No.16001[Reply]
Two scenarios of admixtures of the local population in northern Canaan, one without the Western European component and one with it. The probability of the first scenario, which assumes the local indigenism of the population, is very low (P-Value: 0.187). The probability of the second scenario, which assumes the influence of Western European migrants, is much higher, almost 100% (P-Value: 0.933).
* The indigenist scenario is currently an academic consensus established by (((local scientists))) from the (((edomite))) state of (((Israel))), who have rejected previous hypotheses about European migrations to the Middle East:
>Material-culture historians such as G.E. Wright, K. Kenyon, R. Amiran and M. Kochavi, struck by ceramic changes effected at the end of the EB III and visualizing them as the product of migration and invasion, sought out terms that would express the transitional nature of the ensuing period: “EB IV–MB I”, “Intermediate EB–MB”, and “Intermediate Bronze Age”. Olga Tufnell, who also favored INVASION AS THE PRIME MOVER IN CULTURAL CHANGE, linked the “Intermediate EB–MB” to the European “Beaker Folk” and to Egypt’s First Intermediate Period, while coining the term “Caliciform Culture” for the period in question. The processual reaction to cultural–historical archaeology, embraced by local and anglophone researchers of the 1970s and 1980s in the Levant, included a healthy measure of indigenism; insisting that CHANGE WAS INTERNALLY or systemically MOTIVATED UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE, many archaeologists adopted the term “EB IV”.
18 posts omitted. Click reply to view. No.16180
>>16175Any studies on the haplogroups in ancient Israel?
No.16181
Thoughts on this outlier sample from 1500BC? Scores 25%-ish Yamna-like ancestry.
https://www.exploreyourdna.com/sample/israel/i10100I10100,0.101303,0.110693,-0.035449,-0.001938,-0.016618,-0.006136,0.010105,-0.014769,-0.029247,-0.012210,0.007307,-0.008393,-0.000743,-0.017478,0.018187,0.009414,-0.002999,0.003041,0.019860,-0.004252,-0.009109,0.011623,-0.000863,0.003133,-0.000718
No.16183
>>16181Most likely it's an Abrahamic-admixed individual with partially, you know, Abrahamic ancestry (though it should've shown some WHG ancestry which is plausibly absorbed by ANF). Additionally, let's remember there's 27% Steppe-like component in Aleppo Syrians, so the sample just represents a case of a recent mixed marriage among a Northern European-related individual with a local Canaanite individual which then produced the sample individual (mamzer).
No.16447
A spontaneous note
I was reading Coon out of pure interest and then I ran into this excerpt which basically records White Nordic presence in the area which the Northern Israelites were deported to by Assyria in the 8th century BC (though then migrated from Transcaucasus to Central Europe through Anatolia, that's also discussed by Coon in the chapters):
>Furthermore, an important series of Early Iron Age crania from the Sevan district of Armenia, probably dated from the earlier half of the first millennium B.C., and probably therefore earlier than the Scyths in Europe, or at least as early as their first appearance, is exactly like the more dolichocephalic element in the Scythian group, and manifestly Nordic.
>Furthermore, it is very similar, both metrically and morphologically, to the early Germanic cranial group, and this virtual identity draws together the two geographical extremes of an originally united family.
>The Danish Iron Age crania form a homogeneous group. <…> Except for the lesser breadth of head and face, and greater vault length, they closely resemble the Keltic crania of Gaul and of the British Isles, and those of the Scythians, while they are virtually identical with the Armenian Iron Age skulls discussed in the last section.
Oh Coco my Israelite queen, I kneel…