Grassfields, near Bamenda, Cameroon
Shum Laka
About 30,000 years of layers, burials at about 8,000 and 3,000 (direct dates on four children)
Four children buried in a Cameroon shelter, two about 8,000 years ago and two about 3,000, look genetically like western Central African hunter-gatherers. They do not look like the people who later carried Bantu languages out of this same country.
Why this is extraordinary
Shum Laka is a rockshelter in the Grassfields of western Cameroon, about 15 kilometres from Bamenda, on the inner wall of the Bafochu Mbu caldera. People used it from about 30,000 calendar years before present. The layers that matter for this room sit between the end of the Later Stone Age, about 8,000 years ago, and the beginning of the Iron Age, about 2,500. In that span, sometimes called the Stone to Metal Age, new stone tools and pottery come in slowly. Food remains are still mostly from foraging, with more and more of the oily fruit Canarium schweinfurthii.
Eighteen human skeletons were found, in two burial phases. The early phase, in the ochre ashy layer, has four people: two adults in single graves and two children in one double grave. The later phase, in the grey ashy layer, has at least fourteen, children and adults. Genomes were read from four of the children. In the double grave a boy of about 4 lay on the legs of an adolescent of about 15. Their calibrated ranges, from the same temporal bones that gave the DNA, are 7,920 to 7,690 and 7,970 to 7,800. The later pair, buried side by side, are a boy of about 8 and a girl of about 4, at 3,160 to 2,970 and 3,210 to 3,000. Collagen quality was good. Carbon-to-nitrogen ratios sat between 3.3 and 3.4.
The surprise is who they are related to. The paper’s own comparison puts all four closest to hunter-gatherers of western Central Africa today. The same paper’s mix is more divided than that comparison carries alone. In its model, the four children can be read as about 35 percent ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from western Central Africa and about 65 percent from a basal West African source. The same paper argues for a further deep source, which it calls a ghost, that contributed a minority of the ancestry in West Africans and in East African hunter-gatherers, and not the bulk of these four children. People now living in western Cameroon, and Bantu-speaking populations across the southern half of the continent, are not, on the paper’s argument, substantially descended from them. That is awkward on a map, because the Nigeria-Cameroon borderland is the probable homeland of the Bantu languages, and the spread of those languages is placed between about 3,000 and 1,500 years ago. One adolescent carries Y chromosome haplogroup A00, the oldest known branch of the modern human Y tree, splitting about 300,000 to 200,000 years ago from every other known lineage, and today almost only found in this same region, among the Mbo and the Bangwa. The branch survived here. The rest of the genome did not, on this argument, become the later farmers. Four genomes remain the sample.
The surprise at this shelter is who the buried people are related to, not which way the mouth faces. No solstice orientation of the graves, and no star, is published in the sources used here. A rockshelter can open toward a valley for the light and the weather without anyone marking a sunrise. Until a bearing is printed, the shelter is a place that kept bones through a long span. It is not an observatory. The ancestry already argued here does not point at the sky either.
Why it matters
If the shelter’s people were the root of the Bantu expansion, the languages and the genes would leave together. They do not, in these four genomes. The homeland of a language and the ancestors of a population can be two different facts.
The diagram is the tour. No open photograph of the shelter was used. The pin is the rockshelter near Bamenda.
Photo tour
- No open photograph of the shelter, the burials, or the stone tools was used. The figure is the date diagram.
What is still unexplained
These sit beside the consensus account, with the same visual weight. None of them is marked solved.
Location and dating
- Location
- Shum Laka, Grassfields, about 15 kilometres from Bamenda. The pin is 5.859 north, 10.078 east.
- Period label
- Current consensus — open to revision Occupation from about 30,000 calendar years before present. Two burial phases, about 8,000 and about 3,000. Iron Age material appears toward about 2,500.
- How this dating was done
- Accelerator radiocarbon on the temporal bones, collagen checked by carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, calibrated with a mix of the northern and southern curves because the site is tropical. The layers are stratigraphy. The ancestry is genome-wide DNA.
- What could change it
- Genomes from the adults in the same two phases would show whether the children were a special burial population. A date on the four early sherds, rather than on the bones beside them, would tie the pottery to the funeral.
What is actually there
- Eighteen skeletons, two burial phases.
- Four children sequenced, coverage from about 0.7 to 7.7 times.
- One carries Y haplogroup A00.
- Canarium schweinfurthii increases through the Stone to Metal Age.
- Oldest occupied layers about 30,000 calendar years before present.
- No grave azimuth is published at Shum Laka.
Open questions
| Question | Status |
|---|---|
| Did later farmers replace this population, or did the four children never represent the people who stayed? | Open. Four genomes are a sample. Adults from the same graves are not in it. |
| Do the new tools and the northern-leaning ancestry arrive together? | Open. Both are suggested. Neither is pinned to the same object. |
| Does the shelter mouth mark a sunrise? | Not in the sources used here. The mouth is a shelter. The bearing is not printed. |
The current narrative
Where publication stands today. It is the best-supported reading, and it is open to revision. It is not a verdict.
The current narrative — open to revision
A local hunter-gatherer population, later replaced
The children belong to a western Central African forager ancestry that was in the Grassfields by 8,000 years ago and still there at 3,000. Bantu-speaking farmers who spread after that are a different ancestry, even if the languages began nearby.
What supports this
- All four genomes sit closest, in the paper’s comparison, to present-day western Central African hunter-gatherers.
- The paper’s model puts about 35 percent of the ancestry with western Central African hunter-gatherers and about 65 percent with a basal West African source.
- On that argument, present-day Bantu speakers and western Cameroonians are not substantially descended from them.
- The dates bracket the centuries when the Bantu spread is placed, about 3,000 to 1,500 years ago.
What pushes back
- Four children are not a census. A neighbouring group in the same valley could be the one that expanded.
- The later pair may be half-siblings or an uncle and a niece, so the sample is one family twice.
- A northern-related component is already in the model, so “local foragers only” is too clean.
- The further deep source in the model, which the paper calls a ghost, is a minority contribution to West Africans and to East African hunter-gatherers, not the bulk of these children.
What would settle it
The paper’s comparison, its about-35 and about-65 percent mix, and the further deep source are that paper’s model. Four children, the later two probably close kin, are the sample. This room does not draw the whole Grassfields from them.
Emerging narratives
Other published readings. Each may be right. None is adopted here unless the evidence carries it.
An emerging narrative
These burials are the root of the later farmers
People buried at Shum Laka, in the Bantu homeland and at the right time, are the ancestors of the expansion, and the genetic difference is a matter of later mixing that the model overstates.
What supports this
- The place and the dates match the linguistic homeland and the early Iron Age.
- A00 survives in western Cameroon, which is continuity of a sort.
- Macrolithic tools and pottery show the shelter was not frozen in an older way of life.
What pushes back
- The genome-wide pattern points at hunter-gatherers, not at the farmers who left.
- A00 is one chromosome. The rest of the genome does not follow it into Bantu-speaking groups.
- The paper tested alternative models and still found the same mismatch.
What would settle it
The place and the dates are the case for a root. The paper’s mix is the case beside it. This room does not choose.
Should the current view be reevaluated?
Open to revision
The dates and the fractional mix are the paper’s measurements and its model. Its argument, that Bantu speakers are not substantially these children’s descendants, is that paper’s reading of four individuals in two families. The map’s root reading stays beside it. Neither draws the whole Grassfields.
What drives this
- Direct dates on the same bones that gave the DNA.
- A genome-wide mismatch with later Bantu-speaking populations.
- A sample of four children, the later two probably close kin.
This is the museum’s own weighing of the evidence. It is not a visitor vote, and it is separate from the slider.
Weigh it yourself
Anonymous. Nothing here is stored except on this browser. Your lean does not change the assessment beside it.
Visitor lean so far — not evidence. On this browser only; a shared tally is not collected.
If the contested reading is right
What would follow if a reading that is not the consensus turned out to be true, and what could settle it. This explains the stakes. It does not adopt the reading.
The children are a side branch, not the Bantu root
Language spread and population spread come apart in the Grassfields. The people in the homeland at 3,000 years ago are not the people who filled the southern half of the continent.
Why it is still worth a test
Genomes from the adults in both burial phases, and from sites between Shum Laka and the early Bantu settlements farther south.
Sources
- Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history Nature
- Open copy of the Shum Laka genome paper Nature, author copy
- Summary of the ancestry fractions A summary of the 2020 paper. The paper’s model is about 35 percent and about 65 percent, which this summary puts as about one third and about two thirds.
Image credits
- The four children whose genomes were read. Ranges are calibrated years before 1950. The bars are not drawn to one scale. They mark two burial times. . Diagram: Our Deep History.