posted
A short presentation of the research conducted by Carina Schlebusch, Associate Professor in Human Evolution and Genetics, at the Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University. Among other things she studies the spread of agriculture in ancient Africa
quote:Teeth and bones reveal how the Bantu speaking people's agricultural knowledge spread across the African continent. The art of cultivation has originated in different parts of the world, isolated from each other. At the border between Cameroon and Nigeria, Bantu-speaking people who became farmers about 5,000 years ago lived. Researchers have had different theories about how their knowledge spread to other groups of people and across Africa. Carina Schlebush, Uppsala University, has used genetics to help map its pathways. The Bantu people's agricultural expansion is one of the world's largest and laid the foundation for a completely new lifestyle.
Here is a video where she lectures about ancient genomics in Africa. The lecture covers several themes like deep ancestry, relatedness, eventual introgressions from archaic humans, migrations, back migrations and other exciting topics.
posted
There is no such thing as Bantu DNA. Diversity in African culture, history, language and biology goes beyond concepts like Bantu people. In fact the whole idea that you can lump an entire population of over half of Africa into one group of "Bantus" is a result of historical European colonization. So that right there tells you this kind of research is worthless. Not to mention it doesn't explain the oldest excavations of human settlements in South Africa which obviously are not Bantu. It doesn't explain the various sites of early domestication of local plant species in West and East Africa, prior to Eurasia. It doesn't explain the diversity of skeletal remains across the African continent going back 10s of thousands of years. And it doesn't explain the origin of pottery in Africa predating that of the "Near East", where pottery is not associated with the rise of agriculture. That is why it is called "pre pottery" neolithic.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you listen to the lecture you will see that she dives into times long, long before the so called Bantu expansion. Among things she talks about are deep ancestry, relatedness between different peoples, eventual introgressions from archaic humans, migrations, back migrations and other things.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is still no such thing as Bantu DNA, regardless of what else she has authored. And so-called Bantus do not represent "deep" genetic history in Africa. In fact the whole concept of Bantu contradicts the fact of "deep" DNA history in Africa. It implies that African populations only recently spread into Southern Africa as part of the "Bantu" migration. Or don't you understand that?
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at the video with her lecture, which it does not seem that you did, she talks about analysing DNA from Bantu speaking people and trying to assess where they came from, who they mixed with and understand their history. She also compares with other lines of evidence like archaeological artifacts and similar.
But if you actually watch the video she talks not only about Bantu speaking peoples or relatively recent events, but about different peoples in Africa and their genetic past hundreds of thousands years back in time. The Bantu part is only one part of the lecture and her research. So if you actually listen to her lecture you do not have to jump to any conclusions.
If you have any more questions about her research I recommend you to contact her and tell her what she, and her colleagues, did wrong. She might even answer you.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
The Bantu Expansion is considered to be the greatest migration event in Africa’s prehistory and its consequences are still visible today. Virtually half of all Africans are part of the Bantu-speaking ‘proto-language’ [ancestral language] that is found in countries like Gabon, the Comoros, Sudan and South Africa.
It was 19th century European linguists who put forward the theory that the Bantu languages descended from a common Proto-Bantu language and they went on to reconstruct the likely course of this linguistic community’s expansion. German scholars Wilhelm Bleek and Carl Meinhof were the first to call attention to the specific features shared by Bantu-derived languages by distinguishing them from the Xhosa language in South Africa, for instance.
American linguist — Joseph Greenberg — would go on to develop a classification system for African languages that supported the idea of a geographic expansion, while British colonial administrator — Henry Hamilton Johnston — drew up the first map outlining and dating the stages of this so-called expansion.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2705 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an abstract of Carina M Schlebusch et al:s latest article about Bantu speaking peoples and their genetic heritage
quote: With the largest genomic dataset to date of Bantu-speaking populations, including newly generated data of modern-day and ancient DNA from previously unsampled regions in Africa, we shed fresh light on the expansion of peoples speaking Bantu languages that started ~4000 years ago in western Africa. We have genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals. Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into. We show for the first time that genetic diversity amongst Bantu-speaking populations declines with distance from western Africa, with current-day Zambia and the DRC as possible crossroads of interaction. Using spatially explicit methods and correlating genetic, linguistic and geographical data, we provide cross-disciplinary support for a serial founder migration model. Finally, we discuss the utility of our dataset as an exhaustive modern-day African comparative dataset for ancient DNA studies. These new findings and data will be important to a wide range of disciplines from science and humanities as well as to the medical sector studying human genetic variation and health in African and African-descendant populations.
One-sentence summary: A comprehensive genetic analysis of the expansion of people speaking Bantu languages reveals a complex history of serial founder events, variable levels of contact with local groups, and spread-over-spread events.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is an abstract of Carina M Schlebusch et al:s latest article about Bantu speaking peoples and their genetic heritage
quote: With the largest genomic dataset to date of Bantu-speaking populations, including newly generated data of modern-day and ancient DNA from previously unsampled regions in Africa, we shed fresh light on the expansion of peoples speaking Bantu languages that started ~4000 years ago in western Africa. We have genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals. Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into. We show for the first time that genetic diversity amongst Bantu-speaking populations declines with distance from western Africa, with current-day Zambia and the DRC as possible crossroads of interaction. Using spatially explicit methods and correlating genetic, linguistic and geographical data, we provide cross-disciplinary support for a serial founder migration model. Finally, we discuss the utility of our dataset as an exhaustive modern-day African comparative dataset for ancient DNA studies. These new findings and data will be important to a wide range of disciplines from science and humanities as well as to the medical sector studying human genetic variation and health in African and African-descendant populations.
One-sentence summary: A comprehensive genetic analysis of the expansion of people speaking Bantu languages reveals a complex history of serial founder events, variable levels of contact with local groups, and spread-over-spread events.
So like I said, this contradicts any concept of "deep" genetic history as the "bantu" expansion only happened 4,000 years ago. Yet we know humans have been in Central and Southern Africa for over 200,000 years.
quote: Their model suggests the 34 individuals descend from three major source populations. Two of them, from northeastern Africa and southern Africa, were already known. But the third population, from Central Africa and most closely related to people today who live a foraging lifestyle there, came as a surprise.
The distinct genetic signatures of those ancestral populations indicate they were mostly isolated from one another for vast amounts of time before eventually coming together, suggests David Reich, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School who co-led the study. “If you look at Europeans and East Asians, maybe they’re separated by 40,000 or 50,000 years,” he says. “These three groups were basically separated 200,000 years ago, then come together … maybe 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.” That range is only a rough estimate, Reich notes, given none of the new genomes dates beyond 20,000 years ago.
But that time frame for commingling matches developments in material culture, says co-author Mary Prendergast, an archaeologist at Rice University. In African artifacts of that period, “we see a ton of hints that people are connecting in different ways,” she says, mixing and matching artifacts from distant places.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is an abstract of Carina M Schlebusch et al:s latest article about Bantu speaking peoples and their genetic heritage
quote: With the largest genomic dataset to date of Bantu-speaking populations, including newly generated data of modern-day and ancient DNA from previously unsampled regions in Africa, we shed fresh light on the expansion of peoples speaking Bantu languages that started ~4000 years ago in western Africa. We have genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals. Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into. We show for the first time that genetic diversity amongst Bantu-speaking populations declines with distance from western Africa, with current-day Zambia and the DRC as possible crossroads of interaction. Using spatially explicit methods and correlating genetic, linguistic and geographical data, we provide cross-disciplinary support for a serial founder migration model. Finally, we discuss the utility of our dataset as an exhaustive modern-day African comparative dataset for ancient DNA studies. These new findings and data will be important to a wide range of disciplines from science and humanities as well as to the medical sector studying human genetic variation and health in African and African-descendant populations.
One-sentence summary: A comprehensive genetic analysis of the expansion of people speaking Bantu languages reveals a complex history of serial founder events, variable levels of contact with local groups, and spread-over-spread events.
So like I said, this contradicts any concept of "deep" genetic history as the "bantu" expansion only happened 4,000 years ago. Yet we know humans have been in Southern Africa for over 80,000 years.
Who talked about deep history among the Bantu speaking peoples? In the lecture she talks about other peoples history before the bantu expansion. Did you see the lecture yet? The lecture is divided in several themes: Deep history of African peoples, relatedness, different archaic peoples and eventual mixing events with modern Homo sapiens, different migrations, eventual back migrations. The part where she talks about the Bantu speaking peoples is just a small part of the lecture. If you ever will watch the lecture you will understand what I mean.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is an abstract of Carina M Schlebusch et al:s latest article about Bantu speaking peoples and their genetic heritage
quote: With the largest genomic dataset to date of Bantu-speaking populations, including newly generated data of modern-day and ancient DNA from previously unsampled regions in Africa, we shed fresh light on the expansion of peoples speaking Bantu languages that started ~4000 years ago in western Africa. We have genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals. Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into. We show for the first time that genetic diversity amongst Bantu-speaking populations declines with distance from western Africa, with current-day Zambia and the DRC as possible crossroads of interaction. Using spatially explicit methods and correlating genetic, linguistic and geographical data, we provide cross-disciplinary support for a serial founder migration model. Finally, we discuss the utility of our dataset as an exhaustive modern-day African comparative dataset for ancient DNA studies. These new findings and data will be important to a wide range of disciplines from science and humanities as well as to the medical sector studying human genetic variation and health in African and African-descendant populations.
One-sentence summary: A comprehensive genetic analysis of the expansion of people speaking Bantu languages reveals a complex history of serial founder events, variable levels of contact with local groups, and spread-over-spread events.
So like I said, this contradicts any concept of "deep" genetic history as the "bantu" expansion only happened 4,000 years ago. Yet we know humans have been in Southern Africa for over 80,000 years.
Who talked about deep history among the Bantu speaking peoples? In the lecture she talks about other peoples history before the bantu expansion. Did you see the lecture yet? The lecture is divided in several themes: Deep history of African peoples, relatedness, different archaic peoples and eventual mixing events with modern Homo sapiens, different migrations, eventual back migrations. The part where she talks about the Bantu speaking peoples is just a small part of the lecture. If you ever will watch the lecture you will understand what I mean.
You posted 2 videos. The first video talks almost exclusively about the "Bantu Agricultural Expansion" as basis for studying "Bantu" DNA. The second video says that there is "deep" DNA in Africa but was affected by the expansion of groups in later periods such as the "Bantu Agricultural Expansion. Meaning, that most of her DNA study is related to "Bantus" and not anything before 4,000 years ago. Like I said, it is a massive oversimplification of African DNA history. The core issue is that they have very little ancient DNA from Southern Africa. The oldest DNA is from only 20,000 years ago. So, again, until they get ancient DNA from over 5,000 years ago from across Southern Africa, it is impossible to claim how the DNA was affected by Bantu speakers. They are totally just making up stuff based on limited data. Not to mention that the development of agriculture and pottery in Africa is over 8,000 years old and doesnt start with Bantus.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes the first video is a short one about her research about the Bantu expansion in addition to a short presentation of herself. The second video is more than one hour long and it discusses DNA but also old paleoanthropological material and its eventual relation to later populations.
She also discusses archaic "ghost DNA" in later populations and which ancient humans could have been the source of such DNA.
In the lecture she mentions different studies (both by herself and others) that adress the history and relatedness of different peoples in different regions of Africa.
Of course it must be some simplifications, it is hard to explain years of research, and the genetic history of a whole continent in just one hour. And she also stresses that regarding several issues there will be a need for further research. She also talks about how to extract more ancient DNA from older human remains.
Even if it did not cover ALL research ever done on ancient Africa it is still an interesting presentation or summary that gives a glimpse of what she and her team are working with.
I presume one can learn more by reading through all her articles.
One ought to mention also that she is a part of a research group at the University of Uppsala
quote: Our group use genetics as a tool to learn more about the history of humans. We have a specific focus on African population history and migrations of people within the African continent. Our interests span the subject areas of human genetics, archaeology, linguistics, history, and how these disciplines complement each other in inferring our species’ history.
At least they are doing the job, researching these questions. They do not just sit on an Internetforum and talking without ever producing anything tangible.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes the first video is a short one about her research about the Bantu expansion in addition to a short presentation of herself. The second video is more than one hour long and it discusses DNA but also old paleoanthropological material and its eventual relation to later populations.
She also discusses archaic "ghost DNA" in later populations and which ancient humans could have been the source of such DNA.
In the lecture she mentions different studies (both by herself and others) that adress the history and relatedness of different peoples in different regions of Africa.
Of course it must be some simplifications, it is hard to explain years of research, and the genetic history of a whole continent in just one hour. And she also stresses that regarding several issues there will be a need for further research. She also talks about how to extract more ancient DNA from older human remains.
Even if it did not cover ALL research ever done on ancient Africa it is still an interesting presentation or summary that gives a glimpse of what she and her team are working with.
I presume one can learn more by reading through all her articles.
One ought to mention also that she is a part of a research group at the University of Uppsala
quote: Our group use genetics as a tool to learn more about the history of humans. We have a specific focus on African population history and migrations of people within the African continent. Our interests span the subject areas of human genetics, archaeology, linguistics, history, and how these disciplines complement each other in inferring our species’ history.
At least they are doing the job, researching these questions. They do not just sit on an Internetforum and talking without ever producing anything tangible.
There is no justification for promoting misleading and false information as "doing the job". Human history in Africa is older than any part of the planet, from across the entire continent. Yet Europeans keep trying to promote this idea that African DNA history is less than 5,000 years old. And the issue is they don't have the ancient DNA data for the entire continent to actually tell the story. So they keep falling back on old outdated theories like the "bantu expansion" to explain African DNA history which doesn't make any sense. The ancient DNA they have from Africa is a drop in the bucket compare to the timeline of humans in Africa is my point. And that is just a fact.
quote: The Ishango bone, discovered at the "Fisherman Settlement" of Ishango in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is a bone tool and possible mathematical device that dates to the Upper Paleolithic era.[1] The curved bone is dark brown in color, about 10 centimeters in length, and features a sharp piece of quartz affixed to one end, perhaps for engraving.[1] Because the bone has been narrowed, scraped, polished, and engraved to a certain extent, it is no longer possible to determine what animal the bone belonged to, although it is assumed to belong to a mammal.[2]
The ordered engravings have led many to speculate the meaning behind these marks, including interpretations like mathematical significance or astrological relevance. It is thought by some to be a tally stick, as it features a series of what has been interpreted as tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the tool, though it has also been suggested that the scratches might have been to create a better grip on the handle or for some other non-mathematical reason. Others argue that the marks on the object are non-random and that it was likely a kind of counting tool and used to perform simple mathematical procedures.[3][4] Other speculations include the engravings on the bone serving as a lunar calendar. Dating to 20,000 years before present, it is regarded as the oldest mathematical tool to humankind,[1] with the possible exception of the approximately 40,000-year-old Lebombo bone from southern Africa.
quote: Several stone age artefacts have been found in the mine during archaeological works in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their age was established with radiocarbon dating as older than 20,000 years. Later, radiocarbon dating yielded the age of the oldest mining activities as 41,000 to 43,000 years.[3] This would make Ngwenya the oldest known mine.[4][5] The site was known to Early Man for its deposits of red and specular haematite, used in cosmetics and rituals.[6]
posted
So you claim that you know more about the genetic history, the archaeology and the history of the studied areas and peoples, than these research groups who actually work with these things?
And there are not only Europeans, for example the Bantu paper are also coauthored by a couple of African researchers. But you of course know more about their own history than they do?
In her lecture she actually goes about 300 000 years back in time and try to sort out relatedness and ancestry among different groups and different parts of Africa. She does not only talk about the last 5000 years. Also often these kind of studies involve more than one discipline so many times geneticists work together with archaeologists and some times with linguistics. I doubt any of them believe that African history only goes back 5000 years. I wonder if you ever met any of these researchers at conferences or similar? Would maybe be an idea before accusing them to promoting misleading information.
And the Bantu expansion is actually researched with, among other things, DNA. Just read her latest article. And if you find any serious flaws in it so write to her and tell your opinion.
Yes, they may have very little DNA so far. Hopefully they will get more. But they must start somewhere. It does not help to sit on internet and complain, it is better to do what they do, to actually conduct research about these issues, trying to find new material, methods and approaches. In the the end it will be people like these work groups who will come up with new results and produce new knowledge.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] So you claim that you know more about the genetic history, the archaeology and the history of the studied areas and peoples, than these research groups who actually work with these things?
And there are not only Europeans, for example the Bantu paper are also coauthored by a couple of African researchers. But you of course know more about their own history than they do?
That's an "appeal to authority" argument that I've heard you use before. Look at the article Yatunde posted
Your video says agriculture/cultivation started 10,000 years ago and developed in Africa 5,000 years ago. Doug disputes that, that there is evidence of much earlier in South Africa I'm not sure about it
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, some times appeal to authority is valid. Sometimes the people who work with these things actually know more than people who mostly sit on the internet and who never have worked in the field or in a lab.
I do not doubt that Doug is well read, but there are things you learn when you work in the field or in labs and similar that you not so easily will learn by just reading books. Many times you can see patterns and connections that are hard to discern only by reading.
And to that comes that they often meet other researchers and discuss these issues and compare their results. That can be rather enlightening. And also articles published in journals go through a review process, so all kinds of craziness or too skewed information will not be published.
And I also think if he thinks he knows better than those who made these studies then he maybe should send them a mail and explain where he think what they did wrong. To only write on ES do not generate so much new knowledge.
I do not think these researchers never can be wrong, but I doubt that they publish a lot of misleading information (at least not consiously), and I do not think most of these researcher have some hidden agenda as some posters now and then have implied. I know some researchers in archaeology and genetics in person and they work with these questions because they are interested, not because they want to promote some kind of agenda.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So you claim that you know more about the genetic history, the archaeology and the history of the studied areas and peoples, than these research groups who actually work with these things?
And there are not only Europeans, for example the Bantu paper are also coauthored by a couple of African researchers. But you of course know more about their own history than they do?
In her lecture she actually goes about 300 000 years back in time and try to sort out relatedness and ancestry among different groups and different parts of Africa. She does not only talk about the last 5000 years. Also often these kind of studies involve more than one discipline so many times geneticists work together with archaeologists and some times with linguistics. I doubt any of them believe that African history only goes back 5000 years. I wonder if you ever met any of these researchers at conferences or similar? Would maybe be an idea before accusing them to promoting misleading information.
And the Bantu expansion is actually researched with, among other things, DNA. Just read her latest article. And if you find any serious flaws in it so write to her and tell your opinion.
Yes, they may have very little DNA so far. Hopefully they will get more. But they must start somewhere. It does not help to sit on internet and complain, it is better to do what they do, to actually conduct research about these issues, trying to find new material, methods and approaches. In the the end it will be people like these work groups who will come up with new results and produce new knowledge.
I don't "claim" anything as opposed to stating the fact that African history is many times older than 4,000 years. Not only that there is no DNA evidence that "Bantus" replaced all the other African groups over the last 4,000 years. Again, they don't have enough DNA data to even begin to claim that. You keep missing the point of what "Bantu expansion" represents. If you are starting African history with "Bantus" then by definition you are ignoring MOST African history DNA and otherwise. Your own paper argues that "Bantu Expansion" started around 4,000 years ago and replaced other local African populations. Therefore, you cannot have "deep" DNA history in Southern Africa by focusing on Bantus. There is nothing complex about it. Not to mention that there is no DNA proof of a Bantu expansion because they don't have enough ancient DNA from Southern Africa to show it. They themselves have said this. So like I said they are focusing on so-called "Bantus" because it is the most recent data that they have access to. But that does not mean that these populations are genetically related to the "Bantu expansion" which requires actual ancient DNA predating 4,000 years ago to actually support or disprove. That is why I said there is no "bantu" DNA.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The oldest DNA recovered and tested in Africa is Mota man in Ethiopia of around 4,500 years ago
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:I don't "claim" anything as opposed to stating the fact that African history is many times older than 4,000 years. Not only that there is no DNA evidence that "Bantus" replaced all the other African groups over the last 4,000 years. Again, they don't have enough DNA data to even begin to claim that. You keep missing the point of what "Bantu expansion" represents. If you are starting African history with "Bantus" then by definition you are ignoring MOST African history DNA and otherwise. Your own paper argues that "Bantu Expansion" started around 4,000 years ago and replaced other local African populations. Therefore, you cannot have "deep" DNA history in Southern Africa by focusing on Bantus. There is nothing complex about it. Not to mention that there is no DNA proof of a Bantu expansion because they don't have enough ancient DNA from Southern Africa to show it. They themselves have said this. So like I said they are focusing on so-called "Bantus" because it is the most recent data that they have access to. But that does not mean that these populations are genetically related to the "Bantu expansion" which requires actual ancient DNA predating 4,000 years ago to actually support or disprove. That is why I said there is no "bantu" DNA. [/QB]
And you miss the point that these people are very aware of the deep time which is African history. They do not believe that African history begins with the Bantu expansion. Just as people who do research on European archaeology and genetics do not think that European history began with the Indo European expansion. They are very well aware of the deep time that preceded such expansion. So are the researchers who do research on ancient Africa. Their problem is that they still not have enough DNA to sort out relatedness and ancestry in any greater detail, but still they have some archaeological evidence which can give hints about ancient times. And even DNA from todays people can give some information about ancestry and relatedness. But of course it would be good if they could find more DNA from older times.
And even without DNA you can get information from pure archaeological material. Thus the changes that took place when Indoeuropean speakers came to Europe was well known before any DNA analysis were available. DNA just confirmed some knowledge, added some and filled in some gaps.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
History is documented record For instance, there is no history on Stonehenge just artifact
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] A short presentation of the research conducted by Carina Schlebusch, Associate Professor in Human Evolution and Genetics, at the Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University. Among other things she studies the spread of agriculture in ancient Africa
quote:Teeth and bones reveal how the Bantu speaking people's agricultural knowledge spread across the African continent. The art of cultivation has originated in different parts of the world, isolated from each other. At the border between Cameroon and Nigeria, Bantu-speaking people who became farmers about 5,000 years ago lived. Researchers have had different theories about how their knowledge spread to other groups of people and across Africa. Carina Schlebush, Uppsala University, has used genetics to help map its pathways. The Bantu people's agricultural expansion is one of the world's largest and laid the foundation for a completely new lifestyle.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:I don't "claim" anything as opposed to stating the fact that African history is many times older than 4,000 years. Not only that there is no DNA evidence that "Bantus" replaced all the other African groups over the last 4,000 years. Again, they don't have enough DNA data to even begin to claim that. You keep missing the point of what "Bantu expansion" represents. If you are starting African history with "Bantus" then by definition you are ignoring MOST African history DNA and otherwise. Your own paper argues that "Bantu Expansion" started around 4,000 years ago and replaced other local African populations. Therefore, you cannot have "deep" DNA history in Southern Africa by focusing on Bantus. There is nothing complex about it. Not to mention that there is no DNA proof of a Bantu expansion because they don't have enough ancient DNA from Southern Africa to show it. They themselves have said this. So like I said they are focusing on so-called "Bantus" because it is the most recent data that they have access to. But that does not mean that these populations are genetically related to the "Bantu expansion" which requires actual ancient DNA predating 4,000 years ago to actually support or disprove. That is why I said there is no "bantu" DNA.
And you miss the point that these people are very aware of the deep time which is African history. They do not believe that African history begins with the Bantu expansion. Just as people who do research on European archaeology and genetics do not think that European history began with the Indo European expansion. They are very well aware of the deep time that preceded such expansion. So are the researchers who do research on ancient Africa. Their problem is that they still not have enough DNA to sort out relatedness and ancestry in any greater detail, but still they have some archaeological evidence which can give hints about ancient times. And even DNA from todays people can give some information about ancestry and relatedness. But of course it would be good if they could find more DNA from older times.
And even without DNA you can get information from pure archaeological material. Thus the changes that took place when Indoeuropean speakers came to Europe was well known before any DNA analysis were available. DNA just confirmed some knowledge, added some and filled in some gaps. [/QB]
Again, there is no DNA proof that "Bantu DNA" replaced other DNA in Southern Africa because of Bantu expansion. You keep missing the point that such a discussion is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Yes, there may have been a spread of languages and or farming but that does not suggest or require population replacement as implied by the "Bantu Expansion" theory. The "Bantu Expansion" theory completely predates DNA by many years. And the theory has been rejected by many over the years. Trying to use DNA to make it seem "valid" is the problem because there isn't enough data to prove it.
Note she has no published papers supporting a "Bantu DNA" model for Southern Africa. But in the papers she does have they actually state what I am saying.
quote: Abstract [en]
The presence of Early and Middle Stone Age human remains and associated archeological artifacts from various sites scattered across southern Africa, suggests this geographic region to be one of the first abodes of anatomically modern humans. Although the presence of hunter-gatherer cultures in this region dates back to deep times, the peopling of southern Africa has largely been reshaped by three major sets of migrations over the last 2000 years. These migrations have led to a confluence of four distinct ancestries (San hunter-gatherer, East-African pastoralist, Bantu-speaker farmer and Eurasian) in populations from this region. In this review, we have summarized the recent insights into the refinement of timelines and routes of the migration of Bantu-speaking populations to southern Africa and their admixture with resident southern African Khoe-San populations. We highlight two recent studies providing evidence for the emergence of fine-scale population structure within some South-Eastern Bantu-speaker groups. We also accentuate whole genome sequencing studies (current and ancient) that have both enhanced our understanding of the peopling of southern Africa and demonstrated a huge potential for novel variant discovery in populations from this region. Finally, we identify some of the major gaps and inconsistencies in our understanding and emphasize the importance of more systematic studies of southern African populations from diverse ethnolinguistic groups and geographic locations.
And it is not ironic that this paper was done in South Africa as this is where the "bantu expansion" first was proposed. At the end of the day, all of these papers are taking DNA from current populations and trying to force them to fit into a "Bantu Expansion" model, instead of taking actual ancient DNA and comparing it to see if it reflects the impact of "Bantu Expansion". As a point of comparison, that is exactly what they did in Europe using all the ancient DNA they had from Western Europe, the Levant, Turkey and Iran to show the change in DNA due to the spread of agriculture. They did not simply rely on modern DNA to try and show this. And by focusing on forcing the data to fit that model, it is implicitly or explicitly saying that most DNA in Southern Africa is far less than 4,000 years old. That is my point.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Bantu Expansion is considered to be the greatest migration event in Africa’s prehistory and its consequences are still visible today. Virtually half of all Africans are part of the Bantu-speaking ‘proto-language’ [ancestral language] that is found in countries like Gabon, the Comoros, Sudan and South Africa.
It was 19th century European linguists who put forward the theory that the Bantu languages descended from a common Proto-Bantu language and they went on to reconstruct the likely course of this linguistic community’s expansion. German scholars Wilhelm Bleek and Carl Meinhof were the first to call attention to the specific features shared by Bantu-derived languages by distinguishing them from the Xhosa language in South Africa, for instance.
American linguist — Joseph Greenberg — would go on to develop a classification system for African languages that supported the idea of a geographic expansion, while British colonial administrator — Henry Hamilton Johnston — drew up the first map outlining and dating the stages of this so-called expansion.
^^ from the above article>>
quote: ...most importantly, according to the latest findings published early this year by a multidisciplinary team of archaeologists, linguists and geneticists led by Professor Koen Bostoen — from Ghent University in Belgium — the idea of a continuous geographic expansion of Bantu-speaking peoples is downright wrong.
quote:The Bantu Expansion, the foremost linguistic, cultural, and demographic event in Late Holocene Africa, has sparked a fervent interdisciplinary debate, especially regarding its driving forces. As is often the case with hotly debated issues, certain ‘factoids’ bearing little relation to factual evidence emerge. Two such factoids are that
(1) the Bantu Expansion would have been a single migratory macro-event and
(2) it would have been driven by agriculture. These two widely held beliefs are critically assessed here. Regarding
(1), the chapter argues that the Bantu Expansion did involve the actual migration of Bantu speakers but that backward and forward migration occurred after the initial spread and that Bantu languages also expanded through adoption by autochthonous hunter-gatherers.
As for (2), the chapter argues that the earliest Bantu speakers had their own archeologically visible culture, but they were not farmers. Therefore, the Bantu Expansion is not a textbook example of a farming/language dispersal.
Archeopteryx, I haven't read this yet but it looks like something worth reading, 2020 textbook chapter by a Professor of African linguistics
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again there is no ancient "Bantu" DNA. All of this is being made up by simply grouping modern populations based on language. Ancient data is not matching up when they go beyond 4,000 years ago.
quote: 'Shum Laka is one of the most important archaeological sites in West/Central Africa not only for the skeletons that were discovered there but more broadly because it has yielded evidence of cultural changes over the past 30,000 years. It is also in the area where the Bantu languages originated, the most widespread group of languages in Africa today,' said MacEachern, a professor of archeology. 'My contribution was in helping to provide a wider context for understanding the prehistory of the region, where I’ve worked since the 1980s.'
...
Surprisingly, the ancient DNA sequenced from the four children ‘ one pair buried 8,000 years ago, the other 3,000 years ago ‘ reveals ancestry very different from that of most Bantu speakers today. Instead, they are more similar to Central African hunter-gatherers.
One of the sampled individuals ‘ an adolescent male ‘ carried a rare Y chromosome haplogroup that is found almost nowhere outside western Cameroon today. This unique discovery shows that this most-ancient-known haplogroup among human males has been present in West and Central Africa for more than 8,000 years, probably much longer.
quote: Our knowledge of ancient human population structure in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly prior to the advent of food production, remains limited. Here we report genome-wide DNA data from four children—two of whom were buried approximately 8,000 years ago and two 3,000 years ago—from Shum Laka (Cameroon), one of the earliest known archaeological sites within the probable homeland of the Bantu language group1–11 . One individual carried the deeply divergent Y chromosome haplogroup A00, which today is found almost exclusively in the same region12,13 . However, the genome-wide ancestry profiles of all four individuals are most similar to those of present-day hunter-gatherers from western Central Africa, which implies that populations in western Cameroon today—as well as speakers of Bantu languages from across the continent—are not descended substantially from the population represented by these four people. We infer an Africa-wide phylogeny that features widespread admixture and three prominent radiations, including one that gave rise to at least four major lineages deep in the history of modern humans.
posted
@Doug They could actually discern patterns in the DNA they studied that suggests an expansion (or rather more than one expansion) as is stated in their latest article. she also touches on different waves of expansion, population decline (viewed from the archaeological record) and expansion again. But of course there are still gaps to fill, and that is just what they are doing. Let us just see if the testimony from linguistics, archeology and DNA will correspond with each other. But as of now the pattern they see in the DNA record seems to support their suggestion.
This is nothing we keyboard warriors will solve, the only thing that can resolve this issue is further research from these groups. Let's wait for the next study. Or at least let´s analyze their latest study.
quote: With the largest genomic dataset to date of Bantu-speaking populations, including newly generated data of modern-day and ancient DNA from previously unsampled regions in Africa, we shed fresh light on the expansion of peoples speaking Bantu languages that started ~4000 years ago in western Africa. We have genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals. Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into. We show for the first time that genetic diversity amongst Bantu-speaking populations declines with distance from western Africa, with current-day Zambia and the DRC as possible crossroads of interaction. Using spatially explicit methods and correlating genetic, linguistic and geographical data, we provide cross-disciplinary support for a serial founder migration model. Finally, we discuss the utility of our dataset as an exhaustive modern-day African comparative dataset for ancient DNA studies. These new findings and data will be important to a wide range of disciplines from science and humanities as well as to the medical sector studying human genetic variation and health in African and African-descendant populations.
They also state that "Our results show that Bantu speakers received significant gene-flow from local groups in regions they expanded into.", so it implies some kind of mixing.
With regards to ancient Europe they had a larger material to work with, but in many cases the results from DNA corresponded with earlier knowledge about the spreading of agriculture, and the later arrival of what is now called steppe ancestry but earlier went under names as for example "Battle ax culture" as it was named here in Scandinavia. What DNA added was a deeper understanding about the affinity and origin of these people, and that it was in fact immigrants who brought the Neolithic cultures here and not only cultural diffusion and influence.
I do not think they imagine that all DNA from South Africa is 4000 year. In the lecture she for example talks about the advanced age of the Khoisan peoples, so they are aware that some groups in southern Africa are indeed older than 4000 years. Also they are of course aware of people living in South Africa many tens of thousand years, like the peoples in Blombos and similar sites. But if some newcomers arrived there later would not be too weird. People move. If we have scanty DNA evidence we just have to look at the archaeological record and also try to find patterns in DNA from more recent peoples.
I remember we had nearly exactly the same debate about immigration, replacement or just diffusion here in my place too, until we gradually got more DNA. At least here we saw a partial replacement.
Let us just hope for more aDNA in Southern Africa too.
Otherwise the latest paper includes researchers from Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Democratic republic of Congo, Zambia, South Africa, Denmark, UK and France, so it is not only Europeans, or descendants from Europeans that work with these projects.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe one should mail a question to Carina if she imagines a total replacement of other groups when eventual Bantuspeakers moved into their territory, or a mixing event, or a partial mixing event paired with diffusion of language (and material culture). In her lecture it is not always 100% clear what she means.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also I have to read the latest article in it´s entirety, hopefully they clarify some things there. It is still in preprint but maybe soon reviewed and complete version will be available.
Maybe I have to take a peek into the university library and get it.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: History is documented record For instance, there is no history on Stonehenge just artifact
Still archaeologists can get a lot of facts out of Stonehenge and similar monuments. One can many times date them by digging close to the stones, study the stratigraphy, maybe if lucky find a horizon with coal to date the monument. One can reconstruct different stages in the construction of a monument. Sometimes one finds ceramics or other artifacts in connection with the stones. Ceramics can be dated by the stratigraphic layer it is found in, by style and also through absolute dating (like termoluminiscence). Sometimes one can connect other constructions nearby from the same time (for example houses). The kind of stones that make up a monument can also give information, are they local or transported from a rather long distance? There is really a battery of methodologies to extract information from archaeological monuments, artifacts, sites, tombs and so on. One can compare different kinds of stone tools, or other forms of artifacts, style, material, place of origin.
If there is no writing we don´t have the original name of a site, but we can still place it in some kind of context.
DNA, is just another, new method to extract more information from human remains, from sediments or from animal or plant remains. Sometimes it confirms what we know, sometimes it generates new knowledge. As I mentioned the different Mesolithic and Neolithic material cultures here where I lived were relatively well known before DNA. What DNA contributed with was new knowledge how the humans from that time were related to each other, which ancestry they had and how they were related to us.
Also several archaic humans were known already before DNA, but with it we can learn more about them (if we can extract some DNA from them).
Archeology can not tell us everything, but rather much. Best is of course if several fields of knowledge can work together (like archeology, anthropology, genetics, archeozoology, paleobotany, geology, and also history and lingustics when it is possible). So often researchers work together in groups to be able to use their special fields of knowledge.
Of course archeologists and geneticists can be wrong, just as people in other occupations, but nowadays it is (hopefully) not so common that they consciously spread false information or cheat in different ways. If they do, it will be discovered sooner or later.
Sometimes archeology (just as paleontology) crave a good eye, experience and a special feeling to find things that can be hidden for a untrained eye. Thus finding rock art on cliffs that are covered with lichen or moss takes a special sixth sense sometimes. Or finding nearly invisible house remains or tombs.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] A short presentation of the research conducted by Carina Schlebusch, Associate Professor in Human Evolution and Genetics, at the Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University. Among other things she studies the spread of agriculture in ancient Africa
quote:Teeth and bones reveal how the Bantu speaking people's agricultural knowledge spread across the African continent. The art of cultivation has originated in different parts of the world, isolated from each other. At the border between Cameroon and Nigeria, Bantu-speaking people who became farmers about 5,000 years ago lived. Researchers have had different theories about how their knowledge spread to other groups of people and across Africa. Carina Schlebush, Uppsala University, has used genetics to help map its pathways. The Bantu people's agricultural expansion is one of the world's largest and laid the foundation for a completely new lifestyle.
posted
This topic has been covered many times in this forum (look up 'Bantu expansion' in the forum search engine).
The problem is that the spread of agriculture in Africa is oversimplified to that of 'Bantu Expansion', even though agriculture has been independently invented in Africa in multiple areas that have nothing to do with Bantus. For example, millet in West Africa was domesticated likely as early as the 4th millennium B.C. if not earlier in the Green Sahara and the earliest evidence available shows ties to Mande speakers if not Mande-related people. You also have sorghum being used by Neolithic Khartoum Culture in Sudan and teff in Ethiopia to name a few.
This is in stark contrast to Asiatic farmers immigrating to Europe and introducing wheat and barley that can be genetically traced to the Levant. I am by no means saying that the claims in regard to Africa is 'racist' or has any racial motivation but that these European are experts are biased in the sense that they are trying to apply their Neolithic history to that of Africa.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second articles abstract is like follows:
quote: Abstract South Eastern Bantu-speaking (SEB) groups constitute more than 80% of the population in South Africa. Despite clear linguistic and geographic diversity, the genetic differences between these groups have not been systematically investigated. Based on genome-wide data of over 5000 individuals, representing eight major SEB groups, we provide strong evidence for fine-scale population structure that broadly aligns with geographic distribution and is also congruent with linguistic phylogeny (separation of Nguni, Sotho-Tswana and Tsonga speakers). Although differential Khoe-San admixture plays a key role, the structure persists after Khoe-San ancestry-masking. The timing of admixture, levels of sex-biased gene flow and population size dynamics also highlight differences in the demographic histories of individual groups. The comparisons with five Iron Age farmer genomes further support genetic continuity over ~400 years in certain regions of the country. Simulated trait genome-wide association studies further show that the observed population structure could have major implications for biomedical genomics research in South Africa.
And some more from the text
quote: The archaeological record and rock art evidence trace the presence of San-like hunter-gatherer culture in Southern Africa to at least 20–40 thousand years ago (kya)1,2,3. Three sets of migration events have dramatically reshaped the genetic landscape of this geographic region in the last two millennia. The first of these was a relatively small scale migration of East African pastoralists, who introduced pastoralism to Southern Africa ~2 kya4,5,6,7. This population was subsequently assimilated by local Southern African San hunter-gatherer groups, forming a new population that was ancestral to the Khoekhoe herder populations8,9,10,11,12. Today, Southern African Khoe and San populations collectively refer to hunter-gatherer (San) and herder (Khoekhoe) communities. While Khoe-San groups are distributed over a large geographic area today (spanning the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, large parts of Namibia, Botswana, and Southern Angola), these groups are scattered, small, and marginalised13,14.
The introduction of pastoralism in the region was closely followed by the arrival of the second set of migrants i.e., the Bantu-speaking (BS) agro-pastoralists. The archaeological record suggests that ancestors of the current-day BS populations undertook different waves of migration instead of a single large-scale movement15,16,17. The earliest communities spread along the East coast to reach the KwaZulu-Natal South coast by the mid-fifth century AD while the final major episode of settlement is estimated to be around AD 135018,19. These archaeologically distinct groups gradually spread across present-day South Africa, interacting to various degrees with the Khoe-San groups, eventually giving rise to South Africa’s diverse BS communities. The third major movement into Southern Africa was during the colonial era in the last four centuries when European colonists settled the area. During this period slave trade introduced additional intercontinental gene flow giving rise to complex genomic admixture patterns in current-day Southern African populations20,21,22,23.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic has been covered many times in this forum (look up 'Bantu expansion' in the forum search engine).
Again you are living in 2009 New research has been done since then I just posted a 2021 genetics article and a 2020 book excerpt by a professor of African linguistics
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
please quote and/or link genetics article demonstrating that
I´m searching. One shall note that it was not Carina Schlebusch herself that said it but the speaker in the film. Bantu is a special group of languages. One can maybe see if Bantu speakers usually share certain genetic markers.
Seems that Schlebush et al genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals.
Maybe the new study will describe more in detail.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
please quote and/or link genetics article demonstrating that
I´m searching. One shall note that it was not Carina Schlebusch herself that said it but the speaker in the film. Bantu is a special group of languages. One can maybe see if Bantu speakers usually share certain genetic markers.
Seems that Schlebush et al genotyped 1,740 participants, including 1,487 Bantu speakers from 143 populations across 14 African countries, and generated whole-genome sequences from 12 Late Iron Age individuals.
Maybe the new study will describe more in detail.
The first place to look is the article she co-authored: Genetic substructure and complex demographic history of South African Bantu speakers
and if you have time read some of the supplement, keyword search "bantu" and see of there are any charts or tables or text in the main article or supp, that distinguish 'Bantu DNA' because your OP video clearly says "dna analysis tells if the person is of the bantu people" and is about her
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic has been covered many times in this forum (look up 'Bantu expansion' in the forum search engine).
Again you are living in 2009 New research has been done since then I just posted a 2021 genetics article and a 2020 book excerpt by a professor of African linguistics
And pray tell what does that have any bearing on the points I raised in my post?! Bantu speakers have nothing to do with millet domestication, or sorghum domestication, or teff domestication, or even that of African rice.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Map of Africa showing the main centers of crop origins (A to E) (after Fuller and Hildebrand, 2013) and hypothesized routes of Bantu dispersal from Nigeria-Cameroon to eastern and southern Africa (orange arrows) (after Grollemund et al., 2015). A: West African Sahel (pearl millet); B: West African grassy woodlands (cowpea, baobab); C: Forest margins (yams, oil palm, Canarium); D: East Sudanic grasslands (sorghum); E: Ethiopian and eastern African uplands (finger millet). The Bantu dispersal to eastern Africa is associated archaeologically with Early Iron Age Urewe and Kwale pottery in the interior and coast region respectively.
Subsistence mosaics, forager-farmer interactions, and the transition to food production in eastern Africa Quaternary International, 2016
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the pre print of Schlebusch et als latest article.
Here is their conclusion
quote:Conclusion Our data support a large demic expansion of BSP with ancestry from western Africa spreading through the Congo rainforest of central Africa to eastern and southern Africa in a serial founder fashion. In agreement, this finding is supported by patterns of decreasing genetic diversity and increasing genetic distance (FST) from their point of origin as well as admixture dates with local groups that decrease with distance from western Africa. The significant correlation of admixture times with distance from the BSP source argues for a relatively constant rate of BSP expansion despite the extremely heterogeneous nature of the landscape. While there were corridors of higher and lower effective migration rates across the African landscape, current-day Zambia and the DRC appear to be important crossroads or interaction points for the expansions of BSP. We find tentative evidence that might point to spread-over-spread events in the demographic history of BSP or genetic admixture between linguistically distantly related BSP. Future aDNA studies in Africa and new spatial modeling methods, using our newly generated dataset as comparative data, will help to refine inferences about the expansions of BSP and subsequent episodes in the population history of ancestral BSP and other African populations with which they interacted. The new findings and generated data will be useful not only to population geneticists, archeologists, historical linguists, anthropologists, and historians focusing on population history in Africa, but also to the medical and health sector studying human genetic variation and human health in African and African-descendant populations.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Maybe one should mail a question to Carina if she imagines a total replacement of other groups when eventual Bantuspeakers moved into their territory, or a mixing event, or a partial mixing event paired with diffusion of language (and material culture). In her lecture it is not always 100% clear what she means.
She used statistical models based solely on modern DNA and a few so called "ancient" DNA upwards of 2,000 years old as the basis for her theories. Again, the idea of a Bantu theory itself implies that most populations in Southern Africa only got there recently as a result of those migrations. It was used as an argument by European settlers to say that those Africans in South Africa were newcomers just like the Europeans. Obviously Africans have been in Southern Africa far longer than a few hundred or thousand years as implied by such a migration theory. Again, just like they did in Europe, they would need to prove it by having actual "ancient" DNA older than 4,000 years ago from across West, Central and Southern Africa to compare against and determine if, when and how any genetic signatures changed across the continent implying such a migration. So, like I said, at this point they are just making up stuff with limited data and her own papers reinforce that as I posted already. Again, the ultimate issue in Africa is they have few actual DNA samples that are tens of thousand of years old or older, compared to what they have in Europe. And rather than just admitting they don't have enough data to make such claims, they just double down on reinforcing outdated colonial concepts.
Just to prove the point, what genetic lineages represent the Bantu expansion as an example of "Bantu" DNA from any of her work?
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the idea of a Bantu theory itself implies that most populations in Southern Africa only got there recently as a result of those migrations. It was used as an argument by European settlers to say that those Africans in South Africa were newcomers just like the Europeans. Obviously Africans have been in Southern Africa far longer than a few hundred or thousand years as implied by such a migration theory.
whereas Bantu speakers are associated with Haplogroup E many anthropologists says Khoi and San people were in the region much earlier as well as pygmies nearby, these people of YDNA A and B
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic has been covered many times in this forum (look up 'Bantu expansion' in the forum search engine).
The problem is that the spread of agriculture in Africa is oversimplified to that of 'Bantu Expansion', even though agriculture has been independently invented in Africa in multiple areas that have nothing to do with Bantus. For example, millet in West Africa was domesticated likely as early as the 4th millennium B.C. if not earlier in the Green Sahara and the earliest evidence available shows ties to Mande speakers if not Mande-related people. You also have sorghum being used by Neolithic Khartoum Culture in Sudan and teff in Ethiopia to name a few.
This is in stark contrast to Asiatic farmers immigrating to Europe and introducing wheat and barley that can be genetically traced to the Levant. I am by no means saying that the claims in regard to Africa is 'racist' or has any racial motivation but that these European are experts are biased in the sense that they are trying to apply their Neolithic history to that of Africa.
Bantu-speakers would not have been the only or even the first agriculturalists in Africa. However, even if the proto-Bantu received domesticates from other African peoples, isn't it generally true nonetheless that migrating Bantu-speakers were a major force in spreading agriculture in Africa south of the Equator? That is similar to how farmers from Anatolia spread farming to Europe, isn't it?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: whereas Bantu speakers are associated with Haplogroup E many anthropologists says Khoi and San people were in the region much earlier as well as pygmies nearby, these people of YDNA A and B
Here is a study from 2020 of Y-chromosome variation in Southern African Khoe-San Populations
quote: Abstract Although the human Y chromosome has effectively shown utility in uncovering facets of human evolution and population histories, the ascertainment bias present in early Y-chromosome variant data sets limited the accuracy of diversity and TMRCA estimates obtained from them. The advent of next-generation sequencing, however, has removed this bias and allowed for the discovery of thousands of new variants for use in improving the Y-chromosome phylogeny and computing estimates that are more accurate. Here, we describe the high-coverage sequencing of the whole Y chromosome in a data set of 19 male Khoe-San individuals in comparison with existing whole Y-chromosome sequence data. Due to the increased resolution, we potentially resolve the source of haplogroup B-P70 in the Khoe-San, and reconcile recently published haplogroup A-M51 data with the most recent version of the ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogeny. Our results also improve the positioning of tentatively placed new branches of the ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogeny. The distribution of major Y-chromosome haplogroups in the Khoe-San and other African groups coincide with the emerging picture of African demographic history; with E-M2 linked to the agriculturalist Bantu expansion, E-M35 linked to pastoralist eastern African migrations, B-M112 linked to earlier east-south gene flow, A-M14 linked to shared ancestry with central African rainforest hunter-gatherers, and A-M51 potentially unique to the Khoe-San.
Y-Chromosome Variation in Southern African Khoe-San Populations Based on Whole-Genome Sequences Genome Biol Evol, 2020
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: whereas Bantu speakers are associated with Haplogroup E many anthropologists says Khoi and San people were in the region much earlier as well as pygmies nearby, these people of YDNA A and B
Here is a study from 2020 of Y-chromosome variation in Southern African Khoe-San Populations
quote: Abstract Although the human Y chromosome has effectively shown utility in uncovering facets of human evolution and population histories, the ascertainment bias present in early Y-chromosome variant data sets limited the accuracy of diversity and TMRCA estimates obtained from them. The advent of next-generation sequencing, however, has removed this bias and allowed for the discovery of thousands of new variants for use in improving the Y-chromosome phylogeny and computing estimates that are more accurate. Here, we describe the high-coverage sequencing of the whole Y chromosome in a data set of 19 male Khoe-San individuals in comparison with existing whole Y-chromosome sequence data. Due to the increased resolution, we potentially resolve the source of haplogroup B-P70 in the Khoe-San, and reconcile recently published haplogroup A-M51 data with the most recent version of the ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogeny. Our results also improve the positioning of tentatively placed new branches of the ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogeny. The distribution of major Y-chromosome haplogroups in the Khoe-San and other African groups coincide with the emerging picture of African demographic history; with E-M2 linked to the agriculturalist Bantu expansion, E-M35 linked to pastoralist eastern African migrations, B-M112 linked to earlier east-south gene flow, A-M14 linked to shared ancestry with central African rainforest hunter-gatherers, and A-M51 potentially unique to the Khoe-San.
Y-Chromosome Variation in Southern African Khoe-San Populations Based on Whole-Genome Sequences Genome Biol Evol, 2020
quote: The word sān is from the Khoekhoe language and refers to foragers ("those who pick things up from the ground") who do not own livestock. As such, it was used in reference to all hunter-gatherer populations who came into contact with Khoekhoe-speaking communities, and was largely referring to the lifestyle, distinct from a pastoralist or agriculturalist one, and not to any particular ethnicity. While there are attendant cosmologies and languages associated with this way of life, the term is an economic designator rather than a cultural or ethnic one...
Against the traditional interpretation that finds a common origin for the Khoi and San, other evidence has suggested that the ancestors of the Khoi peoples are relatively recent pre-Bantu agricultural immigrants to southern Africa who abandoned agriculture as the climate dried and either joined the San as hunter-gatherers or retained pastoralism.[16]....
At the start of the 18th century, the Khoikhoi in the Western Cape lived in a co-operative state with the Dutch. By the end of the century the majority of the Khoisan operated as 'wage labourers', not that dissimilar to slaves. Geographically, the further away the labourer was from Cape Town, the more difficult it became to transport agricultural produce to the markets. The issuing of grazing licences north of the Berg River in what was then the Tulbagh Basin propelled colonial expansion in the area. This system of land relocation led to the Khoijhou losing their land and livestock as well as dramatic change in the social, economic and political development.
[16] Güldemann, Tom (2020), "Changing Profile When Encroaching on Forager Territory", The Language of Hunter-Gatherers, Cambridge University Press, pp. 114–146, doi:10.1017/9781139026208.007, ISBN 978-1-139-02620-8, S2CID 240934697
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic