Xaghra6 - A woman buried in Malta in the Neolithic era

Download PDF creates a visual, rasterized copy. Use Print for selectable text and better assistive-technology support.

Menu
Currency
Main
Store
Blog

Loading Report

Preparing your ancestry journey

Connecting to ancient matches...

Preparing your report

Skip to main content
Portrait reconstruction of A woman buried in Malta in the Neolithic era
Ancient Individual

A woman buried in Malta in the Neolithic era

A woman buried in Malta during the Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra)

A fragment of the ancient world, preserved across millennia in strands of DNA.

Xaghra6
2900 BCE - 2650 BCE
Female
Malta
Scroll to begin
Chapter I

Identity

The biological and cultural markers that define this ancient individual

Sample ID

Xaghra6

Date Range

2900 BCE - 2650 BCE

Cultural Period

Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra)

Biological Sex

Female

mtDNA Haplogroup

Not available

Y-DNA Haplogroup

N/A (Female)

Social Role

Farmer (AI estimate, era-typical)

Chapter II

Place

Where this individual was discovered

Country Malta
Locality Xaghra Circle (Gozo)
Coordinates 36.0465, 14.2649
Chapter III

Time

When this individual lived in the broader context of human history

Xaghra6 2900 BCE - 2650 BCE
Chapter IV

Story

The narrative of this ancient life

Overview

The Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) is part of Malta’s Neolithic tradition, associated with the construction and use of monumental temple complexes. The Xagħra phase represents communities capable of organizing labor and maintaining craft practices over long periods, leaving an archaeological record rich in architectural remains and everyday artifacts.

Region & Environment

Malta is a small archipelago in the central Mediterranean, with limited arable land but access to marine resources. Neolithic inhabitants relied on local stone for construction and on mixed subsistence strategies that included agriculture where possible and maritime foods. The island environment encouraged efficient use of space and long-term investment in built places.

Historical Context

During Malta’s Neolithic, distinctive temple-building traditions developed locally rather than reflecting a simple import from continental Europe. These communities lived before the major classical Mediterranean temple traditions, and the temple system became a defining feature of their social landscape. Over time, temples were built, reused, and sometimes modified, indicating continuing cultural importance.

Populations & Lifeways

Populations associated with temple culture were not merely transient camp users; they organized life around established ceremonial and communal spaces. Households would have processed food, managed daily tools, and supported construction work. Craft production and the procurement of building materials likely required both routine labor and periodic coordinated efforts.

Archaeology & Material Culture

Archaeology is dominated by temple architecture—massive stone walls, carefully shaped stonework, and complex internal spaces—alongside smaller domestic and craft items. Finds may include carved stone objects, pottery, and tools used in everyday activities. The persistence of architectural styles and construction techniques points to learned skills and institutionalized building practices.

Culture & Society

Temple complexes imply social coordination, including shared beliefs and communal participation in ritual activities. Architectural planning and repeated investment suggest that these spaces were central to community identity. The material record also indicates craft specialization sufficient to produce construction elements and everyday goods at a scale larger than would be expected from small, isolated households.

Legacy & Transition

The Maltese Temple Culture represents a foundational stage in the island’s long Neolithic tradition of monumental building. Later prehistoric phases in Malta continued to involve social reorganization and new settlement patterns, but the temple tradition remained a key archaeological legacy. The transition away from temple-centered organization is visible through changes in the archaeological record, though the precise causes are not fully recoverable.

Chapter V

Genetics

These comparisons show genetic similarity, not identity or origin. The populations listed are those whose genomes show statistical alignment to this ancient individual.

Similarity reflects shared history, not shared identity. These are analytical comparisons, not claims about who this person was.

Modern Genetic Admixture

This analysis compares the DNA profile with present-day reference populations, showing statistical similarity to modern reference populations from different regions. The excavation site records where this individual was found, not a fixed modern genetic identity.

Europe 83.1%
Southern European 83.1%
Italian 42.9%
Sardinian 26.4%
Iberian 13.9%
Asia 10.1%
Northern West Asian 8.6%
Cypriot 8.6%
Arab, Egyptian & Levantine 1.5%
Arabian 1.5%
Africa 6.8%
North African 6.8%
North African 6.8%
Context

Related Samples

This individual exists within a broader network of ancient samples. No ancient genome stands alone.

Sample ID Culture/Period Date Location Action
cay004 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 6591 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay007 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 7592 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay008 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 10483 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay011 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 6475 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay012 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 9800 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay013 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 8893 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay014 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 7470 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay015 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 9800 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay016 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 8893 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay1820 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 9800 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay022 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 7467 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay027 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 9800 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
cay033 Çayönü Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture 9800 BCE Boncuklu (Diyarbakır, Ergani), Turkey View
Xaghra6 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2900 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Xaghra5 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2550 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Xaghra9 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2530 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Sample ID Culture/Period Date Location Action
Xaghra6 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2900 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Xaghra5 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2550 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Xaghra9 Maltese Temple Culture (Xagħra) 2530 BCE Xaghra Circle (Gozo), Malta View
Sources

References

Scientific publications and genetic data that inform this profile.

Scientific Publication

Ancient Maltese genomes and the genetic geography of Neolithic Europe

Authors Ariano B, Mattiangeli V, Breslin EM, Parkinson EW, McLaughlin TR et al.
Abstract

Archaeological consideration of maritime connectivity has ranged from a biogeographical perspective that considers the sea as a barrier to a view of seaways as ancient highways that facilitate exchange. Our results illustrate the former. We report three Late Neolithic human genomes from the Mediterranean island of Malta that are markedly enriched for runs of homozygosity, indicating inbreeding in their ancestry and an effective population size of only hundreds, a striking illustration of maritime isolation in this agricultural society. In the Late Neolithic, communities across mainland Europe experienced a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry, pointing toward the persistence of different ancestral strands that subsequently admixed. This is absent in the Maltese genomes, giving a further indication of their genomic insularity. Imputation of genome-wide genotypes in our new and 258 published ancient individuals allowed shared identity-by-descent segment analysis, giving a fine-grained genetic geography of Neolithic Europe. This highlights the differentiating effects of seafaring Mediterranean expansion and also island colonization, including that of Ireland, Britain, and Orkney. These maritime effects contrast profoundly with a lack of migratory barriers in the establishment of Central European farming populations from Anatolia and the Balkans.

G25 Coordinates

These coordinates represent a position in genetic space, a tool for comparison, not a conclusion. You can use these to perform custom admixture analysis in G25 Studio.

Xaghra6,0.1114655,0.15852262,0.01011228,-0.0544318,0.04979248,-0.02514106,-0.00486292,0.00342024,0.03716406,0.06601012,-0.00257664,0.01292036,-0.02088092,-0.01277166,-0.01270016,0.00591596,0.0151993,0.00046204,0.00029222,-0.0047695,-0.00049636,0.00382236,-0.009352,-0.01719696,0.00413544
Continue in G25 Studio
Use code for 35% off Expires Aug 03