Personally, even if this study represent a step up in term of the total number of individual samples taken, I still think those are low numbers for each population (sometimes numbering millions of people). For example 24 Gikuyu individuals are supposed to represent the 6 millions Gikuyu. Imagine if it was some sort of political survey. Would only 24 people really represent accurately the election choice of the 6 millions Gikuyu?
For example, I think there's always a big probability that many of those 24 individuals don't represent accurately the Gikuyu people.
Still, this is very interesting and add to our current knowledge.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This document also provide a nice recap of basic linguistic mainstream knowledge about Africa:
quote:Ehret [65] hypothesizes that; (1) all indigenous African language families originated in northeastern Africa [65]
That's a very important aspect about African languages in Africa. This means that all African people can trace their ancestry to the Sudan northeastern region of Africa. For example, Yoruba ancestor most probably went from the Sudan/East African region, then traveled along the Sahara/Sahel belt and then settled in Nigeria. of course settling some people along the way.
All indigenous African languages families originated in northeastern Africa. That means Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Yoruba, Wolof, Bantu, Zulu, Dogon, etc), Afro-Asiatic and Khoisan languages and people. So all African people can trace some, probably all, of their ancestors from that same region in Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. You frantically searched but couldn't find a shred of data that substantiates the below:
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Many Bantu groups moved from West Africa to East Africa and the Great Lakes region then toward Southern Africa. So many Southern African Bantu groups can trace some of their relatively recent origin to Eastern Africa and the Great Lakes region. Which would explain why Southern Africans and Great Lakes Africans match Ancient Egyptian aDNA more than any other populations on earth.
The data says you're wrong on all counts, as Bantu speakers predominantly have Bantu associated ancestry. Now you're questioning hard scientific data because it doesn't gel with your silly theory that Bantu speakers have high MLI scores due to admixture with Afrasan speaking populations in East Africa:
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For example, I think there's always a big probability that many of those 24 individuals don't represent accurately the Gikuyu people.
The same person who habitually accuses others of ''not liking the DNA results'' is now pathetically questioning legit data for no reason other than the uneasy feeling it instils in him. Yep, there is no shortage of hypocrites on ES.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even though the standard linguistic methods used to infer the age of extant human languages are limited to a depth of 20 kya, Ehret [66] argues that common ancestry of languages can be dated back to 25 – 30 kya , or even earlier in the case of Khoisan [66].
So excluding Khoisan (for that approximate timeframe), all African people speaking one of the major modern language families that is Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo, Yoruba, Wolof, Dogon, Bantu, etc), Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic can trace their origin to a single African population . This parallel the Negro-Egyptian language phylum of Obenga. While the timeframe is approximate. Clearly 25-30 kya is much more recent that the anatomically modern humans (200 kya) as well as more recent that the original OOA migration outside of Africa (100-40 kya). So this is very interesting.
Some linguists also combine the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan language phyllum into a larger phyllum sometime called the Kongo–Saharan language family.
All those scenarios can be combined into one scenario divided by different time-frames (I'll leave that for some other thread) where Khoisan, then Cushitic/Chadic languages were the first to branch off the large pan-African language family in relatively recent time.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. You frantically searched but couldn't find a shred of data that substantiates the below:
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Many Bantu groups moved from West Africa to East Africa and the Great Lakes region then toward Southern Africa. So many Southern African Bantu groups can trace some of their relatively recent origin to Eastern Africa and the Great Lakes region. Which would explain why Southern Africans and Great Lakes Africans match Ancient Egyptian aDNA more than any other populations on earth.
Swenet, you're disputing common knowledge and made a fool out of yourself again. It's strange you talk about that, as I was going to get to it:
Read this:
quote:Based on linguistic studies, “ Bantu -speakers” moved gradually through the Congo forest from their putative origin in the Cameroon-Gabon area [64, 74], expanded to East Africa around 3 kya and subsequently moved farther South within the past 2 ky [75].
So yes, many Bantu living in Southern Africa can trace their origin to Eastern Africa (and the Great Lake region). That's why both Southern Africans and Great Lakes Africans matches Ancient Egyptian aDNA more than any other population on earth (according to DNA Tribes) as explained more thoroughly in the other thread.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than directions of migrations based on linguistic inferences, the excerpt you randomly cite makes no mention of genetic exchanges between Bantu speakers and Afrasan speaking populations. You fail again, just like you failed in the other previous threads where you accused me of ''not liking the DNA results''.
Take a look at the STR based DNA Tribes report you posted a few days ago. How much Horn of Africa geneflow does the South African region have? Take a look at the paper you cite in this thread, how much of the ancestry typically seen in Afrasan speaking groups occurs in South Africans? Stop lying so much, who do you think you're kidding, troll?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Other than directions of migrations based on linguistic inferences, the excerpt you randomly cite makes no mention of genetic exchanges between Bantu speakers and Afrasan speaking populations. You fail again
I think you're the one who failed again.
For one, I never mentioned Afrasan, so that's red herring. For me, Afro-Asiatic speakers (Afrasan) are just one of the many African ethnic groups of many different language families who came to form the great Ancient Egyptian civilizations when the Green Sahara dried up and people were looking for greener pastures, some of them moving along the Nile, others moving to Oases and some to other African regions including West Africa and the Great Lakes. As I explained in some other thread, based on what other researchers have said, the Nile became a zone of cultural, genetic and linguistic compression after the dessication of the Green Sahara. The Ancient Egyptian language becoming the lingua franca between all the nomes after Narmer unified Ancient Egypt.
As you probably have noted, DNA Tribes results of the 18th dynasty and 20th dynasty mummies aDNA mainly matches Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans, Tropical West Africans and Sahelians. Not Afro-asiatic speakers. That is even if some "Afro-Asiatics" speakers were also part of the many ethnic groups who moved along the Nile after the dessication of the Sahara. Those specific royal mummies were closer to the other African ethnic groups who moved along the Nile during the dessication of the Green Sahara. Other mummies, may be closer to Afro-Asiatic speakers just not those specific ones.
The document does mention genetic exchanges between Bantu and pastoralists. Possibly the same pastoralist which were living in the Green Sahara before and moved further south after the dessication of the Sahara as mentioned in the thread you refer to (why not post your grievance there instead?):
quote:Based on linguistic studies, “Bantu-speakers” moved gradually through the Congo forest from their putative origin in the Cameroon-Gabon area [64, 74], expanded to East Africa around 3 kya and subsequently moved farther South within the past 2 ky [75]. Some historians suggest that the current Bantu speakers in East Africa and South Africa absorbed many of the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist populations they encountered during their expansion [74-77] .
Swenet= failed again! You should stop because some people will begin to think you're just one of my alias created to make me look good!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For one, I never mentioned Afrasan, so that's red herring.
Afrasan, Great Lakes, take your pick. Stop lying to yourself, troll, Southern Africans don't have much Horn of African (red) or Great Lakes (ochre yellow), according to your own source; DNA Tribes.
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: As you probably have noted, DNA Tribes results of the 18th dynasty and 20th dynasty mummies aDNA mainly matches Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans, Tropical West Africans and Sahelians.
Again you're too dumb for your own good, and you ignore what DNA Tribes say about what implications their analysis has. More than one year after the fact, you're still lying to yourself and telling yourself that Match Likelihood scores are admixture percentages. Meanwhile, in the real world (where you have yet to return to), DNA markers that actually DO indicate admixture and/or descent, cluster Afrasan speakers in Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia and even Yemen closely:
quote:One cluster is widespread in Ethiopia, where it is associated with different AA-speaking populations, and shows shared ancestry with Semitic-speaking groups from Yemen and Egypt and AA-Chadic-speaking groups from Central Africa. Two clusters included populations from Southern Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. Despite high and recent gene-flow (Bantu, Nilo-Saharan pastoralists), one of them is associated with a more ancient AA-Cushitic stratum.
--Boattini et al 2013
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I don't think this new study was discussed on this site.
. Not so new but thanks for another report I can add to my collection.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic