https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909244/
although more recent work has suggested alternative hypotheses for the appearance of metal working and herding [12], [18], [27], [28]. In this account, during the first millennium AD Bantu-speaking farmers spread through eastern and southern Africa from the inter-lacustrine region. Archaeologically they are distinct from the western Bantu speakers, and are recognised by their pottery, the use of iron, domesticated livestock herding and cultivation of cereal crops such as sorghum and millet (this ‘package’ was termed the Chifumbaze complex by Phillipson [7] and is also known as the Early Iron Age Industrial complex). It first appears with Urewe pottery in the Great Lakes region from about 2500 BP onwards [1], [7]. Occurring in areas where eastern Bantu languages are spoken today, this is seen as the archaeological trace of their arrival [6], [7]. The eastern stream links, through pottery typology, the great Lakes region in East Africa to KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa [6], [7].
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55344-y.pdf?origin=ppub
. Of the ones analyzed here, Minoans and Tunisian Jews seem to provide the two closest matches to NAF, adding on top of the genetic evidence a criteria of space/time compatibility. A tentative link between these three groups may be provided by the historical maritime trade routes connecting Crete (home to the Minoan culture) to the Levant13–15 and by the shuffling role played by a horde of nomads who navigated throughout the Mediterranean Sea 3 kya: the Sea People. These tribes are linked to Crete, Anatolia where they fought the Hittite Empire, Egypt and the Levant, and are told to have set-tled in the land of Canaan, known also as Palestine16. Interestingly, the Sea People tribes that settled in Palestine included, among others, Denyen and Peleset according to the Egyptian inscriptions of Merneptah and Medinet Habu17. Although there are different theories around the origin of each of these tribes, there are suggestions that link the Denyen with the tribe of Dan, from which Jews from Ethiopia have been said to descend, and the Peleset to the Philistines from the Levant18. The role of Sea People may therefore be crucial in explaining a temporary presence of a Minoan-like ancestry in the Levant, bringing Anatolian-like components to levels as high as 85%. A pulse of populations with Anatolian-rich ancestry has just been recently detected in Iron Age Levant, appear-ing and disappearing from the archaeological record within a range of few centuries, at the beginning of the 1st Millennium BCE19. These Levant Iron Age samples can indeed be modelled as having at least 80% Anatolian Neolithic ancestry (~20% CHG and ~80% Anatolia_N, see Supplementary Table S6) and surrogate Ethiopian NAF in relevant f4 analyses (Supplementary Table S5). Notably Ethiopian NAF is still closer than Levant IA to Tunisian Jews (Supplementary Table S5). Ethiopian NAF therefore offers a solution to the disappearance of the Levant IA component from the population record of the area, where their signal may have become erased as a consequence of major warfare after 1000 BCE20 or 3 kya, displacing these genetic components towards Ethiopia (an allegory of which can be read in the mythological account of the meeting between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba) and North Africa Jewish communities (where such a signature is still detectable after the major population movements following the Alhambra Decree after 1492 CE)
No comments:
Post a Comment