bronze age sidon {lebanon dna paper}

CHG is 28% EHG/WHG? I didn't realize they were partially derived from European hunter gatherers, that's news to me at least.

Another thing that confuses me is this, they say

"the present-day Lebanese, in addition to their Levant_N and Iranian ancestry, have a component (11-22%) related to EHG and Steppe populations not found in Bronze Age populations (Figure 3A)."

Yet in figure 4A it clearly shows "Iron Age Levantines" only receiving 7% Steppe ancestry. The leads me to believe that a significant portion of the Steppe ancestry in Lebanon came from the Iranian Chacolithic, through the Iranians Chacolithic's CHG ancestry (The CHG apparently being almost a third EHG/WHG). But they specifically say how this steppe ancestry isn't found in the Levantine Bronze age populations when they had already received Iran_CH ancestry though, so that confuses me. Figure 3A also shows Sidon and Iran_CH without any blue Steppe ancestry. Anyone care to elaborate?

They attribute the increase in Steppe ancestry to the Persian and Macedonian conquests, I'm not sure if I buy that, especially if it's from 0 to 22 percent.
 
Nice. 1/2 and 1/2 Natufian/Iran Neolithic. Expected from the migrations from the Zagros following the fall of the Akkadian empire evidenced by pottery.

It's amazing that we can see this in the genetics. I guess it's likely that the 1/2 Iranian Neolithic came earlier, but whatever.

In before Alan's all up in arms that Iranian Neolithic isn't modeled in Steppe in the author's admixture plots.
 
18738739_10155487736676802_8343076463560965851_o.jpg

18671580_10155487650001802_6791615179916484126_o.jpg
 
well, with the steppists looking at the Caucasus for their CHG component and now Canaanites/Semites having 1/2 of CHG (in the form of Iran_Chalco)... it will be more fast to solve the question to test samples from Armenia to find Jafet and Sem!
;)

As is usual with ancient genes papers, even just using Wikipedia demonstrates the fiascos done.

The PCA shows that Sidon_BA clusters with three individuals from Early Bronze Age Jordan (Jordan_BA) found in a cave above the Neolithic site of ‘Ain Ghazal and probably associated with an Early Bronze Age village close to the site

Sidon_BA males are dated to 1700-1650 BC and their Y-DNA were J1a2b and J2b, the other Jordan_BA were I1706 (2500-2300), I1705 (2200-1950) and was J1, and I1730 (2500-2300) ans was J.

Lazaridis et al.13 reported that Jordan_BA can be modelled as mixture of Neolithic Levant (Levant_N) and Chalcolithic Iran (Iran_ChL). We computed the statistic f4(Levant_N, Sidon_BA; Ancient Eurasian, Chimpanzee) and found populations from the Caucasus and Iran shared more alleles with Sidon_BA than with Neolithic Levant (Figure 2A). We then used qpAdm8 (with parameter allsnps: YES) to test if Sidon_BA can be modelled as mixture of Levant_N and any other ancient population in the dataset and found good support for the model of Sidon_BA being a mixture of Levant_N (48.4± 4.2%) and Iran_ChL (51.6± 4.2%) (Figure 2B; Table S3).

so genes point to an admixture event with local Neolithic people (their Y-DNA was mainly E without J) and people from somewhere the Kurdistan.

We compiled frequencies of Y-chromosomal haplogroups in this geographical area and their changes over time in a dataset of ancient and modern Levantine populations (Figure S10), and note, similarly to Lazaridis et al.,13 that haplogroup J was absent in all Natufian and Neolithic Levant male individuals examined thus far, but emerged during the Bronze Age in Lebanon and Jordan along with ancestry related to Iran.

OK for logics by now.

The most significant result was for mixture of Levant_N and Iran_ChL (p=0.013) around 181 ± 54 generations ago, or ~5,000 ± 1,500 ya assuming a generation time of 28 years (Figure S11A). This admixture time, based entirely on genetic data, fits the known ages of the samples based on archaeological data since it falls between the dates of Sidon_BA (3,650-3,750 ya) and Iran_ChL (6,500-5,500 ya). The admixture time also overlaps with the rise and fall of the Akkadian Empire which controlled the region from Iran to the Levant between ~4.4 and 4.2 kya. The Akkadian collapse is argued to have been the result of a widespread aridification event around 4,200 ya, possibly caused by a volcanic eruption.42; 43 Archaeological evidence in this period documents large-scale influxes of refugees from Northern Mesopotamia towards the south, where cities and villages became overpopulated.44

Now logics are not working here: if aridification was the cause of the migration, and such event was by 2200 BC... what to do with I1730 who was at least a century before in the place?

It would be so harmful to look at Wikipedia for Kura-Araxes expansion over Levant? (Khirbet Kerak Ware)

View attachment 8725

which reached today's Palestine by 2650 BC... from Kurdistan.
 
We found that the Lebanese can be best modelled as Sidon_BA 93±1.6% and a Steppe Bronze Age population 7±1.6% (Figure 3C; Table S6).

We found support (p=0.00017) for a mixture between Sidon_BA and Steppe_EMBA which has occurred around 2,950±790 ya (Figure S11B). It is important to note here that Bronze Age Steppe populations used in the model need not be the actual ancestral mixing populations, and the admixture could have involved a population which was itself admixed with a Steppe-like ancestry population. The time period of this mixture overlaps with the decline of the Egyptian empire and its domination over the Levant, leading some of the coastal cities to thrive, including Sidon and Tyre, which established at this time a successful maritime trade network throughout the Mediterranean. The decline in Egypt’s power was also followed by a succession of conquests of the region by distant populations such as the Assyrians, Persians, and Macedonians, any or all of whom could have carried the Steppe-like ancestry observed here in the Levant after the Bronze Age.

Just forgetting Pelesht/Philistines conquering Canaanite cities by 1000 BC, or how the Sea Peoples ravaged Ugarit tells the level of the paper.
 
CHG is 28% EHG/WHG? I didn't realize they were partially derived from European hunter gatherers, that's news to me at least.

This is a result of the authors' quite baffling attempt to backwards-model CHG in apAdm using Mesolithic and Neolithic populations.

That said I do think Kotias-Satsurbalia might have some kind of WHG-like ancestry, perhaps associated with Y-DNA J.
 
It seems modern day-Lebanese have acquired HG ancestors compared to the Canaanite samples.

free image hosting
 
Just forgetting Pelesht/Philistines conquering Canaanite cities by 1000 BC, or how the Sea Peoples ravaged Ugarit tells the level of the paper.

Despite claims by some people commenting on this paper, none of the experts are quite sure who the Sea Peoples were, much less their precise origin. Most likely they didn't originate in one place and so might have differed genetically. It's true that some Mycenaean ware has been found at Philistine sites, but I think we've learned that in some cases pots are indeed just pots. Plus, we still don't know how much steppe the Mycenaean elites might have carried, much less the settlers. If the Philistines came from Crete or some places in Anatolia or Sardinia I'm not convinced they would have had much "steppe" ancestry to bring to the table. This is another one that should wait for aDna, in my opinion.

Who knows, that might already be in the pipe line. I think these people talk to each other. They're colleagues after all, and no one wants to have his paper made irrelevant by an ancient DNA result that comes out a month later...no citations that way.

Some of the suggestions are just silly, imo. Sarmatian soldiers brought by the Romans? :) First of all, I would think that we all should know by this point that some soldiers are not going to cause a large change in the genome like this, I.e.. O-7%. You almost always need something resembling a folk migration. Young men need to stop thinking that movies like Clive Owen's King Arthur depict reality.

The suggestion that it was brought during the era of Macedonian rule is actually quite sound. The Greeks established quite a few cities in the area. Their influence was so strong that it inspired the Maccabean revolt. I still can't link, but just google the Seleucid Empire, Maccabean Revolt, and the cities of the Decapolis. Who knows, maybe the genes of the Celts of Galatia partly diffused throughout the region and added a little layer. This was a very open, mobile area.
 
It's half Levant Neolithic, half Iran Chalcolithic, not half Iran Neolithic.

This makes the genesis of Semitic a bit confusing, imo. The "J -58"and the J2b1?definitely came with Iran Chalcolithic, but this mass movement of a perhaps mostly male group adopted the language of E bearing Natufian women? This happened with such a male dominant pastoral culture?
 
We actually don't know nothing about Sea Peoples and where they came from. Those Canaanite can't even be a proxy for ancient Phoenicians if they mixed or if they were Sea Peoples.
 
This is a result of the authors' quite baffling attempt to backwards-model CHG in apAdm using Mesolithic and Neolithic populations.

That said I do think Kotias-Satsurbalia might have some kind of WHG-like ancestry, perhaps associated with Y-DNA J.

Thank you for responding MarkoZ!

I guess since I was the first to respond I should've summarized the paper so then we could start discussing questions.

What about the second question though? Do you have any idea as to why in figure 4a it shows Iron Age Levantines receiving 7 percent Steppe ancestry when before it says the Lebanese have 11-22 percent Steppe ancestry that Bronze Age Levantines did not have? When you look at figure 3a you can also see the blue component missing from Sidon and the Bronze age Levantines, but present in the Lebanese in what appears to be closer to 11-22 percent than 7 percent.
 
The language of the incoming Iran_Chalco was not Semitic. Semitic is a branch of the Afroasian family (Berber, Coptic, Cushitic) linked to the E haplo and thereafter surely with Levant_Neo. There are a lot of examples of herder peoples getting the language of farmers (Bulgars the Slav, Langobardi the Italian, the Manchu the Chinese and so).
 
We actually don't know nothing about Sea Peoples and where they came from. Those Canaanite can't even be a proxy for ancient Phoenicians if they mixed or if they were Sea Peoples.
That is not so for all, per example Ahiwa with Achaeans. I don't have the ref with me but Sea Peoples in Levant were IE (the same name of Goliath is).
 
It's half Levant Neolithic, half Iran Chalcolithic, not half Iran Neolithic.

This makes the genesis of Semitic a bit confusing, imo. The "J -58"and the J2b1?definitely came with Iran Chalcolithic, but this mass movement of a perhaps mostly male group adopted the language of E bearing Natufian women? This happened with such a male dominant pastoral culture?

The study attributes the introduction of Iran Chalcolithic to the Levant with the expansion of the Akkadian Empire and it's subsequent demise which caused large migrations west. The Sumerian language was dying out in favor of the Semetic Akkadian language through out it's history. They were already speaking a Semetic language before they entered the area of the Levant.
 
A very confusing paper I must say. Especially, finding so much steppe in modern Lebanese. We know genomes of modern Near Easterners, and nothing like this was discovered till now?!!! Something is fishy with this picture. Unless, they have tested a special group of Lebanese.
To get to 20% of steppe in modern Lebanese people, we would need to replace almost half of the population with pure Steppe. And what would be the pure source of pure Steppe in Iron Age or later?!!!

On other hand 7% of Steppe arriving in Bronze Age makes sense. We had huge Steppe admixture in BA Armenians, up to 30% or so. We also see the rise of Steppe in IA Iran or Medieval, about 5-10% (I don't have BA Iran to compare though).

Also I don't like how they displayed source populations in chart A on page 13. They see no difference between Iran Neolithic and Chalcolithic , or Levant and Anatolian Neolithic for that matter. They don't show Iranian Ch/N in Steppe admixture, but they should. Otherwise how can they recognize if Iran Chalcolithic came to Lebanon directly from Iran or from Steppe? Possibly this is their confusion about Steppe admixture in modern Lebanese.
 
Sea peoples (Peleset, Denyen, Sikel, Sherden ) settled a little further south than Sidon according to the Onomasticon of Amenope... i doubt they had much steppe (especially if they came from Crete, Sicily and Sardinia as some have suggested)

sp.jpg
 
Thank you for responding MarkoZ!

I guess since I was the first to respond I should've summarized the paper so then we could start discussing questions.

What about the second question though? Do you have any idea as to why in figure 4a it shows Iron Age Levantines receiving 7 percent Steppe ancestry when before it says the Lebanese have 11-22 percent Steppe ancestry that Bronze Age Levantines did not have? When you look at figure 3a you can also see the blue component missing from Sidon and the Bronze age Levantines, but present in the Lebanese in what appears to be closer to 11-22 percent than 7 percent.

It's the supervised ADMIXTURE run in Figure 3 that they base their 11-22% estimate on. The problem with supervised runs is that the authors have to make a guess regarding the fixed ancestries of their model, meaning that there are implicit assumptions about which populations expanded and which populations were on the receiving end of hypothetical admixture events.

In this case I think the authors made a bad choice using the Neolithic Iranian samples as an outgroup due to their exaggerated Basal Eurasian affinity (almost on par with present day East Africans and much more than modern Iranians in any case). Due to its diverged nature an excess of Basal Eurasian ancestry (the most divergent ancestral component in Eurasia) cannot be assigned to the outgroups that carry none (WHG) or relatively little (EHG) of it. Conversely, the ADMIXTURE run in the paper interprets diminished Basal Eurasian ancestry with respect to Iran_ Neo as an excess of EHG ancestry, which is merely the next best thing and unlikely to represent actual admixture.

If modern Lebanese actually had anything close to 22% EHG ancestry they would probably plot with present Northern Europeans, which we know isn't the case.
 
It's the supervised ADMIXTURE run in Figure 3 that they base their 11-22% estimate on. The problem with supervised runs is that the authors have to make a guess regarding the fixed ancestries of their model, meaning that there are implicit assumptions about which populations expanded and which populations were on the receiving end of hypothetical admixture events.

In this case I think the authors made a bad choice using the Neolithic Iranian samples as an outgroup due to their exaggerated Basal Eurasian affinity (almost on par with present day East Africans and much more than modern Iranians in any case). Due to its diverged nature an excess of Basal Eurasian ancestry (the most divergent ancestral component in Eurasia) cannot be assigned to the outgroups that carry none (WHG) or relatively little (EHG) of it. Conversely, the ADMIXTURE run in the paper interprets diminished Basal Eurasian ancestry with respect to Iran_ Neo as an excess of EHG ancestry, which is merely the next best thing and unlikely to represent actual admixture.

If modern Lebanese actually had anything close to 22% EHG ancestry they would probably plot with present Northern Europeans, which we know isn't the case.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this, I appreciate it. So essentially there is a yet to be discovered group, the paper should've elaborated more on this. It seems like an important detail to leave out and it would make things much clearer.

7% Steppe ancestry seems a lot more reasonable, still I'm not sure if the Macedonians or Persians could've delivered so much.
 

This thread has been viewed 43972 times.

Back
Top