Topic: The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I have uncomposed commentary not coherent enough yet post. But I think I should put up some work in progress charts now. They're from the research paper and the supplements. But first
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
So far what I find from the research data E-M2 probably expanded from north Cameroon where it coalesced 4000 years earlier from LGAM Mayo Louti cultural site men who were likely ancestral to the Fali. Green Sahara E-M2 moved north from Cameroon following the northward expanding fertile grassland landscapes.
I haven't read the Cruciani Trombetta text. This project they designed and supervised is the latest of their ongoing studies.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Looks like E-M2 originates in north Cameroon from Chadic (not Kanuric) speakers in the Adamawa Plateau.
E-M2 split into a local clade and a clade that's got all the subclades.
The expanding clade's founder was most likely Chadic, an Asio-African language.
The oldest subclade founder 9k was most likely Nilo-Saharan. It expanded 7k.
Around that same time the 'Atlantic-Congo' and 'Niger-Congo' subclades form.
The ~7k E-M2 expansion may be a signal of movement westsouthwest and south from the fully Green Sahara.
I could've fouled up but incredibly 'Niger- Congo B', Bantu E-M2 seems to source from a Nilo-Saharan ancestor of its 'Niger-Congo' founder.
E-M2 'Niger-Congo' source Bantu expansion starts ~7k and does it again ~6k for the Great Lakes region where ~5k it expands two more times.
E-M2 Nilo-Saharan to 'Niger-Congo' sourced Bantu expansion begins ~4k
About the same time E-M2 expands in Oasis Egypt. Though seperated by 7000 years with not a single intermediary it's immediate ancestor is the founder of the Expanding Clade. This young E-M2 subclade expanded locally 1000 years ago.
Another E-M2 Johnny come lately's at the other side of the north of Africa in Morocco. It goes back only ~500 years and it too came from the Expanding Founder lineage.
Other Tamazight E-M2 has ~7k 'Atlantic-Congo' and ~4.5k Chadic roots.
Ok,enough of clades and clusters.
I noticed Shorties have Expanding Founder E-M2, Nilo-Saharan founder E-M2 and 'Niger-Congo B' founder E-M2.
One E-M2 subclade dating back ~5k was only found because of Black Americans and African Americans have U174.
I still ain't read the D'Atanasio Trombetta Cruciani text yet.
posted
MOD EDIT: V88 Origins and anti-empirical fringe theories will Not be Discussed in this thread. Duscussions on V88's Origins shall be discussed Here Thanks everyone
You are right Fig S4 is much better. Someone slap me! Am I seeing this right that E-M2-V2003* is dated 9.08kya…in Southern Europe?
Not really. As I said on the previous thread page, this paper provides no age updates of early holocene North African E-M2. All the age updates concern North African E-M2 that couldn't have arrived before Old or Middle Kingdom times (using Egyptian chronology).
Also, as I said in that post, this doesn't mean that there was no older E-M2 in North Africa. It just means such old age updates have yet to be reported. This is not that paper that reports those old ages.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Clyde trying to talk about the origin of R-V88. That's the least of your worries. Any reaction to the implications of E-M2 in Middle Kingdom Egypt? Looks like the Middle Egyptian language dates to a period marked by increased Central African influences.
quote:On the "Hound Stela" of the Eleventh Dynasty ruler Antef II, one of the basenjis has the name Abaikur, meaning "hound" in Berber, suggesting a southwestern origin for that particular dog.
This is why you have to be careful making claims in bioanthropology. The data can be very treacherous. What initially looked like the original Egyptian language (i.e. Middle Egyptian) may simply be a form of Egyptian influenced by Chadic speakers from West/Central Africa. Another setback for Negro-Egyptian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait huh? Swenet how are you? Huh? I'm lost. First how can we even discern the ancient location from modern location? Assuming we can isnt Tuckler's chart saying E-M2 was in Egypt in 11 thousand years ago?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Wait huh? Swenet how are you? Huh? I'm lost. First how can we even discern the ancient location from modern location?
Look closely at the structure of the 'complete' tree (not figure 2, but figure S4). Only small parts of the tree are sufficiently resolved to infer origin/directionality, so focus on the more resolved parts. When you do that you will see all North African E-M2 clades have short funnel shaped tips (not long funnel shaped tips). This proves they're all young, around 4ky old.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Assuming we can isnt Tuckler's chart saying E-M2 was in Egypt in 11 thousand years ago?
Are you talking about branch 71? The Egyptian versions of it are undated. But they're young. See what I said above.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukuler I'm a lil confused about your table... Why not simply use table S5 and figure S4 to compose your tree. and use point mutations as opposed to vague nodes.Basal E-M2 predates node 69 by about 5 thousand years and is not in Cameroon ...In fact it takes all the way until V4257 to find a clade found in the Fali a clade which is only ~6.46kya. The most basal/Divergent clade with the earliest coalescent age has the highest frequency among the Medinjay 17+kya???? otherwise its found in Egypt and Moyen Atlas Berbers. whats up?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
11k's just out the Pleistocene. Desert was milder and sandwiched by grasslands. E-M2's a 17k old Central / West African haplogroup as far as I can tell. See maps posted above.
When 'Atlantic-Congo' split from Nilo- Saharan 6.95k it had two E-M2 'Berber' subclades. that expand 4.9k. One of them is found in Siwa. See the Founders chart posted above.
There are two later Tamazight expansions on the Siwa founded 73 branch. At 3.6k 1k and 0.5k for Ouarzazate Morocco. Dates will vary a pinch pending BEAST or Rho.
Sorry about my Fali fallacies. D'Atanasio Fali are the 'Niger-Congo' ones. No language leap. NC and NS have a relationship. NC and AA not so much so.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The most basal/Divergent clade with the earliest coalescent age has the highest frequency among the Medinjay 17+kya???? otherwise its found in Egypt and Moyen Atlas Berbers.
that's not known to be a clade and it doesn't have a coalescent age (unless i am missing something?). and Madjingay n=15.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Are you talking about branch 71? The Egyptian versions of it are undated. But they're young. See what I said above. [/QB]
Minor correction. One Egypt-specific version with sufficient resolution was dated. It's 3.81ky old. Two other E-M2 clades carried by Egyptians (branch 79 and 81) have poor resolution and are not dated. But based on their properties, it's sufficient to infer directionality and their age (roughly). They can hardly have arrived before the mid-holocene.
All other Egyptian E-M2 is irrelevant right now.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The most basal/Divergent clade with the earliest coalescent age has the highest frequency among the Medinjay 17+kya???? otherwise its found in Egypt and Moyen Atlas Berbers.
that's not known to be a clade and it doesn't have a coalescent age (unless i am missing something?). and Madjingay n=15.
It's (xpage66 and CTS10066) is it not? If it is, it represents the earliest split among these samples. meaning it'd be anything between estimated split time for "node 69" and the age of M2. Table s3 is mereley a breakdown for the clusterfuck that is of fig2. All those E-M2* branches don't distinguish anything that split before E-U209. I figured it'd be easy to get the age of E-M2*(xpage66,CTS10066) which is why the authors made the triangle width equivalent to the age of E-M2 (as opposed to half like they said it would if the couldn't estimate a time).
The only clades we know for certain lack a time estimate of any kind are: -E-Page66* W.African** -E-M10 Chadic -E-V4334 W.African -E-V4261 Fulani/Egypt -E-V6235* W.African -E-V4990 Moroccan -E-V3224* W.Afican -E-V1155 Yoruba
^And the Bold mutations are found in single individuals.
To speak of sample size, there's a few hundred Cameroonians, none of which has E-m2(xV4257, V4727) in anyway, how do we designate that as a starting point for the entire clade, couple that with the fact that E-V4257* represented by the 11kyo split is primarily found among Chadic speakers? And here's the common sense question again, What is prohibiting earlier expansion in SSA populations? It seems to me that if we had larger Sahelian/Saharan African sample sizes we'd only see more upstream mutations among them.
**EDT: PAGE66 is node 69 (fig2) and is actually 11kyaPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
all the paragroups are shown fanning out from the root, not half way down like known but undated clades. because they don't know whether the paragroups actually form a clade or where they branch off. i see nothing to suggest any of them were sequenced, otherwise they'd be put on proper branches. they were genotyped in the big sample set after new variants had been discovered by sequencing the smaller set AFAICT.
so the E-M2* samples could have branched off before or after the E-M2 root in the diagram. they could be 1 young sister branch of E-CTS10066 or 3 thirty thousand year old basal branches of E-M2. who knows.
after 10 000 years there's only so much modern diversity can tell you. though admittedly i haven't looked at it properly yet.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: All the paragroups are shown fanning out from the root, not half way down like known but undated clades. because they don't know whether the paragroups actually form a clade or where they branch off. i see nothing to suggest any of them were sequenced, otherwise they'd be put on proper branches. they were genotyped in the big sample set after new variants had been discovered by sequencing the smaller set AFAICT.
so the E-M2* samples could have branched off before or after the E-M2 root in the diagram. they could be 1 young sister branch of E-CTS10066 or 3 thirty thousand year old basal branches of E-M2. who knows.
after 10 000 years there's only so much modern diversity can tell you. though admittedly i haven't looked at it properly yet.
Look at it properly, cause you're actually, indirectly suggesting they pulled the split times from their asses lmaoo Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
That last chart I posted has all the dated branches from figures 2 and S4
Supplementary Tables 2 (columns A E F N), 1 (columns A C D E) get down to IDing the source sample of each of the 30 markers given dates in Figures 2 and S4. Table S3 lists BEAST dates, see below.
Branch numbers make the Trees accessible. Using mutations alone is too unwieldy.
When the Branch snd Marker from a figure match a row in Table S2 we take its Samples to Table S1 where the corresponding row tells the Samples' source population(s).
Table S9 is limited to in silico genotyped SNPs That's the ones in my chart with a o in column 1
That's a redux sorted by date and I added node sample sources
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Look at it properly, cause you're actually, indirectly suggesting they pulled the split times from their asses lmaoo
hmmm, i think i see what you mean, some nodes have TMRCAs but only have 1 sequenced branch. supp text is a bit terse but sounds like they actually checked all the SNPs along the relevant branch and counted how many were ancestral. in which case the paragroup samples could not branch off before the Page66-CTS10066 split.
paragroup still not a clade though. Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: That last chart I posted has all the dated branches from figures 2 and S4
Supplementary Tables 2 (columns A E F N), 1 (columns A C D E) get down to IDing the source sample of each of the 30 markers given dates in Figures 2 and S4. Table S3 lists BEAST dates, see below.
Branch numbers make the Trees accessible. Using mutations alone is too unwieldy.
When the Branch snd Marker from a figure match a row in Table S2 we take its Samples to Table S1 where the corresponding row tells the Samples' source population(s).
Table S9 is limited to in silico genotyped SNPs That's the ones in my chart with a o in column 1
I see, but what's troublesome when you look at the age by mutation (which is the basis of this analysis). We might be tricked into thinking the Fali for example carry mutation that branched off 11.03kya. which isn't true. E-M4727* is the oldest mutation dated 10.53kyo in the Fali and it's Downstream from PAGGE66. Basal p66 isn't found among the Fali, the sister group E-V4257 which is 6.5kya is, but is immeasurable in comparison to mutations frequency Chadic Speakers/populations. That paints an entirely different picture with respect to the Phylogeny of E-M2.
I'm going to try to put together a comprehensive post on what this says about the relationship between NiloSaharan and NC speakers. cuz the story is there to be decoded.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: hmmm, i think i see what you mean, some nodes have TMRCAs but only have 1 sequenced branch. supp text is a bit terse but sounds like they actually checked all the SNPs along the relevant branch and counted how many were ancestral. in which case the paragroup samples could not branch off before the Page66-CTS10066 split.
Branched off? The TMRCA of E-M2* = age of the Page66-CTS10066 split (17kya).
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
that's the maximum TMRCA, the actual TMRCA of the 4 E-M2* samples is unknown.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This is why I do the data before reading the report. To analyze data, synthesize it with what I know or can reference from related multidisciplinary sources, and then draw my conclusions.
Later I'll read the report and see what I'll see where me and authors agree or disagree. It's a proactive approach.
There's no explaining away the source used to date the mutations.
No speculation.
The plateu dwelling, expunged from Adamawa subphylum, yet 'Niger-Congo' speaking Fali was the sample that dated PAGE66 to 11k (Rho).
And so I conclude until Cruciani writes and tells me it ain't so.
E-M2 [PAGE66 69] split into a local clade [M4257 71] and a clade [V4727 71] that's got all the subclades.
This expanding clade founder most likely spoke a language that will become Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo.
The oldest subclade [V2003 84] founder 9k was most likely Nilo-Saharan. It expanded 7k: • southwest the 'Atlantic-Congo' Z15939,Z15941 77 • WNW Songhai V7937 94 and L516 94 • south major 'Niger-Congo' U209 84
The ~7k E-M2 expansion signals movement westsouthwest, westnorthwest, and south from the thriving fully Green Sahara.
Bantu has two sources. The older one [M3991 87] descends from 'Niger-Congo' [U209 84] starting ~7k. Surprisingly it's offshoot [V3862 87] coalesces within 100 years. 1000 years later [V2580 87] is the last NC Bantu branch of the last days of the Green Sahara.
The younger Bantu [U174 100] is Nilo-Saharan [L516 95]'s nephew. Their connection is[M191 100] considered the 'Bantu Drift' originator.
E-M2/U174 Nilo-Saharan to 'Niger-Congo' sourced Bantu expansion begins ~4k.
About this same time E-M2/V5001 72 expands in Oasis Egypt. Siwa was Western Libyan then in the 13th Dynasty.
Though seperated by 7000 years with not a single intermediary it's immediate ancestor is the founder of the Expanding Clade M4727 71. This very young E-M2 subclade expanded locally 1000 years ago with V5758 73.
Another E-M2 Johnny come lately's at the other side of the north of Africa in Morocco. V6150 81 only goes back ~500 years and it too came directly the Expanding Founder lineage.
Other Tamazight, E-M2 • V6235 80 has old roots uniting it with 'Atlantic-Congo' Z15939, Z15941 77. • V5280 97 is from ~4.5k L516 V5280 97 Sudanic Nilo-Saharan roots.
All E-M2 Asio-African Tamazight speakers sampled from Egyptian Oases populations and Morocco had a NS/NC father sometime in the Holocene.
I noticed Shorties have • Expanding Founder E-M2 69 • Nilo-Saharan founder E-M2 V1891 93 and •'Niger-Congo B' founder E-M2 M191 100
One E-M2 subclade dating back ~5k was only found because of Black Americans and African Americans have U174.
I'll keep expanding, correcting, and simplifying it as I keep on analyzing and synthesizing the data.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Clyde trying to talk about the origin of R-V88. That's the least of your worries. Any reaction to the implications of E-M2 in Middle Kingdom Egypt? Looks like the Middle Egyptian language dates to a period marked by increased Central African influences.
quote:On the "Hound Stela" of the Eleventh Dynasty ruler Antef II, one of the basenjis has the name Abaikur, meaning "hound" in Berber, suggesting a southwestern origin for that particular dog.
This is why you have to be careful making claims in bioanthropology. The data can be very treacherous. What initially looked like the original Egyptian language (i.e. Middle Egyptian) may simply be a form of Egyptian influenced by Chadic speakers from West/Central Africa. Another setback for Negro-Egyptian.
Turns out Clyde preceded me in pointing out increased Central African influence on Middle Kingdom Egypt. (Not that I take it for granted that everything he says on this topic is accurate). Will follow up on these leads and confirm for myself.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The fact that Mande, Wolof and Fula are related to Egyptian is probably due to the fact that when the Inyotefs took over Egypt the ancestors of these groups live in southern Egypt/Upper Kush. This would explain 1) the relationship between the Fula and Egyptian language of the 12th Dynasty 2) the introduction of the worship of Aman to the Egyptians a god worshipped by many Niger-Congo speakers, 3) the presence of Egyptian gods for selected nomes bearing West African ethnonyms and 4)the love of the basenji dog by the 12th Dynasty Egyptians.
Before this paper I assumed that the Chadic-Egyptian influences were much older (or at least started trickling in earlier) than the Middle Kingdom. But now that I think about it, these young E-M2 and R-V88 dates make a lot of sense. There are historical examples of Upper Egyptians (e.g. Kamose) recruiting southern African neighbours during civil wars.
quote:On the other hand, the Medjay like the Nubians of the C-Group culture interacted favorably with the Egyptians. In the case of the Meday, they appear to be reliable allies and formed, therefore, part of the Egyptian army under Kamose in his campaigns against the Hyksos. Some have suggested that a Medjay contingent may have played a primary role in Kamose's interception of the Hyksos embassy en route to Nubia.
Even northern enemies of the 17th dynasty tried to form an alliance with Nubians for military help against Upper Egypt. If southern Africans played this role during 2nd intermediate period, why not during the first intermediate period and the Middle Kingdom?
The Middle Kingdom was preceded by civil war (first intermediate period). Could be Thebans emerged victorious because they had help from the south and from people ultimately deriving from the southwest. Also, it's probably naive to think that Bantu migrations were specific to Bantu speakers. Whatever caused it would have impacted neighbouring populations as well (like Chadic speakers). And since Chadic speakers were pastoralists, it would have been more natural for them to expand into areas with no tsetse flies (i.e. not to the south, as Bantu speakers did, but to the northeast and north). Niger-Congo speaking pastoralists might also have expanded in directions opposite of Bantu farmers.
Will be interesting to see how much of the Negro-Egyptian commonalities can be explained by this.
posted
Where is Djehuti when you need to bounce ideas off him.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm going to try to put together a comprehensive post on what this says about the relationship between NiloSaharan and NC speakers. cuz the story is there to be decoded.
Looking forward to this. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
E-M58 is relatively uncommon, seems largely absent in West Africa, but it is reportedly present in non-Bantu-speaking populations from Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso as well as South and East Africa, besides Arabs and Americans.
E-M58 in some other studies:
Naidoo et al (2010): 3% pooled Southeast African Bantu (n=343), 1% pooled Khoisan (n=183). Barbieri et al (2016): 4% pooled South African Bantu (n=140), 6% Damara (n=36), 1% pooled Khoisan (n=371). Rowold et al (2014): 3% Mozambicans (n=78). Luis et al (2004): 10% Rwandan Hutu (n=69) Hirbo (2011): East African Bantu speakers ~2% (n=196), also found among Hadza and East Nilotic speakers, Bedzan from Cameroon 18% (n=17). Cruciani et al (2002): 5% Rimaibe from Burkina Faso (n=37, halotype 26 iirc is M58, this is super old though) Haber et al (2016): 2% Sara from southern Chad (n=61), 2% of general population from capital (n=55). YFull private testers: a Kuwaiti (private tester) another unidentified sample (prob American or Arab). 1000 Genomes Project: a Luhya from Kenya, an African-American from SW US, a Puerto Rican, 2 Afro-Caribbeans from Barbados HGDP: a Herero
looking at the linguistic and archaeological discussions "monolithic" is not the impression i get!
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
for gathering that M58 info.
I only looked for it in the reefered Poznik.
Maybe I misunderstood you.
It's the heretofore known Bantu Expansion that's been presented as 'monolithic,' a single start time and demography.
I always had a thing with E Afr Bantu speaking friends that besides the language how can so many of them be late arrivals to Kenya and the Lakes?
This study is showing multiple sources for Bantu speakers origins. M58 is one and AsiAfrican speakers got a lot of it. That's the thing's got my head tilted.
. . .
Southern Bantu M58 5.16 0 generation . Other Bantu sources in this study are Central&Lakes U290 4.90 4th generation (from W Afr V2003 Central&Lakes U174 3.88 1st generation (from W Afr V1891
E-M58's dated to 5.16k and it's the only one directly downstream from M4727.
All of them post date the 5.5k Sahara drying. Dduring the LGAM, Africa south of 10° N was fully livable grassland and savanna allowing free movement all over with suitable tools for hunting grassland and savanna fauna.
There was no need for everybody to move up into the Green Sahara. Even if open canopy forest was an impeding toolkit challenge then, it was still all savanna from Senegal to Kenya above the fully maximized Sierra Leone to Uganda massive rainforest. Then, from Kenya to Zimbabwe, scrub, leading to Botswana and SouthAfrica grassland.
Food production called for new different tools. Some industry came down from drying Sahara but down south food production inspired it's own tool industries.
Since everybody didn't move into the Sahara it's hard to say E-M2 definitely expanded from there.
posted
i think the only reason it is being linked to the Green Sahara is the timing - a big population expansion around the beginning of the Holocene. beyond that yeah i don't see what would exclude the Sudanian zone.
re Bantu expansion there is a lot of shared ancestry and the close relationship of languages so yeah you need a lot of people to have started spreading from a limited area. but how it began AFAIK has never been established archaeologically, not till the beginning of the Iron Age (or at best just prior) do we have any kind of solid trail and that from multiple centres. then lots of subsequent movements, expansions, and contacts between different groups (who have picked up additional regional ancestry and cultural elements).
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Will be interesting to see how much of the Negro-Egyptian commonalities can be explained by this.
I don't recall the specifics but I remember Asar saying something about how this map isn't anything close to cannon. I took that as you could move it to the side and go with the Green Sahara model with the 'Niger-Congo' relation to IE. Last I heard it is what Mboli's working on. When I wrote the movie script set in the Predynastic I assumed something like that map with Robert Bauval's location for Yam in black Genesis. I theorized that the the west African phenotype was initially more common in Yam, Temeh of Libya and Ta Mehu of lower Egypt than in upper Egypt.
I remember when Robert Bauval stated that
quote: 'Egyptians' were from a black Sub-Saharan race coming from the Tibesti mountains in northern Chad some 12,500 years ago.
It was controversialish I guess. I took it as, Yam was a population hub. It's founding and desertification were both periods of shared ancestry with the Nile Valley.
Its ironic. The closest thing to a true negro element in ancient Egypt came from the bible's Ham which I wager is a reference to Yam. The Hamitic hypothesis was jackboot pseudo science that even contradicted the bible. No surprise that it will end up being the complete opposite of right.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
I don't recall the specifics but I remember Asar saying something about how this map isn't anything close to cannon. I took that as you could move it to the side and go with the Green Sahara model with the 'Niger-Congo' relation to IE. Last I heard it is what Mboli's working on. When I wrote the movie script set in the Predynastic I assumed something like that map with Robert Bauval's location for Yam in black Genesis. I theorized that the the west African phenotype was initially more common in Yam, Temeh of Libya and Ta Mehu of lower Egypt than in upper Egypt.
I remember when Robert Bauval stated that
quote: 'Egyptians' were from a black Sub-Saharan race coming from the Tibesti mountains in northern Chad some 12,500 years ago.
It was controversialish I guess. I took it as, Yam was a population hub. It's founding and desertification were both periods of shared ancestry with the Nile Valley.
Its ironic. The closest thing to a true negro element in ancient Egypt came from the bible's Ham which I wager is a reference to Yam. The Hamitic hypothesis was jackboot pseudo science that even contradicted the bible. No surprise that it will end up being the complete opposite of right. [/qb]
The physical anthro evidence seems to be suggest something to that effect. Preliminary skeletal analyses on people to the southwest of Egypt suggests a NC presence starting specifically around 1st Intermediate/Middle Kingdom times.
Take your foot off the pedal and stop getting banned. Phenotype/archaeology sciences is sketchy but you can at least substantiate it with collaborating evidence. Phenotype narrative is just coded nonsense.
If 'negroids' are new Egypt and Sumer are the mother and father of all of Earth's negroids.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The physical anthro evidence seems to be suggest something to that effect. Preliminary skeletal analyses on people to the southwest of Egypt suggests a NC presence starting specifically around 1st Intermediate/Middle Kingdom times.
I knew about this. I just didn't know how long they were testing. Correct if I'm wrong it wasn't just Roman era burials tested at Dakhleh.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Here is a quote summing up the results of the small Handessi skeletal sample. From Becker’s 2011 thesis:
quote:Simon et al. (2002) reported that the measurements and expressions of the relevant non-metric traits of the oldest skeleton from the Wadi Shaw, the Wavy Line phase individual 83/110-11, lay within the range of those published for the Late Pleistocene Wadi Halfa series. The metric analysis of the best preserved crania of the Wadi Shaw sample highlighted both the remarkable variability and the biologically Sub-Saharan nature of these three much younger Handessi period skulls. The principal component analysis on the basis of 29 metric variables, which also included Nubian Kerma period and Egyptian New Kingdom samples, allied 83/110-15 with the Kenyan Teita, placed 83/110-18-1 closest to Chamlah’s (1968) Saharan “restes humains neolithiques et protohistoriques” and positioned 83/110-14 between the Teita and the Saharan material. . . .
The prehistoric inhabitants of the Wadi Howar : an anthropological study of human skeletal remains from the Sudanese part of the Eastern Sahara
Note where it says that the Handessi remains had “remarkable variability”. Sounds iike new migration from a NC population, to me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
re early contacts i recall hearing of red palm oil found in an Abydos tomb dating to c 3000 BC. i wonder where that came from.
been trying to learn more about Later Stone Age history of West Africa to tie to E-M2 but it's all loose threads right now. site of Bosumpra in southern Ghana going back ~12 000 years: geometric quartz microliths, greenstone celts with flaked bodies and polished edges, very early pottery as at Ounjougou. is all this LSA connected or just parallel adaptations?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Check for trade networking in items at one place that had to come from far away.
What gets me is Ounjougou pottery earliest in the area but Khartoum (dotted) wavy line pottery is what marks Sudani movement (technology, people, both) throughout the Sahara Grasslands.
About the palm oil. Nice. Budge, I know, is excellent for inner Africa and Lower Nile Valley connections.
quote:"Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: ”Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average.” The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry."
--Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
quote:"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
quote: The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz
The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
—Hervella et al. 2016
—Sarah Tishkoff et al.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Word Origin and History for Bantu Expand 1862, applied to south African language group in the 1850s by German linguist Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek (1827-1875), from native Ba-ntu "mankind," from ba-, plural prefix, + ntu "a man, person." Bantustan in a South African context is from 1949.
quote: Bleek’s intellectual importance extends beyond his pioneering interests in Darwin’s theory of evolution and its application to the indigenous peoples in southern Africa. He was also responsible for setting up a system of classification based on language but one which intersected closely with race. This system of classification was based on clear distinctions between Bantu, Hottentot and Bushmen linguistic types and proposed that the study of these primitive languages was of universal importance in so far as they held the key to the understanding of the historical evolution of the three major branches of language spoken worldwide.
[...]
Bleek elaborated his system of classification during the 1860s and early 1870s. He characterised both “Hottentot” and “Bantu”, a term he coined, as sex-denoting languages, but suggested that they were clearly structurally distinct in so far as “Bantu” languages were prefix-pronominal and “Hottentot” languages were suffix-pronominal. In other words, the pronouns in the “Bantu” languages are borrowed from derivative prefixes to the nouns, whilst the pronouns in the “Hottentot” languages are borrowed from the derivative suffixes to the nouns.29 It was on the basis of these structural features that Bleek regarded these languages as “primary forms” of two of the world’s major philological branches, accounting for three-fifths of the languages known on earth: “Kafir, as giving us the key to the great mass of kindred Negro (Prefix-pronominal) languages which fill almost the whole of South Africa and extend at least as far to the north-west as Sierra Leone; and the Hottentot, as exhibiting the most primitive form known of that large tribe of [Suffix-pronominal] languages which is distinguished by its Sex-denoting qualities, which fills North Africa, Europe and part of Asia, which includes the languages of the most highly cultivated
[...]
The connections Bleek established between the Bantu languages of southern Africa and those elsewhere in Africa are, as far as I am aware, relatively uncontroversial. Bleek’s hypothesis that the “Hottentot” language was a primary form of North African and Indo-European languages was more speculative and is seen by Dubow as an early expression of the pervasive Hamitic myth of African origins. Bleek had formulated his theories about the North African origins of “Hottentot” languages well before arriving in South Africa. Thornton indicates that his doctoral study compared the gender systems of “Kafir”, Herero, Sechuana and Nama with Berber, Galla, Coptic and Ancient Egyptian in order to substantiate claims that the Nama (“Hottentot”) language was related to North African languages.31
The peculiar characteristics which distinguish the Hottentots and Bushmen from the other South African nations, are such as range them with the nations of Northern Africa and Western Asia, as the Egyptians, the Semitic tribes and their widespread North African relations (e.g. the Tuarick, Galla &c) and probably also the Indo-European or Arian nations. ... Since the Hottentots ... have in general retained, most faithfully, the primitive and original state of their race, in customs, manners, language &c, a study of their peculiarities must be regarded as eminently important, nay, indispensible for attaining a knowledge of the pre-historical condition and unrecorded history of their kindred nations; and as these comprise, in many cases, some of the most advanced and civilised nations, should we not be entitled to infer that such researches, if once properly made, will prove of great interest for the history of mankind in general?
[...]
Bleek’s active involvement in an anthropometric project initiated by Thomas Huxley, one of Britain’s leading anthropologists and proponents of evolution also provides evidence of his scientific racism and undermines the romantic image of Bleek presented by San scholarship. This aspect of Bleek’s research has been documented in Michael Godby’s exciting article in the Miscast edition, which provides a more balanced and critical perspective on Bleek.37
A few interesting notes, you probably will embrace:
Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
It also attempts to begin to provide a bridge between my own work on racial ideology in the first half of the nineteenth century and Saul Dubow’s detailed study of scientific racism in South Africa in the early twentieth century.
He explicitly expressed an interest in exploring the links between the language of the Bushman and the communication of primates and emphasised such links in his private correspondence and evolutionary study On the Origin of Language. It is arguably in Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
ANTHROPOLOGY, RACE AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE LEGACY OF WILHELM BLEEK
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The vast Saharan lakes are rarely tied into multidisciplinary approaches on this topic. This site shows local climate fluctuation in the Green Sahara and may help calibrate movements noted by the geneticists.
Note the extensive water system from the Haggar through east Air down to near the confluence of Benue and Niger rivers. A natural lane of communication.
quote: Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change Paul C. Sereno et al
Abstract Background: Approximately two hundred human burials were discovered on the edge of a paleolake in Niger that provide a uniquely preserved record of human occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene (8000 BCE to the present). Called Gobero, this suite of closely spaced sites chronicles the rapid pace of biosocial change in the southern Sahara in response to severe climatic fluctuation.
Methodology/Principal Findings: Two main occupational phases are identified that correspond with humid intervals in the early and mid-Holocene, based on 78 direct AMS radiocarbon dates on human remains, fauna and artifacts, as well as 9 OSL dates on paleodune sand.
The older occupants have craniofacial dimensions that demonstrate similarities with mid-Holocene occupants of the southern Sahara and Late Pleistocene to early Holocene inhabitants of the Maghreb. Their hyperflexed burials compose the earliest cemetery in the Sahara dating to 7500 BCE. These early occupants abandon the area under arid conditions
and, when humid conditions return, 4600 BCE, are replaced by a more gracile people with elaborated grave goods including animal bone and ivory ornaments.
Conclusions/Significance: The principal significance of Gobero lies in its extraordinary human, faunal, and archaeological record, from which we conclude the following:
The early Holocene occupants at Gobero (7700–6200 BCE) were largely sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers with lakeside funerary sites that include the earliest recorded cemetery in the Sahara.
Gobero was abandoned during a period of severe aridification possibly as long as one millennium (6200–5200 BCE) .
More gracile humans arrived in the mid-Holocene (5200–2500 BCE) employing a diversified subsistence economy based on clams, fish, and savanna vertebrates as well as some cattle husbandry.
Population replacement after a harsh arid hiatus is the most likely explanation for the occupational sequence at Gobero.
We are just beginning to understand the anatomical and cultural diversity that existed within the Sahara during the Holocene.
.
The Gobero Niger Kiffians and Tenereans.
They temporally correspond to the early Holocene hiatus from and midHolocene beginnings to Nile Valley communities that will found Egypt.
posted
Would like to bump this.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Much overlooked study of nrY DNA. Very enlightening if used tandem with full genome pan Africa data.
From it, I conclude E-M2 went north from Cameroun to the African Humid Period North Tropical Africa aka Green Sahara diversified and dispersed nearly in all directions.
quote:I see, but what's troublesome when you look at the age by mutation (which is the basis of this analysis). We might be tricked into thinking the Fali for example carry mutation that branched off 11.03kya. which isn't true. E-M4727* is the oldest mutation dated 10.53kyo in the Fali and it's Downstream from PAGGE66. Basal p66 isn't found among the Fali, the sister group E-V4257 which is 6.5kya is, but is immeasurable in comparison to mutations frequency Chadic Speakers/populations. That paints an entirely different picture with respect to the Phylogeny of E-M2.
But to go into more detail... I still don't see how the topology suggests radiation from Cameroun in all directions. Most mutations downstream of V4727 is somewhat restricted to being below the Sahara outside of populations we know have recent Bantu ancestry. And as it relates to Cameroon being the point of origin, outside of a single bamileke and a single Ngambai individual all carriers of E-M4727* (the oldest M2 mutation found within Cameroon @ 10.52Kya xM10,V5001,Z15939,A186,V2003,M58,V1891) are either chadic speakers, or nomadic (fulbe), the Fali doesn't even carry it.
Also, what do you think of the odds of no E-m2 being found yet at the Shum-Laka site over the span of 3000 years before the bantu expansion? Also, do you think the earlier E-m2 carriers resembled them (the six shum laka individuals) Autosomally? Note that even though the amount of samples at that site are low, they still show 3,000 years of continuity AND even populations in modern day cameroon (some of who can carry A0 found in the ancient individuals) are more closely related to other West Africans and other E-M2 Carriers.
Also to ask the question again, what prevented dispersal prior to the humid phase, or the green sahara??
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
for gathering that M58 info. 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic