Genetics and the African Past
Genetics and the African Past
- Mary E. Prendergast, Mary E. PrendergastDepartment of Anthropology, Rice University
- Elizabeth A. SawchukElizabeth A. SawchukDepartment of Anthropology, University of Alberta; Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University
- , and Kendra A. SirakKendra A. SirakDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School; Department of Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University
Summary
Africa harbors the greatest human genetic diversity on the planet, a fact that has inspired extensive investigation of the population structure found across the continent and the demographic processes that shaped observed patterns of genetic variation. Since the 1980s, studies of the DNA of living people have repeatedly demonstrated that Africa is the cradle of human origins, in agreement with fossil and archaeological evidence. Since the first ancient human genome was published in 2010, ancient DNA (aDNA) has contributed additional possibilities for exploring population history, providing a direct window into genetic lineages that no longer exist or are barely discernible. Genetic data from both living and ancient people—when integrated with available archaeological, bioarchaeological, historical linguistic, and written or oral historical data—are important tools for contextualizing African genetic diversity and understanding the biological and cultural processes that have shaped it over time. While most studies to date have focused on humans, aDNA can also be obtained from plant and animal remains, sediments, and some artifacts, all of which can enable a more comprehensive understanding of human lives.
Genetic research on the African past often focuses on human origins and Pleistocene population structure, as well as on the origins, directionality, and tempo of demographic changes that accompanied Holocene transitions to herding and farming. The rise of cosmopolitan cities and states in the past two millennia has been examined with genetic evidence to a very limited extent, but this is a potentially rich vein of research. Increasingly, forced migrations of enslaved Africans and the development of the diaspora are the subjects of genetic study as well. Yet to date, Africa remains vastly understudied relative to parts of the world such as Eurasia, in terms of both ancient and present-day DNA. This shapes not only the study of the past but also medical innovations and public health.
While the bulk of published African genomes come from present-day people, there are problems with relying solely on this data to reconstruct the past, given the continent’s long and complex demographic history. Increasingly, aDNA is providing novel perspectives on a past largely invisible in the genomes of people living in the 20th and 21st centuries due to recent demographic shifts. A surge in African aDNA studies since 2015 has also renewed longstanding debates about the ethics of genetic research on people, both living and deceased. Researchers working in Africa today must consider ethical issues including stakeholder engagement, informed consent, and control of biological samples and data; in aDNA studies, descendant communities, museum curators, bioarchaeologists, and geneticists, among others, play critical roles in these discussions.
Keywords
Subjects
- Historiography and Methods
What is Ancient DNA and How is It Studied?
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule found in all living things. The majority of an individual’s DNA is found in the nucleus of cells. This DNA is called nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and includes twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, including twenty-two pairs of autosomes (any chromosome that is not a sex chromosome) and one pair of sex chromosomes; males and females both inherit an X from their mother and either a second X (females) or Y (males) from their father. A small amount of DNA is also found in the mitochondria of cells. This DNA is referred to as “mtDNA” and is passed down from mother to offspring (that is, along the matriline). DNA is informative about biological traits that may be distinctive and traceable from one generation to the next; ancestral relationships among organisms; and systematic genetic differences at a population level (known as population structure). DNA can be extracted from the biological tissues of both living and long-dead organisms. When DNA is recovered from an organism that died anywhere from decades to hundreds of thousands of years ago, it is known as ancient DNA (aDNA). The study of aDNA is notably different from the study of DNA recovered from living people (sometimes referred to as “modern DNA”) because after death, DNA begins to degrade and is not repaired by the enzymatic processes that maintained the integrity of the molecules during life.1 Human aDNA is most frequently obtained from skeletal tissues including bone, tooth, and dental calculus (calcified plaque), but it can also be recovered from soft tissues, such as hair or mummified flesh. It may also be obtained from human “traces”—for example, fecal matter or decomposed biological material in sediments, or residues on objects used by people, although this has so far only been applied in parts of the world where DNA preservation is best.2
The preservation of aDNA varies depending on myriad factors, including temperature, humidity, and soil pH. Ancient DNA recovery has been particularly successful when the organisms that are the subject of study were interred in cold, dry environments and sites such as caves with stable environmental conditions (that is, places where the temperature does not fluctuate widely and where there may be less variation in humidity as well). In addition, aDNA preserves differently in different biological tissues and other substrates; a discovery key to the growth of ancient DNA research and its application to new contexts around the world was that the osseous inner ear, housed inside the petrous part of the temporal bone, is a skeletal element that contains up to more than a hundredfold more DNA than other bones from the same individual.3 Tooth cementum has been shown to be another optimal substrate for ancient DNA preservation, as have auditory ossicles.4
Once DNA is extracted from biological tissues or materials with human traces following standard methods, it is manipulated to prepare it for sequencing, a technique that “reads” the order of nucleic acids—adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C)—that comprise the molecule.5 Raw sequencing data are then processed, which involves removing any data that fall below quality control thresholds, aligning the data against the human reference genome, removing duplicate molecules, and evaluating the authenticity of the isolated aDNA.
Because aDNA data are used to reconstruct genetic landscapes of the past, it is essential for researchers to confirm that the DNA sequenced and studied is authentic endogenous aDNA—that is, DNA is from the individual of interest—and not exogenous contaminant DNA (DNA that is not derived from the organism of interest, much of it likely from modern sources such as the environment or the researchers themselves). Contamination is a particularly serious challenge in aDNA research, which ultimately begins during the excavation of human remains when the biological material from which DNA will be extracted is selected (guidelines have been published for archaeologists who plan to include an ancient DNA component in their work).6 The use of aDNA “clean rooms”—specialized facilities maintained as sterile environments through positive air pressure systems, decontaminated with ultraviolet (UV) light and chemical cleaning procedures, physically separated from spaces where DNA is studied following amplification (a process during which many identical copies of target DNA are created), and accessed only by trained technicians wearing personal protective equipment—further minimizes the risks of contamination.7 Despite following stringent protocols to reduce contamination, it is likely that small amounts of exogenous DNA will be present when the DNA from an ancient individual is sequenced. Therefore, researchers must evaluate the amount of contaminant DNA prior to carrying out population genetics analysis. Importantly, aDNA can be differentiated from contaminant modern DNA by the presence of a certain type of damage that is characteristic of ancient molecules. Specifically, the “deamination of cytosine” (a process in which a cytosine nucleotide is converted to a uracil nucleotide and consequently read by sequencing technologies as a thymine) is reflected in aDNA as a high rate of “C-to-T” (that is, cytosine-to-thymine) transitions clustered at the ends of the DNA molecule, but lacking throughout the interior of the molecule.8 In addition to quantifying the rate of C-to-T damage that is characteristic of aDNA, there are other methods for evaluating authenticity and assessing rates of contamination. Methods involve assessing the consistency of mtDNA sequences or X chromosome sequences in males.9 All of an individual’s mtDNA sequences should be identical, as should all X chromosome sequences in males (who only have one copy of this chromosome), so any “mismatches” in these contexts can be used to quantify contamination. Additional methods to evaluate contamination rates include assessing the breakdown of linkage disequilibrium, the association of certain alleles (places in the genome where a substantial proportion of people do not carry the same nucleotide, but where there are instead two or more options for the nucleotide found at the position) more often than expected by chance because of their physical proximity within the genome.10
In addition to being invariably damaged, aDNA is often present in low quantities. As such, most of the history of aDNA research was spent focusing on mtDNA, a uniparental marker that can be used to trace an individual’s matriline. Unlike nuclear DNA, which is present in a single copy in the nucleus of each cell, mtDNA molecules are present in multiple copies in each of the hundreds to thousands of mitochondria in every cell. As mtDNA is transferred from mother to offspring without recombination (the exchange of genetic material among two DNA molecules which makes a new sequence), an identical copy is passed down untransformed (barring new mutations) from generation to generation. The rapid mutation and geographically patterned distribution of mtDNA facilitates the analysis of past and present individuals’ “haplotypes” (a group of mutations inherited together from a single parent) and “haplogroups” (a group of haplotypes inherited from a single parent that share a common ancestor, used in reference to both mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages). Complementary to mtDNA, the Y chromosome can be used to trace a male individual’s patriline, as it is passed from father to son, with the nonrecombining portion (NRY) comprising the majority (~95%) of the chromosome. Although both of these uniparental markers can be informative, they illuminate only a single line of descent and can be used to reconstruct only one phylogenetic tree. This means that there is a limited amount of information about population history that can be garnered by studying uniparental markers alone. In contrast, genome-wide DNA—where the study of many independent genomic positions reflects many phylogenetic trees—results in an increase in statistical power and provides a more comprehensive account of population history.11
As a discipline, archaeogenetic research is considered to be amid a revolution. Increasingly, summaries of aDNA analysis—including details of methodological and analytical tools, key findings from research since the 2010s, and ethical considerations that must be taken into account—are being made accessible to nonspecialists.12 This includes summaries focused specifically on aDNA from African contexts.13
What Can Ancient DNA Say About the African Past?
Ancient DNA has rarely been recovered from African archaeological contexts, in part because of high rates of biomolecular degradation resulting from the heat and humidity across most of the continent. Instead, most of what is known about the African genetic past comes from the DNA of people living in the late 20th and 21st centuries. While these data are frequently collected in the framework of medical genetics—often focused on questions of disease heredity and public health—they are also informative about population structure in the past and present. Additionally, many studies of modern DNA have been conducted with explicitly evolutionary or archaeological questions in mind, and increasingly, ancient and modern DNA can be combined to enable more powerful large-scale analyses of population history.14
Methodological advances since 2015 have enabled aDNA to be extracted under suboptimal preservation conditions while minimizing destruction, allowing aDNA research to be applied to contexts previously deemed too poor for DNA preservation. In Africa, these developments are quickly advancing understanding of the past.15 The growth of aDNA research in Africa makes an important contribution to the historical sciences because it is often not possible to reconstruct population structures from the DNA of living people alone. People are unlikely to live exactly where their ancestors did, and sweeping demographic changes—for example, those accompanying the spreads of herding and farming, the rise of cosmopolitan city-states, and forced relocations and enslavement—mean that DNA from African people living in the 20th and 21st centuries is not directly representative of the landscape of genetic variation that existed in the past. Furthermore, these demographic changes were often accompanied by admixture, when people from genetically distinguishable groups reproduce thus combining DNA, meaning that ancient genetic lineages, even if persisting in present-day people, may no longer be present in unadmixed form. Human aDNA is critical to access this otherwise invisible genetic diversity and reveal contributions from now-extinct “ghost lineages” (i.e., ancestries that cannot be traced to documented present-day people but that can be identified through analysis of individuals to whom they contributed DNA).
In addition to human DNA, nonhuman DNA is also a rich source of information. Genetic studies of present-day African livestock and crops, for example, can inform about the origins and spread of these domesticates, as well as about the accompanying processes of artificial selection and hybridization.16 Archaeologists have been particularly interested in the implications of such studies for the spread of pastoralism.17 Modern genetic studies are often conducted with the goal of understanding heirloom livestock and crop lineages—threatened by 20th-and-21st-century breed “improvement” efforts and industrialized farming—and underscore that these lineages are important African biological heritage, worthy of protection alongside cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge.18 Unfortunately, studies of nonhuman aDNA in Africa are rare at present. This is at least partly due to destruction of DNA in faunal or botanical remains that were heated as part of culinary preparation. As of 2021, aDNA has been sequenced from the remains of a few domestic and commensal animals, at a handful of sites. These studies have helped shed light on multiple questions, including the origins of the African donkey; introductions of non-African taxa such as chicken, black rat, domestic cat, and pig; and the distinction of skeletal remains of domestic livestock from morphologically similar wild bovids.19 Botanical aDNA studies remain limited to North Africa.20 Other informative nonhuman sources of aDNA include pathogens; for example, the bacterium Rickettsia felis and the parasite Toxoplasma gondii were both identified in the remains of a young boy buried in South Africa about 2,000 years ago, enabling a reconstruction of these pathogens’ pre-pastoral history.21
Especially when carrying out research on ancient humans, it is important for researchers to consider that genetic research does not operate in a vacuum but instead is designed to be interpreted alongside and contextualized using other forms of data. In their interpretations, geneticists must consider other lines of evidence including bioarchaeology and skeletal morphology, archaeology, historical linguistics, oral histories, and—where available and relevant—written documentation. These lines of evidence can lead to interesting and productive correlations and contradictions among various lines of inquiry: for example, one aDNA study found relatively strong correspondence between independent lines of genetic and linguistic evidence for population histories but rejected prior arguments that distinct material cultural traditions could be linked to language and ancestry.22 Ancient DNA research can also support other lines of inquiry by, for example, refining chronologies (because new direct radiocarbon dates often accompany aDNA studies) or investigating previously forgotten and/or unpublished sites that may become loci of renewed archaeological focus. When done well, such interdisciplinarity is one of the strengths of this research and is reflected in the term archaeogenetics (the holistic study of aDNA from archaeological contexts).
Conducting Ethical Archaeogenetic Research in Africa
Ethical concerns are paramount to all human genetic research, whether DNA samples are obtained from living people, long-deceased individuals, or human-made cultural objects or residues; some concerns also extend to nonhuman archaeological materials including faunal and botanical remains. In African research contexts, two closely interrelated issues loom large in any discussion of ethics: legacies of colonialism and Global North-South inequalities. Colonial legacies impact all aspects of scientific research in Africa, ranging from where archaeological collections are curated and stored to how people approach biological research on human subjects.23 Global North-South inequalities mean that most of the funds, facilities, and training opportunities for research are located off the continent, and this exacerbates the longstanding problem of helicopter (or parachute) research whereby non-African scholars obtain samples for scientific analysis without generating long-lasting benefits for the scholars, institutions, and broader public in the countries from which those samples originate.24 Additional ethical concerns center around identifying and engaging with stakeholders including indigenous groups or others who identify as descendants or guardians of human remains, and the potential for political mobilization of historical narratives based on genetic research.25
For geneticists who collect DNA samples from living people, there is a robust global bioethics literature, and many African countries have established guidelines and procedures for human-subjects research, though ethical problems persist.26 The Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3 Africa) Consortium has played a key role in developing guidelines specific to African research contexts, including a framework for genomic research and biobanking (i.e., collection and storage of biological samples).27 Briefly, this framework is guided by four principles: sensitivity to and respect for African values and cultures; benefits for African people; intellectual participation of African stakeholders; and “respect, fairness, equity and reciprocity.” These core values then guide a detailed set of frameworks on issues such as African intellectual leadership, consent, capacity building, harm avoidance, and international collaboration, among others.
While issues like helicopter research and lack of capacity building cut across many research areas, several specific issues pertinent to archaeogenetic research are different from those encountered in medical and modern population genetics.28 For example, protocols designed for research with living people do not adequately address the destruction of ancient human tissues, treatment of human-made cultural objects, long-term curation of aDNA extracts and libraries, identification of indigenous or descendant groups for consultation, or repatriation of human remains. Ethical principles for aDNA research are being developed rapidly around the globe and especially in North America.29 However, research contexts vary widely, and in many African countries, as elsewhere in the world, regulation of ancient DNA research on human remains currently does not differ from other forms of destructive research on any archaeological materials, effectively treating human remains as artifacts. South Africa is a notable exception, where aDNA research is strictly regulated through the South African Heritage Resources Agency, as well as curating institutions, and includes consultation with representative community groups, thus applying many of the same principles as in genetic research on living people.30
In the absence of a unified policy to guide aDNA research, Africanist researchers have begun calling for best practices that can be agreed upon by stakeholders including from the curatorial, archaeological, and genetic communities, and descendant groups where these can be identified.31 These best practices cover everything from sampling decisions—that is, which bone will be selected for destructive analysis—to data archiving and sharing. While implementation of best practices is still variable, occurring on a case-by-case basis through memoranda of understanding among local research institutions and agencies, pan-African or global agencies or professional associations may begin to play a role.
The State of Genetic Research on the African Past
African genetic data are strikingly understudied, especially given the present and ancient genetic diversity on the African continent, the potential for discoveries leading to lifesaving public-health advances, and the relevance to the study of human origins and African and African diaspora history.32 Data are spatially patchy across the continent, for both modern DNA and especially aDNA, and in the case of aDNA, coverage of diverse archaeological problems and time periods remains uneven (see figure 1). This data scarcity is particularly remarkable when compared against other global contexts, but the situation is also poised to change dramatically.
Given the current patchiness of African aDNA data, a single ancient individual’s genome still has the potential to radically change what is known about the past. This review highlights some key questions that can be addressed through modern DNA and aDNA research in Africa, especially when considered in concert with the results of decades of research by archaeologists, linguists, and historians. While the state of knowledge will change as new studies emerge, it considers longstanding problems of interest to scholars of the African past, regardless of how fully or incompletely they have thus far been addressed via genetics.
African Origins of Homo sapiens
Human evolution has been a central topic African population genetics. A landmark 1987 study—based on mitochondrial DNA from 147 present-day individuals worldwide, including 20 Africans—firmly established what many paleoanthropologists and archaeologists had long argued: that Homo sapiens (H. sapiens) evolved in Africa in the past 200,000 years (200 kiloanni ago or 200 ka).33 This genetic finding was confirmed through subsequent studies of DNA from living people, prompting rejection of earlier models that H. sapiens emerged in many parts of Eurasia.34 By the turn of the 21st century, fossil and archaeological data came to support a consensus for an African origin not only of H. sapiens but also of “modern behavior,” a concept that has since been problematized by reconsiderations of what it means to be “modern.”35 During the 2010s, multiple genetic studies attempted to identify the specific geographical area where H. sapiens first emerged, based on present-day distributions of DNA markers, but recent work has critiqued this approach.36
While a growing body of genetic, archaeological, and fossil evidence has continued to support an African origin for H. sapiens, aDNA studies have further complicated the picture.37 For example, genetic studies have: (a) demonstrated admixture between H. sapiens and other members of the Homo genus (Neanderthals and Denisovans) occurring outside of Africa; (b) revealed small amounts of Neanderthal ancestry in some present-day African populations, resulting from later movements of people with Eurasian ancestry back into Africa; and (c) raised the more tentative possibility of admixture within Africa between members of the genus Homo from an earlier diverged lineage (not yet sampled via aDNA) and H. sapiens, which might help account for late persistence of “archaic” morphological features observed in some fossil humans.38 Models for a recent African origin are being refined to allow the fundamentally African origin of humans while simultaneously recognizing that there may be no single place or time within Africa that represents H. sapiens emergence.39 Scholarship has also begun to disentangle what is meant by “modern” genetic ancestry, skeletal morphology, and behavior, recognizing these are unlikely to form a single package.40
While a full understanding of African Late Pleistocene population structure is currently limited by the absence of aDNA more than15 ka and from diverse localities, aDNA from Holocene individuals has enabled researchers to identify major lineages of human ancestry diverging in Africa roughly 200 to 300 ka.41 For example, a 2017 study analyzed the genomes of three ancient forager individuals buried about 2 ka in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, who bore no evidence for gene flow with herders or farmers.42 Researchers were able to leverage the high-coverage, unadmixed genome of one individual (Ballito Bay A) to re-estimate the date of the first human population divergence as roughly 350 to 260 ka. These findings pushed back prior estimates based on DNA from living peoples and are consistent with the current fossil evidence that suggests the appearance of H. sapiens about 315 ka.43 A subsequent study of ancient genomes from four children buried roughly 8 and 3 ka at the site of Shum Laka in Cameroon modeled four ancestral lineages diverging within Africa around the same time, leading to present-day central and southern African foragers and to all other living people in and outside of Africa; and a fourth “ghost” lineage, which no longer exists in unadmixed form.44
Future archaeogenetic research focused on Africa will likely reveal additional Pleistocene population structures and may be able to better identify specific genetic adaptations that enabled the success of early H. sapiens. Additionally, the potential exists for sequencing aDNA from archaic Homo fossils (as has been the case in Eurasia) or from fossil nonhuman apes, which may shed light on the hominids who inhabited the continent prior to the evolution of Homo sapiens. In temperate Europe, the earliest H. sapiens aDNA dates to roughly 45 ka, and even more ancient hominin aDNA dates to about 430 ka.45 By contrast, the earliest sequenced aDNA in Africa—as of 2021—is just about 15 ka, and an attempt to sequence much earlier human remains revealed a recent (~0.5 ka) origin for at least part of a putatively Late Pleistocene site.46 While the chances of aDNA preservation in skeletal remains buried in warm and tropical environments remain lower, advances in aDNA methods may yet push timeframes backward. Additionally, it is plausible that other methods—for example, the study of proteins that remain stable over millions of years (proteomics)—will be able to address questions at timescales aDNA cannot.47
Ancient African Foragers
Genetic studies have shown that people who identify as foragers (people who hunt, gather, and/or fish as their main form of subsistence; or whose ancestors have historically done so)—including eastern African foragers such as Hadza, southern African foragers such as Ju|ˈhoansi, and central African foragers such as Mbuti—harbor very ancient, deeply diverging lineages.48 Increasingly, aDNA from individuals found in archaeological contexts associated with foraging is playing an important role in illuminating population structures that existed prior to widespread pastoralism and farming.49 These archaeogenetic data reveal an African human landscape strikingly different from the one that exists today, which has been subsequently altered by major demographic changes (for example, population expansions, bottlenecks, and admixture events) during the late Pleistocene and Holocene, so that only parts of the genetic variation represented in the past are detectable in DNA today.
Archaeogenetic studies underscore different population histories for foragers living north and south of the Sahara.50 In northwestern Africa, aDNA data from Iberomaurusian foragers buried about 15 ka at the site of Taforalt (Morocco) demonstrates pre-Neolithic genetic ties between people living in this region and those associated with the Natufian culture in southwest Asia, a finding that can be linked to archaeological patterns.51 Subsequent ancient and modern DNA research demonstrated the persistence of this unique Paleolithic ancestry even to the present day, in small amounts and declining in frequency from northwestern to northeastern Africa.52
The greater number of studied ancient individuals from more numerous sites south of the Sahara is catalyzing the development of a large-scale picture of African forager population structures from the Late Pleistocene through the Holocene.53 These data reveal the presence of a cline (or biological gradient) of relatedness among ancient foragers in eastern and southern Africa, stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Cape of South Africa.54 They also demonstrate that genetic branches leading to eastern, southern, and central African foragers diverged roughly around the same time, roughly 200 ka.55 Finally, these studies show that some ancient lineages are barely detectable or not detectable at all in the genomes of people living in the same regions today, attesting to major demographic shifts during the Holocene.56
There is still much to learn about the population structures, interactions, and genetic adaptations of ancient African foragers. For example, questions remain about the connections among people descended from the deeply divergent eastern, southern, and central African lineages after about 200 ka. This is important because very little is known about human demography, movements across the continent, or genetic adaptations to environment during the Late Pleistocene, when paleoclimatic evidence attests to dramatic change, and archaeological evidence attests to transformations in technology, symbolic expression, and social organization associated with the development of the Middle Stone Age and the transition to the Later Stone Age.57 Archaeological, fossil, and modern genetic evidence point toward intermittent periods of contraction, isolation, and expansion in the Late Pleistocene.58 Yet determining when, where, and how these processes shaped modern African diversity requires a greater density of aDNA data spanning diverse temporal and geographical contexts. Such data are not available at present in part due to geographically variable research histories, limited research networks, and current political conditions and logistical challenges in some places, and are also reflective of the availability and accessibility of skeletal material and impact of environmental conditions, especially heat and humidity, on the preservation of human remains.
Later Holocene Demographic Transformations
Most of the published ancient genomes from Africa date to the later Holocene (see figure 1B), a period characterized by demographic events that fundamentally altered the present-day African genetic landscape.59 Consequently, these data have been primarily interpreted in terms of transformations associated with the emergence and spread of food production and, to a much lesser extent, those associated with the rise of states. Yet studied ancient individuals represent a small slice of ancient genetic diversity, with many regions and time periods still unexplored through aDNA. Here, a region-by-region overview is provided for the state of research and key questions, especially for the past 5000 years, noting that often genetic research is just beginning to scratch the surface of what is possible for this dynamic period.
Northwestern Africa and the Canary Islands
The genetic histories of northwestern Africa and the Canary Islands are relatively well researched compared to many other parts of the continent, although genome-wide aDNA studies are few. Genome-wide aDNA data from two sites in Morocco highlight genetic transformations associated with Neolithization, demonstrating an influx of Eurasian ancestry attributed to trans-Gibraltar population movements between the Early and Late Neolithic periods (~7 ka to ~5 ka).60 This finding adds weight to archaeological evidence for trans-Gibraltar connections at this time, such as pottery with Iberian roots found in Morocco, and African ivory and ostrich eggshell recovered in the Iberian peninsula.61 Combining ancient and present-day DNA data, this Neolithic demographic transformation was shown to have a greater genetic impact on present-day North Africans than later processes such as Arabization.62 Genetic studies also show these trans-Gibraltar connections are not unidirectional: by about 3.6 ka, sub-Saharan African ancestry is detected in an individual buried at Cueva del Ángel in southern Spain, although more work is needed to better understand the timing and extent of this spread of African ancestry to Europe.63
Connections between the African mainland and the pre-Hispanic Canary Islands, and demographic transformations associated with Castilian conquest of the islands, are well attested through both present-day and ancient DNA, making this one of the best-studied parts of Africa in terms of genetic history.64 DNA from present-day people with autochthonous Canarian ancestry, when taken together with both uniparental markers and genome-wide aDNA from pre-Hispanic burials, show a clear northwestern African origin for the first settlers of the Canary Islands about 2 ka, agreeing with biological anthropological and archaeological evidence.65 Collectively, these studies—together with the aforementioned study in Morocco—further show that this northwestern African ancestry was itself admixed from multiple sources; that there were multiple waves of people arriving from northwestern Africa to the islands; that individual islands have distinct population histories; and that genetic data help reject controversial hypotheses of Phoenician-Punic settlement of the islands.66
Burials postdating the 15th century ce—as well as the genomes of present-day Canary Islanders—demonstrate the genetic impacts of conquest and colonization, lethal violence, and enslavement, and attest to increased interisland mobility.67 A large influx of European ancestry is detected in ancient and present-day Canary Islanders and is sex-biased, showing replacement of autochthonous males by European males, contrasting with the longer-term survival of female lineages.68 However, genetic studies also demonstrate that autochthonous Canarian ancestry makes a greater contribution to the DNA of the present-day population than has been previously appreciated based on historical and ethnographic sources, challenging beliefs that the local population was almost entirely replaced by Europeans.69
While North and Sub-Saharan African ancestry is well-documented in present-day Canary Islanders, aDNA is necessary to understand how and when these lineages contributed to present-day populations both prior to and following European colonization.70 Ancient DNA analyses of two historic burial grounds testify to the genetic legacies of Spanish imperialism. One, an 18th-century cemetery at a church in Santa Cruz, Tenerife, reflected this port town’s diverse population with individuals with European, African, and American ancestries.71 The other, dating to the 15th-to-17th century and associated with a sugar-cane field in Gran Canaria, revealed the northwest African, Senegambian, and local Canarian ancestries of probable enslaved laborers; this topic is discussed further in the section “African diasporas.”72
Northeastern Africa
Northeastern Africa (here defined as Egypt, Sudan, and South Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), positioned at an intermediate location between the African and Eurasian continents, has been a nexus of population interaction for many millennia, serving as a conduit of trade and an interaction sphere involving goods, culture, and people, from multiple parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe. As such, it is unsurprising that the present-day people of this region harbor components of ancestry that are both African and non-African in origin. Like many other parts of the world, the genetic diversity in this part of Africa was initially studied using blood groups and other classical markers, as well as uniparental haplogroups and other genetic markers.73 More recently, it has been studied at a higher resolution through analysis of genome-level variation in living people including studies of physiological traits such as lactase persistence.74 Understanding of the ancient populations of this region is largely based on inferences drawn from present-day genetic diversity (as well as historical sources and archaeological data); however, the landscape of genetic diversity prior to events that led to drastic demographic change, such as the trans-Saharan slave trade and the Islamic expansion, cannot be fully resolved without aDNA.
The first published genome-wide aDNA from Africa came from an adult male forager who lived in northeast Africa about 4.5 ka, buried at Mota Cave in the highlands of present-day southwest Ethiopia.75 While geneticists refer to this individual as “Mota,” archaeological work refers to him as “Bayira,” meaning “firstborn” in the Gamo language.76 This ancient individual has none of the West-Eurasian-related ancestry that is prevalent throughout northeastern Africa at varying proportions in many living groups after having been introduced via a “back-migration” to Africa by the descendants of people who initially left the continent possibly tens of thousands of years earlier. “Mota-related” ancestry (that is, ancestry of the type that characterized the individual from Mota Cave) has been identified in ancient individuals who lived between roughly 4.5 ka and the present and continues to be detected in present-day people.77 A 2021 study showed a striking correlation between spatial distance from Mota Cave and the amount of Mota-related genetic ancestry in present-day people, suggesting notable preservation of population structure in parts of Ethiopia for more than four millennia.78 While the sequencing of genome-level information from the Mota Cave individual has proven highly useful in subsequent aDNA studies, there is still much to be learned; for example, one study revealed that this individual is likely partly descended from a “ghost” source that also contributed ancestry to some present-day people in west-central Africa but that has yet to be sequenced directly.79
Other parts of northeastern Africa, despite receiving notable attention from archaeologists and in some studies of modern DNA (for example, examining Nile Valley population movements), have been largely passed over in aDNA research, likely due to the increased levels of biomolecular degradation in hot climates.80 In particular, the Nile River Valley—which bisects Egypt and Sudan—is a critical region for population genetics studies. Ancient Egypt in particular has been a source of fascination for archaeologists and historians, who have sought to trace the affinities of and interactions among Egyptians and people in West Eurasia, as well as with groups south of the Sahara Desert.81 In 2017, the first genome-wide aDNA data from the Nile River Valley (Abusir el-Meleq, Egypt) was sequenced, providing new insight into the ancestry of two individuals who lived during the Pre-Ptolemaic Period (New Kingdom to Late Period) and one who lived during the Ptolemaic Period.82 Spanning more than 1300 years of ancient Egyptian history, aDNA data showed a close relationship among ancient Egyptians and people from the Near East, consistent with archaeological and historical evidence. Ancient Egyptians were genetically more similar to people from the Near East than to present-day Egyptians. The latter exhibit about 8 percent more sub-Saharan-African–related ancestry, reflecting an influx of such ancestry into the region after the Roman Period; this ancestry shift was previously suggested from analysis of present-day people.83
Moving up the Nile and forward in time, an aDNA study of sixty-six individuals from Kulubnarti in Sudanese Nubia dating to the Christian Period (~650–1100 ce) attested to an especially close relationship between ancient Egypt and Nubia.84 Ancestry most like that found in Bronze Age and Iron Age people from the Levant made up the majority of the ancestry of the individuals from Kulubnarti (~57%) and was most likely introduced through Egypt, resonating with archaeological evidence.85 This ancestry was disproportionately associated with females, raising new questions about the impact of female mobility in this region. New studies of aDNA from northeast Africa—including from new regions and time periods—will continue to reveal the demographic processes that gave a unique character to this ancient genetic landscape.
Western and Central Africa
Western and central Africa represent vast parts of the continent with tremendous genetic and linguistic diversity, yet DNA sampling in these regions is uneven, and available aDNA is also limited.86 Given the important archaeological, linguistic, and ancestral connections between these regions, here they are combined with studies of present-day DNA, providing an outline of known Holocene population history and what can potentially be learned from future aDNA research. Research has highlighted the demographic histories of hunter-gatherers; expansions of speakers of Bantu languages; and evidence for admixture between these groups and other genetically distinctive groups. The role of this region as the source for most of the ancestry found in Afro-descendant populations in the Americas is discussed in the “African Diasporas” section.
Central African rainforest hunter-gatherers have been the focus of extensive genetic research, including on population histories and on adaptations to the rainforest, such as small adult body size and resistance to malaria.87 As noted in the section “Foragers Past and Present,” this modern DNA data, together with aDNA from four children buried at Shum Laka in Cameroon about 8 ka and about 3ka, have demonstrated deeply divergent lineages that split off roughly 300 to 200 ka from other major branches of human ancestry.88 Additional divergences occurred about 60 ka between rainforest hunter-gatherers and the ancestors of Bantu language speakers, and about 25 ka between rainforest hunter-gatherers living in western (Congo Basin) and eastern (Ituri Forest, Lake Victoria) parts of central Africa, who subsequently remained isolated from one another.89 Together these findings contribute to an emerging picture of complex population structure across Africa in the Late Pleistocene and into the Holocene.90 Ancient genomes will help clarify whether or not the central African rainforest acted as a barrier to gene flow in the Holocene. Central African forager ancestry found in a mid-Holocene individual buried near Lake Victoria, for example, suggests a level of connectivity that may be more extensive than is suggested from the archaeological records.91
The second major focus of genetic research in this region is on the origins and spread of speakers of Bantu languages, one of most defining demographic events in African history.92 Bantu languages—a group within the Niger–Kordofanian branch of the Niger-Congo family—are spoken by nearly one in three Africans today, across a vast part of the southern half of the continent. Linguists pinpoint their origin in the Grassfields region of the Cameroon/Nigeria borderlands, from which they expanded beginning roughly 5 to 4 ka.93 Although no one speaks “Bantu,” here “Bantu speakers” is used as shorthand to refer collectively to people who speak languages from this group. Bantu speakers in eastern, central, and southern Africa are weakly genetically differentiated, reflecting a recent shared ancestry.94 This demonstrates that the distribution of Bantu speakers today is the result of demic diffusion, that is, movement of people along with words and ideas, even if archaeological evidence suggests that languages, farming, and new material cultural traditions did not move as a single package.95 Geneticists have critically examined two hypotheses for this expansion put forward by linguists: the early-split model (in which Bantu speakers would have spread toward eastern and southern Africa simultaneously) and the late-split model (in which Bantu speakers would have moved south through the rainforest before splitting into eastern and southern streams). These studies have consistently found support for the late-split model, in agreement with recent linguistic studies, and in conflict with at least some archaeological data.96
As Bantu speakers moved south through the rainforest, they admixed with autochthonous peoples in ways that reflect certain social dynamics. For example, analyses of the uniparental markers (mtDNA and the Y chromosome) revealed sex-specific patterns of mixture in modern Bantu-speaking populations. Specifically, ancient female hunter-gatherers had children with Bantu-speaking agriculturalist men far more often than the reverse.97 This forager-agriculturalist admixture also conferred advantageous genetic mutations to admixed populations, resulting in many Bantu speakers across Africa today having malarial resistance inherited from their rainforest hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Beyond the rainforests of central Africa, Bantu speakers expanded into eastern and southern Africa via spatially and temporally variable processes involving multiple migration and admixture events. Data from present-day DNA, linguistics, and well-dated archaeological sites suggest a spread-over-spread scenario, with the initial spread of Bantu speakers truncated by a mid-first-millennium ce population collapse, followed by renewed population growth and expansions.98 The West-African-related ancestry found in Bantu speakers in eastern and southern Africa today is admixed—in variable proportions—with lineages associated with rainforest hunter-gatherers, southern African Khoe-San foragers, and eastern African pastoralists speaking Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages. Large-scale studies are beginning to shed light on routes and timing of these gene flow events, and critical areas for further study in south-central Africa.99 Ancient DNA will hopefully assist by providing greater spatial and temporal resolution. West-African-related ancestry has been identified in the ancient genomes of more than a dozen individuals buried at Iron Age sites spanning the past 1200 years in eastern, south-central, and southern Africa, but it is conspicuously absent in others.100 Greater data density is needed to understand these patterns, as well as the nature of population replacements hinted at by aDNA from Malawi and South Africa.101
Additional genetic research in western Africa has probed present-day linguistically and ethnically diverse groups in the Chad Basin and, more broadly, across the Sahel.102 These studies demonstrate important east-west and north-south connections, linking peoples between the Nile Valley and the Atlantic Coast of Africa, and from the Sahara to sub-Saharan savannas. Population histories can be linked to well-documented paleoclimatic and archaeological data—for example, mobility across the shrinking “Green Sahara” during the early to middle Holocene—and also to less well-known connections between eastern Africa and the Chad Basin, indicating fruitful lines for archaeological research.103 Research in the Sahel has also focused on Fulani population history and the role of North African admixture in conferring lactase persistence, a key dietary adaptation.104
Future lines of research in western and central Africa may examine the origins of powerful polities, such as those which emerged during the first to second millennia ce in the Middle Niger Delta, Congo Basin, Upemba Depression, and Great Lakes.105 While virtually no aDNA is yet available from these areas, one recent study leveraged present-day DNA from residents of Kananga (Democratic Republic of the Congo) to uncover the genetic impacts of 17th-century Kuba state formation, showing the people who identified as Kuba today were highly genetically diverse and were genetically more similar to their non-Kuba neighbors than to other Kuba.106 This was interpreted as evidence that the Kuba state subsumed many ancestrally distinctive groups into a single identity, in general agreement with oral histories.107 This study paves the way forward for genetically derived population histories of western and central Africa’s precolonial states.
Eastern Africa
Within Africa, eastern Africa is considered especially diverse, with high levels of present-day genetic diversity correlating with ethnolinguistic heterogeneity.108 This is because eastern Africa has been a continental crossroads for most of human (and earlier hominin) history, providing a backdrop for multiple population movements on and off the continent stretching back several million years. However, it is the past 5 ka that has had the most profound impact on the region’s current genetic landscape. Multiple population movements into and through eastern Africa associated with the diffusion of herding, farming, and iron working, as well as growing connections with the Indian Ocean world, produced a mosaic of people with different cultural, linguistic, and genetic backgrounds living side by side. Not only is it challenging to disentangle relationships within this mosaic across space and time, but limited DNA sampling of contemporary eastern African groups means fewer points for comparison for ancient lineages.109 While the region is currently the best sampled part of Africa in terms of aDNA research, this still only amounts to a few dozen sequenced individuals, all of whom date to within the past several millennia.110 Because the full extent of both past and present eastern Africa genetic diversity is unknown, scholars’ understanding of population history will continue to evolve as more genomes are sequenced.
One of the best studied phenomena in eastern African archaeology is the spread of food production into the region beginning roughly 5 ka.111 This multi-step process differed from Neolithic transitions in many other parts of the world because: a) key innovations such as domesticated animals, domesticated plants, and pottery appeared in different places at different times as opposed to spreading as a unified package; b) mobile pastoralism (a way of life organized around herding domesticated animals) preceded farming by several thousand years; c) foraging lifeways persisted (and still persist) alongside herding and farming in many places. The earliest evidence for food production in the form of herding appeared in the Sahara about 8 ka, with cattle, sheep, and goats spreading southward, arriving in eastern Africa about 5 ka and southern Africa by about 2 ka.112 Within this overall trajectory, there is considerable debate regarding timing of livestock introduction, routes taken, and the extent to which people were moving with animals versus trading them, making this a key area where aDNA methods can contribute to furthering archaeological and historical discourse.113
The largest aDNA study in Africa to date sequenced forty-one individuals from forager, Pastoral Neolithic (PN, ~5-1.2 ka) and Iron Age and Pastoral Iron Age (IA/PIA, ~1.2 ka to recent) contexts from across Kenya and Tanzania, with results pointing toward a multi-step spread of food production that entailed admixture between migrant herders and farmers and autochthonous forager groups.114 The initial spread of pastoralism into eastern Africa involved at least two phases of admixture: one that likely occurred in northeastern Africa roughly 6-5 ka between people with ancestry related to present-day Dinka people in Sudan and ancient individuals from the Near East (who may have also been present in northeastern Africa), and a second phase roughly 4 ka in eastern Africa between this admixed group and local foragers. The IA/PIA entailed additional movements of people from northeastern Africa and western Africa after about 1.2 ka, reflected in the ancestries of later individuals descended from these groups and PN herders. While gene flow between herders and foragers was common in the early phases of herding’s spread, evidence for genetic isolation between these groups later in the PN implies hardening of social barriers as pastoralism became entrenched.
When combined with other lines of archaeological and skeletal evidence, aDNA is a powerful tool for understanding how diverse peoples interacted within this mosaic and formed relationships. For example, PN herders associated with distinct material cultural traditions (characterized as Elmenteitan and Savanna Pastoral Neolithic) who were previously proposed to represent linguistically and ancestrally distinct groups were found to form a tight genetic cluster, indicating cultural differentiation occurred among genetically similar neighbors.115 Subsequent research documented additional variation in the amounts of forager- and Dinka-related ancestries among PN individuals from southern Kenya, raising the possibility of continued, albeit rare, gene flow between foragers and herders well into the PN.116 This is best illustrated by two individuals dated to about 1.5 ka from Molo Cave in Kenya with about 60 percent forager ancestry, supporting a scenario of ongoing connections in some places, consistent with archaeological evidence.117 Ancient DNA has also revealed geographic variation in the patterning of such relationships, with less evidence of herder-forager gene flow near lake and ocean coasts, as well as previously undocumented interregional connections with central and southern Africa.118
Fruitful areas for future archaeogenetic research in eastern Africa include population structure and interactions among forager groups prior to the spread of food production, the emergence and spread of novel adaptations such as lactase persistence, and demographic change during the Iron Age and rise of states, topics now only hinted at through ancient genomes.119 Additional research may focus on coastal communities, where present-day genetic data have been used to estimate the timing and routes of dispersal of Bantu speakers toward southern Africa, and other studies consider the genetic input of people with Asian ancestry in otherwise West-Africa-related, Bantu-speaking populations in medieval Swahili communities.120 Beyond the coast, the settlement and population histories of the Comoros and Madagascar have been investigated through modern population genetics, but these are entirely unexplored via aDNA.121 This is a particularly fruitful vein for future research given the role of the western Indian Ocean in a far-reaching interaction sphere and the historically, archaeologically, and linguistically documented contributions of people with southeast Asian, southwest Asian, and African origins.122
Southern and South-Central Africa
Southern Africa is a crossroads for groups with deeply divergent genetic ancestries, reflecting a deep population history overlaid by complex population dynamics especially in the past 2000 years.123 A major focus of aDNA research in southern Africa has been on deeper history and human origins. This is because present-day Khoe-San groups in southern Africa (see note for discussion of terminology) carry the greatest number of unique genetic variants and most deeply divergent lineages on the planet, indicating they split off from other human groups soon after the emergence of H. sapiens.124 However, more recent processes have had a significant impact on the genetic landscape too: for example, living Khoe-San peoples can trace 9 to 30 percent of their ancestry to genetic admixture with groups who migrated into the region within the past two millennia.125 While some genetic studies of present-day groups in southern Africa assume a degree of population continuity and isolation, the potential movements of ancient foraging groups, and admixture with genetically distinct groups especially in the past roughly2 ka, render aDNA one of the only means of exploring population structure in this region prior to the spread of food production.126 As noted in the sections “African Origins of Homo sapiens” and “Foragers Past and Present,” the study of ancient southern African foragers has revealed new perspectives on deep-time population structure. One exceptionally informative genome, from a young boy buried at Ballito Bay in KwaZulu-Natal, pushed back the timing of human origins; meanwhile aDNA from another individual, buried at St. Helena’s Bay in the western Cape, revealed a cline of ancestry among ancient and some present-day foragers, stretching between eastern and southern Africa.127 These individuals’ genomes serve as important context to understand genetic changes associated with the later appearance of food production.
As in eastern Africa, aDNA research in southern Africa has yielded information that can help resolve decades-long debates about how herding spread—whether through demic diffusion or cultural transmission—and putative connections between eastern and southern African pastoralists.128 An individual buried in a pastoralist context at Kasteelberg, South Africa roughly 1.2 ka was shown to have southern-African-forager–related ancestry admixed with eastern-African-or-West-Eurasian–related ancestry components closely related to a roughly 3.1 ka PN-era individual from Luxmanda, Tanzania.129 PN-related ancestry was also inferred for three individuals buried about 1.4-0.9 ka in the Okavango Delta in Botswana, suggesting admixture of southern African forager and eastern African pastoralist ancestries predated the appearance of ancestry related to Bantu speakers, which was also identified in the Okavango Delta individuals.130 These findings are consistent with modern DNA evidence for gene flow between eastern and southern Africa within the past roughly 2 ka, linguistic evidence linking eastern and southern African herders, and archaeological evidence that the first livestock and ceramics appear in southern Africa well prior to the mixed, agropastoralist “Iron Age package” associated with Bantu speakers.131
Together, DNA and aDNA data strongly support a scenario wherein livestock were introduced to southern Africa by migrants from eastern Africa who then had children with local foragers, explaining the roughly 9 to 30 percent admixed ancestry observed in present-day KhoeSan peoples.132 Yet, while a direct interregional connection is important for understanding the mechanism for herding’s spread, there is still much to learn about how interactions unfolded as diverse peoples came together amid economic and social change. Questions remains about the scale of population movement involved and whether there were multiple infiltration events, as has been hypothesized based on archaeological evidence.133 Finally, the genetic findings do not preclude the possibility that local foragers adopted herding practices in many contexts, and cannot inform about fluidity between herding and foraging lifeways. Instead, aDNA offers an important tool for investigating what were likely multiple trajectories of herding’s spread and for exploring the diverse genetic outcomes of this event across space and time.
Ancient DNA has also illuminated complex dynamics associated with the introductions of farming and iron working into southern Africa in the first millennium ce by people with West-African-related ancestry who likely spoke Bantu languages.134 One study found about 16 percent forager ancestry in four Iron Age individuals buried in KwaZulu-Natal (all dated to within the past 500 years), compared to about 19 percent in present-day speakers of southeast Bantu languages in South Africa.135 As noted above, three individuals from the Okavango Delta indicate variable patterns of gene flow within a mosaic of foragers, herders, and farmers, having ancestry related to ancient pastoralists (who were themselves admixed with ancient foragers) and to Bantu speakers.136 Interestingly, no living group can be modeled as having the same ancestry mix as the two individuals from Xaro, offering a window into a population that has since been replaced by Bantu-speaking groups who inhabit the region today. Ancient DNA data also attest to population replacement in south-central Africa, where there is no trace of the ancient forager ancestry documented in individuals from Hora 1, Fingira, and Chencherere II rock shelters in present-day people.137 Instead, DNA data from Malawian groups such as the Chewa, Ngoni, Tumbuka, and Yao are consistent with their having about 100 percent West-African-related ancestry, indicating complete replacement of forager lineages that existed in the region as recently as roughly 2.5 ka. At the same time, other aDNA studies have demonstrated the persistence of groups unadmixed with Bantu speakers, nor with European colonists, despite living at the southernmost tip of southern Africa, an area of high contact, some two hundred years ago.138
Relatively few individuals from southern and south-central Africa have been sampled for aDNA, and those sequences provide snapshots of very different periods in the region’s history, just as present-day sampling is biased toward specific groups, such as Khoe-San.139 Further study is needed to untangle demographic processes underlying the spreads of herding and farming, the expansion of Bantu languages and West-African-related ancestry, and eventually the rise of centers of power such as Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe with extended political influence and long-distance trade networks.140 Ancient DNA may be a particularly useful tool for exploring regional and local processes associated with social complexity in the Iron Age, such as the origins of the much-debated “matrilineal belt” and mobility and kinship within emerging class-based societies engaged in long-distance trade.141 Genetic data also enable examination of the formation of present-day southern African societies as products of European colonization, and forced migrations and segregations, bringing together of people with diverse African, Asian and European ancestries whose admixture patterns can be connected to known historical processes.142
The African Diaspora and Formation of the Atlantic World
New data are beginning to reveal the genetic legacies of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (TAST) which forcibly moved an estimated twelve million enslaved Africans to the Americas and Europe.143 These data complement abundant, albeit incomplete, historical and archaeological records for the TAST and the formation of the Atlantic World.144 To a lesser extent, studies are also revealing the genetic impacts of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trade networks.145
Population genetics provides insights into the diverse geographic origins of enslaved people, Maroon communities, and their descendants; dynamics of forced migrations to and throughout the Americas; and spatially and temporally variable and often sex-biased patterns of admixture with people of other African, Indigenous American, and European ancestries during and after the TAST, which reflect specific political conditions and legal and other social barriers to gene flow.146 When taken together with insights from history, archaeology, and bioarchaeology, genetics can be a powerful tool for understanding specific histories of Afro-descendant individuals and groups, in addition to improving medical genetics by generating genetic data for presently underrepresented groups. This research is also prompting renewed discussion of treatment of Afro-descendant human remains, calls to address the patchy and biased nature of DNA sampling of Africans and people of African descent, and consideration of the social implications of and professional responsibilities invoked by studying ancestry.147
While the African diaspora is a major focus of population genetics, ancient genomes are only just beginning to play a role, following initial studies using uniparental markers.148 Recent studies underscore that enslavement brought people of diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds together: for example, three enslaved African individuals buried in a 16th-century cemetery in Mexico City had distinct geographic origins in Africa, and this is also true of three enslaved Africans buried together in a 17th-century context on Saint Martin.149 Bioarchaeological and mtDNA analysis of a 17th-to-18th-century cemetery in the eastern United States showed stratification of individuals of European and African descent, and it contrasted relatedness among Euro-descendant individuals with diverse origins for the enslaved individuals.150
While most aDNA studies of the Atlantic World have focused on the Americas, studies in early modern Canary Islands and Portugal have also contributed information on peoples of African origin who were likely enslaved, as discussed in the section “Northwestern Africa and the Canary Islands.”151 A study of ancient genomes from St. Helena Island in the South Atlantic, where the British navy left Africans captured from slave ships in the mid-19th century revealed these individuals’ had mainly west-central African ancestry, in line with modern DNA and historical studies.152
Future archaeogenetic studies may be able to further illuminate the impacts upon African societies as the Atlantic World took shape. For example, the genome of a person buried about 150 years ago in the western (near-Atlantic) Congo showed about 85 percent ancestry related to Bantu speakers and about 15 percent ancestry related to Europeans, likely Portuguese.153 Combining aDNA and bioarchaeological studies can also provide insights into health, such as the identification of pathogens in the aforementioned Mexico City burials.154 Finally, aDNA holds potential to link material culture and genetic identity, as in the case of a tobacco pipe stem recorded in 19th-century slave quarters in the eastern United States, enabling the genetic profiling of the woman who used it and providing information of interest to descendant communities.155
The Future of African Archaeogenetic Research
A challenge in reviewing the state of the field is the fast pace of change in African population genetics and especially in aDNA studies, where each newly sequenced genome has the potential to upend prior narratives. Yet even as new studies accumulate, longstanding debates—some dating to the earliest population genetics studies of the 1980s—persist. The following section outlines some thorny issues that problematize archaeogenetic research, whose resolution will require disciplinary specialists’ close communication and a desire to find common ground.
What Good is Ancient DNA?
A common sentiment among some archaeologists, linguists, and historians is that archaeogenetics merely confirms what is already known from other lines of evidence. While this is sometimes the case—one example being the close correspondence between historical and genetic records for the role of west-central Africa in the TAST—aDNA can also help resolve debates, provide unexpected results that contradict prior research, and incite new questions.156 For example, genetic research tips the scales in favor of the late-split model for the Bantu expansion, despite ambiguity on this issue in the archaeological record.157 In eastern Africa, unexpectedly high genetic homogeneity among makers of different PN archaeological traditions has upended hypotheses that they represent groups with distinctive geographic origins and arrival times in the region.158 Finally, aDNA discoveries—and the direct radiocarbon dates that often accompany them—are pointing to new lines of archaeological research, for example on early Holocene links between central and eastern African foragers.159 While aDNA is just one tool for reconstructing the past, it has the potential to add new information and build upon decades of work in other fields. There may be times, however, when researchers find that aDNA cannot add much value beyond what is known from robust historical or archaeological records, and it is important that this research remains question-driven rather than simply “doing the DNA” for its own sake.
Problems of Scale, Perspective, and Nomenclature
A central point of tension among scholars in genetics, linguistics, archaeology, and history is differing approaches to their shared curiosity about the past. Some of this has to do with scale and the kinds of questions that can be asked at different scales. Geneticists working in Africa tend to do so at regional or even continental scales. While part of this has to do with the topics that interest geneticists—for example, Pleistocene human population structure or the Bantu expansion—it is also a reflection of the patchy nature of both modern and ancient DNA sampling, which thwarts finer-grained analyses and leads to the mistaken impression that archaeogenetics is exclusively concerned with “grand narratives.” In this sense, archaeogenetics stands where African archaeology did in the mid-to-late 20th century, when practitioners did the basic work of defining culture-histories through lithics, pottery, and other types of material culture. Similarly, much early linguistic work examined continental-scale change. It was only once basic frameworks were understood that new questions became accessible, allowing both archaeologists and linguists to investigate at smaller scales.160
For a model of what might be possible in the future with greater data density, one can look to other case studies—mainly in Europe (but see note for a case study of a Christian Period cemetery in Sudanese Nubia)—where numerous ancient individuals from the same region or even in the same cemetery are sequenced.161 This approach permits social questions such as status inequality, kinship, postmarital residence, and health to be investigated in greater detail, in conjunction with archaeological and bioarchaeological evidence.162 Using different kinds of datasets is another point of potentially productive tension, as they can lead to divergent perspectives on the same problems. Ancient DNA might inform us, for example, that a large-scale migration occurred in the past, and statistical modeling can help indicate origin places and times for that migration. But archaeology and radiocarbon dating are critical to providing ground truth for these inferences with well-dated sites; archaeology, bioarchaeology, linguistics, and even ethnography may help determine the social conditions under which such events took place, a perspective genetics cannot offer.
As scales and datasets vary among disciplines, so too do vocabularies. Geneticists study ancestry, which is not the same as ethnic or linguistic identity, nor as a grouping based upon material culture, though all of these can come into play in nomenclatures. One must be careful, however, not to conflate different kinds of identity, a topic considered carefully by practitioners.163 For example, here the phase “ancestry related to Bantu speakers” has been used, rather than “Bantu ancestry.” Similar problems arise when using “farmer” or “pastoralist” as shorthand for genetic groupings, given the flexibility with which people move among subsistence strategies on individual, seasonal, and other bases.164 Finally, categories based upon archaeological cultures (e.g., “PN-related ancestry”) also pose challenges, given decades of archaeological debate about defining material culture traditions. While shorthand terms are preferred for ease of presentation—especially when analyzing and comparing multiple ancient genomes—they fail to capture important distinctions among kinds of identity, something geneticists increasingly discuss explicitly in publications.
Integrating Bioarchaeology and Archaeogenetics
Bioarchaeology—the study of human remains in their archaeological contexts—provides different but complementary information to genetics regarding life in the past.165 While aDNA can inform on an individual’s lineage, bioarchaeological assessment is well-poised to yield insights into the lived experiences of the deceased. In many ways, bioarchaeological data (in conjunction with other methods such as radiocarbon dating) “give life” to aDNA samples by providing context on when, where, how, and how long the person lived, and whether they experienced skeletally evident disease or trauma. Although aDNA studies have had a tendency to disregard or underutilize bioarchaeological data, recent years have seen a notable change in this regard.166 In southern Africa in particular, research is focusing on the “people behind the samples,” a process which involves integrating genetic, skeletal, and archaeological data to paint a more holistic picture of what life was like for the studied individuals.167 Such efforts will become increasingly important as African aDNA studies shift from continental-scale surveys toward exploration of regional and even local processes, enabling the investigation of local- or site-level research questions that may be based in—but unable to be fully answered by—archaeological and bioarchaeological research.168 Bioarchaeological data is also playing a role in the emerging study of ancient diseases in Africa, both through the identification and paleopathological study of affected individuals (e.g., the boy from Ballito Bay who likely suffered from schistosomiasis) and by interpreting the context of genetic adaptations for disease resistance (e.g., the Duffy null allele that confers protection against malaria).169
As is often the case when different lines of research first begin to intersect, there is ample room for greater synergy between bioarchaeological and archaeogenetic research. Especially since aDNA research requires destructive sampling, bioarchaeological assessment should be a required first step to determine how many individuals are present, collect basic contextual data (e.g., age at death, estimated sex, cultural associations), select elements that will minimally compromise future research, and, for commingled or isolated collections, ensure the same person is not sampled twice.170 Bioarchaeologists should be actively involved in shaping research design and identifying the best individuals for study depending on research questions, for example, those who may have been exposed to certain pathogens like tuberculosis, or regional contexts where morphological evidence indicates demographic change.171 As scholars with deep working knowledge of archaeological human remains, bioarchaeologists are and will continue to be instrumental in providing insight on individuals and collections that cannot or should not be studied using aDNA, and shaping research approaches for those that can.
Rethinking Interdisciplinarity
Population genetics has been usefully disruptive to studies of African history for more than a half century, from the first studies of classical markers through the Human Genome Project to the aDNA revolution. The challenges explored in this article are, in some ways, nothing new. Just as the pendulum swings back and forth between larger- and smaller-scale narratives in African history, so too do the disciplines discussed here merge and diverge more or less productively over time.172 Given the pace at which genetic research is moving, specialists must work past differences in vocabularies, perspectives, disciplinary training, and academic cultures in order to forge new ways of collaborating. This means moving beyond a “confirmation paradigm” in which specialists seek out verification of existing viewpoints from other disciplines.173 This tendency can lead to what has been called the “Last Paragraphs Problem,” where scholars cherry-pick and uncritically cite work from other disciplines to offer an interpretive summary of their own data.174 Fortunately, in studies of the African past, archaeologists, linguists, historians, and geneticists are discussing how they can better work together.175 Future training in the historical sciences—which must include capacity building in African institutions as a key component—should expose students to these different areas of expertise and vocabularies, to ensure that scholars continue to strive toward common ground.
Discussion of the Literature
African genomics and especially paleogenomics are young fields, with most scholarship dating since the early 2000s. However, more than a half century of research has explored questions of human population structures pertaining to deep human origins in Africa, as well as to demographic transformations that can be linked, with varying degrees of strength, to linguistic, archaeological, and historical records.176 As a broad generalization, the study of African population histories has moved from study of classical markers from the 1960s through 1980s (e.g., the study of blood types, Rh factors, or immunological markers), to uniparental markers (mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA) from the 1980s through 2000s, and finally progressed to genome-wide data with the birth of the Human Genome Project in the early 21st century. Since 2015, the shift has been toward sequencing genome-wide ancient DNA data, beginning with the study at Mota Cave in Ethiopia.177 The literature on African population history is no longer divided between present-day DNA and ancient DNA; rather, these different sources of data are increasingly integrated.178
In parallel with methodological advances, archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and historians have increasingly engaged with the approaches and findings of geneticists in their study of the African past. MacEachern’s landmark paper “Genes, Tribes, and African History,” published in 2000 partly as a response to Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues’ 1994 opus The History and Geography of Human Genes, problematizes use of identity-based categories in genetic research, and more broadly examines the value and pitfalls of genetic research in light of decades of archaeological, historical, ethnographic, and linguistic scholarship on the African past.179 While this essay is not alone in its critical assessment of genetics, it continues to resonate today. The genomic revolution of the early 2000s provoked additional consideration of the integration of archaeology, historical linguistics, and genetics, and the benefits and perils of interdisciplinarity.180 The “ancient DNA revolution,” gaining pace in Africa since 2015, has provoked a third wave of thought pieces on the genomic turn in African studies. Many of the concerns are the same as raised by MacEachern in 2000. Others focus on the ethics of destructive sampling of human skeletal remains and the need for meaningful community engagement.181 Although Africanist scholars are increasingly seeing these issues through the lens of decolonization and as part of broader calls to make the historical sciences more equitable, critiques of DNA and aDNA research in Africa continue to reflect unresolved issues that remain from the earliest days of the field.
Primary Sources
Unlike other historical sciences that rely on documents as their primary sources, the primary sources for human DNA studies are people. In the case of modern DNA studies, this includes not only genetic data but also the information that participants provide, such as ethnic self-identification, languages spoken, and so forth. In the case of paleogenetic studies, human aDNA studies primarily rely upon archaeological human remains. Additional sources of ancient DNA include faunal and botanical remains, and cultural materials that have organic content and thus may preserve DNA (e.g., stone tools with adhering plant-based mastic; parchment made from animal skins; or human saliva residues on the stem of a tobacco pipe). Archaeological collections are commonly cared for by museums and universities, both across the African continent and, often, in Europe and North America. Under colonial rule, many African archaeological collections—including human skeletal remains—were removed from their place of origin and taken either to European museums and universities or to another location within European-controlled territory: for example, African cultural heritage and human remains from multiple former British colonies are today found in South Africa.182 While repatriation is more openly discussed in the 21st century, it remains far from a reality in most cases, and relatively little attention has focused on archaeological (as opposed to historical) human remains.183
Museums often maintain databases of their collections, which are sometimes publicly accessible. These collections can normally only be accessed with permissions from the relevant government agencies, curatorial staff, or other stakeholders such as indigenous communities. Since these stakeholders are specific to each national context and may vary depending on the location and timeframe of an archaeological site, they are impossible to list exhaustively here. A good starting point is the directory of maintained by the International Council of Museums (ICOM).
Once sampled from archaeological remains, derived molecular products (DNA extracts and libraries) are typically curated for the long term in the laboratory where the work took place and where temperature and other conditions are controlled for optimal preservation. This is an essential step that effectively immortalizes this information, so it can be re-examined and used in other genetic studies without requiring further sampling of archaeological remains, which can be returned to the curating institution. Eventually, curation of DNA extracts and libraries may also shift to the samples’ countries of origin; however, this will require dedicated lab infrastructure that does not yet exist in most African countries.
Genomic and paleogenomic research has been cited as a model for open science.184 As a condition of publication, both ancient and modern DNA sequences are made publicly accessible, making it possible for other researchers to independently confirm results and incorporate these data into their own analyses.185 Three major archives are currently active and sharing data with one another and with the public: the European Nucleotide Archive, GenBank, and the DNA DataBank of Japan. Many laboratories also maintain a website hosting publicly accessible DNA data produced by their studies, with Internet links often published in the relevant paper. Ongoing discussions regarding the need to balance open science with indigenous data sovereignty are highly relevant to aDNA research in some contexts and will likely play a major role in shaping practices in the coming years.186
A key and sometimes-underappreciated aspect of paleogenetics studies is that the supplementary information often contains much of the detailed primary data that historians, archaeologists, historical linguists, and other scholars of the past may be seeking. While DNA studies are often published in scientific journals that do not allow for expansive manuscripts, the supplement has become a venue in which to publish—often for the first time—key details of archaeological sites, burials, or radiocarbon dates, or data on ethnic self-identity and languages spoken by living people whose DNA is in the study.
Links to Digital Materials
Publicly available data for selected papers in African paleogenomics:
Further Reading
- Coutinho, Alexandra, Mario Vicente, and Carina Schlebusch. “DNA Is the Key to Unlocking Our Ancient African Past.” Biochemist 42, no. 1 (2020): 12–17.
- Gibbon, Victoria. “African Ancient DNA Research Requires Robust Ethics and Permission Protocols.” Nature Reviews Genetics 21 (2020): 645–647.
- Hofman, Courtney, and Christina Warinner. “Ancient DNA 101: An Introductory Guide in the Era of High-Throughput Sequencing.” SAA Archaeological Record 19 (2019): 18–25.
- MacEachern, Scott. “Genes, Tribes, and African History.” Current Anthropology 41 (2000): 357–384.
- MacEachern, Scott. “Genetics and Archaeology.” In Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology. Edited by Peter Mitchell and Paul J. Lane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Orlando, Ludovic, Robin Allaby, Pontus Skoglund, Clio Der Sarkissian, Philipp W Stockhammer, María C. Ávila-Arcos, Qiaomei FuJohannes Krause, Eske Willerslev, Anne C. Stone, and Christina Warinner. “Ancient DNA Analysis.” Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, no. 14 (2021).
- Prendergast, Mary E., and Elizabeth Sawchuk. “Boots on the Ground in Africa’s Ancient DNA ‘Revolution’: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethics and Best Practices.” Antiquity 92, no. 363 (2018): 803–815.
- Ramsay, Michèle, Carina Schlebusch, and Kay Davies. “Evolutionary Genomics in Africa.” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (March 2021): R1. This special issue of Human Molecular Genetics contains 19 additional highly relevant papers.
- Sawchuk, Elizabeth A. “Ancient DNA.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History: Asia and Africa, Edited by D. T. Potts, E. Harkness, J. Neelis, and R. J. McIntosh. Wiley-Blackwell, 2021.
- Schlebusch, Carina. “Population Migration and Adaptation during the African Holocene: A Genetic Perspective.” In Modern Human Origins and Dispersal (Words, Bones, Tools). Edited by Y. Sahle, H. Reyes-Centeno, and C. Bentz, 261–284. Tübingen, Germany: Kerns Verlag, 2019.
- Schlebusch, Carina M., and Mattias Jakobsson. “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19 (2018): 405–428.
- Sirak, Kendra A., Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, and Mary E. Prendergast. “Ancient Human DNA and African Population History.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology, 2022.
- Sirak, Kendra A., and Jakob W. Sedig. “Balancing Analytical Goals and Anthropological Stewardship in the Midst of the Paleogenomics Revolution.” World Archaeology 51 (2019): 560–573.
- Skoglund, Pontus, and Iain Mathieson. “Ancient Genomics of Modern Humans: The First Decade.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19 (2018): 381–404.
- Stoneking, Mark. An Introduction to Molecular Anthropology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
- Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A. Reed, Françoise R. Friedlaender, Christopher Ehret, Alessia Ranciaro, Alain Froment, Jibril B. Hirbo, Agnes A. Awomoyi, Jean-Marie Bodo, Ogobara Doumbo, Muntaser Ibrahim, Abdalla T. Juma, Maritha J. Kotze, Godfrey Lema, Jason H. Moore, Holly Mortensen, Thomas B. Nyambo, Sabah A. Omar, Kweli Powell, Gideon S. Pretorius, Michael W. Smith, Mahamadou A Thera, Charles Wambebe, James L. Weber, and Scott M. Williams. “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans.” Science 324 (2009): 1035–1044.
- Vicente, M., and C. M. Schlebusch. “African Population History: An Ancient DNA Perspective.” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 62 (2020): 8–15.
Notes
-
1. Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature 362, no. 6422 (1993): 709–715.
-
2. Pere Gelabert et al., “Genome-Scale Sequencing and Analysis of Human, Wolf and Bison DNA from 25,000 Year-Old Sediment,” Current Biology 31, no. 16 (2021): 3564–3574.e9; Viviane Slon et al., “Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from Pleistocene Sediments,” Science 356, no. 6338 (May 12, 2017): 605–608; Benjamin Vernot et al., “Unearthing Neanderthal Population History Using Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA from Cave Sediments,” Science 372, no. 6542 (May 7, 2021): eabf1667; Elena I. Zavala et al., “Pleistocene Sediment DNA Reveals Hominin and Faunal Turnovers at Denisova Cave,” Nature 595, no. 7867 (July 2021): 399–403; Julie Schablitsky et al., “Ancient DNA Analysis of a Nineteenth Century Tobacco Pipe from a Maryland Slave Quarter,” Journal of Archaeological Science 105 (May 1, 2019): 11–18; Theis Z. T. Jensen et al., “A 5700 Year-Old Human Genome and Oral Microbiome from Chewed Birch Pitch,” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (December 17, 2019): 5520; and Natalija Kashuba et al., “Ancient DNA from Mastics Solidifies Connection between Material Culture and Genetics of Mesolithic Hunter–Gatherers in Scandinavia,” Communications Biology 2, no. 1 (May 15, 2019): 1–10.
-
3. Cristina Gamba et al., “Comparing the Performance of Three Ancient DNA Extraction Methods for High‐throughput Sequencing,” Molecular Ecology Resources 16, no. 2 (2016): 459–469; Ron Pinhasi et al., “Optimal Ancient DNA Yields from the Inner Ear Part of the Human Petrous Bone,” PLOS ONE 10, no. 6 (2015): e0129102; Henrik B. Hansen et al., “Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum,” PLOS ONE 12, no. 1 (2017): e0170940; and Cody Parker et al., “A Systematic Investigation of Human DNA Preservation in Medieval Skeletons,” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (October 26, 2020): 18225.
-
4. Christina J. Adler et al., “Survival and Recovery of DNA from Ancient Teeth and Bones,” Journal of Archaeological Science 38, no. 5 (May 2011): 956–964; Peter de Barros Damgaard et al., “Improving Access to Endogenous DNA in Ancient Bones and Teeth,” Scientific Reports 5 (2015): 11184; Hansen et al., “Comparing Ancient DNA Preservation in Petrous Bone and Tooth Cementum.”; and Kendra Sirak et al., “Human Auditory Ossicles as an Alternative Optimal Source of Ancient DNA,” Genome Research 30, no. 3 (March 1, 2020): 427–436.
-
5. Elena Essel, Petra Korlević, and Matthias Meyer, “A Method for the Temperature-Controlled Extraction of DNA from Ancient Bones,” BioTechniques Biotechniques 71, no. 1 (2021):382-386; Gamba et al., “Comparing the Performance of Three Ancient DNA Extraction Methods for High‐throughput Sequencing”; Nadin Rohland et al., “Extraction of Highly Degraded DNA from Ancient Bones, Teeth and Sediments for High-Throughput Sequencing,” Nature Protocols 13, no. 11 (November 2018): 2447–2461; Damgaard et al., Improving Access to Endogenous DNA in Ancient Bones and Teeth; Petra Korlevic et al., “Reducing Microbial and Human Contamination in DNA Extractions from Ancient Bones and Teeth,” Biotechniques 59, no. 2 (August 2015): 87–93; Matthias Meyer and Martin Kircher, “Illumina Sequencing Library Preparation for Highly Multiplexed Target Capture and Sequencing,” Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2010, no. 6 (2010): 1–10; Martin Kircher, Susanna Sawyer, and Matthias Meyer, “Double Indexing Overcomes Inaccuracies in Multiplex Sequencing on the Illumina Platform,” Nucleic Acids Research 40, no. 1 (2012): e3; Marie-Theres Gansauge and Matthias Meyer, “Single-Stranded DNA Library Preparation for the Sequencing of Ancient or Damaged DNA,” Nature Protocols 8, no. 4 (2013): 737–748; Marie-Theres Gansauge et al., “Single-Stranded DNA Library Preparation from Highly Degraded DNA Using T4 DNA Ligase,” Nucleic Acids Research 45, no. 10 (June 2, 2017): e79; Marie-Theres Gansauge et al., “Manual and Automated Preparation of Single-Stranded DNA Libraries for the Sequencing of DNA from Ancient Biological Remains and Other Sources of Highly Degraded DNA,” Nature Protocols 15, no. 8 (August 1, 2020): 2279–2300; and Kelly M. Harkins et al., “A Novel NGS Library Preparation Method to Characterize Native Termini of Fragmented DNA,” Nucleic Acids Research 48, no. 8 (May 7, 2020): e47.
-
6. Ruth Bollongino, Anne Tresset, and Jean-Denis Vigne, “Environment and Excavation: Pre-Lab Impacts on Ancient DNA Analyses,” Comptes Rendus Palevol 7, no. 2 (2008): 91–98; Bastien Llamas et al., “From the Field to the Laboratory: Controlling DNA Contamination in Human Ancient DNA Research in the High-Throughput Sequencing Era,” STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 3, no. 1 (2017): 1–14; Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith and Katherine Ann Horsburgh, DNA for Archaeologists (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc., 2012); and Dongya Y. Yang and Kathy Watt, “Contamination Controls When Preparing Archaeological Remains for Ancient DNA Analysis,” Journal of Archaeological Science 32, no. 3 (2005): 331–336.
-
7. Tara L. Fulton, “Setting up an Ancient DNA Laboratory,” in Ancient DNA, ed. Beth Shapiro and Michael Hofreiter (Clifton, NJ: Springer, 2012), 1–11; Tara L. Fulton and Beth Shapiro, “Setting Up an Ancient DNA Laboratory,” Methods in Molecular Biology 1963 (2019): 1–13; Michael Knapp et al., “Setting the Stage: Building and Working in an Ancient DNA Laboratory,” Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger 194, no. 1 (2012): 3–6; and Svante Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Genetics 38 (2004): 645–679.
-
8. Adrian W. Briggs et al., “Patterns of Damage in Genomic DNA Sequences from a Neandertal,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 37 (2007): 14616–14621; and Paul Brotherton et al., “Novel High-Resolution Characterization of Ancient DNA Reveals C > U-Type Base Modification Events as the Sole Cause of Post Mortem Miscoding Lesions,” Nucleic Acids Research 35, no. 17 (September 1, 2007): 5717–5728; Jesse Dabney, Matthias Meyer, and Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA Damage,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5, no. 7 (2013): a012567; Michael Hofreiter et al., “Ancient DNA,” Nature Reviews Genetics 2, no. 5 (2001): 353–359; Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning, and Enzymatic Amplification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86, no. 6 (1989): 1939–1943; and Susanna Sawyer et al., “Temporal Patterns of Nucleotide Misincorporations and DNA Fragmentation in Ancient DNA,” PLOS ONE 7, no. 3 (2012): e34131.
-
9. Hákon Jonsson et al., “MapDamage2.0: Fast Approximate Bayesian Estimates of Ancient DNA Damage Parameters,” Bioinformatics 29, no. 13 (July 2013): 1682–1684; Qiaomei Fu et al., “A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes,” Current Biology 23, no. 7 (2013): 553–559; Gabriel Renaud et al., “Schmutzi: Estimation of Contamination and Endogenous Mitochondrial Consensus Calling for Ancient DNA,” Genome Biology 16, no. 1 (October 12, 2015): 224; and Thorfinn Sand Korneliussen, Anders Albrechtsen, and Rasmus Nielsen, “ANGSD: Analysis of Next Generation Sequencing Data,” BMC Bioinformatics 15, no. 1 (2014): 356.
-
10. Nathan Joel Nakatsuka et al., “ContamLD: Estimation of Ancient Nuclear DNA Contamination Using Breakdown of Linkage Disequilibrium,” Genome Biology 21, no. 1 (2020): 199.
-
11. Jerome Kelleher et al., “Inferring Whole-Genome Histories in Large Population Datasets,” Nature Genetics 51, no. 9 (September 1, 2019): 1330–1338.
-
12. Stoneking, Mark, An Introduction to Molecular Anthropology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).
-
13. Michèle Ramsay, Carina Schlebusch, and Kay Davies, “Evolutionary Genomics in Africa,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (March 1, 2021): R1; Alexandra Coutinho, Mário Vicente, and Carina Schlebusch, “DNA Is the Key to Unlocking Our Ancient African Past,” The Biochemist 42, no. 1 (January 31, 2020): 12–17; Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, “Ancient DNA,” 2021; Kendra A. Sirak, Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, and Mary E. Prendergast, “Ancient Human DNA and African Population History,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology, 2022; Carina Schlebusch, “Population Migration and Adaptation during the African Holocene: A Genetic Perspective,” in Modern Human Origins and Dispersal (Words, Bones, Tools), ed. Y. Sahle, H. Reyes-Centeno, and C. Bentz (Tübingen, Germany: Kerns Verlag, 2019), 261; Carina M. Schlebusch and Mattias Jakobsson, “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19, no. 1 (August 31, 2018): 405–428; and Mário Vicente and Carina M. Schlebusch, “African Population History: An Ancient DNA Perspective,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 62 “Genetics of Human Origin” (June 1, 2020): 8–15.
-
14. Sarah A. Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans,” Science 324 (2009): 1035–1044; Ananyo Choudhury et al., “High-Depth African Genomes Inform Human Migration and Health,” Nature 586, no. 7831 (October 2020): 741–748; Ananyo Choudhury et al., “African Genetic Diversity Provides Novel Insights into Evolutionary History and Local Adaptations,” Human Molecular Genetics 27, no. R2 (August 1, 2018): R209–R218; Nina Hollfelder et al., “The Deep Population History in Africa,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (March 1, 2021): R2–R10; Marcel Lucas-Sánchez, Jose Serradell, and David Comas, “Population History of North Africa Based on Modern and Ancient Genomes,” Human Molecular Genetics 30 (December 8, 2020): R17–R23; Ludovica Molinaro and Luca Pagani, “Human Evolutionary History of Eastern Africa,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 53 (December 2018): 134–139; Francesco Montinaro and Cristian Capelli, “The Evolutionary History of Southern Africa,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 53 (December 2018): 157–164; Brigitte Pakendorf and Mark Stoneking, “The Genomic Prehistory of Peoples Speaking Khoisan Languages,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (April 26, 2021): R49–R55; Etienne Patin and Lluis Quintana-Murci, “The Demographic and Adaptive History of Central African Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 53 (December 2018): 90–97; Laura B. Scheinfeldt, Sameer Soi, and Sarah A. Tishkoff, “Working toward a Synthesis of Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Data for Inferring African Population History,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, suppl. 2 (May 5, 2010): 8931–8938; Laura B. Scheinfeldt et al., “Genomic Evidence for Shared Common Ancestry of East African Hunting-Gathering Populations and Insights into Local Adaptation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, no. 10 (February 19, 2019): 4166–4175; Schlebusch, “Population Migration and Adaptation during the African Holocene”; Schlebusch and Jakobsson, “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa.”; Dhriti Sengupta et al., “Genetic Substructure and Complex Demographic History of South African Bantu Speakers,” Nature Communications 12, no. 1 (April 7, 2021): 2080; Carina Schlebusch et al., “Khoe-San Genomes Reveal Unique Variation and Confirm the Deepest Population Divergence in Homo Sapiens,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, (July 22, 2020); and Ramsay, Schlebusch, and Davies, “Evolutionary Genomics in Africa.”
-
15. Pinhasi et al., “Optimal Ancient DNA Yields from the Inner Ear Part of the Human Petrous Bone”; Ron Pinhasi et al., “Isolating the Human Cochlea to Generate Bone Powder for Ancient DNA Analysis,” Nature Protocols 14, no. 4 (April 2019): 1194–1205; K. A. Sirak et al., “A Minimally-Invasive Method for Sampling Human Petrous Bones from the Cranial Base for Ancient DNA Analysis,” Biotechniques 62, no. 6 (June 2017): 283–289; Sirak et al., “Human Auditory Ossicles as an Alternative Optimal Source of Ancient DNA”; Éadaoin Harney et al., “A Minimally Destructive Protocol for DNA Extraction from Ancient Teeth,” Genome Research 31 (2021): 472–483; Coutinho, Vicente, and Schlebusch, “DNA Is the Key to Unlocking Our Ancient African Past”; Sawchuk, “Ancient DNA”; Sirak, Sawchuk, and Prendergast, “Ancient Human DNA and African Population History”; and Vicente and Schlebusch, “African Population History.”
-
16. Michael Abrouk et al., “Fonio Millet Genome Unlocks African Orphan Crop Diversity for Agriculture in a Changing Climate,” Nature Communications 11, no. 1 (September 8, 2020): 4488; Ahmed S. Al-Jumaili et al., “The Maternal Origin of Indigenous Domestic Chicken from the Middle East, the North and the Horn of Africa,” BMC Genetics 21, no. 1 (December 2020): 30; Sebastian Chenyambuga et al., “Genetic Characterization of Indigenous Goats of Sub-Saharan Africa Using Microsatellite DNA Markers,” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 17 (April 1, 2004); Jae Young Choi et al., “The Complex Geography of Domestication of the African Rice Oryza Glaberrima,” PLOS Genetics 15, no. 3 (March 7, 2019): e1007414; Kwondo Kim et al., “The Mosaic Genome of Indigenous African Cattle as a Unique Genetic Resource for African Pastoralism,” Nature Genetics 52, no. 10 (October 2020): 1099–1110; Anne W. T. Muigai and Olivier Hanotte, “The Origin of African Sheep: Archaeological and Genetic Perspectives,” African Archaeological Review 30, no. 1 (March 2013): 39–50; and J. M. Mwacharo et al., “The History of African Village Chickens: An Archaeological and Molecular Perspective,” African Archaeological Review 30, no. 1 (March 2013): 97–114.
-
17. D. Gifford-Gonzalez and O. Hanotte, “Domesticating Animals in Africa: Implications of Genetic and Archeological Findings,” Journal of World Prehistory 24, no. 1 (2011): 1–23; Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Olivier Hanotte, “Domesticating Animals in Africa,” in Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, ed. Peter Mitchell and Paul J. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, “Animal Genetics and African Archaeology: Why It Matters,” African Archaeological Review 30, no. 1 (March 2013): 1–20; K. Ann Horsburgh, “Genetics and Domestic Fauna in Southern Africa,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology, ed. K. Ann Horsburgh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
-
18. Kim et al., “The Mosaic Genome of Indigenous African Cattle as a Unique Genetic Resource for African Pastoralism.”
-
19. Birgitta Kimura et al., “Ancient DNA from Nubian and Somali Wild Ass Provides Insights into Donkey Ancestry and Domestication,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278, no. 1702 (2011): 50–57; M. E. Prendergast et al., “Reconstructing Asian Faunal Introductions to Eastern Africa from Multi-Proxy Biomolecular and Archaeological Datasets,” PLOS One 12, no. 8 (2017): e0182565; Claudio Ottoni et al., “The Palaeogenetics of Cat Dispersal in the Ancient World,” Nature Ecology and Evolution 1, no. 7 (July 1, 2017): 0139; Iñigo Olalde et al., “Ancient DNA Sheds Light on the Ancestry of Pre-Hispanic Canarian Pigs,” Genetics, Selection, Evolution 47 (May 6, 2015): 40; K. Ann Horsburgh, Jayson Orton, and Richard G. Klein, “Beware the Springbok in Sheep’s Clothing: How Secure Are the Faunal Identifications upon which We Build Our Models?” African Archaeological Review 33, no. 4 (2016): 353–361; and Horsburgh, “Genetics and Domestic Fauna in Southern Africa.”
-
20. Sarah A. Palmer et al., “Archaeogenetic Evidence of Ancient Nubian Barley Evolution from Six to Two-Row Indicates Local Adaptation,” PLOS One 4, no. 7 (July 22, 2009): e6301; Oliver Smith et al., “A Domestication History of Dynamic Adaptation and Genomic Deterioration in Sorghum,” Nature Plants 5, no. 4 (April 2019): 369–379; Jenny Hagenblad et al., “Farmer Fidelity in the Canary Islands Revealed by Ancient DNA from Prehistoric Seeds,” Journal of Archaeological Science 78 (February 2017): 78–87; and Hugo Oliveira et al., “Ancient DNA in Archaeological Wheat Grains: Preservation Conditions and the Study of Pre-Hispanic Agriculture on the Island of Gran Canaria (Spain),” Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (April 1, 2012).
-
21. Riaan F. Rifkin et al., “Ancient DNA of Rickettsia Felis and Toxoplasma Gondii Implicated in the Death of a Hunter-Gatherer Boy from South Africa, 2,000 Years Ago,” BioRxiv (July 23, 2020).
-
22. M. E. Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa,” Science 365, no. 6448 (May 30, 2019).
-
23. Maryna Steyn et al., “Introduction: Opening the Cupboard—Lessons in Biology and History from African Skeletons,” Goodwin Series 11 (2013): 1–5; M. E. Prendergast and E. Sawchuk, “Boots on the Ground in Africa’s Ancient DNA ‘Revolution’: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethics and Best Practices,” Antiquity 92, no. 363 (2018): 1–13; and Victoria E. Gibbon, “African Ancient DNA Research Requires Robust Ethics and Permission Protocols,” Nature Reviews Genetics 21, no. 11 (November 2020): 645–647.
-
24. Moses John Bockarie, “We Need to End ‘Parachute’ Research Which Sidelines the Work of African Scientists,” Quartz Africa, January 29, 2019; Ambroise Wonkam, “Sequence Three Million Genomes across Africa,” Nature 590, no. 7845 (February 11, 2021): 209–211; and Alan G. Morris, “Ancient DNA Comes of Age, but Still Has Some Teenage Problems,” South African Journal of Science 113, nos. 9/10 (2017): 2.
-
25. Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., “Ethics of DNA Research on Human Remains: Five Globally Applicable Guidelines,” Nature 599, no. 7883 (November 1, 2021): 41–46; Gibbon, “African Ancient DNA Research Requires Robust Ethics and Permission Protocols”; S. MacEachern, “Genes, Tribes, and African History,” Current Anthropology 41, no. 3 (June 2000): 357–384; Scott MacEachern, “Genetics and Archaeology,” in Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, ed. P. Mitchell and P. J. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
-
26. Joseph Ali et al., “A Scoping Review of Genetics and Genomics Research Ethics Policies and Guidelines for Africa,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 39; Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Jantina de Vries, and Bridget Pratt, “Genomics Governance: Advancing Justice, Fairness and Equity through the Lens of the African Communitarian Ethic of Ubuntu,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, April 2, 2021; Paulina Tindana and Christine Wasunna, “Evaluating Genetic and Genomic Research Proposals in Africa,” in Research Ethics in Africa: A Resource for Research Ethics Committees, ed. Mariana Kruger, Paul Ndebele, and Lyn Horn (African Sun Media, 2014), 33–41; Aceme Nyika, “Ethical and Practical Challenges Surrounding Genetic and Genomic Research in Developing Countries,” Acta Tropica 112 (November 2009): S21–S31.
-
27. Aminu Yakubu et al., “Model Framework for Governance of Genomic Research and Biobanking in Africa A Content Description,” AAS Open Research 1 (December 12, 2018): 13.
-
28. Kendra A. Sirak and Jakob W. Sedig, “Balancing Analytical Goals and Anthropological Stewardship in the Midst of the Paleogenomics Revolution,” World Archaeology 51, no. 4 (August 8, 2019): 560–573.
-
29. Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., “Ethics of DNA Research on Human Remains: Five Globally Applicable Guidelines”; Jessica Bardill et al., “Advancing the Ethics of Paleogenomics,” Science 360, no. 6387 (April 27, 2018): 384–385; Krystal S. Tsosie et al., “Generations of Genomes: Advances in Paleogenomics Technology and Engagement for Indigenous People of the Americas,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 62, “Genetics of Human Origin” (June 1, 2020): 91–96; and Jennifer K. Wagner et al., “Fostering Responsible Research on Ancient DNA,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 107, no. 2 (August 2020): 183–195.
-
30. Gibbon, “African Ancient DNA Research Requires Robust Ethics and Permission Protocols.”
-
31. Prendergast and Sawchuk, “Boots on the Ground in Africa’s Ancient DNA ‘Revolution’: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethics and Best Practices.”
-
32. Choudhury et al., “High-Depth African Genomes Inform Human Migration and Health”; Cesar Fortes-Lima and Carina Schlebusch, “Closing the Gaps in Genomic Research,” Trends in Genetics: TIG 37, no. 2 (February 2021): 104–106; Giorgio Sirugo, Scott M. Williams, and Sarah A. Tishkoff, “The Missing Diversity in Human Genetic Studies,” Cell 177, no. 1 (March 2019): 26–31; Serena Tucci and Joshua M. Akey, “The Long Walk to African Genomics,” Genome Biology 20, no. 1 (December 2019): 130; and Wonkam, “Sequence Three Million Genomes across Africa.”
-
33. Rebecca L. Cann, M. Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution,” Nature 325 (1987): 31–36.
-
34. Ning Yu et al., “Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians,” Genetics 161, no. 1 (May 1, 2002): 269–274; Sohini Ramachandran et al., “Support from the Relationship of Genetic and Geographic Distance in Human Populations for a Serial Founder Effect Originating in Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, no. 44 (October 21, 2005): 15942–15947; and Milford H. Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, Race and Human Evolution (Simon and Schuster, 1997).
-
35. Sally McBrearty and Alison S. Brooks, “The Revolution That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior,” Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000): 453–563; and Marlize Lombard and Anders Högberg, “Four-Field Co-Evolutionary Model for Human Cognition: Variation in the Middle Stone Age/Middle Palaeolithic,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 28, no. 1 (March 1, 2021): 142–177.
-
36. Brenna M. Henn et al., “Hunter-Gatherer Genomic Diversity Suggests a Southern African Origin for Modern Humans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 13 (March 7, 2011): 5154–5162; Eva K. F. Chan et al., “Human Origins in a Southern African Palaeo-Wetland and First Migrations,” Nature 575, no. 7781 (November 2019): 185–189; Teresa Rito et al., “A Dispersal of Homo Sapiens from Southern to Eastern Africa Immediately Preceded the Out-of-Africa Migration,” Scientific Reports 9, no. 1 (March 18, 2019): 4728; and Carina M. Schlebusch et al., “Human Origins in Southern African Palaeo-Wetlands? Strong Claims from Weak Evidence,” Preprints, November 17, 2019.
-
37. Anders Bergström et al., “Origins of Modern Human Ancestry,” Nature 590, no. 7845 (February 11, 2021): 229–237; Julia Galway-Witham and Chris Stringer, “How Did Homo Sapiens Evolve?” Science 360, no. 6395 (June 22, 2018): 1296–1298; Pontus Skoglund and Iain Mathieson, “Ancient Genomics of Modern Humans: The First Decade,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19 (August 31, 2018): 381–404; and Chris Stringer, “The Origin and Evolution of Homo Sapiens,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, July 5, 2016.
-
38. Cindy Santander, Francesco Montinaro, and Cristian Capelli, “Searching for Archaic Contribution in Africa,” Annals of Human Biology 46 (June 4, 2019): 1–39; Katerina Harvati et al., “The Later Stone Age Calvaria from Iwo Eleru, Nigeria: Morphology and Chronology,” PLOS One 6, no. 9 (September 15, 2011): e24024; and I. Crevecoeur et al., “Late Stone Age Human Remains from Ishango (Democratic Republic of Congo): New Insights on Late Pleistocene Modern Human Diversity in Africa,” Journal of Human Evolution 96 (2016): 35–57.
-
39. Brenna M. Henn, Teresa E. Steele, and Timothy D. Weaver, “Clarifying Distinct Models of Modern Human Origins in Africa,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 53, “Genetics of Human Origins” (December 1, 2018): 148–156; Eleanor M. L. Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33, no. 8 (2018): 582–594; and Carina M. Schlebusch et al., “Human Origins in Southern African Palaeo-Wetlands? Strong Claims from Weak Evidence,” Journal of Archaeological Science 130 (June 1, 2021): 105374.
-
40. Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?”; and Bergström et al., “Origins of Modern Human Ancestry.”
-
41. Carina M. Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago,” Science 358, no. 6363 (September 28, 2017): 652–655; Pontus Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure,” Cell 171, no. 1 (September 21, 2017): 59–71.e21; and Mark Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History,” Nature 577, no. 7792 (January 2020): 665–670.
-
42. Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago.”
-
43. Carina M. Schlebusch et al., “Genomic Variation in Seven Khoe-San Groups Reveals Adaptation and Complex African History,” Science 338, no. 6105 (September 20, 2012): 374–379; Joseph K. Pickrell et al., “The Genetic Prehistory of Southern Africa,” Nature Communications 3, no. 1 (October 16, 2012): 1143; and Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?”
-
44. Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.”
-
45. Matthias Meyer et al., “Nuclear DNA Sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de Los Huesos Hominins,” Nature 531, no. 7595 (March 1, 2016): 504–507; Jean-Jacques Hublin et al., “Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo Sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria,” Nature 581, no. 7808 (May 2020): 299–302; and Kay Prüfer et al., “A High-Coverage Neandertal Genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia,” Science 358, no. 6363 (October 5, 2017): 655–658.
-
46. M. van de Loosdrecht et al., “Pleistocene North African Genomes Link Near Eastern and Sub-Saharan African Human Populations,” Science 360, no. 6388 (March 15, 2018): 548–552; and Marlize Lombard et al., “Genetic Data and Radiocarbon Dating Question Plovers Lake as a Middle Stone Age Hominin-Bearing Site,” Journal of Human Evolution 131 (June 1, 2019): 203–209.
-
47. Beatrice Demarchi et al., “Protein Sequences Bound to Mineral Surfaces Persist into Deep Time,” ELife 5 (2016): e17092; and Frido Welker et al., “The Dental Proteome of Homo Antecessor,” Nature 580, no. 7802 (April 2020): 235–238.
-
48. Henn, Steele, and Weaver, “Clarifying Distinct Models of Modern Human Origins in Africa”; Molinaro and Pagani, “Human Evolutionary History of Eastern Africa”; Montinaro and Capelli, “The Evolutionary History of Southern Africa”; and Schlebusch and Jakobsson, “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa.”
-
49. Alan G. Morris et al., “First Ancient Mitochondrial Human Genome from a Prepastoralist Southern African,” Genome Biology and Evolution 6, no. 10 (October 2014): 2647–2653; M. Gallego Llorente et al., “Ancient Ethiopian Genome Reveals Extensive Eurasian Admixture in Eastern Africa,” Science 350, no. 6262 (October 8, 2015): 820–822; Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure,”; Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago”; van de Loosdrecht et al., “Pleistocene North African Genomes Link Near Eastern and Sub-Saharan African Human Populations”; Rosa Fregel et al., “Ancient Genomes from North Africa Evidence Prehistoric Migrations to the Maghreb from Both the Levant and Europe,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 26 (June 12, 2018): 6774–6779; Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History”; and Ke Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Science Advances 6, no. 24 (June 12, 2020).
-
50. Coutinho, Vicente, and Schlebusch, “DNA Is the Key to Unlocking Our Ancient African Past”; Sawchuk, “Ancient DNA”; Sirak, Sawchuk, and Prendergast, “Ancient Human DNA and African Population History”; and Vicente and Schlebusch, “African Population History.”
-
51. van de Loosdrecht et al., “Pleistocene North African Genomes Link Near Eastern and Sub-Saharan African Human Populations.”; R. N. E. Barton et al., “Origins of the Iberomaurusian in NW Africa: New AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Middle and Later Stone Age Deposits at Taforalt Cave, Morocco,” Journal of Human Evolution 65, no. 3 (September 2013): 266–281.
-
52. Fregel et al., “Ancient Genomes from North Africa Evidence Prehistoric Migrations to the Maghreb from Both the Levant and Europe”; and Gerard Serra-Vidal et al., “Heterogeneity in Palaeolithic Population Continuity and Neolithic Expansion in North Africa,” Current Biology 29, no. 22 (November 18, 2019): 3953–3959.e4.
-
53. Gallego Llorente et al., “Ancient Ethiopian Genome Reveals Extensive Eurasian Admixture in Eastern Africa”; Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago”; Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History”; and Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
54. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure.”
-
55. Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.”
-
56. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; and Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.”
-
57. Christian A. Tryon, “The Middle/Later Stone Age Transition and Cultural Dynamics of Late Pleistocene East Africa,” Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 28, no. 5 (2019): 267–282; and Pamela R. Willoughby, “Modern Human Behavior,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
-
58. Tryon, “The Middle/Later Stone Age Transition and Cultural Dynamics of Late Pleistocene East Africa”; and Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?”
-
59. George B. J. Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa,” ed. Joseph K. Pickrell, ELife 5 (June 21, 2016): e15266; Choudhury et al., “High-Depth African Genomes Inform Human Migration and Health”; S. Fan et al., “African Evolutionary History Inferred from Whole Genome Sequence Data of 44 Indigenous African Populations,” Genome Biology 20, no. 1 (April 26, 2019): 82; Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; Scheinfeldt, Soi, and Tishkoff, “Working toward a Synthesis of Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Data for Inferring African Population History”; and Scheinfeldt et al., “Genomic Evidence for Shared Common Ancestry of East African Hunting-Gathering Populations and Insights into Local Adaptation.”
-
60. Fregel et al., “Ancient Genomes from North Africa Evidence Prehistoric Migrations to the Maghreb from Both the Levant and Europe.”
-
61. Rafael M. Martínez-Sánchez et al., “The Beginning of the Neolithic in Northwestern Morocco,” The Neolithic Expansion in the Western Mediterranean: Understanding a Global Phenomenon from Regional Perspectives 470 (March 20, 2018): 485–496; and Thomas X. Schuhmacher, João Luís Cardoso, and Arun Banerjee, “Sourcing African Ivory in Chalcolithic Portugal,” Antiquity 83, no. 322 (2009): 983–997.
-
62. Serra-Vidal et al., “Heterogeneity in Palaeolithic Population Continuity and Neolithic Expansion in North Africa.”
-
63. G. González-Fortes et al., “A Western Route of Prehistoric Human Migration from Africa into the Iberian Peninsula,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286, no. 1895 (January 30, 2019): 20182288.
-
64. Rosa Fregel, Alejandra C. Ordóñez, and Javier G Serrano, “The Demography of the Canary Islands from a Genetic Perspective,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (March 1, 2021): R64–R71.
-
65. J. C. Rando et al., “Phylogeographic Patterns of MtDNA Reflecting the Colonization of the Canary Islands,” Annals of Human Genetics 63, no. 5 (September 1999): 413–428; C. Flores et al., “A Predominant European Ancestry of Paternal Lineages from Canary Islanders,” Annals of Human Genetics 67, no. 2 (March 2003): 138–152; Beatriz Guillen-Guio et al., “Genomic Analyses of Human European Diversity at the Southwestern Edge: Isolation, African Influence and Disease Associations in the Canary Islands,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 35, no. 12 (December 1, 2018): 3010–3026; Lara R. Arauna, Garrett Hellenthal, and David Comas, “Dissecting Human North African Gene-Flow into Its Western Coastal Surroundings,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286, no. 1902 (May 15, 2019): 20190471; Nicole Maca-Meyer et al., “Ancient MtDNA Analysis and the Origin of the Guanches,” European Journal of Human Genetics 12, no. 2 (February 2004): 155–162; Rosa Fregel et al., “The Maternal Aborigine Colonization of La Palma (Canary Islands),” European Journal of Human Genetics 17, no. 10 (October 2009): 1314–1324; Alejandra C. Ordóñez et al., “Genetic Studies on the Prehispanic Population Buried in Punta Azul Cave (El Hierro, Canary Islands),” Journal of Archaeological Science 78 (February 1, 2017): 20–28; Ricardo Rodríguez-Varela et al., “Genomic Analyses of Pre-European Conquest Human Remains from the Canary Islands Reveal Close Affinity to Modern North Africans,” Current Biology 27, no. 21 (2017): 3396–3402.e5; and Rosa Fregel et al., “Mitogenomes Illuminate the Origin and Migration Patterns of the Indigenous People of the Canary Islands,” PLOS One 14, no. 3 (March 20, 2019): e0209125.
-
66. Fregel et al., “Ancient Genomes from North Africa Evidence Prehistoric Migrations to the Maghreb from Both the Levant and Europe.”; Fregel et al., “Mitogenomes Illuminate the Origin and Migration Patterns of the Indigenous People of the Canary Islands”; and Fregel, Ordóñez, and Serrano, “The Demography of the Canary Islands from a Genetic Perspective.”
-
67. Fregel et al., “Mitogenomes Illuminate the Origin and Migration Patterns of the Indigenous People of the Canary Islands”; and Fregel, Ordóñez, and Serrano, “The Demography of the Canary Islands from a Genetic Perspective.”
-
68. Flores et al., “A Predominant European Ancestry of Paternal Lineages from Canary Islanders”; Fregel et al., “The Maternal Aborigine Colonization of La Palma (Canary Islands)”; Rando et al., “Phylogeographic Patterns of MtDNA Reflecting the Colonization of the Canary Islands”; and Cristina Santos et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Patterns in the Macaronesia Islands: Variation within and among Archipelagos,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141, no. 4 (April 2010): 610–619.
-
69. Fregel, Ordóñez, and Serrano, “The Demography of the Canary Islands from a Genetic Perspective.”
-
70. Arauna, Hellenthal, and Comas, “Dissecting Human North African Gene-Flow into Its Western Coastal Surroundings”; Laura R. Botigué et al., “Gene Flow from North Africa Contributes to Differential Human Genetic Diversity in Southern Europe,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, no. 29 (May 10, 2013): 11791–11796; and Guillen-Guio et al., “Genomic Analyses of Human European Diversity at the Southwestern Edge.”
-
71. Rosa Fregel et al., “Demographic History of Canary Islands Male Gene-Pool: Replacement of Native Lineages by European,” BMC Evolutionary Biology 9 (August 3, 2009): 181; and Nicole Maca-Meyer et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in 17th–18th Century Remains from Tenerife (Canary Islands),” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127, no. 4 (August 2005): 418–426.
-
72. Jonathan Santana et al., “*The Early Colonial Atlantic World: New Insights on the African Diaspora from Isotopic and Ancient DNA Analyses of a Multiethnic 15th–17th Century Burial Population from the Canary Islands, Spain,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159, no. 2 (February 2016): 300–312.
-
73. A. E. Mourant et al., “The Blood Groups and Haemoglobins of the Kunama and Baria of Eritrea, Ethiopia,” Annals of Human Biology 1, no. 4 (January 1, 1974): 383–392; L. A.-N. Mahmoud et al., “Human Blood Groups in Dakahlya, Egypt,” Annals of Human Biology 14, no. 6 (January 1, 1987): 487–493; F. M. Hassan, “Frequency of ABO, Subgroup ABO and Rh(D) Blood Groups in Major Sudanese Ethnic Groups,” Pakistan Journal of Medical Research 49, no. 1 (2010): 21–23; Waleed Aamer et al., “Analysis of HLA Gene Polymorphisms in East Africans Reveals Evidence of Gene Flow in Two Semitic Populations from Sudan,” European Journal of Human Genetics 29 (March 22, 2021): 1259–1271; Franz Manni et al., “Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa,” Human Biology 74, no. 5 (October 2002): 645–658; Hisham Y. Hassan et al., “Y-Chromosome Variation among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance with Language, Geography, and History,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 137, no. 3 (November 2008): 316–323; Estella S. Poloni et al., “Genetic Evidence for Complexity in Ethnic Differentiation and History in East Africa,” Annals of Human Genetics 73, no. 6 (November 2009): 582–600; Hiba M. A. Babiker et al., “Genetic Variation and Population Structure of Sudanese Populations as Indicated by 15 Identifiler Sequence-Tagged Repeat (STR) Loci,” Investigative Genetics 2, no. 1 (May 4, 2011): 12; and Francesco Messina et al., “Linking between Genetic Structure and Geographical Distance: Study of the Maternal Gene Pool in the Ethiopian Population,” Annals of Human Biology 44, no. 1 (February 2017): 53–69.
-
74. Begoña Dobon et al., “The Genetics of East African Populations: A Nilo-Saharan Component in the African Genetic Landscape,” Scientific Reports 5, no. 1 (May 28, 2015): 9996; Luca Pagani et al., “Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool,” American Journal of Human Genetics 91, no. 1 (2012): 83–96; Luca Pagani et al., “Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians,” American Journal of Human Genetics 96, no. 6 (June 4, 2015): 986–991; Nina Hollfelder et al., “Northeast African Genomic Variation Shaped by the Continuity of Indigenous Groups and Eurasian Migrations,” PLOS Genetics 13, no. 8 (2017): e1006976; Saioa López et al., “Evidence of the Interplay of Genetics and Culture in Ethiopia,” Nature Communications 12, no. 1 (June 11, 2021): 3581; Hisham Y. Hassan et al., “Genetic Diversity of Lactase Persistence in East African Populations,” BMC Research Notes 9 (January 4, 2016): 8; and Nina Hollfelder et al., “The Genetic Variation of Lactase Persistence Alleles in Sudan and South Sudan,” Genome Biology and Evolution 13, no. 5 (March 24, 2021): evab065.
-
75. Gallego Llorente et al., “Ancient Ethiopian Genome Reveals Extensive Eurasian Admixture in Eastern Africa.”
-
76. John W. Arthur et al., “The Transition from Hunting–Gathering to Food Production in the Gamo Highlands of Southern Ethiopia,” African Archaeological Review 36, no. 1 (March 1, 2019): 5–65.
-
77. Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa”; Shyamalika Gopalan et al., “Hunter-Gatherer Genomes Reveal Diverse Demographic Trajectories Following the Rise of Farming in East Africa,” BioRxiv, January 11, 2019, 517730; and López et al., “Evidence of the Interplay of Genetics and Culture in Ethiopia.”
-
78. López et al., “Evidence of the Interplay of Genetics and Culture in Ethiopia.”
-
79. Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.”
-
80. C. L. Fox, “MtDNA Analysis in Ancient Nubians Supports the Existence of Gene Flow between Sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile Valley,” Annals of Human Biology 24, no. 3 (June 1997): 217–227; M. Krings et al., “MtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?” American Journal of Human Genetics 64, no. 4 (April 1999): 1166–1176; Manni et al., “Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa”; Barbara Arredi et al., “A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa,” American Journal of Human Genetics 75, no. 2 (August 2004): 338–345; A. Stevanovitch et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt,” Annals of Human Genetics 68, no. 1 (January 2004): 23–39; Fulvio Cruciani et al., “Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 24, no. 6 (June 2007): 1300–1311; Martina Kujanová et al., “Near Eastern Neolithic Genetic Input in a Small Oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140, no. 2 (October 2009): 336–346; Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145, no. 1 (May 2011): 107–117; and Dobon et al., “The Genetics of East African Populations: A Nilo-Saharan Component in the African Genetic Landscape.”
-
81. Sirak, Sawchuk, and Prendergast, “Ancient Human DNA and African Population History.”
-
82. V. J. Schuenemann et al., “Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods,” Nature Communications 8 (May 30, 2017): 15694.
-
83. Brenna M. Henn et al., “Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations,” PLOS Genetics 8, no. 1 (January 12, 2012): e1002397.
-
84. Kendra A. Sirak et al., “Social Stratification without Genetic Differentiation at the Site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia,” BioRxiv, January 1, 2021.
-
85. William Yewdale Adams, Nubia: Corridor to Africa (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977).
-
86. Fatimah L. C. Jackson, “So Many Nigerians: Why Is Nigeria Overrepresented as the Ancestral Genetic Homeland of Legacy African North Americans?” American Journal of Human Genetics 108, no. 1 (January 2021): 202–208; Choudhury et al., “High-Depth African Genomes Inform Human Migration and Health.”; Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History”; and Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
87. Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; Jun Z. Li et al., “Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation,” Science 319, no. 5866 (February 22, 2008): 1100–1104; Paul Verdu et al., “Origins and Genetic Diversity of Pygmy Hunter-Gatherers from Western Central Africa,” Current Biology 19, no. 4 (February 24, 2009): 312–318; Etienne Patin et al., “Inferring the Demographic History of African Farmers and Pygmy Hunter-Gatherers Using a Multilocus Resequencing Data Set,” PLOS Genetics 5, no. 4 (April 10, 2009): e1000448; Chiara Batini et al., “Insights into the Demographic History of African Pygmies from Complete Mitochondrial Genomes,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 28 (November 1, 2010): 1099–1110; and Patin and Quintana-Murci, “The Demographic and Adaptive History of Central African Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers.”
-
88. Lipson et al., “Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.”
-
89. Patin et al., “Inferring the Demographic History of African Farmers and Pygmy Hunter-Gatherers Using a Multilocus Resequencing Data Set”; and Batini et al., “Insights into the Demographic History of African Pygmies from Complete Mitochondrial Genomes.”
-
90. Scerri et al., “Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?”
-
91. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
92. Schlebusch, “Population Migration and Adaptation during the African Holocene”; Schlebusch and Jakobsson, “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa”; Patin and Quintana-Murci, “The Demographic and Adaptive History of Central African Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers”; and B. Pakendorf, K. Bostoen, and Cesare de Filippo, “Molecular Perspectives on the Bantu Expansion: A Synthesis,” Language Dynames and Change 1 (2011): 50–88.
-
93. Koen Bostoen, “The Bantu Expansion,” Oxford Research Encyclopedias (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
-
94. Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa”; Sen Li, Carina Schlebusch, and Mattias Jakobsson, “Genetic Variation Reveals Large-Scale Population Expansion and Migration during the Expansion of Bantu-Speaking Peoples,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, no. 1793 (October 22, 2014): 20141448; Etienne Patin et al., “Dispersals and Genetic Adaptation of Bantu-Speaking Populations in Africa and North America,” Science 356, no. 6337 (May 5, 2017): 543–546; Schlebusch et al., “Genomic Variation in Seven Khoe-San Groups Reveals Adaptation and Complex African History”; Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; and Cesare de Filippo et al., “Y-Chromosomal Variation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights into the History of Niger-Congo Groups,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 28, no. 3 (March 2011): 1255–1269.
-
95. P. de Maret, “Archaeologies of the Bantu Expansion,” in Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, ed. P. Mitchell and P. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 627–643.
-
96. C. de Filippo et al., “Bringing Together Linguistic and Genetic Evidence to Test the Bantu Expansion,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2012, no. 279 (2012): 3256–3263; Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa”; Li, Schlebusch, and Jakobsson, “Genetic Variation Reveals Large-Scale Population Expansion and Migration during the Expansion of Bantu-Speaking Peoples”; Patin et al., “Dispersals and Genetic Adaptation of Bantu-Speaking Populations in Africa and North America”; “Along the Indian Ocean Coast: Genomic Variation in Mozambique Provides New Insights into the Bantu Expansion,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 37, no. 2 (February 2020): 406–416; R. Grollemund et al., “Bantu Expansion Shows That Habitat Alters the Route and Pace of Human Dispersals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, no. 43 (2016): 13296–13301; and de Maret, “Archaeologies of the Bantu Expansion.”
-
97. E. Patin et al., “The Impact of Agricultural Emergence on the Genetic History of African Rainforest Hunter-Gatherers and Agriculturalists,” Nature Communications 5 (2014): 3163; Paul Verdu et al., “Sociocultural Behavior, Sex-Biased Admixture, and Effective Population Sizes in Central African Pygmies and Non-Pygmies,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, no. 4 (April 2013): 918–937; Sarah J. Marks et al., “Static and Moving Frontiers: The Genetic Landscape of Southern African Bantu-Speaking Populations,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, no. 1 (January 2015): 29–43; and Vladimir Bajić et al., “Genetic Structure and Sex-Biased Gene Flow in the History of Southern African Populations,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 167, no. 3 (November 2018): 656–671.
-
98. de Filippo et al., “Bringing Together Linguistic and Genetic Evidence to Test the Bantu Expansion”; Schlebusch, “Population Migration and Adaptation during the African Holocene”; and Dirk Seidensticker et al., “Population Collapse in Congo Rainforest from 400 CE Urges Reassessment of the Bantu Expansion,” Science Advances 7, no. 7 (February 12, 2021): eabd8352.
-
99. Ananyo Choudhury et al., “Bantu-Speaker Migration and Admixture in Southern Africa,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (April 26, 2021): R56–R63; Sengupta et al., “Genetic Substructure and Complex Demographic History of South African Bantu Speakers”; Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
100. Alexandra Coutinho et al., “Later Stone Age Human Hair from Vaalkrans Shelter, Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, Reveals Genetic Affinity to Khoe Groups,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 174, no. 4 (April 1, 2021): 701–713; Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago”; Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; and Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
101. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; and Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago.”
-
102. Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa”; Petr Triska et al., “Extensive Admixture and Selective Pressure Across the Sahel Belt,” Genome Biology and Evolution 7, no. 12 (November 26, 2015): 3484–3495; Daniel Shriner and Charles N. Rotimi, “Genetic History of Chad,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 167, no. 4 (December 1, 2018): 804–812; and Viktor Černý, Cesar Fortes-Lima, and Petr Tříska, “Demographic History and Admixture Dynamics in African Sahelian Populations,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (March 1, 2021): R29–R36.
-
103. Scott MacEachern, “The Holocene History of the Southern Lake Chad Basin: Archaeological, Linguistic and Genetic Evidence,” African Archaeological Review 29, no. 2 (September 1, 2012): 253–271; and MacEachern, “Genetics and Archaeology.”
-
104. Mário Vicente et al., “Population History and Genetic Adaptation of the Fulani Nomads: Inferences from Genome-Wide Data and the Lactase Persistence Trait,” BMC Genomics 20, no. 1 (December 2, 2019): 915.
-
105. J. Cameron Monroe, “The Archaeology of The Precolonial State in Africa,” Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, July 4, 2013.
-
106. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”; and Lucy van Dorp et al., “Genetic Legacy of State Centralization in the Kuba Kingdom of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 2 (December 24, 2018): 593–598.
-
107. Vansina, Jan, “Kuba Chronology Revisited,” Paideuma 21 (1975): 134–150; and Scott MacEachern, “States and Their Genetic Consequences in Central Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 2 (December 27, 2018): 356–357.
-
108. Fan et al., “African Evolutionary History Inferred from Whole Genome Sequence Data of 44 Indigenous African Populations”; Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; and Scheinfeldt et al., “Genomic Evidence for Shared Common Ancestry of East African Hunting-Gathering Populations and Insights into Local Adaptation.”
-
109. Hisham M. Eldai and Hiba Babiker, “Human Population History from an East African Perspective: The Forgotten Land,” in Current Perspectives in Sudanese and Nubian Archaeology: A Collection of Papers Presented at the 2018 Sudan Studies Research Conference, Cambridge, ed. Rennan Lemos and Samantha Tipper (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2021), 91–116.
-
110. Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; and Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
111. Peter Robertshaw, “Archaeology of Early Pastoralism in East Africa,” Oxford Research Encyclopedias (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).
-
112. Faye Lander and Thembi Russell, “The Archaeological Evidence for the Appearance of Pastoralism and Farming in Southern Africa,” PLOS One 13, no. 6 (June 14, 2018): e0198941; and Fiona Marshall and Elisabeth Hildebrand, “Cattle before Crops: The Beginnings of Food Production in Africa,” Journal of World Prehistory 16, no. 2 (2002): 99–143.
-
113. P. Lane, “The Archaeology of Pastoralism and Stock-Keeping in East Africa,” in Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, ed. P. Mitchell and P. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 585–601; and Karim Sadr, “The Archaeology of Herding in Southernmost Africa,” Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, July 4, 2013.
-
114. Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
115. Stanley H. Ambrose, “The Introduction of Pastoral Adaptations to the Highlands of East Africa,” in From Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, ed. J. D. Clark and S. A. Brandt (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 212–239; Christopher Ehret, “Historical/Linguistic Evidence for Early African Food Production,” in From Hunters to Farmers, ed. J. D. Clark and S. A. Brandt (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 26–35; and Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
116. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
117. Mary E. Prendergast, “The History of Eastern African Foragers,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History, July 30, 2020.
-
118. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa”; and Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure.”
-
119. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure”; Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa”; and Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
120. “Along the Indian Ocean Coast: Genomic Variation in Mozambique Provides New Insights into the Bantu Expansion.”; and Busby et al., “Admixture into and within Sub-Saharan Africa”; and Ryan Raaum et al., “Decoding the Genetic Ancestry of the Swahili,” 2017, 81–102.
-
121. Nicolas Brucato et al., “Genomic Admixture Tracks Pulses of Economic Activity over 2,000 Years in the Indian Ocean Trading Network,” Scientific Reports 7 (June 7, 2017): 2919; Nicolas Brucato et al., “The Comoros Show the Earliest Austronesian Gene Flow into the Swahili Corridor,” American Journal of Human Genetics 102, no. 1 (January 4, 2018): 58–68; Nicolas Brucato et al., “Evidence of Austronesian Genetic Lineages in East Africa and South Arabia: Complex Dispersal from Madagascar and Southeast Asia,” Genome Biology and Evolution 11, no. 3 (February 4, 2019): 748–758; Margit Heiske et al., “Genetic Evidence and Historical Theories of the Asian and African Origins of the Present Malagasy Population,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (April 26, 2021): R72–R78; S. Msaidie et al., “Genetic Diversity on the Comoros Islands Shows Early Seafaring as Major Determinant of Human Biocultural Evolution in the Western Indian Ocean,” European Journal of Human Genetics 19 (2010): 89–94; and Denis Pierron et al., “Genomic Landscape of Human Diversity across Madagascar,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 32 (July 17, 2017): E6498–E6506.
-
122. E. H. Seland, “Archaeology of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, 300 BC–AD 700,” Journal of Archaeological Research 22, no. 4 (2014): 367–402; and Nicole Boivin et al., “East Africa and Madagascar in the Indian Ocean World,” Journal of World Prehistory 26 (2013): 213–281.
-
123. Choudhury et al., “Bantu-Speaker Migration and Admixture in Southern Africa.”
-
124. Carina Schlebusch, “Issues Raised by Use of Ethnic-Group Names in Genome Study,” Nature 464, no. 7288 (March 1, 2010): 487; Chiara Barbieri et al., “Ancient Substructure in Early MtDNA Lineages of Southern Africa,” American Journal of Human Genetics 92, no. 2 (February 7, 2013): 285–292; Doron M. Behar et al., “The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity,” American Journal of Human Genetics 82, no. 5 (May 9, 2008): 1130–1140; Chan et al., “Human Origins in a Southern African Palaeo-Wetland and First Migrations”; Ilan Gronau et al., “Bayesian Inference of Ancient Human Demography from Individual Genome Sequences,” Nature Genetics 43, no. 10 (September 18, 2011): 1031–1034; Henn et al., “Hunter-Gatherer Genomic Diversity Suggests a Southern African Origin for Modern Humans”; Pickrell et al., “The Genetic Prehistory of Southern Africa”; Schlebusch et al., “Genomic Variation in Seven Khoe-San Groups Reveals Adaptation and Complex African History”; Schlebusch and Jakobsson, “Tales of Human Migration, Admixture, and Selection in Africa”; and Krishna R. Veeramah et al., “An Early Divergence of KhoeSan Ancestors from Those of Other Modern Humans Is Supported by an ABC-Based Analysis of Autosomal Resequencing Data,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, no. 2 (2012): 617–630,.
-
125. Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago”; Pickrell et al., “The Genetic Prehistory of Southern Africa”; and Joseph K. Pickrell et al., “Ancient West Eurasian Ancestry in Southern and Eastern Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 7 (February 3, 2014): 2632–2637.
-
126. Chan et al., “Human Origins in a Southern African Palaeo-Wetland and First Migrations”; and Schlebusch et al., “Human Origins in Southern African Palaeo-Wetlands?”
-
127. Susan Pfeiffer, Lesley Harrington, and Marlize Lombard, “The People behind the Samples: Biographical Features of Past Hunter-Gatherers from KwaZulu-Natal Who Yielded ADNA,” International Journal of Paleopathology 24 (March 1, 2019): 158–164; Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago.”; Morris et al., “First Ancient Mitochondrial Human Genome from a Prepastoralist Southern African”; and Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure.”
-
128. Jayson Orton, “The Introduction of Pastoralism to Southernmost Africa: Thoughts on New Contributions to an Ongoing Debate,” Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 50, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 250–258; Thembi Russell and Faye Lander, “‘What Is Consumed Is Wasted’: From Foraging to Herding in the Southern African Later Stone Age,” Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 50, no. 3 (July 3, 2015): 267–317; and Lander and Russell, “The Archaeological Evidence for the Appearance of Pastoralism and Farming in Southern Africa.”
-
129. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure.”
-
130. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
131. Gwenna Breton et al., “Lactase Persistence Alleles Reveal Partial East African Ancestry of Southern African Khoe Pastoralists,” Current Biology 24, no. 8 (April 14, 2014): 852–858; Enrico Macholdt et al., “Tracing Pastoralist Migrations to Southern Africa with Lactase Persistence Alleles,” Current Biology 24, no. 8 (April 14, 2014): 875–879; Brenna M. Henn et al., “Y-Chromosomal Evidence of a Pastoralist Migration through Tanzania to Southern Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 31 (August 5, 2008): 10693–10698; Pickrell et al., “The Genetic Prehistory of Southern Africa”; Pickrell et al., “Ancient West Eurasian Ancestry in Southern and Eastern Africa”; Schlebusch et al., “Genomic Variation in Seven Khoe-San Groups Reveals Adaptation and Complex African History.”; Guldemann Tom, “A Linguist’s View: Khoe-Kwadi Speakers as the Earliest Food-Producers of Southern Africa,” Southern African Humanities 20, no. 1 (December 1, 2008): 93–132; R. Blench, “Language, Linguistics, and Archaeology: Their Integration in the Study of African Prehistory,” in Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, ed. P. Mitchell and P. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 49–64; and Lander and Russell, “The Archaeological Evidence for the Appearance of Pastoralism and Farming in Southern Africa.”
-
132. Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago”; Pickrell et al., “The Genetic Prehistory of Southern Africa”; and Pickrell et al., “Ancient West Eurasian Ancestry in Southern and Eastern Africa.”
-
133. Karim Sadr, “Livestock First Reached Southern Africa in Two Separate Events,” PLOS One 10, no. 8 (2015): e0134215.
-
134. Peter Mitchell, “Early Farming Communities of Southern and South-Central Africa,” Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, July 4, 2013; and Lander and Russell, “The Archaeological Evidence for the Appearance of Pastoralism and Farming in Southern Africa.”
-
135. Schlebusch et al., “Southern African Ancient Genomes Estimate Modern Human Divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 Years Ago.”
-
136. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
137. Skoglund et al., “Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure.”
-
138. Coutinho et al., “Later Stone Age Human Hair from Vaalkrans Shelter, Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, Reveals Genetic Affinity to Khoe Groups.”
-
139. Choudhury et al., “Bantu-Speaker Migration and Admixture in Southern Africa.”
-
140. de Maret, “Archaeologies of the Bantu Expansion”; Innocent Pikirayi, “The Zimbabwe Culture and Its Neighbours,” Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, July 4, 2013.
-
141. Molebogeng Bodiba et al., “Ancient DNA Analysis of the Thulamela Remains: Deciphering the Migratory Patterns of a Southern African Population,” Journal of African Archaeology 17 (November 22, 2019): 1–12; Kathryn de Luna, Collecting Food, Collecting People: Subsistence and Society in Central Africa (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016); and Carla E. Klehm, “Local Dynamics and the Emergence of Social Inequality in Iron Age Botswana,” Current Anthropology 58, no. 5 (October 1, 2017): 604–633.
-
142. Ananyo Choudhury et al., “Whole-Genome Sequencing for an Enhanced Understanding of Genetic Variation among South Africans,” Nature Communications 8, no. 1 (December 12, 2017): 2062; Choudhury et al., “Bantu-Speaker Migration and Admixture in Southern Africa”; and N. Hollfelder et al., “Patterns of African and Asian Admixture in the Afrikaner Population of South Africa,” BMC Biology 18, no. 1 (February 24, 2020): 16.
-
143. Cesar Fortes-Lima and Paul Verdu, “Anthropological Genetics Perspectives on the Transatlantic Slave Trade,” Human Molecular Genetics 30, no. R1 (April 26, 2021): R79–R87.
-
144. David Eltis and David Richardson, Atlas of the Transatlantic Slave Trade (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015); Theresa A. Singleton, I, Too, Am America: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life (University of Virginia Press, 1999); and Akinwumi Ogundiran and Toyin Falola, Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the African Diaspora (Indiana University Press, 2007).
-
145. Rosa Fregel et al., “Multiple Ethnic Origins of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages for the Population of Mauritius,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (March 27, 2014): e93294; Nourdin Harich et al., “The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: - Clues from Interpolation Analyses and High-Resolution Characterization of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages,” BMC Evolutionary Biology 10, no. 1 (May 10, 2010): 138; and Romuald Laso-Jadart et al., “The Genetic Legacy of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade: Recent Admixture and Post-Admixture Selection in the Makranis of Pakistan,” American Journal of Human Genetics 101, no. 6 (December 7, 2017).
-
146. Tishkoff et al., “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans”; Katarzyna Bryc et al., “Genome-Wide Patterns of Population Structure and Admixture in West Africans and African Americans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 2 (December 22, 2009): 786–791; Rasika Ann Mathias et al., “A Continuum of Admixture in the Western Hemisphere Revealed by the African Diaspora Genome,” Nature Communications 7, no. 1 (October 11, 2016): 12522; Cesar Fortes-Lima et al., “Genome-Wide Ancestry and Demographic History of African-Descendant Maroon Communities from French Guiana and Suriname,” American Journal of Human Genetics 101, no. 5 (November 2, 2017): 725–736; Cesar Fortes-Lima et al., “Exploring Cuba’s Population Structure and Demographic History Using Genome-Wide Data,” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (July 30, 2018): 11422; Steven J. Micheletti et al., “Genetic Consequences of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the Americas,” American Journal of Human Genetics 107, no. 2 (August 6, 2020): 265–277; Andrés Moreno-Estrada et al., “Reconstructing the Population Genetic History of the Caribbean,” PLOS Genetics 9, no. 11 (November 2013); Jada Benn Torres et al., “Analysis of Biogeographic Ancestry Reveals Complex Genetic Histories for Indigenous Communities of St. Vincent and Trinidad,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 169, no. 3 (July 2019): 482–497; Linda Ongaro et al., “The Genomic Impact of European Colonization of the Americas,” Current Biology 29, no. 23 (December 2, 2019): 3974–3986.e4; Patin et al., “Dispersals and Genetic Adaptation of Bantu-Speaking Populations in Africa and North America”; and Kip D. Zimmerman et al., “Genetic Landscape of Gullah African Americans,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 175, no. 4 (August 2021): 905–919.
-
147. Justin Dunnavant, Delande Justinvil, and Chip Colwell, “Craft an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” Nature 593, no. 7859 (May 20, 2021): 337–340; Jackson, “So Many Nigerians.”; and Sarah Abel and Hannes Schroeder, “From Country Marks to DNA Markers: The Genomic Turn in the Reconstruction of African Identities,” Current Anthropology 61, no. S22 (October 1, 2020): S198–S209.
-
148. Fatimah Jackson et al., “Origins of the New York African Burial Ground Population: Biological Evidence of Geographical and Macroethnic Affiliations Using Craniometrics, Dental Morphology, and Preliminary Genetic Analyses,” The United States General Services Administration, Northeast and Caribbean Region, The African Burial Ground Project 1 (January 1, 2004): 150–215; and Esther J. Lee et al., “MtDNA Origins of an Enslaved Labor Force from the 18th Century Schuyler Flatts Burial Ground in Colonial Albany, NY: Africans, Native Americans, and Malagasy?” Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no. 12 (December 1, 2009): 2805–2810.
-
149. Rodrigo Barquera et al., “Origin and Health Status of First-Generation Africans from Early Colonial Mexico,” Current Biology 30, no. 11 (June 2020): 2078–2091.e11; and Hannes Schroeder et al., “Genome-Wide Ancestry of 17th-Century Enslaved Africans from the Caribbean,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 12 (March 9, 2015): 3669–3673.
-
150. Raquel E. Fleskes et al., “Ancient DNA and Bioarchaeological Perspectives on European and African Diversity and Relationships on the Colonial Delaware Frontier,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 170, no. 2 (October 1, 2019): 232–245.
-
151. Maca-Meyer et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in 17th–18th Century Remains from Tenerife (Canary Islands)”; Rui Martiniano et al., “Genetic Evidence of African Slavery at the Beginning of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade,” Scientific Reports 4 (August 8, 2014): 5994; and Santana et al., “The Early Colonial Atlantic World.”
-
152. Marcela Sandoval-Velasco et al., “The Genetic Origins of Saint Helena’s Liberated Africans,” BioRxiv, January 1, 2019; Patin et al., “Dispersals and Genetic Adaptation of Bantu-Speaking Populations in Africa and North America”; and Eltis and Richardson, Atlas of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
-
153. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
154. Barquera et al., “Origin and Health Status of First-Generation Africans from Early Colonial Mexico.”
-
155. Schablitsky et al., “Ancient DNA Analysis of a Nineteenth Century Tobacco Pipe from a Maryland Slave Quarter.”
-
156. Fortes-Lima and Verdu, “Anthropological Genetics Perspectives on the Transatlantic Slave Trade.”
-
157. de Filippo et al., “Bringing Together Linguistic and Genetic Evidence to Test the Bantu Expansion.”
-
158. Prendergast et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals a Multistep Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
159. Wang et al., “Ancient Genomes Reveal Complex Patterns of Population Movement, Interaction, and Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
-
160. Kathryn M. De Luna, Jeffrey B. Fleisher, and Susan Keech McIntosh, “Thinking Across the African Past: Interdisciplinarity and Early History,” African Archaeological Review 29, nos. 2/3 (2012): 75–94.
-
161. Sirak et al., “Social Stratification without Genetic Differentiation at the Site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia.”
-
162. Fernando Racimo et al., “Beyond Broad Strokes: Sociocultural Insights from the Study of Ancient Genomes,” Nature Reviews Genetics 21, no. 6 (June 2020): 355–366.
-
163. Stefanie Eisenmann et al., “Reconciling Material Cultures in Archaeology with Genetic Data: The Nomenclature of Clusters Emerging from Archaeogenomic Analysis,” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (August 29, 2018): 13003.
-
164. de Luna, Collecting Food, Collecting People: Subsistence and Society in Central Africa.
-
165. Clark Spencer Larsen, “Bioarchaeology in Perspective: From Classifications of the Dead to Conditions of the Living,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 165, no. 4 (2018): 865–878.
-
166. Morris, “Ancient DNA Comes of Age, but Still Has Some Teenage Problems.”
-
167. Pfeiffer, Harrington, and Lombard, “The People behind the Samples”; and Maryna Steyn et al., “Four Iron Age Women from KwaZulu-Natal: Biological Anthropology, Genetics and Archaeological Context,” Southern African Humanities 32 (May 10, 2019): 23–56.
-
168. Sirak et al., “Social Stratification without Genetic Differentiation at the Site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia.”
-
169. Susan Pfeiffer, “Disease as a Factor in the African Archaeological Record,” African Archaeological Review 37, no. 3 (September 2020): 487–490.
-
170. Prendergast and Sawchuk, “Boots on the Ground in Africa’s Ancient DNA ‘Revolution’: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethics and Best Practices”; and Sirak and Sedig, “Balancing Analytical Goals and Anthropological Stewardship in the Midst of the Paleogenomics Revolution.”
-
171. Elizabeth A. Nelson et al., “Advances in the Molecular Detection of Tuberculosis in Pre-Contact Andean South America,” International Journal of Paleopathology 29 (June 2020): 128–140; and Paul C. Sereno et al., “Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change,” PLoS ONE 3, no. 8 (August 14, 2008): e2995.
-
172. De Luna, Fleisher, and McIntosh, “Thinking Across the African Past: Interdisciplinarity and Early History.”
-
173. De Luna, Fleisher, and McIntosh.
-
174. MacEachern, “Genetics and Archaeology.”
-
175. De Luna, Fleisher, and McIntosh, “Thinking Across the African Past: Interdisciplinarity and Early History”; Kathryn M. de Luna and Jeffrey B. Fleisher, Speaking with Substance: Methods of Language and Materials in African History (Springer International Publishing, 2018); MacEachern, “The Holocene History of the Southern Lake Chad Basin: Archaeological, Linguistic and Genetic Evidence”; MacEachern, “Genetics and Archaeology”; Peter Mitchell, “Genetics and Southern African Prehistory: An Archaeological View,” Journal of Anthropological Sciences 88 (2010): 73–92; Peter Robertshaw, “African Archaeology, Multidisciplinary Reconstructions of Africa’s Recent Past, and Archaeology’s Role in Future Collaborative Research,” African Archaeological Review 29, no. 2 (September 2012): 95–108; Susan Keech McIntosh and Laura B. Scheinfeldt, “It’s Getting Better All the Time: Comparative Perspectives from Oceania and West Africa on Genetic Analysis and Archaeology,” African Archaeological Review 29, no. 2 (September 1, 2012): 131–170; Scheinfeldt, Soi, and Tishkoff, “Working toward a Synthesis of Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Data for Inferring African Population History”; and Seidensticker et al., “Population Collapse in Congo Rainforest from 400 CE Urges Reassessment of the Bantu Expansion.”
-
176. MacEachern, “Genetics and Archaeology.”
-
177. Gallego Llorente et al., “Ancient Ethiopian Genome Reveals Extensive Eurasian Admixture in Eastern Africa.”
-
178. Sengupta et al., “Genetic Substructure and Complex Demographic History of South African Bantu Speakers.”
-
179. MacEachern, “Genes, Tribes, and African History”; L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).
-
180. De Luna, Fleisher, and McIntosh, “Thinking Across the African Past: Interdisciplinarity and Early History”; Robertshaw, “African Archaeology, Multidisciplinary Reconstructions of Africa’s Recent Past, and Archaeology’s Role in Future Collaborative Research”; MacEachern, “The Holocene History of the Southern Lake Chad Basin: Archaeological, Linguistic and Genetic Evidence”; McIntosh and Scheinfeldt, “It’s Getting Better All the Time: Comparative Perspectives from Oceania and West Africa on Genetic Analysis and Archaeology”; and Mitchell, “Genetics and Southern African Prehistory.”
-
181. Morris, “Ancient DNA Comes of Age, but Still Has Some Teenage Problems”; Prendergast and Sawchuk, “Boots on the Ground in Africa’s Ancient DNA ‘Revolution’: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethics and Best Practices”; and Gibbon, “African Ancient DNA Research Requires Robust Ethics and Permission Protocols.”
-
182. Steyn et al., “Introduction: Opening the Cupboard—Lessons in Biology and History from African Skeletons.”
-
183. Francis B. Musonda, “Decolonising the Broken Hill Skull: Cultural Loss and a Pathway to Zambian Archaeological Sovereignty,” African Archaeological Review 30, no. 2 (June 2013): 195–220.
-
184. Paolo Anagnostou et al., “When Data Sharing Gets Close to 100%: What Human Paleogenetics Can Teach the Open Science Movement,” PLOS One 10, no. 3 (March 23, 2015): e0121409.
-
185. Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., “Ethics of DNA Research on Human Remains: Five Globally Applicable Guidelines.”
-
186. Krystal S. Tsosie et al., “Indigenous Data Sovereignties and Data Sharing in Biological Anthropology,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 174, no. 2 (2021): 183–186.