RSS
Peter Heather’s The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders is far inferior to his two earlier books, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians and Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. The substantive problem is that unlike the first two works this capstone of his scholarly trilogy lacks focus and coherency. There isn’t a very strong story threading together the disparate elements. The restoration of Rome that Heather alludes to in the title is the Papacy of the high medieval period, after 1200 or so. His story then has tie together Theodoric’s dominion in 6th century Italy, as well as Justinian’s Byzantium, and the long period between the rise of Islam and the Crusades. Because of considerations of space there are enormous lacunae in the book, as it is basically a history of aspects of late antiquity which bleeds over into the middle ages. A minor stylistic demerit The Restoration of Rome which I also found grating was the use of British English idiom in some passages. I have to go to online dictionaries to understand some allusions and references, and I wonder what I may have missed. Luckily I’ve already transitioned to reading Azar Gat’s Nations, which seems a more substantive and well thought out book.
Of course there are elements of Heather’s new book which are interesting or useful in attempting to understand general historical and cultural principles. For example, he presents a good deal of information which suggests that medieval forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine were written not in Rome for the Popes, but rather in northern Europe for local bishops. Eventually these documents were leveraged in the ideological program of the high medieval Papacy, but that was a downstream consequence of genuinely local exigencies which triggered these productions. No doubt this specific case illustrates general dynamic.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
“For example, he presents a good deal of information which suggests that medieval forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine were written not in Rome for the Popes, but rather in northern Europe for local bishops.”
This has long been known and is certain in the case of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals
About the origins of the Donation of Constantine itself there still isn’t a real consensus as far as I can tell. Johannes Fried wrote a book about it a few years ago and suggested a West Frankish origin in the early 9th century; there’s an English version, might be worth a look for anyone interested in the subject.
Open thread, eh? Anything goes?
Any thoughts on the population of the pre-Columbian New World? I’ve been poking away at the topic for the last few days. At present, I’m rather inclined to go with 40 million as a best guess figure.
I’ve also been reading Gat on Nations. Very informative.
Raises a paradox: for years we’ve been told most world history is too Eurocentric. But the anti-Eurocentrics didn’t complain about the writers on nationalism- though thelr outlook is very Eurocentric.
Took a Gat to come along and show that nations are not a recent European invention.
Use of the British English idiom grating? Peter Heather is British, so what do you expect ? Americans have to make some effort to understand the rest of the world (or should that be “got to make some effort..?)
Since Heather is British, is it unreasonable that he should use British English idioms?
“A minor stylistic demerit The Restoration of Rome which I also found grating was the use of British English idiom.” (sic)
Is it just British idiom that you have these difficulties with, or is it a wider intolerance of any non-American (or non-US) voices?
let me be clear, it’s not just idiom, but slang. e.g., using the term “chickens” to refer to female students in one of his courses. i kind of knew what that meant by implication and so looked it up. but in other cases i was confused as to whether it was slang or something that i just didn’t get.
I do agree that Restoration of Rome is much inferior to its predecessors. I think this is because the conceit it’s based on is flawed. Theoderic, Justinian, the Carolingians (who play a large part in his narrative and argument) and the mediaeval Papacy all referred to the legacy of the Roman Empire in legitimising themselves, but their projects were not equivalent and with the exception of Justinian, who actually was the Roman emperor, the idea of restoring the empire in any sense beyond that reference was the furthest thing from their minds.
Just for the fun of it, here are HarappaWorld results for a few ancient samples, along with oracle results.
Gökhem 2, Neolithic farmer of the Funnelbeaker culture (Note: strongly admixed with European hunter gatherers, much less Near Eastern-shifted in comparison to Stuttgart and Ötzi):
47.74% Mediterranean
25.92% NE-Euro
10.73% Caucasian
7.40% SW-Asian
3.02% W-African
1.97% NE-Asian
1.80% Papuan
1.04% Pygmy
0.29% San
0.03% Siberian
0.03% S-Indian
0.01% E-African
0.02% SE-Asian
0.00% Baloch
0.00% American
0.00% Beringian
[1,] “spaniard_1000genomes_98” “8.9358”
[2,] “spaniard_behar_12” “9.8892”
[3,] “italian_hgdp_13” “15.8758”
[4,] “spain-basc_henn2012_20” “16.8806”
[5,] “basque_hgdp_24” “18.017”
[6,] “sardinian_hgdp_28” “19.6787”
[7,] “french_hgdp_28” “20.8819”
[8,] “tuscan_hapmap_102” “21.8864”
[9,] “puerto-rican_1000genomes_76” “22.0441”
[10,] “tuscan_hgdp_8” “22.5297”
[11,] “tuscan_1000genomes_11” “23.0847”
[12,] “romanian-a_behar_14” “29.0772”
[13,] “utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “29.5701”
[14,] “british_1000genomes_99” “29.945”
[15,] “bulgarian_yunusbayev_13” “30.1908”
[16,] “puerto-rican_bryc_26” “30.2732”
[17,] “n-european_xing_25” “31.3946”
[18,] “utahn-white_hapmap_18” “31.5511”
[19,] “hungarian_behar_19” “31.8316”
[20,] “ashkenazi_harappa_4” “32.0673”
[21,] “orcadian_hgdp_15” “32.5251”
[22,] “morocco-n_henn2012_18” “32.8471”
[23,] “colombian_1000genomes_72” “33.5082”
[24,] “ashkenazy-jew_behar_21” “33.5156”
[25,] “slovenian_xing_25” “33.6526”
[26,] “tunisia_henn2012_18” “34.2939”
[27,] “morocco-jew_behar_15” “34.3874”
[28,] “algeria_henn2012_19” “35.8719”
[29,] “sephardic-jew_behar_19” “36.5612”
[30,] “mozabite_hgdp_29” “38.5758”
[1,] “25.4% sardinian_hgdp_28 + 74.6% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “6.3022”
[2,] “22.4% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 77.6% sardinian_hgdp_28” “6.6152”
[3,] “28.1% sardinian_hgdp_28 + 71.9% spaniard_behar_12” “6.7616”
[4,] “14.8% morocco-n_henn2012_18 + 85.2% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “6.9766”
[5,] “85.8% spaniard_1000genomes_98 + 14.2% tunisia_henn2012_18” “6.9815”
[6,] “37.5% n-european_xing_25 + 62.5% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.0211”
[7,] “26% lithuanian_behar_10 + 74% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.1185”
[8,] “83.1% spaniard_behar_12 + 16.9% tunisia_henn2012_18” “7.1713”
[9,] “62.6% sardinian_hgdp_28 + 37.4% utahn-white_hapmap_18” “7.1977”
[10,] “17.4% morocco-n_henn2012_18 + 82.6% spaniard_behar_12” “7.2485”
[11,] “12.1% mozabite_hgdp_29 + 87.9% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “7.2662”
[12,] “27.1% russian_hgdp_25 + 72.9% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.295”
[13,] “11.4% morocco-s_henn2012_16 + 88.6% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “7.3054”
[14,] “61.1% sardinian_hgdp_28 + 38.9% utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “7.3114”
[15,] “12.6% algeria_henn2012_19 + 87.4% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “7.3686”
[16,] “36.5% orcadian_hgdp_15 + 63.5% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.3724”
[17,] “11.6% moroccan_behar_10 + 88.4% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “7.3865”
[18,] “38.6% british_1000genomes_99 + 61.4% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.3956”
[19,] “11.1% saharawi_henn2012_18 + 88.9% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “7.4516”
[20,] “48.3% french_hgdp_28 + 51.7% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.458”
[21,] “28.3% belorussian_behar_9 + 71.7% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.6507”
[22,] “14.2% mozabite_hgdp_29 + 85.8% spaniard_behar_12” “7.6782”
[23,] “77.6% basque_hgdp_24 + 22.4% samaritian_behar_2” “7.7534”
[24,] “21% samaritian_behar_2 + 79% spain-basc_henn2012_20” “7.7688”
[25,] “30.9% morocco-jew_behar_15 + 69.1% spain-basc_henn2012_20” “7.7808”
[26,] “67.3% basque_hgdp_24 + 32.7% morocco-jew_behar_15” “7.7997”
[27,] “14.7% algeria_henn2012_19 + 85.3% spaniard_behar_12” “7.8206”
[28,] “13.1% morocco-s_henn2012_16 + 86.9% spaniard_behar_12” “7.8283”
[29,] “27.8% mordovian_yunusbayev_15 + 72.2% sardinian_hgdp_28” “7.8492”
[30,] “74.5% basque_hgdp_24 + 25.5% egypt_henn2012_19” “7.8572”
I guess these matches and breakdowns make sense, if we don’t take them too literally. For what it’s worth, here is a geographic breakdown of the single population matches:
70% of matches are European
20% of matches are North African/Near Eastern
10% of matches are of the “New World”
(this is ad hoc, and I’m not basing this on any robust/well thought out criteria)
Ajvide58, European hunter gatherer, of the Neolithic period, with ANE admixture (15%):
64.68% NE-Euro
22.13% Mediterranean
3.79% American
1.48% Beringian
1.43% SE-Asian
1.42% Papuan
1.30% Pygmy
1.23% Siberian
1.16% W-African
1.07% E-African
0.31% San
0.01% S-Indian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% Baloch
0.00% Caucasian
[1,] “belorussian_behar_9” “12.709”
[2,] “lithuanian_behar_10” “12.7123”
[3,] “russian_hgdp_25” “14.7995”
[4,] “russian_behar_2” “15.1324”
[5,] “ukranian_yunusbayev_20” “15.3383”
[6,] “mordovian_yunusbayev_15” “16.2305”
[7,] “n-european_xing_25” “17.1627”
[8,] “utahn-white_hapmap_18” “17.8244”
[9,] “orcadian_hgdp_15” “18.8952”
[10,] “utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “19.7973”
[11,] “slovenian_xing_25” “19.8141”
[12,] “british_1000genomes_99” “20.1616”
[13,] “hungarian_behar_19” “21.2076”
[14,] “finnish_1000genomes_100” “22.8994”
[15,] “french_hgdp_28” “27.5122”
[16,] “chuvash_behar_17” “27.5835”
[17,] “romanian-a_behar_14” “35.6387”
[18,] “bulgarian_yunusbayev_13” “37.4569”
[19,] “spaniard_behar_12” “38.5332”
[20,] “spaniard_1000genomes_98” “39.2153”
[21,] “italian_hgdp_13” “41.2616”
[22,] “spain-basc_henn2012_20” “43.9265”
[23,] “basque_hgdp_24” “45.4462”
[24,] “puerto-rican_1000genomes_76” “45.7835”
[25,] “tuscan_hapmap_102” “46.7308”
[26,] “tuscan_hgdp_8” “46.9151”
[27,] “tuscan_1000genomes_11” “47.213”
[28,] “puerto-rican_bryc_26” “50.0769”
[29,] “colombian_1000genomes_72” “50.9663”
[30,] “ashkenazi_harappa_4” “52.9861”
[1,] “32.7% basque_hgdp_24 + 67.3% finnish_1000genomes_100” “7.1076”
[2,] “66.6% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 33.4% spain-basc_henn2012_20” “7.1336”
[3,] “53.8% british_1000genomes_99 + 46.2% finnish_1000genomes_100” “8.5706”
[4,] “44.2% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 55.8% orcadian_hgdp_15” “8.7302”
[5,] “45.6% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 54.4% utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “8.7494”
[6,] “41.1% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 58.9% n-european_xing_25” “8.7564”
[7,] “42.3% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 57.7% utahn-white_hapmap_18” “8.7607”
[8,] “82.4% lithuanian_behar_10 + 17.6% spain-basc_henn2012_20” “8.8078”
[9,] “17% basque_hgdp_24 + 83% lithuanian_behar_10” “8.8254”
[10,] “15.4% colombian_1000genomes_72 + 84.6% lithuanian_behar_10” “8.8624”
[11,] “83.2% lithuanian_behar_10 + 16.8% puerto-rican_1000genomes_76” “8.9254”
[12,] “88.9% lithuanian_behar_10 + 11.1% tunisia_henn2012_18” “9.1623”
[13,] “13.7% colombian_bryc_26 + 86.3% lithuanian_behar_10” “9.1782”
[14,] “64.5% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 35.5% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “9.2925”
[15,] “85.1% lithuanian_behar_10 + 14.9% puerto-rican_bryc_26” “9.3222”
[16,] “55.3% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 44.7% french_hgdp_28” “9.3614”
[17,] “64.2% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 35.8% spaniard_behar_12” “9.4412”
[18,] “88.8% lithuanian_behar_10 + 11.2% morocco-n_henn2012_18” “9.4529”
[19,] “81.7% lithuanian_behar_10 + 18.3% spaniard_1000genomes_98” “9.4538”
[20,] “88.1% lithuanian_behar_10 + 11.9% sardinian_hgdp_28” “9.5332”
[21,] “81.7% lithuanian_behar_10 + 18.3% spaniard_behar_12” “9.5991”
[22,] “63.3% lithuanian_behar_10 + 36.7% n-european_xing_25” “9.7148”
[23,] “89.4% lithuanian_behar_10 + 10.6% morocco-s_henn2012_16” “9.7391”
[24,] “31.5% british_1000genomes_99 + 68.5% lithuanian_behar_10” “9.7908”
[25,] “64.9% lithuanian_behar_10 + 35.1% utahn-white_hapmap_18” “9.8353”
[26,] “89.6% lithuanian_behar_10 + 10.4% mozabite_hgdp_29” “9.8408”
[27,] “66.7% lithuanian_behar_10 + 33.3% orcadian_hgdp_15” “9.8457”
[28,] “68.1% lithuanian_behar_10 + 31.9% utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “9.8487”
[29,] “89.1% lithuanian_behar_10 + 10.9% mexican_1000genomes_64” “9.857”
[30,] “89.8% lithuanian_behar_10 + 10.2% saharawi_henn2012_18” “9.892”
Here is a geographic breakdown of the single population matches:
90% of matches are European
10% of matches are of the “New World”
StoraFörvar11, European hunter gatherer, of the late Mesolithic, with ANE admixture (19%):
62.89% NE-Euro
16.47% Mediterranean
5.65% Baloch
3.62% American
3.05% E-African
2.72% S-Indian
1.96% Siberian
1.01% Pygmy
0.96% Papuan
0.84% San
0.80% SE-Asian
0.01% NE-Asian
0.00% Beringian
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% W-African
0.00% Caucasian
[1,] “russian_hgdp_25” “10.2533”
[2,] “belorussian_behar_9” “10.5786”
[3,] “lithuanian_behar_10” “10.8229”
[4,] “mordovian_yunusbayev_15” “11.5544”
[5,] “russian_behar_2” “12.7521”
[6,] “ukranian_yunusbayev_20” “13.1232”
[7,] “n-european_xing_25” “17.8364”
[8,] “utahn-white_hapmap_18” “18.4831”
[9,] “slovenian_xing_25” “19.0613”
[10,] “orcadian_hgdp_15” “19.5585”
[11,] “hungarian_behar_19” “20.562”
[12,] “utahn-white_1000genomes_100” “20.5694”
[13,] “british_1000genomes_99” “21.0521”
[14,] “finnish_1000genomes_100” “21.0582”
[15,] “chuvash_behar_17” “23.0442”
[16,] “french_hgdp_28” “28.5983”
[17,] “romanian-a_behar_14” “34.6547”
[18,] “bulgarian_yunusbayev_13” “36.6093”
[19,] “spaniard_behar_12” “40.1175”
[20,] “spaniard_1000genomes_98” “40.8815”
[21,] “italian_hgdp_13” “42.0123”
[22,] “puerto-rican_1000genomes_76” “46.2006”
[23,] “spain-basc_henn2012_20” “46.5606”
[24,] “tuscan_hapmap_102” “46.757”
[25,] “tuscan_hgdp_8” “46.8761”
[26,] “tuscan_1000genomes_11” “47.1301”
[27,] “basque_hgdp_24” “48.2157”
[28,] “puerto-rican_bryc_26” “50.1233”
[29,] “colombian_1000genomes_72” “51.0015”
[30,] “ashkenazi_harappa_4” “51.9922”
[1,] “13.6% colombian_bryc_26 + 86.4% lithuanian_behar_10” “6.4163”
[2,] “14.7% colombian_1000genomes_72 + 85.3% lithuanian_behar_10” “6.4263”
[3,] “88.4% lithuanian_behar_10 + 11.6% mexican_1000genomes_64” “6.711”
[4,] “11% ecuadorian_bryc_19 + 89% lithuanian_behar_10” “6.7889”
[5,] “84.6% lithuanian_behar_10 + 15.4% puerto-rican_1000genomes_76” “6.9645”
[6,] “85.8% lithuanian_behar_10 + 14.2% puerto-rican_bryc_26” “7.0424”
[7,] “47.9% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 52.1% orcadian_hgdp_15” “7.2612”
[8,] “50% british_1000genomes_99 + 50% finnish_1000genomes_100” “7.3189”
[9,] “90.8% lithuanian_behar_10 + 9.2% sandawe_henn2011_23” “7.3619”
[10,] “46.2% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 53.8% utahn-white_hapmap_18” “7.3655”
Here is a geographic breakdown of the single population matches:
90% of matches are European
10% of matches are of the “New World”
MA1:
30.99% NE-Euro
23.56% Baloch
17.91% American
12.52% S-Indian
8.19% Beringian
2.62% W-African
2.50% Papuan
1.52% Pygmy
0.19% San
0.00% Caucasian
0.00% SE-Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% E-African
[1,] “haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “29.985”
[2,] “tajik_yunusbayev_15” “33.0286”
[3,] “pashtun_harappa_3” “33.7657”
[4,] “punjabi-jatt_harappa_8” “35.1815”
[5,] “burusho_hgdp_25” “35.3912”
[6,] “nepalese-a_xing_12” “35.6073”
[7,] “pathan_hgdp_23” “35.8363”
[8,] “chuvash_behar_17” “36.4808”
[9,] “bhatia_harappa_2” “36.7083”
[10,] “kalash_hgdp_23” “37.0992”
[11,] “kashmiri_harappa_2” “37.1299”
[12,] “punjabi-brahmin_harappa_2” “37.689”
[13,] “kashmiri-pandit_reich_5” “37.8599”
[14,] “singapore-indian-c_sgvp_10” “38.2385”
[15,] “punjabi_harappa_10” “38.3354”
[16,] “up-brahmin_harappa_3” “38.7022”
[17,] “punjabi-ramgarhia_harappa_2” “39.395”
[18,] “punjabi-arain_xing_25” “39.6685”
[19,] “uzbek_behar_15” “39.6911”
[20,] “gujarati-muslim_harappa_3” “39.6944”
[21,] “brahmin-uttar-pradesh_metspalu_8” “39.7164”
[22,] “bengali-brahmin_harappa_6” “39.7196”
[23,] “kashmiri-pahari_harappa_2” “39.7275”
[24,] “romanian-b_behar_2” “40.1038”
[25,] “up_harappa_5” “40.5508”
[26,] “sindhi_hgdp_24” “40.5541”
[27,] “mordovian_yunusbayev_15” “40.8618”
[28,] “turkmen_yunusbayev_11” “40.8977”
[29,] “colombian_1000genomes_72” “41.032”
[30,] “bihari-muslim_harappa_4” “41.233”
[1,] “64.9% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 35.1% mexican_1000genomes_64” “19.9687”
[2,] “33.5% ecuadorian_bryc_19 + 66.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “19.9937”
[3,] “76.6% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 23.4% peruvian_1000genomes_69” “20.789”
[4,] “79.3% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 20.7% maya_hgdp_21” “20.989”
[5,] “80.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 19.5% pima_hgdp_13” “21.0829”
[6,] “20.5% bolivian_xing_22 + 79.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “21.1178”
[7,] “80.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 19.5% totonac_xing_23” “21.1633”
[8,] “37.3% colombian_bryc_26 + 62.7% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “21.2279”
[9,] “18.5% colombian_hgdp_7 + 81.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “21.3809”
[10,] “81.6% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 18.4% karitiana_hgdp_12” “21.3939”
[11,] “81.6% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 18.4% surui_hgdp_6” “21.3945”
[12,] “40.8% mexican_1000genomes_64 + 59.2% nepalese-a_xing_12” “22.3732”
[13,] “28.5% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 71.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “22.4033”
[14,] “40.3% mexican_1000genomes_64 + 59.7% punjabi-jatt_harappa_8” “22.4566”
[15,] “64.9% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 35.1% russian_hgdp_25” “22.5441”
[16,] “40.8% chuvash_behar_17 + 59.2% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “22.5521”
[17,] “36.5% colombian_1000genomes_72 + 63.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5” “22.6058”
[18,] “38.9% ecuadorian_bryc_19 + 61.1% nepalese-a_xing_12” “22.6483”
[19,] “38.5% ecuadorian_bryc_19 + 61.5% punjabi-jatt_harappa_8” “22.6501”
[20,] “63.5% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 36.5% mordovian_yunusbayev_15” “22.789”
[21,] “64.9% burusho_hgdp_25 + 35.1% finnish_1000genomes_100” “22.8693”
[22,] “69.1% haryana-jatt_harappa_5 + 30.9% lithuanian_behar_10” “22.9932”
[23,] “63.5% bhatia_harappa_2 + 36.5% finnish_1000genomes_100” “23.0111”
[24,] “40.1% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 59.9% sindhi_hgdp_24” “23.0974”
[25,] “44.1% colombian_bryc_26 + 55.9% nepalese-a_xing_12” “23.0982”
[26,] “39.3% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 60.7% punjabi-arain_xing_25” “23.1168”
[27,] “34.8% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 65.2% punjabi-jatt_harappa_8” “23.1367”
[28,] “55.9% bhatia_harappa_2 + 44.1% russian_hgdp_25” “23.1441”
[29,] “57.4% burusho_hgdp_25 + 42.6% russian_hgdp_25” “23.152”
[30,] “57.7% punjabi-jatt_harappa_8 + 42.3% russian_hgdp_25” “23.1701”
The geographic origins of their top 30 matches are quite interesting.
MA1:
80% of matches are South Asian
10% of matches are Central Asian
7% of matches are European
3% of matches are of the “New World”
Looking at MA1’s results, it seems reasonable to say that the “Baloch” and “South Indian” clusters will track ANE admixture in modern populations, along with Native American-specific clusters. StoraFörvar11 also gets these components, probably because they are 19% ANE. For people well outside Europe, I think it’s reasonable to say that the “NE-Euro” component also delineates ANE. In Europe itself, I’m assuming the connection doesn’t hold, due to WHG.
Announcing a Special Issue of Human Biology!
Monday, June 30, 2014
On July 1, 2014 Wayne State University Press will publish a special issue of Human Biology focusing on Jewish genetics. The issue was guest-edited by Noah A. Rosenberg and Steven P. Weitzman, both of Stanford University. According to Human Biology executive editor Ripan S. Malhi, “The articles in this issue are an excellent model for the approach we emphasize in the Journal—using anthropological information to provide the context for genetic patterns.”
Human Biology is the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics (AAAG), an educational and scientific organization founded in 1994. AAAG aims to promote the study of anthropological genetics, as this field is broadly defined, to facilitate communication between individuals engaged in the study of anthro- pological genetics and to foster cooperation among anthropological geneticists.
Table of Contents
Introduction: From Generation to Generation: The Genetics of Jewish Populations
Noah A. Rosenberg and Steven P. Weitzman
Articles
Genetics and the History of the Samaritans: Y-Chromosomal Microsatellites and Genetic Affinity between Samaritans and Cohanim
Peter J. Oefner, Georg Hölzl, Peidong Shen, Isaac Shpirer, Dov Gefel, Tal Lavi, Eilon Woolf, Jona- than Cohen, Cengiz Cinnioglu, Peter A. Underhill, Noah A. Rosenberg, Jochen Hochrein, Julie M. Granka, Jossi Hillel, and Marcus W. Feldman
No Evidence from Genome-wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
Doron M. Behar, Mait Metspalu, Yael Baran, Naama M. Kopelman, Bayazit Yunusbayev, Ariella Gladstein, Shay Tzur, Hovhannes Sahakyan, Ardeshir Bahmanimehr, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Kris- tiina Tambets, Elza K. Khusnutdinova, Alena Kushniarevich, Oleg Balanovsky, Elena Balanovsky, Lejla Kovacevic, Damir Marjanovic, Evelin Mihailov, Anastasia Kouvatsi, Costas Triantaphyllidis, Roy J. King, Ornella Semino, Antonio Torroni, Michael F. Hammer, Ene Metspalu, Karl Skorecki, Saharon Rosset, Eran Halperin, Richard Villems, and Noah A. Rosenberg
Commentary
Jewish Genetic Origins in the Context of Past Historical and Anthropological Inquiries
John M. Efron
Who Are the Jews? New Formulations of an Age-Old Question
Susan Martha Kahn
Letter to the Editor
Genetics and the Archaeology of Ancient Israel
Aaron J. Brody and Roy J. King
Since this is an open thread, I just wanted to mention a minor issue. When I check my commenting history, there are comments included in that history which were actually posted by completely different individuals (who just happened to share my pseudonym in 2009 and 2011). I’m not sure if anything can be done, but I just wanted to make a note of that. For example, some random chap who posted a weird comment at Steve Sailer’s blog in 2009, and then someone else who posted a weird comment at this blog in 2011, are a part of my commenting history.
Perhaps the solution would be hiding my archive? If this can be done, thanks in advance.