I got the article from its author. It doesn't really present any new
evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
markers, or anything like that, nor on his relation****p to Sally Hemings'
descendants.
The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and diverse
K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a
phylogenetic
network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits in that tree.
Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh previously published
ones are available in Excel format from the author.
I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people
named
Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers came from
variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's haplotype
exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and substantially
weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus through
Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female lines.
However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be
far
more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North African
Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical matches,
but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But
they
don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2 haplotypes,
taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2 haplogroup DNA
project
as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype, the haplotypes in the
table in the article, and the haplotypes in the separate table, you can
plainly see without needing to do network analysis that Jefferson's
haplotype is far more like the North African and Sephardic Jewish
haplotypes
than to anything else.
The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line ancestry
is
not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way
through
North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line subsequently got
to
England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from Spain is unlikely -
unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked up in the Netherlands
and carried from there to England by Protestants running around Europe in
circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's son", though that could be
exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when you start trying to explain
the
name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the most likely explanation, even if
the
name Jefferson did not come from England. It is hardly necessarily true
that the ancestor who went to England was still Jewish.
The K2 project is at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based
only
on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from single
nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS markers
on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes. It
is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there,
however,
because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight
of
which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even if
nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an entire
phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave no
source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from them.
In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37
standard
genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in the 1998
article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical
DNA
database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for that
project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
I've been writing to all sorts of people who pur****t to be connected to
this
testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one person has
responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to two other
people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail until
the
weekend is over.
Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that.
Spencer
Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's haplotype but
there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and Spencer Wells is not
known for his intellectual quality and for providing richness of detail on
his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the Geneographic
Project, probably for no other reason than that most people know who he
is.
I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently extremely busy. I
don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than we
do
that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact known,
or
don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the handwriting on the
wall and decided to know no more. I would expect the Hemings clan to be
less subject to that kind of prejudice than the aristocratic Monticello
folks, particularly after their long fight against the Monticello
operation
for recognition, but we're talkign about relations between American Blacks
and Jews; they could be even more prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days.
Failing
taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the Monticello
outfit
don't want any more information to come out confirms that Jefferson's
roots
are Jewish.
I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended from
Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression
of
all knowledge of the haplotype.
It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that
Jefferson's
DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England. 12 markers
aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2 haplogroup it
would
make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum of 25 markers to be
able
to say that, and since even closely related people don't usually match
perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and a computation of
genetic
distance. Now, getting and publi****ng more than 8 markers could well
undermine the link to the two "identical" haplotypes in England, and
either
the Monticello clan know it remains a close match and don't want to admit
it, or they fear that more information will confirm the match and
disconfirm
the Welsh royalty theory.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"reatty" <reatty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony or
> sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this
> whole DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question.
> What's the purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's
> interesting to know the answer, but does it advance knowledge of human
> evolution or what?
>
> Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
>
|
