quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
He's not just a historian. But you also just referenced the paper so I thought I would point out what it says about E. I never claimed he had akkadian ancestry... the only reason I appealed to akkadians was to demonstrate E in Mesopotamia. Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
It's speculation , no bodies
But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
He's not just a historian.
correct, from the article:
Csaba Barnabás Horváth (1982) is a historian and geopolitical analyst. He obtained his university degrees in History and Political Science at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest in 2010, and his PhD degree at the Corvinus University of Budapest in 2010
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
He's not just a historian. But you also just referenced the paper so I thought I would point out what it says about E. I never claimed he had akkadian ancestry... the only reason I appealed to akkadians was to demonstrate E in Mesopotamia. Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
What specifically do you want to know about those scriptures?
I'm probably about to stop posting in this thread because I don't want to risk getting censored and having my comments deleted.
Just open a thread in Kemet as regards to bible verses mentioning Chaldees
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are so many mixed studies on Ashkenazi I don't know what to think about their connection to mythical antiquity. The standard 23andme makes them 99% European but it only goes back 300 years. GPS Origins gives them 2-9% Southern Levant ancestry. I've only seen a few test. Some companies make them 40%+ Levant but this might be a more ancient OoA ancestry.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
E in the bronze age? Where did you see this at? Not doubting, just curious
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
E in the bronze age? Where did you see this at? Not doubting, just curious
Do you not read anybody posts but your one and the replies to them? I posted it 3 times already (Lisa even complained) and have been talking about this Bronze age article many times in the thread
page one 4/5ths down posted 27 October, 2023 11:33 AM
below the chart are short description of the site locations in Israel
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
I don't know why you are asking this. There are E people at two of those sites and other haplogroups and I would expect more of all of them J, E, T and R to be found at other yet to be excavated Bronze age and Iron Age (Israelites period) sites.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Let me re-phrase:
Out of all the ancient dead bodies in ancient Israel, do you honestly think the ones on that list are the only ones they've found and tested?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Let me re-phrase:
Out of all the ancient dead bodies in ancient Israel, do you honestly think the ones on that list are the only ones they've found and tested?
You think they found a whole bunch of E1b1a and are hiding it?
Maybe, along with King James' and Abraham Lincoln's hap E locked in a safe underground could be
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
That's not what I said. Howcome you can't answer the question? The fact that you can't give a straightforward answer says a lot
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
why would I think they are hiding something with no evidence of doing so?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I'm asking you to use common sense. They are constantly digging up bodies and testing bodies. They have people who dedicate their lives to doing excavations. And you honestly think the small amount of bodies on that list are the only ones that have been found and tested from the area?.....
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I'm asking you to use common sense. They are constantly digging up bodies and testing bodies. They have people who dedicate their lives to doing excavations. And you honestly think the small amount of bodies on that list are the only ones that have been found and tested from the area?.....
I showed you Bronze age E in Israel and you're still not happy?
It's possible they are hiding something but how are we to know?
just assuming this is always the case?
a conspiratorial mindset assumes conspiracy is the norm in any given situation where they don't like the findings.
This is not to assume that there is nothing being hidden or that there never are real conspiracies but to always assume there is is often motivated by wishful thinking and alternative agenda narratives
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Tazarahs positions.
-"Natufians are progenitors of biblical Israelites and in turn Hebrews.
- E lineages in Akkadia are representative of Abraham's lineage. Evidenced by the TMRCA of E-V12 and V22
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
You are the one who tried to play the game with akkadians so I followed along, then when you switched it up and started talking about how they descend from Cush, I switched it up too and said that would still mean Noah (their recent grandfather) had E, so either way it worked.
It's WILD how you are trying to make it seem like I'm playing games when you purposely threw Akkadians into the mix to try tripping me up.
And you did say that the akkadians were "african" in the context of E markers when I was discussing E in mesopotamia.
And it's also wild how I'm being accused of stealing information from posters on this website when I linked the exact video and time stamp that I got the akkadian source from -- I get ALL the genetic sources I've shared from that channel and the facebook group that the owner of the channel is apart of.
You guys mean to tell me that I speedily searched through all the videos on YouTube and coincidentally found a video with the same source?....lmfao.
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E, and Razib Khan says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
Please let me know if any of you (including you Elmaestro) are willing to set up a live discussion with any of these individuals (or reach out to them) and tell them how/why all of their research is wrong.
Other than that, there is nothing else left for us to discuss on the matter.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
You are the one who tried to play the game with akkadians so I followed along, then when you switched it up and started talking about how they descend from Cush, I switched it up too and said that would still mean Noah (their recent grandfather) had E, so either way it worked.
It's WILD how you are trying to make it seem like I'm playing games when you purposely threw Akkadians into the mix to try tripping me up.
And you did say that the akkadians were "african" in the context of E markers when I was discussing E in mesopotamia.
And it's also wild how I'm being accused of stealing information from posters on this website when I linked the exact video and time stamp that I got the akkadian source from -- I get ALL the genetic sources I've shared from that channel and the facebook group that the owner of the channel is apart of.
You guys mean to tell me that I speedily searched through all the videos on YouTube and coincidentally found a video with the same source?....lmfao.
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E, and Razib Khan says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
Please let me know if any of you (including you Elmaestro) are willing to set up a live discussion with any of these individuals (or reach out to them) and tell them how/why all of their research is wrong.
Other than that, there is nothing else left for us to discuss on the matter.
Are you gonna answer the question or not?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
without an argument being laid about this geneticist who you never name, it's not worth anything
But you could go and get this geneticist if you want and set up a discussion where he lays out some attempt of proving the claim
You seem very gullible to accept a theory with no argument detailing why they even think what their claim is, is true
maybe you can do your homework and try to find where this unnamed geneticist lays out their argument
This is not let a religious script that people often assume to be infallible and literal
Why do people write articles when they could state their theory in a couple of sentences? > because they are expected to prove it by detailed evidence, reasoning and standard method laid out in the article
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
My apologies.
Can you rephrase the question? Because in the original comment that you linked to, you said:
"So just to be clear, You believe that Mesopotamians who Noah was a stock of, carried an E lineage that was passed down directly from Natufians?"
But Noah was not the stock of mesopotamians, they would have been the stock of Noah
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
The geneticists name is on the paper (I've also said his name several times) and I referenced another professional who also says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
He talks about a lot of his methodology in the video I linked but I'll be sure to use that same talking point against you in the future
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Elmaestro
The thing is, I'm honestly not sure how to answer that question because of the supposed date that the natufians existed at
My primary source is the Bible and while I don't believe the world is just 6,000 years old, I don't believe it's millions or billions of years old either.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't feel that genetics lines up with the Bible, because the timelines do not match up.
So I can't answer your question in terms of haplogroup in relation to Noah/the natufians.
And that's me being 100% honest.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The thing is, I'm honestly not sure how to answer that question because of the supposed date that the natufians existed at
My primary source is the Bible and while I don't believe the world is just 6,000 years old, I don't believe it's millions or billions of years old either.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't feel that genetics lines up with the Bible, because the timelines do not match up.
So I can't answer your question in terms of haplogroup in relation to Noah/the natufians.
And that's me being 100% honest.
How does that work with this model?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
You are aware of the fact that Jacob's two other wives (Zilpah and Bilhah) were slaves/handmaids of Jacob's original wives Leah and Rachel, right? And they became Jacob's concubines. The Hebrews had a tradition and custom where they did not enslave each other. Are you suggesting that Rachel and Leah enslaved their own people and made them slaves/handmaids? And that Jacob took fellow Hebrew women CONCUBINES?
Handmaids yes, but "slaves" and therefore foreigners?? Again, where is that in the text?? The common Semitic word 'abed' has the accurate translation of servant and not necessarily slave. Do you realize that in ancient times bondservants were very common? A person who owes debt or whose family owes debt may work the debt off by servitude. In fact in ancient Israel it was not uncommon for girls from poor families to be sold into bond-service to rich families. Bible perverts try to say these girls were sold into "slavery" by their own fathers when actuality the service was not only temporary but that the girls themselves had opportunity be acquire wealth or be incorporated into the households of their employers even marrying the sons of their employers if not become concubines.
Hence, Deuteronomy 15:12-15 “If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; 14 you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today.
Mind you this was the law given to Moses who then gave to his people the Israelites. The laws for the duration of bond-service varied depending on the amount of debt as well as tribe or nation.
You also missed another important fact of ancient custom, which is that when a concubine is used as a surrogate mother, she does so on behalf of her mistress. Thus by law the children of Bilhah belong to her mistress Rachel and the children of Zilpah belonged to her mistress Leah!
Remember that Sarah used her handmaid Hagar as a surrogate also.
Genesis 16: 1-2 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said.
If not this adoption by the actual wife or matron of the house, then the children born of the handmaids would also be servants in the household of Jacob and not his legitimate heirs! LOL
This is why once Sarah herself bore Isaac, the birthright went to him and NOT Ishmael as he was no longer the legal child of Sarah, and why Sarah could send Ishmael and his true mother Hagar away from their home territory. Ishmael was not a true Hebrew because of his Egyptian mother yet God still blessed him and his mother because he was Abraham's son.
In the case of Bilha and Zilpah the only thing the texts tell us about their background is that they were formerly owned by Laban who bequeathed them to his daughters Rachel and Leah respectively as wedding gifts. But of course there exists stories. In fact the most popular rabbinic tradition suggests they were Laban's daughters from concubines making them Rachel and Leah's half-sisters though this seems like an obvious ploy to keep all of Jacob's relations 'in the family' so to speak. The apocryphal Testament of Naftali says that Bilhah and Zilpah's father was a man named Rotheus who was a foreigner taken into captivity in Haran but emancipated by Laban who also gave him a Hebrew wife named Euna. Though the explanation that seems most plausible to me comes from the Karaite Jewish tradition which claims they were orphans whom Laban did not formally adopt but instead incorporated into his household as retainers. Such was a common practice among families who did not want to divide their inheritance to those not kin. There is nothing overall to suggest that Bilha and Zilpah were themselves non-Hebrew. They come from the land of Paddan Aram which was a Hebrew area, and more importantly they are counted among the Hebrew matriarchs of Israel, in fact all Jewish traditions agree they were buried in the [Hebrew] Tomb of the Matriarchs.
quote:Smh! If I am in a cult, we sure do know the Bible better than you do.
Apparently not. To really know the Bible is to not only know the text itself but also the ancient context on which it is based. You don't know anything about ancient Hebraic or Middle-Eastern cultures which is apparent.
quote:I've shown you a reputable Biblical source stating that the word "gentile" USUALLY means a non-Israelite people (not always) and I've also shown you literal examples in the Bible of Israelites being told they used to be gentiles (past tense) and other scriptures that literally identify the gentiles as Israelites and you had nothing to say about any of it except for "omg he thinks gentiles were Israelites".
Do you even know the Hebrew words translated as "gentile"?? Also how can Israelites once be gentiles unless they became Israelites as I told you can happen through naturalization as I told you before. You even talk about Jacob marrying non-Israelite women, "Israelite" didn't exist because Jacob was the founder of Israel! LOL The ethnicity was Hebrew which comprised different nationalities such as Haranites, Ammonites, and Moabites etc. Both Paul and Peter were told to preach the Gospel to 'the nations', you do realize that is all the nations besides Israel.
quote:Hey, you know your boy Paul was also accused of being in a "cult", right?
ACTS 24:14 NLT
"14 But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets."
Of course he was. All the competing Jewish sects accused each other of being in cults. The Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and especially the Zealots. You do know that Paul was a Pharisee who was a pupil of the sage Gamaliel of the School of Hillel. Did you also know that Paul was not a true Judean by descent but instead an Idumean (Edomite). In the 2nd century BC, the Judean High Priest John Hyrcanus conquered Edom and put the inhabitants in a state of vassalage to Judea. The only way out of the vassalage was to formally convert to the Jewish religion and after 7 generations can they formerly be recognized as a Jew as was the case of Paul's ancestors who were formerly adopted into the tribe of Benjamin. By the way, the same thing happened first to the Canaanites when Joshua conquered Canaan. Not all the Canaanites were wiped out, some tribes became vassals and converted therefore being adopted into Israel after serving for 7 generations so the prophecy became fulfilled that Canaan shall be a servant of servants (Israelites) and the prophecy of Esau/Edom serving the younger brother also came true. So yes, Gentiles can become Jews but the converse can also happen with Jews becoming Gentile if they apostatize and rebel against God's covenant and laws.
The New Covenant is that Gentiles may become part of God's kingdom or Spiritual Israel without becoming an actual Jew and following all the Torah laws that Jews have to follow but instead be baptized and follow Noahide laws instead.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
We can play semantics with servant/slave/handmaid but the unavoidable keyword is concubine. One of the women (Bilhah) is identified as Jacob/Israel's concubine (Genesis 35:22). I'm sure the other one (Zilpah) is too but I don't have time to find it at the moment. Hebrews did not make other Hebrews concubines. I've even shown you jewish sources that say these women were not viewed or seen as the same people as Jacob and his other wives. And there is no evidence that either of the two women were in bondage to pay off a debt, like how the law you referenced in Deuteronomy talks about.
Regarding "gentiles", context supercedes etymology. If you don't believe Israelites were ever called gentiles then I need you to explain why Paul tells the target audience that all their fathers were under the cloud with Moses in the wilderness and passed through the red sea with Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1), only to then tell them 2 chapters later that they used to be gentiles (past tense) in 1 Corinthians 12:1-2.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's not an issue of theology so much as exegesis of the text or in some cases basic reading comprehension. The guy can't even differentiate between a concubine and a bonds-maid as the two are not synonymous. LOL
You can't understand the Bible unless you understand its historical and cultural context. This is true of any ancient text or document. Without such context an ignoramus like Tazarah can distort its meaning.
This is why he tells me to "stick to genetics", because he knows I'm wiping the floor on his so-called knowledge of the Bible. So back to genetics. If Abraham's paternal lineage was E, how do you explain that the major clade Jews have in common is J or that the Modal Cohen lineage is J1? Can Tazarah or anyone answer this?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is genetics thread, not bible text, figure out some new text based theme, quote Tazarah and react, that's a thread
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
Exactly, no answer.
Anyway, no one has Aaron's DNA so appealing to a "cohen gene" is not a credible argument, and like I've been saying:
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik in which you can question him about his methodology. He's the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper published on the government website which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors, and he also says that Abraham had an E marker and that ancient Israelites had E.
We can also try setting up something with the paper's other authors and/or peer-reviewers (Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, and Mehdi Pirooznia).
And/or, we can try setting up something with Razib Khan, who also says that ancient Israelites had E markers in high frequences.
Let me know. At the very least, we can send them an email with questions/oppositions that you or anyone else might have.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik... the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper ... which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors
quote:The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)
You are just spamming now, you have said this since page one and have not quoted the authors with proof of the theory, describing evidence for it, have not quoted the authors (assuming it's in the article at all)
And you think whatever a genetics writes we are to accept it as true just because they are a geneticists, that's stupid. It doesn't matter if they are a professional geneticist, just like a lawyer they have to make an argument and show evidence trying to prove their case, You have what is analogous to an allegation but nothing on the table by the authors trying to make the case but you don't have that
It's a religious mindset rather than a scientific one that demand proofs for theories and you are in repetition mode now and trolling
So stop the BS about setting up a discussion, you have nothing on the table attempting to prove Natufians are the ancestors of the Israelites
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
You are actually the one spamming. You keep saying "you can't prove this, you can't prove that, it's not true" but I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists and/or professionals from the genetics community who do say it's true so that you can question them about their methodology, at least via email.
But instead you choose to keep hounding me for answers and trying to discredit these professionals through me, simply because I reference their work.
That does not make sense and is completely irrational. Especially when taking into consideration that I am actually trying to further the discussion and get you in contact with the actual geneticists themselves.
I've shown proof that they are willing to discuss these things with people but you want to play dumb.
This is my last comment to you in this thread -- it looks like today is a "troll day" on your calendar
Shalom
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists
How are you offering this?
Have you contacted a geneticist and this person has agreed they are ready to discuss something?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I've repeatedly made it clear that they are reachable (as you can see in the videos I shared), and I know how to get in touch with them if you want to question them the way you have been questioning me. It will likely cost some sort of fee but I will cover that if somebody is actually willing to do it. Or someone could draft an email with questions/oppositions and I could forward it to them.
If you are not interested then there is nothing left for us to talk about.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop spamming the thread this is the third warning. Send me a PM I will talk to you and which ever geneticist live or in person whichever maybe. But it's clear that you have nothing more to contribute to this thread, stop spamming. //MODPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the Haaretz article I cited in the previous page, how many in here remember the 2018 Lazaridis & Reich et ales. study on Chalcolithic Galileans?
Here are some highlights again for those who may have forgotten or have not read it. Abstract The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past.
Introduction The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant contrasts qualitatively with that of earlier and later periods in the same region. The Late Chalcolithic in the Levant is characterized by increases in the density of settlements, introduction of sanctuaries, utilization of ossuaries in secondary burials, and expansion of public ritual practices as well as an efflorescence of symbolic motifs sculpted and painted on artifacts made of pottery, basalt, copper, and ivory. The period’s impressive metal artifacts, which reflect the first known use of the “lost wax” technique for casting of copper, attest to the extraordinary technical skill of the people of this period.
The distinctive cultural characteristics of the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant (often related to the Ghassulian culture, although this term is not in practice applied to the Galilee region where this study is based) have few stylistic links to the earlier or later material cultures of the region, which has led to extensive debate about the origins of the people who made this material culture. One hypothesis is that the Chalcolithic culture in the region was spread in part by immigrants from the north (i.e., northern Mesopotamia), based on similarities in artistic designs. Others have suggested that the local populations of the Levant were entirely responsible for developing this culture, and that any similarities to material cultures to the north are due to borrowing of ideas and not to movements of people.
To explore these questions, we studied ancient DNA from a Chalcolithic site in Northern Israel, Peqi’in (Fig. 1a). This cave, which is around 17 m long and 4.5–8.0 m wide (Fig. 1b), was discovered during road construction in 1995, and was sealed by natural processes during or around the end of the Late Chalcolithic period (around 3900 BCE). Archeological excavations have revealed an extraordinary array of finely crafted objects, including chalices, bowls, and churns, as well as more than 200 ossuaries and domestic jars repurposed as ossuaries (the largest number ever found in a single cave), often decorated with anthropomorphic designs (Fig. 1c). It has been estimated that the burial cave contained up to 600 individuals, making it the largest burial site ever identified from the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant. Direct radiocarbon dating suggests that the cave was in use throughout the Late Chalcolithic (4500–3900 BCE), functioning as a central burial location for the region.
*Previous genome-wide ancient DNA studies from the Near East have revealed that at the time when agriculture developed, populations from Anatolia, Iran, and the Levant were approximately as genetically differentiated from each other as present-day Europeans and East Asians are today*. By the Bronze Age, however, expansion of different Near Eastern agriculturalist populations—Anatolian, Iranian, and Levantine—in all directions and admixture with each other substantially homogenized populations across the region, thereby contributing to the relatively low genetic differentiation that prevails today. Lazaridis et al. showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE). Haber et al. suggested that the Canaanite Levant Bronze Age population from the site of Sidon, Lebanon (~1700 BCE) could be modeled as a mixture of the same two groups albeit in different proportions (48% Levant Neolithic-related and 52% Iran Chalcolithic-related). However, the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites analyzed so far in the Levant are separated in time by more than three thousand years, making the study of samples that fill in this gap, such as those from Peqi’in, of critical importance.
In a dedicated clean room facility at Harvard Medical School, we obtained bone powder from 48 skeletal remains, of which 37 were petrous bones known for excellent DNA preservation. We extracted DNA and built next-generation sequencing libraries to which we attached unique barcodes to minimize the possibility of contamination. We treated the libraries with Uracil–DNA glycosylase (UDG) to reduce characteristic ancient DNA damage at all but the first and last nucleotides (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Data 1 provide background for successful samples and report information for each library, respectively). After initial screening by enriching the libraries for mitochondrial DNA, we enriched promising libraries for sequences overlapping about 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We evaluated each individual for evidence of authentic ancient DNA by limiting to libraries with a minimum of 3% cytosine-to-thymine errors at the final nucleotide, by requiring that the ratio of X-to-Y-chromosome sequences was characteristic of either a male or a female, by requiring >95% matching to the consensus sequence of mitochondrial DNA, and by requiring (for males) a lack of variation at known polymorphic positions on chromosome X (point estimates of contamination of less than 2%). We also restricted to individuals with at least 5000 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once.
This procedure produced genome-wide data from 22 ancient individuals from Peqi’in Cave (4500–3900 calBCE), with the individuals having a median of 358,313 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once (range: 25,171–1,002,682). The dataset is of exceptional quality given the typically poor preservation of DNA in the warm Near East, with a higher proportion of samples yielding appreciable coverage of ancient DNA than has previously been obtained from the region, likely reflecting the optimal sampling techniques we used and the favorable preservation conditions at the cave. We analyzed this dataset in conjunction with previously published datasets of ancient Near Eastern populations to shed light on the history of the individuals buried in the Peqi’in cave site, and on the population dynamics of the Levant during the Late Chalcolithic period.
Results Genetic differentiation and diversity in the ancient Levant A total of 20 Peqi’in samples appear to be unrelated to each other to the limits of our resolution (that is, genetic analysis suggested that they were not first, second, or third degree relatives of each other), and we used these as our analysis set. Taking advantage of the new data point added by the Peqi’in samples, we began by studying how genetic differentiation among Levantine populations changed over time. We replicate previous reports of dramatic decline in genetic differentiation over time in West Eurasia, observing a median pairwise FST of 0.023 (range: 0.009–0.061) between the Peqi’in samples (abbreviation: Levant_ChL) and other West Eurasian Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations, relative to a previously reported median pairwise FST of 0.098 (range: 0.023–0.153) observed between populations in pre-Neolithic periods, 0.015 (range: 0.002–0.045) in the Bronze Age periods, and 0.011 (range: 0–0.046) in present-day West Eurasian populations. Thus, the collapse to present-day levels of differentiation was largely complete by the Chalcolithic (Supplementary Figure 1).
We also observe an increase in genetic diversity over time in the Levant as measured by the rate of polymorphism between two random genome sequences at each SNP analyzed in our study. Specifically, the Levant_ChL population exhibits an intermediate level of heterozygosity relative to the earlier and later populations (Fig. 2).
Both the increasing genetic diversity over time, and the reduced differentiation between populations as measured via FST, are consistent with a model in which gene flow reduced differentiation across groups while increasing diversity within groups.
Genetic affinities of the individuals of Peqi’in Cave To obtain a qualitative picture of how these individuals relate to previously published ancient DNA and to present-day people, we began by carrying out principal component analysis (PCA). In a plot of the first and second principal components (Fig. 3a), the samples from Peqi’in Cave form a tight cluster, supporting the grouping of these individuals into a single analysis population (while we use the broad name “Levant_ChL” to refer to these samples, we recognize that they are currently the only ancient DNA available from the Levant in this time period and future work will plausibly reveal genetic substructure in Chalcolithic samples over the broad region). The Levant_ChL cluster overlaps in the PCA with a cluster containing Neolithic Levantine samples (Levant_N), although it is slightly shifted upward on the plot toward a cluster corresponding to samples from the Levant Bronze Age, including samples from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon, Lebanon (Levant_BA_North). *The placement of the Levant_ChL cluster is consistent with a previously observed pattern whereby chronologically later Levantine populations are shifted towards the Iran Chalcolithic (Iran_ChL) population compared to earlier Levantine populations*, Levant_N (Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists from present-day Israel and Jordan) and Natufians (Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers from present-day Israel).
ADMIXTURE model-based clustering analyses produced results consistent with PCA in suggesting that individuals from the Levant_ChL population had a greater affinity on average to Iranian agriculturalist-related populations than was the case for earlier Levantine individuals. Figure 3b shows the ADMIXTURE results for the ancient individuals assuming K = 11 clusters (we selected this number because it maximizes ancestry components that are correlated to ancient populations from the Levant, from Iran, and European hunter-gatherers). Like all Levantine populations, the primary ancestry component assigned to the Levant_ChL population, shown in blue, is maximized in earlier Levant_N and Natufian individuals. ADMIXTURE also assigns a component of ancestry in Levant_ChL, shown in green, to a population that is generally absent in the earlier Levant_N and Natufian populations, but is present in later Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North samples. This green component is also inferred in small proportions in several samples assigned to the Levant_N, but there is not a clear association to archaeological location or date, and these individuals are not significantly genetically distinct from the other individuals included in Levant_N by formal testing, and thus we pool all Levant_N for the primary analyses in this study (Supplementary Note 1).
Population continuity and admixture in the Levant To determine the relationship of the Levant_ChL population to other ancient Near Eastern populations, we used f-statistics (see Supplementary Note 2 for more details). We first evaluated whether the Levant_ChL population is consistent with descending directly from a population related to the earlier Levant_N. If this was the case, we would expect that the Levant_N population would be consistent with being more closely related to the Levant_ChL population than it is to any other population, and indeed we confirm this by observing positive statistics of the form f4 (Levant_ChL, A; Levant_N, Chimpanzee) for all ancient test populations, A (Fig. 4a). However, Levant_ChL and Levant_N population do not form a clade, as when we compute symmetry statistics of the form f4 (Levant_N, Levant_ChL; A, Chimpanzee), we find that the statistic is often negative, with Near Eastern populations outside the Levant sharing more alleles with Levant_ChL than with Levant_N (Fig. 4b). We conclude that while the Levant_N and Levant_ChL populations are clearly related, the Levant_ChL population cannot be modeled as descending directly from the Levant_N population without additional admixture related to ancient Iranian agriculturalists. Direct evidence that Levant_ChL is admixed comes from the statistic f3 (Levant_ChL; Levant_N, A), which for some populations, A, is significantly negative indicating that allele frequencies in Levant_ChL tend to be intermediate between those in Levant_N and A—a pattern that can only arise if Levant_ChL is the product of admixture between groups related, perhaps distantly, to Levant_N and A35. The most negative f3- and f4-statistics are produced when A is a population from Iran or the Caucasus. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population is descended from a population related to Levant_N, but also harbors ancestry from non-Levantine populations related to those of Iran or the Caucasus that Levant_N does not share (or at least share to the same extent).
The ancestry of the Levant Chalcolithic people We used qpAdm as our main tool for identifying plausible admixture models for the ancient populations for which we have data (see Supplementary Note 3 for more details).
The qpAdm method evaluates whether a tested set of N “Left” populations—including a “target” population (the population whose ancestry is being modeled) and a set of N − 1 additional populations—are consistent with being derived from mixtures in various proportions of N − 1 ancestral populations related differentially to a set of outgroup populations, referred to as “Right” populations. For all our analyses, we use a base set of 11 “Right” outgroups referred to collectively as “09NW”—Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Onge, Chukchi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Natufian, and WHG—whose value for disentangling divergent strains of ancestry present in ancient Near Easterners has been documented in Lazaridis et al. (for some analyses we supplement this set with additional outgroups). To evaluate whether the “Left” populations are consistent with a hypothesis of being derived from N − 1 sources, qpAdm effectively computes all possible statistics of the form f4(Lefti, Leftj; Rightk, Rightl), for all possible pairs of populations in the proposed “Left” and “Right” sets. It then determines whether all the statistics can be written as a linear combination of f4-statistics corresponding to the differentiation patterns between the proposed N − 1 ancestral populations, appropriately accounting for the covariance of these statistics and computing a single p value for fit based on a Hotelling T-squared distribution36. For models that are consistent with the data (p > 0.05), qpAdm estimates proportions of admixture for the target population from sources related to the N − 1 ancestral populations (with standard errors). Crucially, qpAdm does not require specifying an explicit model for how the “Right” outgroup populations are related.
We first examined all possible “Left” population sets that consisted of Levant_ChL along with one other ancient population from the analysis dataset. Testing a wide range of ancient populations, we found that p values for all possible Left populations were below 0.05 (Supplementary Data 2), showing that Levant_ChL is not consistent with being a clade with any of them relative to the “Right” 09NW outgroups. We then considered models with “Left” population sets containing Levant_ChL along with two additional ancient populations, which corresponds to modeling the Levant_ChL as the result of a two-way admixture between populations related to these two other ancient populations. To reduce the number of hypotheses tested, we restricted the models to pairs of source populations that contain at least one of the six populations that we consider to be the most likely admixture sources based on geographical and temporal proximity: Anatolia_N, Anatolia_ChL, Armenia_ChL, Iran_ChL, Iran_N, and Levant_N. Again, we find no plausible two-way admixture models using a p > 0.05 threshold (Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Data 3). Finally, we tested possible three-way admixture events, restricting to triplets that contain at least two of the six most likely admixture sources. Plausible solutions at p > 0.05 are listed in Table 1 (full results are reported in Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Data 4).
We found multiple candidates for three-way admixture models, always including (1) Levant_N (2) either Anatolia_N or Europe_EN and (3) either Iran_ChL, Iran_N, Iran_LN, Iran_HotuIIIb or Levant_BA_North. These are all very similar models, as Europe_EN (early European agriculturalists) are known to be genetically primarily derived from Anatolian agriculturalists (Anatolia_N)31, and Levant_BA_North has ancestry related to Levant_N and Iran_ChL26. To distinguish between models involving Anatolian Neolithic (Anatolia_N) and European Early Neolithic (Europe_EN), we repeated the analysis including additional outgroup populations in the “Right” set that are sensitive to the European hunter-gatherer-related admixture present to a greater extent in Europe_EN than in Anatolia_N (Supplementary Figure 4a)31 (thus, we added Switzerland_HG, SHG, EHG, Iberia_BA, Steppe_Eneolithic, Europe_MNChL, Europe_LNBA to the “Right” outgroups; abbreviations in Supplementary Table 2). We found that only models involving Levant_N, Anatolia_N, and either Iran_ChL or Levant_BA_North passed at p > 0.05 (Table 1). To distinguish between Iran_ChL and Levant_BA_North, we added Iran_N to the outgroup set (for a total of 19 = 11 + 8 outgroups) (Supplementary Figure 4b). Only the model involving Iran_ChL remained plausible. Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).
The ancestry of late Levantine Bronze Age populations It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry. In what follows, we treat Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North as separate populations for analysis, since the symmetry statistic f4(Levant_BA_North, Levant_BA_South; A, Chimp) is significant for a number test populations A (|Z| ≥ 3) (Supplementary Data 5), consistent with the different estimated proportions of Levant_N and Iran_ChL ancestry reported in24,26.
To test the hypothesis that Levant_ChL may be directly ancestral to the Bronze Age Levantine populations, we attempted to model both Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North as two-way admixtures between Levant_ChL and every other ancient population in our dataset, using the base 09NW set of populations as the “Right” outgroups. We also compared these models to the previously published models that used the Levant_N and Iran_ChL populations as sources (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 5; Supplementary Data 6). In the case of Levant_BA_South from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan, multiple models were plausible, and thus we returned to the strategy of adding additional “Right” population outgroups that are differentially related to one or more of the “Left” populations (specifically, we added various combinations of Armenia_EBA, Steppe_EMBA, Switzerland_HG, Iran_LN, and Iran_N). Only the model including Levant_N and Iran_ChL remains plausible under all conditions. Thus, we can conclude that groups related to Levant_ChL contributed little ancestry to Levant_BA_South.
We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in Haber et al.26 (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by Haber et al.26. These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.
We obtained additional insight by running qpAdm with Levant_BA_South as a target of two-way admixture between Levant_N and Iran_ChL, but now adding Levant_ChL and Anatolia_N to the basic 09NW “Right” set of 11 outgroups. The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.
Genetic heterogeneity in the Levantine Bronze Age We were concerned that our finding that the Levant_ChL population was a mixture of at least three groups might be an artifact of not having access to samples closely related to the true ancestral populations. One specific possibility we considered is that a single ancestral population admixed into the Levant to contribute to both the Levant_ChL and the Levant_BA_South populations, and that this was an unsampled population on an admixture cline between Anatolia_N and Iran_ChL, explaining why qpAdm requires three source populations to model it. To formally test this hypothesis, we used qpWave36,37,38, which determines the minimum number of source populations required to model the relationship between “Left” populations relative to “Right” outgroup populations. Unlike qpAdm, qpWave does not require that populations closely related to the true source populations are available for analysis. Instead it treats all “Left” populations equally, and attempts to determine the minimum number of theoretical source populations required to model the “Left” population set, relative to the “Right” population outgroups. Therefore, we model the relationship between Levant_N, Levant_ChL, and Levant_BA_South as “Left” populations, relative to the 09NW “Right” outgroup populations (Table 3). We find that a minimum of three source populations continues to be required to model the ancestry of these Levantine populations, supporting a model in which at least three separate sources of ancestry are present in the Levant between the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age....
Y'all can read the rest, but hopefully everyone can get the big picture of waves of admixture vs. single continuity.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn, you sure dropped a bomb there, DJ! Looks like Taz will have to claim that his “pure Natufian Israelites” weren’t actually in the Levant anymore by Chalcolithic times.
EDIT: Although, to be fair, the Bronze Age Levantines do seem to vary when it comes to affinity with the earlier Chalcolithic populations, with the southern ones showing less affinity than the northerners.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I never claimed the natufians were still in the Levant in the chalcolithic, nor that the Israelites were "pure natufian". I only said the natufians would have passed down E markers to the Israelites..........smh.
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
Also, "Tazarah" did not write any of the peer-reviewed papers I referenced.
It's funny how you can both see that Elmaestro is not letting me comment in the thread anymore (yet Djehuti comments "crickets" for some reason as if I am ignoring him) and it's funny how Djehuti completely ignored the points raised in my 2 previous comments, as well as the invite to discuss this topic with an actual geneticist.
Djehuti, if you want to challenge actual professionals with decades of experience in the genetics community and tell them that they are wrong on this topic, let me know right now. I've already sent Elmaestro a private message about setting something up.
I'm not commenting in here anymore.
They obviously know way more than I do on the topic since genetics isn't something I hold to, so let's set something up so you can correct them.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Getting back to the Haaretz article I cited in the previous page, how many in here remember the 2018 Lazaridis & Reich et ales. study on Chalcolithic Galileans?
Here are some highlights again for those who may have forgotten or have not read it. [i] Abstract The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I agree, and there was also a recent study that came out about 2 years ago I think. It concluded that professional geniticists do this as well. They use an extremely flawed method to make the data say and represent what they want it to (and the crazy part is that they all know this.) Up to 215,000 genetic papers were supposedly affected.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
LET ME KNOW if any of you want to set up a LIVE discussion/dialogue with one of these professionals instead of typing back and forth everyday on Egypt Search. No need to even mention me anymore, let's see you go after some actual Ph.Ds and well known scholars/professionals who possess authority in the professional genetics community....
I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists and/or professionals from the genetics community who do say it's true
People, please ignore Tazarah He will post whatever is convenient at the moment
Let's move on
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Samaritans also have a clade of J2 according to this presentation:
quote:The Samaritans claim to be descended from the Israelite Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi.
According to Samaritan Law and their interpretation of the Torah, Samaritans were forbidden from marrying non-Israelites, and unlike Jews, they did not accept any converts until 1924. Jews too were forbidden according to Jewish Law from marrying Samaritans. All Samaritans today have only four surviving Y lineages. (A fifth, from the Tribe of Benjamin, died out in 1912).
According to the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, many Samaritans are descended from Jews of Jerusalem who left and moved northward for religious reasons before the time of Alexander the Great in 338 BCE.
This would mean that the Y lineages of the Samaritans could be a tiny random sample of the Y lineages present among Ancient Jews in the Second Temple, and earlier. The Bible itself claims that the Samaritan Levites are descended from actual Ancient Israelite Levites.
Any Y matches between Jews and Samaritans within about 3200 years are very likely to date to Ancient Israel.
At least two of the four Samaritan Y lineages (L210/L227 and V22) must have originated west of the Euphrates, the ancient Levant, and so are extremely likely to have been present among the Ancient Israelites. We have yet to determine the closest matches of the other two (L147* and J2a4*).
The only surviving Samaritan mtDNA lineages are in haplogroups T2a1 and U7a1. No one has every gotten a full mitochondrial sequence on these two haplotypes.
posted
Lioness PLEASE stop posting the same study over and over and over, this is disruptive to anyone trying to actually follow this thread.
You should be able with your own words sum up that study in a small paragraph that you can copy and paste.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop trolling, The image "Haplogroup F" is in the thread 5 times (!), Origins of M267 4 times The repetitiousness images started on page 1 and you participated in it but you didn't complain
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop trolling, The image "Haplogroup F" is in the thread 5 times (!), Origins of M267 4 times The repetitiousness images started on page 1 and you participated in it but you didn't complain
What?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
look at those images on page 1 of an article on M267, that is in the thread 4 times and mainly on page one then look at the image of text describing Haplogroup F also on page 1 is repeated throughout thread, 5 times but you did not whine then?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote: "Recently several genetic studies on the Samaritan population were made using haplogroup comparisons as well as wide-genome genetic studies. Of the 12 Samaritan males used in the analysis, 10 (83%) had Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup J, which includes three of the four Samaritan families. The Joshua-Marhiv family belongs to Haplogroup J-M267 (formerly "J1"), while the Danafi and Tsedakah families belong to haplogroup J-M172 (formerly "J2"), and can be further distinguished by the M67 SNP—the derived allele of which has been found in the Danafi family—and the PF5169 SNP found in the Tsedakah family. However the biggest and most important Samaritan family, the Cohen family (Tradition: Tribe of Levi), was found to belong to haplogroup E."
quote: "Recently several genetic studies on the Samaritan population were made using haplogroup comparisons as well as wide-genome genetic studies. Of the 12 Samaritan males used in the analysis, 10 (83%) had Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup J, which includes three of the four Samaritan families. The Joshua-Marhiv family belongs to Haplogroup J-M267 (formerly "J1"), while the Danafi and Tsedakah families belong to haplogroup J-M172 (formerly "J2"), and can be further distinguished by the M67 SNP—the derived allele of which has been found in the Danafi family—and the PF5169 SNP found in the Tsedakah family. However the biggest and most important Samaritan family, the Cohen family (Tradition: Tribe of Levi), was found to belong to haplogroup E." [108]
Shen, P.; Lavi, T.; Kivisild, T.; Chou, V.; Sengun, D.; Gefel, D.; Shpirer, I.; Woolf, E.; Hillel, J.; Feldman, M.W.; Oefner, P.J. (2004). "Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation" (PDF). Human Mutation. 24 (3): 248–260. doi:10.1002/humu.20077. PMID 15300852. S2CID 1571356.
The Samaritan community, which numbered more than a million in late Roman times and only 146 in 1917, numbers today about 640 people representing four large families. They are culturally different from both Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Middle East and their origin remains a question of great interest. Genetic differences between the Samaritans and neighboring Jewish and non-Jewish populations are corroborated in the present study of 7,280 bp of nonrecombining Y-chromosome and 5,622 bp of coding and hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences. Comparative sequence analysis was carried out on 12 Samaritan Y-chromosome, and mtDNA samples from nine male and seven female Samaritans separated by at least two generations. In addition, 18–20 male individuals were analyzed, each representing Ethiopian, Ashkenazi, Iraqi, Libyan, Moroccan, and Yemenite Jews, as well as Druze and Palestinians, all currently living in Israel. The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity. Of the 16 Samaritan mtDNA samples, 14 carry either of two mitochondrial haplotypes that are rare or absent among other worldwide ethnic groups. Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. Hum Mutat 24:248–260, 2004. r
Of the 12 Samaritan males, 10 (83%) belong to haplogroup J, which captures three of the four Samaritan families. The family Joshua-Marhiv belongs to subhaplogroup J1, while families Danfi and Tsdaka belong to subhaplogroup J2, and can be further distinguished by M67, the derived allele of which has been found in the Danfi family. The paternal ancestry of Ethiopian Jews resembles that of Africans, with seven out of 17 (41.2%) belonging to haplogroup A3b2, and three (17.6%) belonging to E*. Haplogroup E3b1, defined by M78, was found in all nine populations at frequencies of 10–16.7%. The Samaritan family Cohen carries this haplotype. Haplogroup E3b3, defined by M123, was present at 5 to 20% in Ethiopian, Ashkenazi, Libyan, and Yemenite Jews, and in Palestinians. Only two individuals, one Ethiopian and one Moroccan belong to E3b* and carry neither M78 nor M123.
The Cohen family represents an interesting subgroup of the Samaritans. It can be traced to a single individual some 250 years ago [Cazes and Bonne´-Tamir, 1984]. Consistent with a previous report [Bonne´-Tamir et al. 2003], the Samaritan Cohens did not carry the Cohen modal haplotype (data not shown), which is defined by the repeat numbers 14, 16, 23, 10, 11, and 12 at the Ychromosome microsatellite loci DYS19, DYS388, DYS 390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393, respectively [Thomas et al., 1998]. This six-microsatellite haplotype, together with its one-mutation neighbors, form a cluster that is found at frequencies of 69.4 and 61.4% in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Cohanim, while its frequency in the general Jewish population is about 14% [Thomas et al., 1998; Nebel et al., 2001]. The Cohen modal cluster is invariably associated with haplogroup J, which probably originated some 15,000 years ago in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent [Hammer et al., 2000; Quintana-Murci et al., 2001], whence it began its expansion throughout the Middle East 7,500 years ago [Nebel et al., 2001; Quintana-Murci et al., 2001]. To our surprise, all non-Cohen Samaritan Y-chromosomes belonged to the Cohen modal cluster. The single exception was an M67 lineage from the Danfi family. It was two microsatellite mutation steps removed from the Cohen modal haplotype. Based on the classification by Nebel et al. [2001], the Samaritan M172 lineages carried the so-called Muslim Kurd modal haplotype (14-15-23- 10-11-12). The Samaritan M267 lineages differed from the classical Cohen modal haplotype at DYS391, carrying 11 rather than 10 repeats. Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Ychromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Ylineages (Fig. 2A), while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences (Fig. 2B). Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci (data not shown), underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.
Interesting pie chart, very unusual. I think hard to read. It has simultaneously Y-DNA indicted across the top as columns at the same time mitochondrial on the vertical rows and then varying size of the circles. The text also talks about the haplogroups in the more conventional way
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a table from 2013 which shows the haplogroups of Samaritans. As in the Bronze age samples both J1, J2 and E (E1b1b1) are present.
In the Wikipedia article they only mention the study from 2004. One must read both of the studies in detail to see if they came to the same or different conclusions.
Table 1 shows the six distinct Samaritan Y chromosome STR haplotypes. The haplotypes are identical within the Joshua-Marhiv and Tsedaka lineages. There is a single repeat difference at DYS 391 in the Samaritan Cohen lineage, and a single repeat difference at DYS 390 in the Danfi lineage.
Today there are only about 874 Samaritans left (according to Wiki, in the study they say 750).
quote:ABSTRACT The Samaritans are a group of some 750 indigenous Middle Eastern people, about half of whom live in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv, and the other half near Nablus. The Samaritan population is believed to have numbered more than a million in late Roman times, but less than 150 in 1917. The ancestry of the Samaritans has been subject to controversy from late Biblical times to the present. In this study, liquid chromatographyelectrospray ionization quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometry was used to allelotype 13 Y-chromosomal and 15 autosomal microsatellites in a sample of 12 Samaritans chosen to have as low a level of relationship as possible, and 461 Jews and non-Jews. Estimation of genetic distances between the Samaritans and seven Jewish and three non-Jewish populations from Israel, as well as populations from Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, and Europe, revealed that the Samaritans were closely related to Cohanim. This result supports the position of the Samaritans that they are descendants from the tribes of Israel dating to before the Assyrian exile in 722–720 BCE. In concordance with previously published singlenucleotide polymorphism haplotypes, each Samaritan family, with the exception of the Samaritan Cohen lineage, was observed to carry a distinctive Y-chromosome short tandem repeat haplotype that was not more than one mutation removed from the six-marker Cohen modal haplotype
About all these peoples relationship to the buried individual. Since we have an alleged Israelite grave where one individual carried Y-DNA haplogroup J2 then it is what we have. Until we find more tombs, or can access more human Israelite remains everything else just become speculations.
We also have a Jewish grave with DNA from the 1th century AD, but it only yielded mitochondrial DNA.
So we just need more material (preferably from different times and places).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic