quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: How can SSA ancestry=True Negro and Niger Kongo, when the genes preceded language family?
If you argue that its recent, from where did it originate then? Basically I am asking where did the ancestry that we call SSA/True Negro/Niger Kongo originate?
The problem lies within the terminology itself. SSA (Sub-Saharan African) is the region of Africa south of the Sahara, Niger-Congo is a linguistic groupig, and "True Negro" is a subjective racial concept. The 3 concepts are not mutually inclusive let alone the same!
And then you also have genetic differences among the populations who speak Niger-Congo languages in the region where the phylum originated.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: When you suggested that "inner Africans" could have moved up the Nile into Egypt, I thought your implication was that these "inner Africans" would have been progenitors to the AE. And I presume that by "inner Africans", you meant sub-Saharan or equatorial ones since that's how the term is commonly construed.
Exactly what does one mean by "inner African"?? If that phrase simply means the hinterlands away from the coastal areas, that could also include North Africa just as much as Sub-Sahara.
quote:Meanwhile, the scenario I'm advocating is that the primary ancestors of the AE would have been long-established in northeastern Africa, particularly the eastern Sahara and Red Sea coastal regions.
The only thing I question on the above map is the "Khoisan". From what I understand, even though the hunter-gatherers of East Africa like the Hadza speak click languages, they are genetically unrelated or very distant from the ones spoken by Khoisan peoples proper.
quote:For your information, I don't like the PBS miscasting and am not going to defend it. I don't dispute that the proto-Egyptian people being portrayed in those screenshots would have been black Africans in reality. Where we disagree is precisely what kind of black Africans they would have been.
LOL Better than the Nat-Geo casting of the original Central Saharans using off-white Mid-Eastern looking actors here (36:56-37:23), especially when the earliest mummy from that region was described as 'black' and 'negroid'!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I already defined my use of Inner African (an African Studies term used by Africanists) . Shows you didn't bother reading my post or you woulda seen it.
Seashore to Tell is definitely not Inner Africa. Precisely where in the Sahara does Inner Africa begin? I waffle between 27 and 20 degrees north, so sue me.
And no Inner Africa doesn't correspond to my lingo-cultural-genetic Two Africas map. Nor is Inner Africa synonymous with sub/southof Sahara nor worse, black Africa.
It seems ethnicity almost as much as geography helps define Africa's regions.
__ I don't remember seeing Moonson Optimum Saharans in that linked A&E vid. It's where I learned the 20k Wobble and Cichlid 'migration' I talk about. No such thing as a negro back then so no negroids. But Acacus Libya was a meeting place for 'Saharo-Sudanese ' and 'Gafsian' peoples at the least.
Fauna are always a clue to as to what kind humans inhabitat a place.
Mid-Holocene Uan Muhugiag(sp) may be majority 'SS' but 'G' was there too. SS background is migration north and west from pre-LGAM habitable Inner Africa. G background is migration south and east from the Tell. These two major groupings joint and separate antecedents are pre-LGAM. One is just as much African as the other. It appears, as far as ultimate origin, G is older than SS.
___
I don't go along with a 12k, under Joliba's parabola, origin for 'Niger-Congo'. I don't think genetics or Pleistocene habitats allow for that.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Cultural borrowing without demic contact (including making babies), more than 5000 years ago? Hah.
Anything to rid AE of its blackness just like PBS (2018) First Civilizations Egyptian beginnings. And all the behind camera personel responsible for choosing the cast had Arabic surnames. West Eurasian solidarity between Euros and Arabs, the old one two combo ...
Best way to steal a people's future is to lie about their past.
People of Nabta Playa
Wadi Baramiya Eastern Desert "shaman"
King of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (with abid negro slave)
Narmer
No. AE was an African black founded civilization. Transplanted Levantine farming foods? That's what allowed AE to expand. But what from Sahara helped AE civ.? Was it saharo-SUDANESE or Gafsian related? How much from each;
There's no escaping Saharo-Sudanese. Not even in Fayum A.
What's in a name? Everything the namer intends. Cultures of and in the Sahara originated by peoples who migrated from 'the Sudan' into the Sahara as the West African Monsoon turned it into a grassland with rivers and lakes, just an expanding familiar 'Sudanese' environment to Sudanese Saharans, new to the new Sahara, old to the Sudan.
That sh*t is hilarious.
quote: "Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
~Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
~Toby Wilkinson (2010), From The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt.
quote: In text form: The people of Nabta may have been the last dwellers of this marginal environment. As intense drought conditions persisted, water sources dried up, and the grassland disappeared -6000 years B.P.; the area of Nabta was inhospitable after 5300 years ago, which correlates to 3350 B.C.E.(before the Common Era). The "terminal" date for final occupation at Nabta is around 4780 B.P., as hyperaridity prevailed, and the Sahara was fully established. This profound environmental change precipitated migration, an "Exodus event" in which humans left the desert locales for reliable water sources, as evinced by the rising population along the Nile [Midant-Reynes, 1992; Malville et al., 1998]. As the Nabtan people relocated, they inevitably contributed their own culture and beliefs to the birth of ancient Egyptian religion and the Pharonic civilization, which organized its empire around irrigation agriculture within the overpopulated confines of the Nile Valley
~Krzyzaniak; 1991; Nicoll, 2004
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Burial 85 belonged to a young woman (16-20 years) who we nick-named Paddy. She was discovered intact, still fully covered by a double layer of matting. Beneath the matting, her hands and lower arms had been padded with thick bundles of linen and then wrapped. Bundles of linen were also used to pad the area around the base of the skull, the neck and jaw. Yet the major part of the face, the eyes, nose, and mouth were not covered. Her burial contained no grave goods in the usual sense. Only a couple of rounded sherds and a flint flake were found in the crook of her knees.
quote:The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: LOL Most people in Upper Egypt and down to Nabta Playa or Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Kubbaniya DON'T look like that to this day.
These folks are remarkably consistent in portraying Egypt/Sudan border as a border between races.
And not only that, but the Arabs brought the black Africans into the Egyptian Nile Valley thousands of years later due to slavery.
And of course all of that is based on solid, unbiased and unfettered factual data that is free from bias and hypocrisy.
Race war?
quote:"I suspect there was no outside enemy, these were tribes mounting regular and ferocious raids amongst themselves for scarce resources," curator Renee Friedman said. "Nobody was spared: there were many women and children among the dead, a very unusual composition for any cemetery, and almost half bore the marks of violent death. Many more may have died of flesh wounds which left no marks."
But before I get to the work of Haas and Piscitelli, I'd like to return briefly to my last post, which describes a study of modern-day foragers (also called hunter gatherers), whose behavior is assumed to be similar to that of our Stone Age ancestors. The study found that modern foragers have engaged in little or no warfare, defined as a lethal attack by two or more people in one group against another group. This finding contradicts the claim that war emerged hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.
Defenders of the Deep Roots Theory have leveled various criticisms at the forager study. [*See Clarification below.] They complain that foragers examined in the studyand modern foragers in general--have been pacified by nearby states. Or the foragers are "isolated," living in remote regions where they rarely come into contact with other groups. In other words, these foraging societies are atypical.
But you could argue that all modern tribal societies are atypical, including those cited by Deep Rooters as evidence for their position. Take, for example, the infamous Yanomamo, an Amazonian society that is extremely warlike, according to anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who began observing them in the 1960s.
The Yanomamo practice horticulture, which makes them a poor proxy for nomadic Stone Age hunter gatherers. Atypical. Moreover, even Chagnon acknowledges that some Yanomamo are much violent than others. Of course, Deep Rooters assert that these relatively peaceful Yanomamo are atypical.
When Deep Rooters complain that a society is atypical, they really mean that the society is not as violent as predicted by the Deep Roots theory. They are guilty of egregious confirmation bias, and circular reasoning.
Deep Rooters display this same trait when it comes to Pan troglodytes, our closest genetic relative. Since the mid-1970s, researchers have observed chimpanzees from one troop killing members of another troop--proving, Deep Rooters claim, that the roots of intergroup violence are even older than the Homo genus.
Deep Rooters conveniently overlook the fact some Pan troglodytes communities have been observed for years without carrying out a lethal raid. Moreover, researchers have never observed a deadly attack by the chimpanzee species Pan paniscus, also known as Bonobos. Deep Rooters insist that only the most violent chimps are representative of our primordial ancestry, even though Pan paniscus is just as genetically related to us as Pan troglodytes.
To be fair, proponents of the view that war is a recent cultural inventionI'll call them Inventors--also play this game. They find reasons to discount extremely violent behavior--by either chimps or humansas atypical. For example, both chimp raids and Yanomamo warfare may be responses to recent encroachment on their habitat by outside societies.
But Inventors can also point to a far more persuasive source of data supporting their position: the archaeological record. The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points.
Even this site is an outlier. The vast majority of archaeological evidence for warfarewhich consists of skeletons marked by violence, art depicting battles, defensive fortifications, and weapons clearly designed for war rather than huntingis less than 10,000 years old.
Deep Rooters try to dismiss these facts by resorting to the old argument that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. They allege, in other words, that there is not significant evidence of any human activity prior to 10,000 years ago.
To rebut this charge, Haas and Piscitelli recently carried out an exhaustive survey of human remains more than 10,000 years old described in the scientific literature. They counted more than 2,900 skeletons from over 400 different sites. Not counting the Jebel Sahaba skeletons, Haas and Piscitelli found four separate skeletons bearing signs of violence, consistent with homicide, not warfare.
This "dearth of evidence," Haas continued, "is in contrast with later periods when warfare clearly appears in this historical record of specific societies and is marked by skeletal markers of violence, weapons of war, defensive sites and architecture, etc."
Haas and Piscitelli present their data in "The Prehistory of Warfare: Misled by Ethnography," a chapter in War, Peace, and Human Nature, a collection of essays published this year by Oxford University Press. The book was edited by anthropologist Douglas Fry, co-author of the forager study I described in my last post.
"Declaring that warfare is rampant amongst almost all hunters and gatherers (as well as those cunning and aggressive chimpanzees) fits well with a common public perception of the deep historical and biological roots of warfare," Haas and Piscitelli write. "The presumed universality of warfare in human history and ancestry may be satisfying to popular sentiment; however, such universality lacks empirical support."
Many people think that war, if ancient and innate, must also be inevitable. President Barack Obama seemed to be expressing this notion in 2009 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, just nine days after he announced a major escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man," Obama said. He added, "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."
When will Deep Rooters acknowledge that they are wrong?
Clarification: Some readers might conclude based on my criticism of Deep Rooters that they are all hawks, warmongers, who think that war, because it is innate, is inevitable and perhaps even beneficial in some sense. Such views were once quite common, especially in the era of social Darwinism. President Teddy Roosevelt once said, for example, "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." None of the Deep Rooters I have cited subscribe to such odious balderdash. All fervently hope that humanity can eradicate or at least greatly reduce the frequency of war. Deep Rooters believe that we will be better equipped to solve the problem of war if we accept the Deep Roots theory. Of course, I disagree with them on this point. As indicated by the above comments of President Barack Obamaas well as comments on my blog--the Deep Roots Theory leads many people to be pessimistic about the prospects for ending war, a view that can be self-fulfilling. I would nonetheless accept the Deep Roots theory if the evidence supported it, but the evidence points in the other direction. That is my main source of disagreement with Deep Rooters. In the interests of constructive dialogue, however, I'm providing a link, sent to me by anthropologist and prominent Deep Rooter Richard Wrangham, to a column supporting his position. In the column, political scientist and self-described "conservative Darwinian" Larry Arnhart asserts that "explaining the evolutionary propensity to war in human nature is not to affirm this as a necessity that cannot be changed. In fact, understanding war as a natural propensity can be a precondition for understanding how best to promote peace." Okay, so we all want peace. We just disagree on how to get there. More to come.
13,000 year old skeletons in mass grave near Nile are oldest evidence of group violence.
CAN YOU STOP IT!! Read the original study. Hysteria and drama queen reporting by lazy and prejudicial Europeans. The bodies are dated over 10,000years(range). It is not a mass murder it is a typical burial site.
Anyway per OP. --- As I said the Bantu Expansion never occurred. All lies made up by Europeans!!! As you can see the Mende are a distinct group even within West Africa. The Esan and YRI are very similar. The Luhya are distinct. This is not consistent with the Bantu Expansion. It never occurred. Remember Skoglund confirmed the Mende harbor a more ancient West African genes…..maybe Iwo-Eleru?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote ""A recent study highlights population differentiation between two South Eastern Bantu groups in South Africa, which were assumed to be genetically homogenous, further emphasising the importance of having a clear perspective of population structure in disease-association studies18. This result was arrived at by understanding ethnolinguistic divisions within the present-day population, and purposely recruiting from rural areas or regions with little ethnolinguistic diversity18"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The “Luhya in Webuye, Kenya” (LWK) population has the most accentuated number of these rare variants!!!!!! Meaning an East Africans origin of Bantu. It may not be necessarily LWK but definitely East African
=============== Quote: “ H3Africa is driven by African investigators, and is anticipated to close the gaps of ‘missing’ heritability by increasing the number of causal variants identified within genes, from a dataset of over 70,000 individuals collected using standardized protocols 8,10.
This catalogue of over 88 million high-quality variants from 26 populations has enhanced power to screen for common and rare variants that depict geographic and demographic differentiation2. This represents 80% (approximately 80 million) of all variants contributed or validated in the public dbSNP catalogue, with recent major enhancements for genetic variation within several South Asian and African populations (24% and 28% of novel variants respectively)2. Most of the low-frequency (< 0.5%) variants likely to be of functional significance are disproportionately present in individuals with substantial African ancestry, indicating bottlenecks in non-African populations2,3. The “Luhya in Webuye, Kenya” (LWK) population has the most accentuated number of these rare variants. Paucity of data from African populations has restricted understanding of the heritable human genome variation.”
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What am I on about? We should never trust Europeans. They lie and they cheat. Str8up. They have purposely left out key markers when creating the Human Reference Genome GRCh38. These key novel markers are found in older populations like Asians and Africans. Substantially more than in Europeans. But these markers were deleted or not included in GRCh38. GRCh38 should NOT be the reference same as HGDP. Europeans should not be the baseline. Daniel Shriner proved that when he reanalyzed the Natufians concluding a lot more African ancestry (29%) were in the Natufians and Neolithic Levant than the original researchers showed. It is all about deception and cheating to get ahead. This hasn’t change in the last 500years.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
There is nothing new under the sun and what was old is new again...
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
wikipedia says
quote: Bantu expansion Mapungubwe Hill, the site of the former capital of the Kingdom of Mapungubwe
Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen, were already present south of the Limpopo River (now the northern border with Botswana and Zimbabwe) by the 4th or 5th century CE (see Bantu expansion). They displaced, conquered and absorbed the original Khoisan speakers, the Khoikhoi and San peoples.
So were the Bantu always in south/southeast Africa at the same time with the San?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why Wiki? Why not our own ES archive?
Ms Mt Hora Malawi already shows not only 'Bantu' ancestry but also Atlantic ancestry too. E-M2 tmrc's and distribution also disconfirm standard Bantu expansion flubbery. Then there's the dating of E Afr iron metallurgy engineering unknown in the purported 'homeland'. If it was anything, it was much more lingual than demic, afaicmo. Another thing. Standard theory misses baNtu spread southward from 'homeland' toward Namibia. It only considers southwest and west movement from the Lakes.
posted
What did I tell you? There was no Bantu Expansion. West Africans are primarily Neolithic Africans and Iwo-Eleru(WA-1). West Africans are part of the Neolithic Package(WA2). EEF from Great Lakes
---- The evolutionary history of Southern Africa Francesco Montinaro1,2 and Cristian Capelli1 Quote: “Proposed evolutionary models for African genetic structure. (a) Western Africa groups have ancestry from a basal western African lineage (WA1). The **major source** of western African ancestry (WA2) is more related to eastern Africans (EA) and non-Africans than Southern African Khoe-San (SA). (b) West Africa populations have gene flow from a population related to both southern and eastern Africa, supporting a more complex pattern of isolation-by-distance (Redrawn from Skoglund et al. [25]).”
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] What did I tell you? There was no Bantu Expansion. West Africans are primarily Neolithic Africans and Iwo-Eleru(WA-1). West Africans are part of the Neolithic Package(WA2). EEF from Great Lakes
Interesting, West Africans are EEF from the Great Lakes
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No. Samwiri Lwanga-Lunyiigo told everybody back in 1976 "... movement of Bantu speakers from West Africa to central, eastern, and southern Africa did not take place."
"Neolithic Africans?" Which region's Africans never entered the LSA? All Africans descend from "Neolithic" Africans. Neolithic has multiple definitions. Its just a period of time marked by 'cultures'. Neolithic's no ethnicity or phenotype and neither is HunterGatherer(Fisher).
posted
^ Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence.
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
Which makes no sense. The M'Bantu speaking peoples have been living in the southern and sub-equatorial areas of Africa well over a millennium before the Europeans arrived, so how the hell are they the "newcomers"?! And even if the Bantus arrived in the region a decade prior or at the same time as the Euros, who has more claim to the lands? The M'Bantu peoples who are African or the the Europeans who are not African at all??
I swear to God that excuse of Bantus being "newcomers" is the dumbest 'raison de la conquête' I have ever heard in my life! They might as well be honest and say "we're greedy and have the power to" and that would be enough!
quote:There is nothing new under the sun and what was old is new again...
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6
Actually, the morphological assessment is true! The Hofmeyer skull does have closer affinities to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than modern Sub-Saharans but the converse is also true with Hofmeyer's contemporary in Egypt-- that is the Nazlet Khater skull has closer affinities to modern Sub-Saharans than to Upper Paleolithic Eurasians!! This is the paradox that the experts have yet to answer. How is it an Upper Paleolithic skull in the Southern end of Africa bear resemblance to its contemporaries in Eurasia but its contemporary in North Africa (specifically Egypt) bears resemblance to modern Sub-Saharans??
This is one of the main reasons why I am skeptical of manufactured racial divide between indigenous North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And getting more to the topic even among Sub-Saharan Africans alone there is too much genetic diversity to talk simply of "true negro" and "capoid" (Khoisan).
quote:Tyrannohotep posted on another thread: [QB] I was going to say that the SSA cluster in that chart seems to cover a much broader, more dispersed territory than the North African one. I swear, the Tanzanians and Chadians seem to be positioned closer to the North African cluster than they are to the Khoisan peoples of southernmost Africa. It's almost as if SSA itself is not really a singular race.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Only a blind fool has faith in the concept everything Bantu radiated from Bight of Biafra region. Did you go to JSTOR and read the article or his statement in the UNESCO? Why don't I see you refuting any of Lwanga-Lunyiigo's points? Oh, without needing to present anything we just unquestionably take your word you must know more about it than some idiot baNtu does.
BANTU SPEAKERS RE NOT OF SINGLE ORIGIN
Bantu speakers have three dominant ancestries. Two are major, the minor one is ubiquitous however.
The yellow ancestry is Gulf of Guinea/Voltaic West African. Its exemplars are the Nankam and Kasem. This ancestry is the plurality in Semi-Bantu, the "homelanders." Outside of Herero and unclassified Bantu, its a low level element. Yet they claim its where everything Bantu originates.
Salmon and orange are the dominant Bantu ancestries. Both are East African but only orange goes back to Ms Mt Hora. Salmon is much younger. Kauma and Chonyi are examplars. This ancestry is majority in northern Bantu of East Africa (Somalia Kenya Tanzania).
Orange ancestry is early-Holocene, 6400 BCE Malawi, though Pemba 700BP is the exemplar. It's the plurality in southern Bantu of East and south Africa (Kenya Tanzania Malawi Angola Namibia Botswana SouthAfrica+). Semi-Bantu have nearly as much orange as yellow, Gulf of Guinea, ancestry. In the chart Herero, central and west southern Africa, is the modern exemplar.
All Bantu have a little Atlantic lilac ancestry exemplified by Jola. Like orange, lilac also goes back to early Holocene Malawi.
East African Bantu are most diverse, 11 ancestries detected in the chart.
D'Atanasio E-M2 data also suggests three ancestries (paternal only). It's the heretofore known Bantu Expansion that's been presented as 'monolithic,' a single start time and demography.
I always had a thing with E Afr Bantu speaking friends, that besides the language, how can so many of them be late arrivals to Kenya and the Lakes?
This study is showing multiple sources for Bantu speakers origins. M58 is one and AsioAfrican speakers got a lot of it. That's the thing's got my head tilted.
. . .
Southern Bantu M58 5.16 0 generation . Other Bantu sources in this study are Central&Lakes U290 4.90 4th generation (from W Afr V2003 Central&Lakes U174 3.88 1st generation (from W Afr V1891
E-M58's dated to 5.16k and it's the only one directly downstream from M4727.
All of them post date the 5.5k Sahara drying. During the LGAM, Africa south of 10° N was fully livable grassland and savanna allowing free movement all over with suitable tools for hunting grassland and savanna fauna.
There was no need for everybody to move up into the Green Sahara. Even if open canopy forest was an impeding toolkit challenge then, it was still all savanna from Senegal to Kenya above the fully maximized Sierra Leone to Uganda massive rainforest. Then, from Kenya to Zimbabwe, scrub, leading to Botswana and SouthAfrica grassland.
Food production called for new different tools. Some industry came down from drying Sahara but down south food production inspired it's own tool industries.
Since everybody didn't move into the Sahara it's hard to say E-M2 definitely expanded from there.
posted
^^ Yes and again this goes back to my point.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence??
Ba'Ntu as a language group is a reality, but I have always questioned how much this reality is the result of direct population movement alone.
I actually compare the historical situation to the alleged Indo-European expansion originally dubbed 'Indo-Euroepan Invasion'. Just because people speak a certain language does not mean they carry genetic ancestry from the original speakers of that language.
And you are correct, that the genetic evidence disproves direct demic diffusion. What seems to be the case instead is language adoption and acculturation.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew from the git go. That Hindu was a fake and a plant pretending to be partial to Africana. Back in the day when I was new to this, he always puzzled me with his double talk. Speaking from both sides of his mouth. He fooled many of you. Just as Ausar did. I knew Ausar was a fake just as I knew DJ is a fake. Ausar complained that I did not like him. He did not undersatdn it is not about personalities and if I like him or anyone. If you are fake I will know. Just as I am on to DJ. I have my suspicions on ElMaestro. I am tripping him up in his charade. He will be outed soon.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence.
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: The Bantu Expansion was & is colonist propaganda that the peoples of south/southeast Africa are new arrivals in the area. The theory gave the Germans/Planck Institute & the British/Rhodes both who had economic interest permission to expropriate land and exterminate indigenous peoples.
Which makes no sense. The M'Bantu speaking peoples have been living in the southern and sub-equatorial areas of Africa well over a millennium before the Europeans arrived, so how the hell are they the "newcomers"?! And even if the Bantus arrived in the region a decade prior or at the same time as the Euros, who has more claim to the lands? The M'Bantu peoples who are African or the the Europeans who are not African at all??
I swear to God that excuse of Bantus being "newcomers" is the dumbest 'raison de la conquête' I have ever heard in my life! They might as well be honest and say "we're greedy and have the power to" and that would be enough! :eek:
quote:There is nothing new under the sun and what was old is new again...
The Hofmeyr Skull has been radiocarbon dated to around 36,000 years ago. Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to Professor Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6
Actually, the morphological assessment is true! The Hofmeyer skull does have closer affinities to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than modern Sub-Saharans but the converse is also true with Hofmeyer's contemporary in Egypt-- that is the Nazlet Khater skull has closer affinities to modern Sub-Saharans than to Upper Paleolithic Eurasians!! This is the paradox that the experts have yet to answer. How is it an Upper Paleolithic skull in the Southern end of Africa bear resemblance to its contemporaries in Eurasia but its contemporary in North Africa (specifically Egypt) bears resemblance to modern Sub-Saharans??
This is one of the main reasons why I am skeptical of manufactured racial divide between indigenous North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did not read either of the 2 fugking articles but mouthing of. Fugking cunt. Brown nosing just pisses me off.
Ok let me ask this. what proof is there that the Bantu expansion occurred? Why? Because all SSA look like the true negro? I told you all Djehuti is a closet racist and believes in the true Negro.
yet the articles states..quote:
"The evolutionary history of Southern Africa Francesco Montinaro1,2 and Cristian Capelli1 Quote: “Proposed evolutionary models for African genetic structure. (a) Western Africa groups have ancestry from a basal western African lineage (WA1). The **major source** of western African ancestry (WA2) is more related to eastern Africans (EA) and non-Africans than Southern African Khoe-San (SA). (b) West Africa populations have gene flow from a population related to both southern and eastern Africa, supporting a more complex pattern of isolation-by-distance (Redrawn from Skoglund et al. [25]).”"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
" The **major source** of western African ancestry (WA2) is more related to eastern Africans (EA) and non-Africans than Southern African Khoe-San (SA)."
I said in my thread on ESR. The Bantu expansion never occurred!!!! Now this new study is confirming that fact. Now, is there linguistic similarities. I don't know about linguistics like I understand science and genetics. But some linguistics experts has also debunked the Bantu Expansion. But this is not my forte.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW They are obviously using UNSUPERVISED Genome Analysis. In other words unadulterated DNA analysis. But this fugking Hindu is blabbering about it is a lie woiht providing any facts or data to back it up. Such a fugking browning nose idiot.
Hora, LSA has "Bantu" genes so how the fugk can there be a Bantu gene and ......an Expansion. In Fact Hora also has "Eurasian" ancestry. Some of you fugkers van't think before opening your mouth.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
SMH such a spinless waffler. Why don't you get some.......kahuna's. Gaad sucha pussy.
What the F are you saying here.....?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ Yes and again this goes back to my point.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Only an idiot would deny the reality of Bantu Expansion. The evidence is just too overwhelming. The real issue is how much of this expansion was direct demic population OR was indirect cultural influence??
Ba'Ntu as a language group is a reality, but I have always questioned how much this reality is the result of direct population movement alone.
I actually compare the historical situation to the alleged Indo-European expansion originally dubbed 'Indo-Euroepan Invasion'. Just because people speak a certain language does not mean they carry genetic ancestry from the original speakers of that language.
And you are correct, that the genetic evidence disproves direct demic diffusion. What seems to be the case instead is language adoption and acculturation.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
He's saying he questions direct demic Bantu fantasy and supports indirect lingual cultural Bantu reality.
Fine tuning: migration vs expansion. I hastily didn't digest that in my initial reply to the very knowledgeable Djehuti.
posted
Wish the fugker will read first before opening his mouth
---- Quote:
The Bantu expansion revisited: a new analysis of Y chromosome 1 variation in Central 2 Western Africa Valeria Montano, Okorie Anyaele, David Comas5 2
This is consistent with previous regional studies on Y chromosome diversity carried out in sub-Saharan Africa or in other continents which** failed** to detect a robust correlation between genetic and linguistic distances
In this way, we were able to detect some noteworthy differences within and among Bantu-speaking populations, mostly due to haplogroups E1b1a7a (U174), E1b1a8a (U209), and E1b1a8a1 (U290), which contribute to their high level of inter-population differentiation and to the presence of distinct regional patterns of genetic variation. All these findings CONTRADICT the current VIEW of Bantu speakers as a homogeneous group of populations whose gene pools are mostly if not exclusively the result of a relatively recent population expansion” ------------------
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said. The Bantu Expansion never occurred!!!! Humans physically adapt to their environment … not all Negros are Negros. Ask the Andaman Islanders. Anyways back to playing around with BEAGLE And fastIBD etc.
Quote: “In any case, the Bantu language spread might not have been a direct consequence of a single huge population migration (Lwanga-Lunyiigo 1976; Ehret 2001; Schoenbrun 2001), since population movements within sub-Saharan Africa were probably much more complex and stepwise during the last millennia.”
First I have seen R1b? in Gabon
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sage or anyone has a link the UNESCO paper? This got me peeking. Lol! What direction? East – West or West to East? +
Lwanga-Lunyiigo, Samwiri
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: He's saying he questions direct demic Bantu fantasy and supports indirect lingual cultural Bantu reality.
Fine tuning: migration vs expansion. I hastily didn't digest that in my initial reply to the very knowledgeable Djehuti.
There's no need Tukuler. Some folks would rather rush to judgement based on some irrational notion of someone's identity (Hindu?) than actually read what that person is saying.
Recall, the issue of Indo-European expansion theory not being supported by genetics until recently. In fact it was I believe Dr. Reich (?) who differentiated the chalcolithic Kurgan ancestry from ANE and thereby vindicating Marija Gimbuta's Kurgan Hypothesis over Colin Renfrew's Anatolian Hypothesis. That said, there has been nil such ancestry found in ancient India and in ancient western Europe where IE languages were/are spoken. In fact, even last year's study on Mycenaean DNA shows they only had 4% to 16% of this ancestry. This proves there is more to language spread than migration of peoples.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the author stating the Europeans have been lying all along on linguistics also? We know they are lying on genetics and falsifying or at least skewing the genetic data but it looks like they are also skewing the linguistic data. May be some of you “experts” on linguistics can chime in.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sage or anyone has a link the UNESCO paper? This got me peeking. Lol! What direction? East – West or West to East? +
Lwanga-Lunyiigo, Samwiri
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century edited by M. Elfasi, Ivan Hrbek, Unesco.
^ type this in googlebooks, page 161
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Again, the UNESCO has a statement. The 1976 article is on JSTOR. Why am I repeating myself? Anyway Malawi aDNA hints at Lwanga-Lunyiigo's Lakes to Atlantic origins and first expansion, imm.
Reich dropped hard-copy this year. Who We Ate and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past $28.95 USD New York : Pantheon Books Been reading last 10 days. It's reasonable, imo.
posted
Again for the people who have poor comprehension if not poor memory.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I posted the above last week as genetic proof showing genetic inconsistencies of Bantu demic diffusion or migration.
Posts: 26293 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Informative paper. Thumbs up to Sage for linking this.
So the author referenced that the Greeks and modern Western Civilizations may owe their debt to the Negros of Ishango and "Negros" orginated in East Africa while Iwo-Eleru has a combination of "Negro" and "Caucasoid" features. As I said when West African Iwo-Eleru is tested he may be more related to La Brana and Loschbour than modern West Africans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some interesting finds in this paper
1. Sickle originated in East Africa - Livingstone et al 1967. Sickel cell did not orignated amongst West Africans but we resolved that with the new paper on sickle cell. Apparently Livingstone came to that conclusion since 1967!!! This year were confirmed sickle Cell originated may be in Sudan or further south East. 2. Metallurgy Iron smelting is older in southern than East Africa then West Africa. This is one basis of the Bantu Expansion. Smelting iron contradicts that direction.
He concludes " we should abandon the Greenberg/Guhtrie hypothesis and look for other ways to explain the Bantu presence".
"It is not until we move to the Lake Victoria lowlands that we probably have the beginnings of agriculture . This sregion is also the region of Urewe ware and of the earliest iro-working in Eastern, Central and southern Africa. It is area with very deep Bantu roots(Posnansky 1967). "
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Glad you're finally catching up. A lot has happened among independent minded African research professionals since 1976 & 1988.
Ferrous metallurgy is older in West Africa. [oldest est -2900, Egaro Niger] Still it's older in East Africa [oldest est. -1470, Katuruka Tanzania] than the supposed demic Bantu 'homeland'. [oldest est. -1300, oliga Cameroon] The engineering technologies are different. Inner Africa has independent iron developments (plural).
posted
I was going to do a video on the myths of population genetics and mention the Bantu migration in passing. Lots of info in this thread. Is there anything else I should include?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Tukuler: What about el-Ga'ab?
quote: Originally posted by Tukuler: I relied on Yahya Fadol Tahir a/o Ahmed Hamid Nassr for El-Ga'ab
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites.
No one posted a follow up so I did some research of my own and the comments in that article don't seem to be speaking of a genuine Upper Palaeolithic industry.
Here are some relevant quotes and my conclusions from looking into it:
quote:This represents two main cultural entities: MSA stone tools (represented by small hand axes, Sangoan, Lanceolate point, Levallois point and different form of spear point) and Upper Paleolithic (characterized by tanged Aterian spear point, arrow head and utilized blades).
They are talking about UP-type tools being mixed with predominately MSA industries. And the tools they assign to the UP are either not, or not necessarily UP-type tools.
Elsewhere in the article the authors say that UP industries have been found in Sudan the past:
quote:The Upper Paleolithic sites found on the small mounds clustered on the River banks and water channels, such as Upper Paleolithic sites in the Western Desert and Preceramic sites in the Upper Atbara river (Wendorf 1968, Marks et al. 1987).
Preceramic means postglacial or holocene (so too young to be relevant here). When I follow up on these references, the suspicions I expressed on the previous page are confirmed:
quote:On a broader level, the assemblages from these sites have little in common with those north of the Second Cataract. While blade-technology is present at Terminal Pleistocene sites in the Nile Valley, it is markedly oriented to bladelet-production (Marks 1970; Schild et al. 1968; Vermeersch 1978). True blade-production is unknown.
quote:Ga’ab Abu Namel: Oasis located in the eastern side of the depression, covered by sand dunes in most parts, one of these oases revealed extensive small stone chip tools on a small mound (AN-3-05) (Fig.3). Backed blades with sharp edges and single ends and elongated arrow head, which indicates a large workshop of Upper Paleolithic.
This is not UP in the sense that I used the term. Sites like Ga’ab Abu Namel don't extend the Sudanese timeline in the diagram I posted on the previous page. This diagram shows a relatively late appearance in Sudan of trends long observed in coastal North Africa. This applies to UP industries (which don't even take hold there) and to microlithic industries (which do take hold there, but seemingly later than in coastal North Africa). There is no new discovery here that makes it conceivable that Sudan is a homeland to holocene populations (unless I'm missing something).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Thanks for putting in all the effort. Still going over current and more recent reports. Mostly I've found early-mid Holocene cusp and later. Also uncovering Asyut to Med Sea AHP declining sites, relative to the un-united north as its own 'entity' before there was an 'Egypt'.
You might want to check in the thread where Eastern Desert is discussed. It's about the Holocene and folks from there being THE indigenous Egyptians, iigtr. Every topic can always use informed views.
posted
^It's a good thing I pursued your suggestion of the el Gaab site. That's how I found Marks et al 1987, who helped me sharpen my own understanding of the peopling of Sudan (apparently, most of Sudan was more depopulated than I thought right before ancestors of living Sudanese settled it ). The el Gaab paper you suggested also led me to Elamin 1987. Another paper with some key observations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^It's a good thing I pursued your suggestion of the el Gaab site. That's how I found Marks et al 1987, who helped me sharpen my own understanding of the peopling of Sudan (apparently, most of Sudan was more depopulated than I thought right before ancestors of living Sudanese settled it ). The el Gaab paper you suggested also led me to Elamin 1987. Another paper with some key observations.
quote:Originally posted by 42Tribes: Interesting. Was it the desertification?
Marks et al don’t think desertification is the only reason why areas south of the 2nd cataract were largely depopulated because:
quote:[w]hile the region from south of the Batn el Hajar to well above Khartoum was arid during the Late Pleistocene (Wickens 1975,1982; Williams 1982), this cannot in itself account for the absence of populations along the Nile, since it was equally arid north of the Batn el Hajar where there was continuous occupation until almost the very end of the Pleistocene (Connor and Marks 1985).
Marks et al are saying lower Sudan suffered the same deteriorating conditions, but populations there are very visible in the archaeological record along the Nile in Late Palaeolithic times. But desertification did play some sort of role in their view because they see immediate repopulation in central Sudan (by Mesolithic Nubians) as soon as the climate gets better:
quote:The absence of preceramic Late Paleolithic occupation is particularly strange because of the rather extensive distribution of early ceramic Khartoum Mesolithic-related sites between the Second Cataract and Khartoum (Arkell 1949a; Caneva 1983; Shiner 1968b), the earliest of which well may date to the very beginning of the Holocene (Khabir 1985). At the moment, it seems as if the central Nile Valley, south of the Batn el Hajar, saw no significant Late Pleistocene human occupation and that the Khartoum Mesolithic peoples, with their distinctive ceramics and their undistinguished stone tools, arrived as immigrants from some adjacent region.
See the paper for more context and comments. I recommend reading it in spite of the jargon. Marks et al and this entire subject is filled with details important for ongoing conversations (e.g. the controversial interpretations by new age multiregionalists like clueless Cabrera, Jeffrey Rose, Petraglia et al being one example). It's all connected. I’ll leave it to you guys to get to the bottom of it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is only tangentially related to the main topic insofar as it concerns UP/LSA cultures in North Africa, but has anyone here heard of the Mousterian Pluvial? Because it's another "Green Sahara" climatic phase that took place 50-30 kya. Anyone else see this coinciding with the >55 kya date for OOA that Posth et al 2016 estimate?
Still not having any luck in finding UP/LSA cultures in Sudan during the LGM, by the way. I think Swenet is right that MSA people would have occupied the Sudanese segment of the Nile basin during that period. But then, if UP/LSA cultures never passed through any region of Sudan, how would they have gotten to North Africa in the first place ~50 kya (assuming that the UP/LSA's ultimate origin is somewhere in southern Africa)? Did they have another route from sub-Sahara towards the north that doesn't go through Sudan?
On a final note, those UP/LSA cultures that occupied Upper Egypt during the LGM are looking like good candidates for proto-Afrasan speakers to me right now.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic