Markup /brabant/12698

Comment
8. "Genetic analysis of [so-called, supposed] 'confirmed Israelite' skeletons from the Early Iron Age, late first Temple period, Persian period, Hellenistic period, and pre-First Jewish-Roman War period, including the two published EIA samples: I4517 and I2201, and the multiple unpublished samples from the aforementioned eras, including, but not necessarily limited to: 
I14918, I14919, I4570, I13826, I13831, I13832, I6852, I7037, I3970, I6854, I6856, I6863, and I3832, from the following archaeological sites: Modin, unnamed 'mass grave', Nesher-Ramla, Hazor, Herodium, Abel-Beth-Maacah, Meggido, Gush Halav, Ein Gedi, 'Jerusalem, near the King's Burial', Givat HaMivtar, 'Wizoh', the 'Homa Mountains', and Kiriat-Jearim, all have a typically Levantine genetic profile on 25-dimensional eigenvalue scaled PCA coordinate based Euclidean distance optimisation admixture inference software. Therefore, this hypothesis is false."
 The admixture profiles of all the unreleased samples, bar I14918 and I14919, of whom the author has only been informed, rather than seen themself, due to the information provided to the author by individuals who are in close contact with David Reich, Hila May, Liran Carmel, and Ron Pinhasi, are known to the author, however, unfortunately, the author has not been given access to the genomes of these samples for his own analysis, so must rely upon the analysis of others who have a bias against this hypothesis. The archaeological sites in which these samples were found were provided to the author in a broad manner, without indications regarding which sample was found at which site, or if all the samples whose admixture profiles the author had seen, were exhaustive in regard to the archaeological sites, though presumably they were not. Regardless, what follows shall be multiple concise explanations regarding why each archaeological site was not home to Israelites, and consequently, why each of the aforementioned samples were not Israelites, followed by speculation upon (to varying degrees of certainty) the true identity of the samples at each site. 
- Abel-Beth-Maacah: I2201, a skeleton excavated from the region, is publicly available and carbon-dated to 1014 BC. Temporally, this ancient individual could not have been an Israelite, because Abel-Beth-Maacah was not an Israelite city until at least 1 Kings 15:20 (after 930 BC), before then, it was an independent city-state that was only mentioned as harbouring a rebel against King David and negotiating peace on their behalf [2Sa. 20:14-22]. Canaanites also lived amongst the Israelites in this region (see Objection 6). Culturally, this ancient individual could not have been an Israelite, as the paper from which it is sourced, "The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant", explicitly states that it practiced Canaanite material culture: "… we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from nine sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture." [31]. Genetically, even when one assumes the false consensus that the Israelites were a Southern Canaanite people to be true, this ancient individual could not have been an Israelite, as they were the only sample genetically similar to the Sidonian Canaanites of the middle Bronze Age, i.e., it was a Northern Canaanite, not a Southern Canaanite: "The only inland population that resembles Sidon is Abel Beth Maacah, perhaps because of its geographic proximity." [31]. Therefore, this ancient individual was clearly not an Israelite, but a Canaanite, even under errored paradigms. 
- Megiddo: I4517 is publicly available and carbon dated to 1109 BC, and from the same source as I2201. The same arguments, therefore, apply here, (excluding the argument of genetic relation to Lebanon_MBA and the specific temporal biblio-historical arguments). It is recorded in Joshua 17:11-12 that the Israelites failed to conquer Megiddo during the initial invasion of Canaan, leaving the city in Canaanite hands until at the very earliest 970 BC, when Solomon took control of Megiddo and began building a temple there (1Ki. 9:15). Therefore, temporally, this ancient individual could not have been an Israelite. Considering the cultural and temporal arguments, even if one wrongly assumes the Israelites were Canaanites, this ancient individual could not have been an Israelite. 
- Kiriath-Jearim: I14918 and I14919 are the sample IDs for the ancient individuals in question from this site. They are carbon dated to around 480 BC (2430±20 BP, PSUAMS-8559) [3]. 
According to a paraphrased quote found in Haaretz, from one of the authors of the preliminary mtDNA study of these individuals, Israel Finkelstein, in "Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of an Iron II Burial Cave on the Slope of Tel Kiriath-Yearim", the burial was identified as an Israelite burial based on its geographic proximity to Jerusalem alone, with no other supporting evidence for this classification, i.e. there were Hebrew inscriptions upon the burial walls confirming the identity of the deceased, or pottery that is useful for anything more than dating the burial (i.e. explicitly cultural pottery). The date of around 480 BC raises significant concerns regarding the cultural identification of these individuals for numerous reasons already outlined in Objection 4, notably, the fact that the Edomites and Northern Arabs had, by this point, taken possession of, assumed the identity of, and demographically replaced the inhabitants of the former lands of Israel (to a lesser extent, as it was impacted more by Mesopotamian settlers) and Judah (including Jerusalem, in nearby proximity to this burial site). Considering the explicitly Canaanite autosomal genetic profiles of both samples, the Canaanite Y-DNA (J2) of one of the samples, and the Edomite and Arab dominance of the region, at this point in time, one can safely classify these two individuals as Edomites, i.e. Canaanites, not Israelites.