quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I don't know why some keep saying not to take the "MLI" scores of the Amarnas "literally." When in fact I hear many people say that the Amarna dynasty was originally from Nubia.
Where did you hear that the Amarna family would have come from outside of Egypt?
When people say that we shouldn't take the MLI scores literally, they mean we shouldn't infer from the MLI rankings that ancient Egyptians were literally most closely related to populations in DNA Tribes' Great Lakes or Southern Africa regions, like some others have been doing. And I'm pretty sure you don't really believe that.
Personally, I believe the most important takeaway from the DNA Tribes papers is simply that these mummies were African. Keep in mind that their algorithm was processing relatively low-resolution (8 STR markers) data, and while I have seen studies determining broad continental affinity with even lower resolutions than that (e.g. this one), that's probably all you are going to get at that resolution level. Add to that how MLI scores are defined by DNA Tribes itself (i.e. the likelihood that a given genetic profile will be found in a given region relative to a "generic" population of totally mixed individuals), and what you get is that these ancient Egyptians' genetic profiles fit more snugly within the African continent than OOA.
So you can infer from the MLI scores that the tested mummies are broadly African in ancestry, but not necessarily anything more specific than that. That Great Lakes and Southern Africa seem to rank higher in the MLI scores table than other African regions is probably an artifact of those regions being more "purely" African (and therefore more representative of the whole continent at a lower resolution) than regions with more Eurasian admixture. At least that is how I assess it.
Posts: 7101 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Where did you hear that the Amarna family would have come from outside of Egypt?
I read that some Egyptologist believe that at least Queen Tiye(Tut's grandmother) may have been of Nubian heritage herself.
I myself am starting to believe this, because like I said we have stuff pointing in that direction from the DNAtribes MLI scores, sickle cell traits with these mummies, and malaria strands.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: When people say that we shouldn't take the MLI scores literally, they mean we shouldn't infer from the MLI rankings that ancient Egyptians were literally most closely related to populations in DNA Tribes' Great Lakes or Southern Africa regions, like some others have been doing. And I'm pretty sure you don't really believe that.
Of course I don't. I don't understand why some people don't grasp that the 18th dynasty was just ONE dynasty of many and may not even have represented the general Egyptian population. I firmly believe that while Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, they were mostly Nilo-Saharans/Afro-Asiatic.
However, I do believe that there were people with "West African-like" clades either left over from the Green Sahara or those type of people that we've seen in the Sudan where E-M2 is "supposedly" came from. I believe these people with "West African-like" clades were Nilo-Saharan speakers that went west but were the ancestors of Niger-Congo people. They would have had a small influence in the Nile Valley imo. That is where I believe the MLI scores of King Tut's family could have possibly came from. I'll address this more later in the thread.
Again no one believes the AE were closely related to those populations, however I do believe Nilotics influenced AE cattle culture...
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Personally, I believe the most important takeaway from the DNA Tribes papers is simply that these mummies were African. Keep in mind that their algorithm was processing relatively low-resolution (8 STR markers) data, and while I have seen studies determining broad continental affinity with even lower resolutions than that (e.g. this one), that's probably all you are going to get at that resolution level. Add to that how MLI scores are defined by DNA Tribes itself (i.e. the likelihood that a given genetic profile will be found in a given region relative to a "generic" population of totally mixed individuals), and what you get is that these ancient Egyptians' genetic profiles fit more snugly within the African continent than OOA.
I agree that more STR markers would be better. But I read that 8 STR markers is not considered "low" but just the minimum.
quote:"A minimum of eight core STR loci is needed to uniquely identify a human cell line."
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: So you can infer from the MLI scores that the tested mummies are broadly African in ancestry, but not necessarily anything more specific than that. That Great Lakes and Southern Africa seem to rank higher in the MLI scores table than other African regions is probably an artifact of those regions being more "purely" African (and therefore more representative of the whole continent at a lower resolution) than regions with more Eurasian admixture. At least that is how I assess it.
I wouldn't say because they were "purely" African but because DNAtribes African population really doesn't have much indigenous Horner/Sudanese populations besides Somalis.
ANyways I think I agree that we shouldnt take them "literally." I still think the 18th dynasty could have Nubian ancestry. I don't know more autosomal work is needed.
Edit: Sees Beyoku's posts.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyways this thread isn't really about DNAtribes or even the Egyptians for that matter but really the Sudan.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
"Haplotype IV (M2), as noted, is found in high frequencies in West, Central, Sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo-which may have special relationship with Nilo-Saharan--spoken by Nubians; together they might form a super phylum called Kongo-Saharan or Niger-Saharan (see Gregerson 1972, Blench 1995),but this is not fully supported." --S.O.Y Keita 2005
Since African linguists and even mainstream linguists have made this connection I am starting to believe these language families maybe related. Bantu languages and Niger-Congo as a whole is a very understudied language family which is why I am so curious about the origins and why I take into account oral history. Not because I wanna say "we wuz kangs and shiet!!!" like certain characters in this thread BUT because like I said it's origin story is not given much work or effort as let's say Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic with obvious reasons for the fact Nilo-Saharan is centered in the Northeast African region bedded by Egypt and Afro-Asiatic covers a range of Northeastern African as well as Southwestern Asian regional diversities and it has been a hot button debate for a century whether it originated inside Africa or outside with the obvious evidence pointing within.
I believe including the Niger-Congo family can add to the clue/puzzles of Northeast Africa. I mean the Nuba people of Sudan(though I believe are Nilo-Saharan autosomal wise) speak a Niger-Congo language.
And like I mentioned linguistics mentioned similarities between Ancient Egyptian and Bantu words. But to make it CLEAR! I am NOT saying that the Egyptian language was Bantu, it is proven it was Afro-Asiatic(though I think more similar to Chadic imo) but it may have contained "Bantu-like" words.
And to make it even clearer I don't want people to claim I am some hardcore afronut trying to steal Ancient Egyptian history. For one I am not even from a group that speaks a Bantu language nor do I have any interest claiming I descend from Ancient Egypt. Now Ancient Mali is a different story.
quote:This type of reduction is highly characteristic of Nilo-Saharan and not at all typical of Niger-Congo, where C 1 is almost always retained, and prefixes or stem-final syllable are eroded. However, this is not a claim that Dogon is Nilo-Saharan, indeed it clearly is not, to judge by its grammar and other morphology. This type of reduction could be purely typological. However, in the light of evidence for a Nilo-Saharan substrate, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose this reflects parallel processes in Dogon and the now-vanished branch of Nilo-Saharan, reflecting pervasive bilingualism in the past.
posted
A good YouTuber that I am a big fan of and we always have discussion said he had a article on old Egyptian being more similar to Nilo-Saharan. I PM'ed for such paper. Does anyone know the paper he is referring to?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
STRUCTURE analysis of the Africa data set indicated 14 ancestral clusters (Fig. 5, B and C, and figs. S15 to S18). Analyses of subregions within Africa indicated additional substructure (figs. S19 to S29). At low K values, the Africa-wide STRUCTURE results (fig. S15) recapitulated the PCA and worldwide STRUCTURE results. However, as K increased, additional population clusters were distinguished (4): the Mbugu [who speak a mixed Bantu and Cushitic language (30), shown in dark purple]; Cushitic-speaking individuals of southern Ethiopian origin (light purple); Nilotic Nilo-Saharan–speaking individuals (red); central Sudanic Nilo-Saharan–speaking individuals (tan); and Chadic-speaking and Baggara individuals (maroon). At K = 14, subtle substructure between East African Bantu speakers (light orange) and West Central African Bantu speakers (medium orange), and individuals from Nigeria and farther west, who speak various non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian languages (dark orange), was also apparent (Fig. 5, B and C). Bantu speakers of South Africa (Xhosa, Venda) showed substantial levels of the SAK and western African Bantu AACs and low levels of the East African Bantu AAC (the latter is also present in Bantu speakers from Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda).
Our results indicate distinct East African Bantu migration into southern Africa and are consistent with linguistic and archeological evidence of East African Bantu migration from an area west of Lake Victoria (28) and the incorporation of Khoekhoe ancestry into several of the Southeast Bantu populations ~1500 to 1000 years ago (31).
High levels of heterogeneous ancestry (i.e., multiple cluster assignments) were observed in nearly all African individuals, with the exception of western and central African Niger- Kordofanian speakers (medium orange), who are relatively homogeneous at large K values (Fig. 5C and fig. S15). Considerable Niger-Kordofanian ancestry (shades of orange) was observed in nearly all populations, reflecting the recent spread of Bantu speakers across equatorial, eastern, and southern Africa (27) and subsequent admixture with local populations (28). Many Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations in East Africa, such as the Maasai, show multiple cluster assignments from the Nilo-Saharan (red) and Cushitic (dark purple) AACs, in accord with linguistic evidence of repeated Nilotic assimilation of Cushites over the past 3000 years (32) and with the high frequency of a shared East African–specific mutation associated with lactose tolerance (33).
Our data support the hypothesis that the Sahel has been a corridor for bidirectional migration between eastern and western Africa (34-36). The highest proportion of the Nilo-Saharan AAC was observed in the southern and central Sudanese populations (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk, and Nyimang), with decreasing frequency from northern Kenya (e.g., Pokot) to northern Tanzania (Datog, Maasai) (Fig. 5, B and C, and fig. S15). Additionally, all Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad clustered with west central Afroasiatic Chadic–speaking populations in the global analysis at K ≤11 (Fig. 3), which is consistent with linguistic and archeological data suggesting bidirectional migration of Nilo- Saharans from source populations in Sudan within the past ~10,500 to 3000 years (4,29). The proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7000 years ago from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have resulted in a Nilo-Saharan to Afroasiatic language shift among Chadic speakers (37). However, our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by large amounts of Afroasiatic gene flow. Other populations of interest, including the Fulani (Nigeria and Cameroon), the Baggara Arabs (Cameroon), the Koma (Nigeria), and Beja (Sudan), are discussed in (4).
--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Word Origin and History for Bantu Expand 1862, applied to south African language group in the 1850s by German linguist Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek (1827-1875), from native Ba-ntu "mankind," from ba-, plural prefix, + ntu "a man, person." Bantustan in a South African context is from 1949.
quote: Bleek’s intellectual importance extends beyond his pioneering interests in Darwin’s theory of evolution and its application to the indigenous peoples in southern Africa. He was also responsible for setting up a system of classification based on language but one which intersected closely with race. This system of classification was based on clear distinctions between Bantu, Hottentot and Bushmen linguistic types and proposed that the study of these primitive languages was of universal importance in so far as they held the key to the understanding of the historical evolution of the three major branches of language spoken worldwide.
[...]
Bleek elaborated his system of classification during the 1860s and early 1870s. He characterised both “Hottentot” and “Bantu”, a term he coined, as sex-denoting languages, but suggested that they were clearly structurally distinct in so far as “Bantu” languages were prefix-pronominal and “Hottentot” languages were suffix-pronominal. In other words, the pronouns in the “Bantu” languages are borrowed from derivative prefixes to the nouns, whilst the pronouns in the “Hottentot” languages are borrowed from the derivative suffixes to the nouns.29 It was on the basis of these structural features that Bleek regarded these languages as “primary forms” of two of the world’s major philological branches, accounting for three-fifths of the languages known on earth: “Kafir, as giving us the key to the great mass of kindred Negro (Prefix-pronominal) languages which fill almost the whole of South Africa and extend at least as far to the north-west as Sierra Leone; and the Hottentot, as exhibiting the most primitive form known of that large tribe of [Suffix-pronominal] languages which is distinguished by its Sex-denoting qualities, which fills North Africa, Europe and part of Asia, which includes the languages of the most highly cultivated
[...]
The connections Bleek established between the Bantu languages of southern Africa and those elsewhere in Africa are, as far as I am aware, relatively uncontroversial. Bleek’s hypothesis that the “Hottentot” language was a primary form of North African and Indo-European languages was more speculative and is seen by Dubow as an early expression of the pervasive Hamitic myth of African origins. Bleek had formulated his theories about the North African origins of “Hottentot” languages well before arriving in South Africa. Thornton indicates that his doctoral study compared the gender systems of “Kafir”, Herero, Sechuana and Nama with Berber, Galla, Coptic and Ancient Egyptian in order to substantiate claims that the Nama (“Hottentot”) language was related to North African languages.31
The peculiar characteristics which distinguish the Hottentots and Bushmen from the other South African nations, are such as range them with the nations of Northern Africa and Western Asia, as the Egyptians, the Semitic tribes and their widespread North African relations (e.g. the Tuarick, Galla &c) and probably also the Indo-European or Arian nations. ... Since the Hottentots ... have in general retained, most faithfully, the primitive and original state of their race, in customs, manners, language &c, a study of their peculiarities must be regarded as eminently important, nay, indispensible for attaining a knowledge of the pre-historical condition and unrecorded history of their kindred nations; and as these comprise, in many cases, some of the most advanced and civilised nations, should we not be entitled to infer that such researches, if once properly made, will prove of great interest for the history of mankind in general?
[...]
Bleek’s active involvement in an anthropometric project initiated by Thomas Huxley, one of Britain’s leading anthropologists and proponents of evolution also provides evidence of his scientific racism and undermines the romantic image of Bleek presented by San scholarship. This aspect of Bleek’s research has been documented in Michael Godby’s exciting article in the Miscast edition, which provides a more balanced and critical perspective on Bleek.37
A few interesting notes, you probably will embrace:
Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
It also attempts to begin to provide a bridge between my own work on racial ideology in the first half of the nineteenth century and Saul Dubow’s detailed study of scientific racism in South Africa in the early twentieth century.
He explicitly expressed an interest in exploring the links between the language of the Bushman and the communication of primates and emphasised such links in his private correspondence and evolutionary study On the Origin of Language. It is arguably in Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
ANTHROPOLOGY, RACE AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE LEGACY OF WILHELM BLEEK
Our data support the hypothesis that the Sahel has been a corridor for bidirectional migration between eastern and western Africa (34-36). The highest proportion of the Nilo-Saharan AAC was observed in the southern and central Sudanese populations (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk, and Nyimang), with decreasing frequency from northern Kenya (e.g., Pokot) to northern Tanzania (Datog, Maasai) (Fig. 5, B and C, and fig. S15). Additionally, all Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad clustered with west central Afroasiatic Chadic–speaking populations in the global analysis at K ≤11 (Fig. 3), which is consistent with linguistic and archeological data suggesting bidirectional migration of Nilo- Saharans from source populations in Sudan within the past ~10,500 to 3000 years (4,29). The proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7000 years ago from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have resulted in a Nilo-Saharan to Afroasiatic language shift among Chadic speakers (37). However, our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by large amounts of Afroasiatic gene flow. Other populations of interest, including the Fulani (Nigeria and Cameroon), the Baggara Arabs (Cameroon), the Koma (Nigeria), and Beja (Sudan), are discussed in (4).
--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
I actually agree with this and have always had this theory.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So they're saying the guy behind the word may have had a racist agenda? If true I don't know if that is even enough to reconstruct the Bantu migration imo.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Repost
The man behind the word (and actions):
Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek
quote:Word Origin and History for Bantu Expand 1862, applied to south African language group in the 1850s by German linguist Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek (1827-1875), from native Ba-ntu "mankind," from ba-, plural prefix, + ntu "a man, person." Bantustan in a South African context is from 1949.
quote: Bleek’s intellectual importance extends beyond his pioneering interests in Darwin’s theory of evolution and its application to the indigenous peoples in southern Africa. He was also responsible for setting up a system of classification based on language but one which intersected closely with race. This system of classification was based on clear distinctions between Bantu, Hottentot and Bushmen linguistic types and proposed that the study of these primitive languages was of universal importance in so far as they held the key to the understanding of the historical evolution of the three major branches of language spoken worldwide.
[...]
Bleek elaborated his system of classification during the 1860s and early 1870s. He characterised both “Hottentot” and “Bantu”, a term he coined, as sex-denoting languages, but suggested that they were clearly structurally distinct in so far as “Bantu” languages were prefix-pronominal and “Hottentot” languages were suffix-pronominal. In other words, the pronouns in the “Bantu” languages are borrowed from derivative prefixes to the nouns, whilst the pronouns in the “Hottentot” languages are borrowed from the derivative suffixes to the nouns.29 It was on the basis of these structural features that Bleek regarded these languages as “primary forms” of two of the world’s major philological branches, accounting for three-fifths of the languages known on earth: “Kafir, as giving us the key to the great mass of kindred Negro (Prefix-pronominal) languages which fill almost the whole of South Africa and extend at least as far to the north-west as Sierra Leone; and the Hottentot, as exhibiting the most primitive form known of that large tribe of [Suffix-pronominal] languages which is distinguished by its Sex-denoting qualities, which fills North Africa, Europe and part of Asia, which includes the languages of the most highly cultivated
[...]
The connections Bleek established between the Bantu languages of southern Africa and those elsewhere in Africa are, as far as I am aware, relatively uncontroversial. Bleek’s hypothesis that the “Hottentot” language was a primary form of North African and Indo-European languages was more speculative and is seen by Dubow as an early expression of the pervasive Hamitic myth of African origins. Bleek had formulated his theories about the North African origins of “Hottentot” languages well before arriving in South Africa. Thornton indicates that his doctoral study compared the gender systems of “Kafir”, Herero, Sechuana and Nama with Berber, Galla, Coptic and Ancient Egyptian in order to substantiate claims that the Nama (“Hottentot”) language was related to North African languages.31
The peculiar characteristics which distinguish the Hottentots and Bushmen from the other South African nations, are such as range them with the nations of Northern Africa and Western Asia, as the Egyptians, the Semitic tribes and their widespread North African relations (e.g. the Tuarick, Galla &c) and probably also the Indo-European or Arian nations. ... Since the Hottentots ... have in general retained, most faithfully, the primitive and original state of their race, in customs, manners, language &c, a study of their peculiarities must be regarded as eminently important, nay, indispensible for attaining a knowledge of the pre-historical condition and unrecorded history of their kindred nations; and as these comprise, in many cases, some of the most advanced and civilised nations, should we not be entitled to infer that such researches, if once properly made, will prove of great interest for the history of mankind in general?
[...]
Bleek’s active involvement in an anthropometric project initiated by Thomas Huxley, one of Britain’s leading anthropologists and proponents of evolution also provides evidence of his scientific racism and undermines the romantic image of Bleek presented by San scholarship. This aspect of Bleek’s research has been documented in Michael Godby’s exciting article in the Miscast edition, which provides a more balanced and critical perspective on Bleek.37
A few interesting notes, you probably will embrace:
Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
It also attempts to begin to provide a bridge between my own work on racial ideology in the first half of the nineteenth century and Saul Dubow’s detailed study of scientific racism in South Africa in the early twentieth century.
He explicitly expressed an interest in exploring the links between the language of the Bushman and the communication of primates and emphasised such links in his private correspondence and evolutionary study On the Origin of Language. It is arguably in Bleek’s writings that we see the beginnings of the shift towards the structures of thought that informed the intellectual racism in modern South Africa: its evolutionary assumptions and ideas of rigidly demarcated stages of human development, physical as well as cultural.
ANTHROPOLOGY, RACE AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE LEGACY OF WILHELM BLEEK
posted
LOL at folks arguing Bantu is a European word while at the same time tying "Bantu" to Ntu Ntr.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The article conclusion seems to be that the Yoruba migrated from Nubia and not "Mecca." I've heard from some Yorubas that claim they migrated from East. I've also read that the Yoruba shares some religious similarities between Nile Valley people like the Egyptians. I don't know if this is true, but just saying I have came across this material.
I know I am moving away from Bantu people but I noticed that some West African groups like the Dogon, Bamileke people, Kaba and among others also claim they come from the Nile Valley or "East." But more importantly I noticed those type of West Africans are quite recent to coastal West Africa. For example Yourbaland was not settled until the 7th century BC. But of course they could have most likely migrated from the Sahel/Sahara they could have originally originated.
Even in the Sudan today from what i was told there seems to be some Niger-Congo lineages still there. Especially the L linages. The Sarah Tiskoff study Ish Gebor posted makes sense to at least me because the Sahel could have acted as a back and forth corridor between East and West Africa.
If repeat IF the Yoruba did migrate from Nubia/Sudan I can see Lake Chad acting as a refugee/stop.
Also the Yoruba Orisha Child of Obatala.
Is quite similar looking to the Egyptian god Bes.
But of course this can be due to sharing a common culture from the green Sahara.
Thoughts? If you think this theory is silly/a crackpot then let me know.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: LOL at folks arguing Bantu is a European word while at the same time tying "Bantu" to Ntu Ntr.
Who's arguing that its a European word? Of course it has African. roots I for one said that if the originator of the theory has "racist" agendas then even that would NOT be enough to reconstruct the Bantu migration.
Many early Egyptologist had "racist" views and yet they even considered the Ancient Egyptians "black."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: LOL at folks arguing Bantu is a European word while at the same time tying "Bantu" to Ntu Ntr.
Yeah heard of Ntu Ntr before. Are there discrepancies?
For a fact is that Bleek bolstered it into euro doctrine.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Our data support the hypothesis that the Sahel has been a corridor for bidirectional migration between eastern and western Africa (34-36). The highest proportion of the Nilo-Saharan AAC was observed in the southern and central Sudanese populations (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk, and Nyimang), with decreasing frequency from northern Kenya (e.g., Pokot) to northern Tanzania (Datog, Maasai) (Fig. 5, B and C, and fig. S15). Additionally, all Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad clustered with west central Afroasiatic Chadic–speaking populations in the global analysis at K ≤11 (Fig. 3), which is consistent with linguistic and archeological data suggesting bidirectional migration of Nilo- Saharans from source populations in Sudan within the past ~10,500 to 3000 years (4,29). The proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7000 years ago from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have resulted in a Nilo-Saharan to Afroasiatic language shift among Chadic speakers (37). However, our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by large amounts of Afroasiatic gene flow. Other populations of interest, including the Fulani (Nigeria and Cameroon), the Baggara Arabs (Cameroon), the Koma (Nigeria), and Beja (Sudan), are discussed in (4).
--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
I actually agree with this and have always had this theory.
It's a logical pattern.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Doug has a minor point where that is concerned because some anthropologists used to deny the presence of 'negroid' populations in southern and eastern Africa before the Bantu migrations (this is related to the notion that 'negroid' populations are a recently emerged 'race'). But most people in the blogs and in the mainstream don't subscribe to this or if they do, Doug will have to point them out by naming names, not by making sweeping claims. Doug is confounding the Bantu expansion as most people today understand it, with those dated racialist views. But only some race theorists and the parrots influenced by them believe that 'negroid' populations are only 6ky old and owe their presence outside of West Africa to the Bantu migration.
No one is disagreeing with this part of his argument. This has come up in my conversations with Beyoku so I know he doesn't disagree with this either. The disagreement is with the non sense that this is somehow valid grounds to have beef with everything about the Bantu migration, from the term 'Bantu' to the proposed homeland, to their subsistence strategy. According to Doug this now makes everything questionable and he goes as far as to say that we don't know anything about who migrated to southern Africa and when.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Doug has a minor point where that is concerned because some anthropologists used to deny the presence of "negroid" populations in southern and eastern Africa before the Bantu migrations (this is related to the notion that 'negroid' populations are a new 'race'). But most people in the blogs and in the mainstream don't subscribe to this. Doug is confounding the Bantu expansion as most people today understand it, with those dated views. But only some race theorists and parrots influenced by them believe that "negroid" populations are only 6ky old and owe their presence outside of West Africa to the Bantu migration.
But no one is disagreeing with this part of his argument. I've discussed this with Beyoku before so I know he doesn't disagree with this either. The disagreement is with the non sense that this is somehow valid grounds to have beef with everything about the Bantu migration, from the term 'Bantu' to their proposed homeland.
I'm just saying I agree that my title is a bit misleading, but also I believe the Niger-Congo family as a WHOLE is under studied compared to Afro-Asiatic and even Nilo-Saharan.
As for the Bantu homeland. I agree that more evidence is needed to even state that a Bantu like population migrated from the Sudan. The only strong argument for that is oral history(which I believe should not be argument) , Egyptian showing SOME similarities to Bantu and some West African like lineages in the Sudan.
Other than the West/Central African homeland is winning. But not to put words in beyokus mouth(forgive me if I do), but he did state that if there was a migration from either homelands than it would not be mutually exclusive.
But all in all I hope people do not confuse what I am saying with the likes of the Akachi character! Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
quote: The tMRCA estimates for haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a8 were calculated by means of the ASD statistic for the major ethno-linguistic groups (Table 3). The highest tMRCA (~4,200 ya) for E1b1a7a was ascertained in the Yoruba from Nigeria, while the lowest (~2,000 ya) was in Nilo-Saharans. With regard to E1b1a8, the highest tMRCA (~ 5,000 ya) was found in Mande speakers from both Burkina Faso and Senegal, while the lowest (~3,400 ya) was in the Bantu
Please explain the TMRCA of E1b1a in Nilotics....And the decreasing TMRCA of E1b1a from Sengambia to Southern Africa.
Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
My problem isn't with the word Bantu. My problem is with the idea that the population history of Central and Southern Africa STARTED with the Bantus.
Again, the racists don't really CARE about the history of Africa outside of Egypt and other places they can try and steal. So they aren't doing a lot of archaeological research in central and Southern Africa in the first place.
Bantu languages are only 5,000 years old according to the "theory", yet we know for a fact that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on the planet. And there have been finds in central and Southern Africa far older than any Bantus. Therefore the idea that the history humans in central and Southern Africa starts with Bantus 5,000 years ago is dumb.
Do you care more about racists than you do studying the continent? There is no need to harp on racist fools that think there is no history in Southern African prior to a few thousand years ago. I clearly adressed that in my first post:
quote:The issue is African genetics and migration being studied under a narrow template that excludes populations related to west Africans in Southern Africa prior to Bantu ......researchers are simply lazy and use Bantu expansion as a cop out explanation to any and all ancestry and lineages not indigenous to Southern Africa.
So even if we know Bantu carried lineages like L2a, L0a, E-M2, E-75, B-M60 Et al into areas below the equator in the last 5 thousand years that history doesn't account for the totality of the lineages in those regions.
quote: I am saying that even if that map in the first post is true it is not mutually exclusive to Bantu migrating from west central Africa.
Some of the lineages in Southern Africa that were brought by Bantu were also brought earlier by Cushitics and Nilotics.....and even earlier by unknown groups.
quote: Lineages carried by modern Bantu and other populations in the north like B2a1a have a presence in southern African that is both older than Bantu AND because of Bantu, there wasn't one migration. It was a pulse migration of at least 4 episodes over the last 20-30 thousand years. ........I have pointed out at least 5 or 6 years ago that B2 in Southern Africa is not soley due to the Bantu.
I am dropping the knowledge so those interested can ask for the sources and see the evidence of older instances of L2a or B2a going back 10's of thousands of years in Southern Africa. You are ranting and raving about white racism and their intellectual inferiority when it comes to studying Africa all they while acting as if the Migration didnt happen and ignoring swathes of evidence showing Metal working agriculturalists migrating from West Central Africa into the Southern part of the continent.
Keep on chasing phantom Eurocentrists that argue no humans were in southern Africa prior to bantu (Even though we all know....and Europeans agree......the ancestors of Khoisan have been there for 10's of thousand of years. ) Who are these people exactly? Nearly every one of your posts screams your obsession with white racists people....what they say, what they think, what they do.
Well **** Their thoughts. Learn for yourself.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I am dropping the knowledge so those interested can ask for the sources and see the evidence of older instances of L2a or B2a going back 10's of thousands of years in Southern Africa. You are ranting and raving about white racism and their intellectual inferiority when it comes to studying Africa all they while acting as if the Migration didnt happen and ignoring swathes of evidence showing Metal working agriculturalists migrating from West Central Africa into the Southern part of the continent.
Keep on chasing phantom Eurocentrists that argue no humans were in southern Africa prior to bantu (Even though we all know....and Europeans agree......the ancestors of Khoisan have been there for 10's of thousand of years. ) Who are these people exactly? Nearly every one of your posts screams your obsession with white racists people....what they say, what they think, what they do.
Well **** Their thoughts. Learn for yourself. [/qb]
I was always under the notion that The E-Lineages are the only exclusive Haplogroups linked to the expansion,and that all others that are present, were present, to some quantity in their respective regions, including all MtDNA lineages... In fact, bear w/ me here I am relatively Green, but I've had no reason to even realistically believe it was possible to credit most of the continent's population to a single expansion of the last 6kya... so this discussion is a bit odd to me, but I do have questions...
for starters...Why haven't multiple expansions been postulated? - Within the initial suggested time-frame of the bantu expansion. It seems obvious that our E-M2 people traveled west from Point A, then south from an either an intermediate location (Not the ones who settled in W.Africa) or The initial Location (Point A).
Western and Eastern "Bantus" have shown instances of poor interpopulation relatedness, one that I doubt would be prevalent if indeed we had a single expansion in such a relatively short amount of time. Not only that but the Diversity suggested in the eastern Bantu populations despite the young Common ancestor in relation to our western groups is Suspect.
Also, how long ago do you believe E1B1a emerged from East africa?
@ELIMU
Please shrink the Image or post separate link. I have it blocked on my cpu for the time being.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is off-topic from the Bantu migration but me being a Swahili history fanatic read that Pharaoh Necho sent an expedition around the coast of Southeast Africa with the Phoenicians. How true is this you guys? I mean we already know about Azania(southeast Africa) being in contact with the Romans(Chami 2001).
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
quote: The tMRCA estimates for haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a8 were calculated by means of the ASD statistic for the major ethno-linguistic groups (Table 3). The highest tMRCA (~4,200 ya) for E1b1a7a was ascertained in the Yoruba from Nigeria, while the lowest (~2,000 ya) was in Nilo-Saharans. With regard to E1b1a8, the highest tMRCA (~ 5,000 ya) was found in Mande speakers from both Burkina Faso and Senegal, while the lowest (~3,400 ya) was in the Bantu
Please explain the TMRCA of E1b1a in Nilotics....And the decreasing TMRCA of E1b1a from Sengambia to Southern Africa.
Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
My problem isn't with the word Bantu. My problem is with the idea that the population history of Central and Southern Africa STARTED with the Bantus.
Again, the racists don't really CARE about the history of Africa outside of Egypt and other places they can try and steal. So they aren't doing a lot of archaeological research in central and Southern Africa in the first place.
Bantu languages are only 5,000 years old according to the "theory", yet we know for a fact that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on the planet. And there have been finds in central and Southern Africa far older than any Bantus. Therefore the idea that the history humans in central and Southern Africa starts with Bantus 5,000 years ago is dumb.
Do you care more about racists than you do studying the continent? There is no need to harp on racist fools that think there is no history in Southern African prior to a few thousand years ago. I clearly adressed that in my first post:
quote:The issue is African genetics and migration being studied under a narrow template that excludes populations related to west Africans in Southern Africa prior to Bantu ......researchers are simply lazy and use Bantu expansion as a cop out explanation to any and all ancestry and lineages not indigenous to Southern Africa.
So even if we know Bantu carried lineages like L2a, L0a, E-M2, E-75, B-M60 Et al into areas below the equator in the last 5 thousand years that history doesn't account for the totality of the lineages in those regions.
quote: I am saying that even if that map in the first post is true it is not mutually exclusive to Bantu migrating from west central Africa.
Some of the lineages in Southern Africa that were brought by Bantu were also brought earlier by Cushitics and Nilotics.....and even earlier by unknown groups.
quote: Lineages carried by modern Bantu and other populations in the north like B2a1a have a presence in southern African that is both older than Bantu AND because of Bantu, there wasn't one migration. It was a pulse migration of at least 4 episodes over the last 20-30 thousand years. ........I have pointed out at least 5 or 6 years ago that B2 in Southern Africa is not soley due to the Bantu.
I am dropping the knowledge so those interested can ask for the sources and see the evidence of older instances of L2a or B2a going back 10's of thousands of years in Southern Africa. You are ranting and raving about white racism and their intellectual inferiority when it comes to studying Africa all they while acting as if the Migration didnt happen and ignoring swathes of evidence showing Metal working agriculturalists migrating from West Central Africa into the Southern part of the continent.
Keep on chasing phantom Eurocentrists that argue no humans were in southern Africa prior to bantu (Even though we all know....and Europeans agree......the ancestors of Khoisan have been there for 10's of thousand of years. ) Who are these people exactly? Nearly every one of your posts screams your obsession with white racists people....what they say, what they think, what they do.
Well **** Their thoughts. Learn for yourself.
So by your own argument the "bantu migration" theory for explaining how populations arrived in Central and Southern Africa is invalid. Bantu languages may be real but that does not make the "bantu migration" theory valid. Two totally separate and different things.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. He didn't contradict himself. You're just all over the place.
"Now, the existing language families of Africa—the four families that account for nearly all of the African languages—does this mean that the four proto languages of those families ... were the only languages spoken in Africa at the close of the Pleistocene? Of course it doesn't. [There] would have been hundreds of other languages spoken then just as there are today. But, over the long millennia since the end of the Pleistocene, the speakers of those four families happened to have been the ones who did most of the spreading out into new areas. And as they spread into new areas, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, they spread over larger parts of the continent. Now, as they gradually expanded into new territories, they incorporated eventually the people already living in those areas into their societies. As a result, the other languages that might have been spoken in the Late Pleistocene in Africa, eventually passed out of use" —Christopher Ehret
Ehret then goes on to talk about potential candidates of relic languages, including two in the southern half of Africa which weren't driven to extinction.
For some strange reason Doug is obsessed with the false notion that the Bantu migration (as most people understand it) states that the southern half of Africa was uninhabited prior to 3ky ago. And the more you prove him wrong, the more he doubles down and tells you that you're the one who is inconsistent. Lol. Where have we seen that before.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
So by your own argument the "bantu migration" theory for explaining how populations arrived in Central and Southern Africa is invalid. Bantu languages may be real but that does not make the "bantu migration" theory valid. Two totally separate and different things.
WTF, Dude can you read? The "Bantu Migration" explains how Bantu Speakers entered Parts of South Africa. It does NOT explain the totality of lineage history....lineages that probably origiante above the equator (E-M2, L2a, L0a, B2a, E2b, L3d...etc) which are also carried by Bantu speakers......presence in Southern Africa...or below the equator.
As an alternative example of migration : See Arab migration in the 7th centruy, It happned. In brought Arabs into Northern Africa. The Arab migration does not explain the TOTALITY of Arabian lineags J1, R0a, HV, etc....in Northern Africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
So by your own argument the "bantu migration" theory for explaining how populations arrived in Central and Southern Africa is invalid. Bantu languages may be real but that does not make the "bantu migration" theory valid. Two totally separate and different things.
WTF, Dude can you read? The "Bantu Migration" explains how Bantu Speakers entered Parts of South Africa. It does NOT explain the totality of lineage history....lineages that probably origiante above the equator (E-M2, L2a, L0a, B2a, E2b, L3d...etc) which are also carried by Bantu speakers......presence in Southern Africa...or below the equator.
As an alternative example of migration : See Arab migration in the 7th centruy, It happned. In brought Arabs into Northern Africa. The Arab migration does not explain the TOTALITY of Arabian lineags J1, R0a, HV, etc....in Northern Africa.
The problem is that the bantu migration theory as it was originally developed and currently used is NOT simply a history of the expansion of one language family. It is the defacto standard theory used to explain how humans got to central and Southern Africa. If it was ONLY being used to discuss language families that would be one thing but the fact that folks are trying to use it to model the expansion of genetic lineages makes it a problem. Genetic lineages are not languages and because we know that humans have been in Central and Southern Africa for more than 5,000 years (and not just Koi Bushmen either) it makes trying to use the language expansion as a model of population migration overall in that area problematic. Hence why I call it problematic from the start.
Case in point. Can you or anyone else point to any research or studies that can tell you about any population centers or activity in central or Southern Africa in 10,000 BC? Like what was going on in Central Congo in 10,000 BC? What was going on in Angola in 10,000 BC? What was going on in South Africa in 10,000 BC? What about Nigeria or the Central African Republic? Of course you can't because there is no serious research being done to determine what was going on and how those populations from that time period are related to the populations in place today. That is the standard model used everywhere else, yet as I said before, most Europeans could care less about doing serious archaeological work in "Sub Saharan" Africa. So all you got to cover 200,000 years of human history in "Sub Saharan" Africa is the Bantu migration theory, which is absurdly ridiculous.
In fact, to this day, the only time anyone does any serious digging in "sub saharan" Africa is when they are looking for natural resources and as a result most of the major archaeological finds in the region are a result of mining activity. So it is not surprising that the most comprehensive overview of the archaeological history of parts of "sub saharan" Africa are being done by mining companies. As below:
quote: Simandou SEIA Volume III Port Annex 14C Cultural Context for West Africa and Guinea
14C.1 Introduction The country of Guinea forms part of West Africa, an area whose prehistoric past witnessed large-scale population migrations, interregional trade, organised warfar e and the rise of urbanism in prehistoric times. There is archaeological evidence that iron smelting te chnology actually originated in West Africa and was later adopted in the Mediterranean and beyond in the first century BC. In historic times, Guinea’s location between the three great medieval empires: Ghana, Ma li and Songhai, would have fostered sweeping cultural shifts as Islam first took root and spread within the Af rican continent. Stone Age remains in West Africa may hold clues to the development and expansion of early human populations, and the iron-rich southern regions of Guinea would have provided an impo rtant resource for Iron Age populat ions of the region. Guinea’s coastline has also made it an attractive place to settle and trade from prehistoric times to the present, and even today the ruins of French colo nial plantations dot the coast. Despite the wealth of historical te xts detailing the Islamic Medieval peri od and the availability of colonial- period documents, very few archaeological studies have actually been conducted within Guinea’s borders, so relatively little is known of Guinea’s prehistory.
West Africa has probably received the least amount of archaeological research of any region of the world and as such, the following cultural chronology set out in Table 14C.1 below, relies on archaeological information from surrounding regions in order to fill in the gaps in Guinean cultural history.
As I said, most times the only areas archaeologists truly care about studying are the Nile Valley and North Africa because of the history there that they want to steal.
quote: Since historical records are relatively recent, it goes without saying that archaeology is indispensable for the reconstruction of Central Africa’s past. Unfortunately, during European colonization, the history of pre-colonial states in this part of the continent was deemed hardly worth excavating. The problematic political and economic situation persisting since then has seriously slowed down progress in archaeology.
The fact that the emblematic Kongo kingdom has never been the object of a systematic excavation program is of course significant in this respect.
Nonetheless, with its wide diversity of pre-colonial political systems, ranging from ‘acephalous’ societies to highly centralized kingdoms, the archaeology of Central Africa provides an important input to recent theories on the growth of social and political complexity. This is especially so for the Lower Congo area, where not only the Kongo empire arose, but where more or less contemporaneous kingdoms or states also developed, such as Loango, Tio and Mbundu.
Being very similar but each with its own particularities, these political systems represent an interesting situation of unity in diversity. The earliest available oral traditions on the Kongo kingdom, for instance, point out that it was mainly formed through a federation of different independent provinces. Only some provinces would have been subjugated by force. The same oral traditions, collected in the 16th and 17th century, allow tracing back the kingdom’s history as far as the second half of the 14th century. Since such traditions always incorporate mythical elements and are often manipulated to justify the ruling powers, their historical value can always be debated. They are not very informative on the economic, social and cultural developments underlying the rise of this centralized state either.
The little archaeological research done in the Lower Congo region so far shows a high density of prehistoric occupations from around 500 BC, but there is a gap in the archaeological record between AD 250 and 1000. After that date, archaeologists recovered several ceramic traditions bearing witness of emerging trade networks in the area, which possibly brought about political centralization. The growing importance of iron and copper, also attested in the archaeological record, connects with the strong relationship between metallurgy and political power omnipresent in Kongo mythology. Also linked with the increase of political complexity and social stratification is the rise of urbanism.
And here is the overall point. According to the current model of African archaeology, most of Central and Southern Africa was empty of humans prior to 5,000 years ago except for some hunter gatherers like the Khoi san. So if that is the case, then where were most humans settlements in Africa over the last 200,000 years?
quote:
New discoveries indicate humans settled Cameroon 5000 years ago
Archeologists say the findings mark a breakthrough that requires a rewriting of the history of Cameroon and the rest of Central Africa. Artifacts from hundreds of archeological sites from southern Chad to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in Cameroon have turned up several surprises.
The research was conducted between 1999 and 2004 as construction was underway on the underground petroleum pipeline. The pipeline is sponsored by the World Bank and runs from Chad to the port of Kribi, Cameroon.
Researchers say at first, they set out merely to deepen their archeological knowledge of the areas straddling the pipeline trench, which is more than 1000 kilometers long.
But Professor Scott MacEachern says they found more. According to MacEachern a specialist in African Archeology at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, 472 archeological sites along the area in both Cameroon and Chad were found .some dating back to as long ago as 100,000 years. He says, “ we found sites where people had lived, where people had stored food, where people had made tools of iron. Before people in this area used iron, they made a whole variety of different kinds of tools including axes, arrow points, knives and fire scrapers from stone. These are artifacts from a site in southern Cameroon. It’s a small rock shelter. It has a history of about 5,000 years.”
Other artifacts excavated by the researchers include pottery and iron-smelting furnaces.
In late May, scores of researchers from around the world converged on the Cameroonian capital, Yaounde, for the International Conference on Rescue Archeology. At the meeting archeologists introduced the new findings in a book titled: “Kome-Kribi: Rescue Archeology Along the Chad-Cameroon Oil Pipeline; 1999-2004.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No. He didn't contradict himself. You're just all over the place.
"Now, the existing language families of Africa—the four families that account for nearly all of the African languages—does this mean that the four proto languages of those families ... were the only languages spoken in Africa at the close of the Pleistocene? Of course it doesn't. [There] would have been hundreds of other languages spoken then just as there are today. But, over the long millennia since the end of the Pleistocene, the speakers of those four families happened to have been the ones who did most of the spreading out into new areas. And as they spread into new areas, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, they spread over larger parts of the continent. Now, as they gradually expanded into new territories, they incorporated eventually the people already living in those areas into their societies. As a result, the other languages that might have been spoken in the Late Pleistocene in Africa, eventually passed out of use" —Christopher Ehret
Ehret then goes on to talk about potential candidates of relic languages, including two in the southern half of Africa which weren't driven to extinction.
For some strange reason Doug is obsessed with the false notion that the Bantu migration (as most people understand it) states that the southern half of Africa was uninhabited prior to 3ky ago. And the more you prove him wrong, the more he doubles down and tells you that you're the one who is inconsistent. Lol. Where have we seen that before.
No Swenet, what I am saying is that language history is not the same as genetic history. And as seen above, this only supports the theory that most of "sub saharan" Africa was empty of humans prior to the "bantu migration", which I absolutely do not believe. And by that I don't mean I don't believe that the Bantu language exists. What I am saying is that the Bantu migration theory is a shallow historical concept that really does nothing to unravel the history of sub saharan Africa. Now if you really believe there is some deep historical knowledge of sub saharan Africa from prior to 10,000 years ago feel free provide it. But according to my research there is none and basically the current theory is that most of sub Saharan Africa was one big vast uninhabited area sparsely populated by people like the ancestors of the Khoi San. I call that nonsense but you guys seem to accept this.
A recent book covering central Africa and the "people without history" and the colonialist mentality regarding "sub saharan" African archaeology:
quote: The Archaeology and Ethnography of Central Africa provides the first detailed description of the prehistory of the Loango coast of west-central Africa over the course of more than 3,000 years. The archaeological data presented in this volume comes from a pivotal area through which, as linguistic and historical reconstructions have long indicated, Bantu-speaking peoples expanded before reaching eastern and southern Africa. Despite its historical importance, the prehistory of the Atlantic coastal regions of west-central Africa has until now remained almost unknown. James Denbow offers an imaginative approach to this subject, integrating the scientific side of fieldwork with the interplay of history, ethnography, politics, economics, and personalities. The resulting 'anthropology of archaeology' highlights the connections between past and present, change and modernity, in one of the most inaccessible and poorly known regions of west-central and southern Africa.
On almost every other part of the planet there is enough archaeological research to determine what populations were in place 20,000 years ago, yet in Central and Southern Africa there is almost NONE. And according to most research Central and Southern Africa was only really settled 5,000 years ago which makes it the most recently settled area of the world and makes no sense.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
quote: The tMRCA estimates for haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a8 were calculated by means of the ASD statistic for the major ethno-linguistic groups (Table 3). The highest tMRCA (~4,200 ya) for E1b1a7a was ascertained in the Yoruba from Nigeria, while the lowest (~2,000 ya) was in Nilo-Saharans. With regard to E1b1a8, the highest tMRCA (~ 5,000 ya) was found in Mande speakers from both Burkina Faso and Senegal, while the lowest (~3,400 ya) was in the Bantu
Please explain the TMRCA of E1b1a in Nilotics....And the decreasing TMRCA of E1b1a from Sengambia to Southern Africa.
Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
My problem isn't with the word Bantu. My problem is with the idea that the population history of Central and Southern Africa STARTED with the Bantus.
Again, the racists don't really CARE about the history of Africa outside of Egypt and other places they can try and steal. So they aren't doing a lot of archaeological research in central and Southern Africa in the first place.
Bantu languages are only 5,000 years old according to the "theory", yet we know for a fact that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on the planet. And there have been finds in central and Southern Africa far older than any Bantus. Therefore the idea that the history humans in central and Southern Africa starts with Bantus 5,000 years ago is dumb.
"We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya)."
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
quote: The tMRCA estimates for haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a8 were calculated by means of the ASD statistic for the major ethno-linguistic groups (Table 3). The highest tMRCA (~4,200 ya) for E1b1a7a was ascertained in the Yoruba from Nigeria, while the lowest (~2,000 ya) was in Nilo-Saharans. With regard to E1b1a8, the highest tMRCA (~ 5,000 ya) was found in Mande speakers from both Burkina Faso and Senegal, while the lowest (~3,400 ya) was in the Bantu
Please explain the TMRCA of E1b1a in Nilotics....And the decreasing TMRCA of E1b1a from Sengambia to Southern Africa.
Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
My problem isn't with the word Bantu. My problem is with the idea that the population history of Central and Southern Africa STARTED with the Bantus.
Again, the racists don't really CARE about the history of Africa outside of Egypt and other places they can try and steal. So they aren't doing a lot of archaeological research in central and Southern Africa in the first place.
Bantu languages are only 5,000 years old according to the "theory", yet we know for a fact that humans have been in Africa longer than any other place on the planet. And there have been finds in central and Southern Africa far older than any Bantus. Therefore the idea that the history humans in central and Southern Africa starts with Bantus 5,000 years ago is dumb.
AYE Doug M...
I don't think ANY linguistic or anthropologist even the creator of the Bantu theory are suggesting Central and Southern Africa were first populated by Bantus. Of course we know groups like the Khoisan, Twa people, Hadza and other older Africans inhabited those areas and are indigenous to those areas.
What they are saying is that Bantu people THEMSELVES inhabited those areas 5,000 years ago. So I kinda don't get the complaints when mainstream academia already agrees there were Africans in those areas before Bantu people.
Doug is correct, as can be seen in my previous post and link.
The tribes at the site of Kibish look the pic beneath, and this is where the oldest remains were found. It's the Southeast of Ethiopia, near the so called border of Northern Kenya and guess what: South Sudan!
Interesting is however, that there at the site of Kibish you will find within several tribes, people with several facial features. Small noses, wide noses, thin lips, full lips etc....in all kinds of variety. Yet, these people belong to the oldests groups amoungst mankind.
Recent dating evidence re-establishes the Kibish fossils found in Ethiopia as the oldest modern human fossils known, at about 195,000 years.
The Kibish (Omo) fossils were found in 1967 in the Kibish region near the Omo River in Ethiopia. A partial skull and skeleton (Omo 1) and a skull lacking its face (Omo 2) were discovered in separate localities and dating techniques available at the time suggested they might be about 130,000 years old.
Herto skulls
In 2003 two partial and one nearly complete modern human skulls were found in Herto, Ethiopia, and were dated at about 160,000 years old. They were hailed as the oldest relatively complete and well-dated finds of our species Homo sapiens.
quote:Y-DNA haplogroup A contains lineages deriving from the earliest branching in the human Y chromosome tree. The oldest branching event, separating A0-P305 and A1-V161, is thought to have occurred about 140,000 years ago. Haplogroups A0-P305, A1a-M31 and A1b1a-M14 are restricted to Africa and A1b1b-M32 is nearly restricted to Africa. The haplogroup that would be named A1b2 is composed of haplogroups B through T. The internal branching of haplogroup A1-V161 into A1a-M31, A1b1, and BT (A1b2) may have occurred about 110,000 years ago. A0-P305 is found at low frequency in Central and West Africa. A1a-M31 is observed in northwestern Africans; A1b1a-M14 is seen among click language-speaking Khoisan populations. A1b1b-M32 has a wide distribution including Khoisan speaking and East African populations, and scattered members on the Arabian Peninsula.
quote:Y-DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Swenet, what I am saying is that language history is not the same as genetic history. And as seen above, this only supports the theory that most of "sub saharan" Africa was empty of humans prior to the "bantu migration", which I absolutely do not believe. And by that I don't mean I don't believe that the Bantu language exists. What I am saying is that the Bantu migration theory is a shallow historical concept that really does nothing to unravel the history of sub saharan Africa. Now if you really believe there is some deep historical knowledge of sub saharan Africa from prior to 10,000 years ago feel free provide it.
This is how misinformation starts. I find it difficult to take you seriously because the people you're trying to debate on this can articulate your own argument better than you. But yet, you're trying to lecture us on something you don't have a firm grasp on yourself.
1) The racists you're talking about disputed that 'negroid' populations (meaning, belonging to the typological 'Negro' race) were already below the equator before the Bantu migration; they never said the region was uninhabited. In fact, a staple in their whole argument is that 'Caucasoid' populations inhabited parts of the areas Bantu speakers inhabit today. So, this is an absurd accusation to make towards specialists or even mainstream scholars who subscribe to the Bantu migration. You have yet to specify who these unnamed racist conspirators are other than that Bleek individual who supposedly said that areas below the equator were uninhabited prior to the Bantu migration.
2) The knowledge we have of pre-Holocene southern and central Africa is much more extensive and discussed than the knowledge we have of pre-holocene West Africa. So it makes no sense to tell me "if you really believe there is some deep historical knowledge of sub saharan Africa from prior to 10,000 years ago feel free provide it". Prehistoric southern and central Africa don't suffer from more academic neglect than northern areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion unless you're feigning familiarity with the subject and you don't know what information is out there yourself.
You're complaining about things that bother you that don't exist.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Swenet, what I am saying is that language history is not the same as genetic history. And as seen above, this only supports the theory that most of "sub saharan" Africa was empty of humans prior to the "bantu migration", which I absolutely do not believe. And by that I don't mean I don't believe that the Bantu language exists. What I am saying is that the Bantu migration theory is a shallow historical concept that really does nothing to unravel the history of sub saharan Africa. Now if you really believe there is some deep historical knowledge of sub saharan Africa from prior to 10,000 years ago feel free provide it.
This is how misinformation starts. I find it difficult to take you seriously because the people you're trying to debate on this can articulate your own argument better than you. But yet, you're trying to lecture us on something you don't have a firm grasp on yourself.
1) The racists you're talking about disputed that 'negroid' populations (meaning, belonging to the typological 'Negro' race) were already below the equator before the Bantu migration; they never said the region was uninhabited. In fact, a staple in their whole argument is that 'Caucasoid' populations inhabited parts of the areas Bantu speakers inhabit today. So, this is an absurd accusation to make towards specialists or even mainstream scholars who subscribe to the Bantu migration. You have yet to specify who these unnamed racist conspirators are other than that Bleek individual who supposedly said that areas below the equator were uninhabited prior to the Bantu migration.
2) The knowledge we have of pre-Holocene southern and central Africa is much more extensive and discussed than the knowledge we have of pre-holocene West Africa. So it makes no sense to tell me "if you really believe there is some deep historical knowledge of sub saharan Africa from prior to 10,000 years ago feel free provide it". Prehistoric southern and central Africa don't suffer from more academic neglect than northern areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion unless you're feigning familiarity with the subject and you don't know what information is out there yourself.
You're complaining about things that bother you that don't exist.
Firstly the archaeology in "sub saharan" Africa is sparse to say the least compared to any other part of the planet. I didn't say there was NO archaeology, just that it is far less than that found anywhere else. Second most of what has been uncovered is a result of colonial excavations of resources and mining activity, not because they are undertaking archaeology for its own sake. You haven't challenged or refuted this you are simply denying facts, just like you are denying that racists don't believe there is any "value" in studying the ancient history of "sub saharan" Africa.
But anyway, if you believe there is such serious archaeological work being done and genetic mapping, what was going on in Congo 20,000 years ago? What was going on in Zimbabwe or Angola? You aren't going to find much. In most countries of "Sub Saharan" Africa outside Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia they almost all have the same history starting around 5,000 years ago. Just like the whites in South Africa have long had artifacts about populations in Southern Africa from many thousands of years ago that they only relatively published. Who knows what else they are hiding?
As for Congo and indicative of most of "sub saharan" Africa there is tantalizing evidence of very old human activity going upwards of 100,000 years or more (as you would expect), then there is a huge gap in that history which picks up about 3 to 5 thousand years ago, corresponding in many ways to the "bantu Migration hypothesis. But beyond that there is a big gap in knowledge. And definitely nothing near as detailed as genetic maps going back 60,000 years or more as we have for areas outside Africa.
quote: The Semliki harpoon, also known as the Katanda harpoon, refers to complex harpoon heads carved from bone. It is from an archaeologic site on the Semliki River in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) which dates back 90,000 years.[1][2]
It seemed to substantiate that fishing and an "aquatic civilization" was likely in the region across eastern and northern Africa during the wetter climatic conditions of the early to mid-Holocene, as shown by other evidence at the lakeshore site of Ishango.[3]
The site is littered with catfish bones and the harpoons are the size to catch adult catfish, so investigators suspect the fisherman came to the site every year "to catch giant catfish." [4]
It is unlikely that the harpoons are much different from those used today (see reference for photos).[5] [6]
The archaeologic site coincides with the range of the Efé Pygmies, which have been shown by mitochondrial DNA analyses to be one of the oldest races still existing on earth.
The core issue here is that the more they dig in Africa the more they upturn most of their racist notions about human evolution:
quote: If Africa was the cradle of humanity, then Europe was the site of our species’ adolescence–or so it has often been supposed. Forty thousand years ago, according to this theory, when the first anatomically modern humans arrived in Europe, they suddenly developed complex modern behaviors. They became master toolmakers, cave painters, and speakers of language; they underwent, all at once, a Great Leap Forward. I think that old theory is going to go out the window, says Alison Brooks. A few years ago, Brooks, an archeologist at George Washington University, wouldn’t have dared to speak with so much confidence. In 1988, while digging at a Middle Stone Age site in Zaire called Katanda, Brooks and her husband, archeologist John Yellen, were stunned to find a beautifully carved barbed bone point. We all stopped dead, recalls Brooks. We assumed the place was completely screwed up, because we thought we were dealing with a site that was at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old– and bone points shouldn’t be in anything that old. At that time in Europe, Neanderthals were still hacking away at reindeer carcasses with their flaked stone tools. Bone tools comparable to the one at Katanda didn’t show up in Eurasia until about 14,000 years ago.
But as Brooks and Yellen continued to dig at Katanda, on three cliffs overlooking the Semliki River, they found more and more exquisitely crafted harpoons and other bone tools in Middle Stone Age strata. It was clear that the bone points hadn’t fallen in from some other layer, says Brooks. There were just too many of them. Many of Brooks’s peers, though, found that conclusion less than inescapable, and they greeted her reports with skepticism. To convince them that such advanced tools were being made in Africa tens of thousands of years earlier than in Europe, Brooks knew she would have to date the tools in several different ways. For the past five years, she and her colleagues have been doing exactly that, and they’ve just published their results. The Katanda tools, the researchers say, are not 40,000 years old after all. They’re more like 90,000 years old.
Artifacts that old are beyond the reach of radiocarbon dating, so Brooks and her colleagues had to rely on more experimental methods. For instance, they dated a sand layer just above the tools by means of thermoluminescence, in which a flash of light given off by electrons in a heated sample indicates how long it’s been since the sample was buried and electrons started accumulating in its mineral structure. And they dated hippopotamus teeth found alongside the bone tools by means of electron-spin resonance, another way of counting trapped electrons. The researchers used four different dating techniques in all, and to Brooks they all point to the same conclusion: there were modern humans making sophisticated tools at Katanda sometime between 110,000 and 80,000 years ago. Apparently they were fishermen: the site is littered with catfish bones. Moreover, the bones are all about the same size–the size of adult spawning fish. Brooks thinks the toolmakers came to Katanda and made their harpoons every year during catfish season. That kind of thinking ahead, knowing what you’re going to eat for dinner six months from now because you’re going to Semliki to hunt the giant catfish, Brooks explains, is a kind of behavior we didn’t think that early modern humans in Africa or anybody at this time period was capable of.
She hasn’t convinced all the skeptics, of course; her dating techniques are too experimental for that. More evidence that bone-tool technology had spread to other sites in Africa would help her case, too. (There must have been a hell of a lot of dull people around these people fishing in Semliki, says one skeptic.) But Brooks thinks the case for a gradual coevolution of human anatomy and human culture in Africa, rather than a sudden cultural leap in Europe 40,000 years ago, is now pretty clear-cut. We’ve done four dating techniques at Katanda, and they’ve all come out old, she says. It doesn’t really matter at this point in our state of knowledge of the Middle Stone Age if the site is 80, 90, 100, 110 thousand years old. The fact is that it’s not 40. This shows us that we don’t have a simple Great Leap Forward in Europe, she goes on. And we don’t have this paradox that people talk about in textbooks whereby humans in Africa look modern but behave like Neanderthals.
posted
@ Thereal & Doug M Please no... 1. the noses of both women (in first pic) are sharp due to fat distribution but that means nothing, their skulls could still very well be "Negroid".. 2. regardless both pictures are bad examples of whatever points you're getting at...lets not picture spam a relatively, decent, thread.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @ Thereal & Doug M Please no... 1. the noses of both women (in first pic) are sharp due to fat distribution but that means nothing, their skulls could still very well be "Negroid".. 2. regardless both pictures are bad examples of whatever points you're getting at...lets not picture spam a relatively, decent, thread.
There is no such thing as a "caucasoid" race, especially when it comes to ancient Africans is the point and just like the more you dig in Africa the more the facts contradict common assumptions, so too what happens when you actually examine the physical diversity of current African populations. And no one photo is not "picture spam".
Seems like a lot of folks are squirming a lot about being serious about Africans being responsible for their own history and archaeology instead of trying to live within frameworks set up by Europeans....
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ele wasn't trying to spam photos,just pointing something out and can you reference me article where fat distribution made your straight or appear straight as I thought nature made it that way.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotta love how Doug is all over the place. Note he didn't respond to my point that there is not more academic neglect in the areas where Bantu languages are spoken than in West Africa below the Sahel. As usual he commits himself for several pages to an argument (in this case, he said that Africa below the equator has been targeted by a racist conspiracy to make it appear uninhabited), but when it is blown out of the water he still tries to double down with all sorts of distractions while insisting his current argument is the same as his original argument.
Again, pre-holocene coastal West Africa has much larger gaps in the historical record, but Doug insists that areas south (which are in reality much better documented) are completely unique in Africa as far as being targeted by a racist conspiracy and deliberate neglect.
quote: Previous craniometric analyses generally noted the mosaic of archaic and modern morphology with respect to large comparative fossil samples. Brothwell and Shaw (1971) presented a craniometric analysis but are non-specific as to the actual samples and variables used for comparison. They note at least two analyses were performed with 11 and 18 variables, that the position of Iwo Eleru varied depending on the particular configuration of variables, and that the specimen was distinct from samples of modern Africans. .
--Christopher M. Stojanowski
Iwo Eleru's place among Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations of North and East Africa
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Gotta love how Doug is all over the place. Note he didn't respond to my point that there is not more academic neglect in the areas where Bantu languages are spoken than in West Africa below the Sahel. As usual he commits himself for several pages to an argument (in this case, he said that Africa below the equator has been targeted by a racist conspiracy to make it appear uninhabited), but when it is blown out of the water he still tries to double down with all sorts of distractions while insisting his current argument is the same as his original argument.
Again, pre-holocene coastal West Africa has much larger gaps in the historical record, but Doug insists that areas south (which are in reality much better documented) are completely unique in Africa as far as being targeted by a racist conspiracy and deliberate neglect.
No offense to Doug M, but I don't know why he keeps saying that. EVERYONE, including modern anthropologist/academic agree that Africa below the equator while sparsly populated has ALWAYS been inhabited by African groups like the Twa(prefer not to call them pygmy),Hadza and finally the Khoisan people. And then you have Nilotics always inhabiting the Great Lakes region.
So again I don't understand what his argument is about Africa below the the equator never being inhabited.
As for coastal West Africa I agree 100% and feel that area needs more research. Not just the pre-holocene but I notice that there is a big historical gap in coastal West Africa going into even the bronze age. But I believe the region was sparsely inhabited by Twa like people.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Prehistoric pre-Bantu populations below the equator specializing in fishing have also been documented and are often discussed in textbooks on prehistoric Africa:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of relevance to the topic of this thread...
Barbed Bone Points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa
African Archaeological Review
John E. Yellen National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230
Abstract Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.” They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs. Specimens dating to ca. 20,000 BP at Ishango, possibly a similar age at White Paintings Shelter, and up to 90,000 BP at Katanda clearly fall within this same African tradition and thus indicate a very long-term continuity which crosses traditionally conceived sub-Saharan cultural boundaries.
The article conclusion seems to be that the Yoruba migrated from Nubia and not "Mecca." I've heard from some Yorubas that claim they migrated from East. I've also read that the Yoruba shares some religious similarities between Nile Valley people like the Egyptians. I don't know if this is true, but just saying I have came across this material.
I know I am moving away from Bantu people but I noticed that some West African groups like the Dogon, Bamileke people, Kaba and among others also claim they come from the Nile Valley or "East." But more importantly I noticed those type of West Africans are quite recent to coastal West Africa. For example Yourbaland was not settled until the 7th century BC. But of course they could have most likely migrated from the Sahel/Sahara they could have originally originated.
Even in the Sudan today from what i was told there seems to be some Niger-Congo lineages still there. Especially the L linages. The Sarah Tiskoff study Ish Gebor posted makes sense to at least me because the Sahel could have acted as a back and forth corridor between East and West Africa.
If repeat IF the Yoruba did migrate from Nubia/Sudan I can see Lake Chad acting as a refugee/stop.
Also the Yoruba Orisha Child of Obatala.
Is quite similar looking to the Egyptian god Bes.
But of course this can be due to sharing a common culture from the green Sahara.
Thoughts? If you think this theory is silly/a crackpot then let me know.
I see this post went unaddressed. Again thoughts?
PS: I apologize for some of the grammar errors.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Gotta love how Doug is all over the place. Note he didn't respond to my point that there is not more academic neglect in the areas where Bantu languages are spoken than in West Africa below the Sahel. As usual he commits himself for several pages to an argument (in this case, he said that Africa below the equator has been targeted by a racist conspiracy to make it appear uninhabited), but when it is blown out of the water he still tries to double down with all sorts of distractions while insisting his current argument is the same as his original argument.
Again, pre-holocene coastal West Africa has much larger gaps in the historical record, but Doug insists that areas south (which are in reality much better documented) are completely unique in Africa as far as being targeted by a racist conspiracy and deliberate neglect.
No offense to Doug M, but I don't know why he keeps saying that. EVERYONE, including modern anthropologist/academic agree that Africa below the equator while sparsly populated has ALWAYS been inhabited by African groups like the Twa(prefer not to call them pygmy),Hadza and finally the Khoisan people. And then you have Nilotics always inhabiting the Great Lakes region.
So again I don't understand what his argument is about Africa below the the equator never being inhabited.
As for coastal West Africa I agree 100% and feel that area needs more research. Not just the pre-holocene but I notice that there is a big historical gap in coastal West Africa going into even the bronze age. But I believe the region was sparsely inhabited by Twa like people.
That is not what I said.
What I said was that the archaeology of Africa below the Sahara is lacking and far less than what you have everywhere else. And given the time ranges involved (upwards of 100,000 years and more) modern ethnic groups aren't relevant. The purpose of digging up the remains is to confirm just how and where the populations lived at various points in Africas history and how their physical makeup varied over time.
Like I posted, most African countries below the Sahara in their official history only go back 5,000 years, yet whenever anybody digs up anything, they find stuff from 50 to 100,000 years ago. But why don't they do more digging? The point being that Europeans have historically promoted this belief that "modern" human behavior only came once humans migrated to Europe and hence, they never really cared about digging in Africa South of the Sahara.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Gotta love how Doug is all over the place. Note he didn't respond to my point that there is not more academic neglect in the areas where Bantu languages are spoken than in West Africa below the Sahel. As usual he commits himself for several pages to an argument (in this case, he said that Africa below the equator has been targeted by a racist conspiracy to make it appear uninhabited), but when it is blown out of the water he still tries to double down with all sorts of distractions while insisting his current argument is the same as his original argument.
Again, pre-holocene coastal West Africa has much larger gaps in the historical record, but Doug insists that areas south (which are in reality much better documented) are completely unique in Africa as far as being targeted by a racist conspiracy and deliberate neglect.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said there is a gap from 100,000 years to 5,000 years in the archaeology of most countries South of the Sahara, which is indicative of the relative lack of serious archaeology in the area. Bantus only come into play after 5,000 years.
But lest you keep complaining and trying to pretend not to understand what is being said: white folks never ever accepted that African people could be more ancient than Europeans and defninitly not "superior" in any respect. Therefore, they never really wanted to dig up any history of Africa below the Sahara going back 100,000 years or more because it would contradict their theories of racial superiority. They are perfectly fine talking about Bantus because it makes Africans South of the Sahara seem to have a history that is far younger than Europeans and as I Already posted originally was designed to justify white conquest in South Africa.
Somehow I get the impression you don't believe there is any racism in Any of this.
But anyway, the fact that you have far older tool industries being found by the archaeology that is being done in Africa South of the Sahara just shows how much more there is to be found. It is the tip of the iceberg. "Bantus" are simply one part of a much bigger picture and not the whole picture.
As I have posted elsewhere, I view the Nile Valley as simply one of many very ancient cultural centers that derives from a far older African substructure that existed across the entire continent and evolved over 200,000 years which gives us so many similarities across time and space and cultures.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said there is a gap from 100,000 years to 5,000 years in the archaeology of most countries South of the Sahara, which is indicative of the relative lack of serious archaeology in the area. Bantus only come into play after 5,000 years.
But lest you keep complaining and trying to pretend not to understand what is being said: white folks never ever accepted that African people could be more ancient than Europeans and defninitly not "superior" in any respect. Therefore, they never really wanted to dig up any history of Africa below the Sahara going back 100,000 years or more because it would contradict their theories of racial superiority.
Europeans are not responsible for African archaeology
AFRICANS ARE !!
It's their responsibility to uncover their own history. We don't need to be children waiting!
Posts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
You are still doing it. Why do you care so much about white scholars?
How about look at the subject of the thread and understand what I am saying. The Bantu migration theory should be revisited because primarily it is a result of European scholars with a racist background telling Africa's history. I am not saying that Bantus don't exist and I am not saying there were no migrations of Bantu speakers. However, what I am saying that the underlying theory that most of sub saharan Africa was populated by Pygmies and khoi san prior to the arrival of Bantus is false. Most of Sub Saharan Africa was as diverse going back thousands of years as it is today. The migrations of Bantu speakers is simply one part of a much bigger story of migrations within Africa. And much of the problem associated with the BMT is that it is solely based on movements of a language family and there is no genetic data to go along with it. And on top of that there isn't enough archaeological data to either corroborate or dispute it in terms of historical settlement in Central and Southern Africa PRIOR to the arrival of Bantus. My concern is that the Bantu migration is being focused on TOO MUCH while the periods prior to the Bantus are still left lacking to a large degree because of a lack of serious archaeological and genetic research.
In reality migrations of Africans from East to West and North to South in Africa have happened many times over the course of 200,000 years of African history and just like the environment of the Sahara has fluctuated, so too has the environment in the rest of Africa, meaning that populations had to move, sometimes over large distances in order to find suitable areas to find food and shelter. Just following the herds of hunt animals could cause a population to migrate hundreds of miles over time based on the presence of lakes and streams for the animals to drink. It is this ability of humans to follow the animals and follow the nuts, berries and other edible plants that laid the foundation and paved the way for Africans being able to move OUT of Africa and into other parts of the planet. And it is also this pattern of hunting gathering development, symbolic cultural development and cosmological development that eventually laid the foundation elements of the common patterns of thought and culture seen across most of Africa to this day from Egypt all the way to Cape Coast. That connection is far older than any Bantu migration, just like the Ishango Bone is far older than Egypt, but Egyptian counting is based on the same pattern of symbolic thought.
Posts: 8899 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
There is no need to harp on racist fools that think there is no history in Southern African prior to a few thousand years ago. I clearly adressed that in my first post:![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) Who are these people exactly? Nearly every one of your posts screams your obsession with white racists people....what they say, what they think, what they do.
Printer-friendly view of this topic