How was West Africa peopled & where from?

[amunratheultimate]

Jun 24, 2014 16:12:14 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Okay, back to serious conversation. This is pretty much what I and others were saying a while back when the issue of West African origins came up. The fact that there are many cultural similarities between West African cultures and Nile Valley cultures is not indicative of Egyptian colonization in the late dynastic era due to foreign conquest. Rather, it is indicative of the fact that certain West African cultures share a common ancestor with those found in the Nile Valley and that is the green Saharan culture.

We already know that there were more settlement sights in the Sahara when it was green than there were in the Nile Valley. This culture was very wide spread stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. It only stands to reason that as the Sahara dried up people would have sought refuge in the areas south in West Africa that still received rainfall as well as the Nile. Now scholarship is proving what for many of us was an educated guess. It's very interesting how each day seems to turn up scholarly findings supporting the assertions that many people have made on this forum.

Now you're just stating what has been shown in this thread to be obvious in an effort to gain some credibility.  Posting a giant picture of lollypops doesn't help you about this.   I'm the one bringing forward actual data while you seek to obscure them.

The common origin of black African people (aka "Sub-Saharan" Africans) can be seen in **2** major periods.  Yes, 2.

1 - Common origin of African people, including Ancient Egyptians, in Eastern Africa (see languages and DNA homeland).  Discussed many times on this forum and ES.  

2 - The Green Sahara period (wavy line pottery culture) where the ancestors of modern African populations, now living mostly in Sub-Sahara but also in the south of North African countries, were still living in the north in the Sahara before their migrations across Africa.  

Of course, sub-sahara is a bit of a misnomer because even today there's still some indigenous black African people living in North African countries (especially in the south), thus above the Sahara, as well as black African people living in the Sahara.

So again the common origin of African people can be seen both in (north)Eastern Africa and the subsequent expansion of people in the wet Sahara. Of course, the common origin of indigenous African people in East Africa post-date the AMHS by many years as well as the main OOA migrations of non-African people since people with the A, B and E haplogroups weren't part of the OOA migrations.

[truthteacher2007]

Jun 26, 2014 8:16:30 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

Jun 24, 2014 16:12:14 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Okay, back to serious conversation. This is pretty much what I and others were saying a while back when the issue of West African origins came up. The fact that there are many cultural similarities between West African cultures and Nile Valley cultures is not indicative of Egyptian colonization in the late dynastic era due to foreign conquest. Rather, it is indicative of the fact that certain West African cultures share a common ancestor with those found in the Nile Valley and that is the green Saharan culture.

We already know that there were more settlement sights in the Sahara when it was green than there were in the Nile Valley. This culture was very wide spread stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. It only stands to reason that as the Sahara dried up people would have sought refuge in the areas south in West Africa that still received rainfall as well as the Nile. Now scholarship is proving what for many of us was an educated guess. It's very interesting how each day seems to turn up scholarly findings supporting the assertions that many people have made on this forum.

Now you're just stating what has been shown in this thread to be obvious in an effort to gain some credibility.  Posting a giant picture of lollypops doesn't help you about this.  

Sorry. I just thought you'd enjoy something to suck on..... Okay, on a more serious note...

I'm the one bringing forward actual data while you seek to obscure them.

Not obscuring anything. Just reiterating what I had said earlier. This thread was created by Zarahan who copied the replies from a previous thread. No, I didn't have a book or a study to quote, however, I did post a documentary. In any case, my theory was that the desertification of the Sahara would have had to have been one of the contributing factors in the settlement of West Africa, however, no the only one. The material you posted gave a scholarly archeological evidence to back up my statements. So long as it creates awareness and sheds light on the subject, who cares who provided what?All contributions fit together to make a whole picture, so, thank you for that.

My basic premise is and has been that contrary to the opinions of some, West Africa's cultures were not due to Egyptian settlement in the late dynastic period, but that both regions shared a common connection, that beeing the Green Sahara. One of the reasons I've long believed this is because of the fact that there are many cultural practices that are similar across East Africa, the Sahara and West Africa. The aspects that I am most familiar with have to do with traditional spiritual practices and philosophies that I grew up with. Others had to do with things like the existance of both male and female circumcision found in all these cultures. This had to have been something that predated and Abrahamic traditions such as Judaism and Islam since they are found among people who still practice their traditional customs.

The common origin of black African people (aka "Sub-Saharan" Africans) can be seen in **2** major periods.  Yes, 2.

1 - Common origin of African people, including Ancient Egyptians, in Eastern Africa (see languages and DNA homeland).  Discussed many times on this forum and ES.  

Which is another point that I raised in earlier threads. I would add though that they contributed to the origins not only of "black Africans" but to lighter skinned Northern or Supra-Saharan Africans as well. When you look at the larger picture, there really is no clean cut separation based on color. The Sahara is where the two come together. Both language and DNA show this to be true. The Berber languages are not found outside of Africa and all North Africans share the same common male East African ancestor with over 70% of all African males. They MAY lok diffrent, but the evidence shows we're talking about an extended family here, not separate families.

2 - The Green Sahara period (wavy line pottery culture) where the ancestors of modern African populations, now living mostly in Sub-Sahara but also in the south of North African countries, were still living in the north in the Sahara before their migrations across Africa.  

And this is a point I made before as well. The idea that the Sahara is a cut off zone with only light skinned people in the north and only dark people in the south is a falsehood. In the documentary Mystery of the Black Mummy Rivertmz reposted, one could clearly see that the people living in the area today are still just as black as any Sub Saharan person. These people never left the region. They were the ones who stayed behind and learned how to adapt to the environment. Facinating when you think about it. I think there should be more research done on the modern people still living there today. I'm sure it would shed a lot of light on many things.

Of course, sub-sahara is a bit of a misnomer because even today there's still some indigenous black African people living in North African countries (especially in the south), thus above the Sahara, as well as black African people living in the Sahara.

The term Sub-Sahara is not a misnomer, It just means below the Sahara. It's the idea that the desert was some sort of fence that black skinned people couldn't jump over to get to the other side that's rubbish. Even as far north as coastal Tunisia you have populations of black skinned people. You can even find them in the Egyptian Delta, in Alexandria, Port Said, Ismaliya, Damanhour and the oasis of Siwa. You even find them in the Sinai. The other misconception is that the two peoples light and dark are different races. They're not, they're just braches of the same family.

So again the common origin of African people can be seen both in (north)Eastern Africa and the subsequent expansion of people in the wet Sahara. Of course, the common origin of indigenous African people in East Africa post-date the AMHS by many years as well as the main OOA migrations of non-African people since people with the A, B and E haplogroups weren't part of the OOA migrations.

It only stands to logic that all Africans have a common origin in East Africa. Since the human species itself originated in East Africa its just common sense that some migrated north, some west some south and some left the neighborhood altogether. It's not an issue IF various African peoples are related but how, or rather how long ago did they branch off from the original family and when and where they settled.

[amunratheultimate]

Jun 26, 2014 14:39:21 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

It only stands to logic that all Africans have a common origin in East Africa. Since the human species itself originated in East Africa its just common sense that some migrated north, some west some south and some left the neighborhood altogether. It's not an issue IF various African peoples are related but how, or rather how long ago did they branch off from the original family and when and where they settled.

I'm not talking about the common origin of the anatomically modern homo sapiens! I'm talking about the common origin of modern African people postdating by the AMHS by a lot of millennia as well as postdating the main OOA migrations of non-African populations.

By modern African people I'm talking about people who stayed back in Africa during the main OOA migrations (Y-DNA A, B and E, mtDNA L).

Beyond the cultural unity, knowledge of history, the obvious physical similarities between Africans and many genetic studies demonstrating the same thing; It is not beforehand so obvious that black indigenous African populations are closely related. Africa is a big continent with an ancient indigenous population, and from that angle it would have been technically possible that Bantu/Zulu in South Africa to be not so closely related to Nilotic people in Northeastern Africa. For example, Bantu populations could have been as far to Nilotic populations as Bantu are to Eurasian in terms of genetic distance.  Technically speaking. We must explain WHY this is not the case. In fact, technically speaking, I would say it's pretty spectacular that Africans are so closely related (even if it's true for Europeans and as well as other populations like Native Americans and East Asians between themselves too).

So the reason why indigenous African people are so closely related is because of 3 main reasons:

1)"Recent" common origin of African populations (including AEians) in eastern Africa, post-dating the AMHS and the main OOA migrations (see languages and genetics).

2)Extensive admixture between African populations throughout history (ancient and recent)

3) Bottleneck effect (founder effect) reducing the allele diversity and frequency of the OOA migrants. Thus increasing the distance with populations who stayed in Africa.

[truthteacher2007]

Jun 26, 2014 19:25:31 GMT -5 amunratheultimate said:

Jun 26, 2014 14:39:21 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

It only stands to logic that all Africans have a common origin in East Africa. Since the human species itself originated in East Africa its just common sense that some migrated north, some west some south and some left the neighborhood altogether. It's not an issue IF various African peoples are related but how, or rather how long ago did they branch off from the original family and when and where they settled.

I'm not talking about the common origin of the anatomically modern homo sapiens! I'm talking about the common origin of modern African people postdating by the AMHS by a lot of millennia as well as postdating the main OOA migrations of non-African populations.

Yeah. I know, so am I.

By modern African people I'm talking about people who stayed back in Africa during the main OOA migrations (Y-DNA A, B and E, mtDNA L).

Me too.

Beyond the cultural unity, knowledge of history, the obvious physical similarities between Africans and many genetic studies demonstrating the same thing; It is not beforehand so obvious that black indigenous African populations are closely related. Africa is a big continent with an ancient indigenous population, and from that angle it would have been technically possible that Bantu/Zulu in South Africa to be not so closely related to Nilotic people in Northeastern Africa. For example, Bantu populations could have been as far to Nilotic populations as Bantu are to Eurasian in terms of genetic distance.  Technically speaking. We must explain WHY this is not the case. In fact, technically speaking, I would say it's pretty spectacular that Africans are so closely related (even if it's true for Europeans and as well as other populations like Native Americans and East Asians between themselves too).

I don't think It's surprising. If all humanity comes from the same origin in Africa, then it stands to reason that those who remained in Africa must be related. How would you distinguish between genetic distance and genetic diversity, since African has been shown to have the highest genetic diversity on the planet.

So the reason why indigenous African people are so closely related is because of 3 main reasons:

1)"Recent" common origin of African populations (including AEians) in eastern Africa, post-dating the AMHS and the main OOA migrations (see languages and genetics).

2)Extensive admixture between African populations throughout history (ancient and recent)

3) Bottleneck effect (founder effect) reducing the allele diversity and frequency of the OOA migrants. Thus increasing the distance with populations who stayed in Africa.

I just always thought this was self evident. Non Africans are of course still part of the family, just more distant relations. Like a cousine 4 or 5times removed. Those in Africa are more like 1 or 2 times removed depending on the populations being compared.

[amunratheultimate]

Jun 26, 2014 21:37:26 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

How would you distinguish between genetic distance and genetic diversity, since African has been shown to have the highest genetic diversity on the planet.

In one sentence: African populations share a wide diversity of genes.

This is due to a "recent" (post OOA) common origin and extensive admixture between African populations throughout history.

For a more thorough explanation, I already made a post about it on the ES forum:

In other threads, I posted many studies/graphs showing the relative genetic distances between various African and World populations.

This one is from the Tishkoff study called The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans :
Neighbor-joining tree from pairwise genetic distances between populations

Also, those ones:
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/08/abofig331b.png
ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0888754310001552-gr3.jpg

In those graphs, its pretty clear that most African populations between themselves as well as most European, East Asian and Native American populations are relatively genetically very close to each other (in term of genetic distance). They "cluster" with one another in term of genetic distance. This is produced by a series of migration, isolation, bottleneck effect and back migration and admixture.

But some people find it strange, because we also know that African populations, usually, have a very high level of genetic diversity too (for example, nucleotide diversity). So how can certain populations be both genetically diverse while being genetically close at the same time?

To answer that question, I decided to make a little simple/toy example, which I think is easy to understand without the need to do any calculation.

EXAMPLE:

Population 1:
individual 1:AAGGT
individual 2:CCTAG
individual 3:TGCCA

Population 2:
individual 1:AAGGT
individual 2:CTTAG
individual 3:TGCCA

Population 3:
individual 1:GTATC
individual 2:GTATC
individual 3:GTATC

Here we have 3 populations. Each with 3 individuals. For each individual, we have a string of DNA nucleotides (for simplicity, we can view it as a continuous string of DNA. I also show only 1 allele per locus as if non-autosomal). Let's consider them as SNP. Each position in the string correspond to a locus. So in population 1, individual 1, at locus 1, you got nucleotide A (Adenine). In population 3, individual 2, locus 4, you got T. And so on.

Genetic distance:
If we take a little time to look at it. It's easy to see that population 1 and 2 are almost genetically similar. So they are genetically very close to one another.

Population 3 is very different from population 1 and 2. Population 3 have different nucleotides than population 1 and 2, at almost every locus.

So, population 1 and 2 are much closer to each other in term of genetic distance than with population 3.


Diversity:
Here we can see that population 3 is not very diversified. In fact, their diversity is zero. At locus 1, they all got G. At locus 2, they all got T, and so on.

Not the same thing could be said about population 1 and 2. Population 1 has at locus 1 got A, C and T for the 3 individuals. Clearly, 3 different nucleotides. Same for locus 2, with A, C and G. And so on. Same could be said about population 2.

So Population 1 and 2, are much more genetically diverse than population 3.

Conclusion : Here we have a simple example of 2 populations being relatively genetically close to each other, compared to with population 3, while at the same time exhibiting a high level of genetic diversity. The studies (graphs/trees) I posted are practical examples of it.

I hope this post will help people who are mixing up the concept of genetic distance with genetic diversity.

[rivertemz]

Lol I hope this was just casual Banter, if not then I hope it stops because you both give informative posts, don't let your sourceful differences on these topics lead to personal distaste towards another member. I think most of us are all on the "same page" here.
Peace.

[truthteacher2007]

Jul 1, 2014 14:13:59 GMT -5 rivertemz said:

Lol I hope this was just casual Banter, if not then I hope it stops because you both give informative posts, don't let your sourceful differences on these topics lead to personal distaste towards another member. I think most of us are all on the "same page" here.
Peace.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've been as sweet as pie the whole time!

[rivertemz]

Jul 1, 2014 14:25:25 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

Jul 1, 2014 14:13:59 GMT -5 rivertemz said:

Lol I hope this was just casual Banter, if not then I hope it stops because you both give informative posts, don't let your sourceful differences on these topics lead to personal distaste towards another member. I think most of us are all on the "same page" here.
Peace.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've been as sweet as pie the whole time!

oh it's just what I got from the previous page, but if it isn't negative from you then I guess it's no biggie

[truthteacher2007]

Jul 1, 2014 15:33:08 GMT -5 rivertemz said:

Jul 1, 2014 14:25:25 GMT -5 truthteacher2007 said:

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've been as sweet as pie the whole time!

oh it's just what I got from the previous page, but if it isn't negative from you then I guess it's no biggie

Of course not. I'm a perfect saint. Can't you see my halo rolling 'cross the floor?

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Originally posted by capra:

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Is there a study that tracks Gulf of Guinea
peoples' movement into the greening Sahara?

Did GGP move into the greening Sahara
then go back to GGA after current dry
Sahara began drying out in the mid-Holocene?

genetically or archaeologically? i haven't seen any genetic study with enough detail to even begin to sort that out. archaeologically, you probably know better than me, seems to have been quite a variety of tool-making methods around, but the small quartz tools made by the people who reoccupied Ounjougou in central Mali somewhat over 11 000 years ago (already with a few sherds of pottery) may be linked to the vaguely-defined quartz microlithic tradition found at Shum Laka in western Cameroon 30 000 years ago and in southern Nigeria and Cote d'Ivoire 15 000 years ago. perhaps with origins in East Africa. at Iwo Eleru found at the same level as the archaic-looking person.

the Faleme Valley in eastern Senegal was apparently occupied throughout the Ogolian with varied lithic industries, i don't know how it connects to anything later.

Great roundup pahdnuh. How bout an eyefull?

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

So far what I find from the research data

E-M2 probably expanded from north Cameroon
where it coalesced 4000 years earlier from
LGAM Mayo Louti cultural site men who were
likely ancestral to the Fali. Green Sahara
E-M2 moved north from Cameroon following
the northward expanding fertile grassland
landscapes.


I haven't read the Cruciani Trombetta text.
This project they designed and supervised is
the latest of their ongoing studies.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Improved resolution version coming,
no promise. Also, need to substitute
'scrub' with 'recolonizing forest mosaic'.




W Afr has been continuously inhabitable since
the Middle Stone Age at least 24,000 years ago.

[asante]

YOOOOO Asante didn't get credit for the first few of those post that you pasted from the pharoahs thread. @zaharan let's fix that!

[asante]

May 17, 2019 1:52:31 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Originally posted by capra:

genetically or archaeologically? i haven't seen any genetic study with enough detail to even begin to sort that out. archaeologically, you probably know better than me, seems to have been quite a variety of tool-making methods around, but the small quartz tools made by the people who reoccupied Ounjougou in central Mali somewhat over 11 000 years ago (already with a few sherds of pottery) may be linked to the vaguely-defined quartz microlithic tradition found at Shum Laka in western Cameroon 30 000 years ago and in southern Nigeria and Cote d'Ivoire 15 000 years ago. perhaps with origins in East Africa. at Iwo Eleru found at the same level as the archaic-looking person.

the Faleme Valley in eastern Senegal was apparently occupied throughout the Ogolian with varied lithic industries, i don't know how it connects to anything later.

Great roundup pahdnuh. How bout an eyefull?

The only people who consistently lived throughout parts of Western and Central Africa as reported by so many (including themselves) were the Twa. The other groups (namely Niger-Congo speakers) migrated into the region much much much more recently. 

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

I disagree.

Rainforest folk, 'Shorties' -- Aka, Mbuti,
etc., -- are physically adapted specifically
for, well, a rainforest environment.


Those available W Afr late Pleistocene to
early Holocene skeletal material does not
support a Shorty physiognomy, iinm.

The technology / toolkits are not found
in Shorty domains today are they? No.

Not to mention ancDNA from Mt Hora way
southeast in Malawi from ~8200 years
ago indicates Senegal Niger UpperNile
genomes were in Central African where
Mbuti later came to live.


Bingerville Highway's the only paleo/neo site
close to a rainforest. Recheck the above maps.

Nothing overrides replicable conclusions
derived from objectively analyzing data
and evidence. That's the scientific method.

But have it your way.

BTW Twa are only the Great Lakes Shorties,
a small minority of the overall Shorty total
population. An ostracized persecuted minority
in Kivu, Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania.

An African shame noteven equaled by Mauritania.
Both regions' racist issues ignored by the AU.