PDA

View Full Version : bronze age sidon {lebanon dna paper}



kingjohn
27-05-17, 02:48
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/26/142448.full.pdf

Promenade
27-05-17, 05:18
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.

holderlin
27-05-17, 05:20
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.

bicicleur
27-05-17, 09:17
https://scontent.fbru1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18738739_10155487736676802_8343076463560965851_o.j pg?oh=f736a367bd882435be85f6394ae80bbf&oe=599D7642
https://scontent.fbru1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18671580_10155487650001802_6791615179916484126_o.j pg?oh=fd909dddb9588e2edb210110e4f0bae4&oe=59AC7DD7

berun
27-05-17, 10:37
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)

8725

which reached today's Palestine by 2650 BC... from Kurdistan.

berun
27-05-17, 10:50
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines)conquering Canaanite cities by 1000 BC, or how the Sea Peoples ravaged Ugarit tells the level of the paper.

MarkoZ
27-05-17, 12:49
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.

Hauteville
27-05-17, 14:55
It seems modern day-Lebanese have acquired HG ancestors compared to the Canaanite samples.

https://s8.postimg.org/ks8ekzc85/0013.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/mwsrm2dup/)free image hosting (https://postimage.io/index.php?lang=italian)

Angela
27-05-17, 17:28
Just forgetting Pelesht/Philistines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Angela
27-05-17, 17:46
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?

Hauteville
27-05-17, 18:49
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.

Promenade
27-05-17, 19:38
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.

berun
27-05-17, 20:00
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).

berun
27-05-17, 20:03
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).

Promenade
27-05-17, 20:37
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.

Cato
27-05-17, 21:44
Some Palestinian kings of the middle bronze age had Indo-Aryan names (Mitanni), obviously they were just a ruling caste while the commoners were indigenous, DNA prove it

https://books.google.it/books?id=oxk7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=l=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZsZ7Z6ZDUAhWGthQKHfoFD58Q6AEINTAC#v=on epage&q&f=false

LeBrok
27-05-17, 22:01
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.

Cato
27-05-17, 23:26
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)

8732

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 00:00
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.

Promenade
28-05-17, 00:37
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.

MOESAN
28-05-17, 00:42
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.

Nothing? Not! But little, yes! a mix of true pop's searching better lands on one hand (with wives and children in wagons) and mercenaries and pirates on the other lands: Philistins "Peleset"(maybe Pelasgians of meta-Italic origin), Acheans (?) "Ahhiyawa",Hittites, other I-E Anatolians West the Hittites, Sicules ? "Skrs", "Shekelesh", Etruscans (Tyrsoi? "Trs", "Teresh") Sardes "Shardana"..., Arzawa, Dardanians (which ones?) : "Drdny" of N-W Anatolia?, Lukka (Lycians?), Kashka "Keshkesh", Ekwesh, Lybians, all that spred on a long enough period, with mercenaries changing side according to times - very confused - it seems a lot were coming from S-W Anatolia but ... could this be the cause of a neat rising of so called 'Steppe' DNA? Uneasy to say... Not evident, I think.

Angela
28-05-17, 01:18
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).I know what Semitic is a branch of...I just found it amusing that the very same people who insisted for so many years that a pastoral, male dominant, society like that on the steppe would never adopt the language of their West Asian wives have absolutely no problem envisioning such a thing when it's a Near Eastern male dominant, pastoral society. :)

Angela
28-05-17, 01:35
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.

OK. However, a lot of people agree with the hypothesis that the Semitic languages arose in the southern Levant. To what period would that be dated? Would the people in the southern Levant at that time have still carried mostly ydna lineages? When and with whom did the Semitic language get to the Akkadians?

Sorry if I'm being dense, but the Semitic languages aren't something in which I have any expertise, and this seems confusing.

Yes, I think 7% steppe is what they're claiming. As Marko explained, the 11-22% referred to the results from supervised admixture. I'm always somewhat leery of supervised admixture runs. So much depends on the person setting it up, because even if it's being done totally honestly and objectively errors are easily made, imo.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 01:45
7% Steppe ancestry seems a lot more reasonable, still I'm not sure if the Macedonians or Persians could've delivered so much.

Yeah, it'd be quite difficult to imagine that a historical event could have caused such a significant shift. I think one of the reason for this apparent change could be that the authors are comparing samples from a single southern Lebanese site to a synthesized modern cluster. In their f4 analysis they find that additional affinity to the Mal'ta Boy and Swiss Bichon most differentiates Lebanese from Sidon_BA, so the modern cluster might simply reflect pre-existing internal diversity. Perhaps it's as simple decreasing Natufian affinity as you go north.

Angela
28-05-17, 02:18
The cities of the Decapolis:
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~mluz/gadara.folder/Decapolis.jpeg

Hellenistic cities of the Near East:
The cities of the Decapolis:
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~mluz/gadara.folder/Decapolis.jpeg

Hellenistic cities of the Near East:
http://maxworldhistory.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/9/9/18994149/7359421_orig.jpg


http://maxworldhistory.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/9/9/18994149/7359421_orig.jpg

Angela
28-05-17, 02:59
Yeah, it'd be quite difficult to imagine that a historical event could have caused such a significant shift. I think one of the reason for this apparent change could be that the authors are comparing samples from a single southern Lebanese site to a synthesized modern cluster. In their f4 analysis they find that additional affinity to the Mal'ta Boy and Swiss Bichon most differentiates Lebanese from Sidon_BA, so the modern cluster might simply reflect pre-existing internal diversity. Perhaps it's as simple decreasing Natufian affinity as you go north.I'm not quite sure I understand, Marko. This sample is from Sidon, which seems to be pretty much in the middle of Lebanon, but at any rate it seems to be very typical of the Bronze Age Levant as a whole.

" 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 anEarly Bronze Age village close to the site.13 This suggests that people from the highly differentiatedurban culture on the Levant coast and inland people with different modes of subsistence werenevertheless genetically similar, supporting previous reports that the different cultural groups whoinhabited the Levant during the Bronze Age, such as the Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites andPhoenicians, each achieved their own cultural identities but all shared a common genetic and ethnicroot with Canaanites.15 Lazaridis et al.13 reported that Jordan_BA can be modelled as mixture ofNeolithic Levant (Levant_N) and Chalcolithic Iran (Iran_ChL)."

Also, haven't the modern Turks been modeled as 15-20% steppe? Given that, I don't think 7% steppe sounds outlandish for Lebanon. One thing that pulls these areas away from Europe are the very high levels of "Iranian" call it Neolithic or Chalcolithic or whatever. The other factor for the Levant populations is SSA. In some analyses the Christian Lebanese have up to 4 and 5%, mostly but not all East African, to the best of my recollection.

The Palestinians pull even further away because of yet more SSA. Part of that may be due to the slave trade, but there are also documented migrations of Bedouin tribes into the area during the Muslim period. SSA ancestry is so divergent that it has a big effect in PCAs, on FST etc.

It will be interesting to see how the Samaritans compare to this ancient sample. If they do cluster with the sample, they might do for a "Levant Jewish" proxy until the real thing comes along.

Interesting again how close the Assyrians and the Iraqi and Iranian Jews are to this sample. I never did buy the idea that these "eastern" Jews picked up a lot of foreign ancestry in Iraqi and Iran over the years. I always believed, instead, that they were probably pretty close to the original "real deal". We have a relatively large community of them in a nearby town and I know a few socially. I'm going to let them know about this study. They'll be thrilled.

Angela
28-05-17, 03:18
This is another interesting bit:
"When we substituted present-day Near Easterners with a panel of 150present-day populations available in the Human Origins dataset, we found only Sardinians andItalian_North shared significantly more alleles with Sidon_BA compared with the Lebanese (Figure S7).Sardinians are known to have retained a large proportion of ancestry from Early European farmers(EEF) and therefore the increased affinity to Sidon_BA could be related to a shared Neolithic ancestry.We computed f4(Lebanese, Sardinian/Italian_North; Sidon_BA, Levant_N) and found no evidence ofincreased affinity of Sardinians or Italian_North to Sidon_BA after the Neolithic (both Z-scores arepositive)."

If this turns out to be correct, Sikeliot will be in mourning. :) He had already asked for the gedmatch number for this sample so he could continue his campaign. What a disappointment!

Anyway, seriously, we've known from numerous papers that the North Italians have among the highest levels of EN ancestry, so this is not really a surprise. These high levels in them and in other Italians may be screwing up a lot of the analysis of Italian populations. Years ago on 23andme some coastal Mediterraneans of all sorts were showing some percentages of "Italian" and couldn't understand it. I responded that although there might be some ancestry related to Roman colonies in North Africa or the Near East, I thought that Italy harbored some very ancient Neolithic ancestry, more than existed in the modern Middle East, and that the "Italian" percentage might be related to that. It seems I might not have been all that far off.

Now, after a day outdoors and too much barbecue, I'm tired. :) I'll go through the supplement tomorrow.

Promenade
28-05-17, 04:40
Sorry if I'm being dense, but the Semitic languages aren't something in which I have any expertise, and this seems confusing.

I am no expert on the Semitic languages either so this is just going to be a few layman’s opinions here. Someone else with more knowledge should also answer your questions. I'm sure there are people here with much more knowledge than me about this, especially regarding your questions about their ydna.


However, a lot of people agree with the hypothesis that the Semitic languages arose in the southern Levant. To what period would that be dated?

With the Natufians, right? I’ve seen some people claim this recently, if so then that would make the Semitic languages over 14,000 years old. That would make Afro-Asiatic languages as a whole considerably old as well.


When and with whom did the Semitic language get to the Akkadians?

Well if I remember correctly the beliefs of the non-Semitic speaking Sumerians they thought they had originated from a mountain range in the north, maybe the Zagros or Taurus Mountains(Someone please correct this if it’s not true). The Semitic speaking Akkadians did not appear until later on in the southern region of the Mesopotamian around 3000bc, so the Semitic language either penetrated into Mesopotamia from the Levant or the Arabian Peninsula. The name of the city "Akkad" is thought to be of non Semitic word as well, so it’s not as if they were indigenous either. I’m not at all sure which civilization or culture would be responsible for introducing them to the area, they probably came from the Levant though. As for what ydna they brought or how much they left, I certainly have no idea.

Before you mentioned how you were confused how a male dominant pastoral culture could adopt the language of another culture. When you mentioned this I thought you were referring to the migration of CHG like ancestry to the Levant that the paper referred to. Of course that doesn't make sense since this CHG population would already have been Semitic speaking(If like the paper suggests it came from the Akkadian Empire). If you are now then wondering how the Semitic Akkadians came to dominate the Sumerians it's clear it was through military conquest. It was warfare between similar urban groups, not a group of pastoralist men being wooed by the language of a group of foreign women they encountered.

davef
28-05-17, 06:33
This is another interesting bit:
"When we substituted present-day Near Easterners with a panel of 150present-day populations available in the Human Origins dataset, we found only Sardinians andItalian_North shared significantly more alleles with Sidon_BA compared with the Lebanese (Figure S7).Sardinians are known to have retained a large proportion of ancestry from Early European farmers(EEF) and therefore the increased affinity to Sidon_BA could be related to a shared Neolithic ancestry.We computed f4(Lebanese, Sardinian/Italian_North; Sidon_BA, Levant_N) and found no evidence ofincreased affinity of Sardinians or Italian_North to Sidon_BA after the Neolithic (both Z-scores arepositive)."

If this turns out to be correct, Sikeliot will be in mourning. :) He had already asked for the gedmatch number for this sample so he could continue his campaign. What a disappointment!

Anyway, seriously, we've known from numerous papers that the North Italians have among the highest levels of EN ancestry, so this is not really a surprise. These high levels in them and in other Italians may be screwing up a lot of the analysis of Italian populations. Years ago on 23andme some coastal Mediterraneans of all sorts were showing some percentages of "Italian" and couldn't understand it. I responded that although there might be some ancestry related to Roman colonies in North Africa or the Near East, I thought that Italy harbored some very ancient Neolithic ancestry, more than existed in the modern Middle East, and that the "Italian" percentage might be related to that. It seems I might not have been all that far off.

Now, after a day outdoors and too much barbecue, I'm tired. :) I'll go through the supplement tomorrow.
Hey wait, does this mean that north Italins are more related to Sidon ba than Lebanese? Because the paper said that Lebanese are like 93 percent Sidon or something.

And barbecue sucks unless its chicken smothered in sauce with macaroni salad.

Go Eupedia this site rules like other things that rule

Actually, even better would be buffalo wings dipped in blue cheese and tortellini stuffed with mozzarella....rigatoni in cheddar or Mac salad works for me. that's my ideal meal. Keep the blue cheese flowing!! Yeah!

Sorry for being off topic

João Soares
28-05-17, 07:01
Go Eupedia this site rules

I agree, it is indeed a good place to freely exchange ideas. (sorry for the off-topic though)

davef
28-05-17, 07:24
I agree, it is indeed a good place to freely exchange ideas. (sorry for the off-topic though)

Not to worry! I agree, any place that allows us to freely exchange ideas is a place for us!

bicicleur
28-05-17, 08:29
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.

this gif shows another interpretation fro the DNA published in the paper

http://www.open-genomes.org/images/Amorites_2600-1700_BCE.gif

the first pic shows the first arrival of haplo J herders from the Taurus Mts or beyond into Semitic territory where they would have switched language

Maciamo
28-05-17, 09:00
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).

I think it's not necessary to assume that the Steppe/EHG admixture came in relatively pure form to the Levant. If it arrives after the Bronze Age, the newcomers would have been admixed with non-Steppe populations. Likewise, it is not compulsory to believe that the Neolithic Levant and Chalcolithic Iran admixture of Bronze Age Levant is the same as the one found in modern Lebanese. Most people assume that modern populations inevitably inherit a big share of the DNA of previous inhabitants to the region. But that is not necessarily the case. If there are been a population in Iran or Mesopotamia that carried a similar mix of Neolithic Levant and Chalcolithic Iran, but also with Steppe/EHG, and that population replaced almost completely the BA Levant population during the Bronze Age, it would be invisible using those simple admixtures.



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.

That's also how I feel. That paper is rather sloppy in its use of admixtures. Not even differentiations. If they don't even bother distinguishing Chalcolithic Iran from Neolithic Iran, or Neolithic Levant from Neolithic Anatolia, how could they ever know if the the population of modern Lebanon is really descended mostly from that of Bronze Age Lebanon? It could be that half or more of the green and orange admixture they reported in modern Lebanese came during the Iron Age (Sea Peoples, Greeks, Romans), or even during the Middle Ages with European crusaders. That would explain why there was such a strong rise in blue EHG/Steppe admixture. On the other hand it doesn't explain the complete lack of pink WHG admixture. So it's more likely that another population, perhaps from LBA or Iron Age Iran, already possessed a blend of blue, green and orange (without any pink), and replaced a big part of the earlier BA population in the Levant. It could have been the Persians, for instance.

It would be interesting to run both BA and modern Lebanese genomes in various calculators to compare them with modern populations and see where that European component in modern Lebanese came from.

Tomenable
28-05-17, 12:11
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.

Invasions of the Sea Peoples in the Mediterranean world was just the last phase of population movements triggered by climate change, which started somewhere throughout Central-Northern (Germany or Bohemia) and Eastern (Ukraine, Black Sea Steppe) Europe. That coincided in time with the expansion of Urnfield cultures and the invention of European Bronze Age sword (for example Reutlingen type swords), as well as with the depopulation of Ukrainian Steppe. Large Bronze Age battle (ca. 4,000 warriors) discovered at the Tollense river in Western Pomerania, was likely part of the early phases of those turbulent events. The beginning of those events (which can be traced by archaeology) was in Northern and Eastern Europe, while their final episodes (the only ones mentioned in written sources) took place in Egypt, Anatolia and in the Levant.

It is reasonable to assume that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European HG admixtures.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 12:16
I'm not quite sure I understand, Marko. This sample is from Sidon, which seems to be pretty much in the middle of Lebanon, but at any rate it seems to be very typical of the Bronze Age Levant as a whole.

I think this begs the question what makes the steppe distinctive and why the authors would try to tease out steppe ancestry in Lebanon in the first place.

In their f4-model MA1 and Swiss HG stick out as a source of admixture post-dating the Bronze Age. A similar trend was detected by Lazaridis whereby Swiss Bichon affinity becomes elevated in Jordan_ BA as compared to Natufian. IMHO, rather than some exotic admixture this signifies that there was a gradual resurgence of the WHG-like substratum following Natufian. The same thing that happened in the European Late Neolithic.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 12:26
Invasions of the Sea Peoples in the Mediterranean world was just the last phase of population movements triggered by climate change, which started somewhere throughout Central-Northern (Germany or Bohemia) and Eastern (Ukraine, Black Sea Steppe) Europe. That coincided in time with the expansion of Urnfield cultures and the invention of European Bronze Age sword (for example Reutlingen type swords), as well as with the depopulation of Ukrainian Steppe. Large Bronze Age battle (ca. 4,000 warriors) discovered at the Tollense river in Western Pomerania, was likely part of the early phases of those turbulent events. The beginning of those events (which can be traced by archaeology) was in Northern and Eastern Europe, while their final episodes (the only ones mentioned in written sources) took place in Egypt, Anatolia and in the Levant.

It is reasonable to assume that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European HG admixtures.

Nordic Sea Peoples :rolleyes2:

kingjohn
28-05-17, 15:57
modern lebanese have
the ehg steppe blue component
but not the pink whg component
https://postimg.org/image/mwsrm2dup/

berun
28-05-17, 16:54
Invasions of the Sea Peoples in the Mediterranean world was just the last phase of population movements triggered by climate change, which started somewhere throughout Central-Northern (Germany or Bohemia) and Eastern (Ukraine, Black Sea Steppe) Europe. That coincided in time with the expansion of Urnfield cultures and the invention of European Bronze Age sword (for example Reutlingen type swords), as well as with the depopulation of Ukrainian Steppe. Large Bronze Age battle (ca. 4,000 warriors) discovered at the Tollense river in Western Pomerania, was likely part of the early phases of those turbulent events. The beginning of those events (which can be traced by archaeology) was in Northern and Eastern Europe, while their final episodes (the only ones mentioned in written sources) took place in Egypt, Anatolia and in the Levant.

It is reasonable to assume that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European HG admixtures.

I agree with that, even geography is quite clear:

8737

The focus was in the Balkans: Dorians got the Mycaeneans, Phrygians got Hittites, Ekwesh (Achaeans) were also one of the Sea Peoples, Lukka (Lycia) could get her name from a Sea People or to be more old, Sea Peoples atrtacked Egypt and Levant from the islands (Crete, Cyprus), Peleset stablished in Palestine, the same for Shekelesh in Sicily, Shardana in Sardinia, Teresh in Etruria (leaving Pelasgian / Lemnian in the Aegean)... even a Semitic people, the Arameans, profited the havoc created by the Sea Peoples to rule over the Levant.

And the map of the 4rth genetic component of Europeans I think it was related to these peoples already.

8738

Angela
28-05-17, 17:34
I am no expert on the Semitic languages either so this is just going to be a few layman’s opinions here. Someone else with more knowledge should also answer your questions. I'm sure there are people here with much more knowledge than me about this, especially regarding your questions about their ydna.



With the Natufians, right? I’ve seen some people claim this recently, if so then that would make the Semitic languages over 14,000 years old. That would make Afro-Asiatic languages as a whole considerably old as well.



Well if I remember correctly the beliefs of the non-Semitic speaking Sumerians they thought they had originated from a mountain range in the north, maybe the Zagros or Taurus Mountains(Someone please correct this if it’s not true). The Semitic speaking Akkadians did not appear until later on in the southern region of the Mesopotamian around 3000bc, so the Semitic language either penetrated into Mesopotamia from the Levant or the Arabian Peninsula. The name of the city "Akkad" is thought to be of non Semitic word as well, so it’s not as if they were indigenous either. I’m not at all sure which civilization or culture would be responsible for introducing them to the area, they probably came from the Levant though. As for what ydna they brought or how much they left, I certainly have no idea.

Before you mentioned how you were confused how a male dominant pastoral culture could adopt the language of another culture. When you mentioned this I thought you were referring to the migration of CHG like ancestry to the Levant that the paper referred to. Of course that doesn't make sense since this CHG population would already have been Semitic speaking(If like the paper suggests it came from the Akkadian Empire). If you are now then wondering how the Semitic Akkadians came to dominate the Sumerians it's clear it was through military conquest. It was warfare between similar urban groups, not a group of pastoralist men being wooed by the language of a group of foreign women they encountered.

Thanks, Promenade. I also hope a linguist pops in to help us out. :)

Angela
28-05-17, 17:44
this gif shows another interpretation fro the DNA published in the paper

http://www.open-genomes.org/images/Amorites_2600-1700_BCE.gif

the first pic shows the first arrival of haplo J herders from the Taurus Mts or beyond into Semitic territory where they would have switched languageThanks, Bicicleur, except how do I get the slides to stop?! :) That brings me back to my original point, though. Why would a pastoral, patriarchal culture, which arrived in numbers large enough to eventually account for half of the ancestry of the area, something comparable to the effect of the steppe migrations in northern Europe, have adopted the language of a subject people?

The prior scenario doesn't quite work for me, either, as I pointed out above. If Semitic arose in the southern Levant, the Akkadians may have brought Iran Ch. with them along with the J lineages, but they didn't bring Semitic languages with them, since they were already there.

Of course, if Semitic arose somewhere north of the southern Levant there's no problem, but that would set up howls among linguists, I imagine.

holderlin
28-05-17, 17:45
Regarding the appearance of the "Steppe" or whatever Eurasian component in Canaanite samples after around 1000BC:

The precise identity of The Sea People's in unknown, yes, but the broad picture of the collapse of the power centers in the Levant at the end of the Bronze age is well characterized and it clearly has something to do with the Aegean.

Before that we have Aryans in the area, and after all of that we have Hellenic conquests.

So pick your source of Eurasian. There's plenty of options.

Angela
28-05-17, 18:12
I don't see anything at all reasonable about assuming that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European hg. They may have, or they may not.

"Names of the tribes which comprised the Sea Peoples have been given in Egyptian records as the Sherden, the Sheklesh, Lukka, Tursha and Akawasha. Outside Egypt, they also assaulted the regions of the Hittite (http://www.ancient.eu/hittite/) Empire (http://www.ancient.eu/empire/), the Levant (http://www.ancient.eu/levant/), and other areas around the Mediterranean coast. Their origin and identity has been suggested (and debated) to be Etruscan (http://www.ancient.eu/etruscan/)/Trojan to Italian, Philistine, Mycenaen and even Minoan (http://www.ancient.eu/Minoan/) but, as no accounts discovered thus far shed any more light on the question than what is presently known, any such claims must remain mere conjecture. "

http://www.ancient.eu/Sea_Peoples/

Hopefully, ancient dna will tell us.

In the meantime, could we try to not interpret everything so that it fits some noxious agenda?

@davef,
it might be more helpful both for you and for us if you spent more time studying statistics than posting nonsense.

holderlin
28-05-17, 18:20
Invasions of the Sea Peoples in the Mediterranean world was just the last phase of population movements triggered by climate change, which started somewhere throughout Central-Northern (Germany or Bohemia) and Eastern (Ukraine, Black Sea Steppe) Europe. That coincided in time with the expansion of Urnfield cultures and the invention of European Bronze Age sword (for example Reutlingen type swords), as well as with the depopulation of Ukrainian Steppe. Large Bronze Age battle (ca. 4,000 warriors) discovered at the Tollense river in Western Pomerania, was likely part of the early phases of those turbulent events. The beginning of those events (which can be traced by archaeology) was in Northern and Eastern Europe, while their final episodes (the only ones mentioned in written sources) took place in Egypt, Anatolia and in the Levant.

It is reasonable to assume that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European HG admixtures.

I wasn't going to trace it that far North, mainly because people on here get sensitive about anything to do with a North-South trajectory in general, but there's definitely evidence that this was the trigger of the BAC.

Angela
28-05-17, 18:37
I wasn't going to trace it that far North, mainly because people on here get sensitive about anything to do with a North-South trajectory in general, but there's definitely evidence that this was the trigger of the BAC.Yes, indeed, people who insist on following the data objectively and scrupulously, and not making wild assumptions, are the ones operating out of subjective "sensitivity". Instead, the unsupported opinions of someone who has shown himself again and again to be a Nordicist are correct. Bunk. If I weren't a lady and this were a private conversation I'd use stronger language. Come on back sometime when you have proof I've ever fudged data, or misrepresented it.

holderlin
28-05-17, 19:04
I don't see anything at all reasonable about assuming that the Sea Peoples had a lot of European hg. They may have, or they may not.

"Names of the tribes which comprised the Sea Peoples have been given in Egyptian records as the Sherden, the Sheklesh, Lukka, Tursha and Akawasha. Outside Egypt, they also assaulted the regions of the Hittite (http://www.ancient.eu/hittite/)Empire (http://www.ancient.eu/empire/), the Levant (http://www.ancient.eu/levant/), and other areas around the Mediterranean coast. Their origin and identity has been suggested (and debated) to be Etruscan (http://www.ancient.eu/etruscan/)/Trojan to Italian, Philistine, Mycenaen and even Minoan (http://www.ancient.eu/Minoan/) but, as no accounts discovered thus far shed any more light on the question than what is presently known, any such claims must remain mere conjecture. "

http://www.ancient.eu/Sea_Peoples/

Hopefully, ancient dna will tell us.

In the meantime, could we try to not interpret everything so that it fits some noxious agenda?

@davef,
it might be more helpful both for you and for us if you spent more time studying statistics than posting nonsense.

Sea Peoples were only one historical group associated with destruction of the Levantine power centers capping off the bronze age.

holderlin
28-05-17, 19:06
Yes, indeed, people who insist on following the data objectively and scrupulously, and not making wild assumptions, are the ones operating out of subjective "sensitivity". Instead, the unsupported opinions of someone who has shown himself again and again to be a Nordicist are correct. Bunk. If I weren't a lady and this were a private conversation I'd use stronger language. Come on back sometime when you have proof I've ever fudged data, or misrepresented it.

I wasn't talking about you specifically and I've said before that I understand the general resistance to anything that supports the old pseudo-scientific racism, but it does get annoying when I'm reluctant to bring up certain pieces of evidence.

LeBrok
28-05-17, 19:24
I think it's not necessary to assume that the Steppe/EHG admixture came in relatively pure form to the Levant. If it arrives after the Bronze Age, the newcomers would have been admixed with non-Steppe populations. Likewise, it is not compulsory to believe that the Neolithic Levant and Chalcolithic Iran admixture of Bronze Age Levant is the same as the one found in modern Lebanese. Most people assume that modern populations inevitably inherit a big share of the DNA of previous inhabitants to the region. But that is not necessarily the case. If there are been a population in Iran or Mesopotamia that carried a similar mix of Neolithic Levant and Chalcolithic Iran, but also with Steppe/EHG, and that population replaced almost completely the BA Levant population during the Bronze Age, it would be invisible using those simple admixtures.



That's also how I feel. That paper is rather sloppy in its use of admixtures. Not even differentiations. If they don't even bother distinguishing Chalcolithic Iran from Neolithic Iran, or Neolithic Levant from Neolithic Anatolia, how could they ever know if the the population of modern Lebanon is really descended mostly from that of Bronze Age Lebanon? It could be that half or more of the green and orange admixture they reported in modern Lebanese came during the Iron Age (Sea Peoples, Greeks, Romans), or even during the Middle Ages with European crusaders. That would explain why there was such a strong rise in blue EHG/Steppe admixture. On the other hand it doesn't explain the complete lack of pink WHG admixture. So it's more likely that another population, perhaps from LBA or Iron Age Iran, already possessed a blend of blue, green and orange (without any pink), and replaced a big part of the earlier BA population in the Levant. It could have been the Persians, for instance. Right, by standards of this paper modern Lebanese might be easily descendents of BA Armenians, as they have similar amount of same admixtures. Had they use more detailed/simpler admixtures, we would have known right away.


It would be interesting to run both BA and modern Lebanese genomes in various calculators to compare them with modern populations and see where that European component in modern Lebanese came from.
I have modern Lebanese in HarappaWorld and they only show about 5% of what could come from Steppe/EHG/WHG. (NE Euro is at 3%)

Sile
28-05-17, 19:56
Sea Peoples were only one historical group associated with destruction of the Levantine power centers capping off the bronze age.

some scholars state these sea-peoples originate from sicily and calabria ...............some from the fall of mycenean greece due to the invasion of the Dorians.

Clearly wherever they are from , the levant "western european " admixture was introduced via these peoples.

Sile
28-05-17, 20:05
every haplogroup originating from haplogroup F came from north of the Zargos mountains

also - northern levant was Luwian non-semitic language until ~1000BC when the phoenicians came and settled there. So this chit-chat of semetic always being in the northern levant is false.

Haplogroup F, also known as F-M89 and previously as Haplogroup FT is a very common Y-chromosome haplogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup). The clade and its subclades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subclade) constitute over 90% of paternal lineages outside of Africa. It is primarily found throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia and parts of East Asia.
The vast majority of individual males with F-M89 fall into its direct descendant Haplogroup GHIJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_GHIJK) (F1329/M3658/PF2622/YSC0001299).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F-M89#cite_note-isogg2015-8) in addition to GHIJK, haplogroup F has three other immediate descendant subclades: F1 (P91/P104), F2 (M427/M428), and F3 (M481). These three, with F* (M89*), constitute the paragroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup) F(xGHIJK).
Haplogroup GHIJK branches subsequently into two direct descendants: G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_%28Y-DNA%29) (M201/PF2957) and HIJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_HIJK) (F929/M578/PF3494/S6397). HIJK in turn splits into H (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28Y-DNA%29) (L901/M2939) and IJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJK_%28Y-DNA%29) (F-L15). The descendants of Haplogroup IJK include haplogroups I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29), J (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_%28Y-DNA%29), K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_%28Y-DNA%29), and, ultimately, several major haplogroups descended from Haplogroup K, namely: haplogroups M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_%28Y-DNA%29), N (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_%28Y-DNA%29), O (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O_%28Y-DNA%29), P (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_P_%28Y-DNA%29), Q (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_%28Y-DNA%29), R (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29), S (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_S_%28Y-DNA%29), L (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29), and T (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29).

Angela
28-05-17, 20:07
I have modern Lebanese in HarappaWorld and they only show about 5% of what could come from Steppe/EHG/WHG. (NE Euro is at 3%)

That seems to be in line with their 7%, yes? If half of their "Yamnaya" is CHG then NE Euro as a proxy at 3% would also work. Given the purported lack of WHG it would all be EHG presumably.

Angela
28-05-17, 20:21
I wasn't talking about you specifically and I've said before that I understand the general resistance to anything that supports the old pseudo-scientific racism, but it does get annoying when I'm reluctant to bring up certain pieces of evidence.Why should you be reluctant to bring it up? The fact that an idea is supported by racists doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong; it just means that if the "facts" are presented by known racists with an agenda, then they're what we call "impeached" witnesses, and their claims have to be carefully examined to make sure they are indeed accurate.

In this particular context, of course the Sea Peoples could have come from more north in the Balkans originally and thus could have carried some of this ancestry. The operative words are "could have". The Sea Peoples could also have come from Crete, or Sicily, or Sardinia. How much would they have had? Different groups might have gone to different places.

We just don't know. That's why Tomenable's comment was so over the top, but utterly predictable at the same time. That's why it has gotten a negative response. We can't possibly assume that the ones who went to the Levant had large amounts of this kind of ancestry. It's certainly possible, of course. Nor can we assume the Sea People's brought all of it even if they had a lot of it, given all the Greek and Roman influx into the area.

That's it; I fail to see how it's illogical or agenda driven in any way.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 22:04
That seems to be in line with their 7%, yes? If half of their "Yamnaya" is CHG then NE Euro as a proxy at 3% would also work. Given the purported lack of WHG it would all be EHG presumably.

Does that really work, though? Wouldn't the East European component absorb other non-EHG admixtures? And wouldn't the historical presence of Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Sea Peoples have imparted at least some WHG of European derivation on the Lebanese population?

holderlin
29-05-17, 03:49
Why should you be reluctant to bring it up? The fact that an idea is supported by racists doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong; it just means that if the "facts" are presented by known racists with an agenda, then they're what we call "impeached" witnesses, and their claims have to be carefully examined to make sure they are indeed accurate.

In this particular context, of course the Sea Peoples could have come from more north in the Balkans originally and thus could have carried some of this ancestry. The operative words are "could have". The Sea Peoples could also have come from Crete, or Sicily, or Sardinia. How much would they have had? Different groups might have gone to different places.

We just don't know. That's why Tomenable's comment was so over the top, but utterly predictable at the same time. That's why it has gotten a negative response. We can't possibly assume that the ones who went to the Levant had large amounts of this kind of ancestry. It's certainly possible, of course. Nor can we assume the Sea People's brought all of it even if they had a lot of it, given all the Greek and Roman influx into the area.

That's it; I fail to see how it's illogical or agenda driven in any way.

The facts are that there is a ton of evidence tracing the source of the BAC migrations to Europe, and the fact that Tomenable's post ellicited such a response is only proof of my comment that people on here get sensitive about certain claims, BUT, I also said that I understand why. And I also know that other sites are full of racists that pounce on anything opposed to a migrations of a white master race from North East Europe to explain anything to do with IEs.

As I said, the Sea Peoples were only one historically attested group involved in the BAC. This was mostly in Egyptian records as well so we would be wise to assume that this was only a fraction of the whole of migrations of people laying waste to the Levant and Anatolia.

We have all sorts of what appear to be Central European and definitely Aegean stuff in and above ash layers associated with BAC destruction in several Levantine cities.

Remember that the first real slashing weapons come out of the Aegean at around this time. I don't think that is a coincidence.

bicicleur
29-05-17, 07:22
there is a new study to be published from the Ghasulian, the Levant chalcolithic
this population would have dissapeared and not be part of the bronze age populations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassulian

http://sohp.fas.harvard.edu/files/shp/files/young_investigator_symposium_abstracts_10.29.16.pd f

https://scontent.fbru1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18768568_10155495562736802_8292227690702754234_o.j pg?oh=7fca1e67194ea2b400e83ece070cac08&oe=59B29C44
it looks like that also the Levant experienced many successive waves of replacement, but till late bronze age the origin of the replacements seem to be coming from more or less the same directions (haplo J with CHG components)
the people of the BAC clearly came from another direction

Nik
29-05-17, 08:00
So from which direction do you think did haplogroup J mostly come from?

Maciamo
29-05-17, 08:50
Right, by standards of this paper modern Lebanese might be easily descendents of BA Armenians, as they have similar amount of same admixtures. Had they use more detailed/simpler admixtures, we would have known right away.

Actually I do think that an Ido-Europeanised population from further east in West Asia, probably an Indo-Iranian tribe like the Persian, did contribute a great deal to the genetics of the modern Levant. How else to explain all the R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2103 and Q1b1? Not to mention the Steppe/EHG admixture that we now know was absent until at least c. 1600 BCE in the Levant.



I have modern Lebanese in HarappaWorld and they only show about 5% of what could come from Steppe/EHG/WHG. (NE Euro is at 3%)

What European admixture do they have except NE Euro? Do they have a bit of Siberian/Central Asian admixture that we could link to Q1b1?

Hauteville
29-05-17, 09:47
The question is: do those Canaanites be a good proxy for ancient Phoenician navigators of they were alterated by Sea Peoples?or they were just Sea Peoples who returned westward?or modern Lebanese are a proxy for ancient Phoenicians? A rebus without certain aDNA.

bicicleur
29-05-17, 11:30
So from which direction do you think did haplogroup J mostly come from?

IMO haplo J was in Epigravettian Tanscaucasia during LGM and from there expanded into the Zagros Mts during mesolithic, but this Epigravettian was also spotted in some places in mesolithic Anatolia
from the Zagros they expanded south and west to the Taurus Mts as herders during the early neolithic, some probably even got east across the Iranian platteau into the Indus Valley
they seem also related to some chalcolithic expansions from the Zagros Mts, so by the bronze age they were in many places

bicicleur
29-05-17, 11:37
I wasn't going to trace it that far North, mainly because people on here get sensitive about anything to do with a North-South trajectory in general, but there's definitely evidence that this was the trigger of the BAC.

I have seen some Nordicism here indeed, but I also noticed every one here has his own preferences and biasses.
It is human and natural.
I consider pride a good thing, as long as it doesn't get in the way of one's intelligence.
It is not usefull to discuss here who has which preferences.
It is more important that every body finds this out for himself.

Angela
29-05-17, 13:18
Does that really work, though? Wouldn't the East European component absorb other non-EHG admixtures? And wouldn't the historical presence of Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Sea Peoples have imparted at least some WHG of European derivation on the Lebanese population?Yes, clearly the East European component does contain other elements besides Yamnaya. That's why, imo, using an admixture calculator based on modern populations is only going to give you clues, not actual percentages. It's not really the best way to analyze this. You need formal stats for that.

@Hauteville,
I hate to keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but only ancient dna will tell us. If the Philistines carried a decent amount of "Yamnaya like" ancestry (approximately half and half EHG and CHG), then it very well could have changed the profile of the later Phoenicians. It might not completely match the dna of modern Lebanese, however, because they might have picked up additional "Yamnaya like" ancestry from Greeks during the Hellenistic period.

Angela
29-05-17, 13:28
Razib Khan has a good blog post on the paper:

The Canaanites walk among us:

https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/26/the-canaanites-walk-among-us/

"The admixture plot above reflects the five individuals from Sidon dating to about ~1750 BCE. They are about a 50:50 mix of western and eastern farmer. Though they seem to be genetically rather similar to modern Lebanese (the authors sampled Lebanese Christians in particular), there have been some changes between the Bronze Age and the modern period. In particular, a genetic component that seems to be related to the Eurasian steppe is present in modern Lebanese. Explicit admixture estimates give a range of 5-10% mixing into a ~90-95% Bronze Age ancestral background."

"Though looking at Muslim populations one can see minor and non-trivial contributions of populations which moved in after Islam (Sub-Saharan and East Asia segments are clear signs of slavery impacting Muslims that would not apply to ethno-religious minorities), most of the ancestry broadly is deeply rooted back to antiquity."

"Because of sampling issues one can’t estimate admixture between eastern and western farmers just from looking at ancient DNA transects. We don’t have the density that we have in Europe (yet). So the authors used a more classic inference technique looking at decays of linkage disequilibrium in the genome. In short you can see how many generations that a pulse admixture between two populations occurred by looking at correlations of variants across the genome. The authors arrive at the intervals above, and in particular focus on the period that seems to overlap with the rise and fall of the empire of Sargon of Akkad and correlated with a climatic disruption."

"I suspect they are wrong here. First, it seems pretty clear to me that LD based admixtures assuming a pulse event have a bias toward underestimating values. There are theoretical reasons (http://www.genetics.org/content/201/1/243) for this. So usually I pad the mid-point value across the interval on these estimates."

" I believe that the massive western-eastern farmer admixture occurred between 3600 and 3100 BCE, during the Uruk Expansion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period#Uruk_expansion). The evidence of lower Mesopotamian influence and demographic settlement in places as far afield as Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Syria, are well attested from the archaeology of this period. This was was a time when a very complex and sophisticated civilization emerged almost de novo across much of the Near East. I believe that a prehistoric expansion of Sumerian civilization mediated the merging of eastern and western farmers, though some of the mixing pre-dates and post-dates the Uruk Expansion and collapse (e.g., the movement of western farmer ancestry into Mesopotamia seems certain to have occurred through the arrival of groups like the Amorites)."

"What about the second ancestral component? Drilling down on the Y chromosomes of the Levant, R1b seems to far outnumber R1a, though the R1a clades are all of the Asian/Scythian Z-93 branch which is dominant in Central Asia and the Levant. The R1a may have come with the Persians, but in region of the western Levant for several hundred years after the period of the Bronze Age Sidon samples there was a state, the Mitanni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni), which clearly had an Indo-Aryan ruling class.An Aegean influence occurred multiple times. First, at the end of the Bronze Age many of the “Sea Peoples” were clearly of Aegean origin, and so may have brought steppe-like ancestry. Second, there was the long period under Hellenistic and Roman rule, when Greek and non-Greek ethnic identity existed side by side, and movement occurred in both directions. I think only ancient DNA will answer this question, and it may be that there were multiple post-Bronze Age inputs of genes which shaped modern Levantines."

MarkoZ
29-05-17, 13:43
How do adherents of the SSA aDNA = slavery explain the 3-5% in Western Jews detected in Moorjani (2011)?

kingjohn
29-05-17, 14:13
in western jews
it is east african admixture this admixture is also present in
samaritans ...
someone ask from where j come from
it came from the north.....
we see E in natufians and neolithic levant
yet not in the bronze age jordan and in those sidon samples
but we know that in 1200-1080 bc E was present in armenia .......
so i think 2 samples males is not enough we need much to know ....

Angela
29-05-17, 14:14
How do adherents of the SSA aDNA = slavery explain the 3-5% in Western Jews detected in Moorjani (2011)?

I think, just going by memory, that Muslim Lebanese (and Palestinians, Jordanians, etc.) have both SSA as in West African type ancestry, and East African ancestry as well, with the SSA usually attributed to slavery. (Interestingly, the Muslims also have more "European" type dna as well, also attributed usually to slavery.) I'm not sure that's completely accurate, though, in that slaves, particularly female slaves, sometimes came from East Africa.

Religious minorities like the Druze, Alawites, etc. as well as the Christians, have a lower total "African" percentage, and it's almost always East African.

The Jews, again from what I remember, have mostly East African, but I'm not sure. I do remember reading that they also have a bit of SSA, and that's usually attributed to admixture with North African Jews and the Sephardic Jews who more often mixed with them.

As for Moorjani, didn't they tacitly admit in later papers that those percentages were inflated? What I usually see proposed for Ashkenazim is about 1% isn't it, and slightly more for Sephardim?

kingjohn
29-05-17, 14:28
angela yes correct
i score 1.2% in eurogenes k13
and it is all east african ......
and i think in dstats test which is more presice i might show show 0%
i can give you samritans and lebanese christian gedmatch kits number
and you can check there % of east african ...

p.s
ok i check a full samaritan ISRAELITE SAMARITAN (TRIBE OF EPHRAIM) score 1.99 % north east africa in gedmatch eurogenes k13
a full palestinian muslem score 3.8% north east african and only 0.5% sub sharan
the diffrence between him and the samaritans kit is that he score 6.5% atlantic a european admixture ....

Angela
01-06-17, 22:44
Anyone take a look at Genetiker's admixture analysis? Has he done a more recent one using the new ancient samples?

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/k-12-admixture-analysis-of-ancient-near-eastern-genomes/

bicicleur
01-06-17, 23:21
this is the more recent

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-neolithic-estonian-genomes/

it doesn't include the many new genomes published last month yet

curiouscat
15-08-17, 16:46
angela yes correct i score 1.2% in eurogenes k13 and it is all east african ...... and i think in dstats test which is more presice i might show show 0% i can give you samritans and lebanese christian gedmatch kits number and you can check there % of east african ... p.s ok i check a full samaritan ISRAELITE SAMARITAN (TRIBE OF EPHRAIM) score 1.99 % north east africa in gedmatch eurogenes k13 a full palestinian muslem score 3.8% north east african and only 0.5% sub sharan the diffrence between him and the samaritans kit is that he score 6.5% atlantic a european admixture .... Even Ashkenazi Jews have up to 3% Saharan African Previous genetic studies have suggested a history of sub-Saharan African gene flow into some West Eurasian populations after the initial dispersal out of Africa that occurred at least 45,000 years ago. However, there has been no accurate characterization of the proportion of mixture, or of its date. We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.

xiaodragon
20-06-18, 21:28
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

xiaodragon
20-06-18, 21:35
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: this seems to be the 4200 event, called 4,200 years event.

xiaodragon
20-06-18, 21:37
evidence ; Bronze of Levante (Spanish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language): Bronce de Levante) is the name of the proto-Iberian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians) culture extending approximately over the Region of Valencia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_(autonomous_community)) (Spanish Levante (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Levante)) in the 2nd millennium BCE. It is contemporary with the El Argar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Argar) culture by which it is strongly influenced.Between c. 1500 and 1300 BCE, the people of this culture colonized La Mancha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mancha) with military constructions called Motillas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motillas). a result of the 4200 event , that 200 years of cooling caused big flood in China 's Qinghai Ledu Lajia disaster, which is labelled Oriental Pompeii.

Pygmalion
20-06-18, 23:58
every haplogroup originating from haplogroup F came from north of the Zargos mountains

also - northern levant was Luwian non-semitic language until ~1000BC when the phoenicians came and settled there. So this chit-chat of semetic always being in the northern levant is false.

Haplogroup F, also known as F-M89 and previously as Haplogroup FT is a very common Y-chromosome haplogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup). The clade and its subclades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subclade) constitute over 90% of paternal lineages outside of Africa. It is primarily found throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia and parts of East Asia.
The vast majority of individual males with F-M89 fall into its direct descendant Haplogroup GHIJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_GHIJK) (F1329/M3658/PF2622/YSC0001299).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F-M89#cite_note-isogg2015-8) in addition to GHIJK, haplogroup F has three other immediate descendant subclades: F1 (P91/P104), F2 (M427/M428), and F3 (M481). These three, with F* (M89*), constitute the paragroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup) F(xGHIJK).
Haplogroup GHIJK branches subsequently into two direct descendants: G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_%28Y-DNA%29) (M201/PF2957) and HIJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_HIJK) (F929/M578/PF3494/S6397). HIJK in turn splits into H (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28Y-DNA%29) (L901/M2939) and IJK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJK_%28Y-DNA%29) (F-L15). The descendants of Haplogroup IJK include haplogroups I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29), J (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_%28Y-DNA%29), K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_%28Y-DNA%29), and, ultimately, several major haplogroups descended from Haplogroup K, namely: haplogroups M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_%28Y-DNA%29), N (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_%28Y-DNA%29), O (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O_%28Y-DNA%29), P (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_P_%28Y-DNA%29), Q (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_%28Y-DNA%29), R (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29), S (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_S_%28Y-DNA%29), L (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29), and T (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29).
By reading the ancient Egyptian texts it is clear that the "sea peoples" were never an unified group but a variety of different populations, the ancient Egyptians even specified it "peoples coming from all the Northen lands" so they didn't originate from one single place. Now it's evident that there was an Aegean and Cypriot component, that's undeniable from their material culture and the Cypriot component being there is supported not only by the material culture but also by textual and undeniable iconographic evidence. The Italic and Sardinian component (Shekelesh and Shardana) is also very likely given the finds gathered in the last decades, because it is in the late bronze age that South italy and Sardinia started trading directly and frequently with the Eastern Mediterranean, and it's in the late bronze age that both Sardinian and South italian presence is attested in the Eastern Mediterranean in the period of the sea peoples invasions. The links between Sardinia and Cyprus are extremely strong during the late bronze age, while the presence of Italic cetona swords in Ugarit and Cyprus is also undeniable, and the presence of Italic mercenaries is attested in the Levant since the 14th century bc with the Pertosa sword from the Uluburun wreck. Now, obviously Anatolian Lycians played a role too in this and even the Libyans played a role since Egyptian texts prove their involvement with the sea peoples during the reign of Merneptah and the Lycians were reported to raid Egypt along with the peoples of Cyprus during the Amarna period and later under Merneptah with the Libyans, the Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Sherden and Tursha, so we know that people as far apart as the Libyans and Lycians collaborated. This confirms again the idea that it was very different tribes speaking different languages coming together and not a single ethnicity, and I should also remark that there were different waves starting as raids in the late 14th century bc and turning into full fledged mass migrations by the late 13th-early 12th century bc, these invasions comprised different peoples, sometimes some names reappeared, sometimes they didn't, and they also attacked from different directions.

every haplogroup originating from haplogroup F came from north of the Zargos mountains

also - northern levant was Luwian non-semitic language until ~1000BC when the phoenicians came and settled there. So this chit-chat of semetic always being in the northern levant is false.
So Ebla, Alalakh, Ugarit, Alab etc didn't exist according to you? Also you're probably confusing the Phoenicians with the Arameans, oh, and it's spelled Semitic.

CrazyDonkey
19-09-18, 03:12
And Tripoli (1109), Beirut (1110), Sidon (1110), and Tyre (1124) were captured by the Crusaders (Franks, Germans, etc.).