MtDna from 2500 year old "Phoenician" in North Africa

[Angela]

Carthage spoke a semitic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_language

They also had an extensive empire including parts of Spain and used lots of Iberian mercenaries so it wouldn't be surprising if the mtdna came from Iberia.

Very true, as my map of the extent of the Carthaginian empire in Spain was meant to show. Obviously, that wasn't meant to stand for the proposition that there was a massive influx of "Phoenician" or "Carthaginian" genes into the people who would become Iberians, merely that some of them could certainly have had children with an Iberian woman, who would have passed on her mtDna to her children.

Could be wrong but I assumed he meant arab-semitic i.e. specific aspects of arab phenotype (if there are any?) that might not have been in the Levant in the Punic era.

The problem arises, I think, when we use linguistic terms to stand for a genetic "signature". Arabs speak a Semitic language, but so did the Phoenicians, and the Jews, for that matter. Are there genetic differences between them? Yes, I'm sure there are, but there is a great deal of overlap, as well, certainly today. On 23andme, for example, Palestinians and perhaps even Jordanians cluster with Saudi Arabians and Egyptians. Was that always the case or is it the result of continuing migration from the direction of Saudi Arabia and East Africa? Where would the Phoenicians have clustered? Would they have clustered with them, or perhaps with the Syrians and southern Anatolians? We won't know until we have ancient autosomal results, although I think perhaps they might have been closer to Syrians.

As to their phenotypes, we do have their own art to look at, but how realistic was it versus copies of Greek art? That's particularly problematic for any of their art produced on Cyprus.

This is a Phoenician sarcophagus:

A painting of a rather fetching young girl:

So, I guess it's take your pick.

Ed. The eyes are rather uniformly large, so the small and close set eyes of the reconstruction don't seem the norm (which one would think they based on the skeleton), unless this was all convention.

 

[Angela]

I think the artist may have been going for a North African look that's relatively unaltered by SSA input, like that of some Kabyles like Zidane.

Or better yet:

I think it all fits: small eyes, extremely long, narrow face, no pronounced jaws, very long and often hooked nose. Who knows if that's what Carthaginians looked like, however.

The last one looks rather Spanish to me.

Ed. Maybe even her:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510UjEozrrL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

[Hauteville]

Since he is Phoenician, we know he cannot be arabic/semetic

He looks to me like a Maltese/Sicilian

Meh...maybe an aytpical one...it's just a reconstruction...his phenotype doesn't seem so common here. Boh, I dunno why you have said he looks immediately Sicilian or Maltese, honestly.

 

[Hauteville]

Phoenicians were Semitic speaking, if I remember well. Genetically, surely a mix between typical Southern Semites (Arabs before SSA crossings) and North Near-Eastern people, a little bit (slightly) more "southern" than the mean of Sicilians.
Because I speak of types, I 'll speak here too of the reconstruction:
made by skillful people, recontrusctions can roughly well restitue the general proportions of bony face, prognathy, nasal bridge, and perhaps, depth of eyes in orbits (spite less sure here). They are 100% inaccurate, so more art than science, when we look at pigmentation, mouth form, lips, eyelids form, fleshy part of nose, and eyebrows and head hair implantation. But a lot of people know that now.

IMO ancient phoenicians were Lebanese or Cypriot-like which is what Phoenicians were.

 

[Angela]

IMO ancient phoenicians were Lebanese or Cypriot-like which is what Phoenicians were.

I agree as to the Lebanese. There were some alterations with population movements, I'm sure, but basically you're going from Canaanites to Phoenicians to Lebanese. Since many of the Lebanese are Christians, I think the changes brought by the Muslim invasions may have had less of an impact on them than on the Jordanians and Palestinians. That may be why Jordanians and Palestinians are grouped with Saudi Arabians on 23andme, and the Lebanese are not. Of course, they're still Levantine. Cypriots have heritage from the Greeks so I think are different, but the Phoenicians did indeed have a big impact there. The latter may partly explain why they cluster apart from Sicilians and even some Greek Islanders.

At any rate, I have my doubts that there was a large, actual, Phoenician genetic flow in certain areas as they spread their trading empire westward. I think it depends very much on the location. They weren't colonizers on the scale of the Greeks, except for Carthage itself and perhaps the area around it, some large settlements in Spain and perhaps a big influence in Cyprus and Sardinia. Certainly in Italy I would think their genetic influence would be minimal given that all they had were two emporia in one corner of Sicily. Even the troops which they led in Italy were mostly Spaniards and some Gauls, and also included my own Ligures.

That's why I find this association of them with Sicily rather odd. A great deal of nonsense is talked about Sicily and southern Italy in general by people on these types of boards, and even by "researchers" who have never been there and know nothing of its people or its history. Using statistics, algorithms, etc. or even pictures chosen who knows how have to be married with archaeology and history and actually being there looking at the people. As for Phoenician phenotypes, we don't really know what the ancient Phoenicians looked like, but if they looked like the modern Lebanese, while certain individuals might indeed overlap, I'd never mistake a crowd of Levantines for a crowd of Sicilians, not even a crowd of Lebanese.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I agree as to the Lebanese. There were some alterations with population movements, I'm sure, but basically you're going from Canaanites to Phoenicians to Lebanese. Since many of the Lebanese are Christians, I think the changes brought by the Muslim invasions may have had less of an impact on them than on the Jordanians and Palestinians. That may be why Jordanians and Palestinians are grouped with Saudi Arabians on 23andme, and the Lebanese are not. Of course, they're still Levantine. Cypriots have heritage from the Greeks so I think are different, but the Phoenicians did indeed have a big impact there. The latter may partly explain why they cluster apart from Sicilians and even some Greek Islanders.

At any rate, I have my doubts that there was a large, actual, Phoenician genetic flow in certain areas as they spread their trading empire westward. I think it depends very much on the location. They weren't colonizers on the scale of the Greeks, except for Carthage itself and perhaps the area around it, some large settlements in Spain and perhaps a big influence in Cyprus and Sardinia. Certainly in Italy I would think their genetic influence would be minimal given that all they had were two emporia in one corner of Sicily. Even the troops which they led in Italy were mostly Spaniards and some Gauls, and also included my own Ligures.

That's why I find this association of them with Sicily rather odd. A great deal of nonsense is talked about Sicily and southern Italy in general by people on these types of boards, and even by "researchers" who have never been there and know nothing of its people or its history. Using statistics, algorithms, etc. or even pictures chosen who knows how have to be married with archaeology and history and actually being there looking at the people. As for Phoenician phenotypes, we don't really know what the ancient Phoenicians looked like, but if they looked like the modern Lebanese, while certain individuals might indeed overlap, I'd never mistake a crowd of Levantines for a crowd of Sicilians, not even a crowd of Lebanese.

I'm not so sure there is much Phoenicians left in Lebanon.
The reason why Carthago was founded is that in Lebanon it was getting to hot under the Phoenicians feet when the Assyrians arrived. That was way before Christianity.

I haven't read the full paper, only the abstract in your 1st post, but I guess that's what it says, mtDNA U5b2c1 isn't found in Lebanon any more. Neither in Tunesia? I guess the Romans did a torough job when they destroyed Cartagho.

I guess the origin of the Phoenicians was the Semitic port of Ugarit which was completely destroyed be the Sea Paoples and never rebuild.
They relocated to the small fishermen villages south of Ugarit, protected by the Lebanon mountains.
They continued their trade relations with Cyprus where they got competition from what would become the classical Greeks. I guess that's why they didn't found many colonies (except near the copper and gold of Tartessos near present day Cadiz) untill the Assyrians approached.

By the way, 500 BC, who says this U5b2c1 is Phoenician? By that time, the Assyrians who had ousted the Phoenicians were allready ousted themselves by the Persians.
Maybe I should read the paper in detail anyway..

 

[Maleth]

Everything said the fact remains that J-M172 is a common factor in many areas in Central asia, near east (including Lebanon Syria Turkey, Iraq and Iran all over 20%) South of Europe as in Greece, Albania, Parts of Italy, Malta and Crete (all at 20% or over) (Cyprus only 13%) (not so much it seems in Iberia). Especially high in North Caucasus (88% with the Inguish). Tunisia where Carthage was founded only has some 8% and compares well with other countries in the region also dominated by E-M81 which is a typical North Africa marker. It seems more then likely that its diffusion is not through Phoenician expansion. In reality I don't believe there is anything to distinguish between a Phoenician marker and Greek Marker (or is there?) as they share the same haplotype in this regard. How much was expanded by the Phonetician as to the Greeks? difficult to say unless the further subclades give good indications of different more specified origins. Many of the diffusions could have been done prior to the rise of both civilizations. I am not literate in Mtdna as that can help draw up some kind of picture too no doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#J-M172

PS E-V13 in this regard is a much clearer greek (Balkan) expansion indicator as its much more euro (balkan) centred haplogroup and not found in any great numbers outside of Europe where J-M172 is very high percentage wise

 

[Hauteville]

Mah, I don't believe modern Lebanese are so much different autosomally from ancient Punic honestly.

 

[Maleth]

Mah, I don't believe modern Lebanese are so much different autosomally from ancient Punic honestly.

I think Punics could have evolved into something to their own autosmally through absorbing a good chunk of Berber (E-M81) dna. Lebanon could be more authentic in relation to an original Phoenician mix of haplos which would be pre Phoenician (Canaanite mix), apart from the absorption of a few percentages more (4%?) of R1b and J1 as a result of the religious wars.

 

[Hauteville]

I think Punics could have evolved into something to their own autosmally through absorbing a good chunk of Berber (E-M81) dna. Lebanon could be more authentic in relation to an original Phoenician mix of haplos which would be pre Phoenician (Canaanite mix), apart from the absorption of a few percentages more (4%?) of R1b and J1 as a result of the religious wars.

Autosomal results of original Phoenician in comparison to a Phoenician diaspora of Carthage or other zones of Mediterranean would be even more interesting imo.

 

[Hauteville]

I guess the Romans did a torough job when they destroyed Cartagho.

Yes, Romans played an ethnic cleansing against inhabitans of Carthage when they conquered the city. It seems that there were only 50.000 survivors and they were enslaved and sold all over the Mediterranean. At least this is what the classical sources have said.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battaglia_di_Cartagine_(146_a.C.)#La_caduta

 

[Angela]

Maybe in this case the reports are closer to the truth, although some may have survived. The Romans became obsessed with eradicating them and their empire. They supposedly even sowed the fields with salt, although a new settlement did arise not that far away.

You can see the obsession in Cato the Elder. Supposedly, after every single piece of legislative business in the Senate, even something about fixing a particular waterworks, he would finish with "Carthago delenda est" or "Carthage Must Be Destroyed". (My husband, a Classics minor at university, thought it was funny and would use it as a tag line every time some modern politician would beat the same drum over and over again about some other country.)

This is supposedly him. He absolutely doesn't look like someone you'd want for an enemy. His face would frighten children out of their wits. No Greek "idealization" there! Maybe if the Ligures had gotten a look at his face they would have thought better of allying themselves with Hannibal.

Speaking of Carthage... One of the books on my stack of things to be read is The Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworthy. It's gotten good reviews. I do mean to read it. The conflict between Rome and Carthage was one of the major turning points of history, and the Barcas were an extraordinary family.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Fall_of_Carthage.html?id=jM1sFXcAPvAC

 

[bicicleur 2]

Hannibal had political opponents in Carthago.
Hannibal was awaiting reinforcements while he was roaming through Italy with his army.
But they never came.
His faith was sealed in Carthago, not in Rome.

I don't remember where I read this though.

 

[Angela]

Hannibal had political opponents in Carthago.
Hannibal was awaiting reinforcements while he was roaming through Italy with his army.
But they never came.
His faith was sealed in Carthago, not in Rome.

I don't remember where I read this though.

If I ever get to that bit in the book, I'll let you know Goldworthy's take on it. I certainly remember that he faced opposition at home. (Well, not literally! I remember reading that. ) Hannibal was a remarkable man, no doubt. Also, politics at home has done in many a brilliant military commander.