Did the Bantu expansion really occur?

[kaskata]

To me, it seems the researchers limited themselves, by only sampling Mozambique. I also wonder which group(s) did they sample? When they say "poorly related to present Khosian" is it because of the time past, after we are talking about hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. They are Bantu stories of how men would marry Khosian women and how they would absorb the population they found in new locations. From what I know, Bantu people are a collection of different people who adopted agriculture and some what retain some aspect of the "cow culture". Cattle is very important to at least the Eastern and Southern Africans.

[djoser-xyyman]

As usually you input is appreciated, good to see you agree with me.

But sometimes you overlook the underlying points and is distracted by the glitz and glitter. The author contends it is NOT an expansion of a Language. He contends there is no such thing as a “Bantu language”. Like me he (Ntaganzwa) equates Niger-Congo with Bantu. But you continental brothas will know more than me. But the point the chart is showing is that Niger-Congo/Bantu is not genetically related. Am I wrong? And a blind man can see the highlights are mine. Need I spell it out? I cited the source so anyone can look up the original if they want to. I am not being deceptive. I hope you are not implying that.

Quote:Sage

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

The “popular theor” is the Bantu Expansion is a movement of people. It is not.. Ntaganzwa cited above says there is no such thing as a Bantu language.

[djoser-xyyman]

So what do we have? Separating “facts’ from “fiction”. The author verified that there is a clear difference between Western Niger-Congo (Ahem! Bantus) and Eastern Niger-Congo-Bantus. In addition some Niger Congo speakers are off-the-charts and do not fit any mold ie Luyha. The next step is, they “explain “ the difference with a bad Hollywood script. He speculates that the difference is due to an imaginary “pre-Bantu” population that existed in Mozambique that got assimilated. He speculates further that this phantom population(who is not the ancient Khoisan) disappeared and left no trace or haven’t been sampled as yet. “I have a bridge to sell you” lol!


===============

A genomic analysis identifies a novel component in the genetic structure of sub-Saharan African populations - Martin Sikora 20101


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 K6 is restricted to African Americans and Biaka Pygmies, and is the last component that can be attributed to specific populations.


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 B5000 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. The complexity of the expansion of Bantu languages to the south (with an eastern and a western route20), 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.2,21–24 Nonetheless, the singularity of the southeastern population of Mozambique (poorly related to present Khoisan) could be attributed to a complete assimilate on 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


===========

The Bantu(Niger Congo) Expansion never occurred!!!!

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Jan 16, 2015 1:10:47 GMT -5 kaskata said:

To me, it seems the researchers limited themselves, by only sampling Mozambique. I also wonder which group(s) did they sample? When they say "poorly related to present Khosian" is it because of the time past, after we are talking about hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. They are Bantu stories of how men would marry Khosian women and how they would absorb the population they found in new locations. From what I know, Bantu people are a collection of different people who adopted agriculture and some what retain some aspect of the "cow culture". Cattle is very important to at least the Eastern and Southern Africans.

Be sure to dwnld the supplement doc.

[zarahan]

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

Takur thanks for full citation and link. Its good xyz, you and others are
bringing forward this alternative to received wisdom. No doubt more research
will confirm or move us away from today's Bantu expansion model. Based on
what you guys say above we need to take another look at that model.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Ever since I read about the 'expansion'
not being demic as much as "lingo-tech"
in the unabridged UNESCO (it was edited
out of the paperback reprint and even in
the original the co-author of that chapter
and editor of that volume distanced themselves
from the opinion of a born East African BaNtu
historical linguist) I have doubted the 'demic
expansion' though most every other ES OT, even
Rasol a South African, agreed with it and the
earlier reports that supported that theory.

Sikora is sloppy in places and the data
is only SNP based but his STRUCTURE at
K=5 clearly shows BaNtu speakers are of
distinct separate genetic lineages

* northern E Afr Luhya - orange
* southeast Afr Mozambiqans - violet
* south Afr Soweto/Jo-burg- orange + hodgepodge





He proved his ~3k SNPs in PCA analysis
are roughly as good as ~500k SNPs and
thus cost effective for investment
limited researchers. But something
appears off as both sets of genome
samples place many Mexicans in the
Central Asian cluster.

[djoser-xyyman]

QUOTE:
QUOTE:
----------------------------------

Bantu Theory’s Many Troubling Issues: A Close Examination of Bantu Theory and Many of Its Unanswered Questions. By Israel Ntaganzwa, New York 1/2015

Abstract
It is becoming increasingly clear that Bantu theory will remain unresolved after all these years because it has too many unanswerable questions and to date no satisfactory explanations have been provided. The aim of this paper is to briefly summarize some of these issues and to highlight some of the tragic consequences that have been directly or indirectly associated with Bantu theory. Although my direct approach to this subject appears to be rather provocative, my real intentions were to emphasize these important issues, bring them into the open, and invite non-linguists as well as the public in general to participate in, or at least pay close attention to, this fascinating and long-standing debate. 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.


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.


During the last century, Bantu population has increased tenfold (Fig.4). Prior to 1900, however, it was another story. We can assume that between 1600 and 1900 the sub Saharan population increased at an average of five fold each century by conservative estimates, and doubled during the previous centuries. If we calculate backwards we can conclude that by 1000 AD there were no more than 1000 people who made up the entire Bantu population! This assumption takes into account other non Bantu groups such as the hunters/gathers of the tropical forests, the so-called Bushmen of southern Africa, the so called Nilotics of Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and northern Congo, and the agropastoralists of central and east Africa, which would reduce Bantu population down to zero (0) by 800 CE. As for the hunters/gatherers and the agropastoralists, their population sizes were small but their settlements in the region around the first millennium BP have been well established by archeology (Sutton, Schmidt, van Noten, van Grunderbeek).

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

[djoser-xyyman]

During the last century, Bantu population has increased tenfold (Fig.4). Prior to 1900, however, it was another story. We can assume that between 1600 and 1900 the sub Saharan population increased at an average of five fold each century by conservative estimates, and doubled during the previous centuries. If we calculate backwards we can conclude that by 1000 AD there were no more than 1000 people who made up the entire Bantu population! This assumption takes into account other non Bantu groups such as the hunters/gathers of the tropical forests, the so-called Bushmen of southern Africa, the so called Nilotics of Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and northern Congo, and the agropastoralists of central and east Africa, which would reduce Bantu population down to zero (0) by 800 CE. As for the hunters/gatherers and the agropastoralists, their population sizes were small but their settlements in the region around the first millennium BP have been well established by archeology (Sutton, Schmidt, van Noten, van Grunderbeek).


The author is saying mathematically there was essentially ZERO "Bantus" 1000years ago. See yearly changes or growth below.

[snakepit]

Mar 13, 2015 20:40:34 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

During the last century, Bantu population has increased tenfold (Fig.4). Prior to 1900, however, it was another story. We can assume that between 1600 and 1900 the sub Saharan population increased at an average of five fold each century by conservative estimates, and doubled during the previous centuries. If we calculate backwards we can conclude that by 1000 AD there were no more than 1000 people who made up the entire Bantu population! This assumption takes into account other non Bantu groups such as the hunters/gathers of the tropical forests, the so-called Bushmen of southern Africa, the so called Nilotics of Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and northern Congo, and the agropastoralists of central and east Africa, which would reduce Bantu population down to zero (0) by 800 CE. As for the hunters/gatherers and the agropastoralists, their population sizes were small but their settlements in the region around the first millennium BP have been well established by archeology (Sutton, Schmidt, van Noten, van Grunderbeek).


The author is saying mathematically there was essentially ZERO "Bantus" 1000years ago. See yearly changes or growth below.

Namibia had an incredibly low growth-rate compared to the other countries.
Thanks for posting

[imhotep06]

I have been saying for years that 1) there was no rapid Bantu expansion, and 2) the Bantu speaking population originated in East Africa, great Lakes region. For anyone who actually have kept up with Bantu studies over the years, it is very obvious. For one, Bantu is very very old as evidenced from the Sumerian and Bantu comparisons. Secondly, Bantu is a conservative group of languages. It has maintained the old Negro-Egyptian features better than any of the other related languages within this family (I subscribe to the Negro-Egyptian Hypothesis). Jean-Claude Mboli (2010) has demonstrated as well that Bantu speakers originated in the Great Lakes region of Africa. It is only here that you will find the archaic features of Bantu; not in the Western Bantu languages. If you can only find the archaic features in East Africa (and South Africa regarding the Isizulu language), and not in West Africa, then one cannot conclude that the migration was from West to East but vice versa. Roger Blench does not even believe that Bantu is a genetic group. This is especially so of Bantoid in which he states "They do not form a genetic group; but all are in some way related to Bantu more closely than other branches of Benue-Congo.": www.academia.edu/6026186/The_Bantoid_languages. In his paper titled "Niger-Congo: An Alternative View" (2012: 2), Roger Blench states the following:

BANTU:
Definitely not a group. This may seem surprising in the light of the published claims to the contrary, but the argument from comparative linguistics which links the highly diverse languages of zone A to a genuine reconstruction is non-existent. Most claimed proto-Bantu is either confined to particular subgroups, or is widely attested outside Bantu proper.

I corresponded with Dr. Blench relatively recently on this subject and he informed me that he is working on a paper with all the details that explains his argument above. At least on the Bantoid front you can review the paper that I linked previously. This begs the question, if Bantu isn't even a genetic group, how can you make a genetic (biological) argument on a language group that doesn't exist? Now, I don't believe Bantu is a farse, just that there are multiple "Bantu" types. In Mboli (2010) he argues for at least two: 1) Para-Bantu, and 2) Bantu-Proper. Para-Bantu is where we ultimately get Middle-Egyptian. Here is the map drawn in Mboli (2010):



The second wave of speakers of Negro-Egyptian (dialect BEER) followed this route:



The model proposed by Mboli supports the genetic data which would argue that the movement was from East to West and not the other way around. Mboli's analysis is purely linguistic and not based on biological genetic data.

Bantu is very old and all of the languages would seem related to Bantu because Bantu maintains many archaic features of Negro-Egyptian that the many languages of the BEER branch have either lost or altered so much that they are not immediately recognizable. It is from this Bantu seed that the ancient Egyptian culture arises; at least many of the major ones. This has been the focus of my research and the more and more you get serious about it, the more you realize how much "suggestions" have been passing off as proven truths, when in fact no real scholarship has demonstrated these suggestions.

This is why it is important for us to get competent in these fields of science and to conduct our own unbiased research and correct the colonial school's laziness when it comes to African culture and history.

[djoser-xyyman]

Nice insight on the Bantu language. Linguistics is not my thing but when you say " old", what is old? According to Ehret and others AfroAsiatic is much older, in fact Niger_Congo is the youngest African branch.

[snakepit]

djoser-xyyman Is "Afroasiatic" even a proper language-family? (Since they haven't been able to reconstruct Proto-Afroasiatic)

[MorolongDithabeng]

"Bantu is very very old as evidenced from the Sumerian and Bantu comparisons"

"The point of historical linguistics lies not so much in finding a common
predialectal language as in appreciating the overall linguistic spread of
different, apparently unrelated, languages. A language is seldom enclosed
within a clearly defined space, but most commonly overflows its own area by
making relationships with other languages of varying degrees of kinship:
such relationships being sometimes imperceptible at first(eg. Sumerian). The important
underlying problem is obviously that of population movements. A common
language does not necessarily go together with racial identity. But it does
give relevant information about an essential, indeed the only real, unity,
namely, the basic cultural unity of people united by a common language
even though sometimes with very different origins and political systems."

To me the Sumerian and Bantu comparisons is ground enough to classify it as old, and even older based on oral accounts

"African history is less well equipped than any other subject to thrive in a
vacuum, even (indeed, especially) when it comes to what might be regarded
as history's special preserve: establishing the chronology. The correct
solution to a problem of chronology often calls for the use of four different
sources: written records, archaeology, linguistics and oral tradition."

"Bantu is a conservative group of languages. It has maintained the old Negro-Egyptian features better than any of the other related languages within this family"

"Language as a system and tool of communication is a historical
phenomenon. It has its own history. As the medium of thought, and that of
the past and knowledge of the past, it is the channel and the most important
source of historical evidence. Linguistics can be used to see
beyond the evidence of thought, beyond the conceptual apparatus used
in a language and the oral or written evidence" In this instance noticing its conservative-ness

"Guthrie in particular espoused the notion that Bantu is genetically independent and
that the extensive resemblances to Bantu found in the other Niger-Congo
languages is the result of Bantu influences on a fundamentally different
group of languages."

This independence can be likened to the Bantu concept of God, Man, Spirit and other things believed to be involved in the creation of Muntu/Munhu/Motho/Moto/Man. The sound represented by the letter  'M' (a grammatical unit accompanied by a descriptive text) is/was used to refer to the seen(man) and unseen(God) including the essence of the unseen(spirit) in man which literally means the fallen/sent 'M'. Mungu, Modimo, Mudzimu etc. are not necessarily names as many were and are still made to believe by Historians. The Zulu word 'Big-big one' (Nkulunkulu) in reference to God is fairly recent and was borrowed from the Bakgothu (Hottentots). In iSiZulu, the creator is rightfully referred to as Mvelinqangi or Mdali.

All these have profound meaning and based on oral accounts mostly taught at various initiation schools  for nyangas/nanga/ngaka , it takes one to another expansion point prior to that of the Great Lakes area. Most traditional healers would carry an object symbolic of this point of Bantu origins, the Horn of Africa. 

"Africa has been inferred to be the continent of origin for all modern human populations, with the earliest skulls of modern humans having been discovered in east Africa."
Stanford Link

"We believe the most recent set of our common ancestors were expanded from South Africa. But they could have evolved in East Africa, moving from South Africa back then dispersed. The archaeological record in East Africa goes back to 5 million years so it's a pretty reasonable assumption. "  Carlos Bustamante

[imhotep06]

May 24, 2015 14:17:59 GMT -5 djoser-xyyman said:

Nice insight on the Bantu language. Linguistics is not my thing but when you say " old", what is old? According to Ehret and others AfroAsiatic is much older, in fact Niger_Congo is the youngest African branch.

Greetings. When I say "old," I am speaking relatively. Many people think Bantu is a young language, when in fact it is older than ancient Egyptian civilization as attested by the studies of Sumerian and Proto-Bantu; as well as the archaic features still present in Bantu. I do not subscribe to the Niger-Congo or Afro-Asiatic hypothesis for reasons too numerous to name here. These "phylums" are non-existent.

[imhotep06]

Regarding the topic and the genetic information posed thus far, what say ye to this genetic article which argues for a West African origin of Bantu? www.africandna.com/%5Cadna_static%5CScienPapers%5CThe_Making_of_the_African_mtDNA_Landscape.pdf