r/Palestinian_DNA

Samaritan 5 sample is 3/4 Samaritan and 1/4 Ashkenazi - pulling the average a bit more Northward.

https://histanthro.org/notes/living-monuments/

Based on my calculations this should be Samaritan 6:

Samaritan6,0.0853674,0.1486734,-0.0573978,-0.0925072,-0.0096018,-0.0350286,-0.002209,-0.0081688,0.016321,0.008237,0.0091586,-0.0099212,0.0204854,0.0118632,-0.0055372,0.0021214,-0.011239,0.0010134,0.0021116,-0.003652,-0.0005242,0.003116,0.000567,-0.0029402,0.0046462

Time Period: Roman

Southern Levantine minorities on average seem to have a more southern-shifted genetic profile than Northern Levantine minorities. My personal interpretation is that this probably reflects somewhat different patterns of admixture over time. While ancient Northern Levantines probably mixed more with populations from Anatolia, northern Mesopotamia, and the Aegean, ancient Southern Levantines may have mixed more with groups such as the Nabataeans and, later, Ghassanid Arabs. Before the Roman period, there may have also been some influence from ancient Egyptians.

However, I think we should be very careful when we use labels such as "Arab" in these ancient models. The Nabataean sample we currently have, for example, seems to have been mostly Levantine genetically. Of course, this is only one individual (n=1), so we cannot make any real conclusions about the Nabataeans as a whole from it. Still, it shows why we should not assume that ancient groups identified historically as Arabs necessarily had the same genetic profile as modern Peninsular Arabs. Smaller groups also tend to assimilate into larger populations relatively quickly, something we can see, for example, with the Philistines of Ascalon.

Interestingly, when I include this Nabataean sample in the models, the Samaritans receive a substantial Nabataean component. Even more interestingly, once the Nabataean is available as a source, the Tell Qarassa "Arab" component basically disappears from the Southern Levantine minorities in these models. Tell Qarassa is being used here as a proxy for a more strongly Arabian-related ancient profile, so I find this result quite important. It suggests that what might otherwise be interpreted by the calculator as "Arab" ancestry can instead be absorbed by a Nabataean-like population that was itself largely Levantine. This does not prove actual Nabataean ancestry, especially with only one Nabataean individual available, but it shows how dependent these percentages are on which sources we give the model. We also have to remember that Arabs were an integral part of the Levant at least since the Iron Age. Anyhow, that the distances of these 3 modern minorities to some ancient Levantines are extremely small to begin with (image 4) which could easily result in overfitting (for example, Christian Palestinian distance to Roman-Byzantine periods Lebanon average is about 0.011).

Another thing I find very interesting is that the Southern Levant itself already seems to have been quite diverse (we have the Galilean which is Northern shifted, and so on). There is no one Levantine profile, but a range of possibilities with a certain likelihood. However, the sample sizes are still small and we have many genetic gaps in whole time periods. Looking at modern samples that we have (in Christians for example), some Southern Levantines are clearly more northern-shifted than others, while others are considerably more southern-shifted. I do not really see the same level of north-south variation among the Northern Levantine samples, which makes this especially interesting to me.

We can see something similar among the Samaritans. Their average can look relatively close to some of the more northern-shifted Levantines, but there is one Samaritan sample that is much more northern-shifted than the others and pulls the average in that direction. Some of the other Samaritan samples are actually even more southern-shifted than some of the Iron Age Southern Levantine samples. This is still an enigma to me. However, the new Judean samples from Akbari, and perhaps also some of the samples associated with Israelites in the same dataset, might help explain this strong southern-shift. I still would not make a strong conclusion from this because the ancient sample sizes are limited.

Because of this diversity, I think Southern Levantine minorities today are probably a mixture of different ancient Levantine populations, including both more southern-shifted and more northern-shifted groups, rather than descendants of one genetically uniform Southern Levantine population. People moved internally within the Levant all the time, and during harsher periods this movement could become much larger. During the Mamluk period, for example, there was considerable movement from Palestine toward more inland areas, while many coastal cities were destroyed or declined. During the period of Daher al-Umar, we can see movement in the opposite direction, with people being attracted into northern Palestine and the Galilee from surrounding areas.

Nonetheless, Palestinian and Jordanian Christians are, on average, more southern-shifted than Northern Levantine minorities, which also makes them closer on average to many of the ancient Levantine samples, whether from the northern or southern Levant. In my models, the Tell Qarassa Arab source tends to be introduced when the model needs a stronger southward pull, while Imperial Roman C6 tends to appear when a stronger northward pull is needed. How much of either component appears is 100% dependent on which Levantine reference samples are included in the model. In many cases, they may simply be compensating for the particular Levantine reference chosen and for the genetic variation that already existed within the ancient Levant itself (fitting the noise).

Finally, I added several different models (images 1,2,3), each using a different Levantine reference, including Roman Judean, Roman Lebanon, and Nabataean. These models are plausible alongside others I am not showing. For me, the important thing is not whether one model gives exactly 4% or 8% of something, but whether the general pattern remains when we change the references and test the population in different ways.

TLDR: I’ll be adding more populations to a future revised version, I only added the ones which enough qpadm runs have been completed for. This is a compilation of qpAdm runs for populations from the Levant region. A few more groups were added compared to the first map. The samples used are from the following dataset : https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/FFIDCW

Syrian.HO

72.2% Lebanon_Phoenician
20.1% Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age
7.8% Dinka
P-value: 0.506
Chi-square: 7.28
Standard errors: 0.0498, 0.0483 and 0.00892
Z-scores: 14.5, 4.15 and 8.72

This is a strong model with all three components statistically supported. The Lebanon Phoenician source represents the main Levantine ancestry, while Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age represents additional Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related ancestry. Dinka is acting as a proxy for African-related ancestry, not necessarily direct ancestry from modern Dinka people. The two larger percentages have standard errors close to 0.05, so the exact proportions should be treated as approximate.

Druze.HO

77.5% Lebanon_Phoenician
20.3% Armenia Sarukhan Early Iron Age
2.2% Dinka
P-value: 0.844
Chi-square: 4.15
Standard errors: 0.0431, 0.0418 and 0.00803
Z-scores: 18.0, 4.84 and 2.74

This is an excellent statistical fit. It describes the Druze as mostly Levantine, with a substantial Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related shift and a very small African-related component. All three percentages are statistically supported.

Assyrian.HO

Best informative 2-way qpAdm model:
74.9% Iran_DinkhaTepe_BA_IA_1.AG
25.1% Georgia_Digomi_IA.SG
p-value: 0.798
χ²/dof: 4.611 / 8
SNPs: 579,720
Z-scores: 13.3 / 4.45
SE: 5.64% / 5.64%

Both components are strongly supported.
A 100% Bahrain_LTylos_Sasanian.SG model also passes strongly (p = 0.689), but this should be interpreted as a successful one-source/cladal fit rather than literal 100% Sasanian Bahrain ancestry.

Cypriot.HO

82.4% Italy_Imperial_oAnatoliaCaucasus.SG
17.6% Serbia_Sirmium_Ottoman.SG
p-value: 0.955
χ²/dof: 5.729 / 13
SNPs: 579,720
Italy_Imperial_oAnatoliaCaucasus: 82.4% ± 7.49%, Z = 11.0
Serbia_Sirmium_Ottoman: 17.6% ± 7.49%, Z = 2.35
This is an exceptionally good statistical fit and has a substantially higher p-value than the one-way model. Both ancestry coefficients have Z > 2, although the ±7.49% standard errors are relatively large, so the exact proportions should be treated as approximate.

Lebanese_Muslim.HO

88.3% Lebanon_Phoenician
8.8% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
2.9% Dinka
P-value: 0.549
Chi-square: 6.89
Standard errors: 0.0219, 0.0223 and 0.00913
Z-scores: 40.4, 3.95 and 3.14
This is a strong and well-resolved model. The Lebanon Phoenician source represents the main Levantine ancestry. Kazakhstan Sarmatian is probably acting as a proxy for a small northern, Steppe, Caucasus or Anatolian-related shift rather than indicating literal Sarmatian ancestry. The small Dinka-related component represents additional African-related ancestry and is statistically supported.

Lebanese_Christian.HO

95.0% Lebanon_Phoenician
5.0% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
P-value: 0.727
Chi-square: 6.12
Standard error: 0.0236
Z-scores: 40.2 and 2.13
This is an excellent fit and shows Lebanese Christians as being very close to the ancient Lebanon Phoenician proxy. The small Sarmatian-related component represents a slight northern or Caucasus-related shift. Its Z-score of 2.13 is only just above the normal cutoff, so the existence of a small secondary component is supported, but the exact 5% figure should be treated cautiously.

Palestinian.HO

87.9% Lebanon_Phoenician
5.2% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
6.8% Dinka
P-value: 0.904
Chi-square: 3.43
Standard errors: 0.0204, 0.0205 and 0.00823
Z-scores: 43.1, 2.54 and 8.32
This is a strong model, and has an excellent p-value, a low chi-square with all three components are statistically supported. The model describes Palestinians as mostly Levantine, with smaller northern or Caucasus-shifted and African-related components. The Sarmatian-related percentage has the weakest Z-score, but it still passes the usual Z = 2 threshold.

Samaritan.DG

100% Lebanon_ERoman.SG
p-value: 0.835
χ²/dof: 11.406 / 17
SNPs: 579,720
This is an extremely strong one-source qpAdm fit. It indicates that Samaritans are statistically consistent with the Lebanon_ERoman source relative to the selected outgroups; the 100% figure should not be interpreted as literal complete descent from the sampled Roman Lebanese population.

Jordanian.HO

80.3% Lebanon_Phoenician
7.5% Kazakhstan Sarmatian Iron Age
12.2% Dinka
P-value: 0.836
Chi-square: 4.23
Standard errors: 0.0206, 0.0209 and 0.00899
Z-scores: 39.0, 3.58 and 13.6
This is an extremely strong model statistically. Jordanians are modeled as mostly Levantine, with a smaller northern or Caucasus-shifted component and a more substantial African-related component than the Lebanese or Druze models. Dinka should be understood as the African proxy used by the model, not as evidence of direct Dinka ancestry.

Egyptian.HO

44.3% 3DT26.SG
38.5% Lebanon_Hellenistic.SG
17.2% Dinka.DG
p-value: 0.513
χ²/dof: 13.172 / 14
SNPs: 579,720
Z-scores: 4.43 / 4.06 / 14.3
SE: 9.99% / 1.21% / 9.49%
This is a strong passing model. All three ancestry components are well supported, with the Dinka-related component particularly precisely estimated.

EgyptianA.HO

46.9% 3DT26.SG
40.7% Lebanon_Hellenistic.SG
12.4% Dinka.DG
p-value: 0.223
χ²/dof: 17.654 / 14
SNPs: 579,720
Z-scores: 3.70 / 3.38 / 9.64
SE: 12.7% / 12.1% / 1.29%
The model passes and all three components are supported, although the estimates for 3DT26 and Lebanon_Hellenistic have relatively large standard errors.

EgyptianB.HO

43.7% 3DT26.SG
42.6% Lebanon_Hellenistic.SG
13.6% Dinka.DG
p-value: 0.745
χ²/dof: 10.226 / 14
SNPs: 579,720
Z-scores: 4.92 / 5.07 / 10.5
SE: 8.89% / 8.40% / 1.30%
All three components are strongly supported. The Dinka-related component is especially precisely estimated, while the exact proportions assigned to 3DT26 and Lebanon_Hellenistic have somewhat wider uncertainty.

Saudi.HO

94.5% Syria_TellQarassa_Umayyad.SG
5.5% Dinka.DG
p-value: 0.571
χ²/dof: 6.681 / 8
SNPs: 579,720
Both components are strongly supported (Dinka Z = 7.21).

BedouinB.HO

94.6% Syria_TellQarassa_Umayyad.SG
5.4% Dinka.DG
p-value: 0.225
χ²/dof: 10.606 / 8
SNPs: 579,720
Both components are strongly supported (Dinka Z = 7.86).

BedouinA.HO

52.1% Lebanon_Phoenician.SG
31.1% Syria_TellQarassa_Umayyad.SG
10.6% Dinka.DG
6.2% Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA.AG
p-value: 0.142
χ²/dof: 5.451 / 3
SNPs: 579,720
All four components are statistically supported:
Lebanon Phoenician: Z = 10.6
Tell Qarassa Umayyad: Z = 9.64
Dinka: Z = 25.9
Kazakhstan Sarmatian: Z = 2.88

This model passes and suggests BedouinA can be modeled primarily as Levantine ancestry represented by Phoenician Lebanon and Umayyad-period Tell Qarassa, together with ~10.6% sub-Saharan African-related ancestry and a smaller ~6.2% Sarmatian/steppe-related component. The Sarmatian component is above the usual Z = 2 significance threshold, although it should be interpreted as a genetic proxy rather than evidence of literal Sarmatian ancestry.

These are qpAdm proxy models, so the source labels should not necessarily be interpreted as literal direct ancestral populations; they represent ancestry streams that fit the targets relative to the chosen outgroups.
Both Bedouin A and B genetic clusters are Bedouins from unspecified tribes in the Negev desert, with the Bedouin A group having a more northern shift and the Bedouin B subgroup having a strong southern genetic shift and clustering with the Saudi average.

Lebanon_Phoenician (500-300 BCE) represents the main Levantine-related ancestry. It’s an average of Lebanon_Phoenician samples.

Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA (500-300 BCE) represents a more northern Steppe/Caucasus-shifted element, not necessarily literal Sarmatian ancestry.
Dinka represents African-related ancestry, not direct ancestry specifically from modern Dinka people.

Armenia_Sarukhan_EIA represents an Armenian/Caucasus or eastern Anatolian-related element.

Serbia_Sirmium_Ottoman is roughly 80% Slavic, 20% Anatolian, and represents the Southern Slavic input in the Balkans.

3DT26 is an ancient Egyptian sample found in the UK (United Kingdom, England_IA_Roman_oMiddleEast) from around 200AD.

Lebanon_Hellenistic (200 BCE) has basically the same composition as the Lebanon_Phoenician it’s just from a later time period.

My AncestralGenome Closest Iron Age Populations.

I believe they used this average of South Phoenician:

Akhziv_Phoenician_AG_(n=6),0.0851777,0.1491135,-0.0511625,-0.0967387,-0.0101045,-0.0359303,-0.0032510,-0.0090765,0.0106013,0.0120882,0.0090123,-0.0110902,0.0157582,0.0050233,-0.0027143,-0.0038895,0.0020862,0.0016682,0.0055517,0.0013758,0.0010813,0.0025762,-0.0030605,-0.0003617,-0.0003392

AncestryDNA results are pre most recent update. The new results are a mess for me.

The third picture shows my results using the Moriopoulous 2026 collection. Its obviously overfiting me, but I think it gives a general idea.

Ancestral Genome auto detects North Levant. But i feel like south levant works better while north levant just gives me a lot of indian to compensate.

My father is from a village in Jerusalem. My mother is mixed, her mother (my grandmother) is Syrian and her father is from Gaza with supposedly Turkish ancestry.

Compared to average palestinian results I seem to carry less natufian, slightly more ANF and Zagros, and a small east eurasian pull.