Proof of Phoenician input in Spain, Malta and Sicily?

[Sikeliot]

The new study measuring Yamnaya input into Europe found that all European ethnicities' genes can be explained by population movements from prehistoric times, without recent input into Europe EXCEPT four: Spanish, Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazi Jews.

Does this suggest shared Phoenician ancestry between the former 3, keeping in mind that Sardinian, northern Spanish, Greeks, and other Southern ethnicities did not score the Bedouin component in high amount, a proxy for excess Near East DNA. The Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean centered around southern Spain, Sicily and Malta.

Here was the table. "Spanish" must mean southern since northern Spain was separate, and the Sicilian cluster is a mixture of Trapani and Syracuse at opposite ends of the island.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2vwsrip.jpg

[Sikeliot]

This also would suggest that northern and southern Spain are not homogenous from north to south.

[welp]

The only thing that points to that is a study on PLOS that placed the timeframe of J and E between bronze and iron age on Sicily. (a mediterannean pot or something of the like, it was called) Someone mentioned something about J in pre roman spain as well but the above chart proves nothing of the like. It's baseless speculation.

Also, some of the countries in the chart have higher Yamnaya input and lower bedouin yet are placed in a nonsensical order from top to bottom.

[Sikeliot]

The only thing that points to that is a study on PLOS that placed the timeframe of J and E between bronze and iron age on Sicily. (a mediterannean pot or something of the like, it was called) Someone mentioned something about J in pre roman spain as well but the above chart proves nothing of the like. It's baseless speculation.


It is based on a new method of analyzing European admixture based on different admixture events linked with different migrations. What it suggests is southern Spain, Sicily, and Malta have too much Near Eastern admixture to have acquired it at the same time period as other Europeans, given the rates of admixture in the other populations, thus it must be recent.

[Tiberio]

Phoenicians colonize only the very western part of Sicily, i wonder how mainlander southern Italians can score for the definitive proof. Calabrians and Salentinis never have Phoenician colonies and they can be use as proof.
In Spain the most number of Phoenicians and Carthage influences are in the Balearic and in the Mediterranean coast.

[welp]

It is based on a new method of analyzing European admixture based on different admixture events linked with different migrations. What it suggests is southern Spain, Sicily, and Malta have too much Near Eastern admixture to have acquired it at the same time period as other Europeans, given the rates of admixture in the other populations, thus it must be recent.

What is up with the Bedouin component? South France has more of it than any other south european country combined while the southeast lacks it completely. The WHG and Yamnaya component make no sense either but I suppose that EN reflects neolithic farmers? (peaks in Sardinia)

Overall, one of the most weird charts I've ever seen.

[Sikeliot]

Phoenicians colonize only the very western part of Sicily, i wonder how mainlander southern Italians can score for the definitive proof. Calabrians and Salentinis never have Phoenician colonies and they can be use as proof.

They should have kept Trapani and Syracuse separate in the sample to compare. I have seen some calculators where, despite scoring higher North Euro input, western Sicilians score higher levels of exotic stuff -- up to 6% North African, up to 15% SW Asian and so on; eastern Sicilians are high in what most calculators call "Caucasus", which on the above falls into EN -- Early Neolithic, I am sure, and is considered European. The same is true for Crete.

I suspect Trapani pulls the average up. They should have had a mainland southern Italian sample, or a Cretan one.

[Sikeliot]

What is up with the Bedouin component? South France has more of it than any other south european country combined while the southeast lacks it completely. The WHG and Yamnaya component make no sense either but I suppose that EN reflects neolithic farmers? (peaks in Sardinia)

Overall, one of the most weird charts I've ever seen.

It's only weird because you are not reading it correctly. Anyway this study supported an older one, Lazaridis et al.

[Tiberio]

They should have kept Trapani and Syracuse separate in the sample to compare. I have seen some calculators where, despite scoring higher North Euro input, western Sicilians score higher levels of exotic stuff -- up to 6% North African, up to 15% SW Asian and so on; eastern Sicilians are high in what most calculators call "Caucasus", which on the above falls into EN -- Early Neolithic, I am sure, and is considered European. The same is true for Crete.

I suspect Trapani pulls the average up. They should have had a mainland southern Italian sample, or a Cretan one.

If there was significant differences between East and West they were reported in the study but it not happen and I think we are homogeneous.

[Sikeliot]

If there was significant differences between East and West they were reported in the study but it not happen and I think we are homogeneous.

So then we can assume 22% is correct, and that Maltese have double as much recent Near Eastern as Sicilians (or at least, the average of the samples. I bet Sciacca, Porto Empedocle and Mazara del Vallo might score more). Anyway, if this is correct, it shows that Sardinians and Greeks have probably changed the least since ancient times.

[welp]

It's only weird because you are not reading it correctly. Anyway this study supported an older one, Lazaridis et al.

Let me get this straight then. Bedouin component represents near east, no? Yet the countries in southeast europe that are the geographically closest to that in the chart (albania and greece) score 0%. The countries closest to Yamnaya in the south (albania, greece and tuscany) score less of it than do Spaniards or south french. The WHG values reflect pre-neolithic survivors I take it?

[Longbowman]

Yes, I already postulate this in another thread we were both posting on.

[Tiberio]

So then we can assume 22% is correct, and that Maltese have double as much recent Near Eastern as Sicilians. Anyway, if this is correct, it shows that Sardinians and Greeks have probably changed the least since ancient times.

I think yes, because if there was an huge difference it was reported indeed, so I don't think that. Sardinians are the most ancient people in Europe.

[Longbowman]

Let me get this straight then. Bedouin component represents near east, no? Yet the countries in southeast europe that are the geographically closest to that in the chart (albania and greece) score 0%. The countries closest to Yamnaya in the south (albania, greece and tuscany) score less of it than do Spaniards or south french. The WHG values reflect pre-neolithic survivors I take it?

It represents recent Near East, ie; post-Neolithic, as opposed to EN, which represents Early Neolithic.

[Sikeliot]

I also think "Bedouin" picks up SW Asian and NW African components, which are low in Greece and Albania but for European standards, higher in Sicily and Malta and in the case of NW African, high in Iberia. Greeks and Albanians have a lot of Caucasian admixture but that is seemingly very ancient, and part of every European group so it does not come through on this study as anything but part of the European genome, well integrated.

[welp]

It represents recent Near East, ie; post-Neolithic, as opposed to EN, which represents Early Neolithic.

But southeast europe DID receive input from the east post-neolithic during the collapse of bronze and start of the iron age. Unless the entire hypothesis is wrong and EN represents that timeframe as well.

[Sikeliot]

I think yes, because if there was an huge difference it was reported indeed, so I don't think that. Sardinians are the most ancient people in Europe.

What we see is Sardinian-like genes and Caucasian-like genes are the formative basis of many European groups, and Yamnaya (Indo-European) in others.

[Sikeliot]

It represents recent Near East, ie; post-Neolithic, as opposed to EN, which represents Early Neolithic.

EN is probably prehistoric, and "Bedouin" signals seafaring Near Eastern historical groups; Phoenicians, Carthaginians and the like.

It never made sense to me to assume Phoenicians left no genetic input in any of their colonies.

[Longbowman]

But southeast europe DID receive input from the east post-neolithic during the collapse of bronze and start of the iron age. Unless the entire hypothesis is wrong and EN represents that timeframe as well.

a) perhaps, b) it would have been Anatolian, not Levantine, which Bedouin represents.

[welp]

a) perhaps, b) it would have been Anatolian, not Levantine, which Bedouin represents.

I see. In which case it may fall into EN. This makes much more sense now.

[Sikeliot]

EN probably includes elements both ancient Med (think Sardinia) and Caucasian/Anatolian (think Georgians).

[Longbowman]

I see. In which case it may fall into EN. This makes much more sense now.

Sorry if I wasn't clearer before. It makes sense that Anatolian type DNA will plot with Neolithic type DNA and be slightly separate from other MENA.

[Sikeliot]

Sorry if I wasn't clearer before. It makes sense that Anatolian type DNA will plot with Neolithic type DNA and be slightly separate from other MENA.

It is because all Europeans have Anatolian DNA, while they do not all have Levantine DNA. This is what we are seeing. Anatolian genes are a formative part of the European genome.

[Cristiano viejo]

Northern Spaniards scored 0% while Tuscans did near 5%. The title of this thread is wrong and anti-Spanish, I complain :cool:

[Longbowman]

Northern Spaniards scored 0% while Tuscans did near 5%. The title of this thread is wrong and anti-Spanish, I complain :cool:

Cana'anite blood is superior anyway. The Phonoecians bought literacy to Europe, based on scripts from southern Cana'an. You should be proud.

[Ibericus]

These statistics are wrong. The reason for that is because they use EEF as a pure component (hence why it appears 0% WHG, when in Eurogenes West-EUrasia_K8 there is 40%). The EEF are in reality a mixture of WHG and ancient near-east Farmer.

[Cristiano viejo]

Cana'anite blood is superior anyway. The Phonoecians bought literacy to Europe, based on scripts from southern Cana'an. You should be proud.

I have nothing to do with Caanites, Phoenicians or whatever. I would score 0% btw

[Longbowman]

These statistics are wrong. The reason for that is because they use EEF as a pure component (hence why it appears 0% WHG, when in Eurogenes West-EUrasia_K8 there is 40%). The EEF are in reality a mixture of WHG and ancient near-east Farmer.

Agreed, but that doesn't affect the 'Bedouin' part, which is flawed for different reasons.

[Gaston]

It doesn't explain the 0% ANE around Carthage and Northwest Africa.



Phoenicians were first and foremost traders, not interested in making actual colonies. I don't expect them to have left any significant impact on the genepool of locals around the (West) mediterranean.

Punics though were already different from the initial Phoenicians. This is why you have more interest in conquests with punics.

[Longbowman]

It doesn't explain the 0% ANE around Carthage and Northwest Africa.



Phoenicians were first and foremost traders, not interested in making actual colonies. I don't expect them to have left any significant impact on the genepool of locals around the (West) mediterranean.

Punics though were already different from the initial Phoenicians. This is why you have more interest in conquests with punics.

No, sorry. ANE is much lower in all affected European populations than the rest of Europe. And anyway, we're not saying Maltese = Phoenicians, we're saying they have some Phoenician ancestry. So that point is completely redundant.

The colonies existed for centuries, the Phoenician dialect was spoken around Carthage until the 10th century. I think you're being too dismissive of a legitimate theory that is supported by the diffusion of certain YDNA.

The Phoenicians, like the Greeks, were not a unified nation, but a collection of city states - each new 'colony' was an independent city, hence Carthage's rise.

I think, on this instance, you're being somewhat ignorant.

[quaquaraqua]

Phoneicians were a bunch of merchants, I highly doubt they had so much influence.

[Vasconcelos]

You'd need multiple samples from multiple other locations in order to actually come to a relevant conclusion in regard to Phoenician ancestry. "Spain" and "North Spain" is extremelly vague anyway.

[Sikeliot]

I do believe, given the relative underpopulation of early western Sicily as opposed to the Greek east of the island, that Phoenician genes would have had somewhat of a founder effect there as they did in Malta.

The Bedouin component is not perfect to measure these historical movements, but it gives some sort of indication of population movements.

[quaquaraqua]

You'd need multiple samples from multiple other locations in order to actually come to a relevant conclusion in regard to Phoenician ancestry. "Spain" and "North Spain" is extremelly vague anyway.
It's the sikeliot science! One of its scientific basement! You pick a sample and then you support your thesis! You don't need reliable samples! Just make new friend on 23andm and then creaye whatever you want! It's highly scientific method recognised by the scientific community.

[welp]

I too, believe that Gaston is right. The phoenician/non-greek large colonies on the western part of the island were under the influence of Carthage. People forget the wars that were fought between the greeks of sicily, led by Syracuse and it's tyrant(s) and the phoenician/punic cities led by Carthage. There is even the famous story of the carthaginian sacred band fighting to the last man.

The large scale settling of Spain was also done by Carthage. Perhaps only the initial colonizers were phoenician or maybe there was a constant stream of carthaginians into their colonies due to them being able to populate very fast. (remember, north africa was a breadbasket back then and carthage had a very big population and constant problems of overcrowding)

At any rate, Sikeliot, you don't have the samples or resources to back this up sufficiently.

[Longbowman]

I too, believe that Gaston is right. The phoenician/non-greek large colonies on the western part of the island were under the influence of Carthage. People forget the wars that were fought between the greeks of sicily, led by Syracuse and it's tyrant(s) and the phoenician/punic cities led by Carthage. There is even the famous story of the carthaginian sacred band fighting to the last man.

The large scale settling of Spain was also done by Carthage. Perhaps only the initial colonizers were phoenician or maybe there was a constant stream of carthaginians into their colonies due to them being able to populate very fast. (remember, north africa was a breadbasket back then and carthage had a very big population and constant problems of overcrowding)

At any rate, Sikeliot, you don't have the samples or resources to back this up sufficiently.

Carthage was Phoenician. Carthage was more or less as Phonoecian as the Greek territory Southern Italy was Greek. Certainly most of the male lines would have been Phonoecian.

[Sikeliot]

Phoenician, Carthaginian, whatever. The point is recent Near Eastern admixture through some Semitic speaking civilization that originated, at one point, in the Levant. Not saying this is definitely true but try to explain the numbers any other way.

[Longbowman]

We're speculating about genetic impact, but you people are speculating about the history and nature of the Phoenicians, and clearly demonstrating you've never studied them at all.

[Ibericus]

It doesn't explain the 0% ANE around Carthage and Northwest Africa.

Phoenicians were first and foremost traders, not interested in making actual colonies. I don't expect them to have left any significant impact on the genepool of locals around the (West) mediterranean.

Punics though were already different from the initial Phoenicians. This is why you have more interest in conquests with punics.
Agreed, their impact was Cultural, but not demograpgic and genetic.

[Longbowman]

Agreed, their impact was Cultural, but not demograpgic and genetic.

Pure speculation. E1b1b1c1 is stronk in Iberia, Malta and Sicily. Explain.

[Gaston]

No, sorry. ANE is much lower in all affected European populations than the rest of Europe. And anyway, we're not saying Maltese = Phoenicians, we're saying they have some Phoenician ancestry. So that point is completely redundant.

The colonies existed for centuries, the Phoenician dialect was spoken around Carthage until the 10th century. I think you're being too dismissive of a legitimate theory that is supported by the diffusion of certain YDNA.

The Phoenicians, like the Greeks, were not a unified nation, but a collection of city states - each new 'colony' was an independent city, hence Carthage's rise.

I think, on this instance, you're being somewhat ignorant.

ANE is lower only in Iberia if you remember how high Western Hunter Gatherer ancestry is in the peninsula. This can be explained by the high distance from the source of ANE, late[r] and incomplete indo-europeanization (Basques to the North, possibly Iberian in the Southeast), and in some (most) cases, various amounts of North African-like influence of unknown chronological origin(s).
On the other hand, ANE is quite high in Sicily and Malta considering how highly Near Eastern they are. Both islands have obvious North African influence, probably coming from Sicily since Malta has been recolonized several times, which lowered ANE levels there.

As for Y-dna, since Pierre Zalloua's excessive excitement a few years ago over his J2 hypothesis, it's best to wait for ancient DNA before associating some y-dna haplogroups in modern populations with ancient and even not-so-ancient people.


Concerning Carthage, it's pretty clear Hannibal's era was very different from the initial settlements centuries earlier. One cannot also ignore some major changes in the society's structure and the later focus on the inland, the evolution of the language... and more easily observable for us, culture: in addition to Egyptian and Greek influences (found in art, religion, military formations and weapons...), there is an important local (Libyco-berber) contribution. So no, Carthage wasn't Phoenician anymore at one point in my opinion.

[Longbowman]

ANE is lower only in Iberia if you remember how high Western Hunter Gatherer ancestry is in the peninsula. This can be explained by the high distance from the source of ANE, late[r] and incomplete indo-europeanization (Basques to the North, possibly Iberian in the Southeast), and in some (most) cases, various amounts of North African-like influence of unknown chronological origin(s).
On the other hand, ANE is quite high in Sicily and Malta considering how highly Near Eastern they are. Both islands have obvious North African influence, probably coming from Sicily since Malta has been recolonized several times, which lowered ANE levels there.

As for Y-dna, since Pierre Zalloua's excessive excitement a few years ago over his J2 hypothesis, it's best to wait for ancient DNA before associating some y-dna haplogroups in modern populations with ancient and even not-so-ancient people.


Concerning Carthage, it's pretty clear Hannibal's era was very different from the initial settlements centuries earlier. One cannot also ignore some major changes in the society's structure and the later focus on the inland, the evolution of the language... and more easily observable, culture: in addition to Egyptian and Greek influences (found in art, religion, military formations and weapons...), there is an important local (Libyco-berber) contribution. So no, Carthage wasn't Phoenician anymore at one point in my opinion.

Of course - but my main point was minor non-European admixture won't negate ANE, so your point was moot.

I was referring to E1b1b1c1a, in which I have a certain interest, but there are other minor lineages too. Wait, yes. This is just a hypothesis - I just don't think you can dismiss it as you did. I critique your critique.

Evolution of language - of course, by Carthaginian's extinction it had been separated for as much as 1,800 years from Hebrew and Phoenician and Amorite, etc, but that doesn't make it any less Northwest Semitic. Of course there were other influences, but the core would always have been Phoenician and our proposed admixing would have happened early on, anyway - not at the point you're describing.

I think your critique needs some evaluation, particularly in regards to Carthaginian demographics and the nature of Phoenician society.

[Ibericus]

Pure speculation. E1b1b1c1 is stronk in Iberia, Malta and Sicily. Explain.
strong in Iberia ? It's actually very low, and also present in France :

Iberian Peninsula (IP) : 1.17%
France : 1.29%


http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-33-29.png

[Longbowman]

strong in Iberia ? It's actually very low, and also present in France :

Iberian Peninsula (IP) : 1.17%
France : 1.29%


http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-33-29.png

Where is this data from? It's really high in Majorca and Minorca and Galicia and Extremadura.

[Ulla]

Anyway this study supported an older one, Lazaridis et al.

For sure, it's basically the same team. Lazaridis is a sort of co-author of this paper ("Contributed equally to this work").

[Ibericus]

Where is this data from?
It's from the study of Bekada et al.


It's really high in Majorca and Minorca and Galicia and Extremadura.
In Balearic islands could be , but in Galicia ? In Adams et al. it's 0% for Galicia,

[Longbowman]

It's from the study of Bekada et al.


In Balearic islands could be , but in Galicia ? In Adams et al. it's 0% for Galicia,

http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M34

Flores et al, 10%. Significant throughout Iberia.

[Vasconcelos]

There were no Phoenician settlements, colonies or trade posts anywhere near Galicia or Extremadura, though.

[Longbowman]

There were no Phoenician settlements, colonies or trade posts anywhere near Galicia or Extremadura, though.

I know but the clade is Levantine.

Could be some kind of later population transfer or founder effect.

[Damião de Góis]

http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M34

Flores et al, 10%. Significant throughout Iberia.

It's really not "stronk in iberia". The bigger the sample the smaller the percentage. That 10% was out of 19 Galicians:

http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Flores_et_al._%282004%29

Usually other types of E1b are considered:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x3Z7kqIkmhM/TadJtHOtPmI/AAAAAAAAAig/Hefl2Qq90GI/s1600/Iberia+y-dna+-+final+haplogroup+analysis.gif

[Ibericus]

http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-M34

Flores et al, 10%. Significant throughout Iberia.
With a sample size of only 19 people , that's ridiculous . The Adams study has 88 people for Galicia.
And there is a contradiction with your theory, since Phoenician settled mostly in Andalusia, yet Andalusia has 0% in Semino et al, and just 0.6% in Adams et al.

[Longbowman]

With a sample size of only 19 people , that's ridiculous . The Adams study has 88 people for Galicia.
And there is a contradiction with your theory, since Phoenician settled mostly in Andalusia, yet Andalusia has 0% in Semino et al, and just 0.6% in Adams et al.

Fair enough. It remains unexplained then.

[gold_fenix]

There is too teh phenomenon of Reconquista , modern Andalusians today are the descend of Norther Iberian, i am the example of that

[Cristiano viejo]

Fair enough. It remains unexplained then.

We are a mistery, man :noidea:

[Sikeliot]

Another Malta difference to Sicily is Maltese have higher Yamnaya. Sicilians are one of the least Indo-European/Baltic/North European groups in Europe despite being less Near Eastern, apparently, than Malta is.

I'd have liked to see Crete on there. I suspect close to Sicily.

[Black Wolf]

I doubt this ''recent input'' came from just the Phoenicians. There were many other groups originating in the East Med area moving around the Mediterranean during the Bronze and Iron Ages.