One of the more interesting aspects of 23andMe is seeing the historical matches. Since we have ancestry from Puerto Rico that includes indigenous Caribbean admixture, we found a very large number of matches with the Indigenous Caribbean Ceramic Age samples on 23andMe. While most were undoubtedly very small matches, we found it fascinating to see matches from Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and the Bahamas. Indeed, some of the matches were with individuals buried in the same area, like the two from northern Haiti's Fort-Liberté Bay. To make the feature even more interesting, 23andMe should provide more precise information on the chromosome segment's location. It might be worthwhile to explore these matches to various indigenous Caribbean peoples who were related to others from different parts of Hispaniola or even different islands altogether.
Despite the lack of these features, it was still interesting to note that most of our matches are with samples from Hispaniola (mainly the Dominican Republic). This is presumably due to the far greater number of indigenous Caribbean samples from the DR as well as the migration/intermarriage of indigenous peoples between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico (and the Lucayan Islands). Nonetheless, we found it intriguing that the highest matches were with samples from Hispaniola. The largest amount of shared ancestry was with an ancient woman from the site of Andrés, east of Santo Domingo. Although we only share 16.45 cM across 3 segments with this woman, this supposedly means we share more ancestry with her than 99.90% of all 23andMe customers who share DNA with her. The next largest matches were of 10.8 and 10.2 cM with two individuals from Diale 1, a site in northeastern Haiti. Although only 2 segments, the amount of shared DNA with the two individuals is similar and possibly the same segment. If 23andMe provided the segment information, I could potentially explore my relation to the 2 people from the Diale site in Haiti and the woman from Andrés. Even more intriguing is the fact that the two individuals from Diale had 16-20% Archaic ancestry from peoples who lived in the Antilles before the Arawakan-speakers migrated to the Greater Antilles. Moreover, the two people from Diale, who lived sometime between 800 CE to 1200 CE, may have fallen under the sphere of influence of Marien, a cacicazgo that was perceived by the Spanish sources as the most powerful chiefdom or polity in northern Haiti. Of course, there is no evidence for Marien in this earlier time period, but the site which was the probable capital of Marien was inhabited by the 1200s.
In addition, we shared 2 segments of DNA with two other individuals from the modern Dominican Republic. In the case of Ceramic Age Caribbean Individual I15112, from El Atajadizo, DR, we have more common DNA with her than 91.90% of all 23andMe customers. For Ceramic Age Caribbean Individual I12350, we share more DNA with her than 87.90% of all 23andMe customers who match her. The general picture then is one of closer matches with women from sites in the DR and Haiti and a plethora of smaller matches in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and the Bahamas. Since the site where these individuals were found is no sure guarantee of their origin, it is difficult to say with any certainty where they may have originated from. Therefore, it is possible some of these matches were with indigenous people who may have hailed from Puerto Rico or the eastern Dominican Republic before migrating. Nonetheless, we believe that the two related individuals from Diale, Haiti may have come from the area and one was male while the other female. Overall, the closest indigenous matches were from Atajadizo, a site near San Pedro de Macorix, and the two relatives from Haiti. The results could be explained by a number of factors but are certainly consistent with a shared ancestry between indigenous peoples in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. They could also be due to the forced relocation of indigenous peoples from Hispaniola and the Bahamas to Puerto Rico in the 16th century. But historians and archaeologists have provided more than enough evidence of long-standing contacts between eastern Hispaniola and Puerto Rico.
Since hearing mostly positive things about 23andme's new African Genetic Groups, we decided to finally do it. Since our African ancestry is mainly inherited through our Haitian parent, our results were, unsurprisingly, similar to theirs. However, we are about 50% sub-Saharan African and all our African Genetic Group matches are distant (our parent had a very close one with the Igbo). Nonetheless, it was interesting to see how 23andme's overall regional estimates are similar to Ancestry's. We are mainly of West African ancestry with an emphasis on Nigeria (southeastern and southwestern) and Ghana, Sierra, Leone, Liberia. Since 23andme lacks a Benin and Togo region, our results are split in a slightly different way for the Bight of Benin-derived ancestry so many Haitians have.
Moving on to the Genetic Groups, they are broadly consistent with the matching patterns we noted for ourselves and our Haitian parent on Ancestry. They are mainly consistent with Igbo and Yoruba Nigerians, Ewe, Ga and other Ga-Dangme, Sierra Leone (mainly for our Haitian parent), and Liberia. Since, again, 23andme does not yet have reference samples for more populations in Benin and Togo (and many other regions), our Ewe, Ga-Dangme peoples and Ga people matches are probably hinting at ancestors who were trafficked to the coast from this general vicinty.
Likewise, the Yoruba people match for our Nigerian Genetic Groups is perhaps another reference to Bight of Benin-derived ancestry from populations not well-represented in 23andme's database. The Igbo people match is also hardly surprising since we shared an Igbo match with our Haitian parent for a higher than average amount of cM on Ancestry. Unfortunately, we did not receive any genetic groups for Central Africa or Senegambia and Guinea. Hopefully future updates will add more populations.
Like many others, I was eagerly awaiting the update for sub-Saharan Africa on 23andme. We manage the account of a close relative from Haiti and were very interested in seeing any changes. Overall, the changes were not a surprise for Haitians and match what little I have uncovered with historical/genealogical sources. For example, the only "Very Close" African genetic group was the Igbo. This matches our findings of a consistent "Ibo" presence among African slaves in 18th century Bainet.
The distant Yoruba people genetic group was also not surprising. Given the well-known historical interactions between peoples of Benin and southwestern Nigeria as well as the Yoruba presence in both regions, we suspect many Haitians may have this genetic group. Indeed, it is also matched by the high number of Yoruba matches for this relative on Ancestry.
The Ewe, Ga, and Ga-Dangme genetic groups are also to be expected as distant. One of the mutual African DNA matches between this person and myself on Ancestry is Ga, suggestive of an identical by descent shared ancestry. The Ga also overlap with Togo and Benin peoples, a known source of the African captives brought to Saint Domingue. As for the Mende, Temne and Kru, our relative has DNA matches from Sierra Leone on Ancestry and 23andme. From the former site, she and I share a match with someone who is half-Sierra Leonean (and half-Nigerian). This relative also has 2 Mende matches on Ancestry.
Unfortunately, they did not get any African genetic groups for Angolan/Congolese or Senegambian and Guinean. This was disappointing as it would have been interesting to see African genetic groups for each region. Nonetheless, this person has 2 Fulani matches on 23andme and may see genetic groups in the next update.
Although of less importance in our research on the making of the Haitian people, we do find the flawed but attempted breakdown of France and western Europe intriguing in Ancestry's 2025 Fall Update. Our own "French" ancestry, estimated at 2% in the previous update, was broken apart into two separate categories: Brittany, France and Acadia (French Canada). We also saw Quebec in our updated results, but since it is attributed to our Hispanic parent's side, we find it more likely to be a result of the update's horrible results for people with roots in the Iberian Peninsula.
In other words, our "France" results are basically the same. Acadia is basically "France" but Ancestry, to its credit, did not assign any French Canada regions to our Haitian parent. Our ""Northern Wales and North West England" also hails from our Haitian parent, probably a misreading of the minor French ancestry in Haitians.
Intriguingly, for our Haitian parent, their British region was Southern Wales. If, however, 23andme is accurate, which certainly seems to be the case compared to Ancestry, our Haitian parent's European ancestry leans more heavily toward France and Belgium, the southern Dutch, and Rhinelanders. Since there is undoubtedly genetic overlap between peoples in France and Belgium as well as France and Germany, our guess is our Haitian side's European ancestry is probably derived from people from northern France who had some genetic overlap with these neighboring regions.
From our own "genealogical research" into Saint Domingue's free people of color in Bainet, we the French ancestry was mainly from the northern regions of France. This seems supported by 23andme assigning only small amounts of Spanish and Basque ancestry to our Haitian parent. Ancestry, on the other hand, assigns a mostly Spain ancestry for our Haitian parent's European admixture. Undoubtedly, 23andme is more reliable here, particularly for distinguishing between France and Spain. However, the "Brittany, France" region might be significant in that both of us inherited this region, perhaps pointing to northwestern France as the region from which the European ancestors of Bainet's free people of color often hailed from. We assume our Haitian parent's 0.2% Irish ancestry according to 23andme as well as their Southern Wales estimate via Ancestry is pinpointing to northwestern France, too.
Although we knew Africa was not the focus of the 2025 update for Ancestry, we still thought there might be some changes. Instead, with the exception of a decrease of 1% for Senegal, our sub-Saharan African estimates are essentially the same. For our Haitian parent, nothing changed either except for a minor increase in their Benin & Togo estimate (up by 2%). They retained their minor estimates for various smaller regions while we still have a division of "Nigeria" into Central Nigeria, North-Central Nigeria and Nigeria.
None of this is too surprising. It looks like the 2025 update is largely unchanged from the 2024 update. And as we already expected, we are more West African than Central African In fact, it would appear that our Haitian parent and I harbor substantial ancestry derived from the Slave Coast and Bight of Biafra, which is also backed by the records of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Saint Domingue (colonial Haiti). I personally find it intriguing that so little sub-Saharan African ancestry was passed on through the Hispanic side.
The only real change to our African ancestry was the inflated North Africa estimate of 4%. The first time we got our results, the estimate was 2%. Then, following the update, it dropped to 1%. Inexplicably, it shot up to 4% this year. While we did see an estimate of 1% Canary Islands, we doubt we have substantial :Guanche" ancestry that might explain this. It seems like the creation of new areas for Spain and the Iberian peninsula altered or created problems for other nearby regions or categories. Indeed, this might be why we suddenly see a 2% Sephardic Jewish estimate while previous updates never included that. Of course, we do have very distant Sephardic Jewish matches from the eastern Mediterranean or North Africa as well as North African Muslim matches...
One thing we have been interested in ever since our Haitian parent's 23andme results came in was the Igbo connection with Haiti. As we have indicated through our exploration of notarized records mentioning slave origins in the Sud-Est of Haiti, the "Ibo" were a consistent presence among the enslaved African population in Bainet in the 1700s. Perhaps many if not most were acquired via smuggling with the British in Jamaica, since the coast of southeastern Nigeria was not frequently used by the French slave traders of the 18th century. One also notices that Igbo matches are the most frequent sub-Saharan group for both our parent and myself. Indeed, my parent and I even share one Igbo match, the only sub-Saharan African we match with at least 20 cM of shared ancestry among our matches. Intriguingly, our Haitian parent likewise matched 4 members of a single Igbo family on Ancestry.
An additional plus of Ancestry's match features is the ability to view posted family trees. Perusing these trees indicated that most of our parent's Igbo matches have roots in 3 parts of Igboland: Abia, Imo and Anambra. Unfortunately, some family trees were not public or were not posted at all, but the results are suggestive enough as is. These three regions, all contiguous or nearby each other, may suggest our Igbo forebears hailed from the same region. Of course, people have moved around since the 1700s and there could be other factors at play here. However, some of these matches appear to have deep roots in these areas, particularly 4 matches from a single family with roots in Abia. If their family tree, which seems to stretch back into the 1800s, is a reliable indicator, they likely have roots in this part of southeastern Nigeria in the 1700s.
On 23andme, Our Haitian parent only had 5 Igbo matches we could find (plus 2 individuals whose surname suggests Ibibio origins). We foolishly did not keep a record of birthplaces for specific areas or regions of southeastern Nigeria, but the Ibibio matches appear to have roots in Akwa Ibom and were higher matches than any of the Igbo. We wonder if this could also indicate Ibibio ancestry, although we lack any matches with chromosome browser features to explore the connection.
Although our shared DNA segments with Peruvians and South American Indians are usually rather small, one of the larger, more reliable ones with with a Peruvian (judging by the Quechua surname and their other matches, although Bolivian origin is also possible, perhaps). Moreover, this person's shared segment with us is actually along a segment identified as "Indigenous Puerto Rico" by Ancestry, not Indigenous Bolivia and Peru. Although only 6.8 cM, we suspect it is picking up on the deeper, shared ancestry between the indigenous people who populated the Caribbean and their South American mainland cousins found in parts of Andean and lowland tropical South America. Our other matches above 6 cM with South American indigenous people had lower SNP counts and densities, so we suspect this Peruvian match is somewhat more reliable. Checking the matched segment on Gedmatch's chromosome compare features and DNA painter also points to the shared segment falling along our "Indigenous Puerto Rico" segment on part of Chromosome 14.
Looking into shared matches with roots in Bainet on My Heritage has been interesting, too. What became immediately apparent when looking at surnames is the shared ancestry of multiple families with roots in the valley sections of Bainet and Jacmel. This is no surprise, but it was intriguing to see how we are related to different people with the last common ancestors living in the 1700s or 1800s. For instance, our parent, born in Bainet, has a match with a surname common in the valley section of Bainet. Moreover, they share 34.9 cM of DNA on a segment of the fifth chromosome assigned to "Spain" and "Western Bantu" peoples. The very same segment overlaps with shared DNA with another person from Bainet, who also has roots in the valley section of Bainet.
Our Haitian parent likewise matches a number of other people through shared European ancestry classified as "Spain" by Ancestry. Indeed, that shared segment connects myself, our parent, and 5 others with roots in Bainet. However, this shared segment of common European ancestry is usually rather small, ranging from 12.3 cM to 18.5 cM. Looking at the surnames in posted genealogies, they all point to families from the valley who must descend from free people of color in the 1700s. Surnames like Boursiquot, Payen, and Dure support this. Naturally, on 23andme, this segment is more correctly identified as "French & German" rather than Spain. Similarly, a shared match with roots in Bainet has a segment of shared DNA on Chromosome 20 that is identified as "French & German" on 23andme instead of the "Spain" category used by Ancestry.
Although we are by no means fans of My Heritage, their features at least allow one to see where on their chromosomes they share segments of DNA with others. Using this feature allowed us to see where and how our Haitian parent matched different Africans. Regrettably, we could only find a few on their My Heritage DNA matches (and none were shared by me). Surprisingly, one was a match on 23andme, too (Yoruba 2) while the others were unknown. The overall results are consistent with the general pattern of African DNA matches observed previously. More than half are of Nigerian origin (Yoruba and Igbo) with 1 representative of Central Africa and one from Upper Guinea. The Bight of Benin and southeastern Nigeria are clearly major sources of her ancestry. However, we did not expect the Yoruba match to be the closest one (perhaps this is an issue with the user base including fewer Igbo Nigerians?).
Overall, the segments of shared DNA as classified by Ancestry and mapped with DNA Painter meet expectations. The lone Congolese match shared a segment of DNA with her that was assigned "Western Bantu Peoples." The "Igbo" match, unsurprisingly, shared a segment assigned to "Nigeria." The Wolof match was somewhat ambiguous since the person appears to be only half Wolof. However, the most probable shared segment was assigned to "Mali" by Ancestry. The Yoruba matches appear to be most likely matches on Benin & Togo assigned segments. This is no surprise, although somewhat ambiguous since Yoruba are used for both "Nigeria" and "Benin & Togo" by Ancestry. However, the largest segment of shared DNA, with Yoruba 2, is almost certainly along a segment assigned to "Benin & Togo."
A feature Ancestry and 23andme must (re)introduce is a chromosome browser that shows the user where exactly their DNA matches another user's. MyHeritage, which is less accurate, already offers this feature for free. However, since their DNA estimates are less accurate, we are forced to use DNA Painter's features to copy the chromosome breakdowns from 23andme or Ancestry to see the assigned "ethnicity" for sections of each chromosome. This convoluted process creates more work, and should be something available for free on Ancestry and 23andme. Doing so would illuminate how exactly one shares DNA with other users. This feature on My Heritage shows us, for instance, where we share DNA with North Africans. In the above example, with someone of Algerian heritage, we share 9.3 cM of DNA on a section of my third chromosome assigned to "North African" by Ancestry. This suggests that we likely harbor small amounts of "Amazigh" ancestry that can still be matched with random people from Morocco and Algeria. In our case, since we do not know of any recent admixture, we assume this is from one (or two) of 2 scenarios: ancient "Guanche" admixture from ancestors who came to the Caribbean via the Canary Islands or via ancient "Berber" admixture in parts of the Iberian Peninsula which contributed to the early peopling of the Spanish Caribbean. Either way, the fact that we have found multiple matches who share segments of DNA on parts of our chromosomes assigned to "North Africa" suggests "Berber" admixture. We need this feature to facilitate understanding of our West and Central African matches from places like Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and other countries. It would also be very useful when looking at matches who are a mix of different African nationalities.
With all of the problems at 23andme, we wanted to do a more thorough search of our Haitian parent's African matches as soon as possible. Thus, the table able represents our attempt to tally the number of matches she has based on a search from two days ago. We suspect more matches ("DNA Relatives") will disappear since they are deleting their data from the site. However, we were able to find 16 African matches. Fortunately, some even included basic data about the birthplace of their grandparents, which helped us to clarify their possible ethnic origins. Unsurprisingly, they are overwhelmingly West Africans, with obvious Nigerians more than half of the total.
Immediately, one is struck by the number of matches to southeastern Nigerian groups (Igbo and possibly Ibibio) and the paucity of Yoruba. Unlike her Ancestry DNA matches, our Haitian parent only has 1 unambiguous Yoruba match here (someone whose name might indicate an Islamic background, too). Despite sharing more DNA with the lone Yoruba than most of the others, it is quite interesting to see so few of this ethnic group on 23andme among her matches. We are not sure if that is due to the lack of a Benin & Togo category in which Yoruba groups overlap more frequently with Haitians through shared ancestry in the Bight of Benin? Either way, 23andme is picking up on closer genetic ties to the Igbo and groups in southeastern Nigeria, including what appears to be Ibibio or Efik (our parent's largest matches, at 0.54% shared DNA). This ancestral tie to southeastern Nigeria is also suggested by her 7 matches to Igbos on Ancestry as well as her shared 29 cM of DNA with an Igbo on that site. Indeed, the only ethnolinguistic group specified in her 23andme Ancestry Composition report was also the Igbo. Seeing a closer match to the Ibibio or Efik, however, suggests ties to other groups in southeastern Nigeria, too.
Besides the obvious Igbo and southeastern Nigeria-related ancestry implied here, one can also see Central African represented by two individuals with roots in Congo. According to my limited understanding of Congolese surnames, these two individuals may be of Luba or Lunda origins. So far, we have yet to uncover any particularly close matches to Central Africans. The more obvious suspects for Congolese and Central African ancestry in Haiti would be groups from or near the Kikongo-speaking peoples, but they are likely not represented well among customers of 23andme and Ancestry. A quick perusal of the varieties of Central African captives imported into colonial Saint Domingue, however, would likely include groups from inner regions of Central Africa, too.
Moving on to Ghana, one finds here yet another Ga match! Our parent had 2 Ga DNA matches on Ancestry, although both of those had elevated levels of "Benin & Togo" estimates. Here, the Ga match is someone with all 4 grandparents from the Accra. Their "Nigeria" score was only 17.4%, but that may be the algorithm's attempts to capture the ancestry of people from eastern Ghana to Benin. The Ga-Adangbe were likely represented among the captives in Saint Domingue, too. Perhaps they were under the label of "Mina" ("Mine" in some of the colonial Haitian documentation) or mixed with other groups from the Bight of Benin and Gold Coast. One of our few shared DNA matches was actually with another Ga person on Ancestry, making us think that a meaningful link with this area is possible.
As for her two Fulani matches, these are almost certainly due to shared, non-Fulani ancestry in Upper Guinea .The two Fulanis, who both possess typical Fulani surnames, also have elevated Senegambian & Guinean ancestry (as well as minor North African) that clearly establish their origin. We suspect they are from Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone or, in one case, possibly from Nigeria (an assumption based on their 7.6% Nigerian estimate). Since our parent had one DNA match with a Mandinka from Sierra Leone on Ancestry, we would not be surprised if the matches with the two Fulanis might stem from a Mandinka-related shared ancestry (or, perhaps, Senegambian or Malian, which could be inferred from the high numbers of "Bambara" and "Mandingues" in colonial Haiti). Of course we are merely speculating here, but we suspect that shared ancestry with the Fulani via actual Fulani ancestry would have led to more matches from this group. After all, they seem to be more heavily represented among West Africans using DNA testing services like Ancestry or 23andme.
Last, but certainly not least, the two Liberian matches. One, based on surnames, is at least partly Vai in origin with some grandparents from the Cape Mesurado area. Our parent shares the most DNA with this Liberian (besides Igbo or southeastern Nigerians) who appears to be of Vai ancestry. In Saint Domingue, groups from parts of Liberia were known as Miserables, Canga and other terms. We would love to find more matches from Liberia and Sierra Leone to fully explore the possible ancestral ties to this area.
Overall, the 23andme matches are consistent with the largely Lower Guinea ancestry of our parent. Unfortunately, the ancestral ties to the Bight of Benin are not so easily seen here in her matches, but a link to the slave trade from the Bight of Biafra is very clear. As to be expected, the lower numbers of African customers from Benin, Central Africa, and Upper Guinea limits the data and analysis, but it is largely consistent with her 23andme Ancestry Composition. It also, by and large, is in accord with the general pattern of her Ancestry matches.
Our Haitian relative's African matches are quite similar to their results on Ancestry DNA. One conspicuous difference is that she now has fewer (obvious) Yoruba matches. She also had fewer Upper Guinean matches, the only example here being someone with a Fulani surname (common in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Gambia) who she shares 0.17% of her DNA (she also matches another Fulani with 0.12% shared DNA). That person's results were 53.6% Senegambian & Guinean, 29.6% Ghana, Liberia and Sierra Leone and 7.6% Nigeria, so we cannot say with greater certainty where exactly in West Africa they hail from. The few matches from Central Africa (Congo) were also consistent with her matching patterns on the other site, too. Intriguingly, there were a few "exotic" matches, including one with a North African or Egyptian who harbored significant sub-Saharan African ancestry (including 12.5% Nigerian). The other match was with a half-white Kenyan Kikuyu, but we did not include them in the results since the match could be due to shared European ancestry. For similar reasons, a half-Yoruba British person was excluded, since the shared DNA could also be partly due to European ancestry.
What was a surprise to see here was matches with people from Calabar and other parts of southern Nigeria outside majority Igbo areas. Nonetheless, they were mainly clustered in southeastern Nigeria, which seems to match the Ancestry Composition report identifying Igbo as a "Very Close" genetic group (including various Nigerian ethnic groups, however). As for the one obvious Yoruba match, it was with someone bearing a Muslim name. We suspect one of the unspecified Nigerian matches was also Yoruba. As for her Ghanaian match, it was with someone likely hailing from the Ga-Adangme group. The Congolese matches were with people whose exact ethnic background we could not determine based on surnames alone.
As one might expect for a Haitian looking at distant genetic matches with modern African individuals, the amount of shared DNA is usually low. Surprisingly, the closest match was with someone at 0.54% shared DNA, with roots in Akwa Ibom, Nigeria. It does seem rather likely that captives imported into Saint Domingue's southern coast (many likely smuggled by the British) included a large number from the Bight of Biafra and today's southeastern Nigeria.
Although we are mainly interested in the African and Amerindian components in the making of Caribbean peoples, we probably should reflect on European ancestry, too. After all, it undeniably shaped the Caribbean and the making of who we are. However, in our case, the vast majority of our European ancestry is from the Iberian peninsula, Spain and Portugal. This is no surprise for the Spanish Caribbean..
Where things get funky and problematic, however, is France. The update assigned us 2% France. The previous estimates did not include France at all, but rather a variety of Northwestern Europe and Sardinia, mainly inherited through our Haitian parent. We suspect Sardinia, which did not appear in her ethnicity estimate at all, may be misread France, just as Scotland, Wales, and England & Northwestern Europe were probably France. The 2024 update seems to have tried to be more accurate with delineating France from other parts of western Europe, with partial success. However, given what we know of our Haitian parent's ancestry, her minor European ancestry is mainly from France. Her original estimates recognized that to a certain degree by assigning her 5% France and then a mix of Northwestern and southwestern European locales (Portugal, Scotland, Wales, England). Strangely, in her 2024 update, our mother's European ancestry was mostly reclassified as Spain, and supposedly 2% of our Spain estimate derived from her. Now, she has only 1% France and I have 2%, which is obviously unlikely since the inheritance feature indicates our France estimate comes from her. How can I have 2% France from her 1%? We suspect the 2% Spain inherited from her and the 1% Sardinia score is also probably from France.
Needless to say, the update was clunky and inaccurate in some ways, still struggling to distinguish France from other parts of Northwestern and Mediterranean Europe. Spain, in the case of my mother, was vastly exaggerated. Nonetheless, the update at least recognized France in the new estimates for myself. Can we still repeat our bad joke? Nos ancêtres les Gaulois can still be claimed? Bad jokes aside, we are still mainly interested in the African and indigenous background to Caribbean peoples and will continue to focus on such themes.
Although hardly the most sophisticated or reliable method, using Gedmatch's autosomal DNA comparison feature can be entertaining and occasionally useful. In this case, comparing our data to that of around 42 kits of ancient samples was an interesting experience. Indeed, of the 42 ancient samples, we only had matches with 4 individuals, which is significant. All 4 of them, however, were either individuals from Cuba or the Bahamas, surprisingly. We apparently did not share DNA, at least not detectable using Gedmatch, with ancient persons from Puerto Rico and Hispaniola with kits on Gedmatch (that we know of). The dates given for the samples are from undated in one case but the others the woman from Preacher's Cave, in the Bahamas, was the subject of an important article published in 2018 by Hannes Schroeder. According to this study, "Results are consistent with Puerto Ricans and the ancient Taino forming a clade without any significant gene-flow postdivergence." Clearly, the ancient Lucayan woman's genome was similar to that of modern-day Puerto Ricans. Indeed, this study found that Puerto Ricans share large parts of their genome with the ancient "Taino" of the Caribbean. Another study found similarities between the Preacher's Cave sample and precontact Puerto Rico samples in terms of autosomal DNA. These similarities also extend to South American Amazonian groups, such as the Yukpa, Piapoco, Karitiana, and Surui. Furthermore, modern Puerto Ricans harbor mtDNA that is at least partly a reflection of precontact Puerto Rico populations.
What we find interesting in our matches is the lack of a Puerto Rico or Hispaniola connection. While this is probably, in part, due to the less sophisticated tools and models via Gedmatch, we did match with another ancient "Taino" sample from the Bahamas. On Gedmatch, it is called Kit WE2232796 (*Bahamas Taino Native), with further indication that its test results are from 23andMe. Is this one of their indigenous Caribbean samples the company uses? This person appears to be the same as the Atunwa Inaru, the name given to this ancient woman from the Bahamas. Anyway, we only shared a total of 3 segments, the longest at 3.6 cM. Our total Half-Match segments was 9.7 cM and a total of 458412 SNPs were used, with 47.467 percent fully identical. As one might expect, shared DNA with someone who lived several centuries ago would be low. Yet, with another kit from the same woman from Preacher's Cave, Atunwa Inaru on Gedmatch, we shared a total Half-Match segments of 14 cM, with the largest segment at 6.7 cM of 3 shared segments. 260057 SNPs were used for the comparison with 38.498 percent identical. We assume this match is at least somewhat reliable since geneticists using more sophisticated matches noted similarities in the ancestry of the Preacher's Cave sample and that of modern and ancient Puerto Ricans. We are not sure which of the two kits for the same person are more accurate or reliable, though we'd bet money on the first kit.
The other two matches, however, remain more problematic. Both are from Cuba, although the date and exact location are unclear. One, called Brizuela on Gedmatch, is supposedly from the 12th century. With that sample, we share one segment at 4.5 cM, but at a lower SNP density. The other sample from Cuba shared even less with us, only 3.8 cM. But, with this Cuban sample, more SNPs and at a higher density. One wonders if these Cuban samples may reflect a 'ceramic' culture whose ancestors included some of the same groups who migrated into the Bahamas from Hispaniola. Or, alternatively, due to the widespread seafaring abilities of the indigenous Caribbean and the lack of evidence for inbreeding in the sample from Preacher's Cave, perhaps some groups found spouses or significant others from distant islands in the archipelago. What we do not understand, however, is our inability to find ancient samples from Hispaniola with whom we share DNA...
Again, playing with G25 coordinates (non-simulated ones, this time) and different calculators or Illustrative DNA revealed some degree of genetic continuity from the pre-Columbian Caribbean and modern populations in the region. For example, using my G25 coordinates and Tomenable's calculators for the world in the 6th century BC and 1st century BC, I received the following results:
Target: Yo Distance: 1.7369% / 0.01736942
46.0
Africa(West)_Niger_Congo_Peoples
22.0
Europe_Northwest
15.2
Europe_Southwest
6.6
America_Cuba_Guanahatabey
5.0
Europe_South_Central
3.2
Africa(Central)_Foragers
0.6
Africa_Garamantians
0.6
America_Ancestral_Puebloans
0.4
America_Amazon_Foragers
0.4
MENA_Judah_Kingdom
Of course, this is only slightly accurate, in that it's using our G25 coordinates to match with select ancient population samples. The sub-Saharan African category is about right, but probably based on mostly modern samples. Europe is probably generically accurate, although most of our European ancestry was probably from southwestern Europe (overwhelmingly the Iberian peninsula, which, over 2000 years ago, had populations genetically related to northwestern European groups). The Garamantian connection is probably a reference to other admixture calculators assigning us some minor degree of North African ancestry (and the Garamantian sample had sub-Saharan ancestry). Intriguingly, the indigenous Americas ancestry, a total of about 7.6 percent, is overwhelmingly linked to this calculator's archaic Cuba sample. Of course, reducing the number of populations to 5 and following other recommendations erases the Guanahatabey. It also reclassifies European ancestry as just Roman Empire-Europe.
Interestingly, Illustrative DNA's Three Way modeling does come slightly close to our ancestry with a best fit of Medieval ancestry as 43.6% Medieval Iberian (Girona), Lucayan Taino (7.2%) and Bantu (49.2%). Obviously, this is only roughly useful, but comes closest to approximating our ancestry as a split of 3 major populations: indigenous Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe (mainly Iberian peninsula). It's a shame sub-Saharan Africa isn't properly broken down and analyzed, but the difficulty of finding ancient DNA samples makes it somewhat understandable. Regardless, it does seem like our Indigenous ancestry, usually always linked to South American groups, was at least partly based on indigenous populations in the Caribbean.
Although using G25 coordinates from different admixture calculators and then using Vahaduo to run that information against G25 coordinates for various populations, past and present, is fun, it's not very reliable. However, using simulated coordinates from MDLP with a 1st Century BC calculator by Tomenable did match our data with a sample from Hispaniola, from Macorix Ciguayo. Using other simulated scaled G25 coordinates did not detect this, usually tracing our indigenous Americas ancestry to Amazon Farming Tribes and other South American groups. And, if we are being honest, about 2000 years ago was around the time when agriculturalists who likely spoke Arawakan languages were migrating to the Greater Antilles. Furthermore, we have no East African ancestry so the Africa_Cushitic Peoples ancestry is not accurate at all. Needless to say, none of this should be taken too seriously, but interesting to see nonetheless. The other set of G25 coordinates, which only listed Amazon Farming Tribes, was more accurate in other ways since it detected West African ancestry.
Another fun aspect of Ancestry DNA's services is the ability to check which parent contributed to the ethnicities estimate in one's DNA origins. For my Haitian parent, it is interesting to see that the entirety of their 11% European ancestry is derived from their mother. This matches my genealogical research into the origins of this grandparent, who appears to have affranchi ancestors during the colonial period. As we speculated previously, the non-French ancestry may all be France but due to the measurement of French DNA in Ancestry's algorithm, the French ancestry was split into Scotland, France, Portugal and Wales. Anyway, the results confirm my theory about our Haitian parent's mother.
The father, however, may have been entirely or almost entirely sub-Saharan African in origin. What is interesting about him is the entirety of our parent's "Nigerian" ancestry allegedly came from him. If so, we assume this grandfather had substantial "Nigerian" origin. That, however, is a problematic concept and, based on the records we have for French slaving, we assume his "Nigerian" ancestry was likely some mix of Ibo, Yoruba, Nupe, Hausa and possibly others. Our grandmother, on the other hand, was the one who possessed far more ancestry from Cameroon, Congo, and Western Bantu Peoples. She was also the one who bequeathed Senegalese ancestry to our parent.
The African ancestry of these two was, therefore, rather distinct though they occasionally overlapped. According to Ancestry's Chromosome Painter, our grandfather's "Nigeria" segments were often rather long, perhaps hinting at recent ancestry. If Ibos were among the large number of enslaved Africans in Bainet during the late 1700s, perhaps he had, at least in part, Ibo origins. Our parent also matched with Yoruba and Igbo Nigerians through her test results. She also matched with Mandinka people from Sierra Leone and Mali and two individuals from the DRC. Therefore, we consider it likely that she is of Yoruba, Ibo, Bambara, Mandingue, "Congo" and possibly Wolof, Akan, and "Arada" origins.
While perusing old papers and documents in various Google Drive accounts, I came across an old essay on Taino revivalism in Puerto Rico. This has inspired me to revisit some of my past interests in the precolonial Caribbean, as well as the legacy of the indigenous inhabitants. Needless to say, I find a continued interest in the alleged "Taino" DNA in contemporary Puerto Ricans, which the above video contributes to. None of this is new at all. A quick perusal of travel accounts, traditions, and histories of Puerto Rico often allude to the "Indian" inheritance among the Puerto Rican population. Whether or not it was really traceable to the Taino was unknown, since Europeans imported "Amerindian" captives from other parts of the Americas to their Caribbean colonies. But, it was often alleged that the Puerto Rican jibaro possessed Indian blood, by everyone from Schoelcher to Salvador Brau.
Of course, given the demographics of the early colonial Spanish Caribbean, it is no surprise that many of the current populations in Puerto Rico are descendants of European males, Indian women, and Africans who formed the nucleus of the colonial populations in the 16th century. Indeed, I suspect my Hispanic Caribbean roots to consist of a mixture of African, European and probable Indian ancestry through a family lineage that has been in the Caribbean for several centuries (I must confess, I lost interest in the 1700s, but they were likely established in Puerto Rico since the 1600s or 1500s). However, recent advances in analysis of pre-Columbian Puerto Rican remains do suggest there is some continuity between the earlier indigenes of Puerto Rico and populations living there today. Moreover, one should suspect many aspects of rural life in the Caribbean today resemble or inherited aspects of indigenous agricultural practices, particularly since they were the ones who likely showed Europeans and Africans the ropes in adapting to Caribbean environments. Who knows, it is even possible that some of the folklore of the region has inherited bits and pieces of our Amerindian past, although I am unsure how one could ever prove it.
So, why do groups like neo-Taino organizations endeavor to revive the indigenous past or legacy when it was so quickly incorporated into new colonial identities forged by European colonialism and enslavement of Africans? In my past ramblings on this subject, I linked it to a theory of indigeneity as performance, indigeneity and sovereignty, and re-racialization of genetic science on the part of gene fetishists. An example of the first is a National Indigenous Festival of Jayuya, in which a beauty pageant consists of contestants dressing themselves up in ways that allegedly resemble those of the indigenous population. Needless to say, contestants believed to look like the Tainos were favored, and the whole charade links Taino-ness to the performance of stereotyped traits. Neo-Taino groups have also attempted to perform indigeneity through the reinvention of rituals, clothing styles, and language to counter narratives of Taino extinction. The performance of a "Taino" identity is, through the aforementioned practices and rituals, legitimated as an expression of group identity, even if they lack any degree of historical veracity. However, if identity truly is just performance, then one can understand and even recognize indigenous performativity on the part of some Puerto Ricans as being as legitimate as the official, tri-racial discourse of Puerto Rican national identity (which, needless to say, is also problematic and creates it own demons of racial inequality).
It also comes into play as an expression of sovereignty. Indeed, since the 19th century, writers of the Spanish Caribbean have utilized the indigenous past for expressions of their own nationalism. Invoking the caciques of the past, or the brutality of the Spanish conquest, could serve the greater cause of independence and nation-making for the diverse, subjugated colonial populations of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Attempts in the 20th and 21st century to revive outright Taino identities can also serve this purpose of sovereignty and self-rule for Puerto Ricans living under US rule on the island or in economically and racially marginalized spaces in the US mainland. Indeed, assertions of indigeneity lend weight to Puerto Rican demands for reparations, independence, and alternatives to the official historical narrative. Unsurprisingly, the historical record will always contain its errors or blank spaces, but indigenous revivalism forces society to remember the silencing of indigenous lives after European conquest, reasserting the rights of subaltern voices and their descendants. Even if some of the proponents of indigenous revivalism commit themselves to gene fetishism and reinscribing "race" to understanding DNA, they are hardly alone for using genes or "race" to determine membership or status of indigenous communities.
To conclude the aforementioned thoughts, the question of indigenous identity and, increasingly, the use of science and DNA to justify said claims, are more interesting for the motivations rather than outright rejection or refusal. Although some of the attempted revivals and historical scholarship are inherently problematic and, in some cases, questionable or false, indigeneity remains a dynamic concept. It cannot be simply stuck in the past with the expectation of "racial" homogeneity over time and a specific place or land attached to it. Identities are too flexible and permeable to allow for such an understanding, past or present. In truth, the pre-colonial peoples of the Caribbean were too diverse and mobile to allow for such a simplistic view. Further, it clearly resonates with groups living in colonial conditions today, just as it did for 19th century independence movements. Perhaps the idea of indigeneity in Haiti is of applicable interest here. In the Haitian case, the leaders of the revolutionary army invoked indigeneity, too, calling their army an indigenous one. Later Haitian writers picked up the theme again, invoking Haitianness as "indigenous." For Dessalines and subsequent Haitians, Haiti avenged the "Amerindian" inhabitants of the island and claimed the space for themselves as a sovereign state, directly linking indigeneity with sovereignty. For the most part, Haitians do not claim direct ancestry from the Taino, but we too have a complex relationship of our own with the idea of indigeneity and anti-colonialism. Perhaps that's the best definition of indigeneity we can arrive at for the Caribbean, one that is mobile, diverse, and opposed to colonialism.
The following is another short post for an anthropology class. Native American DNA was one of my favorite assigned texts, and one I shall likely revisit.
Kim TallBear’s Native American DNA scrutinizes DNA and genetic science in the context of race and indigeneity. According to TallBear, many tribes are increasingly using DNA tests for membership in tribal rolls in addition to blood quantum. With that as a point of departure, the author borrows from feminist Donna Haraway, Aura Simpson’s ethnographic refusal, and Linda Tuwihai Smith’s decolonizing methodologies to unpack the ways in which genetic science perpetuates racialization and white domination. Indeed, TallBear’s study is more of an anthropology of white people, reversing the ethnographic gaze. She also adds nuance to the ways in which blood quantum became part of tribal membership, beginning with the 1887 Dawes act. Despite being impose from above, Indian input on who should be a member shaped how federal agents completed the allotment process. Furthermore, her nuanced discussion of blood as a sign of lineal descent, or genealogic tribalism, helps elucidate why blood quantum persists.
As someone less familiar with current trends in genetics, human migrations studies, and bioanthropology, TallBear’s dissection of those fields was often surprising. The use of knowledge of genetics as well as the ways in which indigenous communities’ views, permission, and epistemologies are not respected was not too much of a surprise, but the use of DNA studies to “prove” Native American ancestry is limited because of the faulty assumptions and racial thinking of scientists and genealogists. For instance, mtDNA or Y-DNA only tracks some of one’s paternal and maternal ancestry, meaning someone could be a member of, for example, the Sioux but a DNA test may not indicate any “Native American DNA.” As TallBear shared, many, including herself, have diverse Native ancestry and many of these groups have also formed close ties to whites and African-Americans over the centuries, thereby rendering genetic testing or gene fetishism problematic. Considering the discourse on indigeneity as the reserve of an untapped or “unmixed” gene pool closer to earlier stages of humanity, in danger of extinction or absorption, TallBear effectively argues for the resurgence of previous theories of race and racial domination. Her most powerful example, the documentary program with a white geneticist interviewing men from Tanzania, Mongolia, and a Native American, illustrate how theories of race and the dominance of European and Western ways of seeing the world permeate genetic science.
However, one cannot help but wonder how inclusion of Native American communities or perhaps interviews with Natives dis-enrolled because of genetic testing could have shaped TallBear’s work. Without their voices, TallBear is leaving out part of the story while possibly blurring differences in the way Native American groups perceive the issue of genetics and research. And despite her criticism of the use of genetics to turn base indigeneity in biology, I am still a little confused by her treatment of blood quantum here. For TallBear, blood quantum is related to the lineal descent and genealogic tribalism, and many tribes assume the higher the blood degree, the more likely the odds of true affiliation. But does this not continue indigeneity through a biological basis? There is a tension here of essentialism that sounds like DNA and racialization.
.png)