PDA

View Full Version : L70>Z435>Z2177>PH185; Years of Confusion



harrimir
07-29-2020, 11:34 PM
Hello! I'm new to the forum, this will be my first post. Please forgive my writing style - I have been told it is often very difficult to follow my train of thought, but I will try my best!

I have been following developments in studies of my haplogroup since getting tested about a decade ago. Now, I have only been tested at the Y-37 level, but my one and only match at that level (with 2 mismatched STRs, and ftdna estimating we have a common ancestor in the last 300-400 years, if I've understood it correctly) is an Italian(Neapolitan)-American with the terminal SNP FGC24630 (which is a subgroup of L-70>>>PH185, but beyond that it seems different websites use different labels). Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but this almost certainly means if I were able to afford a bigger Y testing, I'd be PH185+. (And my own ancestor was an Italian from somewhere in Campania)

But, as I have followed over the years, unlike with certain other branches, it seems the mystery of L70 and its subclades (especially those below Z435) has only gotten more complex. There are at least three threads on this forum where the discussion has gone on regarding its presence in Italy, the Middle East, and the Jewish diaspora.

As I have understood it, L70 itself certainly originated in the Levant, (especially with the new Palestinian and Jordanian discoveries, everyone seems to agree it at least didn't *originate* in Anatolia or elsewhere).... but after that, regarding Z435 and below, conflicting narratives seem to emerge? I would really like to get some more educated opinions on this.

1.The Italic narrative, as shown on Eupedia and in the old Southern Italy thread, is essentially that L70 was present throughout the Levant, eastern Anatolia, and southern Caucasus, and *part* of it was absorbed into the southern proto-indo-european expansion along with R1b. That is why L70 appears at a low rate anywhere R1b does (western and central europe with the proto-italo-celts, from Ireland and Scotland to Germany down through the balkans with the group that ended up as r1b greeks), but a small lineage (a sub-lineage of z435+, PERHAPS all of it, or perhaps some of it was even left behind in the mid-east way back before the PIE branch even took off) had a "founder effect" and became a very large lineage among the central-southern italic tribes, and was spread around again specifically by roman expansion into specific parts of europe and the middle east (and perhaps INTO Judea due to conquest, rather than from it).

2. The Levantine VS Greek narrative? So, for years it was said that Z435 was almost certainly NOT Greek, and seemed to skip directly into Italy from the Middle East, and YFull's MRCA calculations seem to me, unless I am misunderstanding, to indicate that this happened somewhere between 1400-1100 BC? And was certainly NOT connected to the Etruscan regions at all. This would SEEM to give credence to the Italic narrative, since there doesn't seem to be any historical record of a migration from the Levant, certainly not Jewish, during those years. And Z435 DOESN'T seem to appear in the phoenician diaspora, but only amongst Jews and Arabs back in the Mid-East... All of which seems to argue against either an Etruscan or Phoenician migration. And it *appears* to be present in Italians and so-on higher up on the "Tree" far before entering any down-clade Jewish groups.(Which seems to me to indicate it entered the Jewish world during Roman times, rather than the other way around.) I have seen some discussion here about CTS3601 and its subgroups perhaps being Levantine and not descended from Europeans? Although I suppose this wouldn't rule out Z2177 spreading in some other way. But I honestly can't keep track of all of this!

One interesting thing that appears to conflict with all of the other data, YFull, etc. is some on this forum were discussing a study that found the "center" of some L70 groups, proved that Z2177 at least (I think some others as well?) was actually originated in Greece itself?(Euboea?) Although I couldn't actually find the study or really follow a lot of the specifics, is the suggestion that Z2177 originated in Greece (maybe the ancestor got there from Al-Minah?), after moving to Italy/Magna Graecia, the lineage itself more or less died out in Greece itself? Does it then explain further "south" groups in europeans and the arabs(and maybe jews) that spread from italy as roman descendants? Am I understanding this narrative correctly? But I'm not sure how this lines up with the MRCA timelines on YFull. I am no expert, clearly.

Finally, most specifically, PH185 exists within Italians, Western Europeans+Americans, and Arabs in Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. I am not sure if it is common in Jews as well, but ph185 TMRCA is 1000BC, even though its parent clades had already supposedly gotten around to Europe.. so... honestly I am at a loss. But I don't think it all lines up with a converted Judean origin or a Greek origin but the newer Arab stuff and that study are both really adding to the confusion.

........ Thoughts?

SUPREEEEEME
07-30-2020, 08:22 AM
Hello! I'm new to the forum, this will be my first post. Please forgive my writing style - I have been told it is often very difficult to follow my train of thought, but I will try my best!

Welcome to Anthrogenica, I hope you can find what you are looking for here!


I have been following developments in studies of my haplogroup since getting tested about a decade ago. Now, I have only been tested at the Y-37 level, but my one and only match at that level (with 2 mismatched STRs, and ftdna estimating we have a common ancestor in the last 300-400 years, if I've understood it correctly) is an Italian(Neapolitan)-American with the terminal SNP FGC24630 (which is a subgroup of L-70>>>PH185, but beyond that it seems different websites use different labels). Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but this almost certainly means if I were able to afford a bigger Y testing, I'd be PH185+. (And my own ancestor was an Italian from somewhere in Campania)

I'm not too sure about this - if FTDNA has FGC24630 below PH185, you're probably PH185 - which isn't surprising if you're South Italian.


As I have understood it, L70 itself certainly originated in the Levant, (especially with the new Palestinian and Jordanian discoveries, everyone seems to agree it at least didn't *originate* in Anatolia or elsewhere).... but after that, regarding Z435 and below, conflicting narratives seem to emerge? I would really like to get some more educated opinions on this.

At this stage, it's most likely J-L70 originated in the Levant. There's strong evidence to suggest this, and I believe we will start seeing ancient L70 samples in the Levant in the near future. Before the Basal Palestinian arrived, there was still a possibility of an Anatolian origin - but the two Basal branches have narrowed it down. As for its migrations, I don't see any conflicting narratives - you can let me know what you think.


1.The Italic narrative, as shown on Eupedia and in the old Southern Italy thread, is essentially that L70 was present throughout the Levant, eastern Anatolia, and southern Caucasus, and *part* of it was absorbed into the southern proto-indo-european expansion along with R1b. That is why L70 appears at a low rate anywhere R1b does (western and central europe with the proto-italo-celts, from Ireland and Scotland to Germany down through the balkans with the group that ended up as r1b greeks), but a small lineage (a sub-lineage of z435+, PERHAPS all of it, or perhaps some of it was even left behind in the mid-east way back before the PIE branch even took off) had a "founder effect" and became a very large lineage among the central-southern italic tribes, and was spread around again specifically by roman expansion into specific parts of europe and the middle east (and perhaps INTO Judea due to conquest, rather than from it).

I don't think there's any strong evidence to suggest that L70 spread with Italic tribes or proto-Indo-Europeans. The Italic origin promoted by Eupedia (Maciamo has since abandoned this belief in favor of a Greek origin) is flawed mainly due to the lack of J-L70 in the regions where these groups passed through (this was before a Levantine or even Anatolian origin was considered). As for how J-L70 spread throughout continental Europe, Roman expansion is the most logical answer - but how the Romans got their J-L70, I'll address later on.


2. The Levantine VS Greek narrative? So, for years it was said that Z435 was almost certainly NOT Greek, and seemed to skip directly into Italy from the Middle East, and YFull's MRCA calculations seem to me, unless I am misunderstanding, to indicate that this happened somewhere between 1400-1100 BC? And was certainly NOT connected to the Etruscan regions at all. This would SEEM to give credence to the Italic narrative, since there doesn't seem to be any historical record of a migration from the Levant, certainly not Jewish, during those years. And Z435 DOESN'T seem to appear in the phoenician diaspora, but only amongst Jews and Arabs back in the Mid-East... All of which seems to argue against either an Etruscan or Phoenician migration. And it *appears* to be present in Italians and so-on higher up on the "Tree" far before entering any down-clade Jewish groups.(Which seems to me to indicate it entered the Jewish world during Roman times, rather than the other way around.) I have seen some discussion here about CTS3601 and its subgroups perhaps being Levantine and not descended from Europeans? Although I suppose this wouldn't rule out Z2177 spreading in some other way. But I honestly can't keep track of all of this!

One thing we can be sure of is that J-L70 isn't of Greek origin. However, there is one branch that likely reflects Greek expansion - J-Z2177>J-PH185. From one or two papers, all the L70 samples from Greece and parts of Southern Italy where the Greeks colonized were entirely Z2177 (based off the BAMs). Since J-FT51679 is Levantine, that leaves J-PH185 as the likely subclade that these individuals fall under. I imagine the migration path is something like this: Levant>Anatolia>Greece>Italy. As for how Central Italy got its L70, we can look at the Antonio paper, which demonstrated that during the time period of Imperial Rome, there was an influx of Middle Eastern ancestry, the likely source of the J-L70. I also do believe that the Phoenicians are responsible for some of Sicily's J-L70. In Sicily, Phoenician settlements (like Trapani and Mazara del Vallo) display the highest frequencies of J-L70 in Europe. J-Z435 is found in Lebanon amongst many families. I do think the J-L70 in Italy did experience a founder effect that resulted in higher frequencies (than Greece, for example - Greece actually doesn't have that high a frequency) as most individuals appear to be from the same set of villages. As for Italians higher up the tree - they're likely descended from immigrant lineages that survived to this day - the J-Z435 Italian sample above J-Z435* is likely a good example of that. Under J-PH185, there is an Italian Converso family - but that will need to be investigated further. As for how J-L70 entered the Jewish world, it was likely through the Canaanites. We know it couldn't be from Greeks or Romans as J-L70 is found virtually throughout the Jewish world in almost all sub-divisions. Several of these groups have traditions of leaving the Levant before interacting with Greeks and Romans (i.e. Djerban Cohanim and Bukharan Jews). Rome very clearly did spread J-L70 throughout continental Europe - but the Jewish Diaspora also possibly had a role in this.


One interesting thing that appears to conflict with all of the other data, YFull, etc. is some on this forum were discussing a study that found the "center" of some L70 groups, proved that Z2177 at least (I think some others as well?) was actually originated in Greece itself?(Euboea?) Although I couldn't actually find the study or really follow a lot of the specifics, is the suggestion that Z2177 originated in Greece (maybe the ancestor got there from Al-Minah?), after moving to Italy/Magna Graecia, the lineage itself more or less died out in Greece itself? Does it then explain further "south" groups in europeans and the arabs(and maybe jews) that spread from italy as roman descendants? Am I understanding this narrative correctly? But I'm not sure how this lines up with the MRCA timelines on YFull. I am no expert, clearly.

Finally, most specifically, PH185 exists within Italians, Western Europeans+Americans, and Arabs in Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. I am not sure if it is common in Jews as well, but ph185 TMRCA is 1000BC, even though its parent clades had already supposedly gotten around to Europe.. so... honestly I am at a loss. But I don't think it all lines up with a converted Judean origin or a Greek origin but the newer Arab stuff and that study are both really adding to the confusion.


I think I've addressed most of this. It's worth stating that J-L70 started spreading before Jews or Judeans.

If you have any other questions, you can let me know.

Perhaps some of my threads have some of the answers you seek:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?19736-J-L70-Presence-in-the-Middle-East-North-Africa

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18818-Jews-and-J-L70

harrimir
07-30-2020, 12:58 PM
However, there is one branch that likely reflects Greek expansion - J-Z2177>J-PH185. From one or two papers, all the L70 samples from Greece and parts of Southern Italy where the Greeks colonized were entirely Z2177 (based off the BAMs). Since J-FT51679 is Levantine, that leaves J-PH185 as the likely subclade that these individuals fall under. I imagine the migration path is something like this: Levant>Anatolia>Greece>Italy. As for how Central Italy got its L70, we can look at the Antonio paper, which demonstrated that during the time period of Imperial Rome, there was an influx of Middle Eastern ancestry, the likely source of the J-L70. I also do believe that the Phoenicians are responsible for some of Sicily's J-L70. In Sicily, Phoenician settlements (like Trapani and Mazara del Vallo) display the highest frequencies of J-L70 in Europe. J-Z435 is found in Lebanon amongst many families. I do think the J-L70 in Italy did experience a founder effect that resulted in higher frequencies (than Greece, for example - Greece actually doesn't have that high a frequency) as most individuals appear to be from the same set of villages. As for Italians higher up the tree - they're likely descended from immigrant lineages that survived to this day - the J-Z435 Italian sample above J-Z435* is likely a good example of that.

Ah so if I am understanding correctly, even though perhaps other branches of L70 spread around in various ways, the timeline on z2177>ph185 is that it was still in the mid-east in 1000 bc, and only spread west after that?

What are BAM? And the z2177 was found IN Greece as well? I hadn't realized. Was it also found in Anatolia? Because if you are familiar with the Al-Mina outpost, it may have come directly from tthere to the Greek world (whether through Greece or directly to Italy)... Or is there a reason it might be specifically thought to have entered Europe during roman imperial times rather than Greek colonial times? ( And if so, as you mentioned the conversos, and if it was present among both levantines and Greeks/Romans, is there even a way to distinguish between Greek Italian ph185 and Jewish Italian ph185? Does it even appear amongst Non-Italian Jews? That may be a clue since Ashkenazim spread north largely through Italy)

And yes, I have been following your threads for a long while! Thank you for the help. As always though I'd love to hear from as many educated folks as possible.

SUPREEEEEME
07-30-2020, 03:16 PM
Ah so if I am understanding correctly, even though perhaps other branches of L70 spread around in various ways, the timeline on z2177>ph185 is that it was still in the mid-east in 1000 bc, and only spread west after that?

What are BAM? And the z2177 was found IN Greece as well? I hadn't realized. Was it also found in Anatolia? Because if you are familiar with the Al-Mina outpost, it may have come directly from tthere to the Greek world (whether through Greece or directly to Italy)... Or is there a reason it might be specifically thought to have entered Europe during roman imperial times rather than Greek colonial times? ( And if so, as you mentioned the conversos, and if it was present among both levantines and Greeks/Romans, is there even a way to distinguish between Greek Italian ph185 and Jewish Italian ph185? Does it even appear amongst Non-Italian Jews? That may be a clue since Ashkenazim spread north largely through Italy)

And yes, I have been following your threads for a long while! Thank you for the help. As always though I'd love to hear from as many educated folks as possible.

The oldest sample we have of J-L70 is from a Late Antiquity Roman - I believe that J-L70, therefore, arrived during the prior time period, Imperial Rome, as during this period there was an influx of Middle Eastern migrants - and J-L70 originated in the Middle East. Before Imperial Rome, there wasn't much J2 in Rome. So this is the oldest presence of J-L70 in Europe. Who knows if it was present there before that - we'd have to wait for ancient samples. I imagine it (PH185) formed in the Middle East, with it then spreading later on to Greece and Italy. As for where it formed - we don't know. These are several Syrians and a Saudi under this branch - but the rest of its distribution could line up with Greek expansion. Each sample from a DNA paper will have a BAM file that can be further analyzed for deeper subclades. Pretty much all the J-L70 in East Sicily, Ionian Italy, and Greece from papers are J-Z2177 based on analyzing these files. And since J-Z2177>J-FT51679 is Levantine with no known Greek presence, these samples were all likely J-Z2177>J-PH185. I know at least one Turkish person is PH185 based on FTDNA's database. I haven't heard of Al-Mina before - I do know of an L70 person from Latakia, Syria which is pretty close? - but I don't know what his downstream clade is. The Converso family could very well have a converted paternal line - we just don't know. I don't know of any other Jewish presence under J-PH185 aside from that. Out of interest, I have actually managed to find J-FGC24630 in Iraq - with the rest being J-CTS3601.

harrimir
07-30-2020, 09:12 PM
FGC24360 in Iraq? That's interesting. I thought it was only present in Italy and Britain.
I may be wrong but of all the PH185 groups that have middle eastern branches, none of them seem to have expanded with the Phoenicians? (All the 318 and others in Tunisia seem to be Jewish) Which would probably rule out a canaanite origin ? So either Syrian or Jewish to Imperial era Italy (and from there to Britain)??? Unless ph185 really did get to Magna Graecia first and then perhaps some of its branches ended up back in Levantine etc populations (including a few Jews) from Roman conquest.
Unless I am misunderstanding something.

I guess the distinguishing point would be if ph185 entered in 700s bc to Greek Italy and spread from that point... Or if it came to imperial Italy and spread during that point.
.... Or I guess it could all be Jewish /Early Christians since Saudi Arabia, Deir ez-Zor, Iraq, and southern Italy were all exactly where the Jewish diaspora went immediately after expulsion..

Sorry if I'm going around in circles, I just would like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
What do you think is the likeliest scenario based on the dna? (Supreme? Principe? Any others?)

Edit: Actually wait, since it is quite common in the inland middle East and not just the Levant, I would guess an imperial era Roman migration is far more likely for fgc24630 .. since there was a ton of immigration from the mid east to Rome but not much (Greco)Italian settlement in the mid east.
But Jewish diaspora or Arab/Syro-Roman?

Although that old L70 distribution map really looks like the italic narrative... Is it really all just modern testing bias?

harrimir
08-01-2020, 03:10 AM
I know it's bad form to double post but since I've already edited it about three times..

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the two main theories for z2177 & ph185 distribution from the Aramaic world to Europe are:
1. Levant>Greece(likely Euboea)&Magna Graecia during Greek colonial era. (900-700 bc)
https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1999_act_251_1_5386
38827

Or 2. With the Syrian(or Nabataean Arab) migration and military settlement in the Imperial Roman era.

https://scriptaclassica.org/index.php/sci/article/view/2065

Since genetically speaking 900 years is quite close and all Z2177/PH185+ is older than that, as well as the fact that both of these populations would have ended up participating in the Roman expansion.. is there a way to tell these apart? Am I missing something important? Am I totally off?

It might be notable that Syrian soldiers were a disproportionate part of the Roman military contingent in North Britain, from which a lot of PH185+ /FGC24630 may have spread into Ulster, the US, etc. But I suppose this could also have happened with the settlement of people who had been greco-italian for hundreds of years as well. If there is a way to tell... Please let me know?

SUPREEEEEME
08-01-2020, 03:09 PM
FGC24360 in Iraq? That's interesting. I thought it was only present in Italy and Britain.
I may be wrong but of all the PH185 groups that have middle eastern branches, none of them seem to have expanded with the Phoenicians? (All the 318 and others in Tunisia seem to be Jewish) Which would probably rule out a canaanite origin ? So either Syrian or Jewish to Imperial era Italy (and from there to Britain)??? Unless ph185 really did get to Magna Graecia first and then perhaps some of its branches ended up back in Levantine etc populations (including a few Jews) from Roman conquest.
Unless I am misunderstanding something.

I guess the distinguishing point would be if ph185 entered in 700s bc to Greek Italy and spread from that point... Or if it came to imperial Italy and spread during that point.
.... Or I guess it could all be Jewish /Early Christians since Saudi Arabia, Deir ez-Zor, Iraq, and southern Italy were all exactly where the Jewish diaspora went immediately after expulsion..

Sorry if I'm going around in circles, I just would like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
What do you think is the likeliest scenario based on the dna? (Supreme? Principe? Any others?)

Edit: Actually wait, since it is quite common in the inland middle East and not just the Levant, I would guess an imperial era Roman migration is far more likely for fgc24630 .. since there was a ton of immigration from the mid east to Rome but not much (Greco)Italian settlement in the mid east.
But Jewish diaspora or Arab/Syro-Roman?

Sorry it's taken me long to respond.

I've not only found FGC24360 in Iraq, but also Syria and Turkey. Yes, PH185 doesn't appear to have spread with Phoenicians. I imagine branches like M318 and CTS3601 did. M318 is likely of Canaanite origin. It's found in >60% of Djerban Cohanim and 5% of Libyan Jews. I have also found several Lebanese individuals with it. This is what I think happened with PH185:

It probably spread early from the Levant to Anatolia. This gives the opportunity of smaller branches ending up in Syria and Turkey (and Iraq). From Anatolia, it would have then spread to the Aegean, and from the Aegean to Italy. Rome would then be responsible for it's spread into the UK etc... There is a possibility of it spreading back into the Middle East. Of course, this could all be theoretically wrong but we would need more testing and ancient samples.


Although that old L70 distribution map really looks like the italic narrative... Is it really all just modern testing bias?

Which map are you referring to? I did make an L70 map on my main thread not too long ago. If you're referring to the one on Google Maps, that one suffers heavily from modern testing bias.


"I know it's bad form to double post but since I've already edited it about three times..

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the two main theories for z2177 & ph185 distribution from the Aramaic world to Europe are:
1. Levant>Greece(likely Euboea)&Magna Graecia during Greek colonial era. (900-700 bc)
https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5...act_251_1_5386
Click image for larger version.

Name: Screenshot_20200731-224207.png
Views: 4
Size: 909.8 KB
ID: 38827

Or 2. With the Syrian(or Nabataean Arab) migration and military settlement in the Imperial Roman era.

https://scriptaclassica.org/index.ph...icle/view/2065

Since genetically speaking 900 years is quite close and all Z2177/PH185+ is older than that, as well as the fact that both of these populations would have ended up participating in the Roman expansion.. is there a way to tell these apart? Am I missing something important? Am I totally off?

It might be notable that Syrian soldiers were a disproportionate part of the Roman military contingent in North Britain, from which a lot of PH185+ /FGC24630 may have spread into Ulster, the US, etc. But I suppose this could also have happened with the settlement of people who had been greco-italian for hundreds of years as well. If there is a way to tell... Please let me know?"

I think your first scenario is most likely (including Anatolia). A direct route from Levant to Greece could very well have happened, but I'm not too familiar with the history.

As for Syrian/Nabatean migration to Rome, I would imagine that's more CTS3601 and Z435*. But again, not impossible for PH185. I don't think we have enough data - but we know there's a very large Greek and Southern Italian presence in these branches, which I think makes a Syrian/Nabatean origin unlikely.

harrimir
08-01-2020, 05:06 PM
I don't think we have enough data - but we know there's a very large Greek and Southern Italian presence in these branches, which I think makes a Syrian/Nabatean origin unlikely.

Regarding PH185 and FGC24630 (which is apparently just all ph185+ that isn't ph185*), exactly how large is the presence in Greece and Western Anatolia? And is centered in Euboea or evenly spread around.

Obviously both theories of this would have some branches being left behind in the Near East, and that could spread around in various population movements since 1000 bc (Especially the contiguous cultural region from northern Mesopotamia -and southeastern Anatolia- to Syria to Jordan to the Hejaz).

But, where they may differ in distribution:
1. If Greek distribution is the case, we would expect to see ph185+ spike in a specific part of Greece, probably Euboea, as well as appearing at a lower level in the rest of Greece in western Anatolia. As well, of course we would see distribution into southern Italy, and from there throughout Roman military posts and colonies, in Britain, along the Rhine, perhaps in France and Spain and North Africa and back a bit into Greece and the Near East.

If there was a later Syro-Roman distribution, we might expect to see it primarily in places where disproportionate Syrian-Roman military settlement and civilian immigration happened. North Britain, south eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Pannonia, and then citizens migrating into Southern Italy (as we know from recent geneflow studies.. unfortunately the study itself https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708 is behind a pay-wall but here are some images I snatched from a fash blogger.https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tn-zVXvK0og/XcVTQ7TDQ4I/AAAAAAAAEm4/B2YkvK3nwSIy0veOdGrSDke8Ikcx4ADLwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/italy%2BPCA%2Bhistory.jpeg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EdYNa-dH5rs/XcVTQ64LeDI/AAAAAAAAEm0/WLrdIuN3rS4IrtEBv1I_rKQMvrXQXdX5QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Rome-Religions.jpg ). And we might see them throughout the roman empire including Greece but we would probably NOT expect to see a disproportionate spike in a specific island of Greece, nor along the Rhine where IIRC Syrian soldiers weren't used disproportionately.

You know the PH185+/FGC24630 distribution better than I do. Which model does the western distribution fit?

Principe
08-01-2020, 05:16 PM
Regarding PH185 and FGC24630 (which is apparently just all ph185+ that isn't ph185*), exactly how large is the presence in Greece and Western Anatolia? And is centered in Euboea or evenly spread around.

Obviously both theories of this would have some branches being left behind in the Near East, and that could spread around in various population movements since 1000 bc (Especially the contiguous cultural region from northern Mesopotamia -and southeastern Anatolia- to Syria to Jordan to the Hejaz).

But, where they may differ in distribution:
1. If Greek distribution is the case, we would expect to see ph185+ spike in a specific part of Greece, probably Euboea, as well as appearing at a lower level in the rest of Greece in western Anatolia. As well, of course we would see distribution into southern Italy, and from there throughout Roman military posts and colonies, in Britain, along the Rhine, perhaps in France and Spain and North Africa and back a bit into Greece and the Near East.

If there was a later Syro-Roman distribution, we might expect to see it primarily in places where disproportionate Syrian-Roman military settlement and civilian immigration happened. North Britain, south eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and then citizens migrating into Southern Italy (as we know from recent geneflow studies.. unfortunately the study itself https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708 is behind a pay-wall but here are some images I snatched from a fash blogger.https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tn-zVXvK0og/XcVTQ7TDQ4I/AAAAAAAAEm4/B2YkvK3nwSIy0veOdGrSDke8Ikcx4ADLwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/italy%2BPCA%2Bhistory.jpeg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EdYNa-dH5rs/XcVTQ64LeDI/AAAAAAAAEm0/WLrdIuN3rS4IrtEBv1I_rKQMvrXQXdX5QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Rome-Religions.jpg ). And we might see them throughout the roman empire including Greece but we would probably NOT expect to see a disproportionate spike in a specific island of Greece, nor along the Rhine where IIRC Syrian soldiers weren't used disproportionately.

You know the PH185+/FGC24630 distribution better than I do. Which model does the western distribution fit?

Harrimir, you raise good points, and in all honesty with the latest update from Yfull it almost seems certain that L70 was/is Levantine in origin, and Phoenician/Syrian can fit the bill for PH185, I initially thought it was Greek based on its distribution, but I should have considered the fact that there was a huge wave of Levantine admixture in Italy and Greece during the Iron Age, (never fully considered L70 until Supreme really) it was just extremely successful.

harrimir
08-01-2020, 05:38 PM
Sorry, when you say Iron Age, do you mean Imperial Age? Or are you saying the distribution lines up with the North Syria to Euboea to Magna Graecia?
Those gene studies from that post are about imperial Italy..
The north Syrian archaelogy study I posted higher up was a small contingent, if I am reading the studies correctly.

I don't mean to nitpick, but IS ph185+ present along the Rhine and spiking in Euboea and such or... Is there another reason to favor one idea?

Principe
08-01-2020, 06:52 PM
Sorry, when you say Iron Age, do you mean Imperial Age? Or are you saying the distribution lines up with the North Syria to Euboea to Magna Graecia?
Those gene studies from that post are about imperial Italy..
The north Syrian archaelogy study I posted higher up was a small contingent, if I am reading the studies correctly.

I don't mean to nitpick, but IS ph185+ present along the Rhine and spiking in Euboea and such or... Is there another reason to favor one idea?

I mean the era of Greek and Phoenician colonies. No worries remember though just because there is little spikes of PH185 we can’t assume it was always common in those areas. Its still hard to know all the details and PH185 is actually pretty common in Southern Italy probably the highest of modern populations.

harrimir
08-01-2020, 07:04 PM
(messed up posting)

harrimir
08-01-2020, 07:08 PM
Good point. If it left the mid east 100-250 years after MRCA, that would make sense. If it stayed in the Middle East for another 800-1000 years, it would probably have at least a much larger proportion in the middle East ( even if the Syrian to Roman migration might have been "successful" with descendents.)

But still, there is the fact that the big syrian to Italy migration DID happen in the Imperial Roman era. I don't know. It feels contradictory to me.

Especially if there is no confirmed ph185/ fgc24630 in Greece. Unless someone can share a link to show any of that?

TL;DR:
If, in accordance with yfull and what I can find elsewhere, ph185 is only significantly present in the mid east, southern Italy (where there is a genetic and historical record of huge near eastern influx and settlement during the imperial era and only extremely small before), and North Britain... (And not an even Roman distribution throughout the empire as it would be in the case that it was already in southern Italy from the iron age) I would have to say that kindof closes the book on it, doesn't it? It almost seems like the studies+data I posted is being ignored or dismissed for reasons I'm not aware of.
*Unless there is more widespread ph185 or more significant Greek ph185, or GERMAN ph185 which would absolutely disprove the Syro-Roman narrative, that I can't find*

Lupriac
08-02-2020, 08:39 AM
One my maternal ancestors' paternal lineage turned out to be J-CTS3601 (downstream of Z435 ) based on prediction by STR values. As far as I know, they're from the Bekaa but they originated from the countryside of Damascus (territory of the kingdom of Aram-Damascus) in the 13th or 14th century.

SUPREEEEEME
08-03-2020, 08:40 AM
Good point. If it left the mid east 100-250 years after MRCA, that would make sense. If it stayed in the Middle East for another 800-1000 years, it would probably have at least a much larger proportion in the middle East ( even if the Syrian to Roman migration might have been "successful" with descendents.)

But still, there is the fact that the big syrian to Italy migration DID happen in the Imperial Roman era. I don't know. It feels contradictory to me.

Especially if there is no confirmed ph185/ fgc24630 in Greece. Unless someone can share a link to show any of that?

TL;DR:
If, in accordance with yfull and what I can find elsewhere, ph185 is only significantly present in the mid east, southern Italy (where there is a genetic and historical record of huge near eastern influx and settlement during the imperial era and only extremely small before), and North Britain... (And not an even Roman distribution throughout the empire as it would be in the case that it was already in southern Italy from the iron age) I would have to say that kindof closes the book on it, doesn't it? It almost seems like the studies+data I posted is being ignored or dismissed for reasons I'm not aware of.
*Unless there is more widespread ph185 or more significant Greek ph185, or GERMAN ph185 which would absolutely disprove the Syro-Roman narrative, that I can't find*

So I did some digging which you may find of interest. The J-FGC24630 Syrians (x2) and Iraqi (x1) are all Bedouins from the Bani Skhr tribe. This means they are probably from Jordan (where the tribe is located in modern times). This tribe migrated from Arabia to Jordan - meaning they would have likely picked this up in Jordan. This can suggest that FGC24630 and PH185, in general, originated in the Levant as well.

harrimir
08-03-2020, 01:59 PM
Interesting. That seems to line up more with a Roman era distribution west as well, since only coastal north syrians were among the euboean - magna Graecia connection. As well at least according to y full ph185 didn't split until about ~800 bc, and if it was still in the Jordan region(perhaps among the early Arabs even) it probably wouldn't have ended up in magna Graecia. Maybe anyway. ( Unless of course it originated more north and simply was present in Jordan by the time of Bani Skhr's migration)

I'm also still trying to look around for German and more widespread Roman expansion indicators of early greco-roman migration. Or Jews outside of Italy with ph185.Let me know if you know where to look.

Just went through the jL24 project on ftdna and found the following ph185+ lineages
1 from Floridia, Sicily
2 from Gessopalena, Abruzzo (including the Jacobi de Larcinese line)
1 from Napoli
1 from Ostra, Marche
2 Anglo-American lineages( 1 James 1734 NC, 1 Brown 1792)
1 from Bursa, Turkey
1 Finckel from Rhineland-Palatinate 1688 was ph185+ but didn't show whether they were fgc24630+ or -
(If any more might be found that may very well prove definitely the Greek colonial era - since it is known that Syrian soldiers were nearly entirely absent from the Roman-Germania border)

Although the problem is the projects are limited to their membership, and of course i don't know how to search for snps sitewide, as the ph185 snp map on ftdna only shows two dots for some reason.

J.delajara
08-15-2020, 12:02 AM
Hello! I'm new to the forum, this will be my first post. Please forgive my writing style - I have been told it is often very difficult to follow my train of thought, but I will try my best!

I have been following developments in studies of my haplogroup since getting tested about a decade ago. Now, I have only been tested at the Y-37 level, but my one and only match at that level (with 2 mismatched STRs, and ftdna estimating we have a common ancestor in the last 300-400 years, if I've understood it correctly) is an Italian(Neapolitan)-American with the terminal SNP FGC24630 (which is a subgroup of L-70>>>PH185, but beyond that it seems different websites use different labels). Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but this almost certainly means if I were able to afford a bigger Y testing, I'd be PH185+. (And my own ancestor was an Italian from somewhere in Campania)

But, as I have followed over the years, unlike with certain other branches, it seems the mystery of L70 and its subclades (especially those below Z435) has only gotten more complex. There are at least three threads on this forum where the discussion has gone on regarding its presence in Italy, the Middle East, and the Jewish diaspora.

As I have understood it, L70 itself certainly originated in the Levant, (especially with the new Palestinian and Jordanian discoveries, everyone seems to agree it at least didn't *originate* in Anatolia or elsewhere).... but after that, regarding Z435 and below, conflicting narratives seem to emerge? I would really like to get some more educated opinions on this.

1.The Italic narrative, as shown on Eupedia and in the old Southern Italy thread, is essentially that L70 was present throughout the Levant, eastern Anatolia, and southern Caucasus, and *part* of it was absorbed into the southern proto-indo-european expansion along with R1b. That is why L70 appears at a low rate anywhere R1b does (western and central europe with the proto-italo-celts, from Ireland and Scotland to Germany down through the balkans with the group that ended up as r1b greeks), but a small lineage (a sub-lineage of z435+, PERHAPS all of it, or perhaps some of it was even left behind in the mid-east way back before the PIE branch even took off) had a "founder effect" and became a very large lineage among the central-southern italic tribes, and was spread around again specifically by roman expansion into specific parts of europe and the middle east (and perhaps INTO Judea due to conquest, rather than from it).

2. The Levantine VS Greek narrative? So, for years it was said that Z435 was almost certainly NOT Greek, and seemed to skip directly into Italy from the Middle East, and YFull's MRCA calculations seem to me, unless I am misunderstanding, to indicate that this happened somewhere between 1400-1100 BC? And was certainly NOT connected to the Etruscan regions at all. This would SEEM to give credence to the Italic narrative, since there doesn't seem to be any historical record of a migration from the Levant, certainly not Jewish, during those years. And Z435 DOESN'T seem to appear in the phoenician diaspora, but only amongst Jews and Arabs back in the Mid-East... All of which seems to argue against either an Etruscan or Phoenician migration. And it *appears* to be present in Italians and so-on higher up on the "Tree" far before entering any down-clade Jewish groups.(Which seems to me to indicate it entered the Jewish world during Roman times, rather than the other way around.) I have seen some discussion here about CTS3601 and its subgroups perhaps being Levantine and not descended from Europeans? Although I suppose this wouldn't rule out Z2177 spreading in some other way. But I honestly can't keep track of all of this!

One interesting thing that appears to conflict with all of the other data, YFull, etc. is some on this forum were discussing a study that found the "center" of some L70 groups, proved that Z2177 at least (I think some others as well?) was actually originated in Greece itself?(Euboea?) Although I couldn't actually find the study or really follow a lot of the specifics, is the suggestion that Z2177 originated in Greece (maybe the ancestor got there from Al-Minah?), after moving to Italy/Magna Graecia, the lineage itself more or less died out in Greece itself? Does it then explain further "south" groups in europeans and the arabs(and maybe jews) that spread from italy as roman descendants? Am I understanding this narrative correctly? But I'm not sure how this lines up with the MRCA timelines on YFull. I am no expert, clearly.

Finally, most specifically, PH185 exists within Italians, Western Europeans+Americans, and Arabs in Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. I am not sure if it is common in Jews as well, but ph185 TMRCA is 1000BC, even though its parent clades had already supposedly gotten around to Europe.. so... honestly I am at a loss. But I don't think it all lines up with a converted Judean origin or a Greek origin but the newer Arab stuff and that study are both really adding to the confusion.

........ Thoughts?

Hi Harrimir. As you've seen my posts on other threats I stand for an Anatolian J-L70 origin. Besides the palestinian basal on PF5430, on FTDNA block tree you can see 2 italians and 2 portuguese also basal on that clade . Regarding Z435 I think it could be greek and or Italiota ( from Magna Graecia), I think the Finocchio paper from 2018 ( the most recent paper regarding the greek and phoenician traces on the western mediterranean) , is quite clear on this matter, you can read all my arguments based on other studies supporting the greek origin of this clade . Considering Yfull analysis under Z435, new italian, greek and turkish samples were added, and one italian sample is basal to Z435. On FTDNA, block tree, you can see that Italy (4 samples) and Greece (2 samples) are the most represented countries as basal on this clade. As I've said on several times, more ancient samples will bring more light to this question. Best Regards

harrimir
08-30-2020, 03:13 PM
Where is the ftdna block tree that shows all of this? I've never been able to find it. Or at least, the tree it shows at https://www.familytreedna.com/my/y-dna-haplotree doesn't seem to show any of that.

Edit: Nevermind, I checked it out on an actual computer.

SUPREEEEEME
08-30-2020, 04:31 PM
Hi Harrimir. As you've seen my posts on other threats I stand for an Anatolian J-L70 origin. Besides the palestinian basal on PF5430, on FTDNA block tree you can see 2 italians and 2 portuguese also basal on that clade . Regarding Z435 I think it could be greek and or Italiota ( from Magna Graecia), I think the Finocchio paper from 2018 ( the most recent paper regarding the greek and phoenician traces on the western mediterranean) , is quite clear on this matter, you can read all my arguments based on other studies supporting the greek origin of this clade . Considering Yfull analysis under Z435, new italian, greek and turkish samples were added, and one italian sample is basal to Z435. On FTDNA, block tree, you can see that Italy (4 samples) and Greece (2 samples) are the most represented countries as basal on this clade. As I've said on several times, more ancient samples will bring more light to this question. Best Regards

To my understanding, there aren't any basal J-Z435's yet. So on YFull, the Italian and UK individual aren't actually basal - but rather fall under either J-M317 or J-CTS7182. The same goes for the PF5456* Germans - they're not basal. As for PF5430/Z423, the only basal is the Palestinian - who is the only individual out of the 2 Italians, 2 Portuguese, American, and Iranian to have taken a Big Y - so the others might fall under different clades anywhere at or downstream of PF5430/Z423. Unless you know something different about these individuals?

J.delajara
08-30-2020, 07:08 PM
To my understanding, there aren't any basal J-Z435's yet. So on YFull, the Italian and UK individual aren't actually basal - but rather fall under either J-M317 or J-CTS7182. The same goes for the PF5456* Germans - they're not basal. As for PF5430/Z423, the only basal is the Palestinian - who is the only individual out of the 2 Italians, 2 Portuguese, American, and Iranian to have taken a Big Y - so the others might fall under different clades anywhere at or downstream of PF5430/Z423. Unless you know something different about these individuals?

Thanks Supreeeme. The information I have is the public one provided by FTDNA, as far as I understand, all samples included on the Block tree took the Big Y test, as it is written, quote: ''Big Y Block Tree is a block diagram of the Haplotree showing the relationships between you and other Big Y testers. Branch lengths can represent evolutionary time, calculated as number of mutations.''. Under PF54530, besides the Palestinian, the other BIG Y testers that are shown as basal are, as you said from Italy, the US, Iran and Portugal. Regards

J.delajara
08-30-2020, 07:23 PM
The block tree is shown only to those who took the Big Y test. https://www.familytreedna.com/my/bigy-blocktree
Regards

SUPREEEEEME
08-31-2020, 06:13 AM
Thanks Supreeeme. The information I have is the public one provided by FTDNA, as far as I understand, all samples included on the Block tree took the Big Y test, as it is written, quote: ''Big Y Block Tree is a block diagram of the Haplotree showing the relationships between you and other Big Y testers. Branch lengths can represent evolutionary time, calculated as number of mutations.''. Under PF54530, besides the Palestinian, the other BIG Y testers that are shown as basal are, as you said from Italy, the US, Iran and Portugal. Regards

So I've just checked with an additional individual: the Block tree individuals aren't exclusively Big Y testers. If you've taken an SNP test, you can be on the block tree. In light of this, the Palestinian is the only Big Y participant at the PF5430 level. You should be able to check this on the tree (if you have access to the tree - I do not, so got the image from someone else):
39283

The other individuals at the PF5430 level have only taken SNP tests, and could realistically be anywhere downstream. Not only is the Palestinian the only basal, but he was responsible for the creation of PF5430 in the first place.

J.delajara
08-31-2020, 02:38 PM
Thanks Supreeeme. I have direct access, and I understand all of them took Big Y tests, I will ask directly to FTDNA, so we can have a clear picture.

Best Regards

J.delajara
09-01-2020, 03:51 PM
Thanks Supreeeme. I have direct access, and I understand all of them took Big Y tests, I will ask directly to FTDNA, so we can have a clear picture.

Best Regards

Good morning Supreeme. I received the answer from FTDNA, I quote:

''Hello Juan,

Thank you for contacting FamilyTreeDNA! If someone is on the Block Tree they would have had to have taken a Big Y rather than a SNP test. If they have just taken a SNP Test or SNP Pack they will not show on the Block Tree.



Best Regards,



Casimir R.
Big Y Specialist
Information Specialist
FamilyTreeDNA

So all samples shown on the block tree, must have taken the Big Y test. That means that the Palestinian individual under PF5430 is not alone.
It would be great if we could understand better all the information related to private and public Snp's on the block tree, because as you wrote, is not that clear.
Best Regards

SUPREEEEEME
09-01-2020, 04:17 PM
Good morning Supreeme. I received the answer from FTDNA, I quote:

''Hello Juan,

Thank you for contacting FamilyTreeDNA! If someone is on the Block Tree they would have had to have taken a Big Y rather than a SNP test. If they have just taken a SNP Test or SNP Pack they will not show on the Block Tree.



Best Regards,



Casimir R.
Big Y Specialist
Information Specialist
FamilyTreeDNA

So all samples shown on the block tree, must have taken the Big Y test. That means that the Palestinian individual under PF5430 is not alone.
It would be great if we could understand better all the information related to private and public Snp's on the block tree, because as you wrote, is not that clear.
Best Regards

Interesting, thanks for asking them. I wonder why the block tree says there's only one Big Y participant?

Principe
09-01-2020, 04:22 PM
@Supreme and @ J.delajara

I am confused too, if you hover over where it says J-PF5430, it shows on average 34 private variants in 1 Big Y participant, which would suggest there is 1 person who is J-PF5430, the others should be snp confirmed.

Maybe a bigger discussion should be on the three other branches which are direct siblings to J-PF5430.

J.delajara
09-01-2020, 04:32 PM
@Supreme and @ J.delajara

I am confused too, if you hover over where it says J-PF5430, it shows on average 34 private variants in 1 Big Y participant, which would suggest there is 1 person who is J-PF5430, the others should be snp confirmed.

Maybe a bigger discussion should be on the three other branches which are direct siblings to J-PF5430.

Thanks Principe and Supreeme. Indeed the information is not that clear.

leorcooper19
09-01-2020, 04:44 PM
Good morning Supreeme. I received the answer from FTDNA, I quote:

''Hello Juan,

Thank you for contacting FamilyTreeDNA! If someone is on the Block Tree they would have had to have taken a Big Y rather than a SNP test. If they have just taken a SNP Test or SNP Pack they will not show on the Block Tree.



Best Regards,



Casimir R.
Big Y Specialist
Information Specialist
FamilyTreeDNA

So all samples shown on the block tree, must have taken the Big Y test. That means that the Palestinian individual under PF5430 is not alone.
It would be great if we could understand better all the information related to private and public Snp's on the block tree, because as you wrote, is not that clear.
Best Regards

Hello! I believe I can clear up some confusion here. I have been a FTDNA Group Project Administrator for almost 2 years and am very familiar with the system. Kits with only single SNP tests or SNP pack tests ARE in fact displayed on Block Tree and the Haplotree, but are not given direct access to the Block Tree and do not have terminal SNPs in the way that Big Y testers do, which is what I believe the representative of FTDNA thought you meant. The easiest way to confirm this for yourself is simply to go to a very old or large haplogroup such as E-M35. On the E-M35 block on the FTDNA Block Tree, there are: 143 German flags, 122 Italian flags, 121 English flags, 83 Saudi flags, etc. Does that mean that there are 143 distinct German basal lines from E-M35? No, it simply means that 143 individuals with Germany as the country of origin for their paternal line are tested M35+, whether from a single SNP test or a SNP pack test.

For the case of the Palestinian at J-PF5430, it is important to note here that he is a *splitter* and that his results literally define the clade. Before the Palestinian did his Big Y test, the SNP PF5430 was in the same block as Z435 and Z8120. That means that until recently, everyone who was positive for one of those three SNPs was also positive for the other two. The Palestinian was found to be positive for PF5430 but negative for Z435 and Z8120, and thus he split the subclade into two: J-PF5430, which is now the parent, of J-Z435. This split is more easily understood on YFull, as they indicate that J-Z423 (Z423 is just another name for PF5430) is a new subclade by the red border around the name.

A way to tell how many Big Y testers are at a specific position is to hover over the "Private Variants" column under a block in the Block Tree. A box will come up displaying the average amount of private variants for the number of Big Y testers at the position.

I hope this helps :)

J.delajara
09-01-2020, 04:53 PM
Hello! I believe I can clear up some confusion here. I have been a FTDNA Group Project Administrator for almost 2 years and am very familiar with the system. Kits with only single SNP tests or SNP pack tests ARE in fact displayed on Block Tree and the Haplotree, but are not given direct access to the Block Tree and do not have terminal SNPs in the way that Big Y testers do, which is what I believe the representative of FTDNA thought you meant. The easiest way to confirm this for yourself is simply to go to a very old or large haplogroup such as E-M35. On the E-M35 block on the FTDNA Block Tree, there are: 143 German flags, 122 Italian flags, 121 English flags, 83 Saudi flags, etc. Does that mean that there are 143 distinct German basal lines from E-M35? No, it simply means that 143 individuals with Germany as the country of origin for their paternal line are tested M35+, whether from a single SNP test or a SNP pack test.

For the case of the Palestinian at J-PF5430, it is important to note here that he is a *splitter* and that his results literally define the clade. Before the Palestinian did his Big Y test, the SNP PF5430 was in the same block as Z435 and Z8120. That means that until recently, everyone who was positive for one of those three SNPs was also positive for the other two. The Palestinian was found to be positive for PF5430 but negative for Z435 and Z8120, and thus he split the subclade into two: J-PF5430, which is now the parent, of J-Z435. This split is more easily understood on YFull, as they indicate that J-Z423 (Z423 is just another name for PF5430) is a new subclade by the red border around the name.

A way to tell how many Big Y testers are at a specific position is to hover over the "Private Variants" column under a block in the Block Tree. A box will come up displaying the average amount of private variants for the number of Big Y testers at the position.

I hope this helps :)

Thanks a lot. It underlines that the point made by Supreeme was correct, it would be interesting to know the country of origin of the two L-70 Big y's .
Regarding the ancient origin, we certainly need to wait for further archeological samples.
Regards

leorcooper19
09-01-2020, 05:11 PM
Thanks a lot. It underlines that the point made by Supreeme was correct, it would be interesting to know the country of origin of the two L-70 Big y's .
Regarding the ancient origin, we certainly need to wait for further archeological samples.
Regards

Well, one of them is likely also the Jordanian J-L70* on YFull. There is 1 Jordanian flag at J-L70 on FTDNA as well. I tried to find the identity of the other one but looks like they're not in any major project. Indeed, J-L70 is one of the most unique clades for its age. Certainly related to the Mediterranean, probably Eastern Mediterranean. Biggest periods of growth seems to be 1600-1500 BCE and then the big one from 1400-1100 BCE. What is probably likely is that the clade dispersed early, with the period of growth ending with the beginning of the Iron Age. Hopefully more samples will be revealed soon that clear up the picture.

J.delajara
09-01-2020, 05:23 PM
Well, one of them is likely also the Jordanian J-L70* on YFull. There is 1 Jordanian flag at J-L70 on FTDNA as well. I tried to find the identity of the other one but looks like they're not in any major project. Indeed, J-L70 is one of the most unique clades for its age. Certainly related to the Mediterranean, probably Eastern Mediterranean. Biggest periods of growth seems to be 1600-1500 BCE and then the big one from 1400-1100 BCE. What is probably likely is that the clade dispersed early, with the period of growth ending with the beginning of the Iron Age. Hopefully more samples will be revealed soon that clear up the picture.

Thanks again Leoncooper19. If I may, another question, is it possible that, the two L-70's and the Palestinian samples will create new clades?, thanks again. Regards

leorcooper19
09-01-2020, 05:28 PM
Thanks again Leoncooper19. If I may, another question, is it possible that, the two L-70's and the Palestinian samples will create new clades?, thanks again. Regards

No problem! If your question is whether or not the Palestinian at J-Z423/PF5430* and Jordanian at J-L70* will form a new subclade together, the answer is no. Remember-- because the Jordanian is basal to J-L70, that means he is negative for all downstream SNPs, including Z423/PF5430. The Palestinian's and Jordanian's most recent common ancestor (MRCA) on their paternal lines would be the MRCA of all of J-L70, who lived an estimated 3900 years ago according to YFull.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

J.delajara
09-01-2020, 06:38 PM
No problem! If your question is whether or not the Palestinian at J-Z423/PF5430* and Jordanian at J-L70* will form a new subclade together, the answer is no. Remember-- because the Jordanian is basal to J-L70, that means he is negative for all downstream SNPs, including Z423/PF5430. The Palestinian's and Jordanian's most recent common ancestor (MRCA) on their paternal lines would be the MRCA of all of J-L70, who lived an estimated 3900 years ago according to YFull.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks for the answer. Sorry I didn't explained myself properly. Is it possible that the Jordanian, could by himself, together with future BigY testers create a new clade, considering they could share SNP's that today are considered private, the same case for the Palestinian, with other hypothetical testers. My question mainly is related, that these two individuals, separately, could be part of a new Levant branch of L-70 and PF5430, respectively. Thanks again, and sorry for putting wrong my question. Regards

leorcooper19
09-01-2020, 11:55 PM
Thanks for the answer. Sorry I didn't explained myself properly. Is it possible that the Jordanian, could by himself, together with future BigY testers create a new clade, considering they could share SNP's that today are considered private, the same case for the Palestinian, with other hypothetical testers. My question mainly is related, that these two individuals, separately, could be part of a new Levant branch of L-70 and PF5430, respectively. Thanks again, and sorry for putting wrong my question. Regards

Yes, absolutely it is! Perhaps these individuals have STR matches already that would they would form a new subclade with if the matches were to do Big Y or another form of NGS testing. But either way, two mid-Levant split offs before the main growth period (1400-1100 BCE) is telling that the origin of the J-L70 MRCA is around there. However, it's important to note that there is 500-800 years between the MRCA of J-L70 and the main growth period. A lot can change in that amount of time!

J.delajara
09-02-2020, 12:20 AM
Yes, absolutely it is! Perhaps these individuals have STR matches already that would they would form a new subclade with if the matches were to do Big Y or another form of NGS testing. But either way, two mid-Levant split offs before the main growth period (1400-1100 BCE) is telling that the origin of the J-L70 MRCA is around there. However, it's important to note that there is 500-800 years between the MRCA of J-L70 and the main growth period. A lot can change in that amount of time!

Thanks again, Leorcooper19. We need to wait for ancient samples, to have further news about this interesting clade. Best Regards

J.delajara
09-02-2020, 02:25 AM
Thanks again, Leorcooper19. We need to wait for ancient samples, to have further news about this interesting clade. Best Regards

Sorry to disturb you again, Leorcooper19, but according to Yfull, are the italian and british samples basal to Z435?. thanks again

leorcooper19
09-02-2020, 06:02 PM
Sorry to disturb you again, Leorcooper19, but according to Yfull, are the italian and british samples basal to Z435?. thanks again

Hey, no problem. Short answer is yes, on YFull the Italian sample (from A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean) and the English sample are basal to J-Z435.

Long answer is different. The English sample is likely in either J-M137 or J-CTS7182 on FTDNA, which are known subclades downstream J-Z435. The Italian sample could be in any one of the other subclades, or as we know the sample is not from FTDNA there is a chance that they are basal as well. There are currently no J-Z435* basal lines on FTDNA. An important note is that the J-Z2148 level does not exist on FTDNA. This separates the English and Italian samples from the rest of J-Z435 on YFull. This issue is pretty rare; most of the time, it's YFull that rejects SNPs from FTDNA, but here we have a 5 SNP subclade that is not accepted at all by FTDNA. Not sure if there's been discussion on that before. If the level shouldn't exist and FTDNA is right to not include it in their tree, then these two samples would be as closely related to each other as, say, J-Z2177 and J-CTS3601 are.

J.delajara
09-02-2020, 06:36 PM
Hey, no problem. Short answer is yes, on YFull the Italian sample (from A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean) and the English sample are basal to J-Z435.

Long answer is different. The English sample is likely in either J-M137 or J-CTS7182 on FTDNA, which are known subclades downstream J-Z435. The Italian sample could be in any one of the other subclades, or as we know the sample is not from FTDNA there is a chance that they are basal as well. There are currently no J-Z435* basal lines on FTDNA. An important note is that the J-Z2148 level does not exist on FTDNA. This separates the English and Italian samples from the rest of J-Z435 on YFull. This issue is pretty rare; most of the time, it's YFull that rejects SNPs from FTDNA, but here we have a 5 SNP subclade that is not accepted at all by FTDNA. Not sure if there's been discussion on that before. If the level shouldn't exist and FTDNA is right to not include it in their tree, then these two samples would be as closely related to each other as, say, J-Z2177 and J-CTS3601 are.

Thanks Leorcooper19. Indeed I've seen differences between Yfull and FTDNA. It's interesting they added on Yfull the samples from the Finoccchio paper from 2018, they mande very interesting conclusions regarding L-397, specially related to it's clades, for example branch 59 on the paper, (J-CTS3601), it is said it was spread on the western Mediterranean within the Greek expansion, probably around the VIII century BC. They made an accurate analysis of ancient alleles, establishing that ''...the centroids of carriers of the ancestral allele were located in Greece.'', the other interesting statement they made was that some of this clades travelled from Greece to Italy and from Italy to Turkey again ( perhaps during roman times...), regarding branch 59 they wrote: ''...Derived alleles for branch 59 (21) were spread from Italy to Turkey (including Cyprus), covering distances similar, on average, to ancestral alleles (p = n.s.). ''. Thanks again, best regards.

leperrine
11-09-2020, 03:52 PM
Well, I think the ancient Greeks and Israelite's were close in kinship. Especially Dorian's and Dannans. What if the Dorians are actually from Dor in Israel? Israel is a great place to launch from to settle the Mediterranean.

J.delajara
11-09-2020, 11:34 PM
Well, I think the ancient Greeks and Israelite's were close in kinship. Especially Dorian's and Dannans. What if the Dorians are actually from Dor in Israel? Israel is a great place to launch from to settle the Mediterranean.

Hi Mr. Leperrine, I don't think is very likely that Israelites and Dorians are related, I think there are some relevant differences such as religion (Monotheism and Polytheism ) and some other cultural aspects, such as pottery and pork meat consumption, for example. I Think a relation between some Greeks tribes and Philistines, on the other hand, is much possible, as some archeological finding hypothesize. Best Regards

leperrine
11-10-2020, 03:19 PM
Yes, but the Israelite's adopted other religions. Even putting up Statues of other Gods in their temples. This is around the time the Assyrians conquered them.

Dor in Palestine, a city on the coast of the land of Manasseh, and where many ancient “Greek” artifacts have been found by archaeologists, for which see Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 2001, p. 17, and November-December, 2002, “Gorgon Excavated At Dor”, p. 50. These artifacts show a “Greek” presence at Dor as early as the seventh century B.C., and are certainly much earlier than the Hellenistic period. The seventh century B.C. is the time of the last recorded Assyrian activity in Israel (see Ezra 4:2, Esar-Haddon reigned from 681 B.C.), and the last deportations of Israelites which happened about 676 B.C. (see The Assyrian Invasions And Deportations of Israel by J. Llewellyn Thomas). For evidence that Israelite priests were indeed present at Dor see Biblical Archaeology Review, May-June 2001, p. 21 and the article there. If the Dorians migrated from Palestine, rather than from the north, Crete is a logical place to begin settling, enroute to the west. Further evidence that the Dorians were Israelites is found in Josephus, in his record of a letter written by a Spartan (or Lacedemonian, and they were also Dorian Greeks) king to Jerusalem about 160 B.C., which is found in Antiquities 12.4.10 (12:226-227):

“Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, To Onias, Sendeth Greeting. We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Judaeans and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concern as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.” That this account of the letter, and its contents, is factual is verified by the reply to it recorded by Josephus at Antiq. 13.5.8 (13:163-170), by Jonathan the high priest.

The reply to this letter was long delayed, due to the Maccabean wars and problems amongst the Judaeans which are described by Josephus. Since it is also documented in 1st Maccabees chapter 12 in the Apocrypha, here the version from Brenton’s Septuagint is supplied: “Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other people of the Judaeans, unto the Lacedemonians their brethren send greeting: There were letters sent in times past unto Onias the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you, to signify that ye are our brethren, as the copy here underwritten doth specify. At which time Onias entreated the ambassador that was sent honourably, and received the letters, wherein declaration was made of the league and friendship. Therefore we also, albeit we need none of these things, for that we have the holy books of scripture in our hands to comfort us, have nevertheless attempted to send unto you for the renewing of brotherhood and friendship, lest we should become strangers unto you altogether: for there is a long time passed since ye sent unto us. We therefore at all times without ceasing, both in our feasts, and other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as reason is, and as it becometh us to think upon our brethren: and we are right glad of your honor. As for ourselves, we have had great troubles and wars on every side, forsomuch as the kings that are round about us have fought against us. Howbeit we would not be troublesome unto you, nor to others of our confederates and friends, in these wars: for we have help from heaven that succoureth us, so as we are delivered from our enemies, and our enemies are brought under foot. For this cause we chose Numenius the son of Antiochus, and Antipater the son of Jason, and sent them unto the Romans, to renew the amity that we had with them, and the former league. We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. Wherefore now ye shall do well to give us an answer thereto. And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judaeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham: now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s. We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.” (1st Maccabees 12:6-23)

Now many may object to identifying the later Corinthians of Paul’s time as Dorians, because the city was destroyed and later rebuilt by the Romans. And this is true, for in 146 B.C. the Roman consul Leucius Mummius captured Corinth and razed it by fire, selling the surviving populace into slavery, as was customary for the Romans to do. Giving the account, Strabo tells us that afterwards “the Sicyonians obtained most of the Corinthian country” (8.6.23). That the Sicyonians, those of the neighboring district, were also Dorians is evident in many places besides Diodorus Siculus at 7.9.1 (“Fragments of Book VII” in the Loeb Library edition) where he states: “it remains for us to speak of Corinth and of Sicyon, and of the manner in which the territories of these cities were settled by the Dorians.” Sicyon, a sort of sister city of Corinth, was its equal in the arts, where Strabo says of Corinth: “for both here and in Sicyon the arts of painting and modelling and all such arts of the craftsman flourished most” (8.6.23). So in this manner did the territory of Corinth retain a Dorian composition of its population, but that is not the entire story.

Strabo speaks of the rebuilding of Corinth as such was ordered by Caesar, which began about 44 B.C., and states that “it was restored again, because of its favorable position, by the deified Caesar, who colonised it with people that belonged for the most part to the freedmen class” (8.6.23). Yet Diodorus Siculus (in “Fragments of Book XXXII” in the Loeb Library edition) is recorded as telling us further: “Gaius Iulius Caesar (who for his great deeds was entitled divus), when he inspected the site of Corinth, was so moved by compassion and the thirst for fame that he set about restoring it with great energy. It is therefore just that this man and his high standard of conduct should receive our full approval and that we should by our history accord him enduring praise for his generosity. For whereas his forefathers had harshly used the city, he by his clemency made amends for their unrelenting severity, preferring to forgive rather than to punish” (32.27.3).

Now the only way that Caesar’s deeds could justly be called a restoring, clemency, or forgiveness, as they are here, would be that the “freedmen” which he let repopulate the rebuilt Corinth were descendants of those Corinthians enslaved in its destruction 102 years earlier. This is in keeping with Roman custom, as is evident at Acts 6:9, where we see Judaean “freedmen” living in the homeland of their ancestors, whom must have been taken captive in the Roman conquest of Judaea by Pompey some generations earlier. The settling of anyone but Dorians in a rebuilt Corinth could not have been termed clemency or forgiveness, but rather would have been seen as an insult to the Sicyonians, the Lacedemonians, and the rest of the Dorians of the Peloponnese. Yet an examination of the Roman custom along with Diodorus’ words surely implies that when Strabo attests that the restored Corinthians were “for the most part” of the “freedmen class”, he surely meant those freedmen descended from the original Corinthian stock taken captive.

Furthermore, Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:1 tells the Corinthians “Now I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all had passed through the sea”, therefore telling the Corinthians that their ancestors had been in the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.

The Greeks of Thebes were identified as Phoenicians, and the Greek ‘gods’ Heracles (Hesiod’s Theogony, 530) and Dionysus (Diodorus Siculus, 1.23.2-8; 3.64.3 and 3.66.3) were both said to be born there. Cadmus the Phoenician was said to have founded Thebes, and also to have been the grandfather of Dionysus (Diodorus Siculus 4.2.1, 4.2.2-3 et al.), and to have come from the city of Thebes in Egypt (1.23.4). These Phoenicians of Thebes were often associated with the Danaans. Euripides’ Phoenician Women, a 5th century play, was written about the women of Thebes and events said to have taken place long before the Trojan War, which Aeschylus also wrote about in Seven Against Thebes, the succession battle between the sons of Oedipus for the throne of Thebes, in which Polynices enlists the help of the Danaans against his brother Eteocles.

Diodorus Siculus, quoting from the earlier historian Hecataeus of Abdera, who gave a strange account of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt from an Egyptian viewpoint, says “the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judaea ... The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage.”

Cadmus, called “the Phoenician” throughout Classical Greek literature, was the legendary founder of Thebes. Danaus, “the Egyptian” as he also is usually called, was the legendary leader of the Danaans (Danai) who came to Greece from Egypt, who could only have been a portion of the Israelite tribe of Dan (cf. Judges 5:17, Ezek. 27:19). This event was parodied in later Classical literature as the flight of the “daughters of Danaus” from the “sons of Aegyptus”, an example being the play by Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens. The point here is to show that the Danaans came to Greece directly from Egypt, and so were never “under the cloud” in the Exodus, having left Egypt in a different manner.

J.delajara
11-10-2020, 04:46 PM
Yes, but the Israelite's adopted other religions. Even putting up Statues of other Gods in their temples. This is around the time the Assyrians conquered them.

Dor in Palestine, a city on the coast of the land of Manasseh, and where many ancient “Greek” artifacts have been found by archaeologists, for which see Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 2001, p. 17, and November-December, 2002, “Gorgon Excavated At Dor”, p. 50. These artifacts show a “Greek” presence at Dor as early as the seventh century B.C., and are certainly much earlier than the Hellenistic period. The seventh century B.C. is the time of the last recorded Assyrian activity in Israel (see Ezra 4:2, Esar-Haddon reigned from 681 B.C.), and the last deportations of Israelites which happened about 676 B.C. (see The Assyrian Invasions And Deportations of Israel by J. Llewellyn Thomas). For evidence that Israelite priests were indeed present at Dor see Biblical Archaeology Review, May-June 2001, p. 21 and the article there. If the Dorians migrated from Palestine, rather than from the north, Crete is a logical place to begin settling, enroute to the west. Further evidence that the Dorians were Israelites is found in Josephus, in his record of a letter written by a Spartan (or Lacedemonian, and they were also Dorian Greeks) king to Jerusalem about 160 B.C., which is found in Antiquities 12.4.10 (12:226-227):

“Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, To Onias, Sendeth Greeting. We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Judaeans and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concern as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.” That this account of the letter, and its contents, is factual is verified by the reply to it recorded by Josephus at Antiq. 13.5.8 (13:163-170), by Jonathan the high priest.

The reply to this letter was long delayed, due to the Maccabean wars and problems amongst the Judaeans which are described by Josephus. Since it is also documented in 1st Maccabees chapter 12 in the Apocrypha, here the version from Brenton’s Septuagint is supplied: “Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other people of the Judaeans, unto the Lacedemonians their brethren send greeting: There were letters sent in times past unto Onias the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you, to signify that ye are our brethren, as the copy here underwritten doth specify. At which time Onias entreated the ambassador that was sent honourably, and received the letters, wherein declaration was made of the league and friendship. Therefore we also, albeit we need none of these things, for that we have the holy books of scripture in our hands to comfort us, have nevertheless attempted to send unto you for the renewing of brotherhood and friendship, lest we should become strangers unto you altogether: for there is a long time passed since ye sent unto us. We therefore at all times without ceasing, both in our feasts, and other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as reason is, and as it becometh us to think upon our brethren: and we are right glad of your honor. As for ourselves, we have had great troubles and wars on every side, forsomuch as the kings that are round about us have fought against us. Howbeit we would not be troublesome unto you, nor to others of our confederates and friends, in these wars: for we have help from heaven that succoureth us, so as we are delivered from our enemies, and our enemies are brought under foot. For this cause we chose Numenius the son of Antiochus, and Antipater the son of Jason, and sent them unto the Romans, to renew the amity that we had with them, and the former league. We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. Wherefore now ye shall do well to give us an answer thereto. And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judaeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham: now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s. We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.” (1st Maccabees 12:6-23)

Now many may object to identifying the later Corinthians of Paul’s time as Dorians, because the city was destroyed and later rebuilt by the Romans. And this is true, for in 146 B.C. the Roman consul Leucius Mummius captured Corinth and razed it by fire, selling the surviving populace into slavery, as was customary for the Romans to do. Giving the account, Strabo tells us that afterwards “the Sicyonians obtained most of the Corinthian country” (8.6.23). That the Sicyonians, those of the neighboring district, were also Dorians is evident in many places besides Diodorus Siculus at 7.9.1 (“Fragments of Book VII” in the Loeb Library edition) where he states: “it remains for us to speak of Corinth and of Sicyon, and of the manner in which the territories of these cities were settled by the Dorians.” Sicyon, a sort of sister city of Corinth, was its equal in the arts, where Strabo says of Corinth: “for both here and in Sicyon the arts of painting and modelling and all such arts of the craftsman flourished most” (8.6.23). So in this manner did the territory of Corinth retain a Dorian composition of its population, but that is not the entire story.

Strabo speaks of the rebuilding of Corinth as such was ordered by Caesar, which began about 44 B.C., and states that “it was restored again, because of its favorable position, by the deified Caesar, who colonised it with people that belonged for the most part to the freedmen class” (8.6.23). Yet Diodorus Siculus (in “Fragments of Book XXXII” in the Loeb Library edition) is recorded as telling us further: “Gaius Iulius Caesar (who for his great deeds was entitled divus), when he inspected the site of Corinth, was so moved by compassion and the thirst for fame that he set about restoring it with great energy. It is therefore just that this man and his high standard of conduct should receive our full approval and that we should by our history accord him enduring praise for his generosity. For whereas his forefathers had harshly used the city, he by his clemency made amends for their unrelenting severity, preferring to forgive rather than to punish” (32.27.3).

Now the only way that Caesar’s deeds could justly be called a restoring, clemency, or forgiveness, as they are here, would be that the “freedmen” which he let repopulate the rebuilt Corinth were descendants of those Corinthians enslaved in its destruction 102 years earlier. This is in keeping with Roman custom, as is evident at Acts 6:9, where we see Judaean “freedmen” living in the homeland of their ancestors, whom must have been taken captive in the Roman conquest of Judaea by Pompey some generations earlier. The settling of anyone but Dorians in a rebuilt Corinth could not have been termed clemency or forgiveness, but rather would have been seen as an insult to the Sicyonians, the Lacedemonians, and the rest of the Dorians of the Peloponnese. Yet an examination of the Roman custom along with Diodorus’ words surely implies that when Strabo attests that the restored Corinthians were “for the most part” of the “freedmen class”, he surely meant those freedmen descended from the original Corinthian stock taken captive.

Furthermore, Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:1 tells the Corinthians “Now I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all had passed through the sea”, therefore telling the Corinthians that their ancestors had been in the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.

The Greeks of Thebes were identified as Phoenicians, and the Greek ‘gods’ Heracles (Hesiod’s Theogony, 530) and Dionysus (Diodorus Siculus, 1.23.2-8; 3.64.3 and 3.66.3) were both said to be born there. Cadmus the Phoenician was said to have founded Thebes, and also to have been the grandfather of Dionysus (Diodorus Siculus 4.2.1, 4.2.2-3 et al.), and to have come from the city of Thebes in Egypt (1.23.4). These Phoenicians of Thebes were often associated with the Danaans. Euripides’ Phoenician Women, a 5th century play, was written about the women of Thebes and events said to have taken place long before the Trojan War, which Aeschylus also wrote about in Seven Against Thebes, the succession battle between the sons of Oedipus for the throne of Thebes, in which Polynices enlists the help of the Danaans against his brother Eteocles.

Diodorus Siculus, quoting from the earlier historian Hecataeus of Abdera, who gave a strange account of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt from an Egyptian viewpoint, says “the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judaea ... The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage.”

Cadmus, called “the Phoenician” throughout Classical Greek literature, was the legendary founder of Thebes. Danaus, “the Egyptian” as he also is usually called, was the legendary leader of the Danaans (Danai) who came to Greece from Egypt, who could only have been a portion of the Israelite tribe of Dan (cf. Judges 5:17, Ezek. 27:19). This event was parodied in later Classical literature as the flight of the “daughters of Danaus” from the “sons of Aegyptus”, an example being the play by Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens. The point here is to show that the Danaans came to Greece directly from Egypt, and so were never “under the cloud” in the Exodus, having left Egypt in a different manner.

Thanks for your deep response. The evidence you show is well grounded, although, I still think there is not enough archeological proof to hold this hypothesis. There is an interesting article wrote by professor Assaf Yasur-Landau, of the University of Haifa, about the Philistines and the Aegean Migration at the end of the Bronze Age, from the abstract ''On this study, Assaf Yasur-Landau examines the early history of the biblical Philistines who were among the ‘Sea Peoples’ who migrated from the Aegean area to the Levant during the early twelfth century BC. Creating an archaeological narrative of the migration of the Philistines, he combines an innovative theoretical framework on the archaeology of migration with new data from excavations in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel and thereby reconstructs the social history of the Aegean migration to the southern Levant. The author follows the story of the migrants from the conditions that caused the Philistines to leave their Aegean homes, to their movement eastward along the sea and land routes, to their formation of a migrant society in Philistia and their interaction with local populations in the Levant. Based on the most up-to-date evidence, this book offers a new and fresh understanding of the arrival of the Philistines in the Levant.''. Regarding DNA, the last scientific paper from Ancient Askelon, published last year, confirms the movements from the Aegean to the southern Levant, from the paper ''By investigating genome-wide data from Ashkelon, we address long-pending historical questions regarding the demographic developments underlying the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age cultural transformation. On a larger regional scale, these data begin to fill a temporal gap in the genetic map of the southern Levant, revealing persistence of the local Levantine gene pool throughout the Bronze Age for over a millennium. At the same time, by the “zoomed-in” comparative analysis of the Ashkelon genetic time transect, we find that the unique cultural features in the early Iron Age are mirrored by the distinct genetic composition we detect in ASH_IA1. Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records (2–4). We find that, within no more than two centuries, this genetic footprint introduced during the early Iron Age is no longer detectable and seems to be diluted by a local Levantine-related gene pool.''

. It is indeed clear that populations moved from one place to another, specially from the Bronze Age on, using the Mediterranean as a water path, and lots of civilizations and genetics got mixed, and that is, for sure, the great richness of this area, and one of the pillars of the world cultural heritage.
More ancient DNA will probably help as to solve this questions. Best Regards

leperrine
11-10-2020, 05:12 PM
Yes, and wasn't one of those samples confirmed for R1b? I don't think the J-L70 branch came with the Sea Peoples, but the Kura Axes. Also a J2-M410 (parent of L70) has been found in Saka Kurgans.

SUPREEEEEME
11-10-2020, 05:24 PM
Yes, and wasn't one of those samples confirmed for R1b? I don't think the J-L70 branch came with the Sea Peoples, but the Kura Axes. Also a J2-M410 (parent of L70) has been found in Saka Kurgans.

Agree that the Sea People's is unlikely - there are too many branches in the Levant, and the Levantine Basal branches at J-Z387*, J-L70*, and J-Z423* make this unlikely.

The Kura Araxes is also unlikely for the same reasons - also considering that Armenians (regional overlap), for example, are very highly tested, yet don't appear to have very many J-L70 branches among them. As we head north from the South Caucasus, J-L70's frequency plummets except amongst Jews. Important to remember that J-L70 has a TMRCA of 3800 ybp while J2a-M410 has a TMRCA of 18 900 ybp. In that regard, the origin of J2a - whatever that may be - wouldn't affect that of J-L70.

Principe
11-10-2020, 05:40 PM
A Kura Araxes expansion for J-L70 is very unlikely considering the Kura Araxes Culture had already disappeared 800 years prior to the TMRCA of L70.

I wouldn't entirely throw out the Sea Peoples for J-L70 because the Anatolian hypothesis is still a possibility, and a portion of the Sea People's were Anatolian related, so we'll see again for L70 considering how widespread it is at the moment it is impossible to say certain origin, this will only be solved with ancient dna unfortunately. The only thing we can say for certain is that a MBA-LBA civilization carried and helped lead its expansion. Whether it came from the Levant, Anatolia, Fertile Crescent or the Aegean we will have to wait and see.

For L70 I would pay more attention to the TMRCA and see what other branches match it and if a similar pattern can be found.

J.delajara
11-10-2020, 05:47 PM
Thanks for your answer. My comments were related to your Hypothesis, regarding Greeks and Israelites, what I wanted to underline is that I think is more possible a relationship between Philistines and Ancient Aegean Greeks. I think L70, is more Anatolic, and of course it could be related to the Kura Axes culture. Regarding my supporting arguments, you can see my previous posts to this and other threats. Further Ancient samples will help us to clear this. Regards

J.delajara
11-10-2020, 05:50 PM
A Kura Araxes expansion for J-L70 is very unlikely considering the Kura Araxes Culture had already disappeared 800 years prior to the TMRCA of L70.

I wouldn't entirely throw out the Sea Peoples for J-L70 because the Anatolian hypothesis is still a possibility, and a portion of the Sea People's were Anatolian related, so we'll see again for L70 considering how widespread it is at the moment it is impossible to say certain origin, this will only be solved with ancient dna unfortunately. The only thing we can say for certain is that a MBA-LBA civilization carried and helped lead its expansion. Whether it came from the Levant, Anatolia, Fertile Crescent or the Aegean we will have to wait and see.

For L70 I would pay more attention to the TMRCA and see what other branches match it and if a similar pattern can be found.

Thanks Principe, as usual your comments are very useful. Best Regards

maroco
11-10-2020, 05:52 PM
Thanks for your answer. My comments were related to your Hypothesis, regarding Greeks and Israelites, what I wanted to underline is that I think is more possible a relationship between Philistines and Ancient Aegean Greeks. I think L70, is more Anatolic, and of course it could be related to the Kura Axes culture. Regarding my supporting arguments, you can see my previous posts to this and other threats. Further Ancient samples will help us to clear this. Regards
Israelites tend to be identified through their maternal dna. As far as I am aware the male can be from anywhere and from what I know these Europeans, middle easterners and North Africans who identify as Jewish are spread through many lineages. I believe someone told me all the male Israelites were wiped out during war and their women taken

hartaisarlag
11-10-2020, 06:05 PM
Israelites tend to be identified through their maternal dna. As far as I am aware the male can be from anywhere and from what I know these Europeans, middle easterners and North Africans who identify as Jewish are spread through many lineages. I believe someone told me all the male Israelites were wiped out during wa and their women taken

Nope.

maroco
11-10-2020, 06:08 PM
Nope.
What do you mean no, you all identify through your maternal dna.

maroco
11-10-2020, 06:19 PM
Nope.
I heard it was Iraq men that took the Israeli women as their own, it’s why some of you have J as a parental lineage. Again this is the information I was given by someone I can neither confirm or deny these facts but ask yourself why you all identify through your maternal dna

StillWater
11-10-2020, 06:36 PM
Israelites tend to be identified through their maternal dna. As far as I am aware the male can be from anywhere and from what I know these Europeans, middle easterners and North Africans who identify as Jewish are spread through many lineages. I believe someone told me all the male Israelites were wiped out during war and their women taken

I don't know where you heard that all male Israelites were killed.

Regarding the point of whether Jews follow maternal or paternal descent, there are 2 perspectives - historical and religious.

Historical: Jews used to follow paternal descent like all other nations and somewhere between the Iron Age and Late Antiquity, switched to maternal descent.
Religious: Jews used to follow paternal descent till the revelation at Mt.Sinai and then switched to maternal descent.

Both narratives have room for converts at the earliest stages: i.e the Egyptians who joined the Israelites in the Exodus in the religious narrative or all the converts this forum explores in the secular narrative.

According to current rules, Jews only need to be born to a Jewish mother. Her MTDNA can come from anyone. It only matters that she is classified as a Jew prior to one's birth. She can be a convert or her mom, etc. The only cases where religious authorities either explicitly or implicitly care about haplogroups is regarding: Cohen status, Levi status, and Messianic candidacy. One cannot convert to be a Cohen. He must be a patrilinial descendant of Aaron the High Priest. One cannot convert to be a Levi. He must patrilinially descend from the Tribe of Levi. One's Y-DNA needs to be from King David to be the Messiah.

A note should be made that the religious perspective I gave you is the Rabbinical one. Karaites and Samaritans go by paternal descent. At least by their written laws, all Jewish groups today accept converts. In practice, I haven't heard of male Samaritan converts and Syrian Jews stopped accepting converts of any type recently.

hartaisarlag
11-10-2020, 06:44 PM
I heard it was Iraq men that took the Israeli women as their own, it’s why some of you have J as a parental lineage. Again this is the information I was given by someone I can neither confirm or deny these facts but ask yourself why you all identify through your maternal dna

Jewish populations across the Diaspora generally share Y-DNA lineages and generally don't share mtDNA lineages. This has been documented well. The rabbinic matrilineal descent thing came later. The proof for paternal descent is right there.

Do a plurality of Palestinian and Lebanese men have J because they're descended from Canaanite women who were "taken" by Iraqi men? Reality check, this has been the Y-DNA situation in the Levant since the Early Bronze Age, in all likelihood. If by "Iraqi" you mean Chalcolithic Mesopotamian, then maybe. But that's of no relevance to historical theories of Jewish ethnogenesis.

Principe
11-10-2020, 07:05 PM
When it comes to J-L70, i'll break down for anybody who is interested and why ancient dna will solve it and multiple origins for the theories make sense, by looking at Yfull tree and FTDNA Block Tree.

When it comes to J-L70 we have a basal Jordanian, then we have 4 sub branches, the main one being PF5430, then there is the other three branches.

J-BY94698 Basal Italian (Sicilian)
J-FT63319 Basal Turk
J-FT68079 (Dutch and an unknown)

Then we go the main branch PF5430

Which we have a further split into J-Z435 and J-FT340863

J-FT340863 Palestinian and Egyptian (keep in mind younger TMRCA but still crucial)

J-Z435 is where over 98% of all J-L70 falls under.

This is where we have our main three L70 branches, CTS3601, Z2177 and PH3882.

We'll start with PH3882

Which we have an Azeri and Dominican basal, then we move on too the two major clades P244 and F801

P244 is an Ashkenazim Kohanim branch

F801 has a basal Syrian and Austrian

The downstreams of F801 seem to be European with a skew towards Southern Europe

J-PH3882 seems to be the smallest by far of the three major ones

CTS3601 is the largest branch and contains the major PF5456 branch, we have 2 other branches

J-L1021 Turkmenistan (keep in mind younger branch)
J-Z44439 Central Euro branch

Important disclaimer is that there is quite a few Iraqis who seem to be PF5456 negative

J-PF5456

With 5 major branches

J-BY93936 Southern European basal (Portugal and Italy)
J-S11348 Italian basal (also contains Turks and Cypriots)
J-FGC6730 Much more widespread clade (strongly Italian, but also contains quite a few Iberians and a Sephardi branch)
J-PF3927 Unknown

Then there is the major J-FGC54172 branch, which is the most Eastern of the PF5456 branches, on Yfull there is an Albanian and Sardinian basal

Splits further into 2

J-BY268 or J-FGC21085 which is an Ashkenazi branch
J-Z40772 which has a basal Armenian, Greek, Tuscan and Scot

Under here we have a diversity of Armenians at basal positions, also a large British isles and German branch, we also have our oldest ancient L70 sample in here under BY242 from Ancient Rome, keep in mind there is an Armenian who is going to be basal to this branch.

For for Z2177, we have 9 primary branches

J-Z28698 Southeastern Basals
J-Z46113 Unknown
J-Z45144 Younger Isles branch
J-FT255455 Younger Isles branch
J-Z45222 Unknown
J-Y126749 Turkish, Albanian and Sardinian basal
J-Z45192 France and Ukraine
J-FGC52108 Greece and Iberia


J-FT51679, very varied branch including a Turkish Saudi branch, a Portuguese branch, Maltese and Sicilian branch, Tunisian Cohen branch and a German

J-PH185 the branch in question is probably the most widespread with several Saudi and Syrian members, Turkish, one of our ancient Vikings, a few Isles and Central Europeans and over 20 Italians.

Can anybody after all that say with certainty what the origin of L70 is?