How did one of the most fertile and wealthy regions in the world become a pirate infested desert shithole under muslim rule?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How did one of the most fertile and wealthy regions in the world become a pirate infested desert shithole under muslim rule?
Muslim rule=no more wine, its cash crop
Poverty and a wealthy neighbor encouraged constant wienerblocking which was far more profitable, but when that industry waned, there was frick all left for them
Trade ground to a halt due to constant warfare + a frickton of Arab tribesmen migrated there
Arabian/muslim agriculture and Irrigation was a massive downgrade from how it was under roman and even vandalic rule, they also stagnated until colonization
bullshit. muslims literally brought advanced irirgation systems to iberia
>bullshit. muslims literally brought advanced irirgation systems to iberia
that was sicily not iberia
and iberia
Are you guys forgetting that a cyclone hit that area and sent tons of salt water everywhere ruining tons of great farm land.
In short, Arabs are parasites of real civilization, whose main industry is stealing the achievements of others. They cultivate no real excellence, and as soon as their hard military power wanes, they have no backup plans or ways to sustain their governments.
this
>Arabs created the richest civilization in Europe at that time.
you talking about andalus ?
it was nafris that conquered it , and converted iberians that built it
>ghreb barely has any fertile or livable land
completely false
>it was nafris that conquered it
On behalf of an Arab dynasty.
okay ill give that to you
i guess the senegalese that fought in the french army were french right ?
false , the aures are far from the coastlines and were pretty wealthy
>Most of you lived in huts
>illiterate
you never heard of juba II library right ?
plus we had our own writng script that we used
>i guess the senegalese that fought in the french army were french right ?
Leave your grandfather out of that please.
Except that the Maghreb barely has any fertile or livable land, almost no rivers and it's very mountainous. This region was destined to be irrelevant.
moronic take
It's not because it implies the region will be isolated to a certain degree and not densely populated.
Are you gonna ignore the fact that beside Carthage, the rest of the Maghreb was one of the poorest provinces in the roman empire?
Moving the goalposts, are you going to ignore that most roman grain was imported from Africa?
>captcha:xKYS2
Arabs freed Africa from Roman oppression.
also , numidia was the main exportator of grain to greeks , who were so grateful hat they built a statue for massinissa
so yes they were quite rich
are you also going to steal the phoenicians achievements ?
>You are the one who has to prove otherwise.
youre the one who made the first claim not me
>e some pre-punic Berber armor.
sadly none that have survived til now
but at the same time the algerian gov rarely does archological researches
So you have no proof, gotcha.
you neither kek
i guess were both wrong and right at the same moment
i think that the western lands were quite empty as the atlas are hard to travel in
Roman africa provided massive amounts of grain for the Roman Empire.
Egypt was the grain producing one
t. Doesn't know what Roman Africa was
Roman Africa was modern Tunisia and coastal Tunis, not the coast of Algeria or Morocco.
eastern algeria was part of it
and dont forget northwest lybia
The Maghreb desertified during Antiquity
It's more impressive that it went from being a completely uninhabited region with zero ruins or artifacts besides maybe mesolithic stone arrowheads until the 8th century bc to one of the most densely inhabited places in the Mediterranean and beyond from the 7-6th century bc all the way to the Late Antiquity Period.
>d desert shithole
holy shit open a map
plus it was still incredibly wealthy even after the banu hilal
they eeven had theyre own self ruled states before them , then the aabs and turks came
was still uber rich but not self controlled , then the french came it became poor and not self controlled
then they went away and it stayed poor and notself governed
>e that it went from being a completely uninhabited region with zero ruins or artifacts besides maybe mesolithic stone ar
doubt
>doubt
Care to prove otherwise?
>was still uber rich
Nope.
These are lies, when the French conquered Algeria it had a smaller population than in Roman times and was an underdeveloped backwards shithole
you mean the guys who incrusted corals and gold in their guns and clothes and had mosaiques everywhere were miserable ?
sure , the agriculture was underdevelopped and the military was outdated but they still were quite rich through trade and raids which compensated for it
>had a smaller population than in Roman times
LMAO. Please show us a Roman census
it wasnt a shithole under muslim rule tho, not until the early modern period.
It was infinitely superior to medieval Europe, just a few Arabs created the richest civilization in Europe at that time.
Europeans back then were no different from animals, they should be grateful that we civilized them.
Hilali invasions, mostly.
Lol, here's your (you) hayvan
Most of you lived in huts, had no sanitation system, and were illiterate. That's a fact.
>Most of you lived in huts
Most of you still do kek
>had no sanitation system
Brought to NA by Romans, also your house doesn't even have indoor plumbing
>were illiterate
Like most of yous lol
Romans lived in mudhuts prior to being civilized Semites. In fact their sanitation system and architecture was given to them by Carthaginians during the so-called Orientalizing period.
>With the spread of Phoenician civilization by Carthage and Greek colonisation into the Western Mediterranean, these artistic trends also influenced the Etruscans and early Ancient Romans in the Italian peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalizing_period
>Romans lived in mudhuts
So did most of Maghrebis until very recently. In fact, most still do.
>Semites
Maghrebis are overwhelmingly Berber with some SSAN admixture, not Semitic.
>Orientalizing period
But Carthage is in the west, even further west than Rome.
Romans prior to Carthaginian colonization.
weak argumentations
i find it hard to believe as its a fertile land which is quite close to iberia and the savanah that was the sahara at that time
so i think it would be highly probable that iberians or savanah pepos or lybians would move to more fertile lands
now why dont (You) show me that it was truly empty
You are the one who has to prove otherwise.
Nah this is Rome prior to Carthaginian colonization, now shoe me some pre-punic Berber armor.
Their iron working skills is irrelevant. They lived in huts and lacked a sewer system prior to being civilized by Carthaginians. Their alphabet is also directly from the Phoenician alphabet.
Nah Berbers make up less than 20% of North Africa's population.
>Berbers make up less than 20% of North Africa's population.
this is so untrue
may it be genetical or cultural
also can you tell what book this is
looks interesting af
A Short History of the Phoenicians by Mark Woolmer
tyvm
>They lived in huts and lacked a sewer system prior to being civilized by Carthaginians.
No that's how Berbers lived, Kerkouane/Dar Essafi is a Punic town and those (primitive) gutters are dated to the Punic phase around the 4th-3rd century bc, Etruscan/Italic cities were not inspired by fricking Carthage lol, at most you could say by the Greeks, Carthaginians did not settle anywhere in mainland Italy, basic history, moron
>No that's how Berbers lived,
thats not true
if they could build massive mausoleums they wouldnt have lived in huts
only the nomads truly lived in huts , and guess what they were a minority
>that's not true
wow, posting a fricking 3rd century bc tomb (probably commissioned to Greek craftsmen) sure proves pre-phoenician colonization berbers lived in stone palaces!!
How fricking moronic are you?
>probably commissioned to Greek craftsmen)
this isnt a greek architecture
>pre-phoenician colonization berbers lived in stone palaces!!
no but they didnt live in shitty mud huts
>no but they didnt live in shitty mud huts
prove otherwise, the only thing you did was posting a 3rd century bc tomb and a quote about a Hellenistc-era Punic town
Cope moron, over half of them cluster with Italians, while only 2 out of like 40 Etruscan samples have (a small fraction of) N. African admixture
I don't need to cope. Most of the samples found at Kerkouane were slaves and had no Punic ancestry unlike the Sitifis samples.
Not a Punic who lived 4 centuries after the destruction of Carthage and the sample is labelled as contaminated in the study, so probably not even a true E-M81.
Tunisian Punics are 80-90% Southern European like.
None of these sources contributed to the Punic. Picrel is a better modeling.
pro;tip Beirut_Egyptian are actually pristine Semitic samples with elevated amount of Natufian ancestry akin to the samples found at Tel Qarassa.
>Punic_Tunisians
Italoid_Slave_Tunisia
ftfy
>even a true E-M81
He is positive for a dozen SNPs belonging to E-M81 and is defined as E-M81 on Y-Leaf. He is the oldest E-M81 so far and unsurprisingly he is a Phoenician.
>sitifis was not a punic city, it was founded by roman colonists in 97 CE,
I won't argue with you about the origin of the city. The samples themselves have a Semitic profile rather than a French or Iberian (Roman) profile. They weren't Roman.
>None of these sources contributed to the Punic
None of these sources contributed their ancestry to the Punic people*
shittier model with higher distances, the amount of natufian is irrelevant,
> The samples themselves have a Semitic profile rather than a French or Iberian (Roman) profile. They weren't Roman.
it was founded by the romans in 97 CE, the samples were people from around the empire settling in that city
you are that mentally ill "moroccan arab" that throws around this semitic buzzword and can't stop bringing up natufians in any threads aren't you?
>you are that mentally ill "moroccan arab"
You are that butthurt italian-albanian that loves to throw the European buzzwords like berbers and nafris at Semites because you have a DEEP inferiority complex towards us. It's not our fault if you built your entire civilization around one of our E1b cousin.
>it was founded by the romans in 97 CE, the samples were people from around the empire settling in that city
I am not discussing the origin of this city, but the origin of these samples. 10770 is closer to Semites than to Berber gentiles & Latin gentiles.
>bringing up natufians in any threads aren't you
Natufians are relevant to this discusssion.
i'm not italian or albanian, you are a mentally ill moroccan arab that throws around this meaningless buzzword
>I am not discussing the origin of this city, but the origin of these samples. 10770 is closer to Semites than to Berber gentiles & Latin gentiles.
the origins of the city are what matters, it's a roman colony founded hundreds of years after the destruction of carthage, it was settled by various people from around the empire, not literal romans
everything you say makes absolutely no sense, semite is a language group, i don't care that in your mental illness you decided that 2 samples from beirut labeled "egypt" are "semite" and their distance from them is completely irrelevant
>semite is a language group
Wrong. Semites are the biological descendants of Sem.
>you decided that 2 samples from beirut labeled "egypt" are "semite"
Davidski (?) labeled them Egyptian, but not the authors of the study. Picrel.
The origins of the city are what matters btw 🙂 Beirut is a Phoenician city.
That's nice but Y-leaf doesn't care about your feelings. This sample is E-M81.
>Wrong. Semites are the biological descendants of Sem.
which means absolutely nothing, another vague bullshit from your mentally ill mind
>Davidski (?) labeled them Egyptian, but not the authors of the study. Picrel.
the author of the study groups them with the much more numerous levant IA III
whatever you say makes absolutely no sense anyway, northwest africans aren't genetically even remotely like those 2 "egyptian" samples anyway that plot between the levant and gulf arabs
do you think that you genetically plot like a levantine because you speak an arabic language? moroccan arabs plot in NW africa together with moroccan berbers, with an enormous shift towards sub saharan africa
>The origins of the city are what matters btw 🙂 Beirut is a Phoenician city.
and most of the samples (the beirut IA III and beirut IA II) are not genetically like that
>biological descent means nothing
Take your meds troony.
>enormous shift towards sub saharan africa together with moroccan berbers
Nope. We cluster with Natufians and Punic samples from QCP. Taforalt, IAM, Mozabites and Tuaregs are intermediary populations halfway between us and SSA.
>do you think that you genetically plot like a levantine
We are indeed the OG Levantines both paternally and autosomally. I never said that we were identical to modern Iran_N/Euro-admixed "Levantines" tho.
>and most of the samples (the beirut IA III and beirut IA II) are not genetically like that
The other samples are mixed, they don't cluster with Natufians and PPN unlike these two. Picrel.
>Take your meds troony.
descendant of shem is biblical bullshits that means absolutely nothing genetically, give me a proper genetic category
>Nope. We cluster with Natufians and Punic samples from QCP. Taforalt, IAM, Mozabites and Tuaregs are intermediary populations halfway between us and SSA.
you don't cluster with natufians and you don't cluster with levantines and you don't cluster with the sfi-43 and sfi-44 samples, you coping quadroon
i knew all of this was just to deny your heavy sub saharan admixture
you have an enormous shift towards sub saharan africans, and you plot between west eurasians and taforalt because you have taforalt or taforalt-like admixture
>We are indeed the OG Levantines both paternally and autosomally. I never said that we were identical to modern Iran_N/Euro-admixed "Levantines" tho.
you have absolutely nothing to do with levantines both modern and ancient joseph
>The other samples are mixed, they don't cluster with Natufians and PPN unlike these two. Picrel.
and i knew it, if you don't like something they are "mixed", they are "slaves"
nope those samples represent the average phoenician in the iron age, including the earlier beirut IA II
the "egyptians" samples have more natufian but don't really cluster with natufians either, and natufians have nothing to do with the argument, having more natufian is absolutely irrelevant
>That's nice but Y-leaf doesn't care about your feelings. This sample is E-M81.
that samples is corrupted
and your runs literally do not matter
i know you are joseph, you make the same exact arguments and post the same exact shit
https://twitter.com/JosephD37134092
it's pretty hilarious how railed up nafris are over 1 sample from 200 CE with e-m81 and try to connect this sample with anything
>that twitter account
it's literally him, same exact bullshit arguments and obsession about "natufians" and "semites", inability to accept the results of studies, inability to understand that when people say berber they mean their genetic cluster that plots there in northwest africa and far away from the middle east no one cares that he speaks arabic
if we want to believe this broken sample it's closest to guanche samples that are closest to modern berbers (whatever language they speak is irrelevant, you are both the same quadroons)
>descendant of shem is biblical bullshits that means absolutely nothing genetically, give me a proper genetic category
I defined Semites as Natufians.
>you don't cluster with natufians
We do.
>you have an enormous shift towards sub saharan africans, and you plot between west eurasians and taforalt because you have taforalt or taforalt-like admixture
We carry Taforalt + West African SSA. I never denied it.
>you have absolutely nothing to do with levantines both modern and ancient joseph
We carry both their Y-DNA and auDNA Ahuwarhd.
>if we want to believe this broken sample it's closest to guanche samples that are closest to modern berbers (whatever language they speak is irrelevant, you are both the same quadroons)
These guanches are younger than the Sitifis sample and are most likely descended from a population related to him. If you remove all younger samples, this sample is closest to Punic samples.
ah yes, that pca
those are egyptians
the ones below are northwest africans
and the admixture does not support any of your claims, you can see how the guanche remains "yellow" like the IAM while the natufian completely differentiate once you add more admixture sources
>I defined Semites as Natufians.
natufians were literal cavemen that had nothing to do with "semites" that is a bilbical concept that came into existence in the late bronze age
and phoenicians were 20% natufian at best
>We carry Taforalt + West African SSA. I never denied it.
finally you were literally forced to admit the obvious for how much undeniable it is just by looking at a basic pca
>We carry both their Y-DNA and auDNA Ahuwarhd.
i'm sorry joseph, i'm not your boogieman, you plot extremely far away from levantines, having some levantine admixture and haplogroup doesn't change that
>These guanches are younger than the Sitifis sample and are most likely descended from a population related to him. If you remove all younger samples, this sample is closest to Punic samples.
yes, they descend from the local NW africans just like most of the admixture of that low quality sample
and it's not close to most punic samples either
the closeness to guanche is an indication to the closeness to modern quadroon north west africans
and it's not close to the large majority of punic samples, only the vil011 that is the heaviest northwest african admixed punic sample(around half northwest african), and that r10770 also has some 20% non local european-levantine admixture
>yes, they descend from the local NW africans just like most of the admixture of that low quality sample
They are actually a mixed population. Some are descneded from Levantines (E-M81 and E-M78) some from Europeans (R1b), and others from Iranians (J1).
>and it's not close to most punic samples either
>>only the vil011 that is the heaviest northwest african admixed punic sample
Most punic sample are mixed. He is close to VIL_11, the sample with the highest amount of Natufian ancestry.
Distance to: Levant_Natufian
0.14909109 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL011
0.15565579 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL010
0.17295843 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL006
0.18057068 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL007
0.19748392 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:MSR002
0.21695169 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:MSR003
0.25207651 ITA_Sardinia_Punic:ORC002
>the closeness to guanche is an indication to the closeness to modern quadroon north west africans
bla-bla i'm mad
>They are actually a mixed population. Some are descneded from Levantines (E-M81 and E-M78) some from Europeans (R1b), and others from Iranians (J1).
so were all the phoenician samples with this logic, even the sti-43 and sti-44 were barely natufian
also natufians did not have e-m81 (inbefore the quadroon mistakes shitty quality of some samples that were so shit they were given CT at first with them having "haplogroups ancestral to E-M81") and levantine genetic profile formed in the bronze age, natufians were cavemen
and stop comparing haplogroups with admixture
>Most punic sample are mixed. He is close to VIL_11, the sample with the highest amount of Natufian ancestry.
0.15 isn't close and closeness to natufians does not necessarily correlated with natufian ancestry
Target: ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL011
Distance: 2.8081% / 0.02808070
55.8 TUR_Barcin_N
22.8 MAR_Taforalt
9.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.8 Levant_Natufian
2.0 WHG
1.2 Yoruba
0.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
and it's completely and utterly irrelevant, like it doesn't matter at all joseph, the vil011 is about half NW african, the most NW african admixed punic sample except that one female from kerkouane that is 100% NW african genetically
>bla-bla i'm mad
bla-bla you are a coping quadroon, joseph
>that samples is corrupted
I already answered your point here
. His coverage is good, only his mtdna is missing.
>your runs literally do not matter
Your feeling are irrelevant. Check it by yourself if you don't trust me.
>i know you are joseph, you make the same exact arguments and post the same exact shit
And I know you are Ahuwarhd from anthrogenica. What's your point tho?
>TRY to connect this sample with anything
lol
>I already answered your point here
you didn't, that sample is corrupted, saying "i don't care that is corrupted" is not an answer
the only possible answer is: yes it's a contaminated sample
>Your feeling are irrelevant. Check it by yourself if you don't trust me.
your runs don't matter
>And I know you are Ahuwarhd from anthrogenica. What's your point tho?
i'm not but thank you for confirming that you are joseph, we funally have a name for your mentally ill ass
>TRY to connect this sample with anything
yes trying to connect it with populations that have nothing to do with it, it's just 1 sample from an imperial roman colony, not a punic
it's a northwest african sample genetically with a bit of levantine and european admixture so of course it's gonna be close to (but still distant) to some of those samples
and about your pic related
you are really fricking stupid, modern northwest africans have some 30% taforalt-like admixture that sample even a bit less, more around 25%, they are not going to be close to taforalt, just like a quadroon from america is going to be closer to west eurasians than to Black folks
>that sample is corrupted
His mtDNA is missing yes.
>your runs don't matter
Check it by yourself.
>i'm not but thank you for confirming that you are joseph, we funally have a name for your mentally ill ass
Ahuwarhd pls.
>yes trying to connect it with populations that have nothing to do with it, it's just 1 sample from an imperial roman colony, not a punic
His DNA speaks for itself. He is closer to Semites than to Berbers. He is infact closer to Semites than the modern inhabitants of the Levant are.
As for his geographical location, he is from Sitifis a Punic-speaking city (picrel) according to Western academics. If you aren't happy with their claim feel free to contact them.
Distance to: Levant_Natufian
0.15520424 Sitifis_R10770_K13-sim_scaled
0.17379200 Lebanese_Christian
0.17754826 Lebanese_Muslim
0.18157002 Lebanese_Druze
>Punic-speaking city (picrel)
oops
>His mtDNA is missing yes.
it's a contaminated sample, not just the "mtdna is missing", it's completely contaminated, end of the argument
>Check it by yourself.
no, i don't care about your runs
>His DNA speaks for itself. He is closer to Semites than to Berbers. He is infact closer to Semites than the modern inhabitants of the Levant are.
closeness to natufian that have nothing to do with the concept of semites anyway is completely irrelevant
>As for his geographical location, he is from Sitifis a Punic-speaking city (picrel) according to Western academics.
sifitis is a roman colony founded well after the end of the punic period according to all academics and populated by different populations from all around the empire
that r10770 was simply a mostly local in genetic profile, that was even the minority in terms of genetic because the other 2 samples have very little to no northwest african admixture(inbefore they were SLAVES bruh)
>it's a contaminated sample
As I have shown, only his mtDNA his missing, Y-leaf predicts that he is E-M81. Your feeling don't matter.
>sifitis is a roman colony founded
Sitifis is a Punic speaking town according to western academics
. As for r10770, he has a Semitic genetic profile indicating that he was a Phoenician colonist in North Africa. The other samples have either a Berber or Italian genetic profile indicating that they were gentile slaves or merchants.
>also natufians did not have e-m81
They carried subclade upstream of E-M81.
>0.15 isn't close and closeness to natufians does not necessarily correlated with natufian ancestry
G25 tends to inflate Anatolian ancestry because both Barcin and Taforalt are roughly 60% Natufian. If you remove these samples you'll get an accurate estimate of VIL_11's Natufian ancestry. .
------------------
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
> A two-way admix- ture model, comprising Natufian and a sub-Saharan African population, does not significantly deviate from our data (χ2 p ≥ 0.128) with 63.5% Natufian and 36.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry on average (table S8).
Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia
>Accordingly, we find an adequate two-way admixture model using qpAdm12 (χ p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5 %; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (tables S4 and S5).
------------------
>and it's completely and utterly irrelevant
The modern inhabitants of North Africans are either descended from Phoenicians, Arabs, or Europeans. No population in North Africa is descended from Taforalt or carry significant Taforalt ancestry.
>bla-bla you are a coping quadroon, joseph
I don't need to cope Ahuwarhd. The Academic consensus supports my views.
>As I have shown, only his mtDNA his missing, Y-leaf predicts that he is E-M81. Your feeling don't matter.
and i told you that it doesn't change that it's a contaminated sample
the y dna results don't matter, it's your feelings that should be called into question because pretend contaminated means missing mtdna
>Sitifis is a Punic speaking town according to western academics
>Punic-speaking city (picrel)
oops. As for r10770, he has a Semitic genetic profile indicating that he was a Phoenician colonist in North Africa. The other samples have either a Berber or Italian genetic profile indicating that they were gentile slaves or merchants.
sitifis is not a punic town, r10770 has a mostly NW african genetic profile, semitic doesn't mean shit
try to run the distances between modern NW africans and middle easterners and it's going to plot with NW africans
you are a coping moron
>middle easterners and it's going to plot with NW africans
Natufians plot with us and we are descended from them. You need to accept it.
>try to run the distances between modern NW africans and middle easterners
I'd rather look at who is the closest to the original Middle Easterners.
>sitifis is not a punic town, r10770 has a mostly NW african genetic profile, semitic doesn't mean shit
Feel free to contact the university of Chicago
>mostly NW african genetic profile
What's the dominant ethnic group in NW Africa today? Arabs.
Do "North Africans" cluster with Ancient North African samples like Taforalt or IAM? No.
Do they carry the same Y-DNA than Ancient North African samples like Taforalt or IAM? No.
>r10770 has a mostly NW african genetic profile
There's no unified NW african genetic profile, 10770
has a clear Coastal North African aka Arabized Phoenician profile while 17759
has a clear Berber profile.
>you are a coping moron
t. doesn't know what Y-Leaf is
>Natufians plot with us and we are descended from them. You need to accept it.
they don't plot with you
stop coping
>I'd rather look at who is the closest to the original Middle Easterners.
because that would completely destroy your entire argument
>Feel free to contact the university of Chicago
>Punic-speaking city (picrel)
oops
some people speaking punic does not make a city punic, besides it says that punic was "more commonly spoken" compared to other places, not the "most spoken language"
>What's the dominant ethnic group in NW Africa today? Arabs.
that's a language, you have barely anything to do with anyone in the middle east
>Do "North Africans" cluster with Ancient North African samples like Taforalt or IAM? No.
because you have 30% of that admixture, a quadroon from america doesn't cluster with nigerians
>Do they carry the same Y-DNA than Ancient North African samples like Taforalt or IAM? No.
yes they do, they carry the same y dna as IAM samples, e-m81, as martiniano et al says, the same one that reclassified that 1 CT sample into E1b1b1
what are you gonna do now, post your fake haplo run?
>There's no unified NW african genetic profile, 10770
Most samples so far were slaves from Europe and the Sahara sure. However the Sitifis represents a pristine Punic sample and is identical to Northern Tunisians and Northern Moroccans tho.
>kerkouane's sewage system dates to a much later period
Source: Trust me bro. has a clear Coastal North African aka Arabized Phoenician profile while 17759
has a clear Berber profile.
coastal NW africans have nothing to do with arabized phoenicians, joseph, look at the beirut IA II samples from the early iron age for actual phoenicians
and yes those samples both cluster relatively close and are both quadroons
Your PCA pretty much destroyed your entire argument btw, you can clearly see that Mozabites are distinct from Tunisians and Moroccans.
It doesn't matter how you try twist both E1b1 and E1b1b are upstream E-M81. We are descended of the Natufians and are the OG Semites. As for Martinanio et al., it contradicts both the results of Fregel et al. and Y-Leaf so it is irrelevant.
>and the dzuduzana paper completely kills this theory by showing a similar genetic profile since the paleolithic
The Dzudzuana theory makes no sense. There's no archeological evidence that Caucasians migrated to the Levant during the Mesolithic.
>and your shitty run doesn't matter, pic rel matters
It's not "my" run moron. Y-Leaf is a software, it is an unbiased Y-DNA predicator unlike Martiniano et al.
>Your PCA pretty much destroyed your entire argument btw, you can clearly see that Mozabites are distinct from Tunisians and Moroccans.
so what?, the point of the pca is that you have nothing to do with the middle east
>you have nothing to do with the middle east
Nope. We are descended from the Natufians and the populations descended from them such as Israelites, the Canaanites, and the Akkadians.
>Nope. We are descended from the Natufians and the populations descended from them such as Israelites, the Canaanites, and the Akkadians.
you don't descend from the natufians
you are seriously mentally ill
We do. You should take your meds, you clearly have anger issues.
>E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b) - meaning an unspecified branch of E1b1b1b2
>E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) - i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1.
>E1b1b1 - originally classified as CT but further defined as E1b1b1 by Martiniano et al. 2020.[40]
>Haplogroup E1b1 is primarily distributed in Africa,[41] and is present at lower frequencies in the Middle East, mainly in Egypt (40%), Jordan (25%), Israel (20%), Palestine (20%), and Lebanon (17.5%).[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture#Genetics
you are so incredibly fricking stupid
>E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) - i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1.
if it can't branch to E1b1b1b1, it can't be E1b1b1b1a1, do you understand? it can be other clades of E1b1 but not E1b1b1b1 or subclades of E1b1b1b1 like E1b1b1b1a1(e-m81)
and the other(the E1b1b1) was classified as CT, it's a shit quality sample you don't know how haplogroups work, they are all E1b1b1b2
He is classified as E-M215, a subclade ancestral to E-M81.
You don't know the phylogeny of hg E, you don't know what Y-Leaf is, and you are ignorant about most studies on MENA. You should ask your Khazar handlers at Anthrogenica to train you because you make them look stupid.
>He is classified as E-M215, a subclade ancestral to E-M81.
he WAS classified as CT, learn to read, it's a shit quality sample
>You don't know the phylogeny of hg E, you don't know what Y-Leaf is, and you are ignorant about most studies on MENA. You should ask your Khazar handlers at Anthrogenica to train you because you make them look stupid.
no the only moron here is you, you think i denied that E-M81 descends from E-M215 but i never did that, you need to believe that because you are too fricking stupid to even understand a basic argument, the sample was classified as CT, and was obviously not CT just like it's obviously not E-M215, it's E1b1b1b2, it's too shit quality to get the actual clade
you are incredibly fricking stupid
*sighs*
They tested this sample for subclades downstream of E-M35 (E1b1b) and E-M2 (E1b1a). Since it was negative for both E-M35 and E-M2 they concluded it was ancestral to both, i.e. E-P2 (E1b1).
let's try again
E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) means a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1, NOT E1b1b1b1, NOT E1b1b1b1
and if it can't be a branch of E1b1b1b1 it can't be E1b1b1b1a1(E-M81)
no ancestral to e-m81
Sure.
>I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
>This individual was derived for mutation P179 defining haplogroup E1b1 and upstream mutation M5403 defining haplogroup E. It was ancestral for Z1116 (E1b1a1), CTS8649 (E1b1b1b1) and could be designated as E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1).
keep clutching at straws E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) means a branch that is unspecified but not either of the two
besides it's garbage, e1b1 is extremely fricking ancient, only a moron would believe someone form 10000 years ago has an haplogroup from 50000 years ago,
all natufians had E1b1b1b2, the ones that are not defined as such are simply low quality unless you believe the I1690 has actually haplogroup CT
while the IAM had literal E-L19 that is even more ancestral and literal e-m81 (nope don't care about your runs) from a study made on purpose to get better results from older studies
>keep clutching at straws
The study agrees with me.
>It was ancestral for Z1116 (E1b1a1), CTS8649 (E1b1b1b1) and could be designated as E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1).
>only a moron would believe someone form 10000 years ago has an haplogroup from 50000 years ago
What is picrel moron?
>all natufians had E1b1b1b2
Your feelings don't matter. Natufians were E1b1b1b2, E1b1b1, and E1b1. These haplogroups are mostly carried by Africans today because we are Semites unlike the modern inhabitants of the Middle East.
>while the IAM had literal E-L19 that is even more ancestral and literal e-m81 (nope don't care about your runs) from a study made on purpose to get better results from older studies
Nope. IAM.5 was E-CTS4200 according to Y-Leaf. I have more faith in an unbiased software than in the biased interpretation of geneticists.
>The study agrees with me.
not really
and the studies confirm that IAM has e-m81
>What is picrel moron?
what an absolute fricking moron, people with these haplogroups represent less than 0.0001% of the population and generally they have unclassified subclades
>Your feelings don't matter. Natufians were E1b1b1b2, E1b1b1, and E1b1. These haplogroups are mostly carried by Africans today because we are Semites unlike the modern inhabitants of the Middle East.
these are not my feelings it's common sense
natufians were E1b1b1b2, the E1b1b1 is garbage that was first classified as CT, the E1b1 is from 50 thousands years ago
why don't you say natufians were E1b1b1b2, E1b1b1, E1b1 and CT? because you know that it's fricking stupid to even take it into consideration, just like it's stupid to even take into consideration that they were E1b1b1, and E1b1
>Nope. IAM.5 was E-CTS4200 according to Y-Leaf. I have more faith in an unbiased software than in the biased interpretation of geneticists.
IAM was e-m81 according to actual academics your runs literally do not matter, don't even bring them up anymore, last time i say it, i don't want to repeat it
>and the studies confirm that IAM has e-m81
The IAM samples have nothing to do with Lazaridis et al. lol
>what an absolute fricking moron,
I posted a living person who carries a 60000 year old haplogroup while you claimed that "only a moron would believe someone form 10000 years ago has an haplogroup from 50000 years ago."
You are EXTREMELY ignorant about genetics.
>generally they have unclassified subclades
Root haplogroups are indicated by an asterisk. Unclassified samples don't have it. Picrel.
>these are not my feelings it's common sense
The study is clear: E-Z830, E-M215, E-P2. Your baseless claims are irrelevant.
>why don't you say natufians were E1b1b1b2, E1b1b1, E1b1 and CT?
Because I tested all these samples using BAM analyzis kit and Y-Leaf. I do not question their results without evidence unlike you.
>IAM was e-m81 according to actual academics
IAM.5 is E-CTS4200 according to Y-Leaf.
>The IAM samples have nothing to do with Lazaridis et al. lol
i never said that, i said that studies confirm that IAM is E-m81 which is true
>I posted a living person who carries a 60000 year old haplogroup while you claimed that "only a moron would believe someone form 10000 years ago has an haplogroup from 50000 years ago."
no you are the fricking moron that doesn't understand shit about anything, it's an extremely rare thing to happen and most of the time they have unidentified clades
>Root haplogroups are indicated by an asterisk. Unclassified samples don't have it. Picrel.
this is irrelevant, you don't understand hit
>The study is clear: E-Z830, E-M215, E-P2. Your baseless claims are irrelevant.
you don't understand how any of this works
with ancient samples it's extremely common that they are not properly defined due to quality and coverage, it's an extremely common thing that only you cannot understand, there's 0 chance of someone have a 50000+ old haplogroup 10000 years ago just like there is a 0 chance that someone has the even more ancient CT
>Because I tested all these samples using BAM analyzis kit and Y-Leaf. I do not question their results without evidence unlike you.
your runs are totally irrelevant to the conversation
>IAM.5 is E-CTS4200 according to Y-Leaf.
The study is clear: E-M81, E-L19. Your baseless claims are irrelevant. your runs are irrelevant
>studies
Source: Trust me bro.
>your runs are totally irrelevant to the conversation
I literally answered your question moron.
>this is irrelevant, you don't understand hit
You claimed that Yfull did not distinguish between unclassified and root subclades. I showed you that you were wrong.
>with ancient samples it's extremely common that they are not properly defined due to quality and coverage
Since you know how coverage works. You should amit that R1770 is not corrupt as evidenced by its coverage (55%).
>Your baseless claims are irrelevant. your runs are irrelevant
Learn what baseless means moron.
>Source: Trust me bro.
martiniano et al 2020
iam 5 is e-m81, the other iam are e-l19
>I literally answered your question moron.
your runs are completely irrelevant to the conversation, you really have to understand that they do not matter, post a study supporting your claim or frick off
>You claimed that Yfull did not distinguish between unclassified and root subclades. I showed you that you were wrong.
it's completely irrelevant, moron
1/10000000 people has such ancient clades and most of them times they are unclassified clades of that and not that actual haplogroup, there's no chance of it happening in any samples
with ancient samples it's extremely common that they are not properly defined due to quality and coverage there's 0 chance of someone have a 50000+ old haplogroup 10000 years ago just like there is a 0 chance that someone has the even more ancient CT
>Since you know how coverage works. You should amit that R1770 is not corrupt as evidenced by its coverage (55%).
it's contaminated, coverage and contamination are 2 different thing
another thread invaded by this joseph "moroccan arab" where everything has to be reduced to talking about the completely irrelevant natufians
your theory is nonsense bullshit and no one agree with it
phoenicians were like pic related, very far away from nafris
sifitis was a roman colony founded in 97 CE long after the punic period
2/3 of the samples from sitifis are genetically not nafri, no mensions of those 2 being slaves
the kerkouane samples are punic from the punic period according to all academics and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one, no mentions of them being slaves
the ibiza, sardinia and etruria punic period samples are punic too according to all academics, and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one from sardinia that is half nafri
the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant
you have massive sub saharan admixture, some of it mediated with taforalt
>phoenicians were like pic related, very far away from nafris
E1b1b has been found at Alalakh, Ebla, Sidon, Megiddo, Hazor, Beirut, Sidon.
>sifitis was a roman colony founded in 97 CE long after the punic period
Sitifis was city located in Punic North Africa, a third of its inhabitants were close to Ancient Levantines, and Punic was commonly spoken there according to Western Academics. You are in denial.
>2/3 of the samples from sitifis are genetically not nafri, no mensions of those 2 being slaves
Both were Romans unlike R10770 who carried both paternal & autosomal Levantine ancestry.
>the kerkouane samples are punic from the punic period according to all academics and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one, no mentions of them being slaves
The Kerkouane samples were found in a trading centre for slaves and had no Levantine ancestry indicating that they were either European slaves or slave traders.
>the ibiza, sardinia and etruria punic period samples are punic too according to all academics, and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one from sardinia that is half nafri
They were mixed according to academics. The QCP samples, who are also classified as Punics, were identical to NA according to academics.
>the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant
Admixture and FST distances give the same results.
>you have massive sub saharan admixture, some of it mediated with taforalt
Irrelevant.
>E1b1b has been found at Alalakh, Ebla, Sidon, Megiddo, Hazor, Beirut, Sidon.
alalakh samples
ALA001: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA002: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA004: J2a1a1a2b2a1b~ ALA008: H2 ALA011: J2a1a1a2b2a ALA014: J2b1 ALA015: T1a1a ALA018: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA026: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA035: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA084: L2 ALA095: J2b2~
ebla samples
ETM001: J1a2a1a2 ETM005: J1a2a1a2 ETM026: T1a1
Sidon samples
EGAN00001390967: J-P58 (J1a2b) EGAN00001390965: J-M12 (J2b)
megiddo samples
I10268: J I10104: J I4519: J2a1b1 I2190: J I8187: J1a2b I8188: J1a2b I2189: R I10769: E1b1b1b2a1 I10770: E1b1b1b2a1a I10093: J1a2b I10264: J1a2b I10106: J1a2b I10266: J I4525: J I10768: R1b1a1a2 I2195: J I4518: T1a1a1b2 I2198: J1a2b I4517: J1
hazor samples
I3965: J1a2b I3966: E1b1b1b2a1
beirut samples
SFI-55: J SFI-42: J1-M267 SFI-45: J-M304 SFI-34: J1-M267 SFI-35: I2a1b-M436 SFI-39: H2-P96 SFI-44: J1a2a1a2-P58 SFI-47: G2a2a1a2-L91 SFI-5: Q1b-M346 SFI-12: E1b1b1a1a2-V65 SFI-11: G2a2b-L30 SFI-15: G2a2b1a2-M3302
number or E: 4
number or E-m81 = 0
all of them are clades of the natufian E1b1b1b2
all of them autosomally extremely distant from nafri
All these samples attest that Semites carried hg E and descend from Natufians. Don't be salty Ahuwarhd.
Alalakh
ART015: E1b1b
Ebla
ETM010: E1b1b
Sidon
SI-38: E1b1b
Beirut
SFI-12: E1b1b
Hazor
I3966: E1b1b
Megiddo
I10769: E1b1b
I10770: E1b1b
ALA015 is T1a1a, pic related
i forgot these samples indeed, they are classidied as elbaite
ETM010: E1b1b1b2a1a1~ ETM012: J1a2a1a2d2b~ ETM018: G2a
SI-38 is from the third crusade dated 1025-1283 calCE, ireelevant to the phoenicians
so 5 E samples in total, all being subclades of E1b1b1b2a1a1
0 E-m81
*subclades of E1b1b1b2
ah okay you said
art015, not ala015
art015 is not alalakh, it's from east turkey and from the clacolithic, pic related
ART004: G ART014: G2a2b1 ART015: E1b1b1b2a1a1~ ART017: J2a1a1a2b2a ART018: J1a2b1~ ART019: J2a1a1a2b2a1 ART020: J2a1a ART022: J2a1a1a2b2a ART023: J2a1a ART024: G2a2b1 ART027: J2a1a1a2b1b ART032: H2 ART038: R1b1a2 ART042: H2
of course it's not e-m81 and it's a small minority there too
>Sitifis was city located in Punic North Africa, a third of its inhabitants were close to Ancient Levantines, and Punic was commonly spoken there according to Western Academics. You are in denial.
sitifis was a roman colony from 97 ad and stop with this bullshiit ancient levantines, none of them is close to natufians, 0.15 isn't close you fricking moron and it's absolutely completely fricking irrelevant since this is what levantines were like genetically
when the punics existed, there were no natufians around
>Both were Romans unlike R10770 who carried both paternal & autosomal Levantine ancestry.
E-m81 is north african, stop with this levantine bullshit, you aren't a levantine and phoenicians didn't carry e-m81
>The Kerkouane samples were found in a trading centre for slaves and had no Levantine ancestry indicating that they were either European slaves or slave traders.
there's no proof of them being slaves, and kerkouane wasn't more of a slave center than carthage
again with this bullshit "levantine ancestry", they were closer to these relevant
levantine ancestry that are relevant because of the period
>They were mixed according to academics. The QCP samples, who are also classified as Punics, were identical to NA according to academics.
according to academics they were punic
those QCP samples were from the city of rome and from the late imperial period, they are irrelevant, stay in the punic period
>Admixture and FST distances give the same results.
the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant to any conversation about punics, completely utterly incredibly irrelevant, they do not fricking matter
these are the levantines that matter
>sitifis was a roman colony from 97 ad and stop with this bullshiit ancient levantines
Sitifis was Punic speaking city according to academics.
>were like genetically
another thread invaded by this joseph "moroccan arab" where everything has to be reduced to talking about the completely irrelevant natufians
your theory is nonsense bullshit and no one agree with it
phoenicians were like pic related, very far away from nafris
sifitis was a roman colony founded in 97 CE long after the punic period
2/3 of the samples from sitifis are genetically not nafri, no mensions of those 2 being slaves
the kerkouane samples are punic from the punic period according to all academics and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one, no mentions of them being slaves
the ibiza, sardinia and etruria punic period samples are punic too according to all academics, and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one from sardinia that is half nafri
the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant
you have massive sub saharan admixture, some of it mediated with taforalt when the punics existed, there were no natufians around
These samples are either mixed or not descended from natufians, they are mostly Iranian migrants rather than Levantines. Actual Levantines were like that
.
>when the punics existed, there were no natufians around
Their Punics descendants were still around.
>E-m81 is north african, stop with this levantine bullshit, you aren't a levantine and phoenicians didn't carry e-m81
alalakh samples
ALA001: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA002: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA004: J2a1a1a2b2a1b~ ALA008: H2 ALA011: J2a1a1a2b2a ALA014: J2b1 ALA015: T1a1a ALA018: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA026: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA035: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~ ALA084: L2 ALA095: J2b2~
ebla samples
ETM001: J1a2a1a2 ETM005: J1a2a1a2 ETM026: T1a1
Sidon samples
EGAN00001390967: J-P58 (J1a2b) EGAN00001390965: J-M12 (J2b)
megiddo samples
I10268: J I10104: J I4519: J2a1b1 I2190: J I8187: J1a2b I8188: J1a2b I2189: R I10769: E1b1b1b2a1 I10770: E1b1b1b2a1a I10093: J1a2b I10264: J1a2b I10106: J1a2b I10266: J I4525: J I10768: R1b1a1a2 I2195: J I4518: T1a1a1b2 I2198: J1a2b I4517: J1
hazor samples
I3965: J1a2b I3966: E1b1b1b2a1
beirut samples
SFI-55: J SFI-42: J1-M267 SFI-45: J-M304 SFI-34: J1-M267 SFI-35: I2a1b-M436 SFI-39: H2-P96 SFI-44: J1a2a1a2-P58 SFI-47: G2a2a1a2-L91 SFI-5: Q1b-M346 SFI-12: E1b1b1a1a2-V65 SFI-11: G2a2b-L30 SFI-15: G2a2b1a2-M3302
number or E: 4
number or E-m81 = 0
all of them are clades of the natufian E1b1b1b2
all of them autosomally extremely distant from nafri
E-M81 is Natufian and Phoenician carried it.
>there's no proof of them being slaves, and kerkouane wasn't more of a slave center than carthage
Their genetic profile is a proof. Kerkouane was hub of the Punic slave trade and the primary sources of slaves was Europe.
>according to academics they were punic
Accrording to academics they were either mixed or local.
>the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant to any conversation about punics, completely utterly incredibly irrelevant, they do not fricking matter
Natufians are the direct ancestors of Punics so they are very relevant to this discussion.
>art015 is not alalakh
I confused ALA136 with ART15.
>actual Levantines were like that
lol, these guys are clearly North African, not Levantines. Stop shitposting or being moronic. There's more than 150 Levantine samples and after Natufian/PPN era not a single sample looks like that.
>Iranian migrants
Yes, in EBA. 2000 years before Phoenicians. By the time of Iron Age all of Levantines were mixed.
>There's more than 150 Levantine samples
Most of these samples aren't genetically Levantine they are Iranian and Anatolian migrants.
>and after Natufian/PPN era not a single sample looks like that.
Two IAIII samples from Beirut and two Islamic period samples from Tel Qarassa have a pure Levantine genetic profile. Natufian-rich people continued to exist long after the end of the Natufian period and they still exist today in NA.
>lol, these guys are clearly North African, not Levantines.
This sample is closer to Natufian than to Taforalt
.
>Yes, in EBA. 2000 years before Phoenicians. By the time of Iron Age all of Levantines were mixed.
There were a lot of foreigners inhabiting the Levant but Semites, like the Two beirut samples, still existed.
I already answered all your points.
>Most of these samples aren't genetically Levantine they are Iranian and Anatolian migrants.
those samples are the levantines
why is this so difficult to understand for you, there's no natufians anymore in the iron age, in the iron age and even bronze age that's the levantine
those are the relevant levantines, regardless if you think they are mixed or not
>Two IAIII samples from Beirut and two Islamic period samples from Tel Qarassa have a pure Levantine genetic profile. Natufian-rich people continued to exist long after the end of the Natufian period and they still exist today in NA.
islamic period samples don't matter, and the two IA III samples don't have a pure natufian profile, they have a bit higher natufian than the average, it doesn't matter if some people with higher natufian existed, so fricking what, the average levantine was like this
, put that through your skull
>This sample is closer to Natufian than to Taforalt
billionth time people repeat this to you
NW africans could be modeled as 30% taforalt, that sample even less, somewhat around 25%, so that's not surprising
>There were a lot of foreigners inhabiting the Levant but Semites, like the Two beirut samples, still existed.
i'm so fricking tired
1- those two samples are not even 50% natufian (besides that the study classifies them one as egyptian and one half egyptian and they are some of the latest dated iron age samples)
99% of samples are syrian-like, palestinian-like, lebanese-like
the 99% matters
natufians are irrelevant, natufians don't fricking matter, natufians were extinguished during the bronze and iron age, this is what a levantine looked like back than
in the period we are talking about
>those samples are the levantines
These samples do not cluster with Levantines. They occupy an intermediary position halfway between Levantines and West Asians, and most do not descend from Natufians.
>islamic period samples don't matter
On the contrary they show that Natufian-rich people existed all the way from the Mesolithic to the Medieval Period.
>why is this so difficult to understand for you, there's no natufians anymore in the iron age
The two Beirut_IAIII clearly show that Natufian-rich people still existed in the Iron Age.
>NW africans could be modeled as 30% taforalt, that sample even less, somewhat around 25%, so that's not surprising
They are best modeled
as 60-70% Natufian 10-20% SSA + some Euro ancestry.
>they have a bit higher natufian than the average
>those two samples are not even 50% natufian
These two samples are respectively 85% and 60% Natufian. One of the sample plots right next to Natufians.
>extinguished during the bronze and iron age
Most moved to Africa, some choose to stay but did not mix with Anatolians and Iranians, and some mixed with them.
>Haplogroup E1b1 is primarily distributed in Africa,[41] and is present at lower frequencies in the Middle East, mainly in Egypt (40%), Jordan (25%), Israel (20%), Palestine (20%), and Lebanon (17.5%).[42]
>99% of samples are syrian-like, palestinian-like, lebanese-like
Around 90% of the samples have a mixed profile akin to modern Levantines sure.
>natufians are irrelevant, natufians don't fricking matter, natufians were extinguished during the bronze and iron age, this is what a levantine looked like back than
another thread invaded by this joseph "moroccan arab" where everything has to be reduced to talking about the completely irrelevant natufians
your theory is nonsense bullshit and no one agree with it
phoenicians were like pic related, very far away from nafris
sifitis was a roman colony founded in 97 CE long after the punic period
2/3 of the samples from sitifis are genetically not nafri, no mensions of those 2 being slaves
the kerkouane samples are punic from the punic period according to all academics and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one, no mentions of them being slaves
the ibiza, sardinia and etruria punic period samples are punic too according to all academics, and they have a minority of nafri admixture except one from sardinia that is half nafri
the distance from natufians is completely irrelevant
you have massive sub saharan admixture, some of it mediated with taforalt in the period we are talking about
Natufians are the indigenous inhabitants of the Levant and they and their descendants are responsible for the spread of the Semitic languages to the region. They are by far the most relevant population to the Levant. You could argue that Anatolia_N/Iran_N are more relevant for Mespotamia/Iraq tho.
>These samples do not cluster with Levantines. They occupy an intermediary position halfway between Levantines and West Asians, and most do not descend from Natufians.
so fricking what, you fricking moron
those were the levantines in the historical period in question, bronze and iron age
natufians did not exist anymore
>On the contrary they show that Natufian-rich people existed all the way from the Mesolithic to the Medieval Period.
islamic period samples are irrelevant, besides there's a high change that they are migrants from the gulf
IRON AND BRONZE AGE, not anything else
>The two Beirut_IAIII clearly show that Natufian-rich people still existed in the Iron Age.
besides that the study calls one egyptian and the other half egyptian, the 150+ samples that plot with lebanese christians clearly show what an average levantine was like
THE AVERAGE, there's an outlier sample that plot with balochi, do we call levantines balochi? nope because it was not the average
>They are best modeled
>it's a contaminated sample
As I have shown, only his mtDNA his missing, Y-leaf predicts that he is E-M81. Your feeling don't matter.
>sifitis is a roman colony founded
Sitifis is a Punic speaking town according to western academics [...]. As for r10770, he has a Semitic genetic profile indicating that he was a Phoenician colonist in North Africa. The other samples have either a Berber or Italian genetic profile indicating that they were gentile slaves or merchants.
[...]
>also natufians did not have e-m81
They carried subclade upstream of E-M81.
>0.15 isn't close and closeness to natufians does not necessarily correlated with natufian ancestry
G25 tends to inflate Anatolian ancestry because both Barcin and Taforalt are roughly 60% Natufian. If you remove these samples you'll get an accurate estimate of VIL_11's Natufian ancestry. .
------------------
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations
> A two-way admix- ture model, comprising Natufian and a sub-Saharan African population, does not significantly deviate from our data (χ2 p ≥ 0.128) with 63.5% Natufian and 36.5% sub-Saharan African ancestry on average (table S8).
Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia
>Accordingly, we find an adequate two-way admixture model using qpAdm12 (χ p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5 %; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (tables S4 and S5).
------------------
>and it's completely and utterly irrelevant
The modern inhabitants of North Africans are either descended from Phoenicians, Arabs, or Europeans. No population in North Africa is descended from Taforalt or carry significant Taforalt ancestry.
>bla-bla you are a coping quadroon, joseph
I don't need to cope Ahuwarhd. The Academic consensus supports my views. as 60-70% Natufian 10-20% SSA + some Euro ancestry
in that model NW africans have 20-30% SSA ancestry, stop with your cope
you are heavily shifted towards sub saharans
that study is also not using taforalt as a source of admixture
>These two samples are respectively 85% and 60% Natufian. One of the sample plots right next to Natufians.
not even close, one is yemeni like around 60% natufian at most and the other plots closer to southern levantines than to gulf arabs and has at best 35-40% natufian
>Most moved to Africa, some choose to stay but did not mix with Anatolians and Iranians, and some mixed with them
you have to shut up, the natufians did not exist anymore in the bronze and iron age
the levantines you have to work with are bronze and iron age levantines, and not the outliers
>Around 90% of the samples have a mixed profile akin to modern Levantines sure.
more like 99%, and guess what the phoenicians looked like?
like these 99% of samples
>those were the levantines in the historical period in question, bronze and iron age
They were distinct from the mutt samples. They represented an elite population closer paternally and autosomally to North Africans than to Modern "Levantines".
>islamic period samples are irrelevant, besides there's a high change that they are migrants from the gulf
>almost pristine Natufian genetic profile
No comment lol
>IRON AND BRONZE AGE, not anything else
I already mentioned the two Beirut IAIII.
>besides that the study calls one egyptian and the other half egyptian
You're confusing the authors and Davidski. These samples are labeled as SFI-44 and SFI-33.
>THE AVERAGE, there's an outlier sample that plot with balochi, do we call levantines balochi? nope because it was not the average
The '"average" is irrelevant. The indigenous Levantine profile, the one responsible for the spread of the Semitic and the creation of Babylon, Akkad, Ebla, Canaan, Phoenicia and Israel was Natufian/North African rather than Anatolian or Iranian.
>not even close, one is yemeni like around 60% natufian at most and the other plots closer to southern levantines than to gulf arabs and has at best 35-40% natufian
I posted the PCA
. One is identical to Natufians and the other is half way between them and mixed "Levantines".
>you have to shut up, the natufians did not exist anymore in the bronze and iron age
You have to accept the fact we E1b1b carriers created all civilizations in the Middle East, save for the Sumerian one obviously, and Carthage is an E-M81 civilization.
>more like 99%, and guess what the phoenicians looked like?
How the plebs looked is irrelevant. The ruling class was Semitic.
>They were distinct from the mutt samples. They represented an elite population closer paternally and autosomally to North Africans than to Modern "Levantines".
what the frick are you talking about
99% of levantines had a certain lebanese-like genetic profile in the iron age and bronze age and 95%+ of haplogroups were j, g, t...
only 5 were E1b1b1b2
>No comment lol
islamic period samples are irrelevant because we are talking about the FRICKING IRON AGE
>You're confusing the authors and Davidski.
the author calls them egyptians multiple times
>These samples are labeled as SFI-44 and SFI-33 that SFI-43 only formed a clade with ancient Egyptians (Table S5), implying that she shared all of her ancestry with them or a genetically equivalent population. On the other hand, SFI-44’s ancestry appeared to be more complex because he did not form a clade with any population in our dataset, yet he appeared to share ancestry with SFI-43, ancient Egyptians, and ancient Levantines
and sfi-43 is dated 550-400 bc, sfi-33 is the son
>The '"average" is irrelevant. The indigenous Levantine profile, the one responsible for the spread of the Semitic and the creation of Babylon, Akkad, Ebla, Canaan, Phoenicia and Israel was Natufian/North African rather than Anatolian or Iranian.
the average in that historical period is what matters, natufians did not exist in the bronze and iron age, they couldnt have spread anything
natufians were cavemen, they did not spread any semitic language and neither did any of those fantasies
>I posted the PCA
>biological descent means nothing
Take your meds troony.
>enormous shift towards sub saharan africa together with moroccan berbers
Nope. We cluster with Natufians and Punic samples from QCP. Taforalt, IAM, Mozabites and Tuaregs are intermediary populations halfway between us and SSA.
>do you think that you genetically plot like a levantine
We are indeed the OG Levantines both paternally and autosomally. I never said that we were identical to modern Iran_N/Euro-admixed "Levantines" tho.
>and most of the samples (the beirut IA III and beirut IA II) are not genetically like that
The other samples are mixed, they don't cluster with Natufians and PPN unlike these two. Picrel.. One is identical to Natufians and the other is half way between them and mixed "Levantines".
none of them is identical to natufians
>You have to accept the fact we E1b1b carriers created all civilizations in the Middle East
no you have to accept that your bullshits don't matter, E is 1% of the mid east samples
there's no E in actual punic samples
100% of the Levantine samples carried E1b. The mixed samples that you mislabel as Levantines are just mutts from Anatolia and Iran.
The earliest attest Semitic sample (ETM010) is E1b and is the earliest Semitic elite (I10670) sample is likewise E1b. As for these J, T, G samples, they are just chattel slaves from Iran and Anatolia and there's no evidence that they spoke Semitic.
>The two Megiddo individuals with the next lowest Neolithic Levant component (I10769 and I10770, brothers) were found near the monumental tomb that was likely related to the palace at Megiddo, raising the possibility that they might be associated with the ruling caste.
>S10769.E1.L1 Megiddo_MLBA E1b1b1b
>S10770.E1.L1 Megiddo_MLBA E1b1b1b
>100% of the Levantine samples carried E1b. The mixed samples that you mislabel as Levantines are just mutts from Anatolia and Iran.
those mixed samples are 99% of the population of the levant during the punic period
do you think whgs conquered the americas during the age of exploration because they were the "natives"
natufians were displaced all around the levant
>The earliest attest Semitic sample (ETM010) is E1b
so fricking what? it has also very little natufian ancestry and plots with lebanese christians and many samples are dated to the early bronze age
there are plenty of elites with any haplogroups, among the alalakh samples the ones from the rich plastered tombs were not E for example
you dumb quadroon
and those megiddo samples are not E1b1b1b, funny how you try to imply the connection with E-m81(E1b1b1b1a1) by cutting their haplogroups
they were E1b1b1b2a1 and E1b1b1b2a1a
>Natufians are the indigenous inhabitants of the Levant
so what? in the bronze and iron age 99% of the population in the levant had 20-30% natufian admixture on average, and these are the people responsible for anything in the bronze age
>and they and their descendants are responsible for the spread of the Semitic languages to the region.
natufians were mesolithic cavemen without a written language, they aren't responsible for anything
>They are by far the most relevant population to the Levant
they are completely irrelevant
if we are talking about phoenicians, that existed during the late bronze and iron age, we use late bronze and iron age levantines
this is how it works, you don't take some caveman from 10000 prior to represent phoenicians
>so what? in the bronze and iron age 99% of the population in the levant had 20-30% natufian admixture on average, and these are the people responsible for anything in the bronze age
Source?
>natufians were mesolithic cavemen without a written language, they aren't responsible for anything
Source?
>they are completely irrelevant
Source?
source for what, you literally said yourself that almost all the levantine samples were lebanese-like and have some 30% natufian on average
do you need also a source to know that natufians were dated from the mesolithic and were found in a cave, you really know very little about natufians despite bringing them up in every single thread?
>Sitifis was Punic speaking city according to academics.
that quote that you posted said that they spoke punic more than in other parts, not that punic was the most spoken language and it would be irrelevant anyway, just like you speak arabic yet plot extremely far away from a syrian and those syrian like iron age levantine samples
>These samples are either mixed or not descended from natufians, they are mostly Iranian migrants rather than Levantines. Actual Levantines were like that
THESE were the levantines back than, there were no natufians, levantines were genetically like this during the punic period and before that in the bronze age
that sitifis sample is not a levantine either, it plots with NW africans with a bit of a shift towards europe
>Their Punics descendants were still around.
the phoenicians were like this genetically
do you understand, this is how the phoenicians/levantines were like genetically from the bronze age and iron age, the natufians did not exist anymore, they are irrelevant to the conversation
>E-M81 is Natufian and Phoenician carried it
e-m81 is not natufian and phoenicians didn't carry it, these are the phoenician samples
not some late imperial roman era guy from some roman colony in north africa
these
are samples from iron and bronze age levant and NONE of them carries E-m81, the large majority don't even carry E
>Their genetic profile is a proof. Kerkouane was hub of the Punic slave trade and the primary sources of slaves was Europe.
no the genetic profile is not proof of anything if not of how the average punic was like genetically
>Accrording to academics they were either mixed or local.
they were punics according to academics
>Natufians are the direct ancestors of Punics so they are very relevant to this discussion.
natufians are completely irrelevant to the discussion and i'm tired of you shoehorning this irrelevant mesolithic population into the iron age
>It doesn't matter how you try twist both E1b1 and E1b1b are upstream E-M81.
let's try again
the E1b1 sample is E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1), i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1
i know your quadroon brain can't process complicated informations, but if it can't branch to E1b1b1b1, it can't be E1b1b1b1a1, hence it's not ancestral to E-m81
the E1b1b1 was CT at first, because it's a shit quality sample, and martiniano et al gave it E1b1b1
still shit quality E1b1b1 is extremely ancient for the time, not it's true haplogroup that much probably is the same as the other 2
and the IAM are E-m81 and E-l19 that is still closer to be ancestral to e-m81
>We are descended of the Natufians and are the OG Semites. As for Martinanio et al., it contradicts both the results of Fregel et al. and Y-Leaf so it is irrelevant.
martiniano et al literally takes into consideration the results from fregel and gives better results over them, this is not a contradiction it's giving better results from old samples that is literally the title of the study "Placing ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies", so it's very very relevant
your run on the other hand does not matter in the slightest
>The Dzudzuana theory makes no sense. There's no archeological evidence that Caucasians migrated to the Levant during the Mesolithic.
the dzudzuana theory makes 100% sense, caucasus is right next to anatolia and it's not from the mesolithic but from the paleolithic, 27000 years ago, the ahg takes the large majority of it's admixture from it
>It's not "my" run moron. Y-Leaf is a software, it is an unbiased Y-DNA predicator unlike Martiniano et al.
it's YOUR shitty run, that doesn't matter
>They carried subclade upstream of E-M81.
i called it
>inbefore the quadroon mistakes shitty quality of some samples that were so shit they were given CT at first with them having "haplogroups ancestral to E-M81"
they did not
the 6 natufian samples:
2 have E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b) - meaning an unspecified branch of E1b1b1b2
1 has E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) - i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1. (so it can't be E-m81 if it can't go down the E1b1b1b1 route)
1 has E1b1b1 according to the martiniano et al 2020 review of old samples, probably it's a downstream clade and not actually E1b1b1, was first classified as CT, it's a shit quality sample that it wasn't well defined before and it isn't well defined now
1 still has CT, probably too low quality to ever get assigned a better haplogroup
natufians were E1b1b1b2, the others are not well defined yet due to quality issues
>G25 tends to inflate Anatolian ancestry because both Barcin and Taforalt are roughly 60% Natufian. If you remove these samples you'll get an accurate estimate of VIL_11's Natufian ancestry. .
cope you don't know what you are talking about again
, we find an adequate two-way admixture model using qpAdm12 (χ p = 0.158), in which AHG derives around half of his ancestry from a Neolithic Levantine-related gene pool (48.0 ± 4.5 %; estimate ± 1 SE) and the rest from the WHG-related one (tables S4 and S5).
this same study says:
>While these results do not suggest that the AHG gene pool originated as a mixture of Levant_N and WHG, both of which lived millennia later than AHG, it still robustly supports that AHG is genetically intermediate between WHG and Levant_N.
>No population in North Africa is descended from Taforalt or carry significant Taforalt ancestry.
all populations in north african do, hence the massive sub saharan shift
>I don't need to cope Ahuwarhd. The Academic consensus supports my views.
they literally don't, you are a quadroon
>they did not
E1b1 and E1b1b1 are upstream of E-M81.
>cope you don't know what you are talking about again
I literally posted two studies proving my point lol.
>this same study says:
The same study also says
>AHG, AAF, and ACF compose of similar main ancestry components, maximized in natufians (green) and WHG (blue).
>all populations in north african do, hence the massive sub saharan shift
No we are mixture of West African SSA and Natufian whereas IBM were a mixture of East Africa SSA + West African SSA
>this is what it all boils down, this natufian obsession is a way to deny your sub saharan admixture
On the contrary. I fully accept that we are a two way mixture of Natufians (70-90%) and SSA (10-30%).
>yes they do, they carry the same y dna as IAM samples, e-m81, as martiniano et al says
Nope.
>E1b1 and E1b1b1 are upstream of E-M81.
the E1b1 sample is 1 that has E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) - i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1. so it can't be E-m81 if it can't go down the E1b1b1b1 route
the E1b1b1 is a shit quality sample that was first classified as CT
and martiniano et al classified it as E1b1b1 the same study that gives E-m81 to IAM-5 and the other IAM have E1b1b1b1 so still closer to be ancestral to E-m81 (E1b1b1b1a1)
>I literally posted two studies proving my point lol.
i literally quoted the same study showing you that you were wrong
>AHG, AAF, and ACF compose of similar main ancestry components, maximized in natufians (green) and WHG (blue).
again same study says this
>While these results do not suggest that the AHG gene pool originated as a mixture of Levant_N and WHG, both of which lived millennia later than AHG, it still robustly supports that AHG is genetically intermediate between WHG and Levant_N.
it's not a mixture between the two
and the dzuduzana paper completely kills this theory by showing a similar genetic profile since the paleolithic
>We first estimated FST, a measure of population genetic differentiation, to assess the genetic relationships between ancient West Eurasian populations. Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE) (CHG, Natufians, Taforalt11 Ibero-Maurusians from North Africa, and early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, Iran, the Levant, and the Maghreb) are strongly differentiated from all European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (ESHG) (FST = 0.078-0.267). By contrast, Dzudzuana is genetically closer to both contemporaneous Gravettians from Europe (0.051±0.012) and also to the much later Neolithic Anatolian farmers (0.039±0.005) who are genetically closest to them according to this measure.
>A genetic relationship between Dzudzuana and Neolithic Anatolians is also shown by principal components analysis (PCA)
and your shitty run doesn't matter, pic rel matters
>No we are mixture of West African SSA and Natufian whereas IBM were a mixture of East Africa SSA + West African SSA
you are not but even with this moronic theory the percentage of sub saharan is more like 20-30%
funny that you try to deny the extreme sub saharan admixture even while linking to a model that gives all NW africans a minimum of 20% sub saharan
all modern north west african populations carry sub saharan and taforalt like admixture in heavy amounts
>I don't need to cope Ahuwarhd. The Academic consensus supports my views.
no acedim consensus supports your view in the slightest
NW africans have a massive shift towards sub saharan africa and undeniably have taforalt admixture
nw africans are closer to eritreans than to austrians btw
oh wait joseph you are moroccan arab, so it's better if i don't use riffian quadroon but moroccan arab 1/3 black, so better if i use moroccan arab samples
Distance to: Moroccan
0.17532342 Eritrean
0.18236703 Ethiopian_Tigray
0.18947515 Ethiopian_Afar
0.19246948 Ethiopian_Amhara
0.19325896 Ethiopian_Agaw
0.23748957 Ethiopian_Oromo
0.25939395 Somali
0.27033922 Austrian
>Phoenicians, Arabs, or Europeans
you are so wrong, there's 5% of those admixture at best, except maybe in tunisia where they have a shit towards arabs
funny that you didn't mention sub saharan admixture tho while posting a chart that models nafris as heavily sub saharan lol
this is what it all boils down, this natufian obsession is a way to deny your sub saharan admixture
no proof of them being slave, post a quote from the study that calls those specific samples slaves (not some quote from god knows where that has nothing to do with those samples because i know that's what you're gonna do)
and that sample is corrupted, it doesn't matter what SNPs he's positive to
>and that sample is corrupted
Only his mtDNA is missing.
>it doesn't matter what SNPs he's positive to
It's too bad that Y-Leaf doesn't care about your feelings.
>Only his mtDNA is missing.
that sample is corrupted, it doesn't matter what it scores, it's a corrupted sample and no one cares about your runs
>Deleting Myceneans to force to software to pick Levantines.
Low IQ. Punic Tunisians are 81% Southern European, and the paternal lineages are all from Europe. Cope more, shitskin.
Italians and Greeks are shitskins too we wuzzer
Even with This shitty model the Levantine admixture is incredibly low
sitifis was not a punic city, it was founded by roman colonists in 97 CE, that sample from sitifis is from 200 CE
there's no proof of samples from kerkouane being slaves, unless you can find a quote from the study specifically calling those samples slaves
>if they could build massive mausoleums they wouldnt have lived in huts
Anon, the fact that some kang had enough wealth to build such structures does not mean the rest of the population could avoid being piss-poor.
https://josephinecrawleyquinn.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/quinnmonunmentalpower.pdf
all of the kangz had massive mausoleoms dedicated to them when they died and were venerated as gods (in the manner of pharaohs)
and they all had a reputation of being liked by the people
and they had an elite that was wealthy enough to study greek or punic
surely they had enough wealth to live atleast with punic standards , except for the low class of course
generally people building useless monuments means that they do not have concerns about food or money and can indulge in building this kind of sht
Why do you keep posting Hellenistic and Roman era tombs to make a point of how the Berber troglodytes lived before the Phoenicians came 500-800 years before? You really are fricking moronic.
speaking of architecture
>Late Flavian
I hope you realize what that means, moron
>The Flavian dynasty ruled the Roman Empire between AD 69 and 96, encompassing the reigns of Vespasian (69–79), and his two sons Titus (79–81) and Domitian (81–96).
Nothing to do with the original pre-phoenician Berbers, who haven't left behind one single house made of non-perishable material
>missing the point this hard
what are you trying to prove here
simply put if they had the power to build these they wouldve built homes for themselves
but youre right , im quite moronic as i forgot that they came centuries before
so mb i guess
>what are you trying to prove here
berbers most likely had their own locally derived architectural motifs.
Genetics disagrees. Numerous Punic samples have been found in Italy. Kerkouane, including its sewer system, was built in 8-7th BC .
>No that's how Berbers lived
I'm not berber so I don't care.
Lol no, kerkouane's sewage system dates to a much later period, and it's still a Punic town, not berber, and if you like genetics so much you'll sure know many of its inhabitants were Italian or Greek-like, nowhere near Berbers.
Most samples so far were slaves from Europe and the Sahara sure. However the Sitifis represents a pristine Punic sample and is identical to Northern Tunisians and Northern Moroccans tho.
>kerkouane's sewage system dates to a much later period
Source: Trust me bro.
>Most samples so far were slaves from Europe and the Sahara sure
They were not.
They were. 11759 was a Berber slave while the others were Sardinian & Sicilian slaves.
>Sardinian & Sicilian slaves
For example picrel.
Source:
https://www.romeartlover.it/Kerkouane.html
Your sources: Zero, as always, only your dishonest ass
>I'm not berber so I don't care
Most Maghrebis are
>Kerkouane, including its sewer system, was built in 8-7th BC .
liar, liar, your pants are on fire!
The earliest known testimonies at the site would date back to the 6th century BC; whereas the ruins, today visible at the site, date back to the end of the 4th, first half of the 3rd century BC and bear witness to sophisticated town planning.
Berbers are literally the only genetic group in maghreb
coastal nafri land has high concentrations of J.
It was always a shithole. You seem to misunderstanding the Roman presence in the region which was them occupying the coastline while fighting off moors
>It was always a shithole
Disagree, Arabs founded some nice cities there and there. Ifriqiya was rather wealthy under Aghlabid and Fatimid rule, for instance.
>Disagree, Arabs founded some nice cities there and there. Ifriqiya was rather wealthy under Aghlabid and Fatimid rule, for instance.
as always only the coastal regions were wealthy. The only exception were the Garamantes. The rest were interior berber nomads constantly raiding the wealthy portions of North Africa
>as always only the coastal regions were wealthy
Kairouan is in the mainland and was of foremost importance until the 11-12th centuries I reckon.
>How did one of the most fertile and wealthy regions in the world
where do people get these delusions?
When the French arrived, the plain around Algiers was a shitty mosquitoes-infested swamp
In a few decades, the French turned it into a very fertile land
But muh oppression
they didnt, atleast not the urban areas.
Climate change and expansion of the Sahara desert. The region was simply more fertile thousands of years ago.
Sahara desert continued to expand exacerbating desertification, then constant war led to eventual Arab/Muslim conquest.
"One of the wealthiest regions"
Nafris are desperate to blame the Arabs even though they are always on about how the Arabs didn't rule them.
Producing gain doesn't necessarily make you rich.
Wow, romans used USD and recorded the average income of their provinces' population?
Africa was the ine that produced grain. The others were relevant
You realize the redder a province is on that map the wealthier it is, right?
This isn't an FGM percentage map
>deserts and piracy didn't exist in north africa until the 7th century
moron take
Killing everyone with more education than spouting sacred texts at will do that to a country.
>most fertile and wealthy regions in the world
no
it was always a shithole, arab rule made it better
It only became a pirate infested shithole under the Ottomans. The Almoravids, Almohads, Aghlabhids, and Fatamids were all very powerful and rich
The oldest Semitic sample is E1b btw. Even if we ignore the Natufians, we are still reponsible for the spread of the Semitic language. Feels good to be E1b.
>ETM010 (TM.98.CC.113, D.7278) is a macroscopically possible male individual, aged between 30 and 40 years in a pit grave from the Early Bronze III Period (ca. 2700-2500 BCE). The skeletal remains were fragmentary and disarticulated. Dental pathologies and osteological conditions at the lower limbs were observed.
ETM010 is E1b1b1b2a1a1, not e-m81(e1b1b1b1a1)
it has zero north african admixture
Distance to: SYR_Ebla_EMBA:ETM012
0.03049554 Samaritan
0.04521679 Lebanese_Christian
0.05133887 Palestinian_Beit_Sahour
0.05179127 Karaite_Egypt
0.05347408 Lebanese_Druze
0.05429624 Druze
0.05570348 Iraqi_Jew
0.05749046 Kurdish_Jew
0.05771236 Lebanese_Muslim
0.06154446 Cypriot
and there are plenty of samples dated to the early bronze age
I see a clear North African paternal admixture in this sample.
i don't
it has zero north african admixture and doesn't have northwest african haplogroup e-m81(e1b1b1b1a1)
>and plots with lebanese christians
Irrelevant. Lebanese christians are J, T, G. They are no related to these samples.
>rich plastered tombs
Alalakh is in Turkey. Your only evidence of non-E1b "Semitic" elite is an Hittite sample from Turkey.
>and those megiddo samples are not E1b1b1b, funny how you try to imply the connection with E-m81(E1b1b1b1a1) by cutting their haplogroups
They belong to further downstream subclades but they are undeniably E-Z827. You are grasping at straws.
>Irrelevant. Lebanese christians are J, T, G. They are no related to these samples.
except autosomally
except that there are a few lebanese with E1b1b1b2 just like there were a few levantine iron age samples with E1b1b1b2
except there are more E1b1b1b2 in the middle east than in northwest africa
>Alalakh is in Turkey. Your only evidence of non-E1b "Semitic" elite is an Hittite sample from Turkey.
yes turkey, the levantine part of the modern country of turkey
>They belong to further downstream subclades but they are undeniably E-Z827. You are grasping at straws.
they are not E-m81, you are the only one that is grasping at straws, they couldn't have brought E-m81 to north africa because they didn't have it and because even E1b1b1b2 was a small minority of the haplogroups, if a mostly J, T and G population conquers a country they spread J, T and G, not a minority haplogroup
>a few lebanese
As opposed to millions of E-Z827 in North Africa. The few Levantines who carry it today are Semitic elites who rule over a mass of Anatolo-Iranian mutts.
>except there are more E1b1b1b2 in the middle east than in northwest africa
Strange. You assured me a few posts ago that they died out.
>Turkey
>Levant
Turkey is in Anatolia.
>you are the only one that is grasping at strawst
They are downstream of E-Z827. Everything else is irrelevant.
>As opposed to millions of E-Z827 in North Africa. The few Levantines who carry it today are Semitic elites who rule over a mass of Anatolo-Iranian mutts.
why are you so incredibly stupid, once you split that E-Z827(e1b1b1b) into subclades, it's clear that you don't have E-Z830 (e1b1b1b2)
there are a few levantines with that haplogroups just like in the past
>Strange. You assured me a few posts ago that they died out.
they mostly did autosomally and in haplogroups, the natufian admixture is between 20-30% and the haplogroup has low numbers, and it was like that since the bronze age, so punics included
>Turkey is in Anatolia.
alalakh is in the levantine part of turkey
>They are downstream of E-Z827. Everything else is irrelevant.
they are not e-m81 you dumb fricking quadroon
they couldn't have brought E-m81 to north africa because they didn't have it and because even E1b1b1b2 was a small minority of the haplogroups, if a mostly J, T and G population conquers a country they spread J, T and G, not a minority haplogroup
Semitic samples in the Levant are E1b, when they moved to NA they naturally spread subclades of E1b namely E-M81 and E-V65.
As for Alalakh, it is an Anatolian city located in Turkey. Actual Semitic cities like Megiddo and Ebla were ruled E1b elites.
Your headcanon is irrelevant.
>Semitic samples in the Levant are E1b, when they moved to NA they naturally spread subclades of E1b namely E-M81 and E-V65.
levantine samples are 99% not E in the bronze and iron age, and the E that they have is all e1b1b1b2
so they couldn't possibly spread E in general and even more so they couldn't possibly spread E-m81, this is simple 1:1 logic
>As for Alalakh, it is an Anatolian city located in Turkey. Actual Semitic cities like Megiddo and Ebla were ruled E1b elites.
alalakh is in the levant, 2 samples don't represent the whole elite and it wouldn't change anything of the argument, the ebla sample that is e1b1b1b2 is not elite, there's no indication of it, we already start with the bullshits and the fanfiction
>Your headcanon is irrelevant.
this is rich, you literally invented a whole mythology that no one believes in, about literal natufians conquering NW africa during the iron age as punics and spreading e-m81 despite
1 - natufians not existing anymore
2 - 99% of the samples being autosomally lebanese-like with something like 25% natufian admixture, 99% not possessing haplogroup E and the ones that do have e1b1b1b2, not E-m81
it's a a logical impossibility, fan faction of the highest order
>this thread
Lmao the Punics were mutts of middle easteners, europeans and north africans, simple as that
>thread rapidly devolves into haploautism
lol
there's no other chance when this moroccan arab mentally ill quadroon shows up
every argument about punics has to devolve into talking about haplogroup E and natufian cavemen