|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Sept 7, 2010 16:38:14 GMT -5
Sometimes people simply or purposely forget the simple fact that Africa south of the equator wasn't populated prier to the Bantu expansion into Central/Southeast/Southern Africa (1500 B.C. - 1000 A.D.), in exception = two major linguistic and cultural groups, both hunter and gatherers populations who only sparsely populated the region south of Cameroon-Ethiopia... the Khoisan and the Central African "pygmies". Therefore in regard to African history prior to year 1, African civilization in regard to urban culture is largely concentrated north of the equator in West Africa , Chadic Central Africa, Northeast/Horn of Africa, Egypto-Sudan, and Maghreb/Northwest Africa and if you place Semitic Southwest Asia into the African category... the Levant/Mesopotamia/Arabia. Only later followed by centers of civilization founded by relatively recently arrived Bantu populations in the Greats Lakes region, Southeast African coast, various locations through out Southern Africa, and the Congo basin. What amazes me is how fast these Bantu speakers were able to establish such organized and structured civilizations in such a short time period in actually inhabiting a particular region. Most Europeans outside the Greco-Roman world spent there entire evolutionary histories in a specific region and never established anything of worth in regard to their own standards prior to Roman expansion from the south. The foundations of the Egypto-Nubian, Western Sudanic, Ethiopian and several other centers of civilizations were being put in place prior to the expansion of Bantu speakers into Africa south of the equator and yet civilizations based around these Bantu speakers were quickly developed not long after these populations settled much of Africa.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Sept 19, 2010 4:53:51 GMT -5
Sometimes people simply or purposely forget the simple fact that Africa south of the equator wasn't populated prier to the Bantu expansion into Central/Southeast/Southern Africa (1500 B.C. - 1000 A.D.), in exception = two major linguistic and cultural groups, both hunter and gatherers populations who only sparsely populated the region south of Cameroon-Ethiopia... the Khoisan and the Central African "pygmies". Therefore in regard to African history prior to year 1, African civilization in regard to urban culture is largely concentrated north of the equator in West Africa , Chadic Central Africa, Northeast/Horn of Africa, Egypto-Sudan, and Maghreb/Northwest Africa and if you place Semitic Southwest Asia into the African category... the Levant/Mesopotamia/Arabia. Only later followed by centers of civilization founded by relatively recently arrived Bantu populations in the Greats Lakes region, Southeast African coast, various locations through out Southern Africa, and the Congo basin. What amazes me is how fast these Bantu speakers were able to establish such organized and structured civilizations in such a short time period in actually inhabiting a particular region. Most Europeans outside the Greco-Roman world spent there entire evolutionary histories in a specific region and never established anything of worth in regard to their own standards prior to Roman expansion from the south. The foundations of the Egypto-Nubian, Western Sudanic, Ethiopian and several other centers of civilizations were being put in place prior to the expansion of Bantu speakers into Africa south of the equator and yet civilizations based around these Bantu speakers were quickly developed not long after these populations settled much of Africa. Just a thought. There have been skeleta remains recovered that indicate Africa south of the equator was indeed inhabited, I'll have to dig up the articles. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Sept 21, 2010 20:11:25 GMT -5
Well, I guess, if Khoi Khoi, San, and "Pygmies" were there then it
wasn't unpopulated. Some Khoi Khoi were pastoralist with sheep
but they never produced enough food to allow for any urban
buildup.
"Pygmies" were forest dwellers again disallowing food production
and urban build up.
The above three major groups were impacted by the Bantu and
syncretized themselves with Bantu.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Sept 22, 2010 12:38:23 GMT -5
Well, I guess, if Khoi Khoi, San, and "Pygmies" were there then it wasn't unpopulated. Some Khoi Khoi were pastoralist with sheep but they never produced enough food to allow for any urban buildup. "Pygmies" were forest dwellers again disallowing food production and urban build up. The above three major groups were impacted by the Bantu and syncretized themselves with Bantu. 100% agree. That's my point. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Sept 22, 2010 15:38:08 GMT -5
He did not say NOT populated. He said was "sparsely" populated. And it was populated by "older" african groups. E3a originated in the Sahara region - East according to NG. Yet E3a is predominant in West Africa. So obviously the E3a peoples migrated West then South. The marker is about > 20kyo. So these people migrating for a long long long time. As they moved to the interior to probably phenotypically adapted to the region. Sometimes people simply or purposely forget the simple fact that Africa south of the equator wasn't populated prier to the Bantu expansion into Central/Southeast/Southern Africa (1500 B.C. - 1000 A.D.), in exception = two major linguistic and cultural groups, both hunter and gatherers populations who only sparsely populated the region south of Cameroon-Ethiopia... the Khoisan and the Central African "pygmies". Therefore in regard to African history prior to year 1, African civilization in regard to urban culture is largely concentrated north of the equator in West Africa , Chadic Central Africa, Northeast/Horn of Africa, Egypto-Sudan, and Maghreb/Northwest Africa and if you place Semitic Southwest Asia into the African category... the Levant/Mesopotamia/Arabia. Only later followed by centers of civilization founded by relatively recently arrived Bantu populations in the Greats Lakes region, Southeast African coast, various locations through out Southern Africa, and the Congo basin. What amazes me is how fast these Bantu speakers were able to establish such organized and structured civilizations in such a short time period in actually inhabiting a particular region. Most Europeans outside the Greco-Roman world spent there entire evolutionary histories in a specific region and never established anything of worth in regard to their own standards prior to Roman expansion from the south. The foundations of the Egypto-Nubian, Western Sudanic, Ethiopian and several other centers of civilizations were being put in place prior to the expansion of Bantu speakers into Africa south of the equator and yet civilizations based around these Bantu speakers were quickly developed not long after these populations settled much of Africa. Just a thought. There have been skeleta remains recovered that indicate Africa south of the equator was indeed inhabited, I'll have to dig up the articles. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Sept 23, 2010 6:37:36 GMT -5
^Are my writing skills that confusing? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Sept 24, 2010 11:32:22 GMT -5
Sometimes people simply or purposely forget the simple fact that Africa south of the equator wasn't populated prier to the Bantu expansion into Central/Southeast/Southern Africa (1500 B.C. - 1000 A.D.), in exception = two major linguistic and cultural groups, both hunter and gatherers populations who only sparsely populated the region south of Cameroon-Ethiopia... the Khoisan and the Central African "pygmies". Therefore in regard to African history prior to year 1, African civilization in regard to urban culture is largely concentrated north of the equator in West Africa , Chadic Central Africa, Northeast/Horn of Africa, Egypto-Sudan, and Maghreb/Northwest Africa and if you place Semitic Southwest Asia into the African category... the Levant/Mesopotamia/Arabia. Only later followed by centers of civilization founded by relatively recently arrived Bantu populations in the Greats Lakes region, Southeast African coast, various locations through out Southern Africa, and the Congo basin. What amazes me is how fast these Bantu speakers were able to establish such organized and structured civilizations in such a short time period in actually inhabiting a particular region. Most Europeans outside the Greco-Roman world spent there entire evolutionary histories in a specific region and never established anything of worth in regard to their own standards prior to Roman expansion from the south. The foundations of the Egypto-Nubian, Western Sudanic, Ethiopian and several other centers of civilizations were being put in place prior to the expansion of Bantu speakers into Africa south of the equator and yet civilizations based around these Bantu speakers were quickly developed not long after these populations settled much of Africa. Just a thought. There have been skeleta remains recovered that indicate Africa south of the equator was indeed inhabited, I'll have to dig up the articles. Of course it was inhabited, though scientia's point is a bit different. One however, cannot overlook the fact that the Bantu expansion began at a focal point already south of the Sahara. It may have been sparsely populated but that's only because of low population density overall. It seems the Bantu expansion was not only geographically and technologically successful, but reproductively successful. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Sept 24, 2010 14:54:22 GMT -5
^Are my writing skills that confusing? ;D LOL, my bad. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Sept 24, 2010 16:19:47 GMT -5
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 May;130(1):10-25.
Morphometric cranial identity of prehistoric Malawians in the light of sub-Saharan African diversity.
Morris AG, Ribot I.
Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Observatory 7925, South Africa.
Abstract
Little has been described of the Holocene populations of South-Central Africa, despite the region demonstrating major subsistence shifts relating to dispersals of agriculturalists at least 2,000 years ago. Seven sites with associated human skeletal remains were selected. Hora, Chencherere, Fingura, and Mtuzi represent the Middle Holocene (2,000-5,000 years ago), and Phwadze, Mtemankhokwe, and Nkudzi Bay represent the Late Holocene and the arrival of agriculturalists between 500-2,000 years ago. Focusing on the identity of Hora and Chencherere specimens, two questions were addressed: are the various Holocene Malawians similar to each other, or do they suggest morphological change over time? What modern populations are closest to the prehistoric specimens? The archaeological sample was compared to modern sub-Saharan Africans from four regions, plus a historic Khoi-San foraging group. Factor analyses were performed in order to identify complex patterns of variation in metric traits of the skull. According to the results, prehistoric Malawians showed only slight differences between the Late and Middle Holocene, suggesting a population change without any major discontinuity. Later Stone Age skulls did not exclusively show similarities with the Khoi-San, as they frequently fit well within the variation of modern Bantu-speaking groups, especially West-Central Africa. Therefore, we reject the hypothesis that Middle Holocene South-Central Africans have an exclusively Khoi-San ancestry, and support an alternative hypothesis that both Middle and Late Holocene groups share a common biological heritage originating in West-Central Africa in earlier times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Sept 25, 2010 19:43:16 GMT -5
We should delve into the Bantu Expansion (and also into Later Stone Age and Early Iron Age Africa south of the equator). The earliest ideas about it were Eurocentric assuming an African version of Nordic Drift. Modern archaeology sees Africa south of the equator as simultaneously having Later Stone Age and Iron Age cultures existing side by side, in some areas up to the 19th century. A certain part of the expansion was not necessarily demic but bearing industrial, cultural, and linguistic elements to those already living there. A personal point of mine: I have never accepted Kikuyu as anything but Bantu in language. Many elements of their culture seems like that of Cushitics. They why they view eating fish and fish eaters seems strange for demic Bantu whose protolexicon is full of words regarding fishing. Another thing is that iron appears in use in the region before it does in the proposed Benue reach homeland of Bantu origins as accepted by most linguists (Guthrie's Zambia origin theory being rejected by nearly all).  |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 25, 2010 20:12:57 GMT -5
Arab and Portuguese were incredibly ignorant about the bulk of Africa and had greatly exaggerated accounts of armies and trade routes connecting distant places on the continent. This is in contrast with more modern views that there were not long distance contacts or that such long distance contacts didn't occur until very recent times (i.e. Bantu migration)
One belief for example was that almost all rivers in Africa were considered as being the Nile, literally one river, and connects all the cities
Another was a belief that an invading army was penetrating the Zambezi at one end, and Abyssinia on the other, the same army invading widely distant places on the continent at the same time
|
|
