Did the Bantu expansion really occur?

[djoser-xyyman]

Lioness at ES challenge me on this question, M initially reaction was, no, it did not occur but I decided to dig deeper on what really is the “Bantu Expansion”.

Typical of my MO I look at the topic strictly from a genetic point of view, first. Which is, is there a clear genetic gradient from the supposedly Bantu homeland along through the Bantu dispersal route? Or is there a separation of Eastern Bantu’s and Western Bantu’s and to my surprise not only is the Eastern Bantu older than the Western Bantu’s but the Bantu expansion may have originated along the Nile and NOT in West Africa as is the popular belief. I am open to any criticism to my observation.

So far the Linguistics and the genetics seem to isolate the Bantu origin IN Eastern Africa. Maybe someone will hit me up on the archeological and anthropological evidence of the Bantu expansion starting in Western Africa then spreading South and East.


So far I am getting conflicting answers. They are discussed below. I will start off with DNATribes statement made recently that ancestral Bantu population existed in Yemen PRIOR to the Neolithic(ie EEF). Then we have Kivilsid (Gates of Tears paper), Mozambique and Yeminese have closer haplotype matches than Yemen and Ethiopians. When hg-M and hg-N is thrown in the mix the data is skewed giving the appearance that Yemen and Horners have closer genetic affinity.

Looking at this paper it hit me like a lightening bolt – that Mozambique Bantus are older than the occupation of Africans IN West Africa.


So is the Bantu migration a movement of people of technology? Bantus in South Eastern Africa are older than Bantus in West Africa.

[djoser-xyyman]

Then we have :

Quote:


Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion
Cesare de Filippo1 2012

AND


A genomic analysis identifies a novel component in the genetic structure of sub-Saharan African populations - Martin Sikora 2011

[djoser-xyyman]

Quotes:

Studies of large sets of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data have proven to be a powerful tool in the analysis of the genetic structure of human populations. In this work, we analyze genotyping data for 2841 SNPs in 12 sub-Saharan African populations, including a previously unsampled region of southeastern Africa (Mozambique). We show that robust results in a world-wide perspective can be obtained when analyzing only 1000 SNPs. Our main results both confirm the results of previous studies, and show new and interesting features in sub-Saharan African genetic complexity. There is a strong differentiation of Nilo-Saharans, much BEYOND what would be expected by geography. Hunter-gatherer populations (Khoisan and Pygmies) show a clear distinctiveness with very intrinsic Pygmy (and not only Khoisan) genetic features. Populations of the West Africa present an unexpected similarity among them, possibly the result of a population expansion. Finally, we find a strong differentiation of the southeastern Bantu population from Mozambique, which suggests an assimilation of a pre-Bantu substrate by Bantu speakers in the region.



The third PC allows us to discriminate between western/central (Mandenka, Yoruba), eastern (Maasai, Luhya), and southeastern populations (Mozambique), IRRESPECTIVELY OF LANGUAGE FAMILY. This is the PC that is mostly correlated with geography (Figure 2c), and the fact that it is the third RATHER THAN THE FIRST COMPONENT, as would be expected if isolation by distance was the predominant force shaping genetic diversity,16 implies that directional population movements (such as the Bantu expansion) and barriers to gene flow (such as that between food producers and hunter gatherers) are more relevant than geographic distance to understand the genetic landscape of sub-Saharan Africa. The distinction between west and southeast Africa is also shown with K4; at K5, the Niger-Congo speaking Luhya are separated from the rest. The new component that appears at K¼6 is restricted to African Americans and Biaka Pygmies, and is the last component that can be attributed to specific populations.


but not Pygmies). Among Niger-Congo populations, geography is the main factor explaining the genetic differences, with a remarkable similarity among western populations (Yorubas and Mandenka), which could reflect a burst in the expansion to the west, related to iron technology and Niger-Congo languages. (ii) 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,17–19 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.

[djoser-xyyman]

More to come…when I get time

[djoser-xyyman]

Genetics can answer a lot of our questions....and expose lies.

[djoser-xyyman]

There is clear seperation of Eastern Bantus t Western Bantus. Meaning?

Not only that but the Maasai and Luhya seems to ancestral to most popualtions.

[djoser-xyyman]

What the chart is showing is Western Bantus and Eastern Bantus do NOT share AIM/SNP which would be expected from a demographic(people) movement from West to East. Also, this is what the author concluded.

As for AFRAMs. The SNP chart shows AFRAMS share ancestry with several African groups.

**How** it happened is where the inference comes in. Jackass!! My guess it is indirectly through European admixture. Maasai are known to share SNPs with Europeans. Europeans were NOT included.

[djoser-xyyman]

I am not the only one who believes the Bantu expansion never occurred. It is all BS made up by Europeans.

The more I read the more I realize how much horse manure we have been fed by incompetent European “intellectuals”. It is mind boggling how they can come to a conclusion based upon such flimsy data and we believe it. How did these lying racist get away with in the past. Fortunately the Web has leveled the playing field.

Within only 3-years of being on ES I had doubts that the Bantu Expansion actually occurred

This guy is challenging them on the Bantu Expansion.

Quote from:

Bantu Theory’s Many Troubling Issues - By Israel Ntaganzwa, Jan 2015

Abstarct -
Considering all these important issues, the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn is that Bantu theory in general is based on pure conjecture, speculation and guesswork to say the least. It is a good theory that was simply accepted at face value and taken for granted based on presumed facts. With so many unresolved issues regarding this theory, linguists must find new and better explanations to prove it and to support it or abandon it altogether.

1. INTRODUCTION
Sub Saharan Africa is home to some 500 ethnic groups whose languages are known as Bantu, a term coined by a South African Librarian named W. H. Bleek in 1850. Though there are striking similarities among some of these languages, others are so diverse that their speakers cannot at all communicate. Because of these highly exaggerated similarities, it is assumed that Bantu people might have migrated from one geographic central location which was pin-pointed by Joseph Greenberg as somewhere between Nigeria and Cameroon. Malcolm Guthrie thought that Bantu’s original homeland was Katanga in southern Congo. No one has satisfactorily answered this question. Why? Because this alleged migration never took place.It is another colonial jungle fabricated myth like the discredited hamitic theory, and it is a matter of time that Bantu theory too will be discarded and thrown away. In additional to Bantu’s mysterious land of origin, there are many other issues that are not yet resolved.

They include:
- Bantu historical evidence
- Bantu expansion
- Bantu languages diversity
- Bantu cultural diversity
- Bantu genetic mysteries

[djoser-xyyman]

------------------


Let me clarify a few things for the lurkers.


Seems like I am not breaking new ground or at least the cheese does not stand alone. This author contends the Bantu expansion did NOT occur and he provides archeological, anthropological, linguistic, some cultural and genetic proof to support his hypothesis. His genetic proof is a little weak and obviously linguistics is his forte. Keep in mind the Bantu Expansion Theory is primarily based upon linguistics.

Some noteworthy points the author brought up were

1. He contends that there is no hypothetical Bantu skull and physical body type. He adds that there is no skeleton evidence found of modern “West Africans” found in West Africa until about 500AD. All skeletons found in West Africa prior to that were of Khoi-San type people. He proposes that Khoi-Sans populated all of sub-Africa up to 500AD. I am not a bone guy so I don’t have enough info on that.
2. Being a linguist himself, he parsed apart the Bantu Theory s by Greenberg and Ehret the major proposers of such Theory. He showed there is no such thing as a Bantu language or people
3. His genetics argument is bit weak. But I agree with him. Instead he focuses on the disparity of maternal and paternal haplogroups of Batwa(pygmy) people found in the so called Bantus. He did not get into the disparity of GWAS found between Eastern and Western Bantus as I did.
4. He really got into the food/farming technology, pointing out that many of the crops and animal currently grown by “Bantus” like bananas are NOT Native to Africa, I did not know this.


Overall it is refreshing to see someone of “national” stature rip apart the “Bantu Theory” and I am not the only one (being on a forum such as this).

Great minds think alike.
.

[kaskata]

I will have to agree there is no such thing as Bantu skull or physical type. The people from west Africa oral history trace their roots back to East Africa. I watched a documentary about the Dogon people who describe the people they found in there current location, there is archaeological evidence to support their claims. What confuses me a bit is the reference to Western Bantus. If by Western Bantus you mean black Africans below the Sahara desert that live in West Africa, then I would agree that linguistically it is difficult to find similarities between Western and Eastern African languages. However, there is absolutely no doubt that actual Bantu Languages (from Central, Eastern and Southern) are related. For example the word for person in all actual Bantu languages are base on Ntu. As far as the Bantu migration goes, a lot of Bantu Oral history, specially in the southern regions recall their migration to those parts, but most don't say from where. My personal take on the Bantus is that they are a mixture of various African people.

[djoser-xyyman]

We can clearly see at K4 Western Bantus are genetically different than Eastern Bantus.

[djoser-xyyman]

The Luyha(Great Lakes) seem to be ancestral to ALL groups(including Maasai). The Luyha carry ALL three colors at equal proportions. Red, blue and purple. This indicative of the Luyha being ancestral to all three populations. Diffrentiating into these three populations. So yes, you are right, Western Bantus seem to be from the East of Africa and they entered Western Africa recently. Judging by the E1b1a mutation they entered West Africa less than 3000ya.

If "Bantus" migrated from West Africa to the East then the Eastern Bantus will be primarily also blue indicative of being similar population.

[kaskata]

This is where things get confusing. On the above graph it shows the Mende and Yoruba people as Bantus, but they are not Bantus. If I remember correctly they are referred as Sudanic people. Genetically speaking I thought some Bantus would be closer to the San people given their history. For example the Xhosa people who have adopted part of the click language in to their own.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Jan 15, 2015 20:12:20 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

We can clearly see at K4 Western Bantus are genetically different than Eastern Bantus.

There is no such a thing as your
West Bantus and East Bantus. The
ones you labeled West Bantu do
not speak Bantu.

Not only that, you willfully
ignored the clearly labeled
Bantu entity plainly in the chart.

What gives?

Readers need know you doctored
Sikora's chart adding those
giant red arrows having not
a thing to do with the real
science report.

But yes, there are African born
linguists who posit the BaNtu
expansion was one of language
not involving deme movement.

Also Sikora shows that his
Bantu are much more of a
genetic conglomerate than AfrAms.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

from Sikora (all hi-lites by myself)
www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010141a.html

• DISCUSSION
  II.
  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.

Martin Sikora , Hafid Laayouni1, Francesc Calafell , David Comas and Jaume Bertranpetit
A genomic analysis identifies a novel component in the genetic structure of sub-Saharan African populations
European Journal of Human Genetics (2011) 19, 84–88; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.141; published online 25 August 2010