In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations
HAARETZ Ariel David Oct 9, 2023
(article excerpts)
For the first time, ancient DNA has been recovered from the bodies of ancient Israelites living in the First Temple period, Haaretz has learned.
This story begins in 2018, when the Theft Prevention Unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority discovered a tomb in the village of Abu Ghosh, which is right next to the biblical settlement of Kiryat Yearim, some 15 kilometers west of Jerusalem...
Those interred in the tomb included six adults, three men and three women, and four children, including two babies, one infant, and an adolescent. This is consistent with the high mortality rate of children in ancient times, the researchers note.
Based on the pottery typology used in the funerary offerings it seems that the tomb was used for a prolonged period, around 750-650 B.C.E., placing it in the late Iron Age, or late First Temple period according to the biblical chronology.
The tomb is an important find in its own right, given that burials from this period are rare and tend to be from slightly later times, generally closer to the fall of Jerusalem and the First Temple to the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., says Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa. Finkelstein was called in to lead the research on the tomb as he was already heading a dig at Kiryat Yearim, a settlement which is mentioned in the Bible as having housed the Ark of the Covenant before it was brought to Jerusalem.
Together with Prof. David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University, and mathematician Dr. Arie Shaus, Finkelstein embarked on a quest to extract DNA from the people interred in the Kiryat Yearim tomb.
“This is only partial data with a more detailed paper coming in the future,” Reich says.
The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.
This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.
As for the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the maternal side, the two individuals at Kiryat Yearim displayed two different haplogroups. One, T1a, is a very ancient ancestral haplogroup, with similar counterparts already found in individuals living in Jordan some 10,000 years ago and in southeastern Europe around 7,000 years ago, says Shaus. In later samples it is found in Iran and in those Canaanites sampled in Israel, as well as all the way to the Baltic and Ural Mountains.
The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis. This may point to an origin in the Mediterranean or the Near East, perhaps in the Arabian peninsula, he says. If so, this particular haplogroup may have spread with nomadic populations, Shaus concludes. In other words, the samples from two ancient Israelites hint at ancestry from peoples in both Anatolia and Arabia.
Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time – and what they mean for our understanding of the broader story of the emergence of ancient Israel.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, More ammo for the destruction of black Heebism....
quote:The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis.
God Damn...lool
WhItEz ArE DuH EdOmItEz
and its from the 1st Temple period so Heebs aint got excuses for this one..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I was waiting for someone to post this...
"Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time..."
Sounds like they are playing games. And they're classifying the sample as "Israelite" on the basis of Israelite pottery being found with the remains?
So if I, a black man, go to China and buy some vases, pots, and pans, and then I die and get buried with those Chinese pots and pans, does that make me a descendant of Chinese people?
Also, I'm sure we are all aware of how many different races of people lived in Israel even during that time period (... at least we should be.) I mean that's literally why they said word for word that they can't be sure what they found represents the entire population.
2 KINGS 17:24
"And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof."
Let us know when they claim to have "extracted DNA" from one of the notorious Israelite patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, like they've done with Tut and Ramesses. They know where these guys are buried and where there tombs are.
Until then they need to stop playing games because smart people are not stupid
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: Quite a few ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilisations flourished in territories where J2 lineages were preponderant. This is the case of the Hattians, the Hurrians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians (and their Carthaginian offshoot), the Israelites, and to a lower extent also the Romans, the Assyrians and the Persians. All the great seafaring civilisations from the middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age were dominated by J2 men./QUOTE]
[QUOTE]rom then on, J2 men would have definitely have represented a sizeable portion of the population of Bronze and Iron Age civilizations such as the Hurrians, the Assyrians or the Hittites
I think it's a great find!
quote:Ramesses' comments about the scale of the Sea Peoples' onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of Hatti, Ugarit, Ascalon and Hazor around this time. As the Hittitologist Trevor Bryce observes, "It should be stressed that the invasions were not merely military operations, but involved the movements of large populations, by land and sea, seeking new lands to settle." [84]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
These haplotype markers came before the Israelites though and the haplotype marker that we see in one of the Israelite samples aligns with these haplotype markers from the early Bronze Age. So how can they be foreigners when these J lineages go back to the Chalcolithic era? If anyone is a foreigner, it would have been the early Israelites, considering that the exodus story is true.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The date of origin for haplogroup J-M172 was estimated by Batini et al in 2015 as between 19,000 and 24,000 years before present (BP).[11] Samino et al in 2004 dated the origin of the parent haplogroup, J-P209, to between 18,900 and 44,500 YBP.[12] Ancient J-M410, specifically subclade J-Y12379*, has been found, in a mesolithic context, in a tooth from the Kotias Klde Cave in western Georgia dating 9.529-9.895 cal. BP.[13] This sample has been assigned to the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) autosomal component.[14] J-M410, more specifically its subclade J-PF5008, has also been found in a mesolithic sample from the Hotu and Kamarband Caves located in Mazandaran Province of Iran, dating back to 9,100-8,600 B.C.E (approximately 11,000 ybp).[15] Both samples belong to the Trialetian Culture. It is likely that J2 men had settled over most of Anatolia, the South Caucasus and the Zagros mountains by the end of the Last Glaciation 12,000 years ago.[16]
The term "Semitic" was created by members of the Göttingen School of History, initially by August Ludwig von Schlözer (1781), to designate the languages closely related to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew.[6][7] The choice of name was derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the genealogical accounts of the biblical Book of Genesis,[8] or more precisely from the Koine Greek rendering of the name, Σήμ (Sēm). Johann Gottfried Eichhorn is credited with popularising the term,[9][10][8] particularly via a 1795 article "Semitische Sprachen" (Semitic languages) in which he justified the terminology against criticism that Hebrew and Canaanite were the same language despite Canaan being "Hamitic" in the Table of Nations:[11]
Semitic languages were spoken and written across much of the Middle East and Asia Minor during the Bronze Age and Iron Age, the earliest attested being the East Semitic Akkadian of Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Isin, Larsa and Babylonia) from the third millennium BC.[14]
The origin of Semitic-speaking peoples is still under discussion. Several locations were proposed as possible sites of a prehistoric origin of Semitic-speaking peoples: Mesopotamia, the Levant, Ethiopia[15] the Eastern Mediterranean region, the Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa. Some claim that the Semitic languages originated in the Levant around 3800 BC, and were introduced to the Horn of Africa at about 800 BC from the southern Arabian peninsula, and to North Africa via Phoenician colonists at approximately the same time.[16][17] Others assign the arrival of Semitic speakers in the Horn of Africa to a much earlier date[18] according to theory believed by many scholars now Semitic originated from an offshoot of a still earlier language in North Africa and desertization made its inhabitants to migrate in the fourth millennium BC into what is now Ethiopia, others northwest out of Africa into West Asia.[19]
The Israelites were a group of Semitic-speaking tribes in the ancient Near East who, during the Iron Age, inhabited a part of Canaan.[3][4][5][6]
The name of Israel first appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE. Modern archaeology suggests that the Israelites branched out from the Canaanites through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.[7][8][9][10][11] They spoke an archaic form of the Hebrew language, which was a regional variety of the Canaanite language, known today as Biblical Hebrew.[12] In the Iron Age, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged. The Kingdom of Israel, with its capital at Samaria, fell to the Neo-Assyrian Empire around 720 BCE; while the Kingdom of Judah, with its capital at Jerusalem, was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE. Some of the Judean population was exiled to Babylon, but returned to Israel after Cyrus the Great conquered the region.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the various tribes of Israel united in the 10th century BCE and formed the United Kingdom of Israel, under the leadership of Saul, who was later overthrown by David; after the death of David, his son Solomon ascended to the throne and reigned until his death, after which the Kingdom split into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.
Part of the gift-bearing Israelite delegation of King Jehu, Black Obelisk, 841–840 BCE.[109] The historicity of the United Monarchy is heavily debated among archaeologists and biblical scholars: biblical maximalists and centrists (Kenneth Kitchen, William G. Dever, Amihai Mazar, Baruch Halpern and others) believe that the biblical account can be considered as more or less accurate, biblical minimalists (Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog, Thomas L. Thompson and others) believe that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah developed as separate states and there was never a United Monarchy. The debate has not yet been resolved, although recent archaeological discoveries by Israeli archaeologists Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel seem to support the existence of a united monarchy.[20] From 850 BCE onwards a series of inscriptions are evidence of a kingdom which its neighbors refer to as the "House of David. ______________________________________
Thus the origin of a haplogroup is not telling of the history of the nation. For instance the United States was founded by Europeans, not it's original inhabitants
So the Israelites cannot be assumed to be comprised of descendants of the earliest inhabitants of it
If there is testing of more remains of ancient Israelites they may find a mix of haplogroups, on the male side J, E1b1b and T (or others) or not And of course each of these haplogroups in the world are comprised of a lot more people who are not Jewish than are
quote:
Historical evidence marshalled by Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen indicates that a change from a patrilineal to a matrilineal-based principle for the offspring of mixed unions of Jew and gentile took place in the 1st century (c. 10–70 CE) times to Modern times
That someone is of some religious status just by birth is a silly idea to me.
That being said, if someone wants to argue that being Jewish by birth should go by the father (or by both parents) if you look at history looking for a paternal line, for that paternal line to have been maintained over the centuries you would would have to show some ethnic group of Jews somewhere who have maintained a paternal tradition over the centuries.
I propose a better system, if you are to be a full fledged member of a religion ancestry is irrelevant, what you must do is pledge to that religion and follow it's laws and customs
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
We can play semantics over what semitic actually means but I'm not in the mood for games so I'll just post this one last time since it was ignored...
According to Israel Finkelstein (the same man who was the lead researcher in the new "Israelite" study linked in the OP), the most likely progenitors of the Israelites was a civilization that did not have J markers.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bronze Age Levantine DNA is kind of boring, so far. Just more of the same. The Chalcolithic samples with light eyes was interesting, though.
As I predicted in the 3 abstracts thread, Eberites are not standout populations for Egyptian/Semitic ancestry (though they spoke an Egyptian/Semitic language). Already told bloggers this in 2016. One blogger in particular others looked up to (who was active on Anthrogenetica), thought Bronze Age Levantines were going to be "rich in Egyptian ancestry", by which he meant lots of E1b1b, among other things. Apparently the Natufian and Abusir papers had given him some bold ideas about claiming E1b1b for Levantines/Middle Easterners, because Natufians and Abusir with E1b1b were claimed to lack Sub-Saharan ancestry. He thought he could debate me on this, and said I was "going against the aDNA".
Wonder where he is now/what he has to say now as more data shows strong dilution of E1b1b in the Levant, by Bronze Age times. (Although I'm sure some pockets of E1b1b remained, well into the Iron Age).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area. (Without necessarily implying they were numerically dominant).
Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants, and those who went farthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish (§4.2; 5.2; 6.2). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
Though I would disagree with him (ie Lipinski) on including Eberites (Edomites, Hebrews, Moabites) and Canaanites as particularly influenced by these migrations. We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix] and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians). I would also mainly look to the earliest settlers for resemblance to predynastics, not so much the later periods.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
More history study is needed on top of the genetic discussions. J2 is Greek, Mycenean/ Phillistine origin who may have become a convert to the Judaic religion. This dude was a sea people and their settlements are post bronze age collapse.
He is right were he should be with his tragic stony trailer park house.
J2 is also INDO EUROPEAN and not SEMETIC
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would be nice to see autosomal data from these samples, even if they turn out not to stand out that much from other Bronze and Iron Age Levantines. Phenotype data would be necessary to test the claims of Israelites being dark-skinned enough to be called "black" even if their autosomes don't plot next to West Africans on a PCA graph.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Exactly Lisa. According to genetics, that is what the evidence demonstrates
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The Israelites may have mainly been Indo Europeans who migrated to Israel and spoke Semitic language (that is what makes them Semitic) there OR most Israelites might have been indigenous They may have been a mixture of these groups or not
Until more remains are tested we don't know
The origin of Semitic language is far prior to the Israelites and probably not even in Israel. And it is not synonymous with Israel
Haplogroups are not languages
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@lioness
Nobody claimed that being semitic started with Israel, nor that it was synonymous with Israel. I've already posted a genetic study saying that the most likely progenitors of the Israelites were the Natufians, who were proto-semites.
According to genetics, the Natufians were proto-semites who predated the Israelites.
And the natufians did not have haplogroup J.
No idea why you keep reposting the same thing over and over.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote: We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix] and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians).
Any studies or papers you have on this?
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
It looks like your using Genetics to retroactively change the definition, I'm thoroughly confused at your position.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Not really stuff we've not heard before. We know from specialists in various fields that Egyptian culture was fundamentally African. This quote right here is simply the flipside of that: Bronze Age Levantines couldn't even connect to Egyptian culture in any profound way, because, all things considered, they have nothing to do with African culture or rather, orientation to major recurring themes in African cultures.
In the same way that Euro traditional martial arts studios or curry houses or yoga studios open up shop in the west but generally can't tune into the culture and are typically not regarded as authentic by people in the know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
posted
BrandonP you're always talking about skin color, skin color doesn't matter
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tazarah
How do you define Isrealite?
It looks like your using Genetics to retroactively change the definition, I'm thoroughly confused at your position.
I define Israelite the same way the Torah and Tanakh does -- a patrilineal descendant of Jacob/Israel (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59)
I do not personally subscribe to genetics, I only appeal to genetics to demonstrate that not even genetics supports the claim that modern jewish people are the descendants of the ancient Israelites.
Basically I got tired of anti-black people coming at me with genetics and trying to exclude black people from having anything to do with ancient Israel. So now whenever the issue arises, I say hey -- genetics do not even support a lot of the jewish peoples' claims to Israel when you really dig into things.
Sort of like how a christian might learn the qur'an to try disproving islam in discussions with muslims. That's basically the only reason I have anything to do with genetics. I would never use it to try to support any of my claims or beliefs.
And here's a disclaimer (since I have a lot of stalkers who love to follow me around on the internet in hopes of finding something to slander me with):
* I do not hate jewish people, nor do I wish to harm them or any other race of people, nor do I want anybody else to harm them or any other race of people. All people deserve to live safely and unthreatened.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Swenet
Honest question: how do we know that samples are not being cherrypicked to paint a narrative? How do we know that some samples are not being kept from the public, while other samples are being shown to the public? Are we simply at the mercy of the people conducting the studies and the people in charge of the excavations?
And I'm asking this in general, not just in regards to Levantine samples.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
The samples I see being described as possibly having higher-than-average African ancestry (i.e. the ones from Azor and two sites in the Sinai) appear to be Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age. Ancient Israel and Judah date between the Late Bronze Age (the earliest mention of the former that I know about is the Merneptah stela from 1208 BC) and Early Iron Age, several centuries later. Someone like Tazarah who insists on describing ancient Hebrews as black-skinned and related to Africans could counter that the Hebrews' ancestors had to have entered Palestine sometime between the Early and Late Bronze Age.
Not that I am aware of such a migration, personally, but Keita's old craniometric study on Iron Age Lachish suggesting Egypto-Nubian affinities for some of the samples does come to mind here.
(For the record, though, I don’t actually agree with Tazarah about this issue, but I do find the question of African ancestry in ancient Hebrews to be of some interest even if that African ancestry isn’t as likely to be predominant or outstanding in that time and place as people like Taz claim.)
Honest question: how do we know that samples are not being cherrypicked to paint a narrative? How do we know that some samples are not being kept from the public, while other samples are being shown to the public? Are we simply at the mercy of the people conducting the studies and the people in charge of the excavations?
And I'm asking this in general, not just in regards to Levantine samples.
Because in cases where we suspect that has happened, we see samples of interest go missing or get substituted by other samples when it's time for DNA sequencing. So, in such cases we see what seems to be a bait and switch (e.g. Shuqbah sample 'disappears' for decades and Raqefet sample is pushed to the forefront as 'true Natufian' to settle the affinities of this population for once and for all). But in the case of Hebrews, there has never been a bunch of reports that found strong African affinities, that were then never heard from again.
The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
The samples I see being described as possibly having higher-than-average African ancestry (i.e. the ones from Azor and two sites in the Sinai) appear to be Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age. Ancient Israel and Judah date between the Late Bronze Age (the earliest mention of the former that I know about is the Merneptah stela from 1208 BC) and Early Iron Age, several centuries later. Someone like Tazarah who insists on describing ancient Hebrews as black-skinned and related to Africans could counter that the Hebrews' ancestors had to have entered Palestine sometime between the Early and Late Bronze Age.
Not that I am aware of such a migration, personally, but Keita's old craniometric study on Iron Age Lachish suggesting Egypto-Nubian affinities for some of the samples does come to mind here.
As I hinted in my post, there actually is evidence for Hebrews with somewhat increased African affinities (ie the Bronze Age samples bearing the newcomers who just entered Palestine). But if you read Tazarah's posts, he's arguing for a continuity from Natufian times, and he apparently does not subscribe to the bible's own account of Eberites originating in Mesopotamia and settling Palestine from the east. This is a different scenario that implies sharp discontinuity with Natufians, and it implies J2 would be a normal Y-DNA for these 2023 samples (Y-DNA J comes from that northern region). So, I don't think Tazarah would benefit from that scenario because it opens up this other can of worms.
Either way, I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but recently I posted a Minoan paper that had a rare and nice breakdown of Upper Egyptian phenotypes in the Bronze Age Mediterranean world. Nea Nikomedea had the highest frequency (3/4), and Lachish didn't appear to have any special increase of this phenotype. But the point is all the Bronze Age Mediterranean samples had them. So, the Keita study is not really accurate in making this specific to Lachish.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The individuals in the B2 group are found predominantly a t African sites (64/97). The largest single group of crania in the B2 cluster comes from the excavation of the :Egyptian cemetery at Kerma in Nubia (22/37). The Egyptians founded a colony there in J970 B.C., which may explain the mix- ture of B1 and B2 cranla In the sample. All of the specimens from Wadi Ajjial, In a remote area of the North Sahara, isolated until its brief conquest by the Romans in J9 B.C., are in the B2 cluster. Seven cranla from Alisar in the central Anatolian highlands, in the Hittite Kingdom, J69 are in the B2 cluster. Three of four skulls from Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia are also In the B2 cluster. Angel originally studied this mat- erial and suggested. that there are African and namely Nubian genes in this population (Angel 1973, J08). This suggestion deserves repeating in view of the present resul ts. The evidence clear ly indicates an Air ican associa- tion for the B2 cluster.
As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Thanks for your input. I understand what you are saying but I also believe it would be safe to say that there was motivation for sample interference long before the founding of modern Israel in 1948.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The individuals in the B2 group are found predominantly a t African sites (64/97). The largest single group of crania in the B2 cluster comes from the excavation of the :Egyptian cemetery at Kerma in Nubia (22/37). The Egyptians founded a colony there in J970 B.C., which may explain the mix- ture of B1 and B2 cranla In the sample. All of the specimens from Wadi Ajjial, In a remote area of the North Sahara, isolated until its brief conquest by the Romans in J9 B.C., are in the B2 cluster. Seven cranla from Alisar in the central Anatolian highlands, in the Hittite Kingdom, J69 are in the B2 cluster. Three of four skulls from Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia are also In the B2 cluster. Angel originally studied this mat- erial and suggested. that there are African and namely Nubian genes in this population (Angel 1973, J08). This suggestion deserves repeating in view of the present resul ts. The evidence clear ly indicates an Air ican associa- tion for the B2 cluster.
As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Yeah, it definitely doesn't look like Hebrews are necessarily going to stand out from other ancient Levantines by having a larger proportion of African ancestry on average. Of course, Levantine individuals with more African ancestry would have existed, but those could be found almost all over the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (whether due to atavism like you mentioned or people traveling around as they always have).
Just so it's clear I'm not pulling a fast one when I say I think they are atavisms in the case of Lachish, at least. It's because the Lachish sample is typically Middle Eastern in certain traits, like projection of the nasal bone.
This value should have gone down in the case of Nubian migration (see the predynastic, Kerma, and Palestinian [Lachish] simotic indices in table 6).
The fact that the value is so high, tells me this sample is mostly made up of your normal Bronze Age Middle Easterners, which is also supported by the sample's position in PCA, next to late dynastics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"Other ancient Levantines"
As in the J-carrying folk who don't even have Levantine origins?....
Lol. The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
Brandon draws nothing but black/african ancient Egyptian artwork, yet does not believe ancient Israelites had any "african affinities"
Somebody please make it make sense!
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I just think that, if you're going to assert that ancient Hebrews were some enclave of African migrants (or Natufian holdovers) in the Late Bronze Age Levant, you need to have hard evidence for it. Pointing out gaps in the recovered data, or alleging coverups, isn't going to be enough to support any affirmative claim of African Hebrews. It's one thing to speculate that a population might have looked like this or that if the evidence is equivocal or absent, but positive claims like yours and the BHI types need support from the evidence.
In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations
HAARETZ Ariel David Oct 9, 2023
(article excerpts)
“This is only partial data with a more detailed paper coming in the future,” Reich says.
The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup,
As for the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the maternal side, the two individuals at Kiryat Yearim displayed two different haplogroups. One, T1a, is a very ancient ancestral haplogroup, with similar counterparts already found in individuals living in Jordan some 10,000 years ago and in southeastern Europe around 7,000 years ago, says Shaus. In later samples it is found in Iran and in those Canaanites sampled in Israel, as well as all the way to the Baltic and Ural Mountains.
The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis. This may point to an origin in the Mediterranean or the Near East, perhaps in the Arabian peninsula, he says. If so, this particular haplogroup may have spread with nomadic populations, Shaus concludes. In other words, the samples from two ancient Israelites hint at ancestry from peoples in both Anatolia and Arabia.
Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time – and what they mean for our understanding of the broader story of the emergence of ancient Israel.
So we have two sampled individuals were one male and one female
Y DNA J2
mtDNA T1a
mtDNA H87
(apparently one of these mtDNA's is of the the J2 carrier)
Now comparing to the below Chalcolithic study below of 22 individuals in a cave in Northern Israel cave (4500-3800 BC) we find no J2. There is one individual E1b1b1b12, this was also found in a Natufian but the rest of the males were Y Haplogroup T1 "This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E24, and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J [24],[26]."
Of the mtDNA we see one individual of the mtDNA group T1a and there is another individual from the below Chalcolithic a female (T1a+152) This is the one haplogroup common to both articles _______________________________________
wiki
Peki'in (alternatively Peqi'in) is a Druze–Arab town with local council status in Israel's Northern District. In 2021 it had a population of 6,026.[1] The majority of residents are Druze (78%), with a large Christian (20.8%) and Muslim (1.2%) minorities.[3]
The former Jewish community of Peki'in maintained a presence there since the Second Temple period,[4][5] with an interruption of presence during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt. Most Jews in Peki'in did not return to the village after the violence, and call themselves the Hadera [city] diaspora. It is believed that the Zinatis are the only family who returned, and this family has dwindled to one member.
______________________
(Y DNA) T-M184 Approximately 3% of Sephardi Jews and 2% of Ashkenazi Jews belong to haplogroup T. T-M184 is unusual in that it is both geographically widespread and relatively rare. T1 (T-L206) – the numerically dominant primary branch of T-M184 – appears to have originated in Western Asia, and possibly spread from there into East Africa, South Asia, Europe and adjoining regions. T1* may have expanded with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B culture (PPNB).
Subclades of T-M70 appear to have been present in Europe since the Neolithic with Neolithic Farmers and the later dispersal of Jews from the Near East. Finally, the moderately high frequency (∼18%) of T1b* chromosomes in the Lemba of southern Africa supports the hypothesis of a Near Eastern, but not necessarily a Jewish, origin for their paternal line.
_______________________
mtDNA T1
Based on a sample of over 400 modern day Iranians,[citation needed] the T haplogroup represents roughly 8.3% of the population (about 1 out of 12 individuals), with the more specific T1 subtype constituting roughly half of those. Furthermore, the specific subtype T1 tends to be found further east and is common in Central Asian and modern Turkic populations (Lalueza-Fox 2004), who inhabit much of the same territory as the ancient Saka, Sarmatian, Andronovo, and other putative Iranian peoples of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. Lalueza-Fox et al. (2004) also found several T and T1 sequences in ancient burials, including Kurgans, in the Kazakh steppe between the 14th-10th centuries BC, as well as later into the 1st millennia BC. These coincide with the latter part of the Andronovo period and the Saka period in the region.[5
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Thanks for your input. I understand what you are saying but I also believe it would be safe to say that there was motivation for sample interference long before the founding of modern Israel in 1948.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Armageddon Time: How Discoveries at Megiddo Retell the Story of Ancient Israel For the first time, archaeologists have dated a complete sequence from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age. What they found at Megiddo changes the story of the ancient Levant
HAARETZ Ariel David Jan 22, 2023
The chronological mapping of the site was completed last year with the dating of layers from the early Middle Bronze Age, that is, from around 2000 to 1750 B.C.E., says Prof. Israel Finkelstein, the head of the Megiddo expedition and an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa.
"Megiddo is now the only site anywhere in the ancient world, not just in Israel or the Levant, where you have the entire sequence of the Bronze Age and Iron Age represented, excavated and radiocarbon dated,” Finkelstein tells Haaretz.
For decades, the Iron Age gates and palaces of Megiddo, as well as similar monumental structures uncovered at other sites in Israel, were believed to date to the 10th century B.C.E. This is roughly the time of the United Monarchy, according to biblical chronology, and archaeologists saw these magnificent structures as evidence of Solomon’s building prowess, thus confirming the historicity of this biblical kingdom.
But starting in the 1990s, Finkelstein and other researchers have been arguing, first on the basis of pottery typology and then using radiocarbon dating, that those ancient structures in fact date to a century later. They were likely built by the Omride dynasty, the ninth century B.C.E. rulers of the Kingdom of Israel, which was based in the north of the country (as opposed to the Kingdom of Judah, centered on Jerusalem), the Finkelstein camp argues.
The radio-carbon dating drive at Megiddo shows the Middle Bronze renaissance started around 2,000 B.C.E., he says. This may confirm previous theories that connect this age of renewed prosperity to increased links to Egypt, mainly through large numbers of people emigrating from Canaan to the Nile Delta.
This population movement eventually led to a period, in the 17th-16th century B.C.E., during which the descendants of these Levantine migrants – the Hyksos, as they would come to be called by the locals – ruled over Lower Egypt as pharaohs.
Don’t blame the Philistines
The centuries passed; the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt; and Canaan itself came under Egyptian rule in the mid 15th century B.C.E. following the battle of Megiddo – not the last time this site would witness an epic, history-changing battle.
As the Middle Bronze turned into the Late Bronze Age, Megiddo and other Canaanite city states continued to prosper under their Egyptian overlords, profiting from brisk international trade that seems to have stretched as far as Southeast Asia.
But the pendulum of history was about to swing again, and by the early-to-mid 12th century B.C.E. many of the great civilizations that had risen in the Eastern Mediterranean seemingly disappeared in what is now called the Bronze Age Collapse.
Cities across Syria and Canaan went up in flames. The Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Mycaenean civilization of Greece collapsed. Egypt survived but it was diminished, retreating from its colonial dominions in Canaan around 1130 B.C.E.
Tel Abel Beth Maacah Tel Abel Beth Maacah (Tell Abil el-Qameh) is a large site located in northern Israel, commanding several roads leading to the Lebanese inland Beka҅, the Phoenician coast and Damascus. The town of Abel is mentioned in several Egyptian 2nd millennium BCE sources and also three times in the bible, twice in relation to Aramean and Assyrian conquests in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, as well as in the story about a rebellion against King David in the 10th century BCE. The sample described here was extracted from a complete skeleton of an adult male excavated in Area O on the western slope of the lower mound.
Tel Hazor Hazor is the largest Bronze and Iron Age site in Israel, covering some 200 acres. The mound is composed of an upper mound (acropolis) adjoining a huge lower mound (lower city) to its north. Occupation began in the upper mound during the Early Bronze Age II (early third millennium BCE), while the lower city was founded in the Middle Bronze Age II (approximately the 18th century BCE). Both continued to be settled until a later phase of the Late Bronze Age (13th century), when the upper and lower cities were violently destroyed or abandoned. Following this destruction, only the upper part of the mound was resettled and fortified, becoming a major city in the 10th to 8th centuries BCE, as part of the Israelite kingdom.
Yehud Tel Yehud (Tell el-Yehudia) is situated on the northeastern side of the Ono valley in the eastern part of the central coastal plain of Israel, ca. 12 km east of the Mediterranean Sea. Rescue excavations were carried out in 2008, followed by an excavation season in 2009 in Areas A and B, in the location of an underground parking lot. Archaeological findings at these areas include a deep shaft filled with refuse dated to the Chalcolithic Period, a cemetery from the Intermediate Bronze Age, a Late Roman-Byzantine pottery workshop, and Early Islamic cist graves.
The human remains analyzed in this study are of 13 individuals from the Intermediate Bronze Age.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ^ I just think that, if you're going to assert that ancient Hebrews were some enclave of African migrants (or Natufian holdovers) in the Late Bronze Age Levant, you need to have hard evidence for it. Pointing out gaps in the recovered data, or alleging coverups, isn't going to be enough to support any affirmative claim of African Hebrews. It's one thing to speculate that a population might have looked like this or that if the evidence is equivocal or absent, but positive claims like yours and the BHI types need support from the evidence.
I'm not asserting that they were "africans", not all black people are africans and there is evidence to demonstrate that.
The samples that are presently available do not even have the same Y markers as the civilization that is said to be the most likely progenitors of the ancient Israelite people, so why are those samples being used to say who does or does not have any links to the actual ancient Israelites? This is the exact reason why I have been posting these studies in this thread.
It doesn't make sense and it's like everyone is ignoring the obvious elephant in the room, whether it be genetic or historic evidence that contradicts what is being pushed.
Then there's the whole thing I mentioned about how the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, according to the Torah.
What evidence are you basing your paintings of black ancient Egyptians on? Are you aware that in addition to the Torah saying the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, the Torah and New Testament also both say that the Israelites were often mistaken as being Egyptian? There are also firsthand eyewitness accounts from the 7th century to support this, as well as Egyptian artwork from 15th century BC demonstrating that ancient Israelites were similar in appearance to Nubians and Ethiopians.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Swenet, could you off the top of you head list the Levantine samples that had an African affinity and provide your expertise on which of those samples reflects Basal Eurasian ancestry or recent African intergression?
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not looked into this for a long time, so I can't be of much help. But I would say all Bronze Age Levantine samples had African affinity via the Natufians and other migrations, albeit in diluted form.
What we're especially talking about is African ancestry associated with the 5.9 kiloyear event, and where it went. Much of it went to oases and places like the Nile Valley, but some of it left Africa and took with it some of the linguistic diversity (Semitic) that was lost in Africa.
The question is, how much of it went into Bronze Age Levantines vs the rest of the Middle East and West Eurasia? I would say relatively little ended up in the Levant. We know this because the Levant at its most African was Natufian and then it went downhill from there (see the E Y-DNAs getting diluted, for instance).
The minority that did end up in the Levant therefore did not bring about any major change in ancestry as far as we can tell from the skeletal and aDNA samples. The Sinai and Azor populations mentioned in the Patricia Smith document seem good candidates for having this 5.9 kiloyear ancestry.
Another reason I think most of it did not end up in the Levant, is because the change seems to be most noticeable, not in the early Bronze Age, but in the Middle Bronze age (MBII). This weird delay for the African ancestry to affect the skeletal data in a clear way, almost certainly means that most of the Semitic migrations did not settle in the Levant, initially.
This indicates to me that most of the Semitic speakers, who were not just speakers, but biologically Egyptian/N. African, passed through the Levant, but settled elsewhere, and then impacted the Levant in a roundabout way after a delay (ie a 'backmigration). By then they looked like their African ancestry was diluted (e.g. they had brachycephaly).
Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBlle. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazar (see Figure 4). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics. In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis. People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1ePosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Is J2 even Semitic?
Technically no. No haplotype is specific to any one cultural group; however it may occur in high frequencies among a group. J clade in general is highest among Southwest Asians in general but it just so happens that Semitic languages are predominant in those populations.
The two main subclades J1 and J2 and their distributions:
^ Note that while J2 is commonly associated with Jews, J1 is associated with Arabs. Interestingly the Jewish cohen modal halplotype associated with families with the Cohen name i.e. priestly descent is a subtype of J1.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As I hinted in my post, there actually is evidence for Hebrews with somewhat increased African affinities (i.e. the Bronze Age samples bearing the newcomers who just entered Palestine). But if you read Tazarah's posts, he's arguing for a continuity from Natufian times, and he apparently does not subscribe to the bible's own account of Eberites originating in Mesopotamia and settling Palestine from the east. This is a different scenario that implies sharp discontinuity with Natufians, and it implies J2 would be a normal Y-DNA for these 2023 samples (Y-DNA J comes from that northern region). So, I don't think Tazarah would benefit from that scenario because it opens up this other can of worms.
Either way, I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but recently I posted a Minoan paper that had a rare and nice breakdown of Upper Egyptian phenotypes in the Bronze Age Mediterranean world. Nea Nikomedea had the highest frequency (3/4), and Lachish didn't appear to have any special increase of this phenotype. But the point is all the Bronze Age Mediterranean samples had them. So, the Keita study is not really accurate in making this specific to Lachish.
Indeed, the Bible is clear that Hebrews originated in Mesopotamia. And let's not forget the 2005 Carlos Flores et al. study Bronze Age Dead Sea plain (Sodom & Gomorrah) inhabitants: Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.
So obviously there has been a population change in the region. I too question Tazarah's claims of continued Natufian presence when archaeology shows that such was not the case.
By the way, the Bible makes it very clear that when the Hebrews (Abraham and his clan) arrived in the Levant there was already a diverse populations living there not only Canaanites.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes. The bible speaks of all types of physically diverse populations in the Levant, including tall nations. Kind of puzzling that the Bronze Age Y-DNA in the Levant is so homogeneous.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Exactly Lisa. According to genetics, that is what the evidence demonstrates
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Correck! J1 is not semetic either...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Levant and Arabian Peninsula have always been physically diverse. However, even with all the history of the region it is still relatively unsampled in terms of ancient DNA and remains. And of course, Africa has some impact on this historically as the region is a crossroads moreso then that claimed for the Nile Valley, but without larger sample sizes you won't see the variation in any detail.
As for Israel, my understanding is that since the sack of the region by the Neo-Assyrians as seen in the sieges of Lachish, many of the later Jewish people were of Mesopotamian extraction as a result of being taken there after conquest and there are still remnants of Jewish populations in Iraq, Syria, etc. And this continued through the Greco Roman era, up until the final destruction of the Temple by the Romans and dispersal of the Jewish people into wider Eurasia.
But basically this isn't shocking that the population of Israel in that era would have been more like the populations in the surrounding area (as opposed to being of European extraction for example).
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
"Semitic" just means a speaker one of the Semitic languages. It doesn't mean a Semitic person is necessarily ancestrally related to the earliest speaker of a Semitic language.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yet Semitic is a branch of Afroasiatic language phylum which originated in Africa which means the language group was introduced to Southwest Asia at some point by Africans. Similarly Indo-European is a language phylum originating in European subcontinent in the eastern steppes of western Russia, yet there are I-E speakers in Sri-Lanka who are obviously not of European extraction.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic