics & the Jews (it’s still complicated)

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Jewish Genetics,Jews — Razib Khan @ 5:05 am

After the post on Jewish genetics from a few days ago I was going to do a follow up clarifying a few issues. It was a big paper and I skipped over material which I thought might have benefited from further elaboration, but would have taken up too much time. But Dienekes alerts me to another paper which just came out in Nature of interest, The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people:

Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions…Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia, in what is termed the Jewish Diaspora…This complex demographic history imposes special challenges in attempting to address the genetic structure of the Jewish people…Although many genetic studies have shed light on Jewish origins and on diseases prevalent among Jewish communities, including studies focusing on uniparentally and biparentally inherited markers…genome-wide patterns of variation across the vast geographic span of Jewish Diaspora communities and their respective neighbours have yet to be addressed. Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.

I doubt it’s a coincidence that this paper came out right on the heels of the previous one; papers are presented at conferences and word gets around, and I assume that the two groups were rushing to get their work published soon enough so as not to be totally overshadowed by the first past the post. The text of both papers is also an interesting window into the role of interpretation in science, as this one seems to emphasize the common Middle Eastern ancestry of Jews (excluding outliers such as the Ethiopian Jews), while the previous one highlighted structure within the Jewish community. Despite the similarities, this second paper is worth exploring for one major reason: it includes two populations of Jews, Moroccans and Yemenis, which were not in the previous research.

The methodology of both groups was similar. Take Jewish and non-Jewish populations of interest, and sequence them with a SNP-chip, and then try and extract out some useful patterns for the purposes of analytics. Here’s an important issue I want to reemphasize: the different methods of extracting out useful patterns give somewhat different results, and these results themselves are to a great extent human constructions which map only approximately onto the shape of reality. Measures of “genetic distance” are really just useful reifications and their biological reality as the differences amongst billions of base pairs is a somewhat different thing. This is why it is difficult to be more than trivial sometimes when it comes to what the “bottom line” on these studies are; the bottom lines represent human attempts to generate intuitive categories and representations on natural processes which are in some ways deeply alien to us. So with the cautions out of the way, let’s look at what the figures in this paper might indicate to our puny human intuitions.

First, here is a slice of a PCA where various Jewish groups have been mixed with a range of populations from the HGDP data set as well as a few extra ones. Specifically, I’ve focused on panel B which expands the region of the plot which contains populations of European and West Asian origin. Additionally, I’ve added a few extra labels and expanded the legend for clarity of viewing.


The second figure constrains the variation to European and West Eurasian populations for the purposes of extracting out the two largest dimensions of variation. Observe that the general configurations of the relationships remains the same (if rotated a bit), but the magnitudes are now shifted. In the first plot the unadmixed African populations were the most diverse group, while in the second the Arab groups with appreciable African ancestry such as the Bedouin are. So eigenvector 1 seems to roughly rank order West Asian groups by their African ancestry, while the second eigenvector is a rough east-west axis within the various regional groups.


The PCA aligns well with the previous paper. Ashkenazi Jews are roughly between European and Middle Eastern populations, as one would expect if they were in some sense an admixture between the groups. In the first paper the “Italian” group was from northern Italy. In this paper it is from Tuscany (Tus/T respectively for figure 1 and 2). The more interesting aspect are the non-Ashkenazi groups. This paper seems to confirm the east-west division evident in the earlier paper, whereby Ashkenazi & Sephardic groups form a natural cluster, as do the Mizrahi Jews of Iraq and Iran. Additionally, the Jews of Morocco seem to fall close to the Ashkenazi-Sephardic cluster (Moroccan Jews are Sephardic, but separated out a bit for the purposes of this paper). In the HGDP sample the closest thing to a “host” population for the Moroccan Jews are the Mozabites of Algeria, who are a Saharan Berber group. Unfortunately I don’t think this is the best proxy for the Berber groups because the Mozabites have a substantial proportion of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, more than is typical from what I can gather for populations from the Maghreb. But they added in their own group of Moroccans as well, though I didn’t track down the notation in the supplementary table 1 to ascertain the provenance of this sample.

The Yemeni Jews on the other hand are easier to understand. They seem to shake out as just another Middle Eastern population. They’re a subset of the Saudis in both plots. Since they’re regionally constrained to the southwest of the Arabian peninsula this makes sense, as the Saudi sample seems more regionally diverse in its recent ancestry (the next figure makes this clear to me). So the Yemeni Jews are roughly a third major cluster of “mainline” Jewish groups. Though their history is not as antique as that of the Jews of Iraq and Iran, who presumably go back to the period of the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids (earlier in the case of the Babylonian Jewry naturally), it does pre-date Islam. Additionally the genetic data suggest that this Jewish community has been relatively endogamous since the rise of Islam, as the next plot highlights.

It uses the ADMIXTURE method, with eight ancestral populations represented by each particular color. I’ve truncated the plot to populations of interest, in particular the Middle Eastern ones.

The inference that Middle Eastern Jews have been relatively endogamous since the rise of Islam is supported by this figure, the red-brown segment is pretty close to Sub-Saharan African ancestry in an individual’s genome. The Arab and North African Muslim groups tend to have some appreciable Sub-Saharan African ancestry, but the Jewish groups do not. This is probably due to the fact that the arrival of Sub-Saharan Africans as slaves was more a feature of the Islamic era states, which had far more pervasive trade links with Africa south of the Sahara than any of the societies of antiquity. The Jews within the lands of Islam who did not convert were marginalized and did not participate fully in the commercial and cultural life of these societies. It seems plausible to assume then that there were few avenues for persons of slave ancestry and origin to enter into the Jewish community, as was common within Muslim society, where the offspring of slave women were recognized as free if the father was free. The Druze, a post-Muslim sect traditionally restricted to the mountains of Lebanon exhibit the same lack of Sub-Saharan African ancestry as Middle Eastern Jews, and this presumably is a pointer to their marginalization over the past one thousand years from the world of Arab Islam generally.

From this figure it looks as if the Moroccan Jews are fundamentally distinctive in some way from the non-Jewish population of Morocco. The green segment within the plot seems lacking in groups from the far western edge of the World Island of Africa-Eurasia. The full figure shows it is also lacking from populations on the eastern edge, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, excluding those which have admixture. This component then point to origins within the center of the World Island, focused on the Mashriq and regions somewhat to the east. The magnitude of contribution of this segment to Moroccan Jews to me clinches the earlier observation of a close association between Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Moroccan Sephardic Jews, and a tie back to the Middle East in part for all these groups (though some of this may be of deeper origin, as the contrast between French and French Basques shows that different groups within the same nation can have different contributions, and the Moroccan non-Jewish samples may not be representative).

Finally, let’s look at the table which attempts to summarize genetic distances using allele sharing. The lower values indicate more genetic closeness.


Throwing all the variation together in a grab bag doesn’t seem to really inform that much from what I can tell. Here are the authors:

Genetic relationships between our population samples were then explored with the measure of allele sharing distances (ASDs)…Table 1 provides genetic distances between each Jewish community and its corresponding host population, all Jewish communities, west Eurasian Jewish communities, their respective Jewish group inferred from the PCA, and non-Jewish Levantine populations. The Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Moroccan, Iranian, Iraqi, Azerbaijani and Uzbekistani Jewish communities have the lowest ASD values when compared with their PCA-based inferred Jewish sub-cluster…In all except the Sephardi Jewish community, this ASD difference is statistically significant … ASD values between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Caucasus Jewish populations and their respective hosts are lower than those between each Jewish population and non-Jewish populations from the Levant. This might be the result of a bias inherent in our calculations as a result of the genetically more diverse non-Jewish populations of the Levant. The Ethiopian and Indian Jewish communities show the lowest ASD values when compared with their host population….

So what’s the bottom line here? I think the bottom line is that there isn’t a bottom line, and that we need to proceed on a case by case basis. I’ve focused on Middle Eastern Jews in this post, but let’s put the spotlight on the Indian Jews, the Bene Israel of Bombay, who were separated from the Jewish Diaspora, and the Cochin Jews, who were more well integrated (the Bene Israel did not have the Talmud, the Cochin Jews did). Both these groups resemble their Indian host populations genetically. Yet, Y chromosomal markers strongly imply that the Bene Israel are descended from male Middle Eastern Jews (many carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype). What likely occurred in India was that generations of admixture between Jews and non-Jews resulted in the elision of differences between the two groups, despite the persistence of a cultural distinction. Why the difference with other Jewish groups? I suspect that it has to do with the relative lack of a special relationship between Jews and the host culture in India as opposed to the world of Islam or Christendom. In India Jews were just another group, not subject to particular exclusion or marginalization. Non-Jews could, and did, move into the Indian Jewish community, while this was taboo in the Islamic or Christian world. A similar process seems to have occurred to the Jews of Kaifeng, who intermarried and eventually lost their identity because of their greater eventual isolation from the Jewish Diaspora in comparison to the Indian Jews, especially those of Cochin. The last generations of the Jews of Kaifeng, who likely descended from Middle Eastern traders, witnessed the sons of this community enter into the Chinese bureaucracy through cultivation of that culture’s classics, as well as the farce of Han wives of Jewish notables tending to pigs in their yards.

Citation: Behar, D., Yunusbayev, B., Metspalu, M., Metspalu, E., Rosset, S., Parik, J., Rootsi, S., Chaubey, G., Kutuev, I., Yudkovsky, G., Khusnutdinova, E., Balanovsky, O., Semino, O., Pereira, L., Comas, D., Gurwitz, D., Bonne-Tamir, B., Parfitt, T., Hammer, M., Skorecki, K., & Villems, R. (2010). The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature09103

June 6, 2010

Jews and genetics

Filed under: Genetics,Genomics,Historical Genetics,Jews — Razib Khan @ 12:24 am

Over at Discover Blogs I have a very long post up on Jews & Genetics. In particular the recent paper in AJHG. One observation I have to make about Jewish genetics: when it comes to PCA plots which illustrate the relationship of Jews, in particular Ashkenazi Jews, to other populations I’ve noticed that two different individuals can look at the same plot and reach diametrically opposite conclusions. For example, “this plot shows that Jews are European” vs. “this plot shows that Jews are not European,” where “this plot” refers to the same plot. An interesting illustration of the importance of interpretative frames when it comes to distilling the valid inferences from results.


May 19, 2010

The trajectory of American Jews, lessons from history

Filed under: Culture,Jews — Razib Khan @ 7:07 am

I notice that a peculiar piece of datum from First Things contributor David Goldman is being passed around, repeated by Ross Douthat no less. Goldman states:

Beinart offers a condescending glance at the “warmth” and “learning” of Orthodox Jews, but neglects to mention the most startling factoid in Jewish demographics: a third of Jews aged 18 to 34 self-identify as Orthodox. “Secular Jew” is not quite an oxymoron–the Jews are a nation as well as a religion–but in the United States, at least, secular Jews have a fertility barely above 1 and an intermarriage rate of 50 percent, which means their numbers will decline by 75 percent per generation. It is tragic that the Jewish people stand to lose such a large proportion of their numbers, but they are lost to Judaism in general, not only to Zionism. That puts a different light on the matter.

A reader of Goldman’s who happens not to be stupid and can actually read observes that 34% of Orthodox Jews are 18 to 24 according to the original source Goldman was citing. No surprise that Goldman makes such an error, he has a way with faux erudition which amazes the dull and dumb. In fact, the American Jewish Survey reports that 16% of Jews between the ages of 18 to 29 self-identify as Orthodox.

With that small error out of the way, in regards to the future of the American Jewry I think the story outlined in Amos Elon’s The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 may serve as a possible vision of the future. Elon notes that almost the whole of the German Jewish elite of the late 18th and early 19th century converted to Christianity. Moses Mendelssohn’s last Jewish descendant died before the 20th century; the rest of his descendants had become Christians. Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine were not atypical. But there was a large German Jewish community in the early 20th century, though even that was being eroded by intermarriage and conversion. If Elon is correct that the bulk of the 19th century Jewry became Christian, where did the Jews of the 20th century come from? It seems that as the German Jewish burghers abandoned the Reform temples for Lutheran churches, their spots were filled by assimilating Eastern European Jews who were immigrating into Germany and taking over the institutions which the earlier community had built. They were heirs in spirit, if not blood, to Moses Mendelssohn. In other words, a large bumper crop of Orthodox youth may be the salvation for the Reform and Conservative movements. There may be no third generation Reform, but not all third generations beyond Orthodoxy remain Orthodox either.

Powered by WordPress