I know there are still some bantu's in Nigeria, however, the bantu migration/expansion started with the arrival of the stronger Nilotic and Cushitic people in West Africa around 2000BC to 1000BC. Hence why they decided to move towards areas dominated by the weaker Pygmies.

You can add yours if you have any intelligent post to contribute...trolls, please stay away from this thread.

the cushitic people's stayed to the north and east africa (although some of
their close relatives such as the tuaregs and wodaabes are found in the sahel region today)

the nilotic people stayed in the east, they rarely venture outside of
their region. in fact here in the map of their territory:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Nilotic_languages.png/600px-Nilotic_languages.png

the only ppl who recently ventured into west africa from the east
were the chadic people such as the hausa. their migration west happened long after the
greater west african population migrated to west africa.

also where are these bantus in nigeria today?
last time i checked they came from southern cameroon and in fact many
southern cameroonians are still considered bantu-oid.

The Ijaws, Tivs, Igbo's, Ibibios and Cross River are pro-bantu.

And all the other tribes in present day West Africa are Chadic, Nilotic and Cushitic tribes - they all migrated from Northern Africa and the Nile region. The Bamileke's of Cameroun also belong to this group.

This isn't about linguistics - it's about DNA.

Let the E1b1a and E-V38 haplogroup explain further.

Interesting topic

*following*

HumbledbYGrace: Interesting topic

*following*

nje

Kuyabora la !!

shymexx: I know there are still some bantu's in Nigeria, however, the bantu migration/expansion started with the arrival of the stronger Nilotic and Cushitic people in West Africa around 2000BC to 1000BC. Hence why they decided to move towards areas dominated by the weaker Pygmies.

You can add yours if you have any intelligent post to contribute...trolls, please stay away from this thread.

I question your above premise about bantu movements being caused by invading nilotic or cushitic peoples, no evidence. The movements form west to east and then down south would most likely be results of changing climates, wars, squabbles for cattle grazing land and the likes.

The pygmies and khoisan also would have nothing to do with the movements as they did not wipe out these populations but more less integrated with them.

This is quite evident in southern Africa where most bantu ethnic groups are phenotypically similar to old khoisan peoples and very likely incorporated many click sounds into their languages.



The

shymexx: The Ijaws, Tivs, Igbo's, Ibibios and Cross River are pro-bantu.

And all the other tribes in present day West Africa are Chadic, Nilotic and Cushitic tribes - they all migrated from Northern Africa and the Nile region. The Bamileke's of Cameroun also belong to this group.

This isn't about linguistics - it's about DNA.

Let the E1b1a and E-V38 haplogroup explain further.

The above tribes are most likely proto-bantu which means their group splintered from a similar population as the bantu.

Linguistic evidence points to this however E1b1a-Ev38 is not a bantu haplogroup as this haplogroup stretches out to non bantu west African groups as well. It is more a less a dominant male haplogroup in Africa.

shymexx: I know there are still some bantu's in Nigeria, however, the bantu migration/expansion started with the arrival of the stronger Nilotic and Cushitic people in West Africa around 2000BC to 1000BC. Hence why they decided to move towards areas dominated by the weaker Pygmies.

You can add yours if you have any intelligent post to contribute...trolls, please stay away from this thread.

There are no bantus in Nigeria. I don't know where you get your theory from but it's way of the mark.

shymexx: The Ijaws, Tivs, Igbo's, Ibibios and Cross River are pro-bantu.

And all the other tribes in present day West Africa are Chadic, Nilotic and Cushitic tribes - they all migrated from Northern Africa and the Nile region. The Bamileke's of Cameroun also belong to this group.

This isn't about linguistics - it's about DNA.

Let the E1b1a and E-V38 haplogroup explain further.

Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a*/M2 is not a bantu marker. It's most likely the main Niger-Kordofanian/Congo marker.
The Y-DNA Haplogroup marker that best represents the Bantu migration is E1b1a7/M-191. Even then there's plenty of E1b1a*/M2 amongst Bantu men!

Black Kenichi:
There are no bantus in Nigeria. I don't know where you get your theory from but it's way of the mark.


Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a*/M2 is not a bantu marker. It's most likely the main Niger-Kordofanian/Congo marker.
The Y-DNA Haplogroup marker that best represents the Bantu migration is E1b1a7/M-191. Even then there's plenty of E1b1a*/M2 amongst Bantu men!

you are definitely an alt account.

lol

*Kails*:


you are definitely an alt account.

lol

What?
Seriously WTF!?

Black Kenichi:
What?
Seriously WTF!?

there is something "familiar" about you.
that's all.

Cultural phylogeography of the Bantu Languages of sub-Saharan Africa
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1762/20130695.abstract
[img]http://1.bp..com/-9r-Ky7NSyGk/UYrDAWapJDI/AAAAAAAAIw4/ffFgXD4j3X4/s1600/F2.large.jpg[/img]

*Kails*:
there is something "familiar" about you.
that's all.

I'm afraid I still don't follow!

Black Kenichi:
There are no bantus in Nigeria. I don't know where you get your theory from but it's way of the mark.

Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a*/M2 is not a bantu marker. It's most likely the main Niger-Kordofanian/Congo marker.
The Y-DNA Haplogroup marker that best represents the Bantu migration is E1b1a7/M-191. Even then there's plenty of E1b1a*/M2 amongst Bantu men!

I know the E1b1a*/M2 is not a bantu marker, I cited it for the non-bantuoid groups in Nigeria.

However, there are at least 4 to 5 bantuoid ethnic groups in Nigeria and I referenced them in my earlier post. Efik, Ijaw, Igbo, Tiv and Ibibio are all bantuoid groups.

shymexx:

I know the E1b1a*/M2 is not a bantu marker, I cited it for the non-bantuoid groups in Nigeria.

However, there are at least 4 to 5 bantuoid ethnic groups in Nigeria and I referenced them in my earlier post. Efik, Ijaw, Igbo, Tiv and Ibibio are all bantuoid groups.

The Igbo, Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw aren't Bantoid.
Only the Tiv are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantoid_languages


However Igbo, Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw are probably the originator of the Bantu. In other words they are Proto-Bantu.
Proto-Bantu =/= Bantu

^^^^What you posted is linguistic not haplogroup.

shymexx: ^^^^What you posted is linguistic not haplogroup.

I know. What's your point?

shymexx: The Ijaws, Tivs, Igbo's, Ibibios and Cross River are pro-bantu.

And all the other tribes in present day West Africa are Chadic, Nilotic and Cushitic tribes - they all migrated from Northern Africa and the Nile region. The Bamileke's of Cameroun also belong to this group.

This isn't about linguistics - it's about DNA.

Let the E1b1a and E-V38 haplogroup explain further.

What of the Yorubas? Do I smell tribalism here?

Black Kenichi:
I know. What's your point?

My point is that you can't classify people based on linguistics alone.

phoinix:
What of the Yorubas? Do I smell tribalism here?

Everything else but bantu.

shymexx:

My point is that you can't classify people based on linguistics alone.

Then what are you basing Efik, Ijaw, Igbo, Tiv and Ibibio and other SE Nigerian groups being bantu or bantoid on?
You say DNA haplogroups but which type? Mt-DNA (Maternal) or Y-DNA (Paternal)?

You say Y-DNA E-M2/E1b1a is the key. Yet most West African men Y-DNA E-M2/E1b1a or some subgroup of it.

While I agree with the basic premise of:

you can't classify people based on linguistics alone.

It still doesn't really negate the fact that Bantu is a Meta Ethno-linguistic cluster. Much like Nilotic and Cushitic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow_Bantu

shymexx:

Everything else but bantu.

haah, it's so apparent, isn't? You open a thread you obviously know little about to perpetuate tribal bigotry. Yorubas are no diffrent from the igbo's or any of the tribes you mentioned above, given their similarities in appearance and language.

It's a shame that you have to stoop low to score cheap points, not cool.

The idea that Bantu migrations from the eastern nigerian/western cameroun area was due to pressure from cushitic and nilotic peoples is a strange one. The only people remotely related to the Cushites and Nilotes in the Nigeria/Cameroun area live quite far from the ancestral homeland of the Bantu peoples.

If Bantu migrations were due to pressure from other groups, then its more likely that the pressure came from other Niger-Congo speaking groups expanding south, southeast and southwest from the general area of the Nigerian Middle Belt.

But I prefer to account for the migrations in terms of population growth WITHIN the Bantu homeland, brought about by more sophisticated methods of agriculture and the use of iron tools. The pressure put on the land by the expanding population triggered movements into Central, Eastern and Southern Africa. The movements were made even easier because south of the Congo forests, the land was open savanna only sparsely populated by very primitive stone-age peoples (the so-called Bushmen and Hottentots). So Bantu farmers could spread quite easily and seize up the whole land.


On another thread, I disagreed with you on ur inclusion of igbos within the Bantoid family. I still continue to disagree until I've seen ur sources. I will like to see ur sources for the ijaws too. Until then, the Ibibios, the Tivs, the Ogoni and some other smaller Eastern Nigerian ethnic groups are the ones I'm willing to accept as having close affinity with the Bantus, while not being Bantu themselves.

phoinix:
haah, it's so apparent, isn't? You open a thread you obviously know little about to perpetuate tribal bigotry. Yorubas are no diffrent from the igbo's or any of the tribes you mentioned above, given their similarities in appearance and language.

It's a shame that you have to stoop low to score cheap points, not cool.

You accused me of tribal bigotry, then went ahead to call "Yoruba's" - "Yorubas." Ain't that a bit.ch?

Anyway, getting into the full discussion of the composition of the Yoruba ethnic is little bit complex because the Yoruba's today came from different migration waves - and not just one. However, the people and language have evolved overtime to what we call Yoruba today.

The language might be similar and appearance means nothing since we came from the same family tree - however, language isn't the best way to analyse the origins of a group, or race. We can look at North Africa and the horn of Africa, and how both are considered the Afro-Asiatic - however we start to analyse the origin of most of North Africans, we'll find out that they're everything else but Afro-Asiatic. Th same way most of the present day Germanic speakers aren't Germanic.

Radoillo: The idea that Bantu migrations from the eastern nigerian/western cameroun area was due to pressure from cushitic and nilotic peoples is a strange one. The only people remotely related to the Cushites and Nilotes in the Nigeria/Cameroun area live quite far from the ancestral homeland of the Bantu peoples.

If Bantu migrations were due to pressure from other groups, then its more likely that the pressure came from other Niger-Congo speaking groups expanding south, southeast and southwest from the general area of the Nigerian Middle Belt.

But I prefer to account for the migrations in terms of population growth WITHIN the Bantu homeland, brought about by more sophisticated methods of agriculture and the use of iron tools. The pressure put on the land by the expanding population triggered movements into Central, Eastern and Southern Africa. The movements were made even easier because south of the Congo forests, the land was open savanna only sparsely populated by very primitive stone-age peoples (the so-called Bushmen and Hottentots). So Bantu farmers could spread quite easily and seize up the whole land.


On another thread, I disagreed with you on ur inclusion of igbos within the Bantoid family. I still continue to disagree until I've seen ur sources. I will like to see ur sources for the ijaws too. Until then, the Ibibios, the Tivs, the Ogoni and some other smaller Eastern Nigerian ethnic groups are the ones I'm willing to accept as having close affinity with the Bantus, while not being Bantu themselves.

The question is: who are the Cushites and Nilotes today, and who were they in the past? Once we find an answer to that, then we'll find out that most of the Cushites and Nilotes today aren't necessarily the ones of the past - they migrated into the groups and adopted their language and way of life. However, most of the ones of the past have evolved into different groups. Also, the Bantu language also falls under the Niger-Congo linguistic group. So perhaps, the Niger-Congo group might be a fusion of these new groups and the bantoids.

If we can break down the origins of Niger-Congo family, the language itself, the different migration waves of the people - then we'll get a clearer picture. Pre-1000 BC, before the Bantu expansion/migration - there weren't that many groups living in West Africa. We've to study the timeline of the different invasions in North Africa, the migration of the people in different waves towards West Africa and their expansion, and the beginning of the Bantu expansion - to understand the basis of my hypothesis. So the question is: why did the Bantu migration/expansion start when the new groups started expanding? Also, why did the Bantu move towards the weaker group (pygmies), and not towards West Africa proper?

Moreover, you will find out that the Bantu expansion towards East Africa also stopped when they encountered Cushitic people along that axis. And the few Bantu's left in West Africa (Nigeria to be precise) isolated from the others except probably the Ijaws who were fishermen. We can look at pre-colonial Igbo's, Tiv's, Ibibio's and Annang's - and how they never had contact with the rest of the people in Nigeria or West Africa till probably the 17th century. Evidently, you can connect the dots, to get a clearer picture.

Anyway, this is just a discourse and I'm not trying to undermine any group. There's absolutely nothing wrong in being Bantoid. Also, judging based on linguistic and the Eurocentric classification of black people is also a tad bit simplistic, IMO. Europeans don't understand us and I doubt they ever will. Hence, why we need more anthropologists and archaeologists of black origins to do proper scholarships and researches about our ancestry.

shymexx:

The question is: who are the Cushites and Nilotes today, and who were they in the past? Once we find an answer to that, then we'll find out that most of the Cushites and Nilotes today aren't necessarily the ones of the past - they migrated into the groups and adopted their language and way of life. However, most of the ones of the past have evolved into different groups. Also, the Bantu language also falls under the Niger-Congo linguistic group. So perhaps, the Niger-Congo group might be a fusion of these new groups and the bantoids.

This statement is a common theme throughout the world. However there is very little evidence for the parts that I have bolded!

shymexx: If we can break down the origins of Niger-Congo family, the language itself, the different migration waves of the people - then we'll get a clearer picture. Pre-1000 BC, before the Bantu expansion/migration - there weren't that many groups living in West Africa. We've to study the timeline of the different invasions in North Africa, the migration of the people in different waves towards West Africa and their expansion, and the beginning of the Bantu expansion - to understand the basis of my hypothesis. So the question is: why did the Bantu migration/expansion start when the new groups started expanding? Also, why did the Bantu move towards the weaker group (pygmies), and not towards West Africa proper?

The answer to the first question is - Human nature, lack of natural resources etc.
The answer to the second question is - They probably fancied their chances against pygmies more than venturing into West Africa.

shymexx: Moreover, you will find out that the Bantu expansion towards East Africa also stopped when they encountered Cushitic people along that axis. And the few Bantu's left in West Africa (Nigeria to be precise) isolated from the others except probably the Ijaws who were fishermen. We can look at pre-colonial Igbo's, Tiv's, Ibibio's and Annang's - and how they never had contact with the rest of the people in Nigeria or West Africa till probably the 17th century. Evidently, you can connect the dots, to get a clearer picture.

That's just not true.
1. Before the "Bantu" ever reached East Africa, Cushitics were already as far as central Tanzania.
2. I seriously doubt that pre-colonial Igbo's, Tiv's, Ibibio's and Annang's had no contact with other Nigerians until the 17th century!
3. The "Bantu" didn't spread to places where the land wasn't good for farming e.g. the Western Cape, most of Namibia etc

shymexx: Anyway, this is just a discourse and I'm not trying to undermine any group. There's absolutely nothing wrong in being Bantoid. Also, judging based on linguistic and the Eurocentric classification of black people is also a tad bit simplistic, IMO. Europeans don't understand us and I doubt they ever will. Hence, why we need more anthropologists and archaeologists of black origins to do proper scholarships and researches about our ancestry.

I kinda agree. However we have to go where the evidence takes us.

The only Nilotes we have in West Africa are the Kanuri (Beri-beri), and the various Songhai groups (Djerma/Zarma, Dendi, Sonrai Korya chinni, etc). Wodabe Fulani like all Mbororo roots Fulani like myself (those who have always reared-cattle) are of Senegambian origin with roots also in Northern West Africa pre-Arabs. Touaregs are original Berbers who also have roots in North Africa. We are not related to Cushitic people but share some cultural similarities with them. I still believe that all west Africans though must have some root in present day Sudan. Sudan like Nigeria is one country that contains all the language groups of Africa.

Black Kenichi:

The answer to the second question is - They probably fancied their chances against pygmies more than venturing into West Africa.

how can they fancy their chances when they have never been in west Africa and have never been in contact with any west Afr? besides the same Bantu who fought the british suddenly were fearful?
for a group to migrate the way the Bantu did(conquering land and assimilating people) you must have the upper hand b it technologically , physically etc...
it is also good to notice despite being more populare in the west, west Af kingdoms or people remained local and never crossed their comfort zone .

my guess is thethe Bantu) went where their leaders decide to

CAMEROONPRIDE: how can they fancy their chances when they have never been in west Africa and have never been in contact with any west Afr?

Actually There has been contact between West African and bantu speaking ethnic groups before the Europeans came along and colonised Africa. The was trade between the Igbo and other SE Nigerian ethnics and Bantu speaking ethnics from Gabon & Eq Guinea.

CAMEROONPRIDE: besides the same Bantu who fought the british suddenly were fearful?

Which bantu are you talking about? The Zulu? Xhosa? Bakongo? Bateke? Tswana? Kikuyu? Luhya? Herero?
There's no such thing as Bantu unity! The only thing that the Bantu have in common is their closely related language group!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples

Other than closely related languages the Bantu have very little in common.

CAMEROONPRIDE: for a group to migrate the way the Bantu did(conquering land and assimilating people) you must have the upper hand b it technologically, physically etc...

Of course. The "Bantu" migrants were incredibly skilled farmers and great blacksmiths, while the Africans in pre "bantu" East, Central and Southern African weren't as advanced.

CAMEROONPRIDE: it is also good to notice despite being more populare in the west, west Af kingdoms or people remained local and never crossed their comfort zone .

my guess is that the Bantu went where their leaders decide to

I don't know. The Bantu migration did start about 4000 years ago so we can never truly know.

Black Kenichi:
Actually There has been contact between West African and bantu speaking ethnic groups before the Europeans came along and colonised Africa. The was trade between the Igbo and other SE Nigerian ethnics and Bantu speaking ethnics from Gabon & Eq Guinea.


Which bantu are you talking about? The Zulu? Xhosa? Bakongo? Bateke? Tswana? Kikuyu? Luhya? Herero?
There's no such thing as Bantu unity! The only thing that the Bantu have in common is their closely related language group!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples

Other than closely related languages the Bantu have very little in common.


Of course. The "Bantu" migrants were incredibly skilled farmers and great blacksmiths, while the Africans in pre "bantu" East, Central and Southern African weren't as advanced.


I don't know. The Bantu migration did start about 4000 years ago so we can never truly know.

my man u are confusing period, i'm talking about the Bantu migration and you are talking about colonization?