Reconstruction of 2,500 year old Carthaginian

Racial Reality points me to this reconstruction. From the related story:

An anthropological study of the skeleton showed that the man died between the age of 19 and 24, had a pretty robust physique and was 1.7 metres (five feet six inches) tall, according to a description by Jean Paul Morel, director of the French archaeological team at Carthage Byrsa.

...

"We can clearly see that this exceptional witness to Carthage in the Punic era is a Mediterranean man, he has all the characteristics," noted Sihem Roudesli, a paleo-anthropologist at the Tunisian National Heritage Institute.

No infant sacrifice in Carthage (?)

It's not clear to me how Carthaginians disposed of sacrificial victims, so I'd say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think it's unlikely that the occurrence of child sacrifice may have been "inflated" by hostile observers, but Diodorus Siculus gives a very specific description of what took place there, which I think is unlikely to have been pure invention.

14 Therefore the Carthaginians, believing that the misfortune had come to them from the gods, betook themselves to every manner of supplication of the divine powers; and, because they believed that Heracles, who was worshipped in their mother city,29 was exceedingly angry with them, they sent a large sum of money and many of the most expensive offerings to Tyre. 2 Since they had come as colonists from that city, it had been their custom in the earlier p179period to send to the god a tenth of all that was paid into the public revenue; but later, when they had acquired great wealth and were receiving more considerable revenues, they sent very little indeed, holding the divinity of little account. But turning to repentance because of this misfortune, they bethought them of all the gods of Tyre. 3 They even sent from their temples in supplication the golden shrines with their images,30 believing that they would better appease the wrath of the god if the offerings were sent for the sake of winning forgiveness. 4 They also alleged that Cronus31 had turned against them inasmuch as in former times they had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying and nurturing children, they had sent these to the sacrifice; and when an investigation was made, some of those who had been sacrificed were discovered to have been supposititious. 5 When they had given thought to these things and saw their enemy encamped before their walls, they were filled with superstitious dread, for they believed that they had neglected the honours of the gods that had been established by their fathers. In their zeal to make amends for their omission, they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly; and others who were under suspicion sacrificed themselves voluntarily, in number not less than three hundred. 6 There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed p181thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.

Rogue Classicist also has reservations about the way the story is presented in the media.

PLoS ONE doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009177

Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants


Jeffrey H. Schwartz et al.

Abstract

Two types of cemeteries occur at Punic Carthage and other Carthaginian settlements: one centrally situated housing the remains of older children through adults, and another at the periphery of the settlement (the “Tophet”) yielding small urns containing the cremated skeletal remains of very young animals and humans, sometimes comingled. Although the absence of the youngest humans at the primary cemeteries is unusual and worthy of discussion, debate has focused on the significance of Tophets, especially at Carthage, as burial grounds for the young. One interpretation, based on two supposed eye-witness reports of large-scale Carthaginian infant sacrifice [Kleitarchos (3rd c. BCE) and Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE)], a particular translation of inscriptions on some burial monuments, and the argument that if the animals had been sacrificed so too were the humans, is that Tophets represent burial grounds reserved for sacrificial victims. An alternative hypothesis acknowledges that while the Carthaginians may have occasionally sacrificed humans, as did their contemporaries, the extreme youth of Tophet individuals suggests these cemeteries were not only for the sacrificed, but also for the very young, however they died. Here we present the first rigorous analysis of the largest sample of cremated human skeletal remains (348 burial urns, N = 540 individuals) from the Carthaginian Tophet based on tooth formation, enamel histology, cranial and postcranial metrics, and the potential effects of heat-induced bone shrinkage. Most of the sample fell within the period prenatal to 5-to-6 postnatal months, with a significant presence of prenates. Rather than indicating sacrifice as the agent of death, this age distribution is consistent with modern-day data on perinatal mortality, which at Carthage would also have been exacerbated by numerous diseases common in other major cities, such as Rome and Pompeii. Our diverse approaches to analyzing the cremated human remains from Carthage strongly support the conclusion that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.

Link

More on Lebanese Phoenicians or mixing Science and Politics

The BBC has a story on Divided Lebanon's common genes.

Dr Zalloua says in Lebanon the Phoenician signature is distributed equally among different groups and that the overall genetic make-up of the Lebanese is proving to be similar across various backgrounds.

"Whether you take a Christian village in the north of Lebanon or a Muslim village in the south, the DNA make-up of its residents is likely to be identical," says Dr Zalloua.

But, from another older BBC story referring to the actual study:

The team analysed the Y chromosomes of 926 Lebanese males and found that patterns of male genetic variation in Lebanon fell more along religious lines than along geographical lines.

and from the study itself:

In the present study, 926 Lebanese men were typed with Y-chromosomal SNP and STR markers, and unusually, male genetic variation within Lebanon was found to be more strongly structured by religious affiliation than by geography.We therefore tested the hypothesis that migrations within historical times could have contributed to this situation. Y-haplogroup J*(xJ2) was more frequent in the putative Muslim source region (the Arabian Peninsula) than in Lebanon, and it was also more frequent in Lebanese Muslims than in Lebanese non-Muslims. Conversely, haplogroup R1b was more frequent in the putative Christian source region (western Europe) than in Lebanon and was also more frequent in Lebanese Christians than in Lebanese non-
Christians.

If a Christian village and a Muslim village are likely to have "identical" DNA makeup, then why is genetic variation strongly structured by religious affiliation and not by geography?

Since contradictions don't exist in nature, the explanation is simple: in the published scientific article, which had to go through peer-review, someone could not claim that there are no differences between Christian and Muslim Lebanese. But, to the polloi of Lebanon, it is apparently alright to sell a vision of national unity and identity.

I don't know what % of modern Lebanese are descended from Phoenicians, but I detest the idea of mixing science with politics.

More on the topic of "Lebanese Phoenicians":

1. Muslim and Christian Lebanese or Hasty Conclusions in Human Population Genetics
2. Christian and Muslim Lebanese do differ from each other after all
3. "Phoenician" Y-chromosomes

"Phoenician" Y-chromosomes

It has been several years since the inception of the Genographic project, and to say that the quantity and quality of the work produced by it is underwhelming would be charitable.

The newest bit of Genographic wisdom is that haplogroup J2 in the Mediterranean is associated not with the Neolithic, Greek, or other population movements, but with the sea-faring Phoenicians. They achieve this feat by (allegedly) comparing areas of Phoenician with those of no (or low) such influence.

I have intentionally limited myself to five major weak points of the study: to cover more would be too time-consuming and unnecessary.



1. The Hellenistic age did not happen

A central assumption of this work is that the conquest and occupation of the Middle East by Alexander the Great does not count as Greek influence, despite centuries of Greek domination that followed, both during Hellenistic, and later in Roman times.

The authors write that their method could be further used to:

include systematic investigations of military expansions, such as the Greek signal, from the time of Alexander the Great in central and south Asia

Apparently they didn't think of applying it to West Asia itself, which was also conquered by Alexander the Great, and in which the Greek-speaking element persisted far longer than in "south Asia".

Thus, the population of Phoenicia and its "periphery" is implicitly assumed to be free of Greek influence. That is a bizarre contention, given that Greek was spoken in "Phoenicia" long after the Phoenician language became extinct.

2. Crete was influenced by the Phoenicians

This totally unsupported claim is necessary for the authors' thesis, since Crete has the world maximum of haplogroup J2. I have no doubt that Phoenicians traded with Cretans, just as Cretans traded with Phoenicians. But, that is no excuse to think of Crete as an area of Phoenician influence.

Indeed, settlement of the Levant by Aegean peoples is archaeologically supported, while Phoenician settlement of Crete is not.

But, speaking of Phoenician settlement, the only area of Greece where such settlement is believed to have taken place is in mainland Greece, in Thebes, where Cadmus and his Phoenicians founded Cadmeis. I doubt that this had any substantial effect, but if the authors wanted to be intellectually honest, they would list this as an area of Phoenician influence, rather than Crete.

3. West Asia Minor (or the Pontus) was not colonized by Greeks

The most laughable claim of the authors (see map) is the absence of blue (Greek) dots on West Asia Minor, and the Pontus (Northeast Turkey). Apparently the Greek colonies of the far West (such as Marseilles) count as areas of Greek influence, while the countless Greek cities on the Asian side of the Aegean, or in northeast Turkey do not.

The motivation of this is obvious, since Asia Minor is a J2-heavy area and asserting the Greek influence there would upset the paper's thesis. But, it is absurd to place blue dots in Paphlagonia and Caria and not in Ionia or the Pontus.

4. Modern Lebanese are descendants of Phoenicians

This central assumption of the paper has no actual support, except for a vague geographical congruence. Modern Lebanese are a hybrid people, divided into Christians and Muslims. Both are Arabs, with Muslims being more influenced by the original Arabians, and Christians more influenced by the pre-Arab (Greco-Syrian) and post-Arab (West European) migrations. Perhaps, there is a trace of Phoenician genes in them, but this is really not a self-evident claim.

5. R1b in Greece and Turkey is due to the Celts

R1b in Greece and Turkey belongs primarily into the "eastern" variety, and not the "western" variety. It is in Italy and north of Greece where the two varieties begin to blend with each other. No care to distinguish between these varieties is taken.

Certainly, some R1b in this region may be due to Western Europeans (e.g. from the period of the Frankokratia), but to assign its totality to this factor is nonsensical. Apparently, the geniuses of the Genographic project have decreed that the brief foray of the Celts into Greece introduced massive amounts of R1b, but a thousand years of Greco-Roman domination of the Levant did nothing of the kind.

6 (bonus). Haplogroup J2 is more frequent in East than in West Sicily

Sicily is an island which had well-documented and not insignificant settlements by both Greeks and Phoenicians. Moreover, these settlements were geographically divided: Greeks in the East, Phoenicians in the West. It is in the East that J2 has its highest frequency, and not in the Phoenician West.

Conclusion

Is there anything of value in this paper? Well, it's a good idea to try to correlate Y-chromosome distribution with historical rather than pre-historical events. Too bad the authors botched the job, but their paper can at least serve as a reference point for how not to go about doing it.

UPDATE: Take a look at the "haplotype groups" suggested by the authors as signals of Phoenician and Greek colonization.



Not only are haplotype groups not clades (they do not designate common ancestry), but 7-marker haplotypes don't even designate anything that can be remotely tied to the time period in question, given the huge confidence intervals associated with even larger numbers of markers. Feel free to plug these haplotypes to yhrd or ysearch to find plenty of long-lost "Phoenicians" all over the planet.

UPDATE II: The "evolutionary" mutation rate rears its ugly head

From the paper:

Because there is a significant chance that a haplotype existing 3000 years ago has accumulated a one-step difference in an STR (we expect 0.6 mutations per seven-STR haplotype when a rate of 6.9x10-4 per locus per 25 yr is used), these one-step neighbors have been included in each set, producing what we have labeled STR+s. STR-s can contain both haplotypes deriving from mutations, which should have been included, and independent haplotypes unconnected with the migrations that we are trying to detect.

UPDDATE III: What of the Arabs?

The modern Lebanese are Arabs, as are most modern North Africans where Phoenician colonies were founded. The Arabs also affected several Mediterranean islands, as well as Iberia. One would think that the most salient feature of modern Mediterranean populations would be mentioned in a paper which attempted to trace patterns of Y-chromosome variation in the Mediterranean.

Certainly, the Neolithic, Greek, and Phoenician migrations, as well as the Jewish Diaspora moved people around. But the Phoenicians have been extinct for 2,000 years. The Jews had (and have) communities around the Mediterranean, but did not amount to a significant population element anywhere. It is the Arabs who are the elephant in the room, and yet they are ignored. Are similarities between the Levant, North Africa and Spain due to Phoenicians or due to this later Arab movement? By failing to trace the distribution of their "Phoenician colonization signals" among Arabians, the authors have overstated their case.


American Journal of Human Genetics doi: :10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.10.012

Identifying Genetic Traces of Historical Expansions: Phoenician Footprints in the Mediterranean

Pierre A. Zalloua et al.

Abstract

The Phoenicians were the dominant traders in the Mediterranean Sea two thousand to three thousand years ago and expanded from their homeland in the Levant to establish colonies and trading posts throughout the Mediterranean, but then they disappeared from history. We wished to identify their male genetic traces in modern populations. Therefore, we chose Phoenician-influenced sites on the basis of well-documented historical records and collected new Y-chromosomal data from 1330 men from six such sites, as well as comparative data from the literature. We then developed an analytical strategy to distinguish between lineages specifically associated with the Phoenicians and those spread by geographically similar but historically distinct events, such as the Neolithic, Greek, and Jewish expansions. This involved comparing historically documented Phoenician sites with neighboring non-Phoenician sites for the identification of weak but systematic signatures shared by the Phoenician sites that could not readily be explained by chance or by other expansions. From these comparisons, we found that haplogroup J2, in general, and six Y-STR haplotypes, in particular, exhibited a Phoenician signature that contributed > 6% to the modern Phoenician-influenced populations examined. Our methodology can be applied to any historically documented expansion in which contact and noncontact sites can be identified.

Link

Muslim and Christian Lebanese or Hasty Conclusions in Human Population Genetics

On my post on Genetic Palimpsests, I argued that genetic interpretations about historical events are often suspect when done with very old markers:

Often, this historical reasoning can be shaky. For example, Spencer Wells has made tall claims about the Phoenicians, the Sea Peoples, and the Carthaginians in a National Geographic article which were based on the analysis of haplogroup J and E distribution in the Levant and North Africa.

The reason for this is the following. Suppose a marker is very old, much older than the historical phenomenon under study. In the case of the above-mentioned documentary, the ages of the markers used were about 7 times greater than either the appearance of the Sea Peoples or the Carthaginians. Thus, if we observe similarity between two populations based on such old markers, we cannot conclude that they have a common recent historical origin. This is why Spencer Wells' inspired study on The Phoenicians was wrong when it claimed:

The tests could confirm that men of Tyre-Christians and Muslims alike--are related to the ancient traders. Wells and Zalloua also took samples in other parts of the Phoenician world, where results may reveal the same lineage in areas of former colonies like Sardinia and Malta.

...

During the bloody civil war of the 1970s and 1980s, some groups used the name Phoenician as an ideological weapon. Certain Maronites, the dominant Christian sect in Lebanon, claimed a direct ancestry from the Phoenicians, implying that they held a more legitimate historical claim on Lebanon than later immigrants from the Arabian Peninsula. This inflamed many Muslims. The term Phoenician had turned into a code word for Christian rather than Muslim.

...

Could genetics show that modern Lebanese, both Christians and Muslims, share the same Phoenician heritage? That's one question this project, funded by the National Geographic Society, hopes to resolve.

...

That result delights Zalloua; it supports his belief that both Muslim and Christian Lebanese populations share an ancient genetic heritage.

"Maybe now we can finally put some of our internal struggles to rest," he says.

It is clear from this article that the two possible outcomes of the study were not treated equally: the idea that Muslims and Christians are alike "delights", while the idea that they are not is demonized as contributing to sectarian violence and civil war in Lebanon.

Science should be about the facts, not about wishful thinking. The science of population genetics does have the potential to be used for political reasons, but that is no excuse for drawing unsubstantiated conclusions based on what is politically useful.

The results of the National Geographic study were never published in a peer reviewed journal, so they did not undergo the normal process of scientific scrutiny. However, it is clear why the results were not sufficient: the markers used were ancient. One cannot conclude a recent origin of two populations sharing a common ancient marker, because differences can be revealed when other, more recent, markers are used.

Indeed, in a different study (pdf) which studied more derived markers, the difference between Christian and Muslim Lebanese was made apparent:

The PC plot suggested the presence of four main groups (Fig. 3a): 1) North Africa, Figure 2 Genealogical relationships of the selected UEPs. Nomenclature as suggested by YCC (2002). 2) Near East/Arabs (including Muslim Lebanese and Ashkenazi Jews), 3) Central-East Mediterranean grouping, including Christian Lebanese and 4)West Mediterranean.

What is the reason for these conclusions? The most striking difference between the Christian and Muslim Lebanese is within haplogroup J, i.e., the haplogroup supposed to reflect their common heritage. Muslims have 56.4% of J, while Christians have 44.2%, but this is distributed 30.8%/25.6% among haplogroups J*(xJ2) and J2 in Muslims and 9.3%/34.9% among Christians. It is the high frequency of J*(x2) which indicates the substantial Arab ancestry among the Muslims compared to the Christians. So, indeed Christians appear to descend more from the pre-Arab populations of Lebanon, and presumably the Phoenicians, compared to the Muslims who are more similar to other Arabs.

The literature is full of similar hasty conclusions. The Cohen Modal Haplotype debacle is another case in point. In this case, a simple 6-locus STR haplotype in a YAP- background was taken to be indicative of Aaronic biblical ancestry, a conclusion which did not withstand further scrutiny. At present, 10 years after the Y-DNA Aaron proposition made its appearance, no evidence in support of this theory has been presented; customers of genetic testing companies dabbling in "Jewish ancestry" are expectedly at a loss.

Similarly, haplogroup R1a1 has been proposed as indicative of Viking, Slavic, Kurgan, Ukranian Paleolithic, Indo-Aryan, etc. expansions although very little is known about its phylogeny since the Upper Paleolithic.

Of course R1a1 may have hidden phylogenetic structure that could be linked to the various proposed population expansions, and Aaron's Y chromosome may have been inherited by some bearers of the CMH. But the case needs to be made.

More evidence for the origin of the Etruscans

The recent articles on Etruscan origins argue in favor of the non-indigenous theory of Etruscan origins.

In the same light, I was looking at the other recent paper on Y chromosome variation in Italy, and I was struck by the elevated frequency (7%) of J*(xJ2) in Central Tuscany. J*(xJ2) occurs at higher frequencies in the Near East than in Europe. For example, in Cinnioglu's study of Anatolian Y chromosomes it occurred at a frequency of around 9%, while the frequency in Greece (pdf) is 2%.

The fact that J*(xJ2) reaches its Italian maximum in Central Tuscany, approaching the Anatolian figure, and being higher than that of Greece is consistent with the emerging consensus. Let's hope that Y chromosome analysis of Etruscan remains will be feasible to directly test for the presence of J*(xJ2) in them.

PS: Interestingly, Sicily and Cyprus also show an elevated frequency of J*(xJ2) (pdf). The Phoenician presence or other historical events could explain this, but as far as I know (?) there is no documented substantial presence of Phoenicians in Tuscany, making the alternative Anatolian origin more likely.

On Genetic Palimpsests

Most of the genetic markers used in human phylogeographic studies have been dated to the prehistoric period, and the majority of them are of Upper Paleolithic origin.

Lately, subclades identified within some human lineages on the Y-chromosome have crossed the Neolithic barrier, and in even rarer cases, "signatures" of historical events, such as the dominance of the Mongols, the Manchu, or the Ui Neill.

As a result, most markers are suitable for examining events of human prehistory, and not of historical ethnic groups.

Of course, scientists have tried to apply genetic information to historical processes, e.g., in the case of Jewish origins, but it turns out that the "Jewish gene" or Cohen Modal Haplotype actually turns out to to be much older and not particularly Jewish after all.

Even with old markers, it is still possible to reason about historical events. For example, the theories of white nationalist Arthur Kemp about the widespread prevalence of black African slavery in the classical world have been squarely defeated by the near-complete absence of Sub-Saharan African markers in the Italian and Balkan peninsulas. Similar theories propagated by Gustav Kossina and the Aryan-Nordic camp about the Northern European origin of the Indo-Europeans of India have similarly been defeated, since Indians completely lack haplogroup I chromosomes that are frequent in European Nordic populations.

So, even though the markers in question are very old (I is of Upper Paleolithic age), we can still reason historically with them.

Often, this historical reasoning can be shaky. For example, Spencer Wells has made tall claims about the Phoenicians, the Sea Peoples, and the Carthaginians in a National Geographic article which were based on the analysis of haplogroup J and E distribution in the Levant and North Africa.

For example, he found that there was little impact of Phoenicians on Carthage, but his conclusions are based on the paucity of haplogroup J in modern North African populations, who are a much broader-group than the socially and geographically constrained group of the ancient Carthaginians. Similar claims were made regarding the non-impact of the Sea Peoples in the Levant, but again, this is based on the similarity between coastal and non-coastal populations.
But, for all we know subdivisions of haplogroup J and other Near Eastern markers may differ between coastal and non-coastal populations, or perhaps, the Sea Peoples did initially affect the coastal peoples, but later their genes diffused into non-coastal populations, removing the distinctiveness of the two.

Let us take a further example of Sicily. The island of Sicily was colonized initially by farmers, and later by Greeks and Phoenicians. All three groups are believed to have contained some "Neolithic" markers, such as haplogroups J, E3b, and G, so any inferences about the relative contributions of the three groups are on very shaky ground.

For example, Semino et al. proposed that only 7% of Calabrian Y-chromosomes are of Greek with the assumption that J2a and E3b represent Anatolian and Greek lineages respectively. But, the frequency of E3b in modern Peloponnesians is not necessarily representative of its frequency in the very specific ancient city states and medieval Greek populations that colonized Southern Italy, and J2a may have arrived in Calabria either from Anatolia, e.g., during the Neolithic, or from Greece, during the age of colonization.

Things become even more complex when we turn to the Balkans or to Anatolia. For example, I playfully recounted some random facts about Phrygo-Armenians, but these hardly scratch the surface of the problem. Hittites, themselves either native or intrusive, were unseated by Phrygians, who were conquered by Persians, who were conquered by Macedonian Greeks, who were conquered by Romans, who were conquered by Turks. Not to mention the Galatians of Ancyra, or the ubuiquitous Armenians of the Byzantine Empire, or even the Jews of both the ancient and more recent origin, and of course the Turks themselves as well as imported Muslims from former provinces or vassals of the Ottoman Empire. And, of course, we should not forget that present-day Anatolians are only a subset of very recent Anatolians, several million of who were liquidated or deported following World War I.

These remarks underscore the near hopelessness of untangling historical patterns on the basis of phylogeography. Is there a way out?

Part of the solution will consist of performing huge studies with large sample sizes and very recently derived genetic markers, augmented by separate genome-wide autosomal clustering methods that may unmask latent genetic components that may be correlated with historical groups. Such studies will be very costly, even though the price of DNA testing is likely to go down, because ultimately the hard work of sample collection has to be done and paid for.

The ultimate solution, would be some significant progress in ancient DNA extraction. At present, mtDNA is the only game in town, and inferences from mtDNA are always up for grabs, due to the potential for contamination, uncertainties about selection, and of course the simple fact that ancient civilizations were largely patriarchal.

An even more exciting development would be the discovery -in modern human populations- of the genetics underlying common human variation in metric and morphological traits. Then, by examing ancient skeletal remains, we will be able to estimate the genetic identity of populations even if DNA cannot be directly observed.

The technical challenges are enormous, but -in my opinion- are not the main challenges at all. As hinted in Genetic vs. Mythical Origins, the study of the past forces us to question our ideas of descent and ethnicity. In the end, will it lead to an erosion of ethnic identity, or to its reinforcement along genetic and hence "objective" lines?

Y chromosome perspective on Mediterranean populations

Capelli et al. have written an important new article on Y-chromosomal variation in the Mediterranean basin. This is the most comprehensive study yet on the region, using a combination of biallelic polymorphisms defining haplogroups and microsatellites over several Mediterranean populations, including many population samples taken from the literature. Moreover, mtDNA and autosomal data are also included, and these tend to support the authors' broad findings.

The key finding is that Mediterranean populations can be grouped into four main clusters: North Africa, Arab, Central-East, and West Mediterranean. The North African cluster exhibits high frequencies of North African specific haplotypes within haplogroup E3b. The Arab cluster exhibits high frequencies of J*(xJ2), which is rarer elsewhere.

According to the authors, there has been very little gene flow from North Africa into Europe. Moreover, Near Eastern populations should not be considered a unity, but are differentiated depending on the extent of Arab admixture exemplified by J*(xJ2) chromosomes. Modern Near Easterners are thus not representative of the early Neolithic people who migrated into Europe. J*(xJ2) chromosomes associated with Arabs are also present in North Africans, but North Africans have maintained their own Y-chromosomal peculiarities, typified by haplogroup E3b haplotypes.

It is unfortunate that a mainland Greek sample was not included, but to make up for it, there is a Cypriot sample, in addition to three Sicilian samples. These populations which are largely of Greek origin are very similar to Greeks in general, and belong to the Central-East cluster. Their inclusion also allow us to test my previously expressed hypothesis that haplogroup R1a1 was rare in ancient Greek populations. Indeed, this haplogroup is found at a frequency of 1.8-3.1% in Sicilians, Cypriots and Southern Italians, thus essentially confirming my idea. On the other hand, haplogroup I*(xI1b2) is found at frequencies from 3.4-15.7%, and is thus (as I have said before), much more likely to have been present in the ancient Greek population.

The study also examines briefly the origins of the Jews. Sephardic Jews are shown to resemble Mediterraneans more, while Ashkenazi resemble Arabs more.

The table of frequencies also allows us to ascertain the prevalence of Negroid admixture in Sicily, a popular subject in certain circles, and one which is shown to be without any basis in fact. In 212 Sicilians in total, no haplogroup A, E3a, or E*(xE3a,E3b) chromosomes were detected. Two haplogroup A chromosomes were detected in Cyprus, one in Sardinia, and two E3a, E*(xE3b, E3a) chromosomes in Malta. This is about the extent of male Sub-Saharan African introgression in the Mediterranean: 5 out of 656.

From the conclusions:

The significant genetic structuring of populations facing the Mediterranean basin into three groupings, Near Eastern Arab, Mediterranean and North African, is related to the demographic processes that have occurred since first populating the area. The distribution of Neolithic technologies was probably paralleled by demographic expansion in the Mediterranean basin, and subsequent westward migration by Phoenicians and Greeks contributed to the distribution of Y chromosome types of most likely Near East origin. The Arab conquest in particular appears to have had a dramatic influence on the East and South Mediterranean coasts, with differential sex-related gene flow playing a major role in the distribution of genetic variation. The presence of Arab Y chromosome lineages in the Middle East suggests that most have experienced substantial gene flow from the Arabian peninsula. This result raises the issue of the correctness of identifying all Near Eastern populations as reliable representations of the original Neolithic groups that expanded from the Middle East towards the European peninsula.

Annals of Human Genetics (online early)

Population Structure in the Mediterranean Basin: A Y Chromosome Perspective

C. Capelli et al.

Abstract

The Mediterranean region has been characterised by a number of pre-historical and historical demographic events whose legacy on the current genetic landscape is still a matter of debate. In order to investigate the degree of population structure across the Mediterranean, we have investigated Y chromosome variation in a large dataset of Mediterranean populations, 11 of which are first described here. Our analyses identify four main clusters in the Mediterranean that can be labelled as North Africa, Arab, Central-East and West Mediterranean. In particular, Near Eastern samples tend to separate according to the presence of Arab Y chromosome lineages, suggesting that the Arab expansion played a major role in shaping the current genetic structuring within the Fertile Crescent.

Link

Genographic project video presentation

can be found here. Some extra information plus a Q&A session near the end.

It is interesting that all six people (whose results were revealed during the presentation) loved what they heard. The African discovered that he belonged to haplogroup B which was frequent in his hunter-gather people from Tanzania; the Mongolian discovered that he belonged to haplogroup C3 and was a descendant of Genghis Khan to boot; the Native American discovered that he belonged to haplogroup Q, which is the main Native American lineage and he was descended from Siberian mammoth hunters of the Ice Age. The three Europeans got something interesting to think about too: one was a Western European R1b concordant with his English ancestry (the same as Dr. Wells), the second one was descended from the important Inventors of Agriculture, and the third one's ancestor was a Kurgan horse-rider and alleged Proto-Indo-European.

It would be much more realistic to show some unexpected results, e.g., a Native American who was descended from a European, or a European who was descended from an African. What goes through the mind of a black man when he is told that his forefather was white? What happens to a would-be-jihadi when he is told that he is carrying Crusader DNA? What are the consequences when a people who think that they are descended from Alexander the Great are told that they are actually not? (or these people, for that matter) Perhaps, they will console themselves with some educational programs.

Will the Genographic project concentrate only on "success" stories, such as the alleged descent of the modern Lebanese from the Phoenicians, or the Lemba from ancient Israelites? Or, will we learn some more sobering facts too, say the potential discovery of a few erectus sequences hidden in the 100,000 soon-to-be-gathered samples?