bronze age sidon {lebanon dna paper}

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.
 
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.

[FONT=&quot]"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 [/FONT]Hittite[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Empire[FONT=&quot], the [/FONT]Levant[FONT=&quot], and other areas around the Mediterranean coast. Their origin and identity has been suggested (and debated) to be [/FONT]Etruscan[FONT=&quot]/Trojan to Italian, Philistine, Mycenaen and even [/FONT]Minoan[FONT=&quot] 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. "

[/FONT]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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 HittiteEmpire, the Levant, and other areas around the Mediterranean coast. Their origin and identity has been suggested (and debated) to be Etruscan/Trojan to Italian, Philistine, Mycenaen and even 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.
 
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.
 
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%)
 
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.
 
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. The clade and its subclades 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 (F1329/M3658/PF2622/YSC0001299).[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 F(xGHIJK).
Haplogroup GHIJK branches subsequently into two direct descendants: G (M201/PF2957) and HIJK (F929/M578/PF3494/S6397). HIJK in turn splits into H (L901/M2939) and IJK (F-L15). The descendants of Haplogroup IJK include haplogroups I, J, K, and, ultimately, several major haplogroups descended from Haplogroup K, namely: haplogroups M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, L, and T.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.pdf

18768568_10155495562736802_8292227690702754234_o.jpg

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
 
So from which direction do you think did haplogroup J mostly come from?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 44046 times.

Back
Top