The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2020)

[Regio X]

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant

Highlights
- Analysis of genome-wide data for nine sites from the Bronze Age Southern Levant
- Contemporaneous samples from multiple sites are genetically similar
- Migration from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE
- People related to these individuals contributed to all present-day Levantine populations

Summary
We report genome-wide DNA data for 73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant. These individuals, who share the “Canaanite” material culture, can be modeled as descending from two sources: (1) earlier local Neolithic populations and (2) populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros or the Bronze Age Caucasus. The non-local contribution increased over time, as evinced by three outliers who can be modeled as descendants of recent migrants. We show evidence that different “Canaanite” groups genetically resemble each other more than other populations. We find that Levant-related modern populations typically have substantial ancestry coming from populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros and the Bronze Age Southern Levant. These groups also harbor ancestry from sources we cannot fully model with the available data, highlighting the critical role of post-Bronze-Age migrations into the region over the past 3,000 years.

 

[Angela]

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant

Highlights
- Analysis of genome-wide data for nine sites from the Bronze Age Southern Levant
- Contemporaneous samples from multiple sites are genetically similar
- Migration from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE
- People related to these individuals contributed to all present-day Levantine populations

Summary
We report genome-wide DNA data for 73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant. These individuals, who share the “Canaanite” material culture, can be modeled as descending from two sources: (1) earlier local Neolithic populations and (2) populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros or the Bronze Age Caucasus. The non-local contribution increased over time, as evinced by three outliers who can be modeled as descendants of recent migrants. We show evidence that different “Canaanite” groups genetically resemble each other more than other populations. We find that Levant-related modern populations typically have substantial ancestry coming from populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros and the Bronze Age Southern Levant. These groups also harbor ancestry from sources we cannot fully model with the available data, highlighting the critical role of post-Bronze-Age migrations into the region over the past 3,000 years.

Sounds like Iran Neo, or not?

Plus, there's something extra they can't pinpoint.

Hope at least the Supplement is available. I'll read it with interest.

Do they test the various varieties of Jews for it?

 

[Regio X]

Sounds like Iran Neo, or not?

Plus, there's something extra they can't pinpoint.

Hope at least the Supplement is available. I'll read it with interest.

Do they test the various varieties of Jews for it?

Apparently the paper is "open access".

Supplemental: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6#secsectitle0190

As for the types of Jews, I confess I don't know. I didn't read it yet.

ED: Btw, could you move this thread to Bronze Age sub-forum, please?

 

[Angela]

Tuscans 30-40% MegiddoML Bronze Age plus Iran Chl. ?

They're going to have to do a hell of a job convincing me of that.

Does it occur to them that this composite contains a lot of Anatolia Neolithic, and they should break it up into component parts?

 

[kingdavid]

Apparently the paper is "open access".

Supplemental: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6#secsectitle0190

As for the types of Jews, I confess I don't know. I didn't read it yet.

ED: Btw, could you move this thread to Bronze Age sub-forum, please?

yes from another forum :
thats before the Israelite probably Canaanites

y dna + mtdna

I4521 Megiddo_IBA 2334-2149 calBCE (3810±20 BP, PSUAMS-2167) J

I10268 Megiddo_MLBA 1971-1782 calBCE (3560±20 BP, OS-139225) J

I10104 Megiddo_MLBA 1950-1800 BCE J

I4519 Megiddo_MLBA 1527-1439 calBCE (3220±20 BP, OS-139223) J2a1b1

I2190 Megiddo_MLBA 1496-1302 calBCE (3135±30 BP, Poz-83433) J

I8187 Megiddo_MLBA 1800-1650 BCE J1a2b

I8188 Megiddo_MLBA 1800-1650 BCE J1a2b

I10359 Megiddo_MLBA 1623-1518 calBCE (3295±20 BP, PSUAMS-4852) J2a

I10101 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE J1a2b

I2189 Megiddo_I2189 (outlier) 1600-1500 BCE R

I10769 Megiddo_MLBA 1550-1450 BCE E1b1b1b2a1

I10770 Megiddo_MLBA 1550-1450 BCE E1b1b1b2a1a

I10093 Megiddo_MLBA 1900-1700 BCE J1a2b

I10264 Megiddo_MLBA 1880-1700 calBCE (3470±20 BP, OS-139224) J1a2b

I10106 Megiddo_MLBA 1700-1500 BCE J1a2b

I10266 Megiddo_MLBA 1638-1413 calBCE (3240±55 BP, RTK-6765) J

I4525 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE J

I10768 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1500 BCE R1b1a1a2

I2195 Megiddo_MLBA 1600-1278 calBCE (3160±55 BP, RTK-6766) J

I4518 Megiddo_MLBA 1550-1300 BCE T1a1a1b2

I2198 Megiddo_MLBA 1509-1432 calBCE (3207±20 BP, RTK-7898) J1a2b

I4517 Megiddo_IA 1107-923 calBCE (2845±25 BP, PSUAMS-2166) J1
I2201 Abel_IA 1011-846 calBCE (2790±30 BP, Poz-83471) T1a1a1b2b2b1a1a2

I3965 Hazor_MLBA 1800-1700 BCE J1a2b

I3966 Hazor_MLBA 1800-1700 BCE E1b1b1b2a1

I7182 Yehud_IBA 2500-2000 BCE J

I6923 Yehud_IBA 2500-2000 BCE J

I7003 Yehud_IBA 2500-2000 BCE J2b

I6461 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J1a2b

I3985 Baqah_MLBA 1412-1234 calBCE (3065±30 BP, PSUAMS-1992) J1a2b

I3703 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J1a2b

I6464 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J1a2b

I6566 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J1a2b

I6569 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J1a2b

I6460 Baqah_MLBA 1550-1150 BCE J

I3705 Baqah_MLBA 1492-1303 calBCE (3130±25 BP, PSUAMS-1987) J1a2b

I3987 Baqah_MLBA 1428-1293 calBCE (3100±25 BP, PSUAMS-1989) J1a2b

I3706 Baqah_MLBA 1424-1288 calBCE (3095±25 BP, PSUAMS-1990) J1a2b

I6459 Baqah_MLBA 1384-1213 calBCE (3025±20 BP, PSUAMS-3719) J1a2b

 

[Angela]

There's a problem with the "Somali" they find in the Levant too. Who says that it arrived in the Levant as "Somali" like, perhaps with East African slave women?

Somali's are 40% West Eurasian like. Some older studies said it was "Sardinian" like.

These papers by less established researchers are not inspiring a lot of confidence.

I want to see what reference they're using for European Late Neolithic. If they're using a heavily steppe admixed sample, no wonder Tuscans come out the way they do. Try it with Villanova R1 and see what happens.

Christ, it shouldn't need a hobbyist to point out these issues.

 

[Angela]

I can't believe Reich supervised this.

He should go back to working with Lazaridis and Patterson.

 

[real expert]

There's a problem with the "Somali" they find in the Levant too. Who says that it arrived in the Levant as "Somali" like, perhaps with East African slave women?

Somali's are 40% West Eurasian like. Some older studies said it was "Sardinian" like.

These papers by less established researchers are not inspiring a lot of confidence.




I want to see what reference they're using for European Late Neolithic. If they're using a heavily steppe admixed sample, no wonder Tuscans come out the way they do. Try it with Villanova R1 and see what happens.

Christ, it shouldn't need a hobbyist to point out these issues.

Hi Angela my question again. Why does this paper on the Bronze Age Southern Levant suggests that the East African geneflow entered the Levant after the Bronze age by using the East African admixture in modern Levantine people? How do they know? I'm a bit confused.

In a daily mail article, the researchers stated that they don't know when

African and European genes first made it into the genomes of modern-day inhabitants of the Levant.


​

For the LINADMIX analysis of present-day populations, we used a background dataset of 1,663 present-day and ancient individuals from 239 populations genotyped by using SNP arrays and focused our analysis on 14 Jewish and Levantine present-day populations, along with modern English, Tuscan, and Moroccan populations that were used as controls. We used LINADMIX to model each of the 17 present-day populations as an admixture of four sources: (1) Megiddo_MLBA (the largest group) as a representative of the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age component; (2) Iran_ChL as a representative of the Zagros and the Caucasus; (3) Present-day Somalis as representatives of an Eastern African source (in the absence of genetic data on ancient populations from the region); and (4) Europe_LNBA as a representative of ancient Europeans from the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (Methods S1I; Table S4; Figure S4). We also applied PHCP to these 17 present-day populations (Methods S1G; Table S4; Figure S4). Comparison of PHCP and LINADMIX shows that they agree well with respect to the Somali and Europe_LNBA component, and therefore also for the combined contribution of Iran_ChL and Megiddo_MLBA (Methods S1G; Figure S4). However, they deviate regarding the respective contributions of Iran_ChL and Megiddo_MLBA (Figure S4), likely because of the fact that the Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL are already very similar populations (Table S3). To only consider results that are robust and shared by LINADMIX and PHCP, we have combined Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL to a single source population representing the Middle East for our main results (Figure 5). We further verified these conclusions, as well as the robustness of the estimations, by using a different representative for the Bronze Age Levantine groups as a source (Tables S4 and S5; Methods S1J) and using perturbations to the ADMIXTURE parameters (Table S4; Methods S1K). Combined, these results suggest that modern populations related to the Levant are consistent with having a substantial ancestry component from the Bronze Age Southern Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros. Nonetheless, other potential ancestry sources are possible, and more ancient samples might enable a refined picture (Table S4).
​

The results show that since the Bronze Age, an additional East-African-related component was added to the region (on average ∼10.6%, excluding Ethiopian Jews who harbor ∼80% East African component), as well as a European-related component (on average ∼8.7%, excluding Ashkenazi Jews who harbor a ∼41% European-related component). The East-African-related component is highest in Ethiopian Jews and North Africans (Moroccans and Egyptians). It exists in all Arabic-speaking populations (apart from the Druze). The European-related component is highest in the European control populations (English and Tuscan), as well as in Ashkenazi and Moroccan Jews, both having a history in Europe (Atzmon et al., 2010, Carmi et al., 2014, Schroeter, 2008). This component is present, although in smaller amount, in all other populations except for Bedouin B and Ethiopian Jews. As expected, the English and Tuscan populations have a very low Middle-Eastern-related component. Whereas LINADMIX and PHCP have high uncertainty in estimating the relative contributions of Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL, the results and simulations nevertheless suggest that additional Zagros-related ancestry has penetrated the region since the Bronze Age (Methods S1I). Except for the populations with the highest Zagros-related component, PHCP estimates lower magnitudes of this component (Figure S4A), and therefore detection by PHCP of a Zagros-related ancestry is likely an indication for the presence of this component. Indeed, examining the results of LINADMIX and PHCP on all four source populations (Figure S4), we observe a relatively large Zagros-related component in many Arabic-speaking groups, suggesting that gene flow from populations related to those of the Zagros and Caucasus (although not necessarily from these specific regions) continued even after the Iron Age (Methods S1I).
Altogether, the patterns of the present-day populations reflect demographic processes that occurred after the Bronze Age and are plausibly related to processes known from the historical literature (Methods S1I). These include an Eastern-African-related component that is present in Arabic-speaking groups but is lower in non-Ethiopian Jewish groups, as well as Zagros-related contribution to Levantine populations, which is highest in the northernmost population examined, suggesting a contribution of populations related to the Zagros even after the Bronze and Iron Ages.







​

Estimating the ancestry proportions in present-day Middle Eastern populations with substantial sub-Saharan African admixture (as well as multiple sources of admixture from different parts of the Mediterranean), is difficult. We addressed the problem by developing two statistical techniques and then testing the robustness of our inference on the basis of a comparison between these methods, simulations, and perturbations of the input (see STAR Methods; Methods S1F–S1K). We examined 14 present-day populations that are historically or geographically linked to the Southern Levant and tested the contributions of East Africa, Europe, and the Middle East (combining Southern Levant Bronze Age populations and Zagros-related Chalcolithic ones) to their ancestry. We found that both Arabic-speaking and Jewish populations are compatible with having more than 50% Middle-Eastern-related ancestry. This does not mean that any these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalcolithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East. The Zagros- or Caucasian-related ancestry flow into the region apparently continued after the Bronze Age. We also see an Eastern-African-related ancestry entering the region after the Bronze Age with an approximate south-to-north gradient. In addition, we observe a European-related ancestry with the opposite gradient (north-to-south). Given the difficulties in separating the ancestry components arriving from the Southern Levant and the Zagros, an important direction for future work will be to reconstruct in high resolution the ancestry trajectories of each present-day group, and to understand how people from the Southern Levant Bronze Age mixed with other people in later periods in the context of processes known from the rich archaeological and historical records of the last three millennia.
​

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

 

[Angela]

Hi Angela my question again. Why does this paper on the Bronze Age Southern Levant suggests that the East African geneflow entered the Levant after the Bronze age by using the East African admixture in modern Levantine people? How do they know? I'm a bit confused.

In a daily mail article, the researchers stated that they don't know when

African and European genes first made it into the genomes of modern-day inhabitants of the Levant.


​

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

I guess my question would be: if you don't know when certain ancestry entered an area, why would you test it using a modern reference sample which has experienced additional admixture and drift. They say they don't have a sample from the appropriate East African period. Ok. They may not have a sample from the period of the Arab slave trade, but they have older East African samples. Haber used them.

I won't say more because I haven't yet gone over this paper and supplement with a fine tooth comb as I did the Haber paper. I hope I have a chance this afternoon.

 

[Maciamo]

The main point of this paper is the migration of people from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE. It's surprising that the authors fail to mention anything about the Akkadian Empire (c. 2334 – 2154 BCE). The paper only says:

"In much of the Late Bronze Age, the region was ruled by imperial Egypt, although in later phases of the Iron Age it was controlled by the Mesopotamian-centered empires of Assyria and Babylonia."

AFAIK, neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians to their south controlled the Levant - let alone the Southern Levant, which is the focus of this study - during the Bronze Age. Only the Neo-Babylonian Empire managed such a feat, but that was only very briefly in the 6th century BCE in what was already the Classical antiquity.

The period of the Akkadian Empire is IMO the best candidate for the diffusion of people from northern Mesopotamia (along the Zagros and southern Caucasus) to the Levant. It may not have been the Akkadians themselves, but maybe the people they displaced during their expansion. In any case, the Akkadians had a major influence in the northern Levant, imported cedar from Lebanon, etc.

The main issue with later periods is that the Southern Levant was under Egyptian rule during the New Kingdom (c.1550 to c. 1180 BCE), so I don't see how "invaders" could have settled in the region without written record. It must have been prior to 1550 BCE. That only leaves that Akkadian Empire or the Old Assyrian Empire (2025–1522 BCE). The Assyrians did expand briefly to the whole Levant under Shamshi-Adad I (1808–1776 BCE), but I doubt that this was long enough to have significantly changed the genetic make-up of a region that was hardly changed by over 1000 years of Greek, Roman and Byzantine rule.

That brings me back to the hypothesis that it was probably a mass migration of tribes displaced by the Akkadians and/or Assyrians.

 

[Shahmiri]

Ancient Akkadians didn't live in the Zagros and/or Caucasus, people who lived in the north of Zagros were either Hurrians or Indo-Europeans, especially Indo-Iranians, we see many elements of Indo-Iranian culture from at least 17th century BC in Mitanni, this culture could be related to Kassites who lived in the Central Zagros, it has also some similarities to the culture of Sea People in the ancient Egyptian sources.

 

[kingdavid]

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-canaanites-insight-ancient-genomes.html

 

[Anfänger]

Ancient Akkadians didn't live in the Zagros and/or Caucasus, people who lived in the north of Zagros were either Hurrians or Indo-Europeans, especially Indo-Iranians, we see many elements of Indo-Iranian culture from at least 17th century BC in Mitanni, this culture could be related to Kassites who lived in the Central Zagros, it has also some similarities to the culture of Sea People in the ancient Egyptian sources.

Indoiranians definitly didn't live in Zagros or Caucasus at this time, they may have cross it to reach the Mitanni empire but to be more precise they were probably Indo-Aryans when we go by language, nothing Iranian about them. Iranian tribes settle in modern Iran around 1200 BC.

Aslan irani hasti? Agar hasti ye javab be zabane farsi bede

 

[Shahmiri]

Indoiranians definitly didn't live in Zagros or Caucasus at this time, they may have cross it to reach the Mitanni empire but to be more precise they were probably Indo-Aryans when we go by language, nothing Iranian about them. Iranian tribes settle in modern Iran around 1200 BC.

Aslan irani hasti? Agar hasti ye javab be zabane farsi bede

As an Iranian, would you please tell me why you believe it was Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian?!

In wikipedia we read about Mitanni:

The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has "aiva") in general.

The fact is that in all Northwestern Iranian languages, such as Kurdish, Talysh, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Baluchi and etc, the Iranian word for "one" is from proto-Iranian *Haykas (Persian yek), not *Haywas (Persian yaw).

Bale, man Irani hastam.

 

[Anfänger]

As an Iranian, would you please tell me why you believe it was Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian?!

In wikipedia we read about Mitanni:

The fact is that in all Northwestern Iranian languages, such as Kurdish, Talysh, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Baluchi and etc, the Iranian word for "one" is from proto-Iranian *Haykas (Persian yek), not *Haywas (Persian yaw).

Bale, man Irani hastam.

Because it is the main hypothesis according to linguistic evidence we have. Iranian tribes reached northern Iran about 1200BC. We have samples with BMAC and steppe ancestry from this region they are very close to modern Iranians.
Why should we take credit for Indo-Aryan Mitanni, when Iranian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in the world ?

 

[Shahmiri]

Because it is the main hypothesis according to linguistic evidence we have. Iranian tribes reached northern Iran about 1200BC. We have samples with BMAC and steppe ancestry from this region they are very close to modern Iranians.
Why should we take credit for Indo-Aryan Mitanni, when Iranian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in the world ?

Iranian tribes (Scythians and Cimmerians) came to Iran about 800 BC, not 1200 BC, I don't talk about Iranians, not even proto-Iranian but Indo-Iranians who lived in Matiene in the northwest of Iran (north of Zagros and south of Caucasus). I'm a historian, not a follower of pan-Iranism, Iranian civilization dates back to about 7th century BC.

 

[Anfänger]

Iranian tribes (Scythians and Cimmerians) came to Iran about 800 BC, not 1200 BC, I don't talk about Iranians, not even proto-Iranian but Indo-Iranians who lived in Matiene in the northwest of Iran (north of Zagros and south of Caucasus). I'm a historian, not a follower of pan-Iranism, Iranian civilization dates back to about 7th century BC.

What are you talking about Mr.Historian ? With Iranian tribes I obviously meant Persians,Medes and Parthians not freacking steppe dwellers. There are no Indoiranians prior to 1200BC in northern modern Iran. Matiene is obviously too young to be relevant in this discussion. Now it is pan-iranism to say that Iranian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in the world? Mr.Historian go and read up the definition pan-iranism again. Iranian civilization starts in Yaz-culture 1500BC. You have a huge problem with dates and the relevant migrations in this topic. Everything you talk about is too young to be relevant.

Now back to the topic there is nothing that indicates that Indo-Iranians were involved in this migration into the Levant because if they were there would be sizable steppe ancestry.

Edit: Oh i see. You are probably the same person as Cyrus account on this forum. My bad that I even started a conversation with you. Mr. Proto-Germanic from Iran hahaha.

 

[Maciamo]

Ancient Akkadians didn't live in the Zagros and/or Caucasus, people who lived in the north of Zagros were either Hurrians or Indo-Europeans, especially Indo-Iranians, we see many elements of Indo-Iranian culture from at least 17th century BC in Mitanni, this culture could be related to Kassites who lived in the Central Zagros, it has also some similarities to the culture of Sea People in the ancient Egyptian sources.

The Akkadians bordered the Zagros and South Caucasus. My argument is that their expansion and pressure on their neighbour would have displaced part of the region's population to the Levant.

The paper clearly shows that those people who migrated from the Zagros-Caucasus to the Levant were not Indo-European genetically.

 

[Hawk]

There's a problem with the "Somali" they find in the Levant too. Who says that it arrived in the Levant as "Somali" like, perhaps with East African slave women?

Somali's are 40% West Eurasian like. Some older studies said it was "Sardinian" like.

These papers by less established researchers are not inspiring a lot of confidence.

I want to see what reference they're using for European Late Neolithic. If they're using a heavily steppe admixed sample, no wonder Tuscans come out the way they do. Try it with Villanova R1 and see what happens.

Christ, it shouldn't need a hobbyist to point out these issues.

There is no record so far that Somali-like people have been ever enslaved by anyone, even conquering them was extremely troublesome.

 

[Hawk]

The main point of this paper is the migration of people from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE. It's surprising that the authors fail to mention anything about the Akkadian Empire (c. 2334 – 2154 BCE). The paper only says:

"In much of the Late Bronze Age, the region was ruled by imperial Egypt, although in later phases of the Iron Age it was controlled by the Mesopotamian-centered empires of Assyria and Babylonia."

AFAIK, neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians to their south controlled the Levant - let alone the Southern Levant, which is the focus of this study - during the Bronze Age. Only the Neo-Babylonian Empire managed such a feat, but that was only very briefly in the 6th century BCE in what was already the Classical antiquity.

The period of the Akkadian Empire is IMO the best candidate for the diffusion of people from northern Mesopotamia (along the Zagros and southern Caucasus) to the Levant. It may not have been the Akkadians themselves, but maybe the people they displaced during their expansion. In any case, the Akkadians had a major influence in the northern Levant, imported cedar from Lebanon, etc.

The main issue with later periods is that the Southern Levant was under Egyptian rule during the New Kingdom (c.1550 to c. 1180 BCE), so I don't see how "invaders" could have settled in the region without written record. It must have been prior to 1550 BCE. That only leaves that Akkadian Empire or the Old Assyrian Empire (2025–1522 BCE). The Assyrians did expand briefly to the whole Levant under Shamshi-Adad I (1808–1776 BCE), but I doubt that this was long enough to have significantly changed the genetic make-up of a region that was hardly changed by over 1000 years of Greek, Roman and Byzantine rule.

That brings me back to the hypothesis that it was probably a mass migration of tribes displaced by the Akkadians and/or Assyrians.

Assyrian Empire was by far way greater than Neo-Babylonian Empire. It included Egypt as well. A bunch of Phoenicians because of Assyrian pressure took a fleet and founded Carthage on the shores of Tunisia to run away from Assyrian cruelty.