...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
1- Basic database of Nile Valley studies
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] KEITA 2015 http://www.cobbresearchlab.com/issue-1/2015/1/26/history-and-genetics-in-africa-a-need-for-better-cooperation-between-the-teams ---------------------------------------------------- [IMG]http://img.youtube.com/vi/aZssWb4MmGM/0.jpg[/IMG] "The PN2/M2 biallelic lineage in part maps to the distribution of the family, as does haplotype IV of the TaqI49a,f RFLP system, which in Africa and adjacent regions apparently marks the same clade (see al-Zahery et al. 2003, Underhhill personal communication). The spread of this family is frequently identified with the distribution of these variants in nearly a causal fashion. In other words M2 is said to be a marker of the Bantu expansion, which some earlier writers even thought had gone into West Africa (see e.g. Guthrie 1962). However, haplotype IV/ M2 is found in very high frequencies in Africa west of the Cameroons from Nigeria to Atlantic, reaching a frequency of ~80% in a sample from Senegal. Just as interesting is its reported frequency in one study of Egypt (27%) and Nubia (39%) (Lucotte and Mercier 2003). There are no Bantu speakers in these regions and no evidence that they were ever there. Hence the “Bantu expansion”, a problematic concept especially as often conceived, in any case cannot be used to explain their presence. Furthermore, the Bantu expansion should not be conceived as having been a mass movement of a single people, analogous to an mfecane, or the migration of the Banu Hilal. Archaeology and historical linguistics help explore possible credible explanations. The M2/ haplotype IV marker is found at great frequencies in Niger-Congo speakers in general. It is likely that M2 existed in the early ancestral family—proto-Niger Congo—and got distributed into all of its branches as the family differentiated through space and time. This explanation does not work for Egypt and Nubia since languages spoken there belong to other families. However, archaeological data indicate a late pleistocene recolonization of the eastern Sahara after a probable population hiatus between 50,000 to 15,000 years ago (Wendorf and Schild 2001). The peoples involved can be expected to have been highly diverse. This marker may have entered the Nile Valley with mid-Holocene population Saharan migrations into the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988), which contributed to the peopling of the valley. Another possibility is that Nilo-Saharan—to which Nubian belongs—and Niger Congo form a larger language phylum called Kongo-Saharan (Gregersen 1972) or Niger-Saharan (Blench 1995) whose earliest speakers shared a biohistorical heritage that included the M2/RFLP IV marker. This could also explain the substantial frequencies in Egyptian Nubians and NC speakers as a whole, and not just Bantu speakers. However there is a caveat: from a strictly biological point of view it is important to note that M2 emerged likely before any of the language families based on standard estimates of the ages. It is wrong to treat them in effect as having a basal or causal relationship. This would also be true of Afro-Asiatic. On a more interesting and even intriguing level it is worthwhile making the observation that the P2 marker, which is ancestral to both the M2 and M35 or 215/M35, and is therefore older than either, is father to the male clades whose bearers are speakers of the three different language macrofamilies in Africa, with one of them- being Afroasiatic. This is intriguing because it is not known what ancestral language the father of these two lineages spoke. Was it a language that went extinct? Was there an early proto-African language family that led to the current language families? Most western linguists would say “no” to this second question at the time of this writing. In any case the simplistic racialized gene language maps that were once drawn as a validation, in my opinion, of a preconception falls apart when the Y chromosome lineages are examined against language families. The majority of the Afroasiatic speaking males in Africa are connected to speakers of other families via their common P2 “father”, and are therefore genealogically connected in a way that they are not related to Indo-European speakers. This will be surprising to those thinking of northern African peoples in terms of those who most resemble Europeans or Near Eastern neighbors. The E haplogroup places their male affiliation in Africa. A critical narrative to explain the mtDNA profiles has not yet been developed. A multidisciplinary approach clearly can help to avoid over generalizations with regard to Bantu speakers. Misinterpretations can skew interpretations. This in turn could lead to poor study designs in future work. Another issue is the use of Bantu as a euphemism for “Negro” (Robertson and Bradley 2000) from the old unscientific racial schema, which seems to be how some geneticists and morphologists are using the term; while this issue is beyond the scope of this essay it deserves mentioning given the emphasis placed on the sequencing of a “Bantu” genome, which strictly speaking would mean looking at genes that were thought to have arisen at the time the Bantu linguistic branch emerged." --SOY Keita. (2015) History and Genetics in Africa: The Need for Better Cooperation Between the Teams. The Backbone-Cobb Research Labratory, V1, i1, Spring 2015 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3