quote:I have this same agreement too.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I do believe the ancestors of the Bantu, and other Niger-Congo-speaking Africans, would have intermingled with those of ancient Egyptians and Nubians in the Green Sahara. And this probably would have resulted in admixture and cultural exchanges between all these populations.
quote:Interesting map!
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
If you look at this graph Swenet posted in the other thread, there is a Yoruba-like ancestry present in Egypt and the adjacent Fertile Crescent. Some of this might be attributable to the slave trade, but who's to say the Green Sahara couldn't have been a factor as well?
quote:True, but Ferg Somo mostly talks of a Sudanic origin and not Egypt. And I kinda doubt Bantu groups who live in rural villages would know in depth of the "greatness" of Egypt.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
At the same time, I would take some of the oral traditions with a grain of salt since Egypt is a very prestigious civilization and many Bantu people today probably want to claim it as part of "their" heritage. [/QB]
quote:when?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Like Freg Somo I now believe Bantu people most likely migrated from out of the Sudanic region
quote:Interesting. I have read that the usual practice was to castrate the male slaves, so any gene flow the slave trade would have contributed would probably come from the women. But wouldn't most of them have been concubines for rich elites? I would be surprised if these slaves had that much impact on the general Islamic populations.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
[QB]Interesting map!
But according to the slave trades and historic texts, there seems to be no evidence of slaves from West Africa ever being in Egypt. No slaves from the Arab world were ever linked from the Trans-Sahara trade.
"Except for the Zandj (black slaves) from lower Iraq, no large body of blacks historically linked to the trans-Saharan slave trade existed anywhere in the Arab world ... The high costs of slaves, because of the risks inherent in the desert crossing, which would have not permitted such a massive exodus... In this connection, it is significant that in the Arabic iconography of the period, the slave merchant was often depicted as a man with a hole in his purse. Until the Crusades the Muslim world drew its slaves from two main sources: Eastern and Central Europe (Slavs) and Turkestan. The Sudan only came third. "
- web page Africa from the Seventh to Eleventh Century, UNESCO, 1988
If it was due to slavery it most likely came from East Africa and not West Africa as that was where most of the Arab slave trade was taking place, but even so I doubt the lineage you talk of is even due to that.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Interesting. I have read that the usual practice was to castrate the male slaves, so any gene flow the slave trade would have contributed would probably come from the women. But wouldn't most of them have been concubines for rich elites? I would be surprised if these slaves had that much impact on the general Islamic populations.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
[QB]Interesting map!
But according to the slave trades and historic texts, there seems to be no evidence of slaves from West Africa ever being in Egypt. No slaves from the Arab world were ever linked from the Trans-Sahara trade.
"Except for the Zandj (black slaves) from lower Iraq, no large body of blacks historically linked to the trans-Saharan slave trade existed anywhere in the Arab world ... The high costs of slaves, because of the risks inherent in the desert crossing, which would have not permitted such a massive exodus... In this connection, it is significant that in the Arabic iconography of the period, the slave merchant was often depicted as a man with a hole in his purse. Until the Crusades the Muslim world drew its slaves from two main sources: Eastern and Central Europe (Slavs) and Turkestan. The Sudan only came third. "
- web page Africa from the Seventh to Eleventh Century, UNESCO, 1988
If it was due to slavery it most likely came from East Africa and not West Africa as that was where most of the Arab slave trade was taking place, but even so I doubt the lineage you talk of is even due to that.
quote:I personally think multiple waves of migrations.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:when?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Like Freg Somo I now believe Bantu people most likely migrated from out of the Sudanic region
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:when?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Like Freg Somo I now believe Bantu people most likely migrated from out of the Sudanic region
quote:--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
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).
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I also recall that some of the "leaked" AE mtDNA lineages that beyoku has shared were L lineages other than L3 (L3 being the main pre-OOA lineage). IMO dynastic and predynastic Egyptians most likely inherited a sub-Saharan ancestral component that wouldn't have been present in the late Upper Paleolithic residents of the region (the latter being the contributors of "Basal Eurasian" in Neolithic Eurasians), courtesy of the Green Sahara. I don't know if we have enough data to infer the precise proportions of SSA/pre-OOA ancestry in pre/dynastic Egyptians yet; skeletal analysis is at most an indirect clue.
code:Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BCE)
yDna mtDna
A-M13 L3f
A-M13 L0a1
B-M150 L3d
E-M2 L3e5
E-M2 L2a1
E-M123 L5a1
E-M35 R0a
E-M41 L2a1
E-M41 L1b1a
E-M75 M1
E-M78 L4b
J-M267 L3i
R-M173 L2
T-M184 L0a
Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BCE)
A-M13 L3x
E-M75 L2a1
E-M78 L3e5
E-M78 M1a
E-M96 L4a
E-V6 L3
B-M112 L0b
quote:Listen to the actual oral histories as they come from the tribe. Few claim to come from Kings. The Oral histories make sense. The Nile Valley was a huge population hub. People are supposed to trace their history there.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
At the same time, I would take some of the oral traditions with a grain of salt since Egypt is a very prestigious civilization and many Bantu people today probably want to claim it as part of "their" heritage. [/QB]
quote:Where did that uber African leak come from anyway?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I also recall that some of the "leaked" AE mtDNA lineages that beyoku has shared were L lineages other than L3 (L3 being the main pre-OOA lineage). IMO dynastic and predynastic Egyptians most likely inherited a sub-Saharan ancestral component that wouldn't have been present in the late Upper Paleolithic residents of the region (the latter being the contributors of "Basal Eurasian" in Neolithic Eurasians), courtesy of the Green Sahara. I don't know if we have enough data to infer the precise proportions of SSA/pre-OOA ancestry in pre/dynastic Egyptians yet; skeletal analysis is at most an indirect clue.code:Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BCE)
yDna mtDna
A-M13 L3f
A-M13 L0a1
B-M150 L3d
E-M2 L3e5
E-M2 L2a1
E-M123 L5a1
E-M35 R0a
E-M41 L2a1
E-M41 L1b1a
E-M75 M1
E-M78 L4b
J-M267 L3i
R-M173 L2
T-M184 L0a
Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BCE)
A-M13 L3x
E-M75 L2a1
E-M78 L3e5
E-M78 M1a
E-M96 L4a
E-V6 L3
B-M112 L0b
quote:I am saying that even if that map in the first post is true it is not mutually exclusive or Bantu migrating from west central Africa.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^So you're saying some of those groups in southern Africa who claim through oral tradition that they migrated from the Sudanic region could have been a population that has been there much longer than the period if the Bantu migration?
quote:I agree 100%, which is why I think this theory runs into some issues.
Originally posted by beyoku: I am saying that even if that map in the first post is true it is not mutually exclusive or Bantu migrating from west central Africa.
quote:This is true, but this thread is not really addressing that per sa. Maybe I shouldn't have named this thread " Should the Bantu migration be revisited?" as it really isn't about that.
Originally posted by beyoku:
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:Indeed. I always say that the Green Sahara was the incubator for MOST African cultures/civilizations. I hear the ancestors of Niger-Congo speakers who some claim were a different branch of Nilo-Saharans occupied the Green Sahara along with other African groups like proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers and other Nilo-Saharans. Those ancestors of Niger-Congo people went westward and even eastward after the drying of the desert. So we can say that is where the common ancestry comes from.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I dont think and high doubt Bantu people came from the Nile Valley but they probably share common Ancestry in the Green Sahara phase...
quote:I actually made a thread about Tichit Walata on another site.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
We know that the oldest stone settlement in West Africa, Oulata/Walata dates to the B.C era and you can find Similarities in West/North African Saharan Communities and the Nile Valley as well as East Africa(Ethiopia, Somalia etc)...
I discussed some of this on my past thread..
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1074/north-south-relationship-mahgreb-sudan
For instance the Housing Styles among the Berbers and the West Africans in places like Mali are similar to those found in Egypt and Nubia..etc.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogon_people
It was the problem of "twin births" versus "single births," or androgyny versus single-sexed beings, that contributed to a disorder at the beginning of time. This theme became a significant basis of the Dogon religion. "The jackal was alone from birth," said Ogotemmêli, "and because of this he did more things than can be told."[19] Dogon males were primarily associated with the single-sexed male Jackal and the Sigui festival, which was associated with death on the Earth. It was held once every sixty years and celebrated the white dwarf star Sirius B. The colour white was a symbol of males. The ritual language, "Sigi so," or "language of the Sigui," which was taught to male dignitaries of the Society of the Masks, ("awa"), was considered a poor language, and only contained about a quarter of the vocabulary of "Dogo so," the Dogon word language. The "Sigi so" was used to tell the story of creation of the universe, of human life, and the advent of death on the Earth, during funeral ceremonies and the rites of the "end of mourning" ("dama").[20]
It was because of the birth of the single-sexed male Jackal, who was born without a soul, that all humans eventually had to be turned into single-sexed beings. This was to prevent a being like the Jackal from ever being born on Earth again. "The Nummo foresaw that the original rule of twin births was bound to disappear, and that errors might result comparable to those of the jackal, whose birth was single. For it was because of his solitary state that the first son of God acted as he did."[19] The removal of the second sex and soul from humans is what the ritual of circumcision represents in the Dogon religion. "The dual soul is a danger; a man should be male, and a woman female. Circumcision and excision are once again the remedy."[21]
quote:So 4000 years ago there were no bantus in West Africa.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Bantu Expansion Never occured. AEians(Amarnas) are closest based upon STR to to South Africans, Great Lakes followed by West Africans. Levantines, Europeans and even modern Egyptians are very distant.
So Akachi may be correct West Africans came from East Africa VERY recently . Maybe within the last 3000years.
quote:How "Close" are they? What are the MLI scores? Do you understand the significance of the MLI Scores?
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Bantu Expansion Never occured. AEians(Amarnas) are closest based upon STR to to South Africans, Great Lakes followed by West Africans. Levantines, Europeans and even modern Egyptians are very distant.
So Akachi may be correct West Africans came from East Africa VERY recently . Maybe within the last 3000years.
quote:I disagree that there was never an expansion. The evidence show there was an expansion, however it was more so a cultural expansion than a population one. While there was likely was a physical population expansion of proto-Bantu from the Benue-Congo region, it's becoming clear that this genetic expansion was greatly exaggerated than it really was. The same can be said for example about Indo-European expansions in Europe.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Bantu Expansion Never occured. AEians(Amarnas) are closest based upon STR to to South Africans, Great Lakes followed by West Africans. Levantines, Europeans and even modern Egyptians are very distant.
So Akachi may be correct West Africans came from East Africa VERY recently . Maybe within the last 3000years.
quote:A few months back on DeviantArt I got trolled by a guy claiming to be a Berber/Somali mix. He told me he had a "justified anger" against "Niger-Congo/Bantu" people because he believed they were guilty of some sort of colossal genocide against other Africans, including "eastern Cushites" like the Somalis. I ended up blocking this nutter, but would be interested in learning the truth in case I bump into him or someone in his social circle elsewhere on the Internet.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:I disagree that there was never an expansion. The evidence show there was an expansion, however it was more so a cultural expansion than a population one. While there was likely was a physical population expansion of proto-Bantu from the Benue-Congo region, it's becoming clear that this genetic expansion was greatly exaggerated than it really was. The same can be said for example about Indo-European expansions in Europe.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Bantu Expansion Never occured. AEians(Amarnas) are closest based upon STR to to South Africans, Great Lakes followed by West Africans. Levantines, Europeans and even modern Egyptians are very distant.
So Akachi may be correct West Africans came from East Africa VERY recently . Maybe within the last 3000years.
This issue was actually discussed in multiple threads before like these.
quote:Okay this post caught my interest. Can you elaborte on much much "exaggerated."
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:I disagree that there was never an expansion. The evidence show there was an expansion, however it was more so a cultural expansion than a population one. While there was likely was a physical population expansion of proto-Bantu from the Benue-Congo region, it's becoming clear that this genetic expansion was greatly exaggerated than it really was. The same can be said for example about Indo-European expansions in Europe.
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Bantu Expansion Never occured. AEians(Amarnas) are closest based upon STR to to South Africans, Great Lakes followed by West Africans. Levantines, Europeans and even modern Egyptians are very distant.
So Akachi may be correct West Africans came from East Africa VERY recently . Maybe within the last 3000years.
This issue was actually discussed in multiple threads before like these.
quote:Aye.. Nodnard I actually know about people from that circle who are on that Afro-Asiatic supremacy. That theory is just a theory to demonize Bantus. Same as those who say Bantus were committing genocide against the Khoisan when there is no proof at that. I agree that the Pgymy sadly are subjected to Bantus in Central Africa today but we do not see that with Khoisan people today. They are just left alone in isolation. You had a iron age people vs a hunter gatherer people and so of course the iron age people would indirectly displace the hunter gatherers.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
A few months back on DeviantArt I got trolled by a guy claiming to be a Berber/Somali mix. He told me he had a "justified anger" against "Niger-Congo/Bantu" people because he believed they were guilty of some sort of colossal genocide against other Africans, including "eastern Cushites" like the Somalis. I ended up blocking this nutter, but would be interested in learning the truth in case I bump into him or someone in his social circle elsewhere on the Internet. [/QB]
quote:The guy you speak of is obviously a nutcase as there is NO evidence whatsoever of the Bantu expansion ever involving any genocide of indigenous or prior populations. Even the indigenous populations of the region have no traditions of any genocide perpetrated against them and some don't even have memories of any Bantus expanding in their area which backs up the notion that the Bantu expansion is much exaggerated.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
A few months back on DeviantArt I got trolled by a guy claiming to be a Berber/Somali mix. He told me he had a "justified anger" against "Niger-Congo/Bantu" people because he believed they were guilty of some sort of colossal genocide against other Africans, including "eastern Cushites" like the Somalis. I ended up blocking this nutter, but would be interested in learning the truth in case I bump into him or someone in his social circle elsewhere on the Internet.
quote:I'm saying there was an actual population expansion however, the farther from the epicenter one gets, the less the actual numbers of people. This is why genetic ties to the Benue Congo region fade the further south and east you go. I believe that the Bantu speakers were more successful in spreading their language and culture than they were spreading themselves. Think of for example the spread of Latin language and Roman culture throughout Europe leading to the Romance languages. Although the proto-Bantu peoples never created an empire that expanded through conquest the idea is the same in terms of disseminating language and culture. Even today in Europe the vast majority of Romance speakers have little Roman ancestry. The same can be said of the Prakriti or Sanskrit derived languages of the Indian subcontinent.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Okay this post caught my interest. Can you elaborte on much much "exaggerated."
Anyways are you saying:
A) Bantus in Southern and Southeast Africa while clustering with Bantu's from Central-West Africa are a different set of Bantus and don't have origins in West-Central Africa?
B) Or do you mean by saying "cultural expansion" that Bantus really did not settle South and Southeast Africa in large numbers and that indigenous populations in that area only received slight Bantu admixture?
Forgive me if I am not wording things right.
quote:I recommend if he starts a new thread it should be in the Ancient Egypt Forum where my assistant Mike111 is.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Out of respect I will do that. But take a look around, are you truly trying to salvage threads off Egyptsearch?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^^
Sigh....
Beyoku IGNORE that goofy. He is known to spam all his nonsense on many site while getting banned. I don't want him to further poison this thread.
Akachi if you have words start a new thread. My opinions and hypothesis are not really under question, yours are.
quote:http://softkenya.com/tribe/luhya-tribe/
The true origin of the Abaluhya is disputable. According to their own oral literature, Luhyas migrated to their present day location from Egypt in the North. Some historians however believe that the Luhya came from Central and West Africa alongside other Bantus in what is known as the Great Bantu Migration.
quote:Fergus Sharman(Ferg Somo)
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But more importantly I found this BOOK!
Linguistic Ties between Ancient Egyptian and Bantu
http://www.bookpump.com/upb/pdf-b/2332900b.pdf
However sadly it is not the full book but I do plan on one day buying the book. Anyways some linguistics actually agree that Ancient Egypt actually has some Bantu words. Could this be from the ancestors of "Bantus" during the Green Sahara?
Does anyone have additional information on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
And yes, at one point I believed Ferg Somo's works had potential. But after quickly putting it under scrutiny, and it couldn't measure up, I had to quickly abandon his methodology because he couldn't distinguish between look-a-likes, chance coincidence, and genuine cognates. And I see you are making the same mistakes because you think actually learning proper research methodology is "flowery." Only flowery to the ignorant.
quote:Yes, these specific groups do but that doesn't mean every Bantu speaking group has significant West African admixture, hence while certain populations show descent not every Bantu speaking population does. Pygmies speak Bantu languages yet they are genetically more distant.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^But... South and Southeast African groups like the Zulus, Xhosa, Shona, Swahili, Kikuyu, etc have significant West African like admixture and haplogroups. So I don't know about the argument of Bantu's "hardly reaching those areas." Now I do agree that the population "displacement" is a myth. I think you really mean that.
quote:Pygmies are NOT a good example(no offense to you) as everyone KNOWS that they are a indigenous group to Central Africa who were absorbed by Bantus. And thus they speak a Bantu language.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Yes, these specific groups do but that doesn't mean every Bantu speaking group has significant West African admixture, hence while certain populations show descent not every Bantu speaking population does. Pygmies speak Bantu languages yet they are genetically more distant.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^But... South and Southeast African groups like the Zulus, Xhosa, Shona, Swahili, Kikuyu, etc have significant West African like admixture and haplogroups. So I don't know about the argument of Bantu's "hardly reaching those areas." Now I do agree that the population "displacement" is a myth. I think you really mean that.
quote:Where did you hear that the Amarna family would have come from outside of Egypt?
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.
quote:I read that some Egyptologist believe that at least Queen Tiye(Tut's grandmother) may have been of Nubian heritage herself.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Where did you hear that the Amarna family would have come from outside of Egypt?
quote: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.
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.
quote:I agree that more STR markers would be better. But I read that 8 STR markers is not considered "low" but just the minimum.
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.
quote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144066/
"A minimum of eight core STR loci is needed to uniquely identify a human cell line."
quote: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.
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.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:http://www.academia.edu/15754234/Was_there_a_now-vanished_branch_of_Nilo-Saharan_on_the_Dogon_Plateau_Evidence_from_substrate_vocabulary_in_Bangime_and_Dogon
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.
quote:--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
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).
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:ANTHROPOLOGY, RACE AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE LEGACY OF WILHELM BLEEK
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.
quote:I actually agree with this and have always had this theory.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Repost
quote:--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
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).
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
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:ANTHROPOLOGY, RACE AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE LEGACY OF WILHELM BLEEK
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.
http://scnc.ukzn.ac.za/doc/SOC-cult/Race-Racism/Bank-A_Anthropology_race_evolution_Wilhelm_Bleek.pdf
quote: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
LOL at folks arguing Bantu is a European word while at the same time tying "Bantu" to Ntu Ntr.
quote:Yeah heard of Ntu Ntr before. Are there discrepancies?
Originally posted by beyoku:
LOL at folks arguing Bantu is a European word while at the same time tying "Bantu" to Ntu Ntr.
quote:It's a logical pattern.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:I actually agree with this and have always had this theory.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Repost
quote:--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
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).
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
quote: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.
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Do you care more about racists than you do studying the continent?
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Doug M's Conscious : Maybe if I talk about white racism.....that will get them on my side.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Lets ignore the bullshit and get straight to the raw science.
quote:Source
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.
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.
![[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: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: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.
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.
![[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.quote: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...
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.
Well **** Their thoughts. Learn for yourself. [/qb]
quote: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Do you care more about racists than you do studying the continent?
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
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:Source
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Well **** Their thoughts. Learn for yourself.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
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.
quote:http://www.riotinto.com/documents/P_An14C_CH_Context_EN.pdf
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.
quote:http://www.kongoking.org/archaeology.html
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.
quote:http://www.voanews.com/a/archeological-findings-reveal-central-african-history-125075209/161668.html
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: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.
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
https://youtu.be/Mmr0AE1Qyws?t=3m47s
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:"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)."
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
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:Source
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.
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.
quote:Doug is correct, as can be seen in my previous post and link.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:AYE Doug M...
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Man what is it with you folks and reading comprehension?
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:Source
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.
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.
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.
quote:http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpA.html
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:http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpB.html
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: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semliki_harpoon
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.
quote:http://originalpeople.org/katanda-harpoons-a-k-a-semliki-harpoons-90000-yr-central-african-hunting-tools/
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.
quote: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".
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.
quote:--Christopher M. Stojanowski
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. .
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:I see this post went unaddressed. Again thoughts?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I want to hear yall thoughts on this.
Me being the Google scholar that I am came across this... Which was a good read.
http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/migration-and-the-yor-b-myth-of-origin
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.
quote:That is not what I said.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Europeans are not responsible for African archaeology
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.
quote:We?
Originally posted by the lioness,: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! [/QB]
quote:yes, we Black folk must handle own bizness,
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:We? [/QB]
Originally posted by the lioness,: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!
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
yes, we Black folk must handle own bizness,
quote:You are still doing it. Why do you care so much about white scholars?
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: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.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:You are still doing it. Why do you care so much about white scholars?
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:So how does Doug know this?
Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
quote:The oldest population in Kenya and Tanzania is the Southern Nilotic speaking NDOROBO PEOPLE..All Tribes here can attest to this.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So how does Doug know this?
Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
It sounds like he's making it up just based on what he perceives to be political correctness.
Where's the evidence?
If prior to the Bantus there was some other group, not Pygmies or Khoisan, where is the evidence?
" they must be there but the white scientists are too racist to look for them"
So get the African scientists too look
quote:stick to West Africa
Originally posted by ELIMU:
quote:The oldest population in Kenya and Tanzania is the Southern Nilotic speaking NDOROBO PEOPLE..All Tribes here can attest to this.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So how does Doug know this?
Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
It sounds like he's making it up just based on what he perceives to be political correctness.
Where's the evidence?
If prior to the Bantus there was some other group, not Pygmies or Khoisan, where is the evidence?
" they must be there but the white scientists are too racist to look for them"
So get the African scientists too look
quote:http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150727/srep12526/full/srep12526.html
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup L2 originated in Western Africa but is nowadays spread across the entire continent.
MtDNA haplogroup L2 is the sister branch of the Eastern African L3′4′6 clade that contains all the OOA diversity within haplogroup L3. While L3′4′6 originated in Eastern Africa22, haplogroup L2 probably originated in Western Africa but is nowadays widespread across the continent; it is highly frequent in many regions, such as in Western/Central and Southeast Africa (probably associated with the Bantu expansion that occurred in the last few millennia) and in Northwest, most likely due to trans-Saharan slave trade18, 25.
Together with haplogroup L3, it represents ~70% of sub-Saharan mtDNA variation but despite its high frequency and wide distribution, L2 was not involved in the OOA 26, since most likely it was not yet arrived in Eastern Africa by that time.
The demographic history of L2 is not yet completely understood, especially concerning the age of the expansion into Eastern Africa, a region that might have acted as a refuge during some severe episodes of climate oscillations over the last hundred thousand years27. One possibility is that the expansion of L2 to the East, most likely as with the expansion to the South, was related with movements of Bantu-speaking populations. However, in the regions of highest frequency of L2 in Eastern Africa (over 30%, in the area of Sudan and Ethiopia)13 there are no records of Bantu groups. Furthermore, recent evidence from HVS-I13 suggests that this haplogroup might have first expanded to Eastern Africa much earlier, possibly due to the improvement of climate conditions during the early Holocene. This signal was also observed with Bayesian analysis of L2 (and L2a) complete sequences28. Moreover, particular clades of L2a and L2c suggest an expansion, possibly along the Sahel corridor, after the LGM18. Migrations at this time frame are also observed in branches of other African haplogroups, such as L0a, L1b and L3f2, 12, 18, 29.
quote:--Eliška Podgorná et al.
The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
quote:MtDNA diversity of Ghana: a forensic and phylogeographic view
West Africa is characterized by a migration history spanning more than 150,000 years.
Climate changes but also political circumstances were responsible for several early but also recent population movements that shaped the West African mitochondrial landscape. The aim of the study was to establish a Ghanaian mtDNA dataset for forensic purposes and to investigate the diversity of the Ghanaian population sample with respect to surrounding populations. We sequenced full mitochondrial control regions of 193 Akan people from Ghana and excluded two apparently close maternally related individuals due to preceding kinship testing. The remaining dataset comprising 191 sequences was applied as etalon for quasi-median network analysis and was subsequently combined with 99 additional control region sequences from surrounding West African countries. All sequences were incorporated into the EMPOP database enriching the severely underrepresented African mtDNA pool. For phylogeographic considerations, the Ghanaian haplotypes were compared to those of 19 neighboring populations comprising a total number of 6198 HVS1 haplotypes. We found extensive genetic admixture between the Ghanaian lineages and those from adjacent populations diminishing with geographical distance. The extent of genetic admixture reflects the long but also recent history of migration waves within West Africa mainly caused by changing environmental conditions. Also, evidence for potential socio-economical influences such as trade routes is provided by the occurrence of U6b and U6d sequences found in Dubai but also in Tunisia leading to the African West Coast via Mauritania and Senegal but also via Niger, Nigeria to Cameroon.
quote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-17/new-human-sparks-racism-row-in-south-africa/6783844?pfmredir=sm
Some prominent South Africans have dismissed the discovery of new human ancestor Homo naledi as a racist theory designed to cast Africans as "subhuman".
"No-one will dig old monkey bones to back up a theory that I was once a baboon. Sorry," said Zwelinzima Vavi, former general-secretary of the powerful trade union group Cosatu, which is a faithful ally of the ruling African National Congress (ANC).
Mr Vavi's comments came after last week's discovery of Homo naledi, described by scientists as a new distant ancestor of humans.
quote:how did you get this quote?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Did you read it Lioness? The Bantu Expansion never occurred!!!!!
Quote:
Populations sharing the highest portions of haplotypes with our Ghanaian samples were the additional Ghana population (24.8%), the populations from Niger (20.8%) and from Mali (20.4%). In contrast we found no shared haplotypes between Ghana and the Central African Republic. Not all Bantus are Bantus
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:MtDNA diversity of Ghana: a forensic and phylogeographic view
West Africa is characterized by a migration history spanning more than 150,000 years.
Climate changes but also political circumstances were responsible for several early but also recent population movements that shaped the West African mitochondrial landscape. The aim of the study was to establish a Ghanaian mtDNA dataset for forensic purposes and to investigate the diversity of the Ghanaian population sample with respect to surrounding populations. We sequenced full mitochondrial control regions of 193 Akan people from Ghana and excluded two apparently close maternally related individuals due to preceding kinship testing. The remaining dataset comprising 191 sequences was applied as etalon for quasi-median network analysis and was subsequently combined with 99 additional control region sequences from surrounding West African countries. All sequences were incorporated into the EMPOP database enriching the severely underrepresented African mtDNA pool. For phylogeographic considerations, the Ghanaian haplotypes were compared to those of 19 neighboring populations comprising a total number of 6198 HVS1 haplotypes. We found extensive genetic admixture between the Ghanaian lineages and those from adjacent populations diminishing with geographical distance. The extent of genetic admixture reflects the long but also recent history of migration waves within West Africa mainly caused by changing environmental conditions. Also, evidence for potential socio-economical influences such as trade routes is provided by the occurrence of U6b and U6d sequences found in Dubai but also in Tunisia leading to the African West Coast via Mauritania and Senegal but also via Niger, Nigeria to Cameroon.
Liane Fendt, Alexander Röck, Bettina Zimmermann, Martin Bodner, Thorsten Thye, Frank Tschentscher1, Ellis Owusu-Dabo, Tanja M.K. Göbel, Peter M. Schneider, Walther ParsoncorrespondencePress enter key for correspondence informationemailPress enter key to Email the author
Landeskriminalamt Düsseldorf, Germany.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.05.011
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:how did you get this quote?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Did you read it Lioness? The Bantu Expansion never occurred!!!!!
Quote:
Populations sharing the highest portions of haplotypes with our Ghanaian samples were the additional Ghana population (24.8%), the populations from Niger (20.8%) and from Mali (20.4%). In contrast we found no shared haplotypes between Ghana and the Central African Republic. Not all Bantus are Bantus
Bantu is a language classification
quote:I don't see the quote in the article. Where is the quote from?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Where did I get the quote ? ???????
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
MtDNA diversity of Ghana: a forensic and phylogeographic view
Liane Fendt, Alexander Röck, Bettina Zimmermann, Martin Bodner, Thorsten Thye, Frank Tschentscher1, Ellis Owusu-Dabo, Tanja M.K. Göbel, Peter M. Schneider, Walther ParsoncorrespondencePress enter key for correspondence informationemailPress enter key to Email the author
Landeskriminalamt Düsseldorf, Germany.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.05.011
quote:--Chiara Batini† et al.
Frequencies of haplogroups A (yellow), B2a (light blue), and B2b (dark blue) in Africa. For details on specific populations included in these groups, please refer to the column “Group code” in supplementary table S8 (Supplementary Material online). NFPR, northern food producers; WFPR, western food producers; WPYG, western Pygmies; CFPR, central food producers; EPYG, eastern Pygmies; EKHO, eastern Khoisan speakers; EFPR, eastern food producers; SKHO, southern Khoisan speakers; SFPR, southern food producers.
However, although mtDNA variation has been thoroughly investigated by detailed dissection of the most informative lineages (Salas et al. 2002; Gonder et al. 2007; Behar et al. 2008), and, more recently, autosomal variation has begun to be explored in detail (Tishkoff et al. 2009), such a level of resolution has been only partially applied to Y chromosome African haplogroups. Sub-Saharan African Y chromosome diversity is represented by five main haplogroups (hgs): A, B, E, J, and R (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2002; Tishkoff et al. 2007). Hgs J and R are geographically restricted to eastern and central Africa, respectively, whereas hg E shows a wider continental distribution (see also Berniell-Lee et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2010). Despite the phylogeographic dissection of hg E is still ongoing, it has been suggested that this clade might be linked, at least in part, with the diffusion of agriculture and pastoralism in the continent during the last 4,000–5,000 years, as initially indicated by its parallel distribution to Bantu-speaking communities (Underhill et al. 2001; Henn et al. 2008). The other two lineages, A and B, represent the most basal branches within the human Y chromosome genealogy and are dispersed across different geographic areas and populations, with considerably high frequencies in hunter-gatherer populations.
West Africa
Haplogroup A in western Africa is represented only by the A1a lineage. The variation within this clade dates back to 10.5 (4.2–23.7) Kya and to 8 (3.1–19.4) Kya when only western African haplotypes are considered (see table 1b), which is in agreement with the archaeological and linguistic evidence related to the peopling of this region. The Ounanian culture has in fact been recorded in Mali as far back as 9–10 Kya (Clark 1980; Raimbault 1990; Mac Donald 1998), and the lithic and ceramic assemblages from Ounjougou date back to 12 Kya (Huysecom et al. 2004; Huysecom et al. 2009). Similarly, the origin of the early Niger-Congo Atlantic branch has been placed at least 8 Kya (Ehret 2000; Blench 2006). The detection of a specific genetic signal associated with early human presence in this area is of interest given the homogeneity between western and central African populations that has been observed so far for genome-wide analysis (Cruciani et al. 2002; Wood et al. 2005; Tishkoff et al. 2007; Li et al. 2008; Tishkoff et al. 2009).
[...]
B2a as a Marker of the Bantu Expansion?
Although B2a has not been investigated with the same resolution as the A and B2b hgs, our data support its association with Bantu-speaking populations, as previously reported (see supplementary table S1, Supplementary Material online; Beleza et al. 2005; Berniell-Lee et al. 2009). Within-clade variation suggests a more recent origin for B2a than B2b, whereas network analysis did not reveal population-specific or geographically localized STR-based clusters (supplementary fig. S1, Supplementary Material online). However, the relatively deep within-clade dating (6.1 [2.2–14] Kya) suggests a scenario possibly pre-dating the diffusion of Bantu languages, in line with what has been observed for some subclades of hg E (Montano V, Destro-Bisol G, Comas D, personal communication). Deeper phylogenetic resolution within the B2a clade, coupled with additional population sampling, may help to clarify the demographic dynamics associated with its dispersal.
quote:--Marina Silva, Farida Alshamali, Paula Silva, Carla Carrilho, Flávio Mandlate, Maria Jesus Trovoada, Viktor Černý, Luísa Pereira & Pedro Soares
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup L2 originated in Western Africa but is nowadays spread across the entire continent. L2 movements were previously postulated to be related to the Bantu expansion, but L2 expansions eastwards probably occurred much earlier. By reconstructing the phylogeny of L2 (44 new complete sequences) we provide insights on the complex net of within-African migrations in the last 60 thousand years (ka). Results show that lineages in Southern Africa cluster with Western/Central African lineages at a recent time scale, whereas, eastern lineages seem to be substantially more ancient. Three moments of expansion from a Central African source are associated to L2: (1) one migration at 70–50 ka into Eastern or Southern Africa, (2) postglacial movements (15–10 ka) into Eastern Africa; and (3) the southward Bantu Expansion in the last 5 ka. The complementary population and L0a phylogeography analyses indicate no strong evidence of mtDNA gene flow between eastern and southern populations during the later movement, suggesting low admixture between Eastern African populations and the Bantu migrants. This implies that, at least in the early stages, the Bantu expansion was mainly a demic diffusion with little incorporation of local populations.
Introduction
Africa has been considered the cradle of mankind for a long time. Both genetic data (uniparental genetic markers and genome-wide diversity) and fossil evidence suggest that anatomically modern humans originated in this continent1, spreading later all over the globe. However, there is still a vigorous debate not only on the specific region within Africa where modern humans appeared, but also regarding the initial migrations within this continent2. Despite being geographically restricted to Africa before the Out-of-Africa (OOA) migration, ancestral populations most likely already displayed a strong genetic structure for at least 100 thousand years (ka)2,3,4, highly influenced by episodes of climate oscillation5.
The climate dynamics continued to contribute to African population structure after the OAA, notoriously the African Late Glacial Maximum (LGM; at ~18–16 ka6, later on than the northern hemisphere one at ~22–19 ka7), which contributed to aridity, resulting in the expansion of the Sahara desert several kilometres southwards6. The Pleistocene/Holocene transition (~11.5 ka) was characterized by changes in atmospheric circulation and solar radiation6, improving environmental conditions and leading to major human expansions in southwest Asia8, Europe9, and also in Africa (Saharan areas were recolonized10,11, allowing frequent flow across West/Central and North/South2,12,13,14). The humid conditions peaked at the Holocene climatic optimum (~9–6 ka), when Sahara desert virtually disappeared and the Chad lake was seven times larger than today14. A shift to aridity occurred later in the Sahara, at ~6 ka15.
More recently, the African genetic and cultural landscape was deeply affected by an event known as the Bantu expansion. The expansion of Bantu-speakers is thought to have started in the Grassfields region between southeast Nigeria and western Cameroon and taken two main routes from its starting point: a western route, throughout the west coast of Africa, having arrived to Angola, South Africa and Botswana around 3.5 ka, and an eastern route, towards the Great Lakes in Eastern Africa, reaching the region of Uganda about 2.5 ka, where they remained for a couple thousand years, expanding later into the south, reaching Mozambique by ~1.8 ka16,17,18. The Eastern route is of particular interest to study potential crossings between migrants and local eastern populations (namely Nilotic and Cushitic people), during the period in which the Bantu people were stationed in the Great Lakes region. Linguistic differences between eastern and western Bantu languages seem to mirror the two routes of expansion, but, recent evidence suggests a later split of Eastern and Western Bantu19. Either way, the Bantu expansion probably forced the retreat of contemporary local sub-Saharan populations: the San were further confined to the South towards the Kalahari desert and kept their typical Khoisan languages (with click consonants) and ethnic identity, and the Pygmies, on the other hand, were pushed deeper into the forests and eventually some adopted Bantu languages20.
Recent methodological and technical advances led to the emergence of genome-wide (GW) studies, whose main advantage for demographic inference is allowing us to identify and quantify admixture between populations of distinct ancestries21. However, current GW dating methods are still limited in dissecting between several migration waves, usually leading to the identification of a single event of average/young age (discussed in22). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), on the other hand, is only maternally inherited, but due to its fast mutation rate, accumulates variation fast enough amongst different locations, to make it a suitable molecular marker for the phylogeographic approach. Since reliable mtDNA mutation rates have been calculated, it is possible to frame the various demographic events within distinct time periods23. A lineage-based approach can thus provide insights into the demography of populations and reveal patterns that would otherwise be dismissed, and has proved particularly useful to resolve the old debate regarding the Bantu expansion: the identification of specific lineages suggested that the expansion of Bantu languages was due to the migration of Bantu-speakers, rather than just a cultural diffusion19, as previously thought.
Previous studies based on hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) diversity have shown that haplogroup L2 played a major role in the Bantu migration17,18,24. MtDNA haplogroup L2 is the sister branch of the Eastern African L3′4′6 clade that contains all the OOA diversity within haplogroup L3. While L3′4′6 originated in Eastern Africa22, haplogroup L2 probably originated in Western Africa but is nowadays widespread across the continent; it is highly frequent in many regions, such as in Western/Central and Southeast Africa (probably associated with the Bantu expansion that occurred in the last few millennia) and in Northwest, most likely due to trans-Saharan slave trade18,25. Together with haplogroup L3, it represents ~70% of sub-Saharan mtDNA variation but despite its high frequency and wide distribution, L2 was not involved in the OOA26, since most likely it was not yet arrived in Eastern Africa by that time.
The demographic history of L2 is not yet completely understood, especially concerning the age of the expansion into Eastern Africa, a region that might have acted as a refuge during some severe episodes of climate oscillations over the last hundred thousand years27. One possibility is that the expansion of L2 to the East, most likely as with the expansion to the South, was related with movements of Bantu-speaking populations. However, in the regions of highest frequency of L2 in Eastern Africa (over 30%, in the area of Sudan and Ethiopia)13 there are no records of Bantu groups. Furthermore, recent evidence from HVS-I13 suggests that this haplogroup might have first expanded to Eastern Africa much earlier, possibly due to the improvement of climate conditions during the early Holocene. This signal was also observed with Bayesian analysis of L2 (and L2a) complete sequences28. Moreover, particular clades of L2a and L2c suggest an expansion, possibly along the Sahel corridor, after the LGM18. Migrations at this time frame are also observed in branches of other African haplogroups, such as L0a, L1b and L3f2,12,18,29.
Despite being spread across different regions, most of the haplogroup L2 sequences available in online databases are either from Western or Southern Africans or from African-Americans. We aim to better understand the phylogeographic patterns of L2 by improving its phylogeny based on complete sequence information especially for Eastern Africa, a region poorly characterized for L2 clades. This increased resolution will enable us to ascertain about the intensity of the gene flow from Eastern populations to the Bantu migrants towards south. The L2 complete sequence analysis was complemented by a similar analysis for haplogroup L0a (also present in Central and Eastern Africa by the time of the Bantu expansion2) and a HVS-I population-based approach.
[...]
quote:When did bantus come from the East to the West?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] I said many times before, Europeans are liars and are confused. There wasn’t a “Bantu Expansion” from the West Coast of Africa. “Bantus’” came from the East very recently.
quote:They say the bantu migration started at about 1000 B.C, and ended at about 1700 A.D.
Originally posted by xyyman:
I said many times before, Europeans are liars and are confused. There wasn’t a “Bantu Expansion” from the West Coast of Africa. “Bantus’” came from the East very recently.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
“Bantus’” came from the East very recently.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Really? This is all you have after your introduction rant about having "contacted researchers" and "lying Europeans"? I'm thinking I'm going to be blown away by these excerpts. Pure bait.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Really? This is all you have after your introduction rant about having "contacted researchers" and "lying Europeans"? I'm thinking I'm going to be blown away by these excerpts. Pure bait.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
“Bantus’” came from the East very recently.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] Really? This is all you have after your introduction rant about having "contacted researchers" and "lying Europeans"? I'm thinking I'm going to be blown away by these excerpts. Pure bait.quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
“Bantus’” came from the East very recently.
xyyman says there was a migration of bantus from East Africa to West Africa (and elsewhere) and it happened recently that what Europeans call the "bantu migration"
I asked him when did this happen but he went into hiding
quote:You're not even trying
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Europeans are calling the recent supposed migration less than 3000ya from West Africa to East Africa the ‘Bantu Expansion’. There is no genetic proof of that.
quote:So you are saying about 2,000 years ago there were no bantus in West Africa. Sometime after that bantus, who were East Africans, migrated to West Africa.
Originally posted by xyyman:
I am saying the genetic data shows that there was a migration from East(central) Africa to West Africa closer to less than 3000ya. Maybe closer to the end of the AEian period
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're not even trying
Originally posted by xyyman:
The Europeans are calling the recent supposed migration less than 3000ya from West Africa to East Africa the ‘Bantu Expansion’. There is no genetic proof of that.
At least put an effort in in your revision attempts.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So you are saying about 2,000 years ago there were no bantus in West Africa. Sometime after that bantus, who were East Africans, migrated to West Africa.
Originally posted by xyyman:
I am saying the genetic data shows that there was a migration from East(central) Africa to West Africa closer to less than 3000ya. Maybe closer to the end of the AEian period
Is this correct?
I need a yes or no so we can move on, thanks
quote:what is the current distribution and coalescence time for V88 ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
I wouldn't be surprised when the DNA results start coming out that ancient "Western" Africans will carry R1b(V88 etc), A and older lineage.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:what is the current distribution and coalescence time for V88 ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
I wouldn't be surprised when the DNA results start coming out that ancient "Western" Africans will carry R1b(V88 etc), A and older lineage.
quote:It's surprising you don't know where the high frequencies of V88 are,
Originally posted by xyyman:
R-V88 is found at high frequency at the EXIT points in Africa. Maurantania/Morroco, Tunisia, Siwa and the Bedoiuns of the Negev Isreal. Sources cited on ESR and on here. It is also found in the Black Persian populations of Iran. Sources cited on here and ESR. Hammer et al.
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I want to hear yall thoughts on this.
Me being the Google scholar that I am came across this... Which was a good read.
http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/migration-and-the-yor-b-myth-of-origin
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.
quote:lol hi xyyman
Originally posted by xyyman:
Also Keep in mind Basal Eurasian is found THROUGHOUT Africa. Even the older Pygmies carry a significant proportion of “European” ancestry!!! That is why focusing on Tanzanian_LUxMandra carrying 55% European ancestry is dishonest by liberal white people like Capra and others. Deflection!!?? The big issue is the high percentage of “European” ancestry in MButi and Malawi_hora-8100BP.!!! Remember the same MButi carry DERIVED SLC45A2. Ha! Ha! HA!
quote:I was curious about what percent of African tribes trace their origins to the Nile Valley. From what I remember it was like 30% of the top (population wise) tribes in each of the modern nations of west Africa which is consistent with the rest of Africa.
Originally posted by capra:
OK, so I hear a lot about Bantu oral traditions of originating in Egypt or wherever, but I never see proper references for them (I mean with documentation of actual sources and content of the traditions). Can anyone point me to some? [/QB]
quote:"all the negro tribes of Africa assert that their ancestors came from the east" (M. Delafosse: Les Noirs de L'Afrique, p. 6, Paris.)
Originally posted by capra:
Sorry, I was still writing the post when you said that.
Anyway, Skoglund et al gives direct ancient DNA evidence of Bantu expansion into South and East Africa. No ancient DNA from the possible source regions though.
OK, so I hear a lot about Bantu oral traditions of originating in Egypt or wherever, but I never see proper references for them (I mean with documentation of actual sources and content of the traditions). Can anyone point me to some?
quote:YES! That's it! Thanks.
Originally posted by capra:
Thanks ED. I'll have a look for the books Ferg Somo cites.
http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Churchward/1913_churchward_the_signs_and_symbols_of_primordial_man.pdf
this one? looks fascinating but, uh, difficult to assess.
quote:Now this is what I like. I heard about the Bamileke people claiming to come from the Nile valley. And yea Semi-Bantu does sound like an interesting theory.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:I was curious about what percent of African tribes trace their origins to the Nile Valley. From what I remember it was like 30% of the top (population wise) tribes in each of the modern nations of west Africa which is consistent with the rest of Africa.
Originally posted by capra:
OK, so I hear a lot about Bantu oral traditions of originating in Egypt or wherever, but I never see proper references for them (I mean with documentation of actual sources and content of the traditions). Can anyone point me to some?
The evidence is meh to aight. Its more plausible than the Bantu migration especially when you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Bantu
An example of said evidence.
http://www.stopblablacam.com/culture-and-society/0806-730-it-is-said-that-the-bamilekes-are-descended-from-ancient-egypt
It cites Moustapha Gadalla's exiled Egyptians and Dieudonné Toukam's History and Anthropology of the Bamileke People [/QB]
quote:NO raceandhistory links in this thread please.
Originally posted by the questioner:
yoruba: the egyptian connection
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=2139
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
come on Capra ...where???!!! in the paper?
"Anyway, Skoglund et al gives ***direct*** ancient DNA evidence of Bantu expansion into South and ***East Africa***. No ancient DNA from the possible source regions though."
stop bsing! Man you white Liberals! Just bad as the nutty Afro-Centrics
quote:The point of the link is to provide oral traditional evidence. The African tribe such as the Yoruba claim to come from the east.
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:NO raceandhistory links in this thread please.
Originally posted by the questioner:
yoruba: the egyptian connection
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=2139
quote:IRRELEVANT! hahah!
Xyyman said:What can't you understand about that simple chart? The ancient west African(preNeolithic) has dissipated they no longer exist. That is reflected in the differential structure between Mende and YRI. This is not rocket science guys. Substructure exist through out Africa. It is "color coded' lol! for those who find it difficult to read and understand.
...
quote:This is the kind of thing I mean.
Originally posted by the questioner:
The point of the link is to provide oral traditional evidence. The African tribe such as the Yoruba claim to come from the east.
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:The point of the link is to provide oral traditional evidence. The African tribe such as the Yoruba claim to come from the east.
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:NO raceandhistory links in this thread please.
Originally posted by the questioner:
yoruba: the egyptian connection
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=2139
quote:which ancient population?
Originally posted by xyyman:
All West Africans carry NiloSaharan ancestry.
West African Are primarily East Africans(Neolithic) who admixed with an Ancient population.
quote:So if Bantus are NiloSaharans mixed with some other populations you don't know the name of and they are currently living in places including Cameroon
Originally posted by xyyman:
Bantus are youngest in the African groups and language
quote:If you say that bantus are the youngest of African groups and language but you can't name this "ancient population" who you say admixed with them wouldn't it be a better idea that you be quiet and pipe down?
Originally posted by xyyman:
All West Africans carry NiloSaharan ancestry.
West African Are primarily East Africans(Neolithic) who admixed with an Ancient population.
quote:South Sudanese Nilotes are their own distinct branch of the NS stratigraph. You will have weak West <-> East signals comparing them to protobantu, Niger Kordifanian or even central sudanic Nilo-Saharan groups. They were never to be used as identifiers for quintessential Nilosaharan ancestry. You'll have an easier time trying to find a connection between the Kunama and the Songhai.
Originally posted by capra:
lol as usual nothing but empty bluster
Lugbara are Central Sudanic people from Congo-Uganda border region. It is questionable whether Central Sudanic is even related to Eastern Sudanic (e.g. Nilotic, Nubian). Unfortunately Central Africa is severely understudied, I can't recall a single study actually devoted to sorting it out. Here we have a single 'Nilo-Saharan' group amid a ton of Niger-Congo speakers; the Chad one wimped out and spent all its time on easy-to-find Eurasian admixture; the recent Sudan paper was good but almost all further east.
I wish there were more data on the Central Sudanic groups. I do have Y-DNA data for Laka and Sara in southern Chad: the former had 39% E-M2, the latter 52% (both have smaller amounts of B2a and E2 as well). So they, at least, are genetically related to Bantu in a way that Dinka or Nuer are not; I don't know about Lugbara though.
quote:Albert Churchward, The Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, 2nd Edition, UK. George Allen & Co., 1913, p.75.
Brother Lt.Col. E. L. de Cordes, who was in South Africa for three years, informed the writer that in one of the Ruins" there is a "stone-chamber," with a vast quantity of Papyri, covered with old Egyptian hieroglyphics. A Boer hunter discovered this, and a large quantity was used to light a fire with, and yet still a larger quantity remained there now.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:which ancient population?
Originally posted by xyyman:
All West Africans carry NiloSaharan ancestry.
West African Are primarily East Africans(Neolithic) who admixed with an Ancient population.
quote:So if Bantus are NiloSaharans mixed with some other populations you don't know the name of and they are currently living in places including Cameroon
Originally posted by xyyman:
Bantus are youngest in the African groups and language
Then to have gotten to Cameroon they must have come there from the East Africa.
The bantu migration refers to a period much more recent, only beginning about 5,000 years ago around 3,000 B.C. where the bantus in the Cameroon region became larger and then expanded from there into other parts of Africa.
But you say this never happened.
quote:If you say that bantus are the youngest of African groups and language but you can't name this "ancient population" who you say admixed with them wouldn't it be a better idea that you be quiet and pipe down?
Originally posted by xyyman:
All West Africans carry NiloSaharan ancestry.
West African Are primarily East Africans(Neolithic) who admixed with an Ancient population.
You act like that Bantu expansion is some sort of racist theory.
If you think that explain to use precisely and clearly you think that is
quote:This is why we need more "Afrocentric" archaeologist...
Originally posted by xyyman:
wow! first I am hearing about this. Interesting ED.
quote:lmao you're getting closer... Where did Modern west Africans and bantu speakers get these Archaic signature from??
Originally posted by xyyman:
Am I talking to a wall? Skoglund Also said there was an ancient WEST African population. Look at the chart. Who were they?,.....Paleolithic West African?! Iwo Eleru? We know Iwo Eleru the OLDEST West African(15000bc) is NOT related to modern West Africans so obviously modern West Africans do NOT have a preNeolithic presence in West Africa. Where did these ancient Africans come from? Skoglund stated there is substructure(green) in Africa. Mende has more of these ancient Africans DNA compared to YRI. In the OP study Mende is seperated from YRI. which corraborates!!!
quote:OK I guess I overestimated you
Originally posted by xyyman:
Huh? " Where did Modern west Africans and bantu speakers get these Archaic signature from??
Was it South Africa, where we have a Healthy genetic record of preneolithic populations Was it East Africa, where non bantu admixed populations LACK this introgression?"
Am I writing in Greek? lol
Substructure existed BEFORE the Neolithic. Green, Red and Yellow. That is why >2000bc South Africans are not related to ancient Tanzanians, ancient West Africans(Iwo Erelu?). Three major substructure=3 colors. The red then migrated out to the Green and Yellow region.
quote:You're basically digging up information of population movements and evidence regarding "substructure" to propose the Bantu expansion came from sudan. But we are talking about holocene and pre-holocene population history... These events are damn near twice the age of the bantu expansion!
The extent of the connection between evolutionary processes in West Africa and other regions of the continent remains to be evaluated through future studies and discoveries. However, it seems clear that such a connection did exist, and its importance may have been varied across the time span of the Pleistocene. West Africa may have provided important refuges for populations during glacial cycles, and at least three such refugia have been identified in this region. Alternatively, parts of West Africa may have repeatedly acted as ecological bottlenecks, with isolated populations persisting in areas far from the riparian networks of the eastern half of Africa. Such populations could have included archaic human groups as well as culturally anachronistic Homo sapiens using MSA technologies long replaced in other regions of Africa. Such cycles of repeated isolation and interaction represent powerful mechanisms for creating biological and cultural complexity, which may have ultimately affected diverse populations living across Africa. Certainly, as each region of Africa becomes better understood, both its archaeological signature and relationships with other regions become apparent. This is also likely to be the case with West Africa
[...]
In later time periods, the research emphasis shifts to the role of forests in keeping different populations apart. It appears that population diversity in West Africa was also more significant than hitherto considered prior to the significant extinction of hunter-gatherer diversity and expansion of farmers and later societies. In later prehistory, the role of West Africa as the source of Holocene and post-Holocene population expansions into North Africa and other regions of the continent also remains a matter of debate (e.g., MacDonald;122 Drake et al.;123; Stojanowski124). However, the resolution of recent climate records at least allows tentative correlations between the drying of the Sahara and the southward movements of its populations into Sahelian and tropical zones. Such processes, linked to the rise of politically complex societies, again emphasizes the place of West Africa in wider, pan-African processes of demographic movement and cultural change.
quote:That map has the "bantu expansion" going straight through the Congo basin in what is now the DRC.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The bantu migration ( bantu expansion) began about 1000 BC
xyyman acts like anybody who talks about it is talking about bantus as if that means it's a multi-regional theory where bantus evolved in West Africa independently of other Africans
Of course it doesn't mean that. People who say there was a bantu migration also would tell you that bantus came from the south or east before they arrived in West Africa
He acts like "no, they came from East Africa" as if that would be a contradiction to the theory.
But it's not a contradiction. It is merely Pre-expansion-era demography, yes what the authors here call trans-Sahelian migration that occurred before it
quote:Is anyone ELSE going to address this?
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Capra
HERE IS The passage from the book that I am talking about!!!!!!
quote:Albert Churchward, The Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, 2nd Edition, UK. George Allen & Co., 1913, p.75.
Brother Lt.Col. E. L. de Cordes, who was in South Africa for three years, informed the writer that in one of the Ruins" there is a "stone-chamber," with a vast quantity of Papyri, covered with old Egyptian hieroglyphics. A Boer hunter discovered this, and a large quantity was used to light a fire with, and yet still a larger quantity remained there now.
^^^Please not that I am citing from the DIRECT source and not the book I read itself. In the book, the author quoted this from the ORIGINAL source. So all in all I am citing the ORIGINAL source instead of the book I read.
What are you guys thoughts on this? I NEED to hear you guy's opinion. Why hasn't this hardly been talked about?
quote:I'm guessing the site Located in zimbabwe
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Is anyone ELSE going to address this?
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Capra
HERE IS The passage from the book that I am talking about!!!!!!
quote:Albert Churchward, The Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, 2nd Edition, UK. George Allen & Co., 1913, p.75.
Brother Lt.Col. E. L. de Cordes, who was in South Africa for three years, informed the writer that in one of the Ruins" there is a "stone-chamber," with a vast quantity of Papyri, covered with old Egyptian hieroglyphics. A Boer hunter discovered this, and a large quantity was used to light a fire with, and yet still a larger quantity remained there now.
^^^Please not that I am citing from the DIRECT source and not the book I read itself. In the book, the author quoted this from the ORIGINAL source. So all in all I am citing the ORIGINAL source instead of the book I read.
What are you guys thoughts on this? I NEED to hear you guy's opinion. Why hasn't this hardly been talked about?
quote:DAMN! I know we had our differences in the past but you REALLY about dat life I must admit. You actually bought the book...
Originally posted by xyyman:
Read a few excerpts online. Just bought the book. Thanks for the lead.
The signs and symbols of primordial man :4bthe evolution of religious doctrines from the eschatology of the ancient Egyptians
Wow! Reading the excerpts it is puzzling why Europeans lay claim to AE. Delusional people.
quote:Gotta admit the Benue talk has been interesting me. How come I never knew about this. So they are saying Benue could be its own family unique from Bantu?
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
@lioness
"bantu expansion" as a simplistic euronut pseudo scientific african model on the indigenious people of Africa was High Key Racist. Since these "theories" where developed during the colonial period by German linguist Mienhoff as a way of classification as a mean/method to aid the subjugation, exploitation, theft, robbery and rape. Fast forward to modern times and the scramble for Africa continues with neo colonization 6.0.. enter the DNA games.
where nowadays most sub-Saharan Africans are speakers of Bantu languages. Given that the expansion did not follow a single continuous migration route, but rather, that it involved at least two major dispersals with different expansion centers (one in the west and one in the east) (Oslisly 1995), different geographical constraints, and at different times, it is not surprising that differences in the genetic composition of the different Bantu areas have been found, especially in terms of the degree of assimilation of hunter-gatherer populations (Thomas et al. 2000; Pereira et al. 2001, 2002; Salas et al. 2002; Plaza et al. 2004; Beleza et al. 2005).
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/26/7/1581/1123707
. Moreover, recent, groundbreaking work on Kainji languages (Blench & McGill 2012) suggests that the entire picture of Proto-Benue-Congo will change significantly (making it look less “Bantu”) once those diverse and typologically fascinating languages have been subject to more detailed comparative work.
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935345-e-3#oxfordhb-9780199935345-e-3-bibItem-72
By contrast, some linguists have sought to combine Greenberg's four African families into larger units. In particular, Edgar Gregersen (1972) proposed joining Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan into a larger family, which he termed Kongo-Saharan. Roger Blench (1995) suggests Niger–Congo is a subfamily of Nilo-Saharan.
quote:It hasn't been talked about more because there is no physical evidence of it
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Is anyone ELSE going to address this?
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Capra
HERE IS The passage from the book that I am talking about!!!!!!
quote:Albert Churchward, The Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man, 2nd Edition, UK. George Allen & Co., 1913, p.75.
Brother Lt.Col. E. L. de Cordes, who was in South Africa for three years, informed the writer that in one of the Ruins" there is a "stone-chamber," with a vast quantity of Papyri, covered with old Egyptian hieroglyphics. A Boer hunter discovered this, and a large quantity was used to light a fire with, and yet still a larger quantity remained there now.
^^^Please not that I am citing from the DIRECT source and not the book I read itself. In the book, the author quoted this from the ORIGINAL source. So all in all I am citing the ORIGINAL source instead of the book I read.
What are you guys thoughts on this? I NEED to hear you guy's opinion. Why hasn't this hardly been talked about?
quote:The map is not supposed to be that specific as to be literally going through the congo basin, it's general direction
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
quote:That map has the "bantu expansion" going straight through the Congo basin in what is now the DRC.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The bantu migration ( bantu expansion) began about 1000 BC
xyyman acts like anybody who talks about it is talking about bantus as if that means it's a multi-regional theory where bantus evolved in West Africa independently of other Africans
Of course it doesn't mean that. People who say there was a bantu migration also would tell you that bantus came from the south or east before they arrived in West Africa
He acts like "no, they came from East Africa" as if that would be a contradiction to the theory.
But it's not a contradiction. It is merely Pre-expansion-era demography, yes what the authors here call trans-Sahelian migration that occurred before it
Logistically, how does a population manage that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvGByygjDt4
quote:Cross River languages being unique from Bantu would put a wrench into the Bantu Expansion theory, and makes things complicated and Euro's never want complicated socio/genetic/anthro/archeo/ answers especially from "sub-sarahan" Eastern Bantu is different from Western Bantu for sure even old racist Meinhoff picked up on some Afro Asiatic( hamitic) influences in South Eastern Bantu.
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Gotta admit the Benue talk has been interesting me. How come I never knew about this. So they are saying Benue could be its own family unique from Bantu?
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
@lioness
"bantu expansion" as a simplistic euronut pseudo scientific african model on the indigenious people of Africa was High Key Racist. Since these "theories" where developed during the colonial period by German linguist Mienhoff as a way of classification as a mean/method to aid the subjugation, exploitation, theft, robbery and rape. Fast forward to modern times and the scramble for Africa continues with neo colonization 6.0.. enter the DNA games.
where nowadays most sub-Saharan Africans are speakers of Bantu languages. Given that the expansion did not follow a single continuous migration route, but rather, that it involved at least two major dispersals with different expansion centers (one in the west and one in the east) (Oslisly 1995), different geographical constraints, and at different times, it is not surprising that differences in the genetic composition of the different Bantu areas have been found, especially in terms of the degree of assimilation of hunter-gatherer populations (Thomas et al. 2000; Pereira et al. 2001, 2002; Salas et al. 2002; Plaza et al. 2004; Beleza et al. 2005).
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/26/7/1581/1123707
. Moreover, recent, groundbreaking work on Kainji languages (Blench & McGill 2012) suggests that the entire picture of Proto-Benue-Congo will change significantly (making it look less “Bantu”) once those diverse and typologically fascinating languages have been subject to more detailed comparative work.
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935345-e-3#oxfordhb-9780199935345-e-3-bibItem-72
By contrast, some linguists have sought to combine Greenberg's four African families into larger units. In particular, Edgar Gregersen (1972) proposed joining Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan into a larger family, which he termed Kongo-Saharan. Roger Blench (1995) suggests Niger–Congo is a subfamily of Nilo-Saharan.
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:DAMN! I know we had our differences in the past but you REALLY about dat life I must admit. You actually bought the book...
Originally posted by xyyman:
Read a few excerpts online. Just bought the book. Thanks for the lead.
The signs and symbols of primordial man :4bthe evolution of religious doctrines from the eschatology of the ancient Egyptians
Wow! Reading the excerpts it is puzzling why Europeans lay claim to AE. Delusional people.
quote:I forgot to reply to this. Is there even evidence to suggest that the Niger-Congo Nuba languages are remotely similar to Bantu?
Originally posted by ELIMU:
And again thoughts on this?
Niger Kordofan languages spoken in the Sudan is just a Branch of Bantu. European linguists don't wanna admit it because it will screw up their made up theory of Bantus migrating from Nigeria/Cameroon. Nuba tribes of Sudan. The Nuba are not one tribe but many tribes with substrings. Some speaking a Niger Congo Bantu (Niger Kordofan) Bantu languages, others speaking Nilosaharan languages.
Also sickle swords and throwing knives similar to those found in Central Africa and Congo are also found all over North Sudan Kordofan State.
Fulani/Woodabe languages and other Volta Atlantic's languages are closer to Bantu than both Volta Niger and East Benue Congo languages. They know this but they won't publish it, because they will have to explain how did Bantu speakers end up in North West Africa and Senegambia.
Most Bantus are Agriculturalists, but select few are pastrolists like Kuria tribe of Kenya and Tanzania, Nyankole,Hima,Tutsi of Uganda,Rwanda and Burundi. Ngoni tribes of Tanzania, Zimbabwe and south Africa.
3000 yrs ago the whole of Eastern Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo and Central Africa was covered with thick tropical rainforest. Now tell me, what were a bunch of iron age pastrolists and Farmers doing in a heavy forested area 3000 yrs ago?. Isn't it absurd. Yes pygmies is understandable but Bantus? Also there is no evidence of Agriculture in those regions that date back more than 3kya. Which crop can you grow in a forest without sunlight?. Most of the populations living in West Africa and Sahel today either migrated from North/green Sahara or North East Africa Nile valley.
quote:https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010141
The southeastern Bantu from Mozambique are remarkably differentiated from the western Niger-Congo speaking populations, such as the Mandenka and the Yoruba, and also differentiated from geographically closer Eastern Bantu samples, such as Luhya. These results suggest that the Bantu expansion of languages, which started ~5000 years ago at the present day border region of Nigeria and Cameroon, and was probably related to the spread of agriculture and the emergence of iron technology, 17, 18, 19 was not a demographic homogeneous migration with population replacement in the southernmost part of the continent, but acquired more divergence, likely because of the integration of pre-Bantu people. The complexity of the expansion of Bantu languages to the south (with an eastern and a western route 20), might have produced differential degrees of assimilation of previous populations of hunter gatherers. This assimilation has been detected through uniparental markers because of the genetic comparison of nowadays hunter gatherers (Pygmies and Khoisan) with Bantu speaker agriculturalists. 2, 21, 22, 23, 24 Nonetheless, the singularity of the southeastern population of Mozambique (poorly related to present Khoisan) could be attributed to a complete assimilation of ancient genetically differentiated populations (presently unknown) by Bantu speakers in southeastern Africa, without leaving any pre-Bantu population in the area to compare with.
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
[Q] OKay credit goes to al~Takruri. IF there was a Bantu expansion from the Sudan then I now agree with beyoku that it was not mutually exclusive. Especially according to this paper.
quote:https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010141
The southeastern Bantu from Mozambique are remarkably differentiated from the western Niger-Congo speaking populations, such as the Mandenka and the Yoruba, and also differentiated from geographically closer Eastern Bantu samples, such as Luhya. These results suggest that the Bantu expansion of languages, which started ~5000 years ago at the present day border region of Nigeria and Cameroon, and was probably related to the spread of agriculture and the emergence of iron technology, 17, 18, 19 was not a demographic homogeneous migration with population replacement in the southernmost part of the continent, but acquired more divergence, likely because of the integration of pre-Bantu people. The complexity of the expansion of Bantu languages to the south (with an eastern and a western route 20), might have produced differential degrees of assimilation of previous populations of hunter gatherers. This assimilation has been detected through uniparental markers because of the genetic comparison of nowadays hunter gatherers (Pygmies and Khoisan) with Bantu speaker agriculturalists. 2, 21, 22, 23, 24 Nonetheless, the singularity of the southeastern population of Mozambique (poorly related to present Khoisan) could be attributed to a complete assimilation of ancient genetically differentiated populations (presently unknown) by Bantu speakers in southeastern Africa, without leaving any pre-Bantu population in the area to compare with.
Thoughts? [/]
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Iwo Eleru-type people being in the forest zone of West Africa in the Palaeolithic does not prevent other people being in West Africa in the Palaeolithic. Even if the primary ancestors of modern West Africans only arrived in the Holocene, that leaves many thousands of years for them to become established before the emigration of ancestral Bantu. So, as usual, your argument is nonsense.
The evidence is obvious. Bantu have West African haplogroups and autosomal components, which are rarely found north of Kenya. (As for E-M2, it is scarcely to be found in Sudan or the Horn of Africa, while the most divergent known branches are in Atlantic West Africa.) They don't have autochthonous East African ancestry (except of course to a small degree in East Africa). West African ancestry is completely absent in ancient samples from East and South Africa that are more than a couple thousand years old. But we *do* find high levels of distinctive East African ancestry associated with, e.g., Nilotic speakers.
quote:Genome-wide SNP analysis of Southern African populations provides new insights into the dispersal of Bantu-speaking groups
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
The southeastern Bantu from Mozambique are remarkably differentiated from the western Niger-Congo speaking populations, such as the Mandenka and the Yoruba, and also differentiated from geographically closer Eastern Bantu samples, such as Luhya. These results suggest that the Bantu expansion of languages, which started ~5000 years ago at the present day border region of Nigeria and Cameroon, and was probably related to the spread of agriculture and the emergence of iron technology was not a demographic homogeneous migration with population replacement in the southernmost part of the continent, but acquired more divergence, likely because of the integration of pre-Bantu people....
quote:^^ this is a version created by xyyman. I don't know why you allow this misrepresentation, He is using the article title and making no idication of which marks and type are his and which parts are Skoglund. You would never get away wit that at a university. That is poor scholarship and plagiarism
Originally posed by xyyman
Skoglund has identified that ancient population. This is not rocket science
quote:“Africa is most genetically diverse continent, DNA study shows”
Originally posted by the lioness,:
BMC Evol Biol. 2010; 10: 92.
Published online 2010 Mar 31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-92
PMCID: PMC2867817
Little genetic differentiation as assessed by uniparental markers in the presence of substantial language variation in peoples of the Cross River region of Nigeria
Krishna R Veeramah,1,2 Bruce A Connell,3 Naser Ansari Pour,4 Adam Powell,5 Christopher A Plaster,4 David Zeitlyn,6 Nancy R Mendell,7 Michael E Weale,8 Neil Bradman,4 and Mark G Thomas5,9,10
Conclusion
In this study we have been able to elucidate that languages and peoples can move independent of each other within the Cross River region of Nigeria, a finding that will be of considerable interest to linguists working on aspects of language contact. A major reason we have been able to gain insight at such a fine geographic scale is the quality of the dataset assembled. There has, unfortunately, been a tendency when examining African genetic diversity to utilise datasets of small size with samples of undeclared origin and relationships. The practice of assembling dense DNA sample sets of known and detailed provenance, as previously called for by anthropologists and linguists [32], will be the most vital aspect when conducting studies to answer the many complex questions likely to be encountered in the course of unravelling demographic histories of geographically restricted African ethnicities.
Abstract
Background
The Cross River region in Nigeria is an extremely diverse area linguistically with over 60 distinct languages still spoken today. It is also a region of great historical importance, being a) adjacent to the likely homeland from which Bantu-speaking people migrated across most of sub-Saharan Africa 3000-5000 years ago and b) the location of Calabar, one of the largest centres during the Atlantic slave trade. Over 1000 DNA samples from 24 clans representing speakers of the six most prominent languages in the region were collected and typed for Y-chromosome (SNPs and microsatellites) and mtDNA markers (Hypervariable Segment 1) in order to examine whether there has been substantial gene flow between groups speaking different languages in the region. In addition the Cross River region was analysed in the context of a larger geographical scale by comparison to bordering Igbo speaking groups as well as neighbouring Cameroon populations and more distant Ghanaian communities.
Results
The Cross River region was shown to be extremely homogenous for both Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers with language spoken having no noticeable effect on the genetic structure of the region, consistent with estimates of inter-language gene flow of 10% per generation based on sociological data. However the groups in the region could clearly be differentiated from others in Cameroon and Ghana (and to a lesser extent Igbo populations). Significant correlations between genetic distance and both geographic and linguistic distance were observed at this larger scale.
Conclusions
Previous studies have found significant correlations between genetic variation and language in Africa over large geographic distances, often across language families. However the broad sampling strategies of these datasets have limited their utility for understanding the relationship within language families. This is the first study to show that at very fine geographic/linguistic scales language differences can be maintained in the presence of substantial gene flow over an extended period of time and demonstrates the value of dense sampling strategies and having DNA of known and detailed provenance, a practice that is generally rare when investigating sub-Saharan African demographic processes using genetic data.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
I put up most of the Skoglund article in a new thread as a reference
It is an important article with more to say than just the
chopped an screwed little snippets that are heavily spun and taken out of context and marked up.
See this? >>>
.
^^ this is the original version
.
quote:^^ this is a version created by xyyman. I don't know why you allow this misrepresentation, He is using the article title and making no idication of which marks and type are his and which parts are Skoglund. You would never get away wit that at a university. That is poor scholarship and plagiarism
Originally posed by xyyman
Skoglund has identified that ancient population. This is not rocket science
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Xyyman what do you have to say for Capra's post?
quote:1. The Luhya ARE a Bantu people(or at least the speak the language). And if they carry ancestry of both East and West Bantu speakers then wouldn't that somehow make them intermediate?
Originally posted by xyyman:
This was addressed in my thread on ESR. I will pull the excerpts later. Nevertheless. Skoglund just added fuel to the fire essentially confirming the substantial difference between "Bantus" from the West and East below the Sahara of Africa. In my chart on ESR the Luyha although classified as "Bantu" carry ancestry of BOTH East and West in addition to "European" ancestry. This is a clear indication that the LWK (HAPMAP) is the most likely source of many populations INSIDE and OUTSIDE Africa. Henn stated based upon her research the Luyha are ancestral to Maghrebians. Yes, LWK are ancestral to Europeans. Keeping in mind LWK is used as a proxy in HAPMAP. LWK may not be the best representation.
quote:Man you have trouble seeing the simple.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Wow! Reading the excerpts it is puzzling why Europeans lay claim to AE. Delusional people.
quote:The Fulani language has an extensive noun class system like Bantu languages. so actually it should be classed as one
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Fulani is NOT a branch of Bantu. You can barely even compare the two. Fulani has no characteristics that Bantu languages have to even say its a branch. The rest of your post is all over the place especially with Garamantians being Tutsi. Lets stay on topic please. Next?
quote:That's a silly reason why. If anything Fulani has more similarities with Wolof than it does Bantu.
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:The Fulani language has an extensive noun class system like Bantu languages. so actually it should be classed as one
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Fulani is NOT a branch of Bantu. You can barely even compare the two. Fulani has no characteristics that Bantu languages have to even say its a branch. The rest of your post is all over the place especially with Garamantians being Tutsi. Lets stay on topic please. Next?
quote:How have I gone off topic? or is it because you see yourself a superior scholar than I which explains your dismissive attitude?
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Fulani is NOT a branch of Bantu. You can barely even compare the two. Fulani has no characteristics that Bantu languages have to even say its a branch. The rest of your post is all over the place especially with Garamantians being Tutsi. Lets stay on topic please. Next?
quote:Cheikh Anta Diop says that Wolof is a Semi-Bantu language
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:That's a silly reason why. If anything Fulani has more similarities with Wolof than it does Bantu.
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:The Fulani language has an extensive noun class system like Bantu languages. so actually it should be classed as one
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Fulani is NOT a branch of Bantu. You can barely even compare the two. Fulani has no characteristics that Bantu languages have to even say its a branch. The rest of your post is all over the place especially with Garamantians being Tutsi. Lets stay on topic please. Next?
quote:Berbers have a large percentage of European DNA. so technically he's right
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Diop was the same person that argued Berber was European. No offense to him.
Can we please get off the Fulanis and everything not related? Geez everytime we have discussions on this topic people come out with outlandish claims.
quote:The reason I linked Garamanteans to the Tutsi,Hima and Ankole is because of a clue Herodotus left us about them.
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the questioner:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
[qb] The rest of your post is all over the place especially with Garamantians being Tutsi. Lets stay on topic please. Next?
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21312181
Recent genetic studies of the Tuareg have begun to uncover the origin of this semi-nomadic northwest African people and their relationship with African populations. For centuries they were caravan traders plying the trade routes between the Mediterranean coast and south-Saharan Africa. Their origin most likely coincides with the fall of the Garamantes who inhabited the Fezzan (Libya) between the 1st millennium BC and the 5th century AD. In this study we report novel data on the Y-chromosome variation in the Libyan Tuareg from Al Awaynat and Tahala, two villages in Fezzan, whose maternal genetic pool was previously characterized. High-resolution investigation of 37 Y-chromosome STR loci and analysis of 35 bi-allelic markers in 47 individuals revealed a predominant northwest African component (E-M81, haplogroup E1b1b1b) which likely originated in the second half of the Holocene in the same ancestral population that contributed to the maternal pool of the Libyan Tuareg. A significant paternal contribution from south-Saharan Africa (E-U175, haplogroup E1b1a8) was also detected, which may likely be due to recent secondary introduction, possibly through slavery practices or fusion between different tribal groups. The difference in haplogroup composition between the villages of Al Awaynat and Tahala suggests that founder effects and drift played a significant role in shaping the genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg.
quote:
Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Berbers have a large percentage of European DNA. so technically he's right
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Diop was the same person that argued Berber was European. No offense to him.
Can we please get off the Fulanis and everything not related? Geez everytime we have discussions on this topic people come out with outlandish claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Linda Fahr:
Which berber is originally African native?
a)white berber
b)brown berber
c)black berber
d)none above
c)all above
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So a people's ancestry is only determined by the male DNA ?
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
So what are they hiding?
So yDNA E is NOT associated with the Bantu Expansion. I just can’t get over these “unpublished data and personal communication”
-------
Signatures of the Preagricultural Peopling Processes in Sub-Saharan Africa as Revealed by the Phylogeography of Early Y Chromosome Lineages -Chiara Batini,_,1,2 Gianmarco Ferri,
Quote:
association with Bantu-speaking populations, as previously reported (see supplementary table S1, Supplementary Material
online; Beleza et al. 2005; Berniell-Lee et al. 2009). Within-clade variation suggests a more recent origin for
B2a than B2b, whereas network analysis did not reveal population- specific or geographically localized STR-based clusters
(supplementary fig. S1, Supplementary Material online). However, the relatively deep within-clade dating
(6.1 [2.2–14] Kya) suggests a scenario possibly ***pre-dating ***the diffusion of Bantu languages, in line with what has been
observed for some subclades of hg E (Montano V, Destro-Bisol G, Comas D, personal communication). Deeper phylogenetic
resolution within the B2a clade, coupled with additional population sampling, may help to clarify the demographic
dynamics associated with its dispersal.”
------
As I said there is no such thing as the Bantu Expansion from West Africa. None!
