Phoenician DNA and Misleading Media Headlines
By Owain Williams
As you have probably heard or seen on the internet, a recent study has just been published on the DNA of people from various Phoenician sites throughout the Mediterranean. The study initially screened the remains of nearly 400 people from fourteen sites across the Mediterranean, of which 210 met the minimal standards for aDNA authenticity, with only 157 of these having high enough quality data and a verifiable archaeological context for study. These 157 samples all date from ca. 600–150 BC. The results of this study suggest that “the people from Punic sites in the central and western Mediterranean shared recent common ancestry with populations from Sicily and the Aegean, with additional recent admixture with North African populations” (p. 2), with Levantine genetic material being a minority. The study also revealed that 31 pairs of the 157 samples shared an ancestor within the previous 20 generations, with some living in the same region having close enough DNA to have been from the same immediate family, with their parents being half-siblings or having uncle-niece relationships, suggesting a great deal of mobility within the central and western Mediterranean.
The results of this study, despite seemingly dramatic, are not actually that surprising. It has long been recognized that the Phoenicians lived alongside and even within local communities across the central and western Mediterranean. In North Africa, for example, Phoenician colonies were called Libyphoenician precisely because of the presence of Libyans within them (see, for example, Polybius, 3.33; Strabo, 17.3.19). Meanwhile, at Gadir, ancient Cadíz, previous genetic studies, such as on the remains of a man killed in a fire in ca. 600–550 BC called Mattan by archaeologists, have revealed markers of Iberian DNA among what is, effectively, a Phoenician population. Selinous, the westernmost Greek colony on Sicily, founded sometime in the second half of the seventh century BC, appears to have had a close relationship with nearby Phoenician sites, with a significant Phoenician influence present in their local cults, even supporting Carthage at the Battle of Himera in 480 BC (Diodorus, 11.21, 13.55). Indeed, the study suggests that such interactions were the way which such DNA patterns were achieved:
“One possibility is that Aegean-like ancestry originated from early interactions of Phoenicians in Sicily with indigenous Sicilian populations harbouring such ancestry derived from earlier Bronze Age gene flow. Another possible source could be interactions between Punic people and Greek colonies established in the central Mediterranean and eastern North Africa (Cyrenaica) since the eighth century BCE. The proximity of Phoenician–Punic settlements in Sicily to some of these Greek colonies, such as Himera and Selinunte, would have provided further opportunities for gene flow” (p. 8)
What the study is not claiming is that the initial appearance of Phoenicians and Levantines in the central and western Mediterranean was the result of Aegean and Sicilian impulses.
Unfortunately, this is the approach that many media reports on this study – like that of the New York Times – have taken, doing away with any nuance, instead opting for the sensationalist approach, claiming that Phoenician settlements throughout the central and western Mediterranean were, in essence, Greek. Carolina López-Ruiz, a Professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School and Department of Classics and recognized expert on the Phoenicians, said that:
“Not only is this reading misleading because the current data is itself subject to multiple interpretive options (for instance, Greeks, Phoenicians, and locals interacted for centuries in Sicily prior to the generations represented in this study, and the lack of inhumated bones from the earlier Iron Age in the Levant and anywhere in the western Mediterranean creates a gap in precisely the period of the initial migration); most importantly, the popular ‘headline’ that highlights Greek ancestry over Levantine is assuming a one-to-one pairing of genetic material and culture that is as problematic for Greeks as for Phoenicians; moreover, it peddles Hellenocentric views of primacy that continue to do little justice to the Phoenicians' culture and their legacy in the Mediterranean.”
The study even notes that their results cannot determine anything from before 600 BC, as prior to this, the preferred method of burial was cremation. They even emphasize that their results pertain to “shared recent common ancestry” (p. 2). Consequently, such popular headlines actually misrepresent the conclusions of the study, something we discussed with Anna Källén on the Ancient History Podcast earlier this year.
The study of ancient DNA is a powerful tool for archaeologists and historians; however, it is also a delicate tool, one that is easy to misinterpret. It is important to remember the limitations of such studies. Simply due to the nature of remains from antiquity, sample sizes are very small. This study, for example, utilized over 150 samples, which may seem like a lot, but is insignificant compared to the population of the region from ca. 600–150 BC, especially when we consider that the samples were collected from a range of sites. Additionally, DNA can only tell us so much about an ancient person’s identity. While it can tell us their genetic ancestry, it does not tell us anything about their social identity. According to Carolina López-Ruiz, “Genetics do not make culture, and are not even the main ingredient of social and ethnic identity.” Instead, for people in antiquity, social and ethnic identity were marked by language, clothing, and religious practices, among other things. The people whose remains were the subject of this study would likely have identified with some form of Phoenician culture, whether that be Carthaginian or a local identity, when they were alive.
1 comment
One cannot discount that some were undoubtedly slaves or offspring of slaves. There were many inter-city wars in Sicily. The Greeks also invaded as did the Romans and Carthaginians all in aid of one alliance or another.