Comparison of Romany Law with Israelite Law and Indo-Aryan Traditions

[FollowingHim]

") Within the H-M82 haplogroup, an identical 8-microsatellite Y chromo some haplotype is shared by nearly 30% of Gypsy men, an astonishing degree of preservation of a highly differentiated lineage, previously described only in Jewish priests.(30)"

Note that they are not saying the Gypsies have any genetic similarity to the Jews. All they are saying is that Gypsy men are very similar genetically to each other, just as Jewish priests are very similar genetically to each other.

Nothing in this study says anything about whether the Gypsies are related to the Jews. They are not compared at all. The only reason the Jews are mentioned is because similar studies have been conducted on the Jews.

This study presupposes an Indian origin, then goes fishing for genetic markers that came from India. And they find some - no surprise there, given the linguistic evidence they spent some time in India so would have interbred to some degree just as they have interbred with other Europeans more recently.

If you started with a different presupposition, e.g. an Israelite origin, or Egyptian, or Arab, or Persian, or European, and started fishing for markers that demonstrated that, you'd likely find those too, as all these groups will have interbred with the Gypsies at some point and have passed genetic markers into that population. So this study simply shows that they appear to have some Indian ancestry, among everything else, which is no surprise.

Figure 4 is very interesting. It describes how genetically similar or different the Gypsy population is to other groups. Look at the colours carefully. They are not at all similar to Indians. The black (Gypsy) genetics overlap primarily with the Middle Eastern genetics. They are as similar to Pakistanis, central Asian and Europeans as they are to a few selected Indian groups. There is absolutely no suggestion in this figure of a dominant Indian origin, if anything it contradicts that.

Figure 3: Y genetics are passed father to son, not carried by women, so allow the male ancestry to be studied. mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA, which comes from the egg cell. Everyone has it, but you only inherit it from your mother, sperm doesn't carry it. So this allows the female ancestry to be studied.
The authors have identified markers that the Gypsy population shares with Indians, in both the Y and mtDNA. The graph then shows what proportion of the population carry these markers vs which do not (ie have "other" genetics).
In all groups, mtDNA is quite mixed. In other words, many non-Gypsy women have been married over the years in all groups, giving mixed female genetics.
In the nomadic groups, a high proportion of men carry these "Indian" markers. In other words, most of these men appear to be descended from male Gypsy ancestors dating back to their time in India - few non-Gypsy men have been brought in.
But in the settled groups, many men have other genetic markers, and their ancestors likely married into the Gypsy population from outside.
So the nomadic groups have been more closed to outsiders, the settled groups have been more open.

 

[IshChayil]

Note that they are not saying the Gypsies have any genetic similarity to the Jews. All they are saying is that Gypsy men are very similar genetically to each other, just as Jewish priests are very similar genetically to each other.

Nothing in this study says anything about whether the Gypsies are related to the Jews. They are not compared at all. The only reason the Jews are mentioned is because similar studies have been conducted on the Jews.

Ah I misread it, I thought it said they shared the "same" haplogroup marker that Cohanim "Jewish priests" share (read thru too fast)... I see it's only saying that the degree of similarity is the same as the "degree of similarity" among Jewish priests to other Jewish priests right?

Except for the Zhuki romani who known to be mixed with Jews.
I wouldn't expect a lost tribe to have the same DNA as Jews anyway since we are mostly just Judah and Levi (8% are Levi rest are Judah). We don't have any samplings from the others.
It'd be interesting to compare the Bnei Menasheh (lost half tribe of Manessah found in India and mostly imported back to Israel) to the Romani (also from India)!
Maybe Romani are Ephraim

 

[IshChayil]

Anecdotally, I've been expecting Ephraim to be "found" soon since Menasheh was found recently.
Seems fitting that Joseph who rescued us from famine should be brought back to the land of His fathers.
I'm really psyched now about my idea (to compare sons of Menasseh to Romani).

@FollowingHim do you think this is something that could yield fruit? Or do you think Ephraim and Menasheh would be too diverse already from each other to find similarity of ancestry? I remember reading that the Jewish Priests tests (at least over 15 years ago when I read up on that) only proved common ancestry back 700 years or so. Maybe it's improved since then. I may be confusing the COhein test with the generic Levite test

 

[IshChayil]

If you started with a different presupposition, e.g. an Israelite origin, or Egyptian, or Arab, or Persian, or European, and started fishing for markers that demonstrated that, you'd likely find those too, as all these groups will have interbred with the Gypsies at some point and have passed genetic markers into that population. So this study simply shows that they appear to have some Indian ancestry, among everything else, which is no surprise.

But would we expect to find these kinds of variations along the Y chromosomal data?
I thought the article said that they seemed to be very rigid about NOT allowing outsider men into their populations.
So we may expect to find those variances you mentioned in the mitochondrial markers but less so on the Y side correct?

 

[Nikud]

If you started with a different presupposition, e.g. an Israelite origin, or Egyptian, or Arab, or Persian, or European, and started fishing for markers that demonstrated that, you'd likely find those too, as all these groups will have interbred with the Gypsies at some point and have passed genetic markers into that population. So this study simply shows that they appear to have some Indian ancestry, among everything else, which is no surprise

It'd be interesting to compare the Bnei Menasheh (lost half tribe of Manessah found in India and mostly imported back to Israel) to the Romani!

What's the likely hood of Romani being related to the Bnei Menasheh?

 

[Nikud]

I thought the article said that they seemed to be very rigid about NOT allowing outsider men into their populations.

Even men with Mixed Romani heritage (ie. Me) are not allowed in most cases to marry Romani women.

 

[IshChayil]

What's the likely hood of Romani being related to the Bnei Menasheh?

Well it's all anecdotal in my mind right now.
I'm just thinking both groups hail from India, which was an exile location in antiquity.
So let's say 8 of the lost tribes ended up in that area. If Romani ancestors were 1 of those 8 then they could either be Manesheh also (like bnei Menasheh are), or they could be one of the others. If they are Ephraim then we'd get a 2/8.. 1/4 chance they'd have common ancestry with bnei Menasheh. I just don't know how good our tech is right now. Let's say they were Ephraim, well Ephraim and Menashah had same mom and dad the the mom side seems more messed up with romani as the article says they allowed foreign women into the culture.
I'd be interested to here what @FollowingHim thinks. I'm thinking the current state of DNA research may not be able to pinpoint common ancestry so far back. I know they've shown everyone is from the same mother but that hardly pinpoints where we want. Maybe if there is a study which compares Jews (Non-Levite) and Levite and Bnei Menasheh and Romani and some other control groups who we know are not lost tribes like German, English, French, etc. if it's possible with the current state of tech in this field to find the common ancestry (i.e. the Jacob marker haha).
If it is then some day the "Jacob marker" could be used to test various groups all around the globe searching for lost tribes... cool hah?

 

[IshChayil]

Even men with Mixed Romani heritage (ie. Me) are not allowed in most cases to marry Romani women.

Wow so it's super strict.

 

[Nikud]

Yes Sir, Not only for marriage . For mixed or even a Gorgio who does manage to marry in, you have to work twice as hard, work with in the community is hard to come by with out some one speaking for you and becoming an Elder is out.

 

[FollowingHim]

Think about how genes are passed down, and how difficult it would be for a "Jacob marker" to exist. Jacob had many different genes, but half came from Isaac and half from Rebecca. A quarter came from Abraham. Most of his genes are shared with the Edomites, Arabs, Moabites etc. If you find such a gene in a person today, it does not mean they descended from Jacob. It could be just as likely they are an Arab.

A "Jacob marker" would need to be a specific mutation (accidental change in a gene during copying) that was present in Jacob and did not exist in Isaac or Rebecca. And it would need to be on the Y-chromosome to be preserved in all male offspring (anywhere else and only half of his kids would get it, and half of their kids, and it would just be diluted out again - and it would go down both the female and male lines so would get spread everywhere). So you're looking for a mutation that occurred in one specific person, on one specific chromosome, that has not since been altered by further mutation.

And then we'd need to actually find it and recognise that this specific marker came from Jacob. Given there are descendents of Jacob all over the world, so it's not Jew-specific - and given that the Jews have been counting ancestry down the female line for many years, so there are likely many men who consider themselves Jews because a female ancestor was Jewish but they carry no male descent from Jacob - this is just one gene among thousands. A genetic researcher would just see that this gene appeared in some Jews but not others, and some of everyone else but not others. It would no doubt be more common in the Jewish population than elsewhere, but that in itself doesn't show that it came from Jacob. So we'd probably never find it.

Given the enormous unlikelihood of this actually occurring, I can only see two plausible scenarios for a "Jacob marker" being identified:
1) Miraculous revelation from God (unlikely, I can't see why He'd do this, and if He did most geneticists wouldn't believe it and wouldn't investigate it anyway).
2) A fake "Jacob marker" being "identified" by an Islamic scientist and used to design a biological weapon targeted against the Jewish population of Israel. Sadly, that's not at all far-fetched, someone's probably working on it right now... As the marker will probably be inaccurate though, any such weapon would actually end up affecting the wrong group of people to some extent and miss some of the targeted group, but there are plenty of people who would be happy to risk such collateral damage.

 

[FollowingHim]

But would we expect to find these kinds of variations along the Y chromosomal data?
I thought the article said that they seemed to be very rigid about NOT allowing outsider men into their populations.
So we may expect to find those variances you mentioned in the mitochondrial markers but less so on the Y side correct?

Yes, you'd expect the Y to be more consistent. Which is what Figure 3 shows.

But this research is severely limited and greatly affected by the presuppositions of the researchers. Here's a thought experiment to illustrate.

Imagine a hypothetical "first Roma man", the only one who exists at the time and the common ancestor of all. He has a Y chromosome full of genes. Where did those genes come from? Who else has those genes?
These genes came from his father, grandfather etc. They are shared by his brothers, his cousins, and many other people.
Our first Roma man heads off to explore the world. So do some of his cousins. And they all start breeding. The Roma man's grandkids will have almost identical Y chromosomes to his cousin's grandkids (and his second-cousin's grandkids). Variations will creep in over time due to mutation and other processes, but fundamentally they'll still all be very similar.
Let's say that Roma man goes wandering (to India, Iran, Germany, wherever, but let's assume he never goes to China or to England). But cousin Bob settles in China and cousin Fred settles in England.
Then genetics researcher A says "let's compare Roma man's descendents to the Chinese". Lo and behold, the Chinese share similar genetics to Roma man's kids. So researcher A concludes "The Roma came from China".
Completely independently, genetics researcher B compares Roma genetics to the English. Lo and behold, the English also share similar genetics to the Roma. So researcher B concludes "The Roma came from England".
But in our thought experiment, they've never been to either country. They're not descended from any of those people. They are related to them, but not in line of descent.

My point is, if you go looking for similarities, you'll find them. There are thousands of different genes, you're bound to find some that are similar, because ultimately everyone's related. But it doesn't show who's descended from who (statistics can start to inform that, but it's still going to be affected by presuppositions).

 

[FollowingHim]

The only useful way to do this is to not go hunting for particular markers, but rather do an overall statistical similarity correlation, as in Figure 4 in that paper. Collect genetic material from as wide a number of genes as possible, from as many diverse people as possible, and see who is overall more or less similar to each other. Throw away all presuppositions, don't try to prove or disprove anything, but simply see what the data says. As Figure 4 shows, it might not be what you were assuming.

 

[Nikud]

So basically all it proves is the Romani have been everywhere Or in contact with a lot of groups some more than others.

 

[FollowingHim]

Basically, yes, stressing the "some more than others".

But it can give some interesting info on that. If you find a specific gene mutation that was only present in the Romani and one other people group and didn't appear virtually anywhere else, it would show a particularly close relationship between those groups. And there are statistical methods to say "how many generations ago might these groups have diverged", which could be useful. I just feel that there is too much faith in science to be able to prove anything and not enough people remembering how shaky some of this is.

 

[Mojo]

But would we expect to find these kinds of variations along the Y chromosomal data?
I thought the article said that they seemed to be very rigid about NOT allowing outsider men into their populations.
So we may expect to find those variances you mentioned in the mitochondrial markers but less so on the Y side correct?

That's how I would read it.

 

[IshChayil]

Yes, you'd expect the Y to be more consistent. Which is what Figure 3 shows.

But this research is severely limited and greatly affected by the presuppositions of the researchers. Here's a thought experiment to illustrate.

Imagine a hypothetical "first Roma man", the only one who exists at the time and the common ancestor of all. He has a Y chromosome full of genes. Where did those genes come from? Who else has those genes?
These genes came from his father, grandfather etc. They are shared by his brothers, his cousins, and many other people.
Our first Roma man heads off to explore the world. So do some of his cousins. And they all start breeding. The Roma man's grandkids will have almost identical Y chromosomes to his cousin's grandkids (and his second-cousin's grandkids). Variations will creep in over time due to mutation and other processes, but fundamentally they'll still all be very similar.
Let's say that Roma man goes wandering (to India, Iran, Germany, wherever, but let's assume he never goes to China or to England). But cousin Bob settles in China and cousin Fred settles in England.
Then genetics researcher A says "let's compare Roma man's descendents to the Chinese". Lo and behold, the Chinese share similar genetics to Roma man's kids. So researcher A concludes "The Roma came from China".
Completely independently, genetics researcher B compares Roma genetics to the English. Lo and behold, the English also share similar genetics to the Roma. So researcher B concludes "The Roma came from England".
But in our thought experiment, they've never been to either country. They're not descended from any of those people. They are related to them, but not in line of descent.

My point is, if you go looking for similarities, you'll find them. There are thousands of different genes, you're bound to find some that are similar, because ultimately everyone's related. But it doesn't show who's descended from who (statistics can start to inform that, but it's still going to be affected by presuppositions).

So in the case of the Roma man we would focus more heavily on his male side since the culture seems to not allow "foreign" men in.
So we wouldn't expect to find that similarity to Chinese guys on the male side right?

I wonder if the incident with the Angel of G-d could have caused any mutations in Jacob. The energy blast that injured him from the angel.
Is it gama radiation? When Jews get mad do we turn green?

Interesting point about the bio-weapon. Maybe I don't want the Jacob marker to be discovered after all.
BTW I've wondered if Arabs are really descended from Abraham or not. Do you know if there are any studies about this?

I was thinking about it and the only reason (pre DNA research at least) that we have believed the Arab claim that they are descended from Abraham is, well, because the Quran says so.

If so, I wonder how much Ishmael they have in them and how much Philistine, etc. like for example are they 1/20th Ishmaelite and the rest various mixed groups from the region?

Is it only mutations as you suggest that are recognizeable? I thought it was also specific ordering of certain genes in blocks. So say Abraham inherited some specific pattern in haplogroup whatever from previous generations. Then say this is only preserved today among Jews or other descendants of Abraham (other groups got wiped out, or other dominant genes wiped out the pattern or whatever).
So I'm asking would it necessarily have to be a new gene mutation in Jacob himself or is it possible that only Jacob's descendants passed on a certain pattern which existed in Abraham's ancestors?
I guess a better term could be a "Hebrew" marker.
(thanks for indulging my all over the place post).

 

[FollowingHim]

So in the case of the Roma man we would focus more heavily on his male side since the culture seems to not allow "foreign" men in.
So we wouldn't expect to find that similarity to Chinese guys on the male side right?

Yes, you could easily see that similarity - if they shared a common ancestry (as in my illustration, which is entirely talking about the Y chromosome). That ancestry could go back further than where you hypothesised.

To put it another way, if Roma do share Y-chromosome genes with Jews, that could mean they are Moabites, Edomites, or Ishmaelites.

Is it only mutations as you suggest that are recognizeable? I thought it was also specific ordering of certain genes in blocks.

Genetics gets complex, and I am by no means an expert. "Mutation" was me lumping everything together with a single term. But the exact same logic applies to all other changes. The Y chromosome is preserved unaltered from father to son, unless something odd happens (a mutation, a reorganisation, a viral DNA addition etc). And it's those odd things that we'd need to find, that started with Jacob and have been preserved ever since.

It's certainly theoretically possible (albeit improbable). But given that such a genetic test would be a really convenient way to decide who to decapitate, I hope no such marker exists.

 

[Shibboleth]

I haven't looked closely at the study, but I did study Y-Chromosome patterns a while back (at least at a wikipedia-level of depth... I'm not a geneticist either). Once you start looking into the details, it quickly becomes apparent just how much moving around and intermixing people did in the past, to the point that its really rather quite amazing that there's still any such thing as distinct races today. From what I see, a large number of Romani belong to haplogroup H, which is also present in certain parts of south India, and very rare outside of these groups.

Meanwhile, it is haplogroup J that contains many of the Jewish people, including many Ashkenazi and Sephardic, as well as the supposed "Cohen gene" and the handful of Samaritans that still live in Israel (I didn't even realize there were still Samaritans). However, J is bigger than just Jewish people. It really encompasses many of the peoples living in the Middle East, including high percentages of Arabs, Iranians, Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Yemenese, etc... From a Genesis perspective, I'd say this haplogroup correlates with someone between Shem and Abraham. Thus I would expect any lost tribes of Israel -- if they truly have patrilineal descent -- to have a high incidence of haplogroup J in their population. That said, many of these groups also contain a high proportion of haplogroup E -- especially E1b1b1. Since this group is also found throughout north and east Africa, I can only conjecture that this may represent either the mixed multitude that accompanied Israel out of Egypt, or the mixture of Hamitic Canaanites peoples. Ashkanazi's also contain some amount of G (found in Georgia and Caucasas), R1 (generally IndoEuropean), and oddly Q (Siberian and Native American), all of which I imagine would probably indicate mixture with host populations throughout the diaspora.

As an example of the kind of mixture I'm talking about, native Indian populations contain significant percentages of haplogroups C (seemingly migrated from Africa or Arabia), H (focused in the south), L (focused along the Pakistani border), T (in the East), and R (Indo-European, and seemingly originating from SE Asia). And I'm probably missing some.

Another example: There's a haplogroup I, which is a sister-group to J, which might make you think that it's also Middle Eastern, except it's not -- it's concentrated in South Eastern Europe (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, etc...) and Scandinavia, and spread to a lesser degree throughout the rest of Europe. This might make you think this group was Slavs or Vikings or even Germanics or Celts or something, except those were all Indo-European groups (mostly R1). Presumably, hg I would have been whatever indigenous people were in the area before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Add to that the arrival of North-Asian Uralic/Finnic people that had mostly N haplogroup, Jewish and Arab immigrants (mostly J and E), other peoples from the Caucasus (F, G, K), the Roma immigrants from India (H), and the inexplicably-ubiquitous low-levels of T, and Europe is all over the place.

 

[Nikud]

Meanwhile, it is haplogroup J that contains many of the Jewish people, including many Ashkenazi and Sephardic, as well as the supposed "Cohen gene" and the handful of Samaritans that still live in Israel (I didn't even realize there were still Samaritans). However, J is bigger than just Jewish people. It really encompasses many of the peoples living in the Middle East, including high percentages of Arabs, Iranians, Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Yemenese, etc... From a Genesis perspective, I'd say this haplogroup correlates with someone between Shem and Abraham. Thus I would expect any lost tribes of Israel -- if they truly have patrilineal descent -- to have a high incidence of haplogroup J in their population.

Haplogroup J also includes Eyptians right?

 

[Shibboleth]

Haplogroup J also includes Eyptians right?

Depends on when and where you look, but mostly a mixture of E1b1b (predominant) and J, with some sub-Saharan (A/B), and dashes of other things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt