For French speakers (at least thos who can hear it), a conference of Prof. Eric Crubezy on Egypt peopling. http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm#|p=../michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm| Interestingly, he found DNA and morphological evidence of Khoi-San people in the predynastic Egypt in El Adaima necropolis, mixed with Eastern African people but after, fewer Khoi-San in dynastic (Results no published yet!). In another site, (Gilf El Kebir in Lybia if I remember correctly) Khoi-San people were even higher. It looks like Saharan people (Ancestor of Bantu ? Khoi-San for sure) went south to MegaChad lake then East to the Nile Valley and those were the ancestors of the predynastic people. Lots of them died (Tuberculosis, famine etc.) but culture survived with Eastern Africans people in the Nile.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [as stated from a colleague]
For French speakers (at least thos who can hear it), a conference of Prof. Eric Crubezy on Egypt peopling. http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm#|p=../michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm| Interestingly, he found DNA and morphological evidence of Khoi-San people in the predynastic Egypt in El Adaima necropolis, mixed with Eastern African people but after, fewer Khoi-San in dynastic (Results no published yet!). In another site, (Gilf El Kebir in Lybia if I remember correctly) Khoi-San people were even higher. It looks like Saharan people (Ancestor of Bantu ? Khoi-San for sure) went south to MegaChad lake then East to the Nile Valley and those were the ancestors of the predynastic people. Lots of them died (Tuberculosis, famine etc.) but culture survived with Eastern Africans people in the Nile.
Great find Asar. Does he talk about the type of DNA analyses (e.g., STR, NRY or mtDNA haplogroup, autosomal?). Also, context about how he was given access to the samples, samples sizes, date the findings will come out (if mentioned) would be much appreciated.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [as stated from a colleague]
For French speakers (at least thos who can hear it), a conference of Prof. Eric Crubezy on Egypt peopling. http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm#|p=../michel-brunet/Seminaire_du_12_mai_2011_.htm| Interestingly, he found DNA and morphological evidence of Khoi-San people in the predynastic Egypt in El Adaima necropolis, mixed with Eastern African people but after, fewer Khoi-San in dynastic (Results no published yet!). In another site, (Gilf El Kebir in Lybia if I remember correctly) Khoi-San people were even higher. It looks lijke Saharan people (Ancestor of Bantu ? Khoi-San for sure) went south to MegaChad lake then East to the Nile Valley and those were the ancestors of the predynastic people. Lots of them died (Tuberculosis, famine etc.) but culture survived with Eastern Africans people in the Nile.
If correct, I remember that Diop spoke of dwarfs in ancient Egypt. These dwarf would be Khoisan.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no detail about haplotypes given in this lecture. He did, however, mention the typical Khoi-San type of teeth found in different cemeteries that predated the predynastic and confirmed that by data testing. A people's dental signature is telling from an anthropological standpoint. I put together a little image to show the facial features that still may have been present during the Pharaonic period (especially old kingdom). Oh, and the image should say "Dynastic" instead of "Pre-Dynastic"
posted
^Exactly, I don't buy it either, at least not the way its presented, i.e., the actual presence of San. If authentic, I suspect it may have something to do with haplogroup NRY A and/or mtDNA L0, both found in Sudanese and Khoisan groups (but not exclusively). Additionally, prehistoric hunter-gathers with a San-like genetic signatures may have also lived in Northern Africa given the basal NRY A haplogroup that was recently discovered in a couple of populations, mostly in the Northern half of the continent. But I wouldn't expect to see that these people would have actually looked like San given the fact that San seem to be an adaptation to Southern Africa. If the samples indeed bear San-like genetic signatures, calling them San will likely do them injustice. The Tindiga and Sandawe populations in East Africa weren't thought of as associated with San until loose linguistic and genetic links between them and San surfaced. Probably no different in the case of hypothetical Northern San-like populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y-DNA haplogroup A is still found in Egypt and even Morocco, but in VERY low frequencies.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going by the old nomenclature. There is very deep divergence between the A3b2 mostly found in the Nile Valley, East African Rift Valley, Horn etc, and the A3b1 found in Southern Africa.
As Swenet states I dont quite buy it BUT.............I cannot understand how the author could come to these GENETIC conclusions noting the deep time difference and separation between the lineages/regions. (Regardless of the physical remains)
Basically it would seem too much of an amateur mistake of saying "Khoisan" based on the presence of a low resolution Haplogroup A finding when all the Haplogroup A of the region is A3b2, a lineage totally absent in South African click speakers.
It is possible that we are looking that the precursor to both A3b* but even then, the long term adaptation of the carriers of the daughter lineages are polar opposites. Interestingly this same argument about deep divergence can be said for L0. The L0 lineages found in the specific regions are totally separate and have deep divergence to the tune of over 100000 years.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because you don't see people there now doesn't mean they weren't there before. That's a strawman. We know Khoi-san groups were in East Africa by the nature of the clicks in some of those languages as a result of contacts. Khoisan people weren't always "hunter-gatherers" in South Africa. They were forced into that pocket as a result of Cushitic, Nilotic and Bantu penetrations east and southward. Bernal (2006) even mentions Khoisan possibly being the origins of Afro-Asiatic. In his words,
quote: ...I see Afroasiatic as having borrowed the Central Khoisan grammatical structure of sex-linked gender. Thus, at a fundamental level, I see Afroasiatic as "Khoisanized" Nostratic."
Martin Bernal, _Black Athena Vol. III: The Linguistic Evidence_ pg 15.
Takacs in his work _Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, Vol. I: A Phonological Introduction (1999: 41, 45)_ lists four loans into Egyptian from Central Khoisan: i.e., /jn/ "beautiful," /wa/ "one," /tm/ "do not," and /ab/ "wild dog." How do you find Khoisan loans in Egyptian if there were no Khoisan in North Africa?
Again, current place does not mean "origins." The Sumerian language was a Niger-Congo language related to Proto-Bantu, and probably closer to Mande in and around the time of that split (see Campbell-Dunn 2009a, 2009b, and Hermstein 2012, 2013). Yet you don't find Niger-Congo speakers in Iraq anymore. Things change and people move and that's just life.
"A Dental Anthropological hypothesis relating to the ethnogenesis, origin and antiquity o fthe Afro-Asiatic language family: Peopling of the Eurafrican-South Asian Triagle IV" by Christy G. Turner II. From the book _In Hot Pursuit of Languagee in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropolgy (2008)_ by John D. Bengtson.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean, Asar, that there was no genetic analysis performed after all?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Going by the old nomenclature. There is very deep divergence between the A3b2 mostly found in the Nile Valley, East African Rift Valley, Horn etc, and the A3b1 found in Southern Africa.
As Swenet states I dont quite buy it BUT.............I cannot understand how the author could come to these GENETIC conclusions noting the deep time difference and separation between the lineages/regions. (Regardless of the physical remains)
Basically it would seem too much of an amateur mistake of saying "Khoisan" based on the presence of a low resolution Haplogroup A finding when all the Haplogroup A of the region is A3b2, a lineage totally absent in South African click speakers.
It is possible that we are looking that the precursor to both A3b* but even then, the long term adaptation of the carriers of the daughter lineages are polar opposites. Interestingly this same argument about deep divergence can be said for L0. The L0 lineages found in the specific regions are totally separate and have deep divergence to the tune of over 100000 years.
posted
By Prof. Eric Crubezy in the original lecture in the link I posted. The genetic evidence comes from the DNA-Tribes analysis. Two different things.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What genetic evidence from DNA Tribes analysis comes from the pred. El Adaima cemetery? This is confusing, please be more specific...
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this confusing? Prof. Eric Crubezy did a dental analysis on predynastic people of Egypt. DNA Tribes an analysis on 18th dynasty mummies and found affinities with central African people which includes the Khoisan and Aka. Two different things all together.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If all these sudden additions are so straight forward as you're making them seem, why are all these new informations missing from your opening post? In fact, your opening clearly states that Crubezy performed both genetic and morphometric analysis, and DNA Tribes never studied genetic material from the El Adaima cemetery.
BTW, I guess there is nothing to see here then, because the San don't have special dental affinities with prehistoric Egyptians, per the many dental studies ih which both Egypto-Nubian and San samples have featured (e.g., Hanihara, Pinhasi, Irish).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: How is this confusing? Prof. Eric Crubezy did a dental analysis on predynastic people of Egypt. DNA Tribes an analysis on 18th dynasty mummies and found affinities with central African people which includes the Khoisan and Aka. Two different things all together.
^^^ the term "Central African " is not in the report. Seeminly the South Africa category has still not included data on Khoisans
____________________________________________
The first table in the 2nd post of this thread is my post = Amarna digest jan 2012
The two following tables "Bantu speaking" and "description of world regions" are based on newer information and for them a new category they are calling "Central African" which includes Khoisan and Pygmies (Mbuti and Aka)
These are newly added populations to their SNP data circa 2013
Update:
^^^ Notice Khoisan are listed as the separate ethnic groups Khoe and San and are also further subdivided into tribes thereof. They also list "bantu" as "New population" 2013
There are a lot of overlapping terms here and it can be confusing
Example:
_____________________________^^^^ here they have lumped together Khoisan and Aka and have entered combined percentages. I don't know if this makes sense. They had just updated to include these various San groups and ecah one is listed "South Africa" , The Khoe in Namibia. The Aka are pygmies who live in Central Africa in CFR and Congo. Why combine these groups? Do they have close genetic affinity?
Africans’ genes mute on human birthplace DNA studies fail to locate root of the species
By Erin Wayman September 20, 2012
The origin story for Homo sapiens is a messy tale. Rather than emerging from one small population, the human species likely evolved from a dispersed, complex network of groups that mixed and mated with each other, scientists report online September 20 in Science.
The new research is one of the largest genetic studies of southern Africa’s click-speaking hunter-gatherers known as the Khoisan. Sometimes called Bushmen, the Khoisan are the world’s most genetically diverse people and diverged from other populations very early in human history.
The new work dates the genetic split between the Khoisan and the rest of humankind to at least 100,000 years ago, which is in line with other estimates. That’s 55,000 years older than the next branch on the human family tree, when Central African pygmies split off. The researchers also found that the Khoisan divided into a northern and a southern group approximately 35,000 years ago.
But when the scientists looked for genetic clues pointing to where in sub-Saharan Africa humankind began, they couldn’t trace modern groups back to any one region. That suggests early humans came from a highly structured population with genetic exchange between subgroups.
“The complexity of the South African population is the big story,” says Adam Siepel, a computational biologist at Cornell University. “It undermines simpler stories trying to pinpoint a single geographic origin of modern humans.” Previous fossil evidence had suggested East Africa while smaller genetic analyses indicated South Africa.
In the new study, Carina Schlebusch of Sweden’s Uppsala University and colleagues looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, which are locations in the genetic code where people commonly differ. The researchers surveyed 2.3 million SNPs in 220 individuals from 11 African populations, including seven Khoisan groups. After combining the new data with previously published data, the team assessed four measures of genetic variation to find where in Africa humans originated, but the results didn’t converge on one location.
A paper set to appear in an upcoming issue of Nature Communications reaches similar conclusions. Joseph Pickrell of Harvard Medical School and colleagues analyzed a different set of more than 565,000 SNPs in 187 individuals from 22 African populations. Like Schlebusch’s team, Pickrell’s group identified a split within the Khoisan that occurred roughly 30,000 years ago, breaking the population into a northwestern and a southeastern group. Their work also failed to find a single area where humans arose.
But you wouldn’t necessarily expect to find the cradle of humanity by looking at the evolutionary relationships of present-day Africans, says Sarah Tishkoff, a human geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “When you look at modern populations, you see where they live today,” she says. “You don’t know where they were 50,000 or 60,000 years ago.”
Schlebusch’s team also searched for genetic changes that might reveal the evolutionary forces that shaped early Africans. The researchers found hints that selection acting on a few genes related to skeletal and neurological development may have played a role in the emergence of anatomically modern humans. That makes sense, says anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison: “They confirm selection on a gene that differs between modern humans and the Neandertals, RUNX2, which may be involved in the unique physical form of our species relative to archaic humans.”
More extensive analyses that examine the complete genetic instruction book of people from different Khoisan groups are needed to confirm such findings, Tishkoff says. So far, scientists have only done this for one Khoisan man.
“We’re just at the beginning of understanding modern human history and origins in Africa,” Tishkoff says. “In the future, as we do more whole genome sequencing, it will become clearer.”
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You simply have no idea what you are talking about nor how to interpret the data you are looking at. After being here this long, even as a troll you should know something now that you seem to be trying to switch gears and "contribute".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post.It provides support to Asar's inferences about the Khoisan.
The archaeology makes it clear multiple negro groups originated in Africa and from there dispersed around the world. The idea that DNA will be able to provide the main interpretion of ancient history is an illusion, because much of mainstream ancient history is Eurocentric, whereas in reality the skeletal and linguistic evidence indicates that ancient history is Black history.
I found the discussion on the possible location where anatomically modern , humans (AMH) originated interesting. As made clear in the DNATribes article, DNA alone, cannot situate where AMH appeared first. Obviously, DNA remains a supplement to the crainiometrics and social sciences.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: How is this confusing? Prof. Eric Crubezy did a dental analysis on predynastic people of Egypt. DNA Tribes an analysis on 18th dynasty mummies and found affinities with central African people which includes the Khoisan and Aka. Two different things all together.
^^^ the term "Central African " is not in the report. Seeminly the South Africa category has still not included data on Khoisans
____________________________________________
The first table in the 2nd post of this thread is my post = Amarna digest jan 2012
The two following tables "Bantu speaking" and "description of world regions" are based on newer information and for them a new category they are calling "Central African" which includes Khoisan and Pygmies (Mbuti and Aka)
These are newly added populations to their SNP data circa 2013
Update:
^^^ Notice Khoisan are listed as the separate ethnic groups Khoe and San and are also further subdivided into tribes thereof. They also list "bantu" as "New population" 2013
There are a lot of overlapping terms here and it can be confusing
Example:
_____________________________^^^^ here they have lumped together Khoisan and Aka and have entered combined percentages. I don't know if this makes sense. They had just updated to include these various San groups and ecah one is listed "South Africa" , The Khoe in Namibia. The Aka are pygmies who live in Central Africa in CFR and Congo. Why combine these groups? Do they have close genetic affinity?
Africans’ genes mute on human birthplace DNA studies fail to locate root of the species
By Erin Wayman September 20, 2012
The origin story for Homo sapiens is a messy tale. Rather than emerging from one small population, the human species likely evolved from a dispersed, complex network of groups that mixed and mated with each other, scientists report online September 20 in Science.
The new research is one of the largest genetic studies of southern Africa’s click-speaking hunter-gatherers known as the Khoisan. Sometimes called Bushmen, the Khoisan are the world’s most genetically diverse people and diverged from other populations very early in human history.
The new work dates the genetic split between the Khoisan and the rest of humankind to at least 100,000 years ago, which is in line with other estimates. That’s 55,000 years older than the next branch on the human family tree, when Central African pygmies split off. The researchers also found that the Khoisan divided into a northern and a southern group approximately 35,000 years ago.
But when the scientists looked for genetic clues pointing to where in sub-Saharan Africa humankind began, they couldn’t trace modern groups back to any one region. That suggests early humans came from a highly structured population with genetic exchange between subgroups.
“The complexity of the South African population is the big story,” says Adam Siepel, a computational biologist at Cornell University. “It undermines simpler stories trying to pinpoint a single geographic origin of modern humans.” Previous fossil evidence had suggested East Africa while smaller genetic analyses indicated South Africa.
In the new study, Carina Schlebusch of Sweden’s Uppsala University and colleagues looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, which are locations in the genetic code where people commonly differ. The researchers surveyed 2.3 million SNPs in 220 individuals from 11 African populations, including seven Khoisan groups. After combining the new data with previously published data, the team assessed four measures of genetic variation to find where in Africa humans originated, but the results didn’t converge on one location.
A paper set to appear in an upcoming issue of Nature Communications reaches similar conclusions. Joseph Pickrell of Harvard Medical School and colleagues analyzed a different set of more than 565,000 SNPs in 187 individuals from 22 African populations. Like Schlebusch’s team, Pickrell’s group identified a split within the Khoisan that occurred roughly 30,000 years ago, breaking the population into a northwestern and a southeastern group. Their work also failed to find a single area where humans arose.
But you wouldn’t necessarily expect to find the cradle of humanity by looking at the evolutionary relationships of present-day Africans, says Sarah Tishkoff, a human geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “When you look at modern populations, you see where they live today,” she says. “You don’t know where they were 50,000 or 60,000 years ago.”
Schlebusch’s team also searched for genetic changes that might reveal the evolutionary forces that shaped early Africans. The researchers found hints that selection acting on a few genes related to skeletal and neurological development may have played a role in the emergence of anatomically modern humans. That makes sense, says anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison: “They confirm selection on a gene that differs between modern humans and the Neandertals, RUNX2, which may be involved in the unique physical form of our species relative to archaic humans.”
More extensive analyses that examine the complete genetic instruction book of people from different Khoisan groups are needed to confirm such findings, Tishkoff says. So far, scientists have only done this for one Khoisan man.
“We’re just at the beginning of understanding modern human history and origins in Africa,” Tishkoff says. “In the future, as we do more whole genome sequencing, it will become clearer.”
posted
I see where you're confused now. Let me start over.
In my original post it was mentioned that the lecturer discussed physiological and genetic data that mentions the Khoisan people as being in pre-dynastic Egypt. This is in a way misleading. The lecture being done was more of a lecture for the public, not the scientific community. So he did not provide the genetic data during the lecture. He only, in part, discussed the dental aspect. However, all of this is discussed in his paper which he has not released yet.
I thought you were responding to my post in response to Lioness, which is why I kept bringing up the DNA-Tribes. I hope this clears it up.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If all these sudden additions are so straight forward as you're making them seem, why are all these new informations missing from your opening post? In fact, your opening clearly states that Crubezy performed both genetic and morphometric analysis, and DNA Tribes never studied genetic material from the El Adaima cemetery.
BTW, I guess there is nothing to see here then, because the San don't have special dental affinities with prehistoric Egyptians, per the many dental studies ih which both Egypto-Nubian and San samples have featured (e.g., Hanihara, Pinhasi, Irish).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic