Share this
Blurb: The 2025 Max Planck study reveals Punic people were far more genetically diverse than expected, with little direct Levantine ancestry after 600 BCE. Instead, they show dominant Aegean–Sicilian ancestry and minority North African input, proving that Phoenician culture spread more by influence than mass migration. But early founders remain unsampled—so the first chapters of Punic genetic history are still missing.
⸻
Method Summary:
The researchers analysed the genomic data of 210 ancient individuals, of which 128 Phoenician-Punic, buried in 14 archaeological sites located on the Mediterranean coast, thus discovering that the Phoenician civilisations of the Levant had a limited genetic influence on the Punic populations of the central and western Mediterranean.
‘The sequencing and analysis of a large sample of genomes revealed an unexpected picture of the relationships between Phoenician-Punic communities,’ says Alessia Nava, director of the BIOANTH Laboratory at Sapienza and co-author of the study, ‘suggesting how Phoenician-Punic culture spread not through mass migrations, but through dynamic processes of cultural transmission and assimilation. ‘
Comments on study by non-researchers:
Lorenzo Nigro, former director of the Sapienza Mozia Mission and co-director of the Carthage Archaeological Mission, concludes that ‘the research, which integrates the data already known from the sources and the study of material culture, re-evaluates the fundamental contribution made by the indigenous cultures of the central Mediterranean to the formation of the Punic and then Roman world, that Mediterranean civilisation which Rome inherited from Carthage.’
⸻
Citation: Ringbauer, H., Salman-Minkov, A., Regev, D., Olalde, I., Peled, T., Sineo, L., Falsone, G., van Dommelen, P., Mittnik, A., Lazaridis, I., Pettener, D., Bofill, M., Mezquida, A., Costa, B., Jiménez, H., Smith, P., Vai, S., Modi, A., Shaus, A., Callan, K., Curtis, E., Kearns, A., Lawson, A. M., Mah, M., Micco, A., Oppenheimer, J., Qiu, L., Stewardson, K., Workman, J. N., Márquez-Grant, N., Sáez Romero, A. M., Lavado Florido, M. L., Jiménez-Arenas, J. M., Toro Moyano, I. J., Viguera, E., Suarez Padilla, J., López Chamizo, S., Marques-Bonet, T., Lizano, E., Rodero Riaza, A., Olivieri, F., Toti, P., Giuliana, V., Barash, A., Carmel, L., Boaretto, E., Faerman, M., Lucci, M., La Pastina, F., Nava, A., Genchi, F., Del Vais, C., Lauria, G., Meli, F., Sconzo, P., Catalano, G., Cilli, E., Fariselli, A. C., Fontani, F., Luiselli, D., Culleton, B. J., Mallick, S., Rohland, N., Nigro, L., Coppa, A., Caramelli, D., Pinhasi, R., Lalueza-Fox, C., Gronau, I., & Reich, D., “Punic people were genetically diverse with almost no Levantine ancestors”, Nature, DOI 10.1038/s41586-025-08913-3.
⸻
Further Information
Alfredo Coppa
Department of History, Anthropology, Religion, Arts and Performing Arts
Lorenzo Nigro
Department of Ancient World Studies
Alessia Nava
Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences
Michaela Lucci
Department of Environmental Biology
Francesco Genchi
Italian Institute of Oriental Studies – ISO
Wednesday, 23 April 2025
⸻
Critical Analysis of the 2025 Max Planck Study on Punic Ancestry
(Applying the SCHUENEMANN MISTAKES Framework)
Introduction
This 2025 Max Planck study sequenced genome-wide data from 210 individuals associated with Phoenician–Punic sites across the Mediterranean. Contrary to assumptions, Punic people showed little Levantine ancestry. Instead, they predominantly descended from populations similar to Bronze Age Sicilians and Aegeans, with a minority contribution from indigenous North Africans, even at Carthage itself. High Y-chromosome diversity, Mediterranean-wide genetic connectedness, and sporadic close-kin unions were observed. The study reveals that Phoenician culture spread culturally, not genetically, with complex, regionally mixed ancestry replacing earlier simplistic notions of Phoenician descent. However, early founders predating 600 BCE remain unsampled due to cremation practices.
While this study advances the field significantly, a critical evaluation using the SCHUENEMANN MISTAKES mnemonic highlights both its strengths and residual limitations, providing a nuanced perspective for readers and researchers.
⸻
SCHUENEMANN MISTAKES Quick-Reference Rating (Max Planck Punic Study):
S – Single-Site Bias: Medium Risk
C – Contamination Risks: Low Risk
H – Historical Context Missing: Medium Risk
U – Unrepresentative Samples: High Risk
E – Extrapolation Errors: Low Risk
N – Nuclear DNA Neglect: Low Risk
E – Excavation Gaps: Medium Risk
M – Mitochondrial Overreliance: Low Risk
A – Admixture Misinterpretation: Low Risk
N – No Masking Analysis: Medium Risk
N – Neglect of African Signals: Medium Risk
M – Media Misrepresentation: Medium Risk
I – Incomplete Comparisons: Medium Risk
S – Survivorship Bias: High Risk
T – Temporal Gaps: High Risk
A – Assumed Continuity: Low Risk
K – Known Diversity Ignored: Medium Risk
E – Epidemics Overlooked: Low Risk
S – Social Context Skipped: Medium Risk
⸻
Application of SCHUENEMANN MISTAKES
S – Single-Site Bias
Strength: Unlike the 2017 Schuenemann study (focused narrowly on Abu el-Meleq), this project sampled broadly from 14 sites across Iberia, Sardinia, Sicily, North Africa, and the Levant.
Limitation: Despite this improvement, sampling still misses critical Phoenician metropoles (e.g., Tyre, Sidon) during their colonial apex. No direct data from early urban centers limit understanding of founder populations. Punic North Africa, primarily in what is now Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, had numerous cities and settlements, including the largest, Ancient Carthage, and over 300 others along the North African coast. These settlements, established by Phoenician traders, extended beyond the coastal region to include cities in western Sicily, southern Sardinia, the Iberian Peninsula, Malta, and Ibiza. Sampling mainly Sicilian and Aegean sites while missing out 300 other sites creates a risk of conclusions over-reach, and apodictic statements which may be revised as more representative data become available and is tested.
C – Contamination Risks
The study applied modern decontamination protocols, including uracil-DNA-glycosylase (UDG) treatment, mitochondrial-X chromosome authentication, and quality filters (>20,000 SNPs). However, some samples excavated decades ago (before DNA-safe practices) still carry inherent risks impossible to fully eliminate.
H – Historical Context Missing
While the genetic findings are clear, the socio-political context—such as trade, colonization strategies, slavery, or cultural adoption dynamics—is only lightly touched upon. Without deep integration of historical analysis, conclusions about population movement versus cultural transfer remain biologically grounded but sociologically thin.
U – Unrepresentative Samples
A major caveat: individuals from before 600 BCE are almost entirely absent because early Phoenicians preferred cremation. Thus, this study effectively analyzes Punic descendants during the Carthaginian era, not the initial wave of Levantine settlers.
E – Extrapolation Errors
The authors are commendably cautious, restricting claims to studied populations and periods. Yet casual readers could still mistakenly extrapolate the “absence” of Levantine DNA to all Punic history without recognizing the unsampled early phases.
N – Nuclear DNA Neglect
This is a major strength: the study prioritized nuclear genome-wide SNP data, not merely mitochondrial lineages, overcoming one of the most serious flaws of previous ancient DNA studies like Schuenemann (2017).
E – Excavation Gaps
Many sampled remains derive from early, less-documented excavations. Although mitigated through extensive radiocarbon dating (111 samples), uncertainty remains about burial context, tomb disturbances, and associated artifacts.
M – Mitochondrial Overreliance
Another strength: whole-genome sequencing (not mtDNA alone) drives the main findings. This robust approach enables modeling of full ancestry profiles rather than a narrow maternal line.
A – Admixture Misinterpretation
The authors correctly emphasize that genetic similarity to Aegean/Sicilian populations does not imply cultural “Greekness,” nor does lack of Levantine DNA erase cultural Phoenician identity. They avoid the trap of reducing cultural phenomena to biological ancestry alone.
N – No Masking Analysis
The study does not perform formal masking to separate Punic-period ancestry from later Roman admixture within individuals. However, this omission is largely mitigated by their strict sample selection: the researchers focused on burials securely radiocarbon dated to the sixth through second centuries BCE—before or during Carthage’s fall in 146 BCE—and excluded individuals associated with clear Roman contexts. This chronological filtering significantly limits, but does not entirely eliminate, the possibility of later Roman gene flow affecting the sampled populations, particularly at sites occupied continuously into the Roman era. Therefore, while the absence of explicit genetic masking is a minor methodological gap, the study’s careful dating strategy means its primary conclusions about Punic-period ancestry remain robust within the sampled window. Concerns about Arab or medieval admixture are irrelevant here, as they apply only when analyzing post-antique or modern populations, not ancient ones.
N – Neglect of African Signals
North African ancestry is recognized and modeled, notably in Kerkouane and Carthage samples. Still, the African dimension is generalized, mostly referencing an Iron Age Algerian individual, rather than exploring more nuanced sub-Saharan or trans-Saharan gene flows.
⸻
M – Media Misrepresentation
Though the paper itself is cautious, the framing (“almost no Levantine ancestry”) risks media simplifications such as “Phoenicians disappeared” or “Punic people weren’t Levantine,” distorting nuanced findings for clickbait narratives.
I – Incomplete Comparisons
The study references earlier genetic work on Punic Sardinians, Ibiza individuals, and Carthage samples but does not integrate mtDNA studies or smaller local analyses as fully as possible. This leaves a few comparative gaps that future meta-analyses should fill.
S – Survivorship Bias
Because cremated individuals could not be sampled, survivorship bias privileges later populations who practiced inhumation. This bias inherently favors genetic signatures of assimilation and admixture after early colonial phases.
T – Temporal Gaps
There is no direct genetic evidence from 900–600 BCE—the critical founding centuries of Carthage, Cádiz, and Motya. Thus, claims about founders must remain provisional pending future recovery of cremated remains’ DNA.
A – Assumed Continuity
The authors explicitly avoid assuming continuity from Phoenician founders to Punic descendants. They wisely suggest that cultural diffusion likely occurred alongside major demographic turnover.
K – Known Diversity Ignored
Sampling spans North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, and Iberia, acknowledging regional variation. Nonetheless, Punic territories in Malta, Libya, and the western Maghreb remain unsampled, limiting full geographic representation.
E – Epidemics Overlooked
Although not central to the study’s period (pre-Roman conquest), broader demographic shocks like plagues are not addressed. This omission matters mainly for understanding later transitions, not core Punic dynamics.
S – Social Context Skipped
Genetic findings show close kin marriages in some tombs (e.g., Villaricos) and trans-Mediterranean biological relatives. Yet the broader legal and social frameworks shaping these practices (e.g., marriage laws, citizen status) are underexplored.
While methodological rigor is essential, a second layer of complexity arises when broader cultural assumptions — about identity, migration, and historical memory — are oversimplified by scholars and the media alike.
Complexities Over-Simplified by The Authors ✍️:
🔹Majority population may not reflect the Phoenician native speakers. Modern parallels destroy the argument that “most inhabitants define identity”: In 2023, Qatar had 2.6 million people but only 300,000 citizens. The UAE had 9.6 million people, but just 1.5 million native Emiratis. The majority of the British empire’s subjects were Indian, Pakistani and Nigerian. Imagine sampling 14 locations in India, and concluding Britons were mainly Indian?
🔹Oversimplification of Levantine DNA across all time periods. A 2017 study titled “Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences” by Haber et al found that “Levantine DNA” is not a static or homogenous entity but a dynamic mixture that changed drastically over time. The Bronze Age Sidon population (Sidon_BA) derived about 50% of its ancestry from earlier Levant_N people and about 50% from Iran_ChL-related migrants, meaning Bronze Age “Levantines” already carried significant exogenous (non-local) ancestry. Later, during the Iron Age, an additional ~7% Steppe_EMBA ancestry entered the Levant, blending further into the gene pool that leads to modern Lebanese populations. These ancestry shifts align with major historical events like the fall of the Akkadian Empire and the invasions of the Sea Peoples. Therefore, using “Levantine DNA” without specifying time periods or migrations ignores critical layers of Iran/Caucasus and Steppe contributions. Any claim about “Levantine DNA” must specify which era, location, and which ancestral layers it refers to, or else it becomes a misleading oversimplification.
🔹No Inscriptions, No Names: Cultural Adoption ≠ Genetic Descent. The study did not identify inscriptions, personal names, or textual markers to separate Levantine-descended Phoenicians from assimilated locals buried in Punic-style graves. Genetic analyses were matched to archaeological contexts, not confirmed ethnic identities. This distinction matters: material culture alone cannot distinguish migrants from cultural adopters. Without linguistic, epigraphic, or civic records tying individuals to Tyre, Sidon, or Byblos, most sampled individuals may reflect Punicized indigenous populations rather than direct Phoenician settlers. Therefore, cultural affiliation must not be mistaken for biological ancestry or founder representation.
Appropriately Issued Caution ⛔️
👍🏾 The authors acknowledged qpAdm modeling’s resolution limitations (Sicilian vs Aegean being hard to distinguish).
Additional Matters Identified:
🧩 Failure to distinguish between Canaanites and Phoenicians
🌍 Failure to distinguish between Levantine and Phoenician labels
🧬 “Levantine” DNA itself was already admixed by the Bronze Age (Haber et al. 2017). Both the study and the media fail badly to explain this to the public.
⚓ Failure to distinguish between Mediterranean and Phoenician, assuming findings for Phoenicians translated to all other cultures. Phoenicians had power and some others didn’t like the Sardinians.
⚔️ Failure to distinguish between founders, and the conquered.
baton: Phoenician culture is more of a relay baton, than a rabbit pulled out of a hat. The language developed from inherited Afroasiatic roots and ideas regionally developed in the Levant. Through trade, intermarriage, and mixing loan words entered the language. There is a difference between genetic elements of Phoenician and Punic, borrowed words, sound shifts (expected for 4% of words), meaning shifts, and phoneme reduction by distance from source (based on Quentin Atkinson’s radiation of language model).
⸻
Media claims:
New York Times headline: “Who’s a Carthaginian? Genetic Study Revises
Ancestry of Rome’s Ancient Nemesis. The inhabitants of Carthage were long thought to have derived from Levantine Phoenicians. But an eight-year study suggests they were more closely related to Greeks.”
Archaeology Magazine. Headline: “New Evidence Of Phoenician Origins Emerges.” Direct Quote: “LEIPZIG, GERMANY—Until now, archaeologists attempting to trace the genetic lineage of the Phoenicians have had a difficult time. These seafaring people who dominated trade in the Mediterranean during the first millennium B.C. have always been thought to have come from the Levant, but for centuries they cremated their dead, leaving nothing behind for scientists to test. However, Phoenician burial customs changed in the seventh century B.C. when they began to bury the deceased. According to a report in Science, researchers from the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Brown University have now sampled 100 genomes from 210 people buried in Phoenician-style graves at sites identified as Phoenician across the Levant, Europe, and North Africa. The results of their study have led to an exciting revelation. “Most people who were culturally Phoenician had no Levantine ancestry,” geneticist Harald Ringbauer of the Max Planck Institute said. “That was very unexpected, and a big surprise.” Most of the sampled individuals’ genetic ancestry derived, in fact, from Sicily and the Aegean, while a few of the people showed North African genetic characteristics.”; Translation: The study mainly sampled Sicily and Greece (the Aegean). North Africa, and Phoenician homeland were under-represented.
Science Daily. Headline: “Phoenician culture spread mainly through cultural exchange
Study challenges long-held assumptions about the Mediterranean Phoenician-Punic civilization, one of the most influential maritime cultures in history. Summary: “Ancient DNA analysis challenges our understanding of the ancient Phoenician-Punic civilization. An international team of researchers analyzing genome-wide data from 210 ancient individuals has found that Levantine Phoenician towns contributed little genetically to Punic populations in the central and western Mediterranean despite their deep cultural, economic, and linguistic connections.”
News Shopper Headline: “New Discoveries Redefine the Phoenicians as Masters of Integration and Trade”; Feature image: Egyptians. Excerpt: “Contrary to the traditional belief that Phoenician culture spread through mass migration from the Levant, the study found that Punic populations exhibited highly heterogeneous genetic profiles. Significant ancestry from North Africa and the Sicilian-Aegean region was observed, with surprisingly little direct genetic input from Levantine Phoenicians.”
What the media got right ✅
🧬 – Phoenician culture spread mainly by cultural influence, not mass migration
🌍 – Punic populations had diverse Mediterranean and North African ancestry
🧩 – Little direct Levantine genetic input after 600 BCE
⛵ – Trade networks shaped Punic society more than pure colonization
What the media got wrong ❌
⚡ – Confused Punic descendants and influence with original Phoenician founders
🌪️ – Oversimplified “Levantine DNA” without time-specific context. “Levantine” DNA itself was already admixed by the Bronze Age (Haber et al. 2017).
🛑 – Ignored missing early founders due to cremation gaps
🗺️ – Treated Punic genetic patterns as identical across all sites and periods
⚖️ – Equated cultural identity directly with genetics, ignoring language and assimilation processes
Team members mentioned in media:
Alessia Nava, director of the BIOANTH Laboratory at Sapienza University of Rome and co-author of the study;
Harald Ringbauer, researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and co-author of the study.
Taken together, both the technical findings and their public interpretations highlight the urgent need for a cautious, historically grounded approach to Phoenician and Punic genetic histories. Media platforms prioritise profits over scientific caution, which may explain the shortcomings of media reporting of the study.
⸻
Conclusion
The 2025 Max Planck Punic study marks a major methodological and analytical advance over previous ancient DNA studies critiqued by the SCHUENEMANN MISTAKES framework. It avoids catastrophic errors like over-reliance on mitochondrial DNA, single-site bias, or contamination negligence, and rightly highlights the dynamic, multicultural composition of Punic populations after 600 BCE.
However, significant caveats demand caution:
🔹 The earliest Phoenician founders remain genetically invisible due to cremation practices (T, U, S).
🔹 Sampling gaps across key metropoles and colonies risk premature generalizations (S, K).
🔹 African genetic diversity remains underexplored and overly generalized (N).
🔹 No direct linguistic or epigraphic evidence ties sampled individuals to Tyre, Sidon, or Byblos, risking confusion between cultural affiliation and biological descent.
🔹 Media interpretations oversimplify complex timelines and identities (M).
The central finding—that post-600 BCE Punic populations were genetically diverse, dominated by Sicilian–Aegean ancestry with notable North African input—is solid for the sampled contexts and timeframes. But it cannot be retrojected uncritically onto earlier colonial or Phoenician founders.
Future studies must:
✴️ Target DNA recovery from cremated founder-period remains, wherever possible.
✴️ Expand sampling across underrepresented territories like Malta, Libya, and the western Maghreb.
✴️ Incorporate inscriptions, naming practices, and cultural context alongside genetic data to distinguish settlers from assimilated locals.
✴️ Model African ancestry with more nuanced references to North and sub-Saharan connections.
In short, the Max Planck study dramatically advances our understanding of Punic Mediterranean populations but leaves the first chapters of Phoenician genetic history unwritten. Interpretation demands humility: cultural transmission outpaced genetic replacement, and Punic civilization was not the simple biological outgrowth of Levantine migration, but a complex mosaic shaped by trade, assimilation, and interaction.
Caution—not closure—should remain the watchword when interpreting Phoenician and Punic genetic histories.
