posted
The articles by Schlebusch et al (2017) and Schuenemann et al (2017) make it clear that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes. These studies of ancient DNA make it clear Sub-Saharan Africans were carrying Eurasian genes before they came in contact with Eurasians. This indicates that L3(M,N) and Y-Chromosome R1, had already spread across Africa before the OoA.
In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:
Haplogroup Frequency U 18.5 T 22.2 J 18.5 X 0.0675 M1a 0.0675 H 0.0675 I 0.0675 HV 0.037 RO 0.037 K 0.037 N 0.037
The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.
Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that the Khoisan 2kya carried 9-22% Eurasian genes. There is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians or East Africans mixed with the Khoisan 2kya. As a result, the presence of Eurasian genes among the Khoisan indicate that Eurasian genes were already present in Sub Saharan Africa before the spread of L3(M,N) into Eurasian.
In conclusion, Schlebusch et al (2017) and Schuenemann et al ( 2017) provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian DNA.
Reference:
Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694
Schlebusch C M, Helena Malmström, Torsten Günther, Per Sjödin, Alexandra Coutinho, Hanna Edlund, Arielle R Munters, Maryna Steyn, Himla Soodyall, Marlize Lombard, Mattias Jakobsson. (2017). Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago. bioRxiv 145409; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/145409
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Schuenemann et al 2017
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago Schlebuschet al 2017
The genome sequence (13x coverage) of a juvenile boy from Ballito Bay, who lived ~2,000 38 years ago, demonstrates that southern African Stone Age hunter-gatherers were not impacted by recent 39 admixture; however, we estimate that all modern-day Khoekhoe and San groups have been influenced 40 by 9-22% genetic admixture from East African/Eurasian pastoralist groups arriving >1,000 years ago, 41 including the Ju|’hoansi San, previously thought to have very low levels of admixture.
The East African/Eurasian source 120 of the admixture is particularly pronounced in herding Khoe groups such as the Nama (Extended Data 121 Table 2, SI 6.4-6.5). Based on these results, we suggest a migration from East Africa into southern 122 Africa, resulting in admixture with local hunter-gatherers ≥1.5 kya. This scenario is consistent with a 123 model of herding practices being introduced from the northeast by migrating pastoralists8, 26, 27. The 124 migration had a pronounced impact on all current Khoe-San groups, not only on the descendants of Stone 125 Age herders, such as the Khoekhoe (Fig. 2B, Extended Data Table 2, SI 6.4-6.5). This has been an elusive 126 result since all modern-day Khoe-San individuals display ≥9% recent admixture. The East 127 African/Eurasian admixture into San and Khoekhoe groups resulted in elevated diversity in present-day 128 Khoe-San groups (Fig 3, Extended Data Fig. 3, SI Section S7.1-S7.2).
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Schlebusch et al (2017)
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago Schlebusch 2017 Schlebusch et al (2017)
ABSTRACT The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
you made a mistake. Below is the Abstract Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago Schlebusch 2017 Schlebusch et al (2017) http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/05/145409
quote: Southern Africa is consistently placed as one of the potential regions for the evolution of Homo sapiens. To examine the region's human prehistory prior to the arrival of migrants from East and West Africa or Eurasia in the last 1,700 years, we generated and analyzed genome sequence data from seven ancient individuals from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Three Stone Age hunter-gatherers date to ~2,000 years ago, and we show that they were related to current-day southern San groups such as the Karretjie People. Four Iron Age farmers (300-500 years old) have genetic signatures similar to present day Bantu-speakers. The genome sequence (13x coverage) of a juvenile boy from Ballito Bay, who lived ~2,000 years ago, demonstrates that southern African Stone Age hunter-gatherers were not impacted by recent admixture; however, we estimate that all modern-day Khoekhoe and San groups have been influenced by 9-22% genetic admixture from East African/Eurasian pastoralist groups arriving >1,000 years ago, including the Ju|'hoansi San, previously thought to have very low levels of admixture. Using traditional and new approaches, we estimate the population divergence time between the Ballito Bay boy and other groups to beyond 260,000 years ago. These estimates dramatically increases the deepest divergence amongst modern humans, coincide with the onset of the Middle Stone Age in sub-Saharan Africa, and coincide with anatomical developments of archaic humans into modern humans as represented in the local fossil record. Cumulatively, cross-disciplinary records increasingly point to southern Africa as a potential (not necessarily exclusive) 'hot spot' for the evolution of our species.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Schlebusch et al (2017)
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
. Schuenemann et al.(2017), in Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, argues that there was a large scale immigration of Canaanites into Lower Egypt during the Hyksos period, and that this is the source of the Eurasian lineages at Abusir el-Meleq is groundless.
This theory is groundless because the Hyksos had a limited influence in Egypt. The Royal Canon of Turin, makes it clear that the I 5 th Dynasty reigned for 1o8 years, between I638 and I530. Moreover, Thutmose III secured Canaan and Syria and he established garrisons strategically at important places in the region . As a result, there was a migration of Upper Egyptians back into Lower Egypt and the Levant.
The Egyptians Schuenemann et al (2017), dating between 992-749BC would not have been descendants of the Hyksos. This sample of ancient Egyptian DNA was 600 years after the Upper Egyptians had retaken Lower Egypt and had established extensive colonies in the Levant. As a result, the vast majority of the population at Abusir would have been native Egyptians, not Eurasians.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that the Khoisan 2kya carried 9-22% Eurasian genes. There is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians or East Africans mixed with the Khoisan 2kya. As a result, the presence of Eurasian genes among the Khoisan indicate that Eurasian genes were already present in Sub Saharan Africa before the spread of L3(M,N) into Eurasian.
In conclusion, Schlebusch et al (2017) and Schuenemann et al ( 2017) provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian DNA.
Reference:
Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694
Schlebusch C M, Helena Malmström, Torsten Günther, Per Sjödin, Alexandra Coutinho, Hanna Edlund, Arielle R Munters, Maryna Steyn, Himla Soodyall, Marlize Lombard, Mattias Jakobsson. (2017). Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago. bioRxiv 145409; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/145409 [/QB]
Schlebusch et al (2017), Ancient genomes from southern Africa pushes modern human divergence beyond 260,000 years ago.
^ these are the genes they are talking about
None corresponding to the Abusir chart you posted so tying together these two articles is apples and oranges
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Schlebusch et al (2017)
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
. Schuenemann et al.(2017), in Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, argues that there was a large scale immigration of Canaanites into Lower Egypt during the Hyksos period, and that this is the source of the Eurasian lineages at Abusir el-Meleq is groundless.
This theory is groundless because the Hyksos had a limited influence in Egypt. The Royal Canon of Turin, makes it clear that the I 5 th Dynasty reigned for 1o8 years, between I638 and I530. Moreover, Thutmose III secured Canaan and Syria and he established garrisons strategically at important places in the region . As a result, there was a migration of Upper Egyptians back into Lower Egypt and the Levant.
The Egyptians Schuenemann et al (2017), dating between 992-749BC would not have been descendants of the Hyksos. This sample of ancient Egyptian DNA was 600 years after the Upper Egyptians had retaken Lower Egypt and had established extensive colonies in the Levant. As a result, the vast majority of the population at Abusir would have been native Egyptians, not Eurasians.
Three mummies are being talked about, each representing a different time period
and the Hyksos are included but not necessarily the sole foreign influence
these connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
quote:
wikipedia:
The Hyksos (were a people of mixed origins from Western Asia,who settled in the eastern Nile Delta, some time before 1650 BC. The arrival of the Hyksos led to the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt and initiated the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt
You said "Schuenemann et al (2017) make it clear that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes." Yet when I posted the Schuenemann et al quote you are saying Schuenemann's theory is groundless. That is disingenuous if someone reads you posts saying Schuenemann "made it clear" that implies Schuenemann said "there is no such thing as Eurasian genes" when she did not say that or anything close to that That is misrepresenting Verena Schuenemann
what you should have said is:
"despite Schuenemann conclusions information in her article make it clear to me there are no such thing as Eurasian genes"
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster
Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Schlebusch et al (2017)
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
. Schuenemann et al.(2017), in Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, argues that there was a large scale immigration of Canaanites into Lower Egypt during the Hyksos period, and that this is the source of the Eurasian lineages at Abusir el-Meleq is groundless.
This theory is groundless because the Hyksos had a limited influence in Egypt. The Royal Canon of Turin, makes it clear that the I 5 th Dynasty reigned for 1o8 years, between I638 and I530. Moreover, Thutmose III secured Canaan and Syria and he established garrisons strategically at important places in the region . As a result, there was a migration of Upper Egyptians back into Lower Egypt and the Levant.
The Egyptians Schuenemann et al (2017), dating between 992-749BC would not have been descendants of the Hyksos. This sample of ancient Egyptian DNA was 600 years after the Upper Egyptians had retaken Lower Egypt and had established extensive colonies in the Levant. As a result, the vast majority of the population at Abusir would have been native Egyptians, not Eurasians.
Three mummies are being talked about, each representing a different time period
and the Hyksos are included but not necessarily the sole foreign influence
these connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
quote:
wikipedia:
The Hyksos (were a people of mixed origins from Western Asia,who settled in the eastern Nile Delta, some time before 1650 BC. The arrival of the Hyksos led to the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt and initiated the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt
You said "Schuenemann et al (2017) make it clear that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes." Yet when I posted the Schuenemann et al quote you are saying Schuenemann's theory is groundless. That is disingenuous if someone reads you posts saying Schuenemann "made it clear" that implies Schuenemann said "there is no such thing as Eurasian genes" when she did not say that or anything close to that That is misrepresenting Verena Schuenemann
what you should have said is:
"despite Schuenemann conclusions information in her article make it clear to me there are no such thing as Eurasian genes"
Correct . Schuenemann et al (2017) argues that a mass migration of Hyksos introduced Eurasian genes to Egypt. The archaeology indicates that the Hyksos ruled Egypt for 108 years, and Upper Egyptians drove the Hyksos out of Egypt and even advanced into the Levant where they remained a power for 100's of years thereafter.
There were no Hyksos in Egypt 900BC. There is no such thing as Eurasian genes because if Egyptians were carrying the genes between 992-749 BC , the genes are African--not Eurasian.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hyksos were a people of mixed origins from Western Asia who settled in the eastern Nile Delta, some time before 1650 BC.
So the time period at which that took political leadership in the Delta is a later point.
And all of these dates are imprecise as accurate dating in Egyptian history are often uncertain.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that the Khoisan 2kya carried 9-22% Eurasian genes. There is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians or East Africans mixed with the Khoisan 2kya.
No, they found that modern Khoisan have 9-22% East African admixture (containing a minority of Eurasian ancestry). The Khoisan from 2000 years ago lacked that ancestry.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that the Khoisan 2kya carried 9-22% Eurasian genes. There is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians or East Africans mixed with the Khoisan 2kya.
No, they found that modern Khoisan have 9-22% East African admixture (containing a minority of Eurasian ancestry). The Khoisan from 2000 years ago lacked that ancestry.
1) What is Eurasian ancestry?
2) Khoisan is a cluster name for multiple groups.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again I don't know why some are getting worked up about this when prior studies already said this. Its not even saying that Eurasian DNA was in Africa before the OOA. Or that there was Eurasian backmigration. And if I remember correctly the study states that the Eurasian ancestry in Khoisans is minor.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Hyksos were a people of mixed origins from Western Asia who settled in the eastern Nile Delta, some time before 1650 BC.
So the time period at which that took political leadership in the Delta is a later point.
And all of these dates are imprecise as accurate dating in Egyptian history are often uncertain.
The date is not imprecise the Royal Canon of Turin, makes it clear how long the Hyksos ruled Egypt.
In addition, you make it appear as if the Levant was only inhabited by Eurasians this is false many Egyptians were also in the region.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Hyksos were a people of mixed origins from Western Asia who settled in the eastern Nile Delta, some time before 1650 BC.
So the time period at which they took political leadership in the Delta is a later point.
[/QUOTE]
[ 08. June 2017, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Schlebusch et al (2017), claim that the Khoisan 2kya carried 9-22% Eurasian genes. There is no archaeological evidence that Eurasians or East Africans mixed with the Khoisan 2kya.
No, they found that modern Khoisan have 9-22% East African admixture (containing a minority of Eurasian ancestry). The Khoisan from 2000 years ago lacked that ancestry.
Cite the archaeological evidence supporting a migration of Eurasians and East Africans carrying Eurasian genes into Southern Africa 1.5kya.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The successful genetic sequencing of the seven ancient individuals from KwaZulu-Natal contributes to the better understanding of two relatively recent events that are clear in the archaeological record. One is the migration of East African herders introducing pastoralism ≥1.5 kya to southern Africa, and their mixing with local hunter-gatherers.
If the Eurasians introduced pastoralism as claimed by Schlebusch et al (2017),the Khoisan should herd East African cattle. But this is not the case. The Khoisan herd Nuguni cattle, East Africans in Ethiopia herd Abigar taurus cattle and Abyssinian shorthorned Zebu.
The Nguni cattle is ancient African breed of cattle. There are rock paintings from Libya and the Sahara of Nguni cattle that are 8000 years old. This highlights the antiquity of Khoisan cattle herding.
It is interesting to note that the Khoisan rode cattle into battle, like horses when they battled Portuguese explorers. In addition, the Bantu and Afrikaner adopted Khoisan cattle skills and husbandry techniques. See: http://zulucattle.com/history_of_nguni_cattle.htm
In summary, there is no evidence of Eurasian influence in Khoisan cattle herding. Any Eurasian genes carried by the Khoisan are of African origin.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome Clyde. Next time you might want to read the paper instead of just skimming the abstract.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
The successful genetic sequencing of the seven ancient individuals from KwaZulu-Natal contributes to the better understanding of two relatively recent events that are clear in the archaeological record. One is the migration of East African herders introducing pastoralism ≥1.5 kya to southern Africa, and their mixing with local hunter-gatherers.
If the Eurasians introduced pastoralism as claimed by Schlebusch et al (2017),the Khoisan should herd East African cattle. But this is not the case. The Khoisan herd Nuguni cattle, East Africans in Ethiopia herd Abigar taurus cattle and Abyssinian shorthorned Zebu.
The Nguni cattle is ancient African breed of cattle. There are rock paintings from Libya and the Sahara of Nguni cattle that are 8000 years old. This highlights the antiquity of Khoisan cattle herding.
It is interesting to note that the Khoisan rode cattle into battle, like horses when they battled Portuguese explorers. In addition, the Bantu and Afrikaner adopted Khoisan cattle skills and husbandry techniques. See: http://zulucattle.com/history_of_nguni_cattle.htm
In summary, there is no evidence of Eurasian influence in Khoisan cattle herding. Any Eurasian genes carried by the Khoisan are of African origin.
Just to be clear, when you say "Khoisan" meaning two different groups of people the San(oldest people in SA, hunter-gatherers) and the Khoi(Khoekhoena, who were/are cattle herders, and did/do semi-farming). The "Afrikaners"? Afrikaner is a Dutch or Cape Dutch for African. And "Bantu" means 'people', all or any group of people. We say or use "Nguni" to refer to neighboring Xhosa and Zulu people etc.
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Autshumato: Just to be clear, when you say "Khoisan" meaning two different groups of people the San(oldest people in SA, hunter-gatherers) and the Khoi(Khoekhoena, who were/are cattle herders, and did/do semi-farming).
Can you tell them apart by looking?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, Khoe=Khoi=namakwa=bambatwa= Twa Pygmy branch. I don't think they farmed until outsiders with Asian-bred crops came. I think the Nguni cattle were brought into Africa then, but uncertain, perhaps zebu hybrid wth Omani cattle? I note that the "Hottentot"/Khoi hunting dog (Rhodesian ridgeback) was called 'ari', just as the local pariah dog was called 'ari' in India.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: IMO, Khoe=Khoi=namakwa=bambatwa= Twa Pygmy branch. I don't think they farmed until outsiders with Asian-bred crops came. I think the Nguni cattle were brought into Africa then, but uncertain, perhaps zebu hybrid wth Omani cattle? I note that the "Hottentot"/Khoi hunting dog (Rhodesian ridgeback) was called 'ari', just as the local pariah dog was called 'ari' in India.
Yes, the Nguni people brought farming to South Africa.
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Autshumato: Just to be clear, when you say "Khoisan" meaning two different groups of people the San(oldest people in SA, hunter-gatherers) and the Khoi(Khoekhoena, who were/are cattle herders, and did/do semi-farming).
Can you tell them apart by looking?
The San are a "pygmy" type people, but I think that is due to diet and the Khoi people are taller - so yes, you can tell them apart.
-------------------- “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Posts: 195 | From: Southern Africa(Azania) | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic